If somebody really wanted to tear into Canada’s political and economic future and wound the Americans at the same time, an optimal target might well be the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario.

One very possible result: a continent-wide shutdown of the border. What would a shutdown of Canada's land border with the United States mean?

One only has to ponder the fact that 87 per cent of Canada's exports go to the United States,[1] the majority of which is transported by truck.[2] One in four jobs in Ontario – Canada’s most powerful economic engine – depends on exports to the United States. Two-way trade between the two countries is worth more than a billion U.S. dollars a day.[3]

Canada’s beef cattle and softwood lumber industries are suffering enormously because of trade restrictions with the United States. A border shutdown would multiply Canada’s problems by a number that nobody in Canada likes to think about. We should.

Our Border Dilemma

The lack of sufficient movement on infrastructure issues related to the Canada-U.S. border is hurting the Canadian economy and it will hurt it more in the future. It is estimated that every four hour delay at the Windsor-Detroit crossing costs the Ontario economy $7 million (CDN) in lost production and the Michigan economy $14.3 million (CDN).[4]

Without changes, congestion and delay at the Windsor-Detroit crossing will cost an estimated $20.8 billion (CDN) a year by 2030.[5]

Everybody has recognized the need to improve security since September 11^th, 2001. But increasing security, without improving border mechanisms, tends to slow traffic, with obvious economic consequences.

The solution is to not treat security and trade as an either/or proposition. The border needs to be fluid and secure. The only way to increase security and ensure fluidity is to address personnel, operational and infrastructure challenges.

You can’t guarantee fluidity without adequate security, because a disaster could bring the border grinding to a halt – especially with the lack of backup at vital crossings.

This isn’t earth-shattering analysis. It has been the essence of bilateral discussions between Canada and the United States since September 11, 2001. It is at the heart of the Smart Border Declaration that was signed in December 2001 and the Security and Prosperity Partnership which emerged from the March 2005 meetings in Waco, Texas between Prime Minister Martin, and Presidents Bush and Fox.

Why This Report?

Our Committee, as part of its series of reports investigating Canadian security since September 11, 2001, has spent more than three years examining the strengths and weaknesses of how Canada handles security at crossings between Canada and the United States.

In past reports, the Committee has addressed vulnerabilities at Canada’s airports and sea ports and along our coastlines. But no vulnerabilities stand out like those at our land border crossings.

Some limited progress has been made in lessening the likelihood of disasters at those crossings, and more was promised in the federal government’s February 2005 budget.

However, our general assessment is that much more progress should have been forthcoming by now, on both sides of the border, in the more than three and a half years since 9/11.

How this report is structured

Chapter II focuses on rethinking the big picture. How can we adjust our priorities to make our land border crossings do what we need them to do?

Chapter III focuses on human challenges. Are our borders being monitored by enough personnel, trained and equipped to an appropriate level?

Chapter IV focuses on operations. Are the systems we have in place serving us well?

Chapter V focuses on infrastructure challenges at Windsor-Detroit. Why is this crossing so critical? Is there enough urgency on this file? How can we expedite the construction of any new crossings?

Chapter VI focuses on the Committee’s future direction.

CHAPTER II

Rethinking the Big Picture

What Roles Should Border Crossings Play?

1. Is Canada using the border as a security chokepoint as effectively as it could? No.

2. Is Canada diverting too much time and too many resources to collecting revenue at the border from individuals? Yes.

3. Is Canada focusing the mission of the border agency properly? No.

4. Do Canadians have a sufficient understanding of how well or poorly border initiatives work? No.

Beyond the nuts and bolts of improving border mechanisms by increasing the skills of personnel, upgrading operational systems and reinforcing infrastructure, we need to reconsider the whole concept of how to make land border crossings work as well as they can for Canadians. What should be the primary mission of these crossings? And how will Canadians know whether their government is using these crossings to the best advantage of our citizens?

The Committee's conclusions are that:

1. "The border" represents a rare opportunity for society, through government, to monitor and assess who and what comes and goes. It should not be wasted.

2. To take advantage of that opportunity, the government needs to continue the shift of border priorities that has already begun away from revenue generation and toward security.

3. Ordinary Canadians do not have any way of knowing how effectively border security policies are being implemented. They should.

CONCLUSION 1: “The Border” is an opportunity. It shouldn’t be wasted.

Border crossings, of course, are meant to move people and goods efficiently from one country to the other. But there are other uses for the border, and the Committee believes that ensuring the well-being of Canadians should be at the top of the list. The government uses crossings to search for wanted persons or illegal entrants, prevent the importation of illegal commodities such as handguns, food and drugs, and to collect tariffs and taxes on goods purchased in the other country.

The Opportunity Our Border Crossings Provide

Bad things happen in every society, and bad people often get away with doing bad things. There are limits to taking measures to prevent this. The first is the rights and freedoms guaranteed to everyone in Canada: without reasonable and probable cause, the police generally do not probe and question a person’s behavior. The second is that law enforcement resources are limited.

Given those two restrictions, there are few opportunities, either in Canada or the United States, for face-to-face encounters between those charged with preserving societies and their institutions, and those attempting to corrupt or destroy those institutions. Someone with ulterior motives traveling between the far southern United States and the northern reaches of Canada could pretty well get away with anonymity – barring a confrontation with the law – were it not for our land border crossings.

Border crossings offer a nation its best chance to take a look at who and what is coming in. Border crossings provide border inspectors a chance to go eye-to-eye with those individuals intent on causing harm to Canadian society. It isn’t a perfect opportunity – in most cases the time to appraise a traveler won’t last more than 30 seconds. But it does allow trained officers to scrutinize the approximately 71 million people who cross the Canada-U.S. border every year. The opportunity to scrutinize people efficiently, intelligently and fairly can be squandered if proper training, resources and systems are not in place. They should be there.

Securing North America

Some argue that Canada and the United States should remove all border barriers between them and establish a security perimeter around North America.[6] There is some logic to this. Because of the length of the land border and the interdependent nature of the connections between Canada and the United States, it makes sense to identify and eliminate threats as far away from the continent as possible before they become security concerns at home.

The Committee supports the idea of a continental security perimeter, but moving beyond that to a European-style customs union would virtually eliminate the U.S.-Canada border. We need the border, partially for security reasons. The land border and its crossings provide us with natural chokepoints that work to protect both Canada and the United States. The border itself is a necessary separation of two discrete societies; and border crossings are valuable for monitoring the movement of people and goods between those societies to ensure that only legitimate people and goods pass back and forth.

The Committee believes that an essentially borderless North America would undermine Canadian security in two ways.

For a start, consider the challenges being faced by the European Union since the introduction of the Schengen Agreement – the agreement which allows travelers in participating countries to cross international frontiers without having to undergo personal inspections.[7] The agreement has devolved European security to the point where the security of all of these countries is no stronger than that of the weakest country. Focusing on the North American perimeter while easing up on the border between Canada and the United States would create a similar situation.

Second, it would undermine Canada’s strategy of layered defence which the Committee strongly supports. Layered defence involves:

§ responding to threats before they reach North America – damage at home can be avoided when the action takes place as far away from Canada as possible;

§ defending the perimeter of North America;

§ maintaining the border between Canada and the United States, by inspecting those who cross between them; and,

§ monitoring threats and vulnerabilities within Canada itself.

Those four layers of defence need to be optimized. They complement one another. Easing up at the Canada-U.S. land border would weaken the strategy.

Border security works for Canadians. There are elements of U.S. society that Canadians wish to keep at bay – for example, the American gun culture. The borders have served as a useful tool here: the Canada Border Services Agency seized 5,446 firearms at the Canadian-U.S. border between 2000 and 2004.[8]

It also works for Americans. The Canada-U.S. border allows U.S. authorities to scrutinize people and to try to minimize their worst fear – terrorists coming to America from elsewhere. That works for them and works for us – the false accusation that the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada did our image and our economy great harm.

Both countries are also protected from the movement of illicit drugs.

With good border security, we can protect our own country as well as be a good neighbour to a country that is vitally important to Canadians, politically and economically.

All these factors led the Committee to two conclusions about how Canada should be maximizing the potential of the Canada-U.S. border.

CONCLUSION 2: Security should be the primary mandate of the Canada BorderServices Agency.

Canada's first customs office was created in 1788 to regulate trade along the Vermont-Canada border. Until the outbreak of World War I and the subsequent introduction of income taxes, revenue from Customs accounted for 75 percent of Canada's national revenue.[9] But by 2004, the $95.8 million the federal government collected in customs duties from travelers entering Canada[10] accounted for only 0.047 percent of the government’s total revenue.[11]

Is collecting duties, tariffs and taxes at the border from companies and individuals the best use of CBSA personnel? Collecting custom import duties at the border was a major source of government revenues in the days before income taxes were introduced in 1917. But in fiscal year 2003-04 duties on goods carried by individual travelers accounted for less than one-tenth of one percent of total government revenue.

Given the importance to the Canadian economy of (a) moving people and vehicles quickly at our border crossings, and (b) providing optimal security at these crossings, the Committee believes that this question needs to be asked:

Is Canada devoting too much time, too much space and too many resources to checking people to see whether they shopped too much, when it could be putting that time, that space, and those resources towards the security of our economy?

The Committee believes that it is.

There are all kinds of ways for government to collect revenues, and they can be done without getting in the way of what should be the two main priorities of any government: first, to protect the physical well-being of its citizens; and second, to assure that the country is able to sustain an economic environment that provides opportunities for those citizens to better their lives. Focusing on security at border crossings – rather than the collection of duties on personal goods – would better serve both those priorities.

The need for a further culture shift

This focus would require a culture shift within the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Canada's border personnel should not be consigned to the role of tax collectors. As things stand, however, collecting revenues takes up an inordinate amount of their time.

We acknowledge that there has been progress in placing emphasis on security. In 1998, for instance, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency officials (the predecessor agency to CBSA) were given the power of peace officers so they could enforce some specific laws under the Criminal Code, in addition to the powers they already enforced under the Customs Act.

On December 12, 2003, the government took another evolutionary step. It created the Canada Border Services Agency in the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. This brought together the Customs program from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Intelligence, Interdiction and Enforcement Program from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Imports Inspection Program from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.[12]

National security is supposed to be one of CSBA’s key missions, so those who speak for CBSA will tell you that security is already part of the agency’s mandate.[13] Mission statements, unfortunately, don’t always reflect reality. The testimony the Committee has heard and the information it has gathered from CBSA officials and their employees suggest that security still ranks second to revenue gathering at Canada-U.S. land border crossings.

The Committee has seen little evidence that a stronger security culture has taken root. There appears to be a disconnect between senior managers at Headquarters in Ottawa and the management and operational personnel in the field.

The Next Step

The collection of duties, tariffs and taxes from individuals at border crossings should be de-emphasized. This would facilitate the necessary cultural shift within CBSA, and make Canadian-U.S. land border checkpoints more secure. More than eleven years after the North America Free Trade Agreement was signed – bringing these two countries into the brave new world of free trade – border officials should no longer be preoccupied with sorting out whether personal exemptions have been exceeded.

Enforcing compliance on what individuals purchase abroad and bring into the country has always been problematic. It is becoming increasingly more so with the growth of internet purchases.

Border officials told us that the amount of time they spend processing customs duties steals from the number of personnel deployed on the primary inspection line. For relatively little gain, it shifts the focus of border inspectors from security to tax collection. It doesn’t give border inspectors a chance to use the small amount of time they have to focus on the people they should be focusing on.

Border inspectors require more time to do what we expect them to do: guard our borders. This will have some impact on revenues. But the money foregone will be offset by the greater security. It would be a wise investment in the future of the Canadian economy.

Looking for the right stuff

Border inspectors focus on tell-tale signs of suspicious behavior. Nervous people, who might be worried about having purchased too much when they were away, often display such signs. Border inspectors need more time to focus on people who might be a genuine threat to Canada. Hardened criminals or terrorists often don’t look nervous at all. But trained officers often detect people who are up to no good based on their knowledge and experience. These are the people who demand Canada’s attention, not excessive shoppers.

Border officers told us that people who present no threat to Canada are often sent off for secondary searches because they appear nervous, and that many of these turn out to be “false positives”: people who haven’t done the least thing wrong. All this dilutes the capacity of border officers to look for serious threats and to neutralize them.

Getting there from here

The Committee proposes that the federal government make the following adjustments to limits on personal expenditures in the country they have visited:

1. Harmonize personal exemption limits between Canada and the United States (Canada's are currently lower, see Table 1) within two years;

2. Work with the United States to gradually raise both countries' personal exemption limits to $2,000 per visit, within 5 years.

TABLE 1: Current and Proposed Personal Exemption Structures in Canada and the United States[14]
Exemption Level	Canada			U.S.
	2005	2007	2010	2005	2010
	Now	Harmoniz-ation within 2 years	Move to increased exemptions within 5 years	Now	Move to increased exemptions within 5 years
0 - 24 hrs	$0	$200 US	$2000 US	$200 US	$2000 US
24 - 48 hrs	$50 CDN	$800 US	$2000 US	$800 US	$2000 US
48 hrs - 7 days	$200 CDN	$800 US	$2000 US	$800 US	$2000 US
7 days or more	$750 CDN	$800 US	$2000 US	$800 US	$2000 US

Implementing this proposal will take coordinated effort between Canada and the United States. Border provinces/states stand to benefit from increased numbers of shoppers from the other side of the border.[15] Which side benefits the most at any given time will depend partially on the exchange rate between the Canadian and American dollars. The lower value of the Canadian dollar effectively subsidizes Canadian businesses selling goods or services to Americans. The low Canadian dollar has attracted large numbers of Americans north of the border over the past decade. Higher exemptions would clearly attract more of them.

Large corporations have clearly benefited from free trade. Retailers and consumers in general should be provided with increasing opportunities to share in the benefits. De-emphasizing the collection of customs duties and taxes at land border crossings would encourage this, while at the same time accomplishing the Committee’s main goal: to permit border inspectors to increase their focus on security.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Restructure the personal exemption limits to allow the Canada Border Services Agency to better focus on security. The restructuring should include harmonization with U.S. levels by 2007 and incremental bilateral increases to $2000 per visit by 2010.

CONCLUSION 3: The Government should be more open with

Canadians about security.

In the post-9/11 world Canadians need to become more aware of and involved in the national security-related decisions that are taking place in Canada that will affect their long-term well being.

While this report is about border crossings, this conclusion applies to security problems across the board. The public has the right to be informed about the effectiveness of security systems that they are paying for. Without this knowledge Canadians cannot engage in informed discussions about their security.

Every Canadian has a sense of how much risk he or she is willing to tolerate in any given situation. One of the government’s primary roles is physical protection of its citizens. It has a duty to reduce physical risk wherever it can.

The government also has an obligation to be more open about how much risk its various security systems tolerate at any given time. Canadians have a right to this information

§ So they can make intelligent decisions about their own behaviour

§ So they can contribute to discussions about whether the government should be spending their money more wisely in trying to avert excessive risk

§ Because they are paying for these systems, and deserve an accounting of their effectiveness.

TABLE 2: UNSEARCHED TRAINS[16]

The Chairman, Senator Colin Kenny: Why does the CBSA have a concern about disclosing the number of containers searched when you have no concerns about telling us when we are not VACISing[17] any trains coming across the border?

Denis Lefebvre, Executive Vice-President, Canada Border Services Agency: That is because we are not VACISing any trains.

The Chairman: If you are prepared to say we are not inspecting any trains coming across the border, why are you not prepared to talk about where you are inspecting?

Mr. Lefebvre: One is more obvious than the other. The number of examinations that will take place at a port is not as obvious as the fact that we are not VACISing trains that are crossing into Canada.

The Chairman: It is pretty obvious when you are just running one shift with a VACIS at Windsor.

Mr. Lefebvre: A VACIS is one thing, but we do some back-end examinations and we do some destuffing. That can take place any time of the day.

The Chairman: We understand that it is 2 per cent or 3 per cent.

Mr. Lefebvre: As I mentioned, it is a low percentage compared to the number of trucks that are coming through.

The Chairman: You have given us that information publicly before.

Mr. Lefebvre: It is preferable. We strongly believe at the agency that giving detailed operational information like that renders our operations less effective. Again, we would be quite delighted to provide the information to the senators, but we believe that the publicity attendant to this being widely communicated just renders our operations less effective.

Our point is simple: be honest with Canadians about how well, or poorly, current systems are working. Governments do not have to release the kind of details that would help a criminal take advantage of a gap at a particular border crossing, airport or sea port. But Canadians deserve to know what measures are being taken to protect them, and they have every right to know the results of tests taken to determine the efficacy of those measures.

Secrecy – particularly in the field of security – is too often the government default position. Openness should be the default position and secrecy the exception. Secrecy about security hides bureaucratic inefficiency and protects governments that aren’t doing what they should be doing to protect their citizens.

This Committee keeps asking questions about risk and measures supposedly being taken to avoid risk. Too often, we are not getting answers.

For example, the Committee has asked to see test results on the effectiveness of container screening at ports of entry, on license-plate readers at borders, and on the compliance verification measures in place for the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS programs.[18]

We have been stonewalled. Sunlight is the antiseptic of democracy. Trite but true.

Too often we hear the lame excuse that the government can’t afford to encourage terrorists by providing them with statistics about vulnerabilities. This is nonsense. Criminals know where the holes are because everyone who works in the vicinity of airports, sea ports and border crossings knows where they are. If criminals can find out, so can terrorists.

Strangely, while CBSA officials denied us numbers in all of these areas, they were pleased to share information that told us that they were doing absolutely nothing to match the American effort to screen trains coming across the border (see Table 2).[19]

This secrecy wasn’t an exception to the rule. The Committee found little pattern in the CBSA’s willingness to release information of this nature, other than the agency tends to be more secretive at the centre, in Ottawa hearings, than it does at its outposts – cities with ports and land border crossings that the Committee visited. In short, CBSA’s policy on the release of information appears to be something close to haphazard.

It is in the interests of Canadians if the agency adopts an intelligent, across-the-board policy. It should not release information that might help a wrongdoer circumvent security at a particular location, but it should be much more forthcoming on the success or failures of its security systems in general. Without that information in the public realm, any progress toward genuine reform is likely to be about as haphazard as CBSA’s information policy.

Canadians deserve periodic reports that will allow them to assess the quality of current security practices. These results should be made public after a suitable delay to give the government the opportunity to address any issues that might come to light.

TABLE 3: ACCEPTING THAT CANADIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW

Extract from Committee Testimony, 11 April 2005:

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan: Mr. Jolicoeur mentioned the emphasis on results. One identifies problems; usually those problems are identified in public in quite a high profile way as we may have noticed today, for example. Therefore people are aware of some of the challenges, some of them maybe problems, some of them maybe challenges, some of them maybe exaggerated. Having said that, it is fairly public what some of the challenges are and therefore I see nothing wrong as long as it is not revealing certain kinds of operational detail in telling you there is a plan and what key components are and what results we expect in six months, a year from that plan. Absolutely, everyone has every right to expect that.

The Chairman, Senator Colin Kenny: And tell us the results?

Ms. McLellan: Yes, absolutely.

When Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan testified to the Committee in April 2005, she appeared open to developing methods to share more information.

Months later, there have been no signs of any proposals to increase transparency.

RECOMMENDATIONS

2. The government should implement a system of periodic effectiveness testing that assesses the effectiveness of each of the components of Canada's national security programs at our borders.

3. The government should release the results of periodic effectiveness testing of border security programs, after a delay sufficient to remedy problems.

CHAPTER III

Human Challenges

Canada Border Services Agency personnel face the momentous task of processing more than 92 million travelers a year -- including more than 71 million at the land border with the United States -- and processing goods worth approximately $350,000,000,000.[20]

Their judgments determine who, and what, enters Canada.

Inspection officers do a commendable job with the resources provided. However, the Committee has seen no evidence that the resources provided enable inspectors to do the job that Canadians expect of them. To facilitate a culture shift towards security, the Canada Border Services Agency must address shortfalls in three areas:

§ The proper staffing of border posts

§ The provision of proper training for all officers on duty

§ The provision of adequate tools to ensure that officers who are responsible for security actually have the capacity to enforce security

CONCERN 1: Proper Staffing

Our three main concerns on staffing are these:

§ The CBSA workforce is generally understaffed for its missions

§ At many border posts inspectors actually work alone

§ A greater emphasis needs to be placed on security in the training syllabus for inspectors

§ Short-term replacement inspectors are not trained to the same standard as full-time inspectors

A. Inadequate staffing levels

Since 1994, trade between Canada and the U.S. has grown by 77.7%.[21] However, the total number of employees on the Canadian side of the border has remained relatively constant during this period. According to the Department of National Revenue, there were the equivalent of 8,330 full-time inspectors in 1992-93. According to the Auditor General, there were 30 fewer persons delivering the customs program in 2003.[22] CEUDA, the union representing Customs Inspectors, says there was only a marginal increase between 9/11 and the current time.[23] With the huge increase in traffic since 1994, the ratio of traffic volume to border personnel has ballooned.

During that same period, the number of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents assigned to the Canada-U.S. border has tripled.[24]

The Committee heard several credible arguments as to why staffing levels for Canadian inspectors should be significantly increased. For a start, CEUDA, the customs union, reported that inspectors often feel pressured to move lines quickly, rather than do their job thoroughly. The union also argued that when staffing is cut back dramatically during slow periods, the security of inspectors working without support is compromised. The Committee was informed that the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS) equipment used to scan trucks at the Windsor-Detroit border is only staffed one shift out of three, and that truckers communicate with others approaching the border as to whether they are likely to be required to undergo a VACIS search, or are better to wait until the equipment is shut down.

There are other areas in which it is clear to the Committee that security at land border crossings would be better served if staffing were increased. There is, for instance, no evidence of random testing of the FAST/NEXUS programs designed to allow easy passage for known users, for instance, which amounts to a license to smuggle. One other example: the Committee found scant evidence of internal audits at CBSA to determine whether inspection systems are working effectively, with appropriate attention to security. All of these weaknesses create holes in the system. To fill them will require additional staffing.

RECOMMENDATIONS

4. The Canada Border Services Agency deploy only inspectors fully-trained to the level of indeterminate employees to perform primary duties on inspection lines.

5. The number of personnel employed by the Canada Border Services Agency be sufficient to provide security commensurate with increased security threat associated with the increased traffic and threat at Canada-U.S. land border crossings in recent years.

Across much of Canada our first line of defence is only one person deep.

B. Working Alone

There are 139 ports of entry across Canada where

border personnel work alone at least part of the

time.[25]

At these posts, a single official collects duties and taxes, performs primary and secondary inspections, does immigration checks, and conducts food inspections. That is simply too many functions for a single border officer to perform effectively. Assigning one person to act as chief, cook and bottle washer is a recipe for disaster.

Canada has a duty to those who serve on our borders to provide for their safety, and to ensure that they are properly trained, equipped and backed up.

Quotes like this fuel the debate:

“Here I am at the Canadian border, we’re talking 7:30 p.m., and the guy’s sleeping. I can’t blame him, though – he was all alone on a 24-hour shift.”[26]

This quote, taken from the Montreal Gazette, surely addresses an exceptional case. But any case like this shows the system is flawed, and tells the outside world that we really aren’t taking national security seriously.

Since 2002, the Committee has been concerned about the practice of staffing land border crossings with one officer. Our report Canadian Security and Military Preparedness recommended that this practice be discontinued. Westand by that recommendation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

6. The Canada Border Services Agency ensure that at least half of all shifts at land border crossings be staffed by at least two persons by Dec. 31, 2006; and that all shifts at all land border crossings be staffed by at least two persons by Dec. 31, 2007.

7. The Canada Border Services Agency significantly increase its capacity to move extra personnel to posts during surge/emergency conditions, and that it document such an increase in capacity by Dec. 31, 2006.

C. Use of under-trained short-term replacements

The Canada Border Services Agency hires insufficiently-trained, short-term replacements to fill holes in what is supposed to be the front line of Canada's border security: its land border crossings.

This program is integral to CBSA's operations. Last year, for example, of the 2,595 inspectors who were assigned to work at land border crossings, 589 of them, roughly 22 per cent were replacements.[27]

According to CBSA, replacement hiring is especially intense in the summer for "operational reasons" because the traffic volume at the land border increases greatly and many permanent border personnel take vacations.[28]

Training for part-time staff is inadequate. It is inadequate compared to the training that full-time staff currently receive, and inadequate in comparison to the increased training full-time staff will receive in the future.

Intensive training programs for full-time staff at CBSA’s training facility in Rigaud, Que., used to take 13 weeks. These courses have since been cut back to 8 ½ weeks. However, CBSA assured us that they are planning to return to 13-week courses. This does not mean a return to the more comprehensive earlier training. Rather, it is predicated on the fact that all inspectors are now to be cross-trained to perform many customs, immigration and food inspection duties, following the amalgamation of those responsibilities under CBSA. In other words, the training will be broader, rather than more intense.

Meanwhile, part-time employees receive only 2-3 weeks of training. This training is not imparted at the specialized training site at Rigaud. It is offered up on the job.

Canadians must take account of the fact that the primary inspection line is our last, best chance to take the measure of who, or what, is trying to enter Canada before they enter the country. The time available for making this assessment is short. The expertise that is required cannot be gained over a brief period in a busy, on-the-job setting.

As CBSA Executive Vice-President Denis Lefebvre noted in testimony "we have literally hundreds of risk factors" that officers use to assess risk. But "first and foremost," he said, "they are based on our own experience."[29] Point well made.

Mr. Lefebvre and his agency should not be assigning poorly-trained, inexperienced people to make up one-fifth of inspectors, on whom Canadians are counting to utilize a wide variety of risk assessment skills during the peak of the travel season.

CBSA contends that replacements do not perform the same tasks as regular officers (such as enforce the Customs Act and Criminal Code), that they are always supervised, and that they never perform secondary inspections.[30] This is not true.

Documentation Contradicts Testimony

The Committee is in possession of a growing pile of documentation – in the form of timesheets from a number of border posts – that directly contradicts CBSA’s assurances. According to these timesheets, some replacements work without supervision, some work alone, and some conduct secondary inspections. We had heard stories to this effect; the time sheets document these stories.

Members have come to the conclusion that CBSA, on a number of occasions, has assigned part-time personnel to duties for which they have no training and little, if any, experience.

This is unacceptable, even as it stands. But such practices will become even more untenable if the government responds to recommendations the Committee will make later in this report that inspectors take on greater responsibility for reducing the number of undesirable persons entering Canada. Some of these people will present a threat to anyone trying to get in their way. We need trained people to deal with them.

The Committee has no objection to CBSA introducing students to the complex responsibilities of border inspectors. But it stands by Recommendation 4, above, that only fully-trained employees be deployed to perform primary roles on inspection lines.

RECOMMENDATION

8. The Canada Border Services Agency investigate the possibility of pairing students with full-time inspectors at land border crossings so that students could earn both summer wages and credits toward community college diplomas associated with policing and security.

CONCERN 2: The Provision of Proper Training for all Officers on Duty

If the evolution from tax collection to security is to continue, it is important that training for border personnel evolves as well. As Denis Lefebvre testified to the Committee, experienced people are one of the Agency’s key assets.[31]

These key assets must be trained in a complex set of skills that will allow them to make critical judgments that impact on the security of the border every day.

Major training programs for customs personnel, which are supplemented by ongoing training, are currently delivered within the following programs: the Customs Inspector Recruit Training Program, the Port of Entry Immigration Officer Training Program and the Student Customs Officer Training Program.

CBSA has assured the Committee that "All Customs officers, including students, receive the training and the tools that they require to perform their duties effectively and efficiently."[32]

Cultural Sensitivities

Since the integration of Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency last year, CBSA has been re-examining its training program. There are a number of ways a new syllabus could introduce a greater focus on security matters. One of the areas in which the Committee believes training for inspectors is deficient relates to sensitivity toward other cultures.

Understanding other cultures is important because officers need to know whether certain types of behaviour from persons of one cultural background necessarily mean what they generally mean in our society.

Some cultures may exhibit different degrees of anxiety in the presence of authority figures, for instance, simply because of experiences they may have had in other countries. In some cultures it is a sign of disrespect to look an elder in the eye. In short, knowledge of cultural differences will help inspectors perform the important task of separating suspicious people from harmless people.

Secondly – and perhaps more importantly – it is essential that inspectors show respect for persons of all cultural backgrounds. Many Americans and Canadians with roots in the Middle East believe they have faced discrimination since 9/11, particularly at border crossings.

Failure to provide inspectors the type of training that encourages the demonstration of respect and sensitivity could foment hostility and bitterness. Hostility and bitterness aren’t likely to promote the more secure Canadian society the Committee has in mind.

RECOMMENDATIONS

9. The Canada Border Services Agency expand its training programs in line with its newly focused mission on security as opposed to tax collection.

10. The Canada Border Services Agency improve its training programs for border agency personnel, with a special focus on components that increase skill sets for questioning techniques and cultural sensitivity.

CONCERN 3: Providing the Tools to do the Job

Some jobs in our society are a lot riskier than others. Those of us with office jobs don’t face the daily risks associated with being a platoon commander, a police officer or a jail guard. Nor do we face anything like the risks associated with being an inspector at a border crossing.

A significant part of the role played by inspectors involves searching for drugs, guns and illegal entrants, many of whom will have been involved in criminal activity. Dealing with people like this on a regular basis, and trying to defend Canadians from whatever malfeasance they may be up to, is a risky way to make a living.

Reports of violent incidents at land border crossings are relatively infrequent. This, the Committee believes, is due in part to the fact that CBSA lacks a credible system for reporting and cataloguing these types of incidents. Between August 2000 and October 2002, the most recent period for which statistics were available, 63 critical incidents reports were filed, involving threats or assaults to officers.[33]

Does the government have a duty of care to reduce the risk involved for CBSA inspectors doing a difficult job? Absolutely. In fact, Canada has a duty of care to these people.

Does the government have an obligation to reduce risks posed to Canadian society by the entry of dangerous persons and goods? It does.

The recommendations at the end of this chapter connected to providing inspectors with the tools they need to do their jobs are based on these two considerations:

(a) reducing risk for inspectors themselves;

(b) reducing risk for all Canadians threatened by the entry of dangerous persons and goods at Canadian land border crossings.

Barging In

When officers are not threatened by aggressive entrants, it is sometimes because these people simply barge past them. CBSA says it cannot provide an official count of the number of vehicles that have crashed Canadian land border crossings in recent years, but anecdotal reports indicate that these incidents have become numerous.[34] Clearly, any serious attempt to reduce these border crashings would create another element of risk for border inspectors.

Should the Canadian government be attempting to reduce the number of vehicles that crash their way into the country with relative impunity? The Committee believes that it is difficult to argue that the issue of security at our borders is being taken seriously if such an attempt is not made. An armed presence at the border would act as a deterrent against some who would otherwise consider crashing the border.[35]

How Can One Defend Without Confronting?

It will be difficult to place a greater emphasis on preventing the entrance of dangerous weapons and/or dangerous people into Canada under the current government directive that inspectors avoid confronting persons known to be dangerous.

On the one hand the federal government amended the Criminal Code of Canada and the Customs and Excise Act in 1998 to allow customs officials to act as peace officers. On the other hand, at approximately the same time, the government instructed those peace officers not to confront persons believed to be armed and dangerous.

The "Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Interim Policy on the Handling of Armed and Dangerous Lookouts" states that "should a Customs Officer encounter an individual who is identified as being the subject of an armed and dangerous lookout, the Customs Officer should allow the individual to proceed and immediately notify the police and provide as much detail as possible to enable apprehension."[36]

Catch-22

There is an element of Catch–22 to this policy, because, based on the testimony the Committee has received, in the vast majority of cases there are no police. At least, not any police close at hand, nor any police able to drop their other duties and rush to the scene of a border incident.

CBSA has working agreements with the RCMP and municipal police forces whereby they are supposed to assist if border inspectors call on them. In February, 2003, then Minister of National Revenue Elinor Caplan pronounced if "the situation ever warrants the use of firearms at the border, existing police forces will be deployed to deal with potential security risks."[37]

There are two problems here. The first problem is distance. Sometimes supporting police forces are simply too far away to be of any use. In southern Manitoba, the average distance from the nearest police detachment to a border post that would require assistance is just over 30 kilometers. In southern Saskatchewan it is in the neighbourhood of 40 kilometers.[38]

The second problem is frequent lack of response to calls to police. Even in cities near the border, calls from CBSA officers have to compete with the other policing priorities of adjacent forces. This sometimes means that responses are slow, and sometimes it means they are non-existent. A number of customs officers told us that they have simply given up calling police to deal with crises and/or illegal behaviour.

To Arm or Not to Arm Inspectors:

The ModuSpec Job Hazard Analysis

The government has supported its policy not to arm border officials with a 2003 Job Hazard Analysis performed by ModuSpec Risk Management Services for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. In it, ModuSpec recommended against arming border inspectors. The Committee gained access to copies of both the final analysis and the working draft that was presented to the CCRA's National Health and Safety Policy Committee.

The draft version recognized that there was considerable risk to unarmed border inspectors at some locations and while it recommended against arming border inspectors, it did recommend that the government increase or ensure police presence for the "confidence and peace of mind for border officers."[39] The final version of ModuSpec's Job Hazard Analysis omitted this recommendation and simply recommended that officers not be armed (see Appendix XI).[40]

It is unclear why there is a difference between the two versions. When asked, CBSA President Alain Jolicoeur testified to the Committee, "I am not aware of any request to alter the report.”[41]

Jolicoeur suggested that the Committee ask ModuSpec. The Committee did. In response, ModuSpec General Manager Stephan Zuberec wrote:

“It is ModuSpec’s practice to provide clients with draft reports for review and comment prior to issuing a final report. Typically, the client will contribute comments, additions, deletions and other edits to the draft report that they want included in the final report.

“This practice would have been applied to the draft report that was submitted to the National Health and Safety Policy Committee.[42]

In other words, the job hazard analysis was altered.

The Committee’s Position

The Committee’s assessment is that it is just a matter of time before an unarmed border inspector attempting to exert the authority of a peace officer suffers serious injury at the hands of persons who are armed.

The Committee also believes that border inspectors should really be peace officers. They should be ready to guard Canada’s borders showing the same kind of resolve and the same kind of restraint that Canadian police officers show in keeping our streets safe.

Unless the federal government is prepared to provide an around-the-clock on-site armed police presence at each and every border crossing at which Canadian border personnel are stationed, border officers should be equipped with firearms and trained in their proper use.

Canadian police officers are armed because they are responsible for security on our streets. If there is not going to be a permanent police presence at Canadian border crossings, border inspectors should be armed because they are responsible for security at those crossings.

Arming inspectors would give them better protection, act as a deterrent to aggressive and illegal behaviour at our borders, and continue the evolution toward putting a new emphasis on security at crossings.

To Arm or Not to Arm?

Like the vast majority of Canadians, Committee members prefer words to bullets. We have come grudgingly to the conclusion that – if the government of Canada can not or will not provide a full-time police presence at Canadian border crossings – inspectors should be armed.

It should be noted that in a previous report, the Myth of Security at Canada’s Airports, the Committee argued that Canadian airline pilots should not be armed, because we believe that guns at 30,000 feet would likely cause more problems that they could ever hope to solve. We believed that there were more reasonable solutions available, including efficient pre-board searches and locked double cockpit doors.[43] Such is not the case at border crossings.

There will always be those who will argue that all guns are bad, and that every additional gun increases the likelihood that Canada will become a trigger-happy society. If the Committee believed that there was any truth behind that concern, we would not recommend that border officers carry firearms.

The vast majority of Canadians don’t have a problem with Canadian police officers carrying firearms, partially because they have proven themselves to be models of restraint in using them. There is no reason to believe that well-trained border officers would be any less restrained.

In fact there are provisions within the Criminal Code as to when and how police officers are allowed to resort to the use of weapons in serious situations. Police officers abide by those restrictions, because they are liable to criminal charges and dismissal if they do not. On the opposite page there is an Ontario government illustration of the Continuum of Force Response Options open to police officers. It emphasizes that there are several degrees of responding to threats that do not involve weapons, and that weapons are only an option as a last resort.

Inspection officers currently carry pepper spray and batons. The Committee does not feel that these provide inspectors with adequate tools to protect themselves and deter potentially dangerous people from behaving violently at border crossings. Nor, in the absence of a permanent police presence, do they offer Canadians the kind of security that should be provided at our borders.

Source: The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, A National Use of Force Framework (November 2000), 13. Available at: http://www.cppa-acpp.ca/ILEC/Standards/Canada%20National%20Use%20of%20Force%20Model%202000.pdf. Last visited: June 06, 2005.

The Time has Come

In the early going there was some suspicion among Committee members that CEUDA, the union representing border inspectors, was mainly advocating that inspectors be armed so those inspectors would be paid more for additional responsibilities. That may be part of the union’s reasoning, and, if so, so be it.

The Committee has come to the conclusion that, whether or not border personnel are paid more to carry guns, whatever additional costs might be involved would constitute a worthwhile investment in both protection and prevention.

Arming border officials in a systematic fashion to standards that are based on rigorous qualifications and testing should not present huge problems to a country as dependent on efficient and effective security at our borders as is Canada.

There are some inspectors currently employed with CBSA who will not want to be armed, or who would not qualify to be armed. [44] Those officers should be “grandfathered.” This will take several years. New recruits should be hired to carry firearms, and trained to carry firearms.

Unless the federal government is willing to guarantee armed police presence whenever border stations are open, it should get on with arming its border inspection officers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

11. The Canada Border Services Agency make mandatory the timely reporting and cataloguing of critical incidents faced by personnel.

12. The Canada Border Services Agency include a tally of those incidents in the Agency’s annual report to Parliament.

13. The federal government arm border officers if it is not prepared to station and maintain an RCMP presence at all border crossings.

14. If the government does go ahead with arming border officers, it create a firearm qualification and recertification program that meets or exceeds the Firearms Course Training Standards of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

CHAPTER IV

Operational Challenges

Good people must be backed by good systems. Border inspectors cannot work effectively if the operational components of the systems that surround them are flawed.

Significant operational problems persist at Canadian land border crossings. Solving them would go a long way toward providing Canadians with better security, an improved economy and less frustration at our borders.

Three goals the federal government should be pursuing:

1. Improving the access of frontline officers to complete and timely information from police, intelligence and customs databanks

2. Instituting reverse customs and immigration inspections so both Canadian and American authorities check people out before they use a border crossing

3. Promoting a system whereby people entering Canada provide complete, reliable, verifiable and easy-to-use documentation

ISSUE 1: QUICK ACCESS TO RELIABLE DATABANKS

The Committee found no evidence that the Canada Border Services Agency has connected all its border posts with the databanks they need, nor that those databanks that are available to some posts are providing the kind of picture that border officers need to do their job. The Committee has been pursuing this issue since January 2003. Any progress that has been made over that period has been slow and incomplete.

Disconnect

62 border posts cannot access the Border Agency mainframe despite promises two years ago that connecting them was a priority

More than two years after then Minister of National Revenue Elinor Caplan promised to “connect the unconnected [border posts],” and

explained that it was “an important priority,” 62 land border crossings remain unconnected.[45]

These 62 posts lack the ability to query databases directly for information about people trying to cross the border.

According to CBSA, "CBSA is currently developing a business case to address connecting all of the unconnected offices."[46]

Senator Joseph Day questioned CBSA President Alain Jolicoeur and Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan about these unconnected posts on April 11, 2005.

In response to Senator Day's questions, Mr. Jolicoeur said that connecting these offices was "a matter of infrastructure" and he blamed a lack of bandwidth in the border posts for the delay.[47]

Senator Day asked whether, in any of the 6 offices in which CBSA personnel are co-located with United States border personnel, CBSA personnel were still waiting for a connection to the mainframe. Mr. Jolicoeur said some were still waiting.

Senator Day then asked whether U.S. border personnel remained unconnected in those offices. Minister McLellan acknowledged that the American officers were connected in all six offices.

Mr. Jolicoeur promised to inform the Committee which of CBSA’s 62 offices CBSA plans to have connected in this fiscal year. At the time of writing, this information had not been provided.

Upgrading telecommunications systems to provide adequate bandwidth is not a mystery in 21^st century Canada. Canadian cable companies do it thousands of times a day for their customers.

It is an embarrassment that this problem drags on.

Accessing the right information

It is important that inspectors on primary lines have access to the right information to help them make quick assessments as to whether travellers might present a danger, be wanted by the law, be illegal entrants into Canada, be falsely identifying themselves or be transporting illegal goods.

In December 2004, the Committee cautiously praised CBSA for the introduction of Integrated Primary Inspection Line (IPIL) technology at some border posts – mostly airports. It noted the Auditor General's criticism, however, that the IPIL system was not synchronized with the RCMP's database of Canada-wide arrest warrants. To this point the Committee is unaware of any actions that have been taken to remedy this situation.

Since December, two other related issues have come to light.

First, CEUDA, the union which represents border inspectors, has reported problems with the way information is displayed for many primary inspection line personnel. According to the Union, the Primary Automated Lookout System (PALS), which inspectors use at land border crossings, only returns the most recent event on the record of each traveler – even if there are multiple events stored in a person’s case history. As a result, a history of problems could be hiding behind one uneventful crossing. Further, according to the Union, if PALS returns a “hit” – a notice to direct someone for secondary inspection – it does not necessarily identify whether the person presents a danger.[48]

Second, border personnel on primary and secondary inspection lines have access to at least nine distinct databases. The complicated task of mixing and matching within such a multi-headed data information system is both time-consuming and error-prone.

RECOMMENDATIONS

15. The Canada Border Services Agency connect all 62 unconnected border posts with real-time access to the customs mainframe by January 1^st, 2006.

16. The Canada Border Services Agency upgrade the quality and fuse the data that is available to officers on the primary and secondary inspection lines.

ISSUE 2: REVERSE INSPECTION

The key land border crossings between Canada and the United States – those bridges and tunnels that carry the majority of people and goods back and forth – are unnecessarily vulnerable, partially because trucks and people cross them every day before they are inspected.

Reverse inspections, a process under which people and goods would be subject to examination prior to departure from their country of origin, would lessen this vulnerability. Reverse inspection is two way pre-clearance.

Land pre-clearance and reverse inspections are not identical. When the term land pre-clearance is used, only one country might be operating on foreign soil. Reverse inspections implies a reciprocity – both countries are pre-clearing at all given crossings (see Appendix IX).

Land pre-clearance was one of the 32 areas to be worked on under the Smart Border Declaration that Canada and the U.S. signed in December 2001.

There are no plans to introduce reverse inspections at Canada-U.S. border crossings. Even the preliminary introduction of a pilot project for land pre-clearance – which would be an improvement but not as significant an improvement as reverse inspections – has been unacceptably slow.

It was only in October 2004 that Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan and then Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced a joint plan to engage stakeholders in a discussion on a pilot project at the Peace Bridge between Fort Erie and Buffalo.[49] The project will place U.S. personnel in Canada, but no Canadian personnel in the U.S.[50] Canadian personnel will be placed on the U.S. side of a crossing that has yet to be determined.

On April 11, 2005, CBSA President Alain Jolicoeur testified that "We have started the treaty negotiations. After that we will need legislation. We believe that within six months all the discussions will be finished and we will have a final product. It will be two years before we have U.S. officers on the ground on the Canadian side."[51] He did not indicate when he expected Canadian personnel to be deployed to the American side of a crossing.

By the time Canada reaches Mr. Jolicoeur's projected start date of the first pilot project for land pre-clearance, six years will have passed since the signing of the Smart Borders Declaration. At that pace today’s children will have grey hair before reverse inspection is the norm across the country.

It is true that there are legal hurdles to overcome and infrastructure issues to address in the implementation of pre-clearance and/or reverse inspection. The legal hurdles centre around the powers CBSA inspectors can exercise outside of their native country (see Appendix X).[52]

The Committee believes that as long as both countries focus on finding compromises that aim to create an equivalency of outcomes – as opposed to clinging to traditional rights – these issues may prove challenging. They are not, however, by any means insurmountable.

A version of pre-clearance is already in place at eight airports in Canada, where U.S. border officials screen Canadians bound for the U.S. before they leave Canada.[53] It should be used as a model for eventual land pre-clearance.

Infrastructure issues also present a challenge at land border crossings. Adequate pre-clearance arrangements – including proper screening facilities and secure dedicated roadways – can and should be incorporated into new infrastructure construction. Existing border crossings will have to be adapted to accommodate pre-clearance, and reverse inspection.

Consideration should be given to the possibility of exchanging sovereignty over small parcels of land on either side of critical border crossings to overcome some of the legal hurdles and to hasten the arrival of reverse inspection.

Land pre-clearance represents only one step in the right direction toward screening potential threats to critical infrastructure before those threats reach the infrastructure itself.

It is disturbing that it will take six years (2001-2007) to make even that small, vital improvement at one of the major crossings linking Canada and the United States.

The Canadian and American governments need to increase communication and cooperation and address the challenge of reverse inspection with the urgency it deserves.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

17. The federal government develop and publicize an implementation plan for pre-clearance, with clearly understood timeframes.

18. The government move, with U.S. cooperation, to expand pre-clearance into continent-wide reverse inspection at all bridge and tunnel crossings.

ISSUE 3: RELIABLE DOCUMENTATION

The lack of any requirement for people entering Canada to present documentation that inspectors know is reliable, and that clearly identifies a person significantly reduces the chances of officers nabbing someone who should not be entering the country. It therefore reduces Canada’s capacity to use its border crossings as effective chokepoints for security.

The current requirement for U.S. citizens entering Canada at a land border crossing is photo identification plus proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or a driver’s license. Identification does not have to be machine-readable, nor include a biometric, such as a fingerprint.

For an American, or someone who claims to be an American, that means they can enter with any combination of documentation, they choose. For example, someone born in Providence but living in New Orleans can, with their Rhode Island birth certificate and Louisiana Driver's License, enter Canada at any crossing. This presents a difficult challenge to a border officer trying to assess the authenticity of identification. Requiring machine-readable documents would save time and allow border officers a greater chance to concentrate on travelers who may pose a threat to Canadian security.

Canada should raise its standards for documentation, so border inspectors can make quick and reliable judgments as to the authenticity of travelers. Having to punch in information contained on various types of identification is problematic – one key wrongly punched either means faulty identity or starting the process over again. Inspectors have better things to do with their time.

In short, machine readability would be a major time saver for border officials and requiring a biometric would help ensure that persons presenting documentation are who they say they are.

Using biometrics is no longer a particularly expensive, complicated or revolutionary process. Many new computers now accept a simple application of an approved user’s thumb to the correct spot on the computer as a password. As for introducing identity cards that swipe, there are very few credit cards and other types of formal identification that do not swipe anymore. So why not come up with a standard set of modern identification that is reliable and easy to use?

RECOMMENDATION

19. By 2007, the government require documentation of all people entering Canada (including Canadians) that is:

a. Tamper-proof;

b. Machine-readable;

c. Biometrically enhanced; and,

d. Known to have been issued on the basis of reliable documentation.

CHAPTER V

Backing up Infrastructure – Key to the Economies of Canada and the U.S.

Some border crossings are obviously more important to Canada and the United States than others. Those that carry the heaviest volumes of people, goods and traffic are especially important. But there are also crossings whose disruption would result in significant economic damage to both countries.

Bridges and tunnels connecting Canada and the United States which carry large volumes of goods and people and operate with little or no backup, like those at Windsor-Detroit, are strategic assets—vital to the national security and economic well-being of our two nations.

Governments should be addressing problems at these crossings with a sense of urgency that has not been apparent to the Committee.

Two critical weaknesses require a greater sense of urgency:

§ Outdated infrastructure at key land crossings is inadequate to permit both fluid and secure movement of goods and vehicles; and

§ Insufficient backup of bridges or tunnels if a current border crossing is damaged or destroyed

Why Backups are Critical

Debate over expanding current land border crossings, or building new crossings, has been driven to date by analysis of when current crossings will reach their maximum capacity, rather than analysis of what economic damage would be done if any given crossing were badly damaged or destroyed.

This is a mistake. While no-one in their right mind sees the takeout of a land border crossing as a likely scenario, neither should anyone in their right mind dismiss the appalling economic impact that such a takeout would have on both Canada and the United States. This is a classic low probability/high cost situation. Intelligent societies prepare for these, because the consequences of not preparing for them could be horrendous.

Backup crossing infrastructure is needed to reduce the vulnerability of key crossings. Backup crossings would reduce the reliance on potential failure points. They would provide an alternative in the event of a key crossing going down.

TWO CRITICAL CRITERIA FOR ANY FUTURE

WINDSOR-DETROIT CROSSING

Studies are now underway to determine what new infrastructure is needed at the vital Windsor-Detroit crossing to expand the capacity currently provided by the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. Selecting a new crossing for Windsor-Detroit is beyond the scope of this study. The Committee is convinced, however, that any sensible solution must offer two essential features: (a) infrastructure redundancy; and (b) facilities for reverse inspection.

Commerce using the Windsor-Detroit crossing not only depends upon reliable transportation links, but alternative links as well. The Committee opposes any design for improving border crossing infrastructure at Windsor-Detroit that fails to include a new, separate crossing for cars and trucks.

Twinning current infrastructure might be less costly than providing a discrete new crossing. But twinning will not decrease the potential that a crossing will be taken out by man-made or natural disaster, and therefore cannot satisfy the national security requirements of Canada and the United States.

Adequate space must also be provided for reverse inspection facilities. Canadian and U.S. authorities should have the opportunity to screen persons and goods likely to be a danger before they enter a crossing. U.S. customs officers currently scrutinize travellers departing Canada for the United States at eight Canadian airports. They do so to protect their country, but also to protect the aircraft flying to their country. Canadian and U.S. inspectors should switch sides of the border so they have an opportunity to protect their countries before potential wrongdoers arrive, and before any cargo that might do damage to a land border crossing enters that crossing – before a truck that could blow up a bridge gets on the bridge.

RECOMMENDATIONS

20. Only those proposals for new crossing infrastructure at Windsor-Detroit which provide separate and secure infrastructure redundancy be considered.

21. Any new crossing constructed at Windsor-Detroit include facilities for reverse inspection.

FOCUS ON Windsor-Detroit

The most important land border links between Canada and the United States connect Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan. It is also where Canada and the United States face their most acute border infrastructure problems. Therefore, the Committee has chosen to focus on Windsor-Detroit in this report.

Why the crossings at Windsor-Detroit are so important

Approximately 23 per cent of trade between Canada and the United States crosses at Windsor-Detroit (see Appendix XIII).[54] Between January 2004 and December 2004, the total value of the trade that passed through Windsor-Detroit crossings was $141.67 billion (CDN), $113.67 billion (USD) (see Table 4).[55] That equates to roughly the same amount of trade that Canada did with the Western Europe and Asia-Pacific regions combined or that the United States did with the Federal Republic of Germany last year.[56]

TABLE 4: Total value of trade by mode passing through the Detroit-Windsor Gateway, January 2004-December 2004 (in Canadian and U.S. dollars):[57]
Detroit to Windsor		Windsor to Detroit
Truck	CDN$64,040,595,255 [US$51,347,494,592]	Truck	CDN$53,049,823,006 [US$42,535,137,112]
Rail	CDN$8,081,260,931 [US$6,479,522,876]	Rail	CDN$15,960,117,084 [US$12,796,758,406]
Pipeline	CDN$77,335,496 [US$62,007,293]	Pipeline	CDN$133,208,756 [US$106,806,251]
Mail	$0	Mail	CDN$30,650 [US$24,575]
Other	CDN$383,226,421 [US$307,269,420]	Other	CDN$2,440,464 [US$1,956,754]
All surface modes	CDN$72,582,418,103 [US$58,196,294,181]	All surface modes	CDN$69,185,202,104 [US$55,472,419,904]
Total two-way trade at Windsor-Detroit:			$141.67 billion (CDN) $113.67 billion (USD)

The crossings at Windsor-Detroit represent a critical continental linkage. Like the natural gas pipelines connecting western Canada to the energy markets of the Pacific United States, or the electricity transmission towers connecting northern Quebec to the northeastern United States, the linkages at Windsor-Detroit are vital to the economic prosperity of central Canada and the mid-western United States.

The Autopact, the 1965 agreement between Canada and the U.S. that opened the way for Canadian auto plants to produce automobiles for sale in the U.S., followed by the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), has created a highly integrated market in southwestern Ontario and southeastern Michigan.

In this marketplace, auto assembly plants across southern Ontario rely on parts from Michigan. Similarly, plants in Michigan, New York and Ohio rely on parts from the London-Windsor corridor.

These relationships reduce costs by relying on just-in-time production, the principle of having parts ready just as they are needed, rather than maintaining expensive inventories in an assembly plant or a warehouse. A longer-than-normal border slowdown or a border shutdown would hinder the Just In Time delivery system. Manufacturing would grind to a halt.

The reliability of delivery schedules is key to just-in-time production. If reliability cannot be assured, manufacturers would either have to greatly increase inventories, or seek alternative providers for parts and supplies.

Uncertainty regarding border delays translates into real costs for Canadian and U.S. producers. In the context of Windsor-Detroit, reliability cannot be assured because of border congestion and the possibility of prolonged disruption of a crossing without any adequate backup.

Here is just one example of the effect that investors’ wariness about the reliability of Canada-U.S. border crossings is already having:

According to Bruce Birgbauer, a Detroit lawyer, his client, Dr. Schneider Automotive Systems, changed its mind about locating in Canada because

“The companies they were supplying did not want them to be located on the Canadian side. My own belief is that that (sic) is probably the No. 1 issue for companies seeking to locate in southwestern Ontario. It’s the single biggest obstacle to overcome.”[58]

Border risk seems to have played a part in deterring that investment from Canada. Border risk acts as a non-tariff barrier to trade.[59] As Minister of Industry David L. Emerson pointed out to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Calgary last year, border risk has become a major factor as to whether a company locates a facility north or south of the border.[60]

The Potential impact of Border Shutdown at Windsor-Detroit

As noted in Chapter 1, the impact of even short-term delays at Windsor-Detroit to the economies of both Canada and the United States is estimated to be substantial - $7 million (CDN) and $14.31 million (CDN) for every four-hour delay respectively. This projected cost would grow significantly if the duration of a border disruption were to last longer.

If a shutdown were to disrupt trade for two days, the economic loss to Ontario would expand to $90.78 million (CDN). The economic loss to Michigan would expand to $90.05 million (CDN).[61]

At two weeks, the disruption, despite the inevitable steps to mitigate the situation would cause a net economic loss of about $1.08 billion (CDN) to Ontario’s economy and $1.19 billion (CDN) to southeastern Michigan’s economy.[62] The net economic loss to the auto industry alone would be $828.65 (CDN) million during a two-week disruption.[63]

Windsor-Detroit, and Ontario-Michigan, face a potential crisis because:

§ There is no backup for crossing infrastructure, leaving the border vulnerable to shutdown

§ There is little apparent urgency to creating a new crossing that would provide appropriate redundancy

§ Because there is no backup and there is no backup likely in the near future, reliability for just-in-time production cannot be assured

The current process TO FIX WINDSOR-DETROIT

While typical conversations about border infrastructure at Windsor-Detroit focus on border traffic delays, the 2015 date when the current bridge and tunnel are projected to reach capacity, and the presence of truck traffic on Windsor's streets, the real issue should be the need for a new, separate crossing. Now.

The creation of the new crossing is but one element of the bi-national process currently examining the Windsor-Detroit corridor.

In the short- to medium-term, the federal, provincial and municipal governments have collaborated on a joint strategy called “Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving” to address border inefficiencies, delays and the resulting traffic congestion on downtown streets.

As part of “Let’s Get Windsor-Essex Moving,” the federal and provincial governments have committed funds to improving the road approaches to the Windsor Gateway. In the joint September 2002 announcement, the governments unveiled a five-year program worth $300 million (CDN), cost-shared equally, devoted to the relief of congestion problems.[64] Examples of shorter-term mitigation solutions include: introduction of a dedicated FAST lane in November 2004, and the introduction of intelligent transportation management systems (ITS) on Huron Church Road, the key feeder road on the Canadian side.

Developing a new crossing for Windsor-Detroit is seen as a medium-to-longer term element in the strategy. A bi-national and multi-jurisdictional process called the “Canada - United States - Ontario - Michigan Bi-National Partnership,” or “the Partnership” for short, is underway to develop a new border crossing at Windsor-Detroit.

The Partnership launched the environmental assessment phase of its work in March 2005.[65] No site selection is planned until late 2007 or early 2008. Currently, it is holding meetings in border communities to allow for public input. The bi-national partnership will also work with local governments and councils. It will honour the legal and procedural requirements of each nation for environmental assessments and related documentation.

After the environmental assessment is completed, a site will be selected, a crossing designed and then constructed. The goal is to begin design in 2008 and construction in 2010-2011 with the completion of the expanded/additional crossing in 2013.[66]

When Smart Becomes Stupid

The type of cautious, step-by-step, approach currently underway is clearly the most intelligent approach for non-urgent projects. This is not one of them. Windsor-Detroit is of such strategic importance to both Canadaand the United States that fixing it requires war-time urgency.

What the process fails to take into account is the possibility that the Partnership’s timelines are unrealistic and likely to slip and that a crossing could be permanently disrupted between now and the completion of a new crossing.

The projected 2013 completion date will slip, because:

A. Government estimates are notoriously unreliable.

There is too much potential slippage involved in a target as distant as 2013. Completing a new crossing by 2013 at Windsor-Detroit will require coordinated decision-making and agreements from 6 different governments in two countries, the buy-in of the private sector and non-governmental organizations, and the design and completion of a major infrastructure project.

It will require that all four remaining stages of the current process (environmental assessment, site selection, design and construction) complete their work on time.

These are the kinds of milestones that governments often fail to meet. Take, for example, just a few famous Canadian infrastructure projects that came in years after they were due:

TABLE 5: Border infrastructure agenda

Extract from Committee Testimony, 1 December 2004:

Senator Norman Atkins:

Who should drive the agenda?

Bob Keyes, Senior Vice-President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce:

That is a good question. There are six governments involved, as well as business. We are all wrestling with the steering wheel, but we all want the bus to keep moving.

§ The Trans-Canada Highway was scheduled to be completed in 1956. It was completed in 1962.

§ The Olympic Stadium, intended for the 1976 Summer Olympic Games in Montreal was only partially ready for the Games. It was completed in 1988.

§ The Confederation Bridge linking P.E.I. and New Brunswick was completed a decade after inception. Under 40 per cent of the process was devoted to construction. The rest was consumed by assessments and consultations.

Given the number of governments and the complicated nature of the relationships involved, the Committee is pessimistic that a new crossing at Windsor-Detroit will be delivered on schedule – even the lengthy schedule that has been laid out.

B. The Dirty Little Secret

American leaders are very good at saying the right things in public:

“The Windsor-Detroit Gateway has figured prominently in our plans. As a sign of the high priority we place on this goal, we assigned two very able public servants the task of turning our commitment into action -- Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, and Governor Tom Ridge. And I compliment them for a job very well done. They have made extraordinary progress building the smart border for the 21st century, a border that is open for business, but closed to terrorists.”[67] – President George Bush (September 09, 2002)

“Three-mile backups at major crossings like Niagara-Buffalo and Windsor-Detroit are all too common. Space and infrastructure limitations and staffing issues are vexing. Impacts on business are serious and are forcing changes in how our companies do business. Tourism is down, not just because of SARS or differences in political opinions, but also due to the public’s perception that crossing the border is becoming a hassle. We’ve worked closely with the Government of Canada to improve border security and ensure efficient movement of people and goods.”[68] -- Roger F. Noriega, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State (April 14, 2004)

“We support the private sector's efforts to reduce transit times by 25 percent in the Detroit-Windsor Gateway. This will require the effort of theentire community. DHS will do its part. And if all stakeholders are involved – bridge, tunnel and ferry operators; exporters and importers; and governments at all levels, on both sides of the border – we can achieve that goal. We can build barriers to terrorists and bridges to one another. We can eliminate gaps that our enemies could otherwise exploit.”[69] – Tom Ridge, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

“The efficient movement of people and goods requires the right infrastructure to support it, and the right technology and intelligence to secure it.”[70] – Tom Ridge, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

More recently,

“This project [the environmental assessment process undertaken by the Bi-National Partnership] is critical because international trade is essential to the economic and employment security of Michigan and the United States.”[71] -- Gloria J. Jeff, Director of Transportation, State of Michigan (February 15, 2005)

But when Committee members pressed a number of Michigan congressmen in Washington, D.C., they were candid in saying that, while they were being pressured by Canadians to reduce border uncertainty, they were not receiving any pressure from Americans.

And Americans, of course, vote for them. Canadians don’t.

Border uncertainty could well prove to be a cancer for the Canadian economy. The U.S. economy would also suffer from the shutdown of any major crossing – the figures on Page 48 show that. But there is a dirty little secret behind some U.S. politicians’ lack of interest in rushing to make Canada-U.S. land border crossings more secure, and it is this:

Border uncertainty serves the interest of certain businesses and some local politicians in Michigan by making Canada a less attractive place to invest capital.

If industry perceives the border crossings at Windsor-Detroit to be unreliable, then in time Canada will see negative impacts such as less investment, and even disinvestment.[72] As Gerald Fedchun, President of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, said, “We don't think that perception is there just yet, but others can use the uncertainty against us.”[73]

The American mantra since 9/11 has been that national security trumps trade. But to some American communities that would like to see investment in Canada move south of the border, this may amount to patriotic talk that disguises where they would actually like to walk.

TABLE 6: Border infrastructure delays

Extract from Committee Testimony, 1 December 2004:

“Eight years is an eternity in the foreign direct investment world.”

Mark Norman, President and CEO, DaimlerChrysler Canada

The American people need improved Canada-U.S. border crossings for security reasons, and there has been no shortage of political speeches citing security as the No.1 concern of every patriot.

The American people need improved Canada-U.S. border crossings for economic reasons. This may be less well known to Americans generally, but corporate America certainly understands the profitability that has resulted from the integrated Canada-U.S. production that has mushroomed since NAFTA was introduced.

And yet political foot-dragging persists on the U.S. side of the border in terms of moving quickly to fix insecure and uncertain border crossings.[74] This may well be in the interests of some American politicians whose constituencies are trying to attract outside investment that might otherwise go to Canada, or simply trying to protect their neighborhoods. But it is not in the overall interests of either American security or the American economy.

It is in Canada’s interest – and America’s overall interests as well – that potential American voters in elections for the mayoralty of the City of Detroit (Nov. 2005), the governorship of the state of Michigan (Nov. 2006) and presidential and congressional elections (Nov. 2008) clearly understand the consequences of foot-dragging on reinforcing Canada-U.S. border crossings at Windsor-Detroit.

Parochial interests should not be allowed to undermine the general interests of two great countries.

RECOMMENDATION

22. The federal government move in 2005 to fund an awareness campaign that will outline to Canadians and Americans the security and economic benefits that would result from reinforcing Canada-U.S. border crossings quickly and the potential cost of not doing so.

C. The current process will be challenged

Witnesses from the federal and Ontario governments testified that the process they are implementing is optimal for major infrastructure construction and that it is the safest way to ensure a correct decision, in a proper fashion, as economically and quickly as possible.[75] When asked how infrastructure construction at Windsor-Detroit could be accelerated, Deputy Prime Minister McLellan said,

"I know you are not suggesting that we take any kind of legal shortcuts here, because that could end up with lawsuits, and part of what we are trying to do is to ensure that the process is respected so that everybody believes that he or she has been treated fairly, and the prospect of any kind of legal action against whomever is reduced, one would hope, to almost nil.”

The Deputy Prime Minister’s contention that adhering to the existing bi-national process will avoid litigation is overly optimistic.

The Committee is convinced that the process has been ill-considered from day 1 because it has been based on the presumption that litigation can be avoided. The Deputy Prime Minister has been the recipient of bad advice bordering on the naïve.

The eventual solution to Windsor-Detroit will be a major piece of infrastructure affecting two large cities, and competing local and business interests: no amount of careful adherence to process will eliminate the inevitability of litigation. If there is to be litigation, it would be better to get on with it now rather than later.

And, if a crossing is disrupted in the meantime…

The Partnership process is based on the assumption that Canada and the United States can muddle through while the process moves slowly toward solutions. The situation is much more urgent that that.

As Senator Jim Munson asked Bruce McGuaig, one of the lead Ontario officials for the province’s Ministry of Transportation working on the infrastructure challenge at Windsor-Detroit, when he testified before the Committee in December 2004:

“Are not the dates [projected for the completion of a new crossing] slightly misleading? What happens to the dates if you lose one of these crossings? Tragedy? You have all these expectations here. Those dates would be out of whack, would they not?”

McCuaig responded:

“That is not an assumption that has gone into this evaluation. If there were an event of that nature, then some other action is going to be required to respond to that. This process is not built on the assumption that we would lose access to one of the crossings.”

The Committee does not believe that Canada or the United States has the luxury of waiting for the completion of an additional crossing in the fullness of time. The effect of long-term disruption due to the damage or destruction of a crossing would be too great.

SOLUTIONS: ExpeditING construction

at Windsor-Detroit

Given the consequences of inaction, all avenues that could lead to a more reasonable timetable need to be considered. The Committee believes that it is necessary to adopt innovative approaches to accelerate the timeline for the completion of a new crossing at Windsor-Detroit. We propose three.

Accelerator 1: Begin the design phase as soon as possible

Parallel to the Partnership process, various stakeholders have engaged engineering and consulting firms to examine the options in the Windsor-Detroit corridor. One of those was Sam Schwartz Engineering PLC which completed a study of possible crossing alternatives for the City of Windsor.

The company’s report examined the five alternatives for crossing corridors laid out in the Bi-National Feasibility Report (a pre-cursor report to the current environmental assessment process).[76] While these five alternatives have not been singled out as final candidates for the eventual crossing, they are likely candidates.

It is the Committee's view that as many steps of the Partnership’s process as possible should be undertaken simultaneously. Without prejudicing the eventual outcome, the federal government should do what it can to commence design on four of the five options presented by the Schwartz Report before awaiting the eventual outcome of environmental assessment of the “Canada - United States - Ontario - Michigan Bi-National Partnership.”[77]

It is the Committee’s belief that there is enough urgency to this project to get on with design for four of the five options while environmental issues are being thrashed out. That will add to the cost of the process. But compared to what delays are already costing the Canadian economy and could further cost the economy if something goes wrong at the bridge or the tunnel, Canadians should consider the extra cost an investment in avoiding disaster.

The Committee’s recommended approach could save at least two years in delivering a new crossing to Windsor-Detroit by allowing the Partnership to proceed almost seamlessly from environmental assessment to construction.

Accelerator 2: Construct a crossing outside of Windsor-Detroit

We cannot afford to allow the process to get bogged down in the local politics of Windsor-Detroit.

In the interests of ensuring there will be a new crossing along the land border, the government should consider implementing a strategy similar to the one that has been adopted to solve the infrastructure challenge at the St. Stephen-Calais crossing along the border between New Brunswick and Maine.

The notoriously busy crossing at St. Stephen-Calais runs through the centre of both towns and often backs up traffic for hours. The strategy currently being implemented to address this challenge is the construction of a new crossing that bypasses the communities all together.[78]

That could be a good strategy for Windsor-Detroit. The government should initiate a process to examine possible alternative crossings either north of Lake St. Clair along the Ontario-Michigan border or along the Ontario-New York border. An out-of-town solution would:

A. Serve as an alternative route for the 14% of vehicles that travel through Windsor-Detroit as part of long distance journeys;

B. Provide a backup and alternative to the bridge and the tunnel without further congesting these cities and without alienating groups likely to challenge any new structures;

C. Introduce an element of competition from other potential crossing sites to the deliberations of officials in Windsor-Detroit, which might spur action.

Accelerator 3: Grant the Deputy Prime Minister the power to expedite construction through legislation

The importance of the crossings at Windsor-Detroit to Canada as a whole is so great, and the impact of a crossing being permanently disrupted would be so severe, that the Committee believes that the current situation constitutes a “public order emergency” to the security of Canada.

That being the case, the federal government has both the mandate and obligation, in the interests of national security, to remedy the situation as quickly as possible by creating an additional separate crossing (see Appendix XIV).

It should do so by introducing legislation granting the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness the authority to expedite construction of key border infrastructure.

The legislation should include provisions that allow the Governor-In-Council, upon the recommendation of the Deputy Prime Minister, to waive all laws that must be waived to ensure expeditious construction of barriers and roads at land border crossings designated to be in the interest of national security.

The legislation should limit the legal recourse of those who want to block the decision to build border infrastructure that is subject to a waiver (but not limit their right to compensation from harm that expediting the process might inflict).

Similar legislation is working its way through the United States Congress to expedite construction on its borders.[79]

RECOMMENDATIONS:

23. The federal government, in the interests of national security, introduce legislation that would grant the Governor-in-Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the authority to expedite border infrastructure construction.

24. The federal government ensure viable crossing designs are completed before 2008.

25. The federal government work with the United States government to complete a new crossing at Windsor-Detroit before 2011.

26. The federal government immediately undertake a study of the feasibility of crossings outside of the Windsor-Detroit metropolitan area.

CHAPTER VI

Afterward

This report has not endeavoured to be an all-inclusive assessment of the problems Canada faces on its southern border. Border security will continue to be a high priority for the Committee.

Subsequent reports will examine the following subjects:

A. The challenge of ensuring security between border posts

There is encouraging work being done by the multi-agency bi-national Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs) in 15 regions along the Canada-U.S. land border.

IBETs actively employ intelligence-based policing techniques that allow them to focus on identified threats rather than simply send out scouting patrols.[80] IBETs appear to be a valuable asset, but the public has no way of knowing. The government has yet to disclose any systematic measurements which demonstrate that IBETs have succeeded in reducing border threats.

The Committee is not yet convinced that IBETs, in themselves, provide enough security between crossings. We recognize that it makes sense to direct crime-fighting resources through intelligence and analysis, rather than simply patrol on a hit-and-miss basis.

However, we have questions about what more may need to be done.

§ Beyond their publicized successes, how well do IBETs really perform?

§ How big a role should they play in the border surveillance mix?

§ Is there a need for a border patrol in addition to the IBETS? If so, who should undertake it?

§ What role should other technologies like unmanned sensors, cameras, and unmanned aerial vehicles, play in watching the Canada-U.S. border?

B. Securing the length of the supply chain

Ferreting out potential trouble before it gets to the border obviously enhances security at Canada-U.S. border crossings.

Millions of containers are shipped by truck or rail between Canada and the United States every year. Knowing where they came from, what they contain, who is shipping them and where they are going is critical to border security.

The Committee has begun an examination of the integrity of Canada's supply chain. This examination is focusing on:

§ Port and airport security;

§ The risk assessment process used to vet goods from the point at which they are loaded, through their journey to Canada, their shipment within Canada, and their arrival at a final destination; and,

§ Container bonding and documentation, container handling and in-transit control, container inspection techniques and technologies, and container physical security.

Some of the key unanswered questions in this new study are:

§ How can we implement a container monitoring system that tracks containers and verifies their integrity throughout their journey through the entire course of the supply chain?

§ How effective are Canadian targeting and inspection regimes?

§ Has Canada deployed sufficient equipment like Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems (VACIS) and portal radiation detectors? Is it using what it has deployed as effectively as it could or should?[81]

§ Should Canada implement exit checks on all containers leaving the country?

C. Monitoring FAST and NEXUS participants

The Committee will also study the effectiveness and integrity of programs designed for known and trusted shippers – programs like Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS Highway.

FAST and NEXUS Highway are joint Canada-U.S. programs designed to increase border efficiency without sacrificing security. Under FAST, commercial processes have been harmonized to ease the clearance of commercial shipments, meaning that drivers of FAST shipments are pre-approved. Similarly, NEXUS effectively pre-clears travelers.

FAST participants include 26,000 drivers, 15 import companies and 367 freight carrying companies. Approximately 75,000 travelers are enrolled in NEXUS Highway.[82] Both programs provide special lanes at many major crossings so that pre-approved people, most notably importers/exporters, can cross with minimal delay. The joint principles behind these programs are (a) enhanced fluidity for pre-approved carriers, and (b) the freeing up of resources to allow Canadian and American border agencies to focus on higher risks.[83]

These programs are certainly needed. FAST and NEXUS Highway have decreased border delays by reducing the amount of time border personnel spend examining their participants.

It is important that FAST and NEXUS programs do not become unrestricted free passes to smuggle. All programs that involve security need to prove themselves beyond the level of superficial success, and the Committee has questions as to what is happening behind the scene:

§ How effective are screening procedures for applicants to these types of programs? What are the rates of acceptance, rejection, and renewal? How often program members caught cheating the system?

§ What steps are being taken to conduct random checks on registered participants to ensure that unscrupulous people aren’t taking advantage of their seal of approval to smuggle illegal goods through?[84]

§ What measures are in place to assure than non-approved vehicles aren’t crashing the special lanes set up for FAST and NEXUS participants?

§ What plans does CBSA have to upgrade infrastructure at plazas nearby border crossings so that trucks could get the go-ahead away from border crossings and then move through secure routes to the crossings, which would speed things up for truckers and decrease congestion at crossings?

D. Public disclosure of information related to the effectiveness of security

As the Washington-Post argued last August,

“Unnecessary secrecy erodes public confidence in government. It makes it impossible to take at face value government assertions that information is genuinely sensitive - even when it is. And in a post-Sept. 11 world, needless secrecy is downright dangerous insofar as it prevents the open sharing of information that ought to have many different pairs of eyes examining and analyzing it.”[85]

Enough said. This is an issue the Committee will continue to revisit.

APPENDIX I

Order of Reference

Extract from the Journals of the Senate, Wednesday, October 20, 2004:

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Kenny,

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to examine and report on the national security policy of Canada. In particular, the Committee shall be authorized to examine:

(a) the capability of the Department of National Defence to defend and protect the interests, people and territory of Canada and its ability to respond to and prevent a national emergency or attack, and the capability of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to carry out its mandate;

(b) the working relationships between the various agencies involved in intelligence gathering, and how they collect, coordinate, analyze and disseminate information and how these functions might be enhanced;

(c) the mechanisms to review the performance and activities of the various agencies involved in intelligence gathering; and

(d) the security of our borders and critical infrastructure.

That the papers and evidence received and taken during the Thirty-seventh Parliament be referred to the Committee; and

That the Committee report to the Senate no later than March 31, 2006 and that the Committee retain all powers necessary to publicize the findings of the Committee until May 31, 2006.

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Paul C. Bélisle

Clerk of the Senate

APPENDIX II

Index of Recommendations

1.Restructure the personal exemption limits to allow the Canada Border Services Agency to better focus on security. The restructuring should include harmonization with U.S. levels by 2007 and incremental bilateral increases to $2000 per visit by 2010.

2. The government should implement a system of periodic effectiveness testing that assesses the effectiveness of each of the components of Canada's national security programs at our borders.

3. The government should release the results of periodic effectiveness testing of border security programs, after a delay sufficient to remedy problems.

4. The Canada Border Services Agency deploy only inspectors fully-trained to the level of indeterminate employees to perform primary duties on inspection lines.

9. The Canada Border Services Agency expand its training programs in line with its newly focused mission on security as opposed to tax collection.

10. The Canada Border Services Agency improve its training programs for border agency personnel, with a special focus on components that increase skill sets for questioning techniques and cultural sensitivity.

11. The Canada Border Services Agency make mandatory the timely reporting and cataloguing of critical incidents faced by personnel.

12. The Canada Border Services Agency include a tally of those incidents in the Agency’s annual report to Parliament.

13. The federal government arm border officers if it is not prepared to station and maintain an RCMP presence at all border crossings.

14. If the government does go ahead with arming border officers, it create a firearm qualification and recertification program that meets or exceeds the Firearms Course Training Standards of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

15. The Canada Border Services Agency connect all 62 unconnected border posts with real-time access to the customs mainframe by January 1^st, 2006.

16. The Canada Border Services Agency upgrade the quality and fuse the data that is available to officers on the primary and secondary inspection lines.

17. The federal government develop and publicize an implementation plan for pre-clearance, with clearly understood timeframes.

18. The government move, with U.S. cooperation, to expand pre-clearance into continent-wide reverse inspection at all bridge and tunnel crossings.

19. By 2007, the government require documentation of all people entering Canada (including Canadians) that is:

a) Tamper-proof;

b) Machine-readable;

c) Biometrically enhanced; and,

d) Known to have been issued on the basis of reliable documentation.

20. Only those proposals for new crossing infrastructure at Windsor-Detroit which provide separate and secure infrastructure redundancy be considered.

21. Any new crossing constructed at Windsor-Detroit include facilities for reverse inspection.

22. The federal government move in 2005 to fund an awareness campaign that will outline to Canadians and Americans the security and economic benefits that would result from reinforcing Canada-U.S. border crossings quickly and the potential cost of not doing so.

23.The federal government, in the interests of national security, introduce legislation that would grant the Governor-in-Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the authority to expedite border infrastructure construction.

24. The federal government ensure viable crossing designs are completed before 2008.

25. The federal government work with the United States government to complete a new crossing at Windsor-Detroit before 2011.

26. The federal government immediately undertake a study of the feasibility of crossings outside of the Windsor-Detroit metropolitan area.

APPENDIX III

Who the Committee Heard From

Abbas, Mr. Leo

Mayor

Town of Happy Valley Goose Bay

February 3, 2005

Adams, Superintendent Bill

Federal Services Directorate

RCMP

June 9, 2003

Adams, Mr. John

Commissioner

Canadian Coast Guard

May 5, 2003

Adams, Corporal Terrance

CFB Borden Technical Services

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Addy,Major General (ret’d)Clive

National Past Chairman

Federation of Military and United Services Institutes of Canada

October 15, 2001

Alarie, Master Corporal Bernadette

Canadian Forces Dental Services School

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Alexander,Dr.Jane

Deputy Director

U.S. Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

February 04, 2002

Allan, Major Murray

Deputy Commanding Officer

Royal Regina Rifles

January 27, 2003

Allard,The HonorableWayne

Ranking Member (Republican – Virginia), U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee

February 05, 2002

Allen,Mr.Jon

Director General, North America Bureau

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

January 28, 2002, March 17, 2003

Amos, Chief Warrant Officer Bruce

423 Maritime Helicopter Squadron, 12

Wing Shearwater

January 22-24, 2002

Anderson, Colonel N.J.

National Defence

May 2, 2005

Andrash,Mr.P. (Duke)

Sergeant 481, Vancouver Police Department

November 18-22, 2001

Arcand, Chief Warrant Officer Gilles

5th Combat Engineer Regiment

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Atkins, Chief Superintendent Ian

Criminal Operations Officer, H Division, RCMP

January 22-24, 2002, September 22-23, 2003

Atkinson, Ms. Joan

Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development

Department of Citizenship and Immigration

January 28, 2002

Audcent, Mr. Mark

Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel

Senate of Canada

December 2, 2002

Avis, Captain Peter

Director of Maritime Policy, Operations and Readiness

Department of National Defence

April 7, 2003

Axworthy, Dr. Thomas

Chairman, Centre for Study of Democracy

Queen's University

September 29, 2003

Badger, Captain Chris J.

Vice President, Operations, Vancouver Port Authority

November 18-22, 2001

Baird, Master Corporal Keith

Bravo Squadron

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Baker, Mr. Mike

Vice-President, Corporate Management

Canadian Air Transport Security Authority

November 25, 2002

Baker, Lieutenant-Colonel Roy

Wing Logistics and Engineering Officer

CFB Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Balnis, Richard

Senior Research Officer

Canadian Union of Public Employees

November 18, 2002

Baltabaev, M.P., Mr. Tashpolot

Kyrgyz Republic

May 12, 2003

Barbagallo, Lieutenant Jason

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Bariteau, Lieutenant-Colonel François

Commanding Officer, Canadian Forces

Leadership and Recruit School

National Defence

June 1, 2005

Barrett, Major Roger R.

Operational Officer, 2 RCR

CFB Gagetown

January 22-24, 2002

Barrette, Mr. Jean Director

Security Operations, Safety and Security Group

Transport Canada

November 27, 2002 / December 2, 2002

Bartley, Mr. Alan

Director General, Policy Planning and Readiness, Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness

July 19, 2001

Basrur, Dr. Sheela

Medical Officer of Health

City of Toronto

October 30, 2003

Bastien, Major-General Richard

Deputy Commander of Air

Assistant Chief of the Air Staff

Department of National Defence

December 03, 2001

Bastien, Commander Yves

Formation Administration Officer

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Baum, Major Nigel

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Bax, Ms. Janet

Director General, Programs

Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness

October 20, 2003

Beare, Brigadier-General Stuart A. Commander, Land Forces Western Area

National Defence

March 7, 2005

Beattie, Captain Davie

Canadian Parachute Centre Adjutant

CFB Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Beattie, Lieutenant-Colonel Mark

Senior Staff Officer, Canadian Forces Support Training Group, CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Beazley, Chief Frank

Halifax Regional Police

Halifax Regional Municipality

September 23, 2003

Beers, Master Corporal Robert

Canadian Forces School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Begin, Mr. Robert

Regional Director, Quebec

Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness

October 27, 2003

Begley, Inspector J.J. (Jim)

Federal Policing Service

RCMP

November 18-22, 2001

Belcourt, Chief Warrant Officer Mario

12th Canadian Armoured Regiment

5th Canadian Mechanized Brigade CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Bell, Lieutenant-Commander John

Commander, HMCS Queen

National Defence

March 9, 2005

Bell, Mr. Peter

Intelligence Analyst

Organized Crime Agency of B.C.

November 18-22, 2001

Belzile,Lieutenant-General (ret’d)Charles

Chairman

Conference of Defence Associations

October 15, 2001

Bercuson, Dr. David J.

Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies

University of Calgary

April 19, 2004 and March 8, 2005

Bernier, Warrant Officer Michel

5th Military Police Platoon

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Berry, Major David

Canadian Parachute Centre Training Officer Commander

CFB Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Berthiaume, Lieutenant-Colonel Philip (Res)

Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment

December 1, 2004

Berthiaume, Mr. Tim

Deputy Fire Chief

City of Windsor

February 10, 2003

Bildfell, Mr. Brian

Director, Ambulance Services

City of Windsor

February 27, 2003

Bilodeau, Mr. Ronald

Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Deputy Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister and Security and Intelligence Coordinator

Privy Council Office

February 24, 2003

Bishop Jr., The Honorable Sanford D.

(Democrat – Georgia)

U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence

February 05, 2002

Bissonnette, Captain J.R.A.

Commander, 5th Military Police Platoon

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Black, Mr. Bob

Director, Office of Emergency Preparedness

City of Edmonton

January 28, 2003

Black, Lieutenant Colonel Dean C.

Commanding Officer, 403 Squadron

CFB Gagetown

January 22-24, 2002

Blackmore, Mr. David

Director of Building and Property, Emergency Operations Centre Manager City of St. John’s

March 31, 2003

Blair, Colonel Alan

12 Wing Commander

National Defence

May 5, 2005

Blair, Master Warrant Officer Gérald

Canadian Forces School of Communications and Electronics

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Blanchard, Master Corporal Piette

Canadian Forces Dental Services School

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Blanchette, Lieutenant-Colonel Michael

Commander, Canadian Parachute School

CFB Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Bland, Professor Douglas

Chair of Defence Management Program, School of Policy Studies

Queen’s University

October 29, 2001 / May 27, 2002

Blight, Master Corporal

8 Air Maintenance Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Blondin, Colonel Yvan

Wing Commander, 3 Wing Bagotville

National Defence

June 1, 2005

Bloodworth, Ms Margaret

Deputy Minister

Public Safety and Emergency

Preparedness Canada

February 15, 2005

Boisjoli, Lieutenant-Commmander André

Commanding Officer, HMCS Glace Bay, Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Bolton, Lieutenant Colonel Bruce D

Commanding Officer

The Black Watch, Royal Highland Regiment of Canada

November 5-6, 2001

Bon, Mr. Daniel

Director General, Policy Planning, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy

Department of National Defence

July 18, 2001

Bonnell, Mr. R.J. (Ray)

Superintendent, Officer in Charge, Protective Services Branch, RCMP

December 2, 2002

Boswell, Lieutenant-Colonel Brad

Acting Director of Army Doctrine

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Bouchard, Major-General J.J.C

Commander, 1 Canadian Air Division

National Defence

March 10, 2005

Boucher, Mr. Mark

National Secretary Treasurer

Canadian Merchant Service Guild

February 2, 2005

Boulden, Ms Jane

Canada Research Chair in International Relations and Security Studies

Royal Military College of Canada

November 29, 2004

Bourgeois, Mr. Terry

District Chief, Rural District 3, Communications, Fire and Emergency Service, Halifax Regional Municipality

September 23, 2003

Boutilier, Dr. James A.

Special Advisor (Policy), Maritime Forces, Pacific Headquarters

Department of National Defence

June 9, 2003

Bowes, Lieutenant-Colonel Steve

Armour School

C.F.B. Gagetown

National Defence

January 31, 2005

Boyer, Colonel Alain

Commander 15 Wing Moose Jaw

National Defence

March 9, 2005

Bramah,Mr.Brian

Regional Director

Transport Canada

November 18-22, 2001

Brandt, Mr. Brion

Director, Security Policy

Transport Canada

May 5, 2003

Bradley, Corporal John

Imagery Technician

17 Wing Imaging and Associate Air Force Historian, 17 Wing Winnipeg

November 18-22, 2001

Brochet, Inspector Pierre, Chief of Operation, Planning Section, Montreal Police Service, City of Montreal

September 26, 2003

Brodeur, Vice-Admiral (Ret’d) Nigel

As an individual

March 1, 2005

Brooks, Captain Melissa

CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Brown, Major Chris

424 Squadron

CFB Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Bryan, Mr. Robert

Emergency Planning Coordinator City of Vancouver

January 30, 2003

Buck,Vice-AdmiralRon

Chief of the Maritime Staff

Department of National Defence

December 03, 2001, August 14, 2002, April 7, 2003

Buck, Vice-Admiral Ron

Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

National Defence

December 6, 2004

Buenacruz, Corporal

Wing Administration

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Bugslag, Mr. Bob

Executive Director, Provincial Emergency

Program

Government of British Columbia

March 1, 2005

Bujold, Mr. Guy

Assistant Deputy Minister

Infrastructure Canada

February 7, 2005

Bullock,Ms.Margaret

Manager, Security Awareness, Policy and Regulatory Corporate Security, Air Canada

November 18-22, 2001

Burke,Captain (N)Greg

Chief of Staff, Maritime Forces Atlantic

Department of National Defence

January 22-24, 2002

Burke,Mr.Sean

Research Associate, National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

February 04, 2002

Burr, Ms Kristine

Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy

Transport Canada

February 7, 2005

Burrell, Mr. Bruce

Assistant Deputy Chief Director, Halifax Regional Fire Service

Halifax Regional Municipality

September 23, 2003

Butler, Mr. John

Regional Director, Newfoundland and

Labrador

Canadian Coast Guard

February 2, 2005

Calder,Mr.Kenneth

Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy

Department of National Defence

November 26, 2001, August 14, 2002, April 26, 2004, October 25, 2004

Cameron,ColonelScott

Director of Medical Policy on the staff of the Director General Health Services (DGHS)

Department of National Defence

December 10, 2001

Cameron, Captain Keith

CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Campbell, Anthony

Vice-President, Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies

June 3, 2002

Campbell,Lieutenant-GeneralLloyd

Commander of Air Command and Chief of the Air Staff

Department of National Defence

December 03, 2001

Campbell, Master Corporal Steve

426 Training Squadron, 8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Camsell, Lieutenant-Colonel J.F.

36^th Service Battalion

February 2, 2005

Caouette, Sergeant Denis, Operational Planning Section, Montreal Police Service, City of Montreal

September 26, 2003

Capstick, Colonel Mike

Director, Land Personnel Strategy

Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry

March 10, 2005

Caron, Corporal Denis

National Support Arrangements Coordinator, Coast and Airport Watch National Coordinator, Organized Crime Branch, RCMP

April 7, 2003

Caron, Lieutenant-General Marc

Chief of Land Staff

National Defence

February 7, 2005

Carroll, Lieutenant-Commander Derek HMCS Tecumseh

National Defence

March 8, 2005

Castillo, Corporal Marvin

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Castonguay,Staff SergeantCharles

Unit Commander

RCMP

November 5-6, 2001

Cellucci, H.E. Paul

Ambassador

Embassy of the United States of America to Canada

August 15, 2002

Cessford, Lieutenant-Colonel Michael

Acting Commader, Canadian Forces Joint Operations Group, CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Chapin, Mr. Paul

Director General, International Security Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

February 23, 2004

Charette,Mr.Serge

National President

Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise

January 22-24, 2002

Chartier, Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel Victor G., OMM, CD.

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Chartrant,Lieutenant-CommanderYves

Acting Commanding Officer, HMCS Huron

Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Chow, Lieutenant Commander Robert

Commanding Officer, HMCS Unicorn (Saskatoon)

January 27, 2003

Christie, Mr. Ryerson

Researcher, Centre for International and

Security Studies

York University

March 21, 2005

Cirincione,Mr.Joseph

Senior Director, Non Proliferation Project, The Carnegie Foundation

February 05, 2002

Clapham,Superintendent,Ward D.

Officer in Charge

RCMP

November 18-22, 2001

Clark, Captain Robert

CO BW No.2497 Cadet Corps

Head Librarian, Law Library

McGill University

November 5-6, 2002

Clarke, Master Corporal James

Gulf Squadron

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Clarke, Mr. Shawn

Acting Regional Director, Prince Edward Island, Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness

October 27, 2003

Coble,The HonorableHoward

Ranking Member (Republican, North Carolina)

U.S. House Judiciary Committee

February 07, 2002

Cohen, Mr. Andrew

Associate Professor, School of

Journalism and Communications

Carleton University

March 21, 2005

Collenette, P.C., M.P., The Honourable David Michael

Minister of Transport

December 2, 2002

Connolly, Mr. Mark

Director General, Contraband and Intelligence Services Directorate, Customs Branch

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

February 10, 2003, September 22, 2003

Connolly, Mr. Mark

Head, Customs Contraband, Intelligence and Investigations

Canada Border Services Agency

February 23, 2004

Conyers, Jr.,The HonorableJohn

Ranking Member Democrat-Michigan, U.S. House Judiciary Committee

February 07, 2002

Cooper, First Officer Russ

Toronto Representative, Security Committee

Air Canada Pilots Association

November 4, 2002

Corcoran,Mr.James

Former Deputy Director, Operations

Canadian Security and Intelligence Service

October 01, 2001

Cormier, Master Seaman Michael

Canadian Forces Military Police Academy

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Cormier,CaptainMichael P.

Deputy Harbour Master

Vancouver Port Authority

November 18-22, 2001

Côté,Mr.Bertin

Deputy Head of Mission

Canadian Embassy (Washington)

February 04-07, 2002

Côté, Master Corporal Claude

Bravo Squadron

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Côté, Brigadier-General Gaston

Commander, Land Forces Quebec Area

National Defence

June 1, 2005

Côté,Mr.Yvan

Investigator, Organized Crime Task Force, Montreal Urban Community Police Department

November 05-06, 2001

Coulter, Mr. Keith

Chief, Communications Security Establishment

February 24, 2003

Couture,Lieutenant-GeneralChristian

Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources – Military)

Department of National Defence

December 10, 2001

Crabbe,Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Ray

Royal Military Institute of Manitoba (RMIM)

March 10, 2005

Creamer,Mr.Dennis

Vice-President, Finance and Administration

Halifax Port Authority

January 22-24, 2002

Crober, Mr. Paul

Regional Director for B.C. and Yukon,

Emergency Mgmt. and National Security Sector, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada

March 1, 2005

Crosbie, Mr. William

Director General, North America Bureau

Foreign Affairs Canada

April 11, 2005

Crouch,Dr.Jack Dyer

Assistant Secretary of Defence, International Security Policy

Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defence

February 06, 2002

Croxall, Corporal Kevin

CFB Borden Administration Services, CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Cushman, Dr. Robert

Chief Medical Officer of Health, City of Ottawa

February 3, 2003

D’Avignon,Mr.Michel

Director General, National Security, Policing and Security Branch, Solicitor General Canada

July 19, 2001

D'Cunha, Dr. Colin

Commissioner of Public Health, Chief Medical Officer of Health, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario

October 30, 2003

Daigle, MSC, CD, MGen. Pierre

Special Advisor to the Chief of Defence Staff

Department of National Defence

March 17, 2003 / February 23, 2004

Dallaire, Gabriel

Gulf Squadron, CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Daniels, Private Jason

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Davidson, Rear-Admiral Glenn V.

Commander, Maritime Forces Atlantic

Department of National Defence

September 22, 2003

Davies,Ms.Krysta M.

Intelligence Analyst Specialist

KPMG Investigation and Security Inc.

October 01, 2001

Dawe,Mr.Dick

Manager, Personnel Support Programmes, Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

DeCastro, Second Lieutenant. Rod

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

DeCuir,Brigadier-GeneralMike

Deputy Regional Commander

Canadian NORAD Region Headquarters

November 18-22, 2001

Deemert, Mr. Rob

Cabin Security, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

August 15, 2002

Deering, Richard

Chief of Police

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

February 3, 2005

Dempsey, Mr. Lawrence

National Secretary Treasurer

Canadian Merchant Service Guild

September 22, 2003, February 2, 2005

Dempster, Major-General Doug

Director General, Strategic Planning

National Defence

April 11, 2005

De Riggi,Mr.Angelo

Intelligence Officer

Organized Crime Task Force - RCMP

November 5-6, 2001

Deschamps, Col. André

Director, Continental Operations

Department of National Defence

May 6, 2002

Desrosiers, Chief Warrant Officer Christian

5th Canadian Light Artillery Regiment

September 24, 2003

Devlin,Mr.W.A. (Bill)

Manager, Hub Development, Vancouver International Airport

Air Canada

November 18-22, 2001

deVries, Nicolaas C.W.O. (Ret’d)

Military Bands

January 31, 2005

Dewar, Captain (N) (Ret'd) John

Member, Maritime Affairs

Navy League of Canada

May 12, 2003, June 2, 2003

Dewitt, Mr. David

Director, Centre for International and

Security Studies

York University

December 2, 2004

Dickenson,Mr.Lawrence T.

Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Security and Intelligence

Privy Council Office

October 29, 2001 / February 24, 2003

Dietrich,Chief Warrant OfficerDan

Chief Warrant Officer

One Canadian Air Division

November 18-22, 2001

Dion, Corporal Yves

Canadian Forces Fire Academy

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Ditchfield,Mr.Peter

Deputy Chief Officer

Organized Crime Agency of B.C.

November 18-22, 2001

Doge, Ms. Trish

Director, Risk and Emergency Management, City of Vancouver

January 30, 2003

Douglas, Lieutenant-Colonel Brian

Artillery School

C.F.B. Gagetown

National Defence

January 31, 2005

Dowler,Chief Petty Officer First ClassGeorge

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Downton, Master Corporal Doug

426 Training Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Doyle,Lieutenant ColonelBert

Commanding Officer, 402 Squadron

17 Wing Winnipeg

November 18-22, 2001

Droz,SuperintendentPierre

Criminal Operations

RCMP

November 5-6, 2001

Duchesneau, Mr. Jacques

President and Chief Executive Officer

Canadian Air Transport Security Authority

November 25, 2002

Dufour, Major Rénald

Commander, 58th Air Defence Battery

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Dufresne, Corporal

Canadian Forces Postal Unit

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Duguay,Mr.Yves

Senior Director

Corporate Security Risk Management

Air Canada

November 18-22, 2001

Duncan, Mr. Mark

Vice-President, Operations

Canadian Air Transport Security Authority

November 25, 2002

Dunn,Major GeneralMichael

Vice Director, Strategic Plans and Policy

The Pentagon

February 06, 2002

Durocher, Captain Pascal

Deputy Commanding Officer,

2EW Squadron, CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Earnshaw, Commander Paul F.

Commanding Officer TRINITY, Joint Ocean Surveillance Information Centre

Department of National Defence

September 22, 2003

Edmonds, Captain (N) David

Chief of Staff Personnel & Training, Naval Reserve

Department of National Defence

September 25, 2003

Elcock, Mr.Ward

Director

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

August 14, 2002, February 17, 2003

Elliott, Mr. William

Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group

Transport Canada

November 27, 2002, December 2, 2002, May 5, 2003

Ellis, Captain Cameron

CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Ellis, Colonel Jim

2nd in Command, Operation Peregrine

National Defence

March 1, 2005

Ellis, Ms. Karen

Assistant Deputy Minister (Infrastructure and

Environment), National Defence

June 6, 2005

Enger,InspectorT.G. (Tonia)

Operations Officer

RCMP

November 18-22, 2001

Erkebaev, M.P., The Honourable Abdygany

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Kyrgyz Republic

May 12, 2003

Evans,Ms.Daniela

Chief, Customs Border Services

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

November 18-22, 2001

Evraire, Lieutenant-General (Ret'd) Richard J.

Conference of Defence Associations

April 19, 2004

Fadden,Mr.Richard

Deputy Clerk, Counsel and Security Intelligence Coordinator

Privy Council Office

October 29, 2001, January 29, 2002, August 14, 2002

Fagan,Mr.John

Director of Intelligence and Contraband, Atlantic Region

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

January 22-24, 2002

Fagan, Mr. Wayne

Regional Vice-President

Union of Canadian Transportation

Employees (UCTE)

February 2, 2005

Falconer,CaptainVic

Formation Drug Education Coordinator, Formation Health Services (Pacific)

Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Falkenrath,Mr.Richard

Senior Director

U.S. Office of Homeland Security

February 07, 2002

Fantino, Chief Julian

Toronto Police Service

May 6, 2002

Farmer, Mr. Rick

Area Manager, Ontario East Port of Entries

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

May 7-9, 2002

Farr, Mr. Bruce

Chief and General Manager, Toronto Emergency Medical Services

City of Toronto

October 30, 2003

Ferguson,Mr.Brian

Assistant Deputy Minister, Veterans Services

Veterans Affairs Canada

January 22-24, 2002

Fergusson, Mr. James

Centre for Defence and Security Studies

Department of Political Studies

University of Manitoba

March 10, 2005

Fernie, Iain

Regional Security Operations Manager

Air Canada

June 24, 2002

Ferris, Mr. John

Faculty of Social Sciences,

International Relations Program

University of Calgary

March 8, 2005

Fields, Fire Chief Dave

Fire Department

City of Windsor

February 27, 2003

Fisher, Second Lieutenant Greg

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Fisher, Captain Kent

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Flack, Mr. Graham

Director of Operations, Borders Task Force

Privy Council Office

March 17, 2003, February 23, 2004

Flagel,Mr.Brian

Director, Airport Operations

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

November 18-22, 2001

Fleshman, Larry

General Manager, Customer Service Toronto, Air Canada

June 24, 2002

Flynn,CommanderSteven

U.S. Coast Guard and Senior Fellow

National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

February 04, 2002

Fonberg, Mr. Robert

Deputy Secretary to the cabinet, Operations

Privy Council Office

March 17, 2003

Forcier, Rear-Admiral J.Y. Commander, MARPAC

National Defence

February 28, 2005

Forcier,CommodoreJean-Yves

Chief of Staff J3, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence

July 18, 2001

Forgie,Mr.John

Enforcement Supervisor, Vancouver

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

November 18-22, 2001

Fortin, Lieutenant-Colonel Mario

Acting Commanding Officer, 426 Squadron

CFB Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Foster, Lieutenant-Colonel Rob

Acting Commanding Officer, 8 Air Maintenance Squadron

CFB Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Fox, Mr. John

Member

Union of Canadian Transportation

Employees (UCTE)

February 2, 2005

Fox, Mr. John

Regional Representative, Nova Scotia

(UCTE)

September 22, 2003

Francis, Warrant Officer Charles

Bravo Squadron

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Frappier, Mr. Gerry

Director General, Security and Emergency Preparedness and Chair of Interdepartmental Marine Security Working Group, Transport Canada

April 7, 2003, June 2, 2003, February 25, 2004

Frappier, Lieutenant-Colonel Jean

Commander, 12th Canadian Armoured Regiment, 5th Canadian Mechanized Brigade, CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Fraser,Rear-AdmiralJamie D.

Commander

Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Fraser,Ms.Sheila

Auditor General of Canada

December 10, 2001, December 6, 2004

Frederick, Corporal

8 Air Maintenance Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Frerichs, Private Travis

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Fries, Mr. Rudy

Emergency Management Coordinator, London-Middlesex Community

City of London

March 31, 2003

Froeschner, Major Chris

Acting Commanding Officer, 429 Squadron

CFB Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Gadula, Mr. Charles

Director General, Fleet Directorate, Marine Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

April 7, 2003

Gagné, Major M.K.

Officer Commanding Administration

Company, 2nd Battalion Princess

National Defence

March 10, 2005

Gagnon, Major Alain

Commanding Officer, Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre, Montreal

June 25-27, 2002

Gagnon, Mr. Jean-Guy, Deputy Director, Investigations Department, Montreal Police Service, City of Montreal

September 26, 2003

Gardner, Major Craig

Mechanized Brigade Group

CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Garnett, Vice-Admiral (Ret'd) Gary L.

National Vice-President for Maritime Affairs

Navy League of Canada

May 12, 2003

Garnon, Lieutenant-Commander Daniel

Comptroller, National Defence

September 25, 2003

Gauthier, Corporal

2 Air Movement Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Gauthier,Major-General Michael J.C.M.

Director General of Intelligence

National Defence

December 13, 2004

Gauvin, Major Bart

Directorate of Army Training 5

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Gauvin,CommodoreJacques J.

Acting Assistant Chief of the Maritime Staff

Department of National Defence

December 3, 2001

Giasson,Mr.Daniel

Director of Operations, Security and Intelligence

Privy Council Office

January 8, 2002 / January 29, 2002

Gibbons, The Honorable Jim

Member (Republican – Nevada)

U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence

February 6, 2002

Giffin-Boudreau, Ms. Diane

Acting Director General, Atlantic Region, Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

September 22, 2003

Gilbert,Chief Warrant OfficerDaniel

Department of National Defence

December 3, 2001

Gilbert, Staff Superintendent Emory

Operational Support Services, Toronto Police Services, City of Toronto

October 30, 2003

Gilkes, Lieutenant-Colonel B.R.

Kings Own Calgary Regiment

National Defence

March 8, 2005

Gimblett, Mr. Richard

Research Fellow

Centre for Foreign Policy Studies

Dalhousie University

February 21, 2005

Girouard, Commodore Roger

Commander, CANFLTPAC

National Defence

February 28, 2005

Giroux, Master Corporal

Canadian Parachute Centre

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Glencross, Captain, Reverend Bruce

Regimental Padre Minister

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Gludo, Colonel J.D.

Commander, 41 Canadian Brigade Group of Canada, National Defence

March 8, 2005

Goatbe,Mr.Greg

Director General, Program Strategy Directorate

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

January 28, 2002

Goetz, Captain J.J.

Mechanized Brigade Group

CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Goodall, Superintendent Bob

Bureau Commander, Field and Traffic Support Bureau

Ontario Provincial Police

October 30, 2003

Goss, The Honorable Porter

Chair (Republican - Florida)

U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence

February 6, 2002

Gotell,Chief Warrant OfficerPeter

Operations

12 Wing Shearwater

January 22-24, 2002

Goupil,InspectorPierre

Direction de la protection du territoire, Unité d’urgence, région ouest, Sûreté du Québec

November 5-6, 2001

Graham, Master Corporal

8 Air Maintenance Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Graham, Erin

Manager Safety, Capital District Health

Halifax Regional Municipality

September 23, 2003

Granatstein, Dr. Jack

Chair, Council for Defence and Security in the 21st Century

May 27, 2002, April 28, 2004

Grandy,Mr.Brian

Acting Regional Director, Atlantic Region

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

January 22-24, 2002

Grant, Captain Timothy J.

Commander, 1 Canadian Mechanized

Brigade Group

National Defence

March 7, 2005

Gray, P.C., Right Honourable Herb

Chair and Commissioner, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission

March 29, 2004

Green, Major Bill

Commanding Officer, Saskatchewan Dragoons (Moose Jaw)

January 27, 2002

Grégoire, Mr. Marc

Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group

Transport Canada

February 25, 2004

Gregory, Leading Seaman

Wing Administration Human Resources Department

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Grue, Superintendent Tom

Edmonton Police Services

City of Edmonton

January 28, 2003

Guevremont, Benoît

Gulf Squadron

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Guindon,Captain (N)Paul

Submarine Division

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Gutteridge, Mr. Barry

Commissioner, Department of Works and Emergency Services

City of Toronto

October 30, 2003

Gupta, Lieutenant-Colonel Ranjeet K.

Canadian Forces School of Military Engineering, C.F.B. Gagetown

National Defence

January 31, 2005

Haché, Colonel Mike

Director, Western Hemisphere Policy

National Defence

April 11, 2005

Haeck,Lieutenant ColonelKen F.

Commandant of Artillery School IFT

CFB Gagetown

January 22-24, 2002

Hall, Major Steve

Deputy Commandant, Canadian Forces School of Communications and Electronics

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Hamel, MWO Claude

Regimental Sergeant-Major Designate

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Hammond, Major Lee

Artillery

CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Hansen, Superintendent Ken

Director of Federal Enforcement

RCMP

April 7, 2003, June 9, 2003

Hapgood, Warrant Officer John

Canadian Parachute Centre

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Harlick,Mr.James

Assistant Deputy Minister, Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, National Defence

July 19, 2001, October 20 & 27, 2003

Harrison,Captain (N)R.P. (Richard)

Assistant Chief of Staff, Operations, Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Hart, Corporal

Wing Administration Human Resources Department, 8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Harvey, Lieutenant-Commander Max

Commander

H.M.C.S. Cabot

February 2, 2005

Haslett, Lieutenant Adam

Logistics Officer & Course Commander, The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Hatton,CommanderGary

Commanding Officer, HMCS Montreal

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Haydon, Mr. Peter T.

Senior Research Fellow, Center for Foreign Policy Studies

Dalhousie University

April 28, 2003, February 1, 2005

Hazelton,LColSpike C.M.

Commandant of Armour School C2 SIM, CFB Gagetown

January 22-24, 2002

Hearn,Brigadier-GeneralT.M.

Director General, Military Human Resources Policy and Planning

Department of National Defence

December 10, 2001

Hébert, Barbara

Regional Director, Customs, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

June 24, 2002

Heinbecker, Paul

Former Ambassador to the U.N.

As an individual

February 21, 2005

Heimann, Dr. Alan

Medical Officer of Health

City of Windsor

February 27, 2003

Heisler, Mr. Ron

Canada Immigration Centre, Halifax

Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

September 22, 2003

Henault,General Raymond R.

Chief of the Defence Staff

National Defence

December 3, 2001

Hendel, Commodore (Ret’d) Hans

Consultant, Canadian Forces Staff College

April 28, 2003

Henderson, Major Georgie

Deputy A3

CFB Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Henneberry,Lieutenant-Commander, HMCS Nanaimo

Maritime Air Force Command Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Henry, Dr. Bonnie

Associate Medical Officer of Health

City of Toronto

October 30, 2003

Henschel, Superintendent Peter

Federal Services Directorate

RCMP

June 9, 2003

Herbert,Mr.Ron

Director General, National Operations Division

Veterans Affairs Canada

January 22-24, 2002

Hickey, Mr. John

MHA, Lake Melville

House of Assembly of Newfoundland

and Labrador

February 3, 2005

Hickey, Captain (N) Larry

Assistant Chief of Staff Plans and Operations (Maritime Forces Atlantic)

National Defence

June 16, 2003

Hildebrand, Sergeant F.D. (Fred)

“H” Division, Criminal Operations Branch, RCMP

September 22, 2003

Hildebrandt, Captain Gerhard

Canadian Parachute Centre

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Hill, Mr. Dave

Chair, Capital Region Emergency Preparedness Partnership

City of Edmonton

January 28, 2003

Hillier, General Rick

Chief of the Defence Staff

National Defence

May 30, 2005

Hillmer, Dr. Norman

Professor of History and International Affairs.

Carleton University

November 1, 2004

Hincke,ColonelJoe

Commanding Officer

12 Wing Shearwater

January 22-24, 2002

Hines,ColonelGlynne

Director, Air Information Management, Chief of the Air Staff

National Defence

July 18, 2001

Horn, Lieutenant-Colonel Bernd

CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Hornbarger, Mr.Chris

Director

U.S. Office of Homeland Security

February 7, 2002

Hounsell, Master Corporal Scott

Candian Forces School of Electronical and Mechanical Engineering, CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Howe, Corporal Kerry

CFB Borden Technical Services

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Huebert, Dr. Rob

Professor, Dept. of Political Science

University of Calgary

March 8, 2005

Hunt, Mr.Baxter

Embassy of the United States of America to Canada

August 15, 2002

Hunter, The Honorable Duncan

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Procurement (Republican – California)

U.S. House Armed Services Committee

February 06, 2002

Hupe, Master Corporal Bryan

426 Training Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Hynes, Major A.G.

Air Reserve Coordinator (East)

1 Canadian Air Division Headquarters

Feburary 1, 2005

Iatonna, Mr. Mario

Municipal Engineer

City of Windsor

December 1, 2004

Idzenga, Major Ray

Commanding Officer, Gulf Squadron

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Inkster,Mr.Norman

President, KPMG Investigation and Security Inc.

Former Commissioner, RCMP

October 01, 2001

Innis, Captain Quentin

Instructor, Canadian Parachute Centre

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Irwin, Brigadier-General S.M.

Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian

Forces Housing Agency

National Defence

June 6, 2005

Issacs,SergeantTony

Search and Rescue Technician

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Jackson, Major David

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Jackson,Ms.Gaynor

Manager, Military Family Support Centre, Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Janelle, Private Pascal

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Jarvis, Vice-Admiral Greg

Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources Military)

February 21, 2005

Jean, Mr. Daniel

Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

March 17, 2003

Jeffery,Lieutenant GeneralM.K.

Chief of the Land Staff

Department of National Defence

December 3, 2001 / August 14, 2002

Jenkins,Wilma

Director, Immigration Services

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

June 24, 2002

Jestin, Colonel Ryan

Commander, C.F.B. Gagetown

3 Area Support Group

National Defence

January 31, 2005

Job, Mr. Brian

Chair, Institute of International Relations

University of British Columbia

March 1, 2005

Johns, Fred

General Manager, Logistics and Processing Strategies

Canada Post

August 15, 2002

Johnson, Captain Don

President

Air Canada Pilots Association

November 4, 2002

Johnson, Captain Wayne

J7, CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Johnston, Rear-Admiral (Ret’d) Bruce

As an individual

April 28, 2003

Johnston, Chief Cal

Chief of Police

City of Regina

January 27, 2003

Johnston, Mr. Kimber

Director General, Stragetic Policy

Public Safety and Emergency

Preparedness Canada

February 15, 2005

Jolicoeur, Mr. Alain

President, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada

Canada Border Services Agency

February 23, 2004, April 11, 2005

Joncas,Chief Petty Officer First ClassSerge

Maritime Command Chief Petty Officer, National Defence

December 3, 2001

Jurkowski,Brigadier-General (ret’d)David

Former Chief of Staff, Joint Operations

Department of National Defence

October 1, 2001

Kasurak,Mr.Peter

Principal

Office of the Auditor General of Canada

December 10, 2001, December 6, 2004

Kavanagh, Paul

Regional Director, Security and Emergency Planning

Transport Canada

June 24, 2002

Keane,Mr.John

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

U.S. Department of State

February 06, 2002

Keating, Dr. Tom

Professor, Department of Political Science

University of Alberta

March 7, 2005

Kee,Mr.Graham

Chief Security Officer

Vancouver Port Authority

November 18-22, 2001

Kelly, Mr. James C.

As an individual

May 26, 2003

Kelly, Chief Warrant Officer Michael

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Kelly,Lieutenant ColonelW.J.

Force Planning and Program Coordination, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, National Defence

July 18, 2001

Kennedy, Mr. Paul E

Senior Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Policy Branch, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada

February 15, 2005

Kennedy,Mr.Paul

Senior Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Solicitor General of Canada

January 28, 2002, February 24, 2003

Kerr, Captain Andrew CD

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Keyes, Mr. Bob

Senior Vice-President, International

Canadian Chamber of Commerce

December 1, 2004

Khokhar,Mr.Jamal

Minister-Counsellor (Congressional Affairs)

Canadian Embassy (Washington)

February 04, 2002

Kiloh,Insp.D.W. (Doug)

Major Case Manager, RCMP

November 18-22, 2001

King, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin

Commanding Officer, Royal Regina Rifles (Regina)

January 27, 2003

King, Vice-Admiral (Ret'd) James

As an individual

May 12, 2003

King, Vice-Admiral (Ret’d) Jim

Vice-President, Atlantic

CFN Consultants

May 5, 2005

Kloster, Mr. Deryl

Emergency Response Department

City of Edmonton

January 28, 2003

Kobolak, Mr. Tom

Senior Program Officer, Contraband and Intelligence

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

April 7, 2003

Koch, Major Pat

J5, CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Koop, Mr. Rudy

Research Adviser, Canadian Section

International Joint Commission

March 29, 2004

Knapp, Corporal Raymond

CFB Borden Technical Services

June 25-27, 2002

Kneale, Mr. John

Executive Coordinator, Task Force on

Enhanced Representation in the U.S

Foreign Affairs Canada

April 11, 2005

Krause,Lieutenant ColonelWayne

423 Maritime Helicopter Squadron

12 Wing Shearwater

January 22-24, 2002

Krueger, Master Corporal

8 Air Maintenance Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Kubeck, Commander Kimberley

Naval Control of Shipping Intelligence, Department of National Defence

September 25, 2003

Kummel, Colonel Steff J.

Wing Commander, 17 Wing Winnipeg

National Defence

March 10, 2005

Kurzynski,MajorPerry

Search and Rescue Operations Centre

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Kwasnicki, Corporal Anita

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Lachance, Mr. Sylvain

A/Director General, Fleet

Canadian Coast Guard

February 17, 2003

Lacroix, Colonel Jocelyn P.P.J.

Commander, 5th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Lacroix, Colonel Roch

Chief of Staff, Land Force Atlantic Area

National Defence

May 6, 2005

Laflamme, Mr. Art

Senior Representative

Air Line Pilots Association, International

August 14, 2002

LaFrance,Mr.Albert

Director, Northern New Brunswick District

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

January 22-24, 2002

Lafrenière, Major Luc

Commander, Headquarters and Signal Squadron

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Laing,Captain (Navy)Kevin

Director, Maritime Strategy, Chief of Maritime Staff, National Defence

July 18, 2001

Lait, Commander K.B.

Commander, Directorate of Quality of Life,

DQOL 3 - Accommodation Policy Team Leader, National Defence

June 6, 2005

Lalonde, Major John

Air Reserve Coordinator (Western Area)

National Defence

March 8, 2005

Landry, Chief Warrant Officer André

1st Battalion, 22nd Royal Regiment

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Landry, LCol (Ret’d) Rémi

International Security Study and Research Group

University of Montreal

June 2, 2005

Landry, Inspector Sam

Officer in Charge, Toronto Airport Detachment

RCMP

June 24, 2002

Langelier, Mr. André

Director, Emergency and Protective Services, City of Gatineau

February 3, 2003

Laprade, CWO Daniel

Headquarters and Signal Squadron

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Laroche, Colonel J.R.M.G.

National Defence

May 2, 2005

Larrabee, Mr. Bryan

Emergency Social Services Coordinator, Board of Parks and Recreation, City of Vancouver

January 30, 2003

Last, Colonel David

Registrar

Royal Military College of Canada

November 29, 2004

Leblanc,Ms.Annie

Acting Director, Technology and Lawful Access Division, Solicitor General of Canada

July 19, 2001

LeBoldus, Mr. Mick

Chief Representative at the NATO Flight Training Centre

Bombardier Aerospace

March 9, 2005

Lefebvre, Mr. Denis

Executive Vice-President

Canada Border Services Agency

February 7, 2005

Lefebvre, Denis

Assistant Commissioner, Customs Branch

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

May 6, 2004, February 10, 2003

Lefebvre, Mr. Paul

President, Local Lodge 2323

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

August 15, 2002

Legault, Mr. Albert

Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

February 21, 2005

Leighton, Lieutenant-Commander John

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Lenton,Assistant Commissioner W.A. (Bill)

RCMP

January 28, 2002, June 9, 2003

Leonard, Lieutenant-Colonel S.P.

Royal Newfoundland Regiment

(1^st Battalion)

February 2, 2005

LePine, Mr. Peter

Inspector, Halifax Detachment

RCMP

September 23, 2003

Lerhe,CommodoreE.J. (Eric)

Commander, Canadian Fleet Pacific

Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Leslie, Major-General Andrew

Canadian Forces

November 29, 2004

Lessard, Brigadier-General J.G.M.

Commander, Land Forces Central Area

December 2, 2004

Lester, Mr. Michael

Executive Director, Emergency Measures Organization

Nova Scotia Public Safety Anti-Terrorism Senior Officials Committee

September 23, 2003

Levy,Mr.Bruce

Director, U.S. Transboundary Division

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

January 28, 2002

Lichtenwald, Chief Jack

Regina Fire Department

City of Regina

January 27, 2003

Lilienthal, Lieutenant-Colonel Mark

Senior Staff Officer

Canadian Forces Support Training Group

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Loeppky,Deputy CommissionerGarry

Operations

RCMP

October 22, 2001 / December 2, 2002

Logan, Major Mike

Deputy Administration Officer, Canadian Forces Support Training Group

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Loschiuk, Ms Wendy

Principal

Office of the Auditor General of Canada

December 6, 2004

Lucas,Major GeneralSteve

Commander One Canadian Air Division, Canadian NORAD Region Headquarters

November 18-22, 2001

Luciak, Mr. Ken

Director, Emergency Medical Services City of Regina

January 27, 2003

Luloff, Ms. Janet

A/Director, Regulatory Affairs, Safety and Security Group, Transport Canada

November 27, 2002, December 2, 2002

Lupien,Chief Petty Officer First ClassR.M.

Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer

Department of National Defence

December 03, 2001

Lyrette, Private Steve

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Macaleese, Lieutenant-Colonel Jim

Commander

9 Wing (Gander)

February 2, 2005

Macdonald,Lieutenant-GeneralGeorge

Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

Department of National Defence

January 28, 2002, May 6, 2002, August 14, 2002, February 23, 2004

Mack,Rear AdmiralIan

Defence Attaché

Canadian Embassy (Washington)

February 04, 2002

MacKay, Major Tom

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

MacKenzie, Major-General (Ret'd) Lewis

As an individual

May 3, 2004, December 6, 2004

MacIsaac, Captain (N) Roger

Base Commander, CFB Halifax

National Defence

May 6, 2005

MacLaughlan, Superintendent C.D. (Craig), Officer in Charge, Support Services ``H'' Division, RCMP

September 22, 2003

MacLaughlan, Mr. Craig

Executive Director, Emergency

Measures Organization

Province of Nova Scotia

May 6, 2005

MacLean, Vice-Admiral Bruce

Chief of Maritime Staff

National Defence

February 14, 2005

MacLeod,ColonelBarry W.

Commander 3 Area Support Group

CFB Gagetown

January 22-24, 2002

Macnamara, Mr. W. Donald

Senior Fellow

Queen’s University

November 29, 2004

Macnamara, Brigadier-General (ret'd) W. Don, President, Conference of Defence Associations Institute

May 3, 2004

MacQuarrie, Captain Don

CFB Kingtson

May 7-9, 2002

Maddison, Vice Admiral.Greg

Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff

National Defence

May 5, 2002, February 14, 2005

Magee, Mr. Andee

Dog Master

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

May 7-9, 2002

Maher,LieutenantEarl

4 ESR

CFB Gagetown

January 21-24, 2002

Maillet, Acting School Chief Warrant Officer Joseph

Canadian Forces School of Communications and Electronics, CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Maines, Warren

Director, Customer Service

Air Canada

June 4, 2002

Maisonneuve,Major-GeneralJ.O. Michel

Assistant Deputy Chief of Defence Staff

October 22, 2001

Malboeuf, Corporal Barry

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Malec,Mr.George

Assistant Harbour master

Halifax Port Authority

January 22-24, 2002

Mallory, Mr. Dan

Chief of Operations for Port of Lansdowne

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

May 7-9, 2002

Mandel, Mr. Stephen

Deputy Mayor and Councillor

City of Edmonton

January 28, 2003

Manning, Corporal Rob

CFB Borden Technical Services

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Manuel, Mr. Barry

Coordinator, Emergency Measures Organization, City of Halifax

May 6, 2005 / September 23, 2003

Marcewicz, Lieutenant-Colonel

Base Commander, CFB Edmonton

National Defence

March 7, 2005

Martin, Ms Barbara

Director, Defence and Security Relations

Division, Foreign Affairs Canada

April 11, 2005

Martin, Mr. Ronald

Emergency Planning Coordinator

City of Vancouver

January 30, 2003, March 1, 2005

Mason, Lieutenant-Colonel Dave

Commanding Officer, 12 Air Maintenance Squadron, 12 Wing Shearwater

January 22-24, 2002

Mason,Mr.Dwight

Joint Chief of Staff, U.S. Chair, Permanent Joint Board on Defence

The Pentagon

February 06, 2002

Mason,Ms.Nancy

Director, Office of Canadian Affairs, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

U.S. Department of State

February 06, 2002

Massicotte,MsOlga

Regional Director General/Atlantic

Veterans Affairs Canada

January 22-24, 2002

Matheson, Corporal

2 Air Movement Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Matte, Colonel Perry

14 Wing Commander

National Defence

May 5, 2005

Mattie,Chief Warrant OfficerFred

12 Air Maintenance Squadron

12 Wing Shearwater

January 22-24, 2002

Mattiussi, Mr. Ron

Director of Planning and Corporate Services

City of Kelowna

March 1, 2005

Maude, Master Corporal Kelly

436 Transport Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

McAdam, Lieutenant-Colonel Pat

Tactics School, C.F.B. Gagetown

National Defence

January 31, 2005

McCoy, Chief Warrant Officer Daniel

Support Unit, 430th Helicopters Squadron

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

McCuaig, Mr. Bruce

Assistant Deputy Minister

Policy, Planning and Standards Division

Ontario Ministry of Transportation

December 1, 2004

McDonald, Corporal Marcus

Canadian Forces Medical Services School

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

McIlhenny,Mr.Bill

Director for Canada and Mexico

U.S. National Security Council

February 07, 2002

McInenly, Mr. Peter

Vice-President, Business Alignment

Canada Post

August 15, 2002

McKeage, Mr. Michael

Director of Operations, Emergency Medical Care

Halifax Regional Municipality

September 23, 2003

McKerrell, Mr. Neil

Chief, Emergency Management Ont.

Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

October 30, 2003

McKinnon,ChiefDavid P.

Chief of Police

Halifax Regional Police Force

January 22-24, 2002

McKinnon, Lieutenant-Colonel DB

P.E.I. Regiment

February 1, 2005

McLean, Corporal

Wing Operations

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

McLellan, The Honourable Anne, P.C. M.P.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public

Safety and Emergency Preparedness

February 15, 2005 & April 11, 2005

McLellan, Mr. George

Chief Administrative Officer

Halifax Regional Municipality

September 23, 2003

McLeod, Mr. Dave

Lead Station Attendant

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

August 15, 2002

McManus,Lieutenant-ColonelJ.J. (John), Commanding Officer, 443 (MH) Squadron,

Maritime Air Force Command Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

McNeil, Rear-Admiral Dan

Commander, Maritime Forces Atlantic

National Defence

May 6, 2005

McNeil, Commodore Daniel

Vice Chief of the Defence Staff Department of National Defence

July 18, 2001

McNeil,CommodoreDaniel

Director, Force Planning and Program Coordination, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

Department of National Defence

July 18, 2001

McRoberts, Mr.Hugh

Assistant Auditor General

Office of the Auditor General of Canada

December 6, 2004

Mean, Master Corporal Jorge

Canadian Forces School of Aerospace Technology and Engineering

June 25-27, 2002

Meisner, Mr. Tim

Director, Policy and Legislation, Marine Programs Directorate

Canadian Coast Guard

February 17, 2003, April 7, 2003

Melançon, Lieutenant-Colonel René

Infantry School

C.F.B. Gagetown

National Defence

January 31, 2005

Melis, Ms. Caroline

Director, Program Development,

Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

March 17, 2003

Mercer,Mr.Wayne

Acting First Vice-President, Nova Scotia District Branch, (CEUDA)

January 22-24, 2002

Merpaw, Ms. Diane

Acting Deputy Director, Policy Development and Coordination

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

April 7, 2003

Michaud, Mr. Jean-Yves, Deputy Director, Administrative Support Directorate, City of Montreal

September 26, 2003

Middlemiss, Professor Danford W.

Department of Political Science

Dalhousie University

May 12, 2003, May 5, 2005

Miller, Lieutenant-Colonel

Commander,

10^th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA

National Defence

March 9, 2005

Miller,Mr.Frank

Senior Director, President’s Adviser on Military Matters

U.S. National Security Council

February 7, 2002

Milner, Dr. Marc

Director, Military and Strategic Studies

Program

University of New Brunswick

January 31, 2005

Minto,Mr.Shahid

Assistant Auditor General

Office of the Auditor General of Canada

December 10, 2001

Mitchell,Mr.Barry

Director, Nova Scotia District

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

January 22-24, 2002

Mitchell,Brigadier GeneralGreg

Commander

Land Forces Atlantic Area

January 22-24, 2002

Mogan,Mr.Darragh

Director General, Program and Service Policy Division, Veterans Services

Veterans Affairs Canada

January 22-24, 2002

Morency, André

Regional Director General, Ontario Region, Transport Canada

June 24, 2002

Morris,Ms.Linda

Director, Public Affairs

Vancouver Port Authority

November 18-22, 2001

Morton, Dr. Desmond

Professor

University of McGill

November 15, 2004

Moutillet, Lieutenant-Commander Mireille

Senior Staff Officer Policy

National Defence

September 25, 2003

Mulder, Mr. Nick

President, Mulder Management Associates

June 9, 2003

Mundy, Lieutenant-Commander Phil

Executive Officer

H.M.C.S. Queen Charlotte

February 1, 2005

Munger,Chief Warrant OfficerJER

Office of Land Force Command

Department of National Defence

December 03, 2001

Munroe, Ms. Cathy

Regional Director of Cutsoms for Northern Ontario

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

May 7-9, 2002

Murphy,Captain (N)R.D. (Dan)

Deputy Commander, Canadian Fleet Pacific

Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Murray,Ms.Anne C.

Vice President, Community and Environmental Affairs, Vancouver International Airport Authority

November 18-22, 2001

Murray, Major James

Commandant, Canadian Forces Fire Academy

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Murray,Admiral (Ret’d)Larry

Deputy Minister

Veterans Affairs Canada

January 22-24, 2002

Mushanski, Lieutenant Commander Linda

Commanding Officer

HMCS Queen (Regina)

January 27, 2003

Narayan,Mr.Francis

Detector Dog Service

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

November 18-22, 2001

Nelligan, Mr. John Patrick

Senior Partner, Law Firm of Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP, Ottawa

December 2, 2002

Neumann,Ms.Susanne M.

Compliance Verification Officer

Customs – Compliance Mgt. Division

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

November 18-22, 2001

Neville,Lieutenant-ColonelShirley

Wing Administration Officer, Acting Wing Commander, 17 Wing

17 Wing Winnipeg

November 18-22, 2001

Newberry,Mr.Robert J.

Principal Director, Territorial Security

The Pentagon

February 06, 2002

Newton,CaptainJohn F.

Senior Staff Officer, Operations

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Niedtner, Inspector Al

Vancouver Police, Emergency Operations and Planning Sector

City of Vancouver

January 30, 2003

Nikolic, Mr. Darko

District Director, St.Lawrence District

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

May 7-9, 2002

Noël, Chief Warrant Officer Donald

5th Field Ambulance

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Nordick, Brigadier-General Glenn

Deputy Commander,Land Force Doctrine and Training Systems, CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Norman, Mr. Mark

President of Daimler-Chrysler and Chair of the Infrastructure Committee

Canadian Automotive Partnership Council

December 1, 2004

Normoyle, Ms. Debra

Director General, Enforcement Branch

Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

April 7, 2003

Normoyle, Ms. Debra

Head, Immigration Enforcement

Canada Border Services Agency

February 23, 2004

Nossal, Dr. Kim Richard

Professor and Head, Political Studies

Department

Queen’s University

November 29, 2004

Nymark,Ms.Christine

Associate Assistant Deputy Minister

Transport Canada

January 28, 2002

O’Bright,Mr.Gary

Director General, Operations

Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness

July 19, 2001, October 20, 2003

O’Donnell, Mr. Patrick

President

Canadian Defence Industries Association

November 22, 2004

O’Hanlon,Mr. Michael

Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies

The Brookings Institution

February 05, 2002

O’Shea,Mr.Kevin

Director, U.S. General Relations Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

January 28, 2002

Olchowiecki, Private Chrissian

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Orr, Major Ken

Senior Staff Officer, Attraction Canadian Forces Recruiting Group

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Ortiz,The HonorableSolomon P.

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Readiness (Democrat – Texas)

U.S. House Armed Services Committee

February 06, 2002

Ouellet, Chief Warrant Officer J.S.M.

5th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Ouellet, Major Michel

Acting Commanding Officer, 5th Canadian Service Battalion

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Ouellette, Lieutenant-Colonel Bernard

Commander, 2nd Battalion, 22nd Royal Regiment, CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Parker, Major Geoff

Infantry

CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Parks, Lieutenant-Commander Mike

Directorate of Army Training 5-4

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Parriag, Ms Amanda

Centre for Research and Information on

Canada

December 6, 2004

Pasel, Mr. William

Emergency Measures Coordinator, Hamilton Emergency Services Department, City of Hamilton

March 31, 2003

Pataracchia, Lieutenant (N) John

Representing Commanding Officer, Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre, Halifax

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Paulson, Captain (N) Gary

Commanding Officer of HMCS Algonquin

Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Payne,Captain (N)Richard

Commanding Officer, Fleet Mantenance Facility Cape Scott

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Pearson,Lieutenant ColonelMichael

Commandant of Infantry School SAT

CFB Gagetown

January 22-24, 2002

Pellerin,Colonel (Ret’d)Alain

Executive Director

Conference of Defence Associations

October 15, 2001, April 19, 2004

Pelletier, France

Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Airline Division

Canadian Union of Public Employees

November 25, 2002

Penner, Lieutenant-Colonel Doug

Commanding Officer, North Saskatchewan Regiment (Saskatoon)

January 27, 2003

Pennie, Lieutenant-General Ken

Chief of Air Staff

National Defence

February 7, 2005

Pentland, Mr. Charles

Political Studies, Centre for International

Relations, Queen’s University

November 29, 2004

Pentney, Mr. Bill

Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Department of Justice Canada

February 15, 2005

Peters,ColonelWilliam

Director, Land Strategic Planning, Chief of the Land Staff

National Defence

July 18, 2001

Petras, Major-General H.M.

Chief, Reserves and Cadets

National Defence

June 6, 2005

Pettigrew, Master Corporal Robert

Canadian Forces School of Administration and Logistics, CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Pharand,M.Pierre

Director, Airport Security

Montréal Airports

November 5-6, 2001

Pichette, Mr. Pierre Paul, Deputy Director, Operational Management Department, Montreal Police Service, City of Montreal

September 26, 2003

Pichette,Mr.Pierre-Paul

Assistant Director, Montreal Urban Community Police Department

November 5-6, 2001

Pigeon, Mr. Jacques

Senior General Counsel and Head, Department of Justice, Legal Services

Transport Canada

December 2, 2002

Pigeon,Mr.Jean François

Acting Director, Security

Montréal Airports

November 5-6, 2001

Pile, Commodore Ty

Commander, Canadian Fleet Atlantic

National Defence

May 6, 2005

Pile,Captain (N)T.H.W. (Tyron)

Commander, Maritime Operations Group Four, Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Pilgrim,SuperintendentJ. Wayne

Officer in Charge, National Security Investigations Branch, Criminal Intelligence Directorate, RCMP

July 19, 2001

Pilon, Mr. Marc

Senior Policy Analyst, Security Policy Division, National Security Directorate

Office of the Solicitor General

February 24, 2003

Pinsent, Major John

Canadian Parachute Centre, 8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Pitman,Mr.B.R. (Brian)

Sergeant, Waterfront Joint Forces Operation, Vancouver

Royal Canadian. Mounted Police

November 18-22, 2001

Plante, Master Corporal

8 Air Maintenance Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Poirier, Mr. Paul

Director, Intelligence and Contraband Division

Northern Ontario Region

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

May 7-9, 2002

Polson, Captain (N) Gary

Commanding Officer

HMCS Algonquin

Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Potvin, Corporal

8 Air Maintenance Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Poulin, Corporal Mario

Canadian Forces Military Police Academy

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Preece,Captain (N)Christian

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Préfontaine, Colonel Marc

Comd 34 Brigade Group Executive

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Primeau,M.Pierre

Investigator

Organized Crime Task Force – RCMP

November 5-6, 2001

Proulx,Asst. CommissionerRichard

Criminal Intelligence Directorate

RCMP

October 22, 2001

Purdy, Ms. Margaret

Associate Deputy Minister

Department of National Defence

August 14, 2002

Puxley, Ms Evelyn

Director, International Crime and Terrorism

Division, Foreign Affairs Canada

April 11, 2005

Quick, Mr. Dave

Co-ordinator, Emergency Planning

City of Regina

January 27, 2003

Quinlan, Grant

Security Inspector

Transport Canada

June 24, 2002

Raimkulov, M.P., Mr. Asan

Kyrgyz Republic

May 12, 2003

Randall, Dr. Stephen J.

Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences

University of Calgary

March 8, 2005

Rapanos, Mr. Steve

Chief, Emergency Medical Services

City of Edmonton

January 28, 2003

Rathwell, Mr. Jacques

Manager, Emergency and Protective Services, City of Gatineau

February 3, 2003

Read, Mr. John A.

Director General, Transport Dangerous Goods, Transport Canada

February 25, 2004

Reaume, Mr. Al, Assistant Chief of Fire and Rescue Services, Fire Department, City of Windsor

February 27, 2003

Reed,The HonorableJack

Chair (Democrat – Rhode Island), U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee

February 05, 2002

Regehr, Mr. Ernie

Executive Director

Project Ploughshares

March 21, 2005

Reid, Chief Warrant Officer Clifford

Canadian Forces Fire Academy

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Reid,Lieutenant ColonelGord

Commandant, Canadian Forces Air Navigation School (CFANS)

17 Wing Winnipeg

November 18-22, 2001

Reid, Warrant Officer Jim

Air Defence Missile

CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Renahan, Captain Chris

Armour

CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Richard, CWO Stéphane

5th Canadian Service Battalion

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Richmond,Mr.Craig

Vice President, Airport Operations

Vancouver International Airport

November 18-22, 2001

Richter, Dr. Andrew

Assistant Professor, International Relations and Strategic Studies

University of Windsor

December 1, 2004

Riffou, Lieutenant-Colonel François

Commander, 1st Battalion, 22nd Royal Regiment, CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Rivest, Master Corporal Dan

Canadian Forces School of Aerospace Technology and Engineering, CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Robertson, Rear-Admiral Drew W.

Director General, International Security Policy Department of National Defence

February 23, 2004, April 11, 2005

Robertson, Mr. John

Chief Building Inspector

City of Vancouver

January 30, 2003

Robinson, Second Lieutenant. Chase

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2001

Rochette, Colonel J.G.C.Y.

Director General Compensation and

Benefits

National Defence

June 6, 2005

Romses, Brigadier-General R.R.

Commander

Land Forces Atlantic Area

National Defence

January 31, 2005

Rose,Mr.Frank

International Security Policy

The Pentagon

February 6, 2002

Ross,Major-GeneralH. Cameron

Director General, International Security Policy, National Defence

January 28, 2002

Ross, Mr. Dan

Assistant Deputy Minister (Information Management), National Defence

February 14, 2005

Ross, Dr. Douglas

Professor, Faculty of Political Science

Simon Fraser University

March 1, 2005

Ross, Master Warrant Officer Marc-André, 58th Air Defence Battery

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Rossell, Inspector Dave

Inspector in charge of Operations-Support Services, Windsor Police Services City of Windsor

February 27, 2003

Rostis, Mr. Adam

Federal/Provincial/Municipal Liaison Officer

Province of Nova Scotia

May 6, 2005

Rousseau, Colonel Christian

Commanding Officer, 5^th Area Support Group

National Defence

June 1, 2005

Rudner, Dr. Martin

Director, Centre for Security and Defence Studies, Carleton University

June 3, 2004 / December 13, 2004

Rumsfeld,The HonorableDonald

U.S. Secretary of Defense

February 06, 2002

Rurak, Ms. Angela

Customs Inspector

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

May 7-9, 2002

Russell, Mr. Robert A., Assistant Commissioner, Atlantic Region, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

September 22, 2003

Rutherford, Master Corporal Denis

Canadian Forces Fire Academy

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Rutherford, Lieutenant-Colonel Paul

Commander, 73 Communication Group

National Defence

March 9, 2005

Salesses,Lieutenant ColonelBob

Logistics Directorate for Homeland Security, The Pentagon

February 6, 2002

Samson, Chief Warrant Officer Camil

2nd Battalion, 22nd Royal Regiment

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Samson, Brigadier-General P.M.

Director General, Intelligence

National Defence

October 22, 2001

Sanderson, Mr. Chuck

Executive Director, Emergency Measures Organization, Province of Manitoba

March 10, 2005

Saunders, Corporal Cora

16 Wing

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Saunders, Captain Kimberly

Disaster Assistance Response Team

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Savard, Lieutenant-Colonel Danielle

Commander, 5th Field Ambulance

CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Schmick, Major Grant

Commanding Officer, Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre, CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Scoffield, Mr. Bruce

Director, Refugees Branch

Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada

March 17, 2003

Scott, Dr. Jeff

Provincial Medical Officer of Health

Halifax Regional Municipality

September 23, 2003

Scott, Captain John

Canadian Parachute Centre

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Sensenbrenner, Jr.,The HonorableF. James, Chair (Republican – Wisconsin

U.S. House Judiciary Committee

February 07, 2002

Shadwick, Mr. Martin

Research Associate, Centre for International and Security Studies, York University

December 2, 2004

Shapardanov,Mr.Chris

Counsellor, Political

Canadian Embassy (Washington)

February 04, 2002

Sharapov, M.P., Mr. Zakir

Kyrgyz Republic

May 12, 2003

Sheehy, Captain Matt

Chairman, Security Committee

Air Canada Pilots Association

November 4, 2002

Sheridan, Norman

Director, Customs Passenger Programs

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

June 24, 2002

Sigouin, Mr. Michel

Regional Director, Alberta, Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness

October 27, 2003

Simmons,Mr.Robert

Deputy Director, Office of European Security and Political Affairs

U.S. Department of State

February 6, 2002

Sinclair,Ms.Jill

Director General, International Security Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

March 17, 2003

Sinclair,Ms.Jill

Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Global Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

January 28, 2002 / August 14, 2002

Sirois, Lieutenant-Colonel Sylvain

Commander, 5th Combat Engineer Regiment, CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Skelton,The HonorableIke

Ranking Member (Democrat Missouri), U.S. House Armed Services Committee

February 6, 2002

Skidd, Officer Cadet. Alden

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Skidmore, Colonel Mark

Commander, 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, CFB Petawawa

June 25-27, 2002

Slater,Ms.Scenery C.

District Program Officer

Metro Vancouver District

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

November 18-22, 2001

Smith, Corporal

Canadian Postal Unit

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Smith, Captain (N) Andy

Commanding Officer, Fleet Maintenance

Facility, National Defence

May 6, 2005

Smith, Mr. Bob

Deputy Chief, Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services, City of Vancouver

January 30, 2003

Smith, Mr. Bill

Chief Superintendent

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

February 3, 2005

Smith, Mr. Doug

Engineering Department

City of Vancouver

January 30, 2003

Smith, Master Corporal Terry

436 Transport Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Snow, Master Corporal Joanne

Canadian Forces School of Administration and Logistics, CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Sokolsky, Dr. Joel

Dean of Arts and Professor of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada

November 22, 2004

Spraggett, Ernest

Director, Commercial Operations

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

June 24, 2002

Stacey, Corporal Derrick

CFB Borden Administration Services

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Stairs, Dr. Denis

Professor, Department of Political Science

Dalhousie University

May 5, 2005

Starck,Mr.Richard

Senior Counsel, Quebec Regional Office, Department of Justice

November 5-6, 2001

Stark,Lieutenant-CommanderGary

Commanding Officer, HMCS Whitehorse, Maritime Forces Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

St-Cyr, Lieutenant-Colonel Pierre

Commander, Support Unit, 430th Helicopters Squadron, CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Stevens, Pipe-Major Cameron

The Black Watch

November 5-6, 2002

Stewart, Warrant Officer Barton

Canadian Forces School of Communications and Electronics, CFB Kingtson

May 7-9, 2002

Stewart,Mr.James

Civilian Human Resources

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Stewart, Chief William

Fire Chief and General Manager, Toronto Fire Services, City of Toronto

October 30, 2003

Stiff, Mr. Bob

General Manager, Corporate Security

Canada Post

August 15, 2002

St. John, Mr. Peter

Professor (retired), International Relations, University of Manitoba

November 25, 2002

St. John, Dr. Ron

Executive Director, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response Health Canada

February 10, 2003

Stone, Master Corporal

Canadian Parachute Centre

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

St-Pierre,M.Jacquelin

Commanding Officer, Post 5, Montreal Urban Community Police Department

November 5-6, 2001

Stump,The HonorableBob

Chair (Republican – Arizona)

U.S. House Armed Services Committee

February 6, 2002

Sullivan, Colonel C.S.

Wing Commander, 4 Wing Cold Lake

National Defence

March 7, 2005

Sully, Mr. Ron

Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs and Divestiture, Transport Canada

February 7, 2005

Summers, Rear-Admiral (Ret’d) Ken

Naval Officers Association of Vancouver

Island

February 28, 2005

Szczerbaniwicz,LColGary

Commanding Officer, 407 Squadron

Maritime Air Force Command Pacific

November 18-22, 2001

Taillon, Mr. Paul

Director, Review and Military Liaison

Office of the Communications Security

Establishment Commissioner

June 2, 2005

Tait, Mr. Glen

Chief, Saint John Fire Department, City of Saint John

March 31, 2003

Tarrant, Lieutenant-Colonel Tom

Deputy Director of Army Training

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Tatersall, Lieutenant-Commander John

Directorate of Army Training 3

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Taylor,The HonorableGene

Subcommittee on Military Procurement U.S. House Armed Services Committee February 6, 2002

Taylor,Mr.Robert

Inspector

Vancouver Police Department

November 18-22, 2001

Taylor, The Honourable Trevor

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
and Minister Responsible for Labrador

Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador

February 3, 2005

Theilmann, Mr.Mike

Acting Director, Counter-Terrorism Division, Solicitor General Canada

July 19, 2001

Thibault, Master Corporal Christian

Gulf Squadron

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Thomas, Vice-Admiral (Ret’d) Charles

As an individual

March 1, 2005

Thomas, Mr. John F.

Partner

BMB Consulting

June 9, 2003

Thompson, Ms Susan

Former Mayor of the City of Winnipeg

As an individual

March 10, 2005

Tracy, Ms Maureen

Acting Head, Customs Contraband, Intelligence and Investigations, Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency

February 7, 2005

Tracy, Ms. Maureen

Director, Policy and Operations Division

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

April 7, 2003

Tremblay, Colonel Alain

Commander, Canadian Forces Recruiting Group, CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Tremblay, Lieutenant-Colonel Eric

Commander, 5th Canadian Light Artillery Regiment, CFB Valcartier

September 24, 2003

Tremblay, Captain (N) Viateur

Deputy Commander, Naval Reserve

Department of National Defence

September 25, 2003

Trim, Corporal

8 Air Maintenance Squadron, 8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Trottier, Lieutenant-Colonel Ron (Res)

Windsor Regiment

December 1, 2004

Tulenko, Mr. Timothy

Political-Military Officer, Canadian Affairs, U.S. Department of State

February 06, 2002

Ur, Corporal Melanie

16 Wing, CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Verga,Mr.Peter F.

Special Assistant for Homeland Security, The Pentagon

February 06, 2002

Villiger, Lieutenant-Colonel F.L.

Calgary Highlanders

National Defence

March 8, 2005

Wainwright, Lieutenant-Colonel J.E.

Commander, 16/17 Field Ambulance

National Defence

March 9, 2005

Wamback,Lieutenant-Commander A.

Commanding Officer, HMCS Windsor

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Ward, Master Corporal Danny

Canadian Forces School of Aerospace Technology and Engineering, CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Ward, Officer Cadet. Declan

Student

McGill University

November 5-6, 2002

Ward,ColonelMike J.

Commander Combat Training Centre

CFB Gagetown

January 22-24, 2002

Ward, Master Corporal

Wing Operations

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Wareham, Corporal

8 Air Maintenance Squadron

8 Wing Trenton

June 25-27, 2002

Wark,ProfessorWesley K.

Associate Professor in the Deptartment of History, Trinity College

University of Toronto

October 1, 2001, May 5, 2003

Warner,The HonorableJohn

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee

February 05, 2002

Warren, Mr. Earle

Director General, Major Projects Design and Development Directorate, Customs Branch

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

February 10, 2003

Watt, Major John

Commanding Officer, Bravo Squadron

CFB Kingtson

May 7-9, 2002

Watts,Chief Warrant OfficerErnest

3 Area Support Group

CFB Gagetown

January 22-24, 2002

Weighill, Mr. Clive

Deputy Chief of Police

City of Regina

January 27, 2003

Weldon,The HonorableCurt

Chair, Subcommittee on Military Procurement (Republican – Pennsylvania)

U.S. House Armed Services Committee

February 06, 2002

Wells, Corporal Corwin

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Werny, Colonel W.S.

Commanding Officer, Aerospace Engineering

Test Establishment

National Defence

March 7, 2005

Whalen, Private Clayton

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Whitburn,Lieutenant ColonelTom

Squadron 435

17 Wing Winnipeg

November 18-22, 2001

White, Lieutenant (N) Troy

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

Wicks, Major Brian

Commander, 103 Search and Rescue Squadron (Gander)

February 2, 2005

Williams, Mr. Alan

Assistant Deputy Minister (Material)

National Defence

November 1, 2004

Williams, Captain (N) Kelly

Former Commanding Officer, HMCS Winnipeg, National Defence

September 22, 2003

Williams, Col. Richard

Director, Western Hemisphere Policy

Department of National Defence

May 6, 2002, March 17, 2003

Wilmink, Mr. Chuck

Consultant

November 4, 2004

Wilson, Mr. Larry

Regional Director, Maritimes

Canadian Coast Guard

September 22, 2003

Wing, Mr. Michael

National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees

September 22, 2003

Winn, Mr. Conrad

President and CEO

COMPASS

December 2, 2004

Wolsey, Chief Randy

Fire Rescue Services, Emergency Response Department

City of Edmonton

January 28, 2003

Woodburn,CommanderWilliam

Submarine Division

Maritime Forces Atlantic

January 22-24, 2002

Woods, Corporal Connor

Canadian Forces Medical Services School

CFB Borden

June 25-27, 2002

Wright, Mr. James R.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Global and Security Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

February 23, 2004

Wright, Robert

Commissioner

Canada Customs and Revenue Agency

May 6, 2002

Wright, Mr. James R.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Global and Security Policy, Privy Council Office

February 23, 2004

Wynnyk, Colonel P.F.

Area Support Unit Commander

National Defence

March 7, 2005

Yanow, Rear-Admiral (Ret’d) Robert

As an individual

March 1, 2005

Young, Brigadier-General G.A. (Res)

Deputy Commander, Land Forces Central

Area

December 2, 2004

Young, Dr. James

Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Safety and Commissioner of Public Security, Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

October 30, 2003

Young, Major Marc

CFB Kingston

May 7-9, 2002

APPENDIX IV

66 Questions – Border Security

Response to the Standing Senate Committee on

National Security and Defence

Canada Border Services Agency

February 1, 2005

Personnel

Q1. How many land border crossings are there in Canada that employ customs officers?

A1. There are 119 highway land borders crossings. We classify these sites as being a direct highway border arrival/reporting office for vehicles and people from the United States.

Q2. How many international airports are there in Canada that employ customs officers?

A2. There are 13 major international airports that are staffed by CBSA officers:

§ Victoria International Airport, BC

§ Vancouver International Airport, BC

§ Edmonton International Airport, AB

§ Calgary International Airport, AB

§ Winnipeg International, MB

§ Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Toronto, ON

§ MacDonald Cartier International Airport, Ottawa, ON

§ Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport, Dorval, QC

§ Jean Lesage International Airport, Quebec City, QC

§ Halifax International Airport, NS

§ Greater Moncton International Airport, NB

§ Gander International Airport, NL

§ St. John’s International Airport, NL

All passenger flights at Mirabel were transferred to Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport on November 1, 2004. Currently, only flights transporting international commercial goods are processed at the Mirabel airport.

In addition, there are 193 airports in Canada that are not classified as international but receive charter and trans-border flights and are serviced by CBSA officers.

Q3. How many marine ports are there in Canada that employ customs officers?

A3. Service is provided to more than 220 commercial marine vessel sites, 15 cruise ships sites, and 11 ferry clearance sites. As well, service is provided to more than 470 private marinas on a call-out basis. The CBSA has 3 major marine container examination centres that are staffed by officers on a permanent basis, Vancouver Marine Operations, BC; Montreal Marine Operations, QC and Halifax, NS.

Q4. How many full-time, indeterminate employees work at each land border crossing, international airport, and marine port?

A4. The following figures represent full-time (FTE - full time equivalent)indeterminate employees on strength for fiscal year 2003/2004:

Land Border Crossings: 2,006

International Airports: 1,133

Marine ports: 192

To these numbers we can also add for 2004approximately 700 Ports of Entry Officers (CIC) and 105 CFIA Inspectors.

Q5. How many student customs officers work at each land border crossing, international airport, and marine port?

A5. The following numbers represent student customs officers working at the various locations across Canadain July 2004. Our peak period for employing student customs officers is the month of July.

Land Border Crossings: 589

International Airports: 306

Marine ports: 79

Other: 155

Total: 1,129 student customs officers for 2004

Q6. What, if any, are the different classifications of border crossings? Please define each.

A6. The different classifications of border crossings are as follows:

Airport of Entry: An authorized airport of entry for customs clearance of all classes of scheduled and non-scheduled aircrafts (passenger and cargo).

Airport of Entry/CANPASS: An airport of entry designated for CANPASS permit holders.

Airport of Entry/Commercial: Anairport of entry solely for the clearance of commercial goods arriving by air transport.

Airport of Entry/Military: An airport of entry solely for clearance of military aircraft only (unless otherwise designated).

Commercial Vessel: An authorized marine site where commercial vessels, other than ferryboats or cruise ships, report to customs.

CANPASS- Private Boats: Anauthorized marine port of entry solely for CANPASS Private Boat Program permit holders.

Customs Mail Center: An office for the customs processing and examination of international mail.

Cruise Ship Operations: An authorized disembarkation site for passengers and crew for all types of cruise ships.

Designated Commercial Office: An office that provides 24-hour service, 7-days-a-week, for reporting and clearing of commercial goods.

Ferry Terminal: An authorized point of entry for the disembarkation of passengers and/or vehicles arriving by ferry.

Inland Alternate Service: A location not staffed by CBSA customs, at which commercial clearance services are provided by an identified hub office.

Hub-Central Office: An office responsible for providing service to inland alternate service sites and other service locations reporting to the hub.

Highway (Land Border Office): An authorized port of entry from the United States for the clearance of passengers and/or commercial highway traffic arriving by land.

Inland Customs Office: A CBSA customs office classified as a non-direct point of entry, which provides a full range of customs services to the general public and to other service sites. (e.g. in-bond highway, marine, rail, etc.)

Railway Depot: An authorized point of entry for the reporting of passengers and/or freight arriving by rail.

Telephone Reporting Site (Marine): A location at which non-commercial, private and passenger marine vessels may report to customs by telephone.

Q7. How many points of entry into Canada are open with personnel present 24/7?

A7. There are 7 airports that have on-site staff 24/7: Victoria International Airport, Vancouver International Airport, Edmonton International Airport, Calgary International Airport, Winnipeg International Airport, Lester B. Pearson International Airport (Toronto), and Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport (Dorval, QC)

There are also 61 land border sites that are staffed on a 24/7 basis.

How many for lesser periods?

The CBSA provides service to 200 airport service sites that are staffed less than 24/7.

There are also 58 land border offices that are staffed less than 24/7.

What are these periods?

Each site provides the hours of operation necessary to meet the needs of the community it serves. Hours of service may vary depending on the time of day, day of the week, and season.

Where are these ports of entry?

A listing of the 58 is attached in Appendix A.

Q8. How many points of entry have only one person guarding them per shift? What are the locations of these points of entry? Or what is the breakdown per Province?

A8. There are 139 locations across Canada where CBSA customs officers work alone, performing primary or secondary inspections, for part of a shift or a full shift.

Quebec Region: 44

Prairies Region: 40

Pacific Region: 22

Atlantic Region: 12

Northern Ontario Region: 8

Windsor/St. Clair Region: 6

Niagara Falls/Fr. Erie Region:4

Greater Toronto Area Region:3

Q9. What number and type of violent or threatening incidents against customs officers or student customs officers have taken place, by location, over the past 5 years?

A9. The CBSA has the following critical incident reports on file as a result of research conducted for the Job Hazard Analysis.

Assault Data

Threats

Aggravated Assault

Physical Assault by Weapon

Police Called

Arrest

Weapon

Seized

Customs

Inspector Injury Sustained

Incidents by Region

Atlantic	Quebec	N. Ont.	S. Ont.	Prairies	Pacific
8%	2%	3%	56%	9%	20%

§ There were 63 documented critical incident reports covering a consecutive time period of approximately 24 months (August 23, 2000 – October 1, 2002).

Critical Incident Reports are completed as a requirement of the Criminal Code. It details criminal incidents and may describe one or more of the following events:

Threats to CBSA officers;

Assaults on CBSA officers;

Arrests; and

Police involvement.

Observations from Critical Incident Reports Review

§ There were no reported assaults with weapons (even though weapons were seized).

§ It should be further noted that all injuries to officers were minor in nature.

§ There were no fatalities or permanent disabilities.

Q10. What are the pay scales of a customs officer on the primary inspection line?

A10. All CBSA customs officers are currently classified at the PM-03 level. This level corresponds to a pay scale containing three grades that range from $48,802 to $53,091.

Q11. What increases are there in future years of their contract?

A11. The contract includes annual increases of:

§ 2.4% (effective June 21, 2005); and

§ 2.5% (effective June 21, 2006).

Q12. Is bilingualism a requirement for all posts? If not, where is it required and to what level? What percentage of employees is currently off on language training and what is the impact of these vacancies?

A12. Bilingualism is not a requirement for all jobs. According to Treasury Board policy Directives on the Linguistic Identification of Positions or Functions & the Staffing of Bilingual Positions, the identification of bilingual positions depends on the nature of the duties and the location of the position. Currently, approximately 35 employees are on language training, which represents 0.3% of CBSA employees. Due to the small percentage, the impact is minimal.

Q13. How many weeks training do indeterminate customs officers who work on the PIL receive on the job or at Rigaud College in Quebec?

A13. Primary Inspection Line training is part of the overall Customs Inspector Recruitment and Training Program. This program lasts 8.5 weeks and is held in Rigaud, QC. Primary processing is mainly addressed in the first half of the training program.

Q14. How many subsequent weeks of training do they receive each year, for each specialty?

A14. There are over 70 training courses that are available to CBSA customs officers. Each year, through the performance management program, CBSA customs officers develop a learning plan to address their learning needs based on their work location, the type of clientele, the service (e.g. airport, highway) and their career aspirations. There are no prescribed numbers of weeks of training that officers have to receive every year.

Q15. Same previous 2 questions for term employees, part-time employees, and for student customs officers.

A15. Term and permanent part-time employees receive the same training as permanent CBSA customs officers. Student customs officers receive a three-week training program that focus essentially on primary processing.

Q16. How many grievances have CBSA and its predecessor received from customs officers over the past 5 years? Please provide totals by type of grievance and post, as well as the totals Agency-wide.

A16. Job content/effective date grievances

§ Over the past 5 years, there have been 1,690 job content /effective date grievances.

Classification Grievances:

§ Over the past 5 years, there were a total of 800 classification grievances.

Note: As per a MOU signed between the former CCRA and CEUDA in 2001, all these grievances were recently responded to under one individual griever.

Acting Pay Grievances:

§ Over the past 5 years, there were 3,128 acting pay grievances.

Q17. How many CCRA or CBSA employees have been injured during that period of time by people crossing the border by post and type of injury?

A17. The CBSA has the following critical incident reports on file as a result of research conducted for the Job Hazard Analysis.

In total, there were 793 hazard/accident reports filed between January 8, 2000 and October 1, 2002.

The following represents the percentages based on the 793 reports:

Categories of Events

Accident	Incident	Hazard	Undefined
91%	7%	2%	<1%

Accidents by Region

Atlantic

Quebec

North

Ont.

South

Ont.

Prairies

Pacific

67%

11%

Accidents by Function

Land Border	Air	Marine	Postal
72%	19%	9%	<1%

Injury Types

Strains & Sprains	Cuts	Contusions	Exposure to Potentially Hazardous Substance	Irritation	Fractures	Others	Not Identified
51%	11%	7%	5%	3%	<1%	10%	12%

Injury Treatment Categories

First Aid	Medical	Temporary Disability	Permanent Disability	Other
89%	2%	<1%	<1%	8%

Note: Accident Frequency and Severity rates, based on manpower deployment and hours worked, were not calculated.

Q18. How many student customs officers are employed year-round?

A18.For the past five years, we have employed between 1,100 and 1,200 student customs officers every year.

Q19. How many student customs officers during the past 5 years, for each year, are employed by customs and have one or more parents already working in customs?

A19. The following information represents, by fiscal year, the number of student customs officers:

2000/2001:1,235

2001/2002:1,228

2002/2003:1,256

2003/2004:1,152

2004/2005:1,129

Note:There is no data regarding students employed by the CBSA that have one or more parents already working for the CBSA.

Inspections

Q20. Are there quotas or targets of the number of inspections per hour that are formally or informally set? Is this something that is addressed during formalized training of employees?

A20. The CBSA does not set inspection quotas or target rates.

Q21. How many illegal weapons, and what type, have been seized over the past 5 years by port of entry?

A21. From January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2004 the CBSA seized 5,446 firearms, (2,010 of which were prohibited) and 20,129 other various prohibited weapons.

Seized Firearms by Region

Type

Atlantic

Quebec

North Ont.

South Ont.

Prairies

Pacific

Non-Restricted

121

178

263

415

Restricted

194

719

490

770

Prohibited

589

130

416

135

722

Seized Prohibited Weapons

Atlantic

Quebec

North Ont.

South Ont.

Prairies

Pacific

362

885

1103

9932

1488

6359

Q22. Are there quotas or targets set, formally or informally, of the number of passenger or commercial vehicles that have to pass through the PIL at border crossings? If so, what are they by crossing?

A22.The CBSA does not set inspection quotas or target rates. Upon arrival at a border crossing all passengers and commercial vehicles must pass through the primary inspection line.

Q23. What duties do student customs officers not carry out, and what percentage of the workload of an indeterminate customs officer does this amount to?

A23. Students do not perform the full range of a CBSA customs officer’s duties.

Students do not:

§ arrest for Criminal Code violations;

§ administer breathalyser tests;

§ participate in joint forces operations;

§ conduct intrusive examination of aircrafts;

§ perform deep rummage functions;

§ perform strategic export functions;

§ perform secondary immigration examinations;

§ target;

§ do analysis; nor

§ work in the enforcement area in the customs mail centres.

Like CBSA customs officers, the duties that student customs officers perform vary significantly depending on their work location. The CBSA ensures that student customs officers are appropriately trained to perform the duties they are asked to do.

Q24. Do student customs officers work alone?

A24. Student customs officers are part of a team and management ensures that they have access, at all times, to senior officers to obtain appropriate advice, guidance, training, support and assistance as our other employees do.

Q25. What constitutes supervision of student customs officers?

A25. Student customs officers work with appropriate supervision. They have access to senior officers at all times to obtain advice, guidance and assistance to do their work.

Q26. Is there a maximum ratio of student customs officers to full-time, indeterminate customs officers allowed in any one work place? What is that ratio?

A26. No, there is no set ratio. The ratio changes from shift to shift, from port to port, and from season to season. For example, the ratio is higher in the summer at many ports. One of the reasons that students are hired in the summer is for operational reasons. While CBSA customs officers take vacations, student customs officers perform certain tasks that they are trained to do, to allow CBSA customs officers to focus their attention on higher risk tasks.

Q27. If student customs officers are not permitted to enforce the Criminal Code, what happens when a Criminal Code offender, such as a drunk driver, reports to the PIL staffed by a student customs officer? Under any circumstance, is a student customs officer deemed to be detaining a suspect offender under the Criminal Code?

A27. The student would suspend questioning long enough to seek a designated officer on shift. If a designated officer were not readily available, the student would release the person once the examination is completed and immediately call the local police. At no time does the student have the authority to detain the subject under the Criminal Code for a suspected Criminal Code offence. Prior to release, the student may request that the traveller park his/her vehicle and seek alternate transportation and explain the consequences of not adhering to their request.

Land / Rail

Q28. How many containers in land crossings ports were totally “destuffed” during the last 12 months for which you have statistics? When is that 12-month period, and what percentage is that of the total number of containers entering Canada in the same period?

A28. All containers, regardless of mode, that present a risk are examined. CBSA officers use state of the art inspection techniques combined with modern technology and risk assessment tools to make certain that all examinations are commensurate to the risk posed. Thus, the least intrusive alternatives are preferred as long as they satisfy us that there is no risk.

The majority of traders are honest and legitimate businesses that present a low risk. As a result, the proportion of containers and trucks that undergo examination is small. However, the number of examinations conducted varies from day-to-day and port-to-port, depending on the risk.

Q29. How many containers in land crossings ports were “back ended” during the last 12 months for which you have statistics? When is that 12-month period, and what percentage is that of the total number of containers entering Canada in the same period?

A29. All containers, regardless of mode, that present a risk are examined. CBSA officers use state of the art inspection techniques combined with modern technology and risk assessment tools to make certain that all examinations are commensurate to the risk posed. Thus, the least intrusive alternatives are preferred as long as they satisfy us that there is no risk.

Q30. How many containers in land crossings ports went through a VACIS machine during the last 12 months for which you have statistics? When is that 12-month period, and what percentage is that of the total number of containers entering Canada in the same period?

A30. All containers, regardless of mode, that present a risk are examined. CBSA officers use state of the art inspection techniques combined with modern technology and risk assessment tools to make certain that all examinations are commensurate to the risk posed. Thus, the least intrusive alternatives are preferred as long as they satisfy us that there is no risk.

Q31. What tools currently exist at land border crossings to accurately and rapidly identify people wishing to enter Canada?

A31. Officers use passport information and other identity documentation as well as interviews to obtain the identity of travellers. They also have access to a wide variety of databases that provide information on criminal and suspected terrorist lookouts, customs and immigration enforcement history as well as criminal records and intelligence.

Q32. How many land border, marine, or international airport customs offices currently do not have 24/7, real-time access to the customs mainframe so that customs officers can run people’s names and/or credentials through a database for a check?

A32. Currently, 62 offices do not have 24/7, real-time access to the customs mainframe. CBSA is currently developing a business case to address connecting all of the unconnected offices. Presently local customs offices have the option of acquiring access to the necessary databases through secure remote access. Officers have the ability to call other work locations that have 24/7 real time access to ensure that individuals are queried through the applicable databases when necessary. The feedback on these requests in received instantaneously.

Q33. How many times in the past 5 years has someone forced their way through a land border crossing by not stopping and simply driving on or around the office, or not going to secondary as instructed, or not turning around because the office was closed.

A33. It is estimated that in 2004, there were approximately 1,600 border runners or failure to report instances.

How many people were subsequently apprehended?

This information is not available on a national basis at this time. In many instances, travellers do not intentionally fail to report and omit to do largely because of their lack of understanding in their obligation under the law to do so. In these instances no penalties are applied and travellers are made aware of these obligation. This commonly occurs when a Canadian tourist takes a wrong road and arrives at the US border unintentionally or is refused entry in the US by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Services. Upon their return to Canada, the tourists do not realize that they have left the country and therefore are required to report to Canadian Customs. Another situation that causes confusion for the traveller and may result in running the port, is when CBP perform export checks on travellers at the border. Often the traveller assumes that this is their report to Canadian Customs and then they do not stop when they do arrive in Canada.

Q34 How many customs offices close at night?

A34. Of the 119 CBSA land border sites, there are 58 offices that close at night. Closing times vary greatly by site from ending services at 5 p.m. to closing at midnight.

How many of these offices have tools to help customs detect port runners – those who forced their way through?

The majority of these offices do not have any specific detections tools. Video cameras and surveillance equipment are available at approximately 7 sites, mainly in the Atlantic Region. The CBSA also sends its flexible response teams on an ad hoc basis.

Q35. What are the constraints on sending people to secondary at peak periods? What “surge” capacity exists at the 30 most active crossings?

A35. There are no constraints when sending people to secondary during peak periods. Referrals for secondary examinations are based on risk indicators and not on the number of people waiting. Peak periods are managed by adjusting shift schedules and using overtime.

Q36. How many rail crossings are there across the border?

A36. There are a total of 24 rail sites (passenger and freight).

How many of them have 24/7 customs officers posted at them?

There are no rail sites with a 24/7-staffed presence, as service is provided on a call-out basis upon arrival of a train.

Q37. Where are trains carrying freight across the border physically inspected?

A37. In most cases, freight trains are physically inspected inland. However, depending on the level of risk associated with the train, they can also be inspected as they cross the border.

If trains are physically inspected, do they ever stop (for any reason) before crossing the border?

The CBSA is not able to indicate if there are stoppages prior to arrival.

Marine

Q38. How many vessels do customs officers operate?

A38. The CBSA currently operates a total of 3 marine vessels: one in the Quebec region and 2 in the Pacific region. It should be noted that CBSA is responsible for compliance verification at ports of entry. The RCMP, in cooperation with provincial and some municipal police forces, operates vessels on the water to conduct law enforcement activities.

Q39. What is the minimum number of customs officers permitted to board a vessel being inspected?

A39. There is no minimum number of CBSA officers permitted to board a vessel being inspected. Whether examining and/or searching vessels and their cargo, conducting a deep rummage, verifying documents or interviewing persons on board, the CBSA will ensure that the number of officers on board is sufficient to complete the tasks efficiently and safely.

Q40. How many containers in sea ports were totally “destuffed” during the last 12 months for which you have statistics? When is that 12-month period and what percentage is that of the total number of containers entering Canada in the same period?

A40. All containers, regardless of mode, that present a risk are examined. CBSA officers use state of the art inspection techniques combined with modern technology and risk assessment tools to make certain that all examinations are commensurate to the risk posed. Thus, the least intrusive alternatives are preferred as long as they satisfy us that there is no risk.

Q41. How many containers in sea ports were totally “back ended” during the last 12 months for which you have statistics? When is that 12-month period and what percentage is that of the total number of containers entering Canada in the same period?

A41. All containers, regardless of mode, that present a risk are examined. CBSA officers use state of the art inspection techniques combined with modern technology and risk assessment tools to make certain that all examinations are commensurate to the risk posed. Thus, the least intrusive alternatives are preferred as long as they satisfy us that there is no risk.

Q42. How many containers in sea ports went through a VACIS machine during the last 12 months for which you have statistics? When is that 12-month period and what percentage is that of the total number of containers entering Canada in the same period?

A42. All containers, regardless of mode, that present a risk are examined. CBSA officers use state of the art inspection techniques combined with modern technology and risk assessment tools to make certain that all examinations are commensurate to the risk posed. Thus, the least intrusive alternatives are preferred as long as they satisfy us that there is no risk.

Q43. How many places in Canada may a boat or vessel land from another country that do not have 24/7 customs coverage?

A43. Marine offices are not staffed on a 24/7 basis, however service may be provided under the CANPASS programs service delivery. The CBSA does not keep a record of the hours of service at private docks, marinas, or restaurants that serve as reporting sites and dispatches officers as required.

How many have one-shift coverage?

Since these are not staffed locations, no sites are considered as having one-shift coverage.

How many allow people to just phone in?

There are approximately 470 Telephone Reporting Marine sites for private recreational boaters. Those travellers who are pre-approved members of the CANPASS Private Boats program are required to report, by telephone, their estimated time of arrival in Canada, any time up to four hours before arriving. The call is received at one of the four national telephone reporting centres. CBSA officials are then dispatched to meet the travellers as required and marinas are monitored for compliance as well. If no officer is waiting to conduct an inspection, the master of the boat may proceed to the final destination.

Travellers who are not CANPASS Private Boat members, call the telephone reporting centre immediately upon arrival to Canada. The CBSA officer will either provide a clearance number and allow the boat to proceed or instruct the boater to remain aboard the vessel until an officer arrives to complete an examination. CBSA officials are dispatched to meet travellers as required and marinas are also monitored for compliance.

Please see Appendices B and C which explain the program and general reporting procedures.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/canpass/privateboat-e.html

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/canpass/canpassprivateboat-e.html

Q44. How many phone-in marine locations are there which customs officers cannot access?

A44. There is access to each and every designated CBSA site that allows for CBSA customs officers to complete their secondary examinations and perform all verification functions. Should a site become inaccessible, the CBSA would withdraw the site from the approved list of designated reporting sites.

Air

Q45. How many airports in Canada accept flights from other countries but do not have 24/7 customs officers present?

A45. There are a total 200 air sites that do not have officers present on a 24/7 basis.

Q46. How many airports have customs officers present for only one shift?

A46.Seven of the 13 International Airports are staffed on a 24/7 basis; the other six are staffed for 16 hours daily. The vast majority of airports that the CBSA provides service to are not permanently staffed. Officers are dispatched from another work location to provide service and, in some instances, are one-shift operations. Officers are dispatched on an “as needed” basis to provide service outside of their normal hours of work on a call-out basis (overtime).

How many allow people to just phone-in?

All sites that receive airport service can potentially receive general aviation-type travellers that are required to report, by telephone, via the telephone reporting centres. For those clients who are pre-approved members of the CANPASS Private Aircraft program or the CANPASS Corporate Aircraft program, the pilot must report the estimated time of arrival phone at least 2 hours, but no more than 48 hours, before flying into Canada. The plane may be met by a CBSA official, if warranted. For those general aviation flights involving non-permit holders, who are not members of a CANPASS program, an additional call is made to the telephone reporting centre upon arrival. The pilot and passengers are not allowed to leave the aircraft until authorized to do so. All calls are received at one of four national telephone reporting centres.

Please see Appendices D, E, and F for more information about the telephone reporting requirements for these programs.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/canpass/generalavi-e.html

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/canpass/privateair-e.html

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/canpass/corporateair-e.html

What percent of phone-in declarations are subsequently verified by a customs officer?

All high-risk flights are subject to 100% verification levels.

Intelligence

Q47 Does CBSA have an intelligence division?

A47. Yes, there is an intelligence area within CBSA responsible for customs and immigration programs.

Q48. How are employees selected and trained for these positions?

A48. Employees are selected based on specific experience and knowledge criteria. Once selected, officers participate in formalized training courses and individual training plans are designed to address specific requirements based on experience and position requirements.

Q49. What is the nature and extent of intelligence training provided?

A49. Specific training packages in relation to Intelligence exist including classroom training, workshops, and on-the-job training.

Q50. Are CBSA employees able to take part in intelligence training provided to US border authorities?

A50. Yes.

Q51. As the threat from terrorism continues to grow, are CBSA employees provided with the necessary sensitivity and cultural training to ensure that they are properly prepared for incidents that may arise?

A51. Front-line CBSA employees are provided with diversity training. This training is delivered within the following programs: the Customs Inspector Recruit Training Program, the curriculum for POE immigration officer and the student customs officer training program. The CBSA has also developed an e-learning diversity course that will soon be accessible on-line to all CBSA employees.

Q52. Given the multicultural world we live in, are there sufficient numbers of employees with linguistic capability in languages other than French or English?

A52. Given the multicultural make up of certain communities across Canada, every effort is made to accommodate the language requirements of travellers.

Q53. What is the capacity of CBSA to draw on the assistance of linguists in this regard?

A53. Given the multicultural make up of certain communities across Canada, every effort is made to accommodate the language requirements of travellers. In various locations an inventory of translators and interpreters is drawn upon to assist our employees in communicating with travellers when needed.

Q54. Are intelligence units located at all land, sea, and air locations?

A54. Intelligence units service all land, sea and air locations. Where traffic volume and risk warrants there may be an on-site intelligence presence.

Q55. How is intelligence defined from a CBSA perspective, security intelligence, criminal intelligence?

A55. Intelligence is the result of subjecting information to an evaluative and analytical process. This process transforms the information into deductive patterns of meaningful inferences, which becomes “intelligence”. Intelligence forewarns of activities likely to occur and serves to establish indicators and trends. Intelligence serves as a proactive function in the CBSA environment that supports decision-making and enforcement efforts. Security and criminal intelligence is processed in the exact same manner.

Q56. From where does CBSA derive its intelligence? Is it collected by CBSA, or is CBSA the beneficiary of the intelligence collection efforts of others?

A56. The CBSA receives intelligence from a wide array of domestic and foreign partners and develops intelligence independently based on information, clients, and internal and external sources.

Q57. With whom does CBSA share intelligence and from whom does CBSA receive intelligence?

A57. The CBSA shares and receives intelligence with and from partner agencies both domestic and foreign. Specific agencies include foreign customs and immigration agencies, the RCMP, CSIS and local police agencies, as well as with other foreign governments with which we have information-sharing agreements.

Q58. Do all CBSA employees have security clearances, to what level?

A58. Yes, all CBSA employees undergo a security screening prior to appointment within the organization. Security Screening levels vary depending upon the position (or duties) of the employee.

As a minimum, employees are initially security screened to the “reliability” level. Further screening is conducted if the employee will be appointed to a position that requires a Security Clearance at the Confidential, Secret or Top Secret Level. No individual is appointed without first obtaining the appropriate security screening level. Further, as outlined in the terms and conditions of employment, the requirement to retain the required security level is a condition of employment, and failure to do so may result in termination of the appointment. These terms and conditions are strictly enforced by the CBSA.

Q59. Are there limitations on the ability of CBSA intelligence officers to share intelligence with other CBSA employees and/or other departments, federal, provincial, municipal, and foreign governments?

A59. CBSA intelligence officers have the authority to share intelligence information on a need to know basis with other employees pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Customs Act, as well as agreements and memoranda of understanding, define the circumstances and types of information that may be shared with external and foreign partners.

Q60. Does CBSA have access to all of the information it requires from other government agencies? How does CBSA manage this access, how is information received, stored, and accessed at border points?

A60. The CBSA has access to information from many government agencies. This access is restricted under some circumstances and is often dependent on the end use of the information. There is some information that is not available due to privacy and legislative constraints.

The information is stored for the prescribed periods of time in an environment appropriate to the required security level. Information received is disseminated to field offices as required through a combination of electronic and manual methods including lookouts entered into our enforcement systems, bulletins and alerts.

Q61. Do CBSA officers have peace officer status? Is this a requirement for access to information held by federal, provincial, and municipal police departments?

A61. CBSA customs officers derive their peace officer status from Section 2 of the Criminal Code. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), a CBSA immigration officer may be delegated the authority and powers of a peace officer.

It is not a requirement to be a peace officer to access information held by federal, provincial, and municipal police departments.

Q62. What are the responsibilities or limitations on employees when an incident moves away from the border? Are there geographical restrictions on an employee’s capacity to remain involved or to take action that may be required?

A62. There are no legislative or regulatory limitations. CBSA investigators work on customs and immigration inland cases to address inland issues. However, responsibility for the enforcement of the Custom Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is shared with the RCMP.

Q63. Please describe in detail, the process followed by a CBSA officer when someone is stopped at the border and something gives the CBSA officer reason to be concerned. i.e. what type of checks are conducted, with what agencies, with what data banks.

A63. Suspect travellers are referred to the secondary area for a more in-depth interview and examination. Officers have direct access to a wide variety of databases that provide information on criminal and suspected terrorist lookouts, customs and immigration enforcement history as well as criminal records and intelligence. Depending on the circumstances, CSIS, the RCMP or another law enforcement organization can be contacted for further information.

Q64. Does direct contact exist with the RCMP, CSIS, Transport, etc., 7 days a week, 24 hours a day? Is this contact local, or through organizational headquarters? Are response times sufficient? Have there been problems in getting a response to a particular incident?

A64. There is contact with all federal and local agencies on a 24/7 basis as required at local and headquarters levels.

There have been no specific problems associated with responses from other agencies that would indicate ongoing or endemic problems.

Q65. Is CBSA part of the IBETs (Integrated Border Enforcement Team)? Does CBSA have access to the same intelligence as other members of the team?

A65. The CBSA is an integral part of the IBETs and has access to the same intelligence as all members.

Q66. Is CBSA part of the INSET, (Integrated National Security Enforcement Team)? Does CBSA have access to the same intelligence as other members of the team?

A66. Yes, CBSA officers participate in the INSET program and have access to the same intelligence as all as other members of the team.

APPENDIX V

Map of Land Border Crossings in Canada

Prepared by Canada Border Services Agency at the Request of the Committee

APPENDIX VI

History of the Evolution of the Canada Border Services Agency

Prepared by the Canada Border Services Agency at the request of the Committee

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) operates as an integral part of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP) portfolio. The creation of the CBSA, just over one year ago, brought together the Customs Branch of the former Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), as well as parts of the Appeals and Compliance Branches that supported Customs; the Intelligence, Interdiction, and Enforcement program of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC); and the Import Inspection at Ports of Entry program from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). In October 2004, the immigration functions at Ports of Entry were also transferred to CBSA.

Bringing these border service functions together provides the CBSA with the flexibility required to take a more comprehensive and streamlined approach to strengthening Canada's capacity to protect the safety and security of Canadians. Integration allows us to better manage risks by getting the right information at the right time, often in advance of the arrival of people and goods at our borders. Where legislation allows, information is exchanged with our domestic and international partners to improve our overall capacity to respond rapidly and effectively to threats. In developing strategic approaches to border security, we keep pace with new and emerging global threats, while ensuring Canada's borders remain open to facilitate the flow of legitimate cross border traffic (e.g. the Canada-U.S. Smart Border initiatives). Our work to advance Canadian economic competitiveness and social and humanitarian interests continues to be a priority. CBSA is a world leader in researching and developing innovative, scientific and technological solutions to address the challenges of border management.

As the CBSA enters its second year of operation, we will focus our efforts on key activities that will further strengthen public safety and security as we continue to build a stronger, smarter border. Our key priorities for 2005-2006 are: integrated border management, a solid corporate foundation, program integrity, a modern management regime, and a knowledge-based approach.

APPENDIX VII

Organizational Chart of the CBSA

Prepared by the Canada Border Services Agency at the request of the Committee

APPENDIX VIII

Diagram of a Typical Land Border Crossing

Prepared by the Canada Border Services Agency at the request of the Committee

A) Primary Inspection Line (PIL)

The term “Primary Inspection Line” (PIL) refers to the point at which the person entering Canada makes a report of his or her person and goods. This is the first screening mechanism at ports of entry into the country. In highway and air modes, the CBSA has PIL booths from which the officers conduct primary interviews. For travellers arriving by marine mode, the clearance process is dependent on the location and facilities.

Travellers arriving in Canada by air are asked to complete the Travellers Declaration Card before arriving at the PIL booths in the inspection area. The card allows them to have their declarations of citizenship and goods ready for the PIL, where a CBSA inspector reviews the declaration and conducts a brief interview.

At land border ports of entry, travellers approaching the CBSA inspection line stop at a PIL booth. They remain in their vehicles while the inspector conducts the primary interview. In contrast to the declaration procedure at airports, the highway interview does not require completion of a declaration card by the traveller.

For travellers arriving by marine modes, the CBSA inspector may board the vessel upon its arrival. The inspector will review passenger manifests and crew lists. The master of the vessel is responsible for ensuring passengers are presented to CBSA who require examination for immigration purposes. The master must also ensure that all passengers terminating their voyage at any port of arrival in Canada is presented to the CBSA with their baggage and a completed Travellers Declaration Card.

B) Secondary Inspection

A secondary inspection is conducted to verify information or to conduct a physical examination, as a result of a referral from PIL. During the inspection, the officer may make use of tools such as intelligence databases, contraband detection equipment, x-ray equipment or detector dogs.

CBSA officers working the PIL may refer a person whom they believe should be examined in more detail in order to determine whether they have a right to enter Canada or whether they are or may become authorized to enter and remain in Canada. Examinations of personal baggage, goods, and conveyances will be conducted if it is necessary to:

§ verify or determine that a person and their baggage, goods, and conveyance comply with the laws and regulations administered by CBSA and other government departments (OGD's) (i.e. declaration verification, tariff classification, valuation);

§ conduct examinations of identified persons, baggage, goods, and conveyances such as those selected by enforcement systems or deemed as possibly suspect by an alert or lookout; and

§ confirm or negate officers’ suspicions based on reasonable grounds and indicators of non-compliance.

APPENDIX IX

Comparison of Reverse Inspection vs. Land Pre-Clearance

Prepared by the Canada Border Services Agency at the request of the Committee

§ Preclearance involves relocating the border operations of one country to another.

§ It has been applied successfully in the air context for decades with U.S. border officers preclearing passengers (but not air cargo) destined to the U.S. at certain Canadian airports.

§ Application of preclearance at the land border is a natural next step.

§ While the preclearance concept is sound, it has not been applied and tested at the land border.

§ This is why the Governments agreed to pilot land preclearance at Peace Bridge, where U.S. border inspection functions will be moved from Buffalo to Fort Erie, Ontario; and, at another site, yet to be determined, where Canadian inspection facilities will be moved to the U.S. side of the border.

§ Land preclearance allows for the placement of border inspection where it makes most sense and where land is available to address congestion and security issues.

§ Reverse inspection is one form of preclearance and involves both sets of border officials switching where they conduct border inspections.

§ In the Canada-U.S. context, this would entail the Canada Border Services Agency moving its inspection facilities to the U.S. side of a border crossing and U.S. Customs and Border Protection relocating its inspection functions to the Canadian side of the same crossing.

§ Reverse inspection may provide greater infrastructure security than land preclearance; however, it also requires geography on both sides of the same border crossing that would accommodate it.

§ On this latter point, it is important to note that land preclearance is being considered on the Canadian side of Peace Bridge, in large measure because of land constraints on the Buffalo side that hamper efficient border operations. The geography at the Peace Bridge would not support an efficient reverse inspection operation.

APPENDIX X

Summary of Main Issues to be Resolved with Regards to Land Pre-Clearance

Prepared by the Canada Border Services Agency at the request of the Committee

§ Canada and the U.S. are currently working together to conclude a land preclearance agreement at the earliest date. While certain of the issues are complex, significant progress is being made.

§ Legislative changes to the Canadian Preclearance Act will be needed to support the land preclearance agreement, before it can be brought into force. These legislative changes will be introduced for review by Parliament in the coming months.

§ Land preclearance will be reciprocal, in that it will be capable of accommodating US officials operating on Canadian soil as well as Canadian officials operating on US soil.

§ The U.S. will pilot at Fort Erie (Peace Bridge). Canadian officials are in the process of determining the site of the land preclearance pilot operations on U.S. soil. The preferred site location will be announced in due course.

§ Implementation of the land preclearance pilots will also require important infrastructure changes to be made by the crossing operators. Once the Canadian site has been announced, work will begin with the crossing operator on site design and development and environmental assessments.

APPENDIX XI

ModuSpec Risk Analysis Comparison

ModuSpec Risk Management Services Report

This appendix presents excerpted sections of the working and final drafts of the Job Hazard Analysis prepared by ModuSpec Risk Management Services Canada Ltd. The section deals with firearms. The working draft appears first. The final draft appears second.

This appendix will enable readers to compare and contrast the drafts, and to decide for themselves the significance of any differences.

APPENDIX XII

Chart Documenting the Construction Timeline to 2013

Source: Transport Canada

APPENDIX XIII

Windsor-Detroit Crossings and Crossing Corridor Alternatives

Below is a diagram of the existing crossings at Windsor-Detroit.

Source: Michigan Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, “Draft Purpose and Need Statement,” 1. Available at: http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdf/DraftPurpose&Need_WEB.pdf. Last visited: June 06, 2005.

Source: Courtesy of Sam Schwartz Engineering, LLC.

APPENDIX XIV

Senate Law Clerk’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of US-style Legislation

By Hand

The Honourable Colin Kenny, Chair,

Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence,

The Senate

June 2, 2005

Dear Senator Kenny,

On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, you have asked whether it would be lawfulfor the Parliament of Canada to adopt a waiver of laws provision along the lines of that being considered by the U.S. Congress in Bill H.R. 418, the Real ID Act of 2005. The relevant U.S.provision would amend section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note). Your particular concern is the power of the Parliament of Canada to enact an analogous provision.

My conclusion is that an analogous waiver of laws provision, adapted to the Canadian context, is within the power of the Parliament of Canada. However, the differences in our constitutions, administrative structures and national values, and the different nature of the social problems being addressed, would suggest the need for variations in the legislation.

Context

The context of the U.S. provision is an existing statutory requirement that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, carry out installations to ensure the expeditious construction of roads and barriers in the U.S. designed to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States, in particular near San Diego. The proposed amendment would replace an existing power of the Attorney General to waive two federal environmental statutes with an expanded power of the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads. The mischief being addressed is that the existing power proved insufficient to prevent delay because opponents were able to resort to California state law to make their case. The amendment also contains a provision denying judicial review and relief to parties affected by the exercise of the waiver.

The context of your concern is your Committee’s belief that the federal government needs to expedite construction of key border infrastructure in the Windsor-Detroit area. The Committee has determined that the existing situation is in the nature of a public order emergency because a serious disruption of an existing crossing would threaten the security of Canada. The Committee believes that the federal Government, in cooperation with U.S. authorities, should create an additional separate crossing as soon as possible.

Hence, while the U.S. measure is an immigration measure with security and environmental implications, the pith and substance of the Canadian measure your Committee recommends would be national security, with implications for international bridges and tunnels, trade, and immigration, and possibly for the environment and others.

Constitutional Considerations

What would be the source of Parliament’s power to legislate a waiver provision?

With respect to federal laws, it is a fundamental proposition that the power to make laws carries with it the power to amend and repeal them, and hence the power to waive them too. Parliament can provide for the waiver of federal laws and has done so in the past.

With respect to provincial laws, the Canadian constitution allows the federal Parliament to make laws that operate in the provincial sphere. If a federal law is made in relation to a valid head of federal constitutional power and “…is inconsistent with a provincial law, the doctrine of paramountcy stipulates that the provincial law must yield to the federal law” (Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (3^rd), p. 16-17). The federal statute book contains numerous provisions that expressly bind Her Majesty in right of a province.

What valid head of federal constitutional power is relevant to Canada’s international border crossings and to their security? Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives Parliament the power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces. In analyzing the peace, order and good government power, Professor Hogg speaks of its gap, national concern and emergency dimensions.

A second head of federal power is the combined effect of subsection 91(29) and paragraph 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Paragraph 92(10(a) removes from provincial jurisdiction all works or undertakings that extend beyond the limits of a province. Subsection 91(29) is the corollary provision that gives Parliament jurisdiction over those classes of subjects expressly excepted in the enumeration of the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.

In addition, Parliament has the express jurisdiction, under s. 92(10)(c), to declare any work, although wholly situate within a province, to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.

Therefore, while borders themselves are not an expressly assigned head of power in the Constitution Act, 1867, either Parliament now has jurisdiction over border crossings under the combined effect of paragraph 92(10)(a) and subsection 91(29), or Parliament may obtain jurisdiction over border crossings through a declaration or declarations made under s. 92(10)(c).

Several other enumerated heads of federal power are also relevant, including: the public debt and property (s. 91(1.12)); the regulation of trade and commerce (s. 91(2)); militia, military and naval service, and defence (s. 91(7)); ferries between a province and any British or foreign country or between two provinces (s. 91(13)); naturalization and aliens (s. 91(25)); criminal law (s. 91(27)); and agriculture and immigration (s. 95).

Flowing from these grants of federal power, the following exercises of it can be particularly noted: those in relation to national security, those in respect of local works and undertakings extending beyond the province and works declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, and those using the spending power.

With respect to national security, royal assent was given on March 23, 2005 to the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, which establishes the new department and repeals the Department of the Solicitor General Act. Other Acts that come under the general rubric of national security include the National Defence Act, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Emergencies Act and the Emergency Preparedness Act.

Bill C-44, entitled An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, to enact the VIA Rail Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is presently before Parliament. One of the bill’s objectives is to centralize some decision-making regarding international bridges and tunnels. Clause 63 of that bill would amend the Canada Transportation Act in many ways, including the addition of sections 172.14 to 172.19 and section 172.2, which would appear under the heading “Security and Safety”. These provisions allow the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, to make regulations respecting the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels. The provisions also authorize the Minister to make emergency directions when there is an immediate threat. This, then, is arguably a more particular and restricted exercise of power on the same subject matter.

With respect to the infrastructure itself, the simplicity and certainty of declaring a work to be for the general advantage of Canada is particularly attractive and has not been overlooked in the past. For example, section 2 of An Act respecting the acquisition, operation and disposal of the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel by the City of Windsor, S.C. 1987, c. 55, declares that tunnel to be a work and undertaking for the general advantage of Canada. See too the proposed new section 172.03 of the Canada Transportation Act found in clause 63 of Bill C-44.

More related to the building of new infrastructure than to the proposed waiver is the spending power. Parliament exercises the spending power in a myriad of ways. While its exercise is not always appreciated and occasionally objected to, Professor Hogg says: “It seems to me that the better view of the law is that the federal Parliament may spend or lend its funds to any government or institution or individual it chooses, for any purpose it chooses; and that it may attach to any grant or loan any conditions it chooses, including conditions it could not directly legislate”. (p. 6-17)

Any exercise of federal power should of course be examined for compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition, while the Charter does not expressly protect property rights, the Canadian Bill of Rights does. Section 1 of that quasi-constitutional statute recognizes and declares the right of enjoyment of property, and the right not be deprived thereof except by due process of law. It requires that every law of Canada be read not to abrogate or infringe the Bill of Rights unless the statute expressly declares that it operates notwithstanding the Bill of Rights.

Adaptation Considerations

The fact that something can be done doesn’t mean that it can be done in any way. It must be done correctly, as an appropriate exercise of power within the applicable parameters. In adapting the concept of a waiver provision to the Canadian context, the following are among the additional considerations that should be taken into account.

Either in the conferring or the exercise of a waiver power, Canada would want to take its international obligations into account, particularly those in relation to the United States. For example regard must be had to our obligations under the International Boundary Waters Treaty, as legislated by the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, and to the role of the International Joint Council established to administer it. Free trade obligations would be another example. It would also want to take into account its internal obligations, contractual or other.

While Parliament might want to limit the ability to block or delay the construction of border infrastructure by conferring and exercising a waiver power on the executive Government, it could of course anticipate concerns being raised over the abolition of judicial review and Canadians might not want to see those affected deprived of their recourse to the courts for compensation or damages.

Finally, Parliament would want to be careful in conferring the waiver power to ensure a responsible mechanism for its exercise. While the lead Minister for a national security measure might be the Minister of Public Security and Emergency Preparedness, the unusual nature of such a waiver power would suggest placing political responsibility for its exercise on the Governor-in-Council.

Trusting the whole to your satisfaction, I am

Yours truly,

Mark Audcent

APPENDIX XV

Biographies of Committee Members

The Honourable NORMAN K. ATKINS, Senator

Senator Atkins was born in Glen Ridge, New Jersey. His family is from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, where he has spent a great deal of time over the years. He is a graduate of the Appleby College in Oakville, Ontario, and of Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, where he studied economics and completed a Bachelor of Arts programme in 1957. (Senator Atkins subsequently received an Honourary Doctorate in Civil Law in 2000, from Acadia University, his old “alma mater”.)

A former President of Camp Associates Advertising Limited, a well-known Toronto-based agency, Senator Atkins has also played an active role within the industry, serving, for instance, as a Director of the Institute of Canadian Advertising in the early 1980’s.

Over the years, Senator Atkins has had a long and successful career in the field of communications – as an organizer or participant in a number of important causes and events. For instance, and to name only a few of his many contributions, Senator Atkins has given of his time and energy to Diabetes Canada, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, the Dellcrest Children’s Centre, the Federated Health Campaign in Ontario, the Healthpartners Campaign in the Federal Public Service as well as the Chairperson of Camp Trillium-Rainbow Lake Fundraising Campaign.

Senator Atkins was also involved with the Institute for Political Involvement and the Albany Club of Toronto. (It was during his tenure as President in the early 1980’s that the Albany Club, a prestigious Toronto private club, and one of the oldest such clubs across the country, opened its membership to women.)

Senator Atkins has a long personal history of political involvement. In particular, and throughout most of the last 50 years or so, he has been very active within the Progressive Conservative Party – at both the national and the provincial levels. Namely, Senator Atkins has held senior organizational responsibility in a number of election campaigns and he has served as an advisor to both the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Rt. Hon. Robert L. Stanfield, as well as the Hon. William G. Davis.

Norman K. Atkins was appointed to the Senate of Canada on June 29, 1986. In the years since, he has proven to be an active, interested, and informed Senator. In particular, he has concerned himself with a number of education and poverty issues. As well, he has championed the cause of Canadian merchant navy veterans, seeking for them a more equitable recognition of their wartime service. Senator Atkins served in the United States military from September 1957 to August 1959.

Currently, Senator Atkins is the Chair of the Progressive Conservative Senate Caucus, and a member of Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, the National Security and Defence Committee and the Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. He is also the Honourary Chair of the Dalton K. Camp Endowment in Journalism at Saint-Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick and Member of the Advisory Council, Acadia University School of Business.

The Honourable TOMMY BANKS, Senator

Tommy Banks is known to many Canadians as an accomplished and versatile musician and entertainer. He is a recipient of the Juno Award, the Gemini Award and the Grand Prix du Disque.

From 1968 to 1983 he was the host of The Tommy Banks Show on television. He has provided musical direction for the ceremonies of the Commonwealth Games, the World University Games, Expo ’86, the XV Olympic Winter Games, various command performances and has performed as guest conductor of symphony orchestras throughout Canada, the United States, and in Europe.

He was founding chairman off the Alberta Foundation for the Performing Arts. He is the recipient of an Honourary Diploma of Music from Grant MacEwen College, and Honourary Doctorate of Laws from the University of Alberta, and of the Sir Frederick Haultain Prize. He is an officer of the Order of Canada, and a Member of the Alberta Order of Excellence.

Tommy Banks was called to the Senate of Canada on 7 April 2000. On 9 May 2001, Senator Tommy Banks was appointed Vice-Chair of the Prime Minister's Caucus Task Force on Urban issues.

He is currently a member of the Committee on National Security and Defence, Chair of the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, and chair of the Alberta Liberal Caucus in the Parliament of Canada.

A Calgary-born lifelong Albertan, he moved to Edmonton in 1949 where he resides with Ida, as do their grown children and their families.

The Honourable Jane Cordy, Senator

An accomplished educator, Jane Cordy also has an extensive record of community involvement.

Senator Cordy earned a Teaching Certificate from the Nova Scotia Teacher’s College and a Bachelor of Education from Mount Saint Vincent University.

In 1970, she began her teaching career, which has included stints with the Sydney School Board, the Halifax County School Board, the New Glasgow School Board, and the Halifax Regional School Board.

Senator Cordy has also served as Vice-Chair of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission and as Chair of the Board of Referees for the Halifax Region of Human Resources Development Canada.

Senator Cordy has also given generously of her time to numerous voluntary organizations. She has been a Board Member of Phoenix House, a shelter for homeless youth; a Member of the Judging Committee for the Dartmouth Book Awards; and, a volunteer with her church in Dartmouth.

Senator Cordy is a native of Sydney, Nova Scotia.

Currently, she is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. She is Chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association and Vice-Chair of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

The Honourable JOSEPH A. DAY, Senator

Appointed to the Senate by the Rt. Honourable Jean Chrétien, Senator Joseph Day represents the province of New Brunswick and the Senatorial Division of Saint John-Kennebecasis. He has served in the Senate of Canada since October 4, 2001.

He is currently a Member of the following Senate Committees: National Security and Defence; the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, National Finance and Internal Economy Budgets and Administration. Areas of interest and specialization include: science and technology, defence, international trade and human rights issues, and heritage and literacy. He is a member of many Interparliamentary associations including the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Interparliamentary Union. He is also the Chair of the Canada-Mongolia Friendship Group.

A well-known New Brunswick lawyer and engineer, Senator Day has had a successful career as a private practice attorney. His legal interests include Patent and Trademark Law, and intellectual property issues. Called to the bar of New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario, he is also certified as a Specialist in Intellectual Property Matters by the Law Society of Upper Canada, and a Fellow of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. Most recently (1999-2000) he served as President and CEO of the New Brunswick Forest Products Association. In 1992, he joined J.D. Irving Ltd., a conglomerate with substantial interests in areas including forestry, pulp and paper, and shipbuilding, as legal counsel. Prior to 1992 he practiced with Gowling & Henderson in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ogilvy Renault in Ottawa, and Donald F. Sim, Q.C. in Toronto, where he began his career in 1973.

An active member of the community, Senator Day recently chaired the Foundation, and the Board of the Dr. V.A. Snow Centre Nursing Home, as well as the Board of the Associates of the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick. Among his many other volunteer efforts, he has held positions with the Canadian Bar Association and other professional organizations, and served as National President of both the Alumni Association (1996) and the Foundation (1998-2000) of the Royal Military Colleges Club of Canada.

Senator Day holds a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering from the Royal Military College of Canada, an LL.B from Queen’s University, and a Masters of Laws from Osgoode Hall. He is a member of the bars of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

The Honourable J. MICHAEL FORRESTALL, Senator

The Honourable J. Michael Forrestall was born at Deep Brook, Nova Scotia on September 23, 1932. After an early career as a journalist with the Chronicle Herald and airline executive, he entered politics and was first elected to the House of Commons in the General Election of 1965.

The Honourable J. Michael Forrestall was subsequently re-elected to the House of Commons in 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, and 1984. He first became Official Opposition Defence Critic in 1966, and challenged the government of Prime Minister Pearson on the Unification of the Canadian Forces. Senator Forrestall subsequently served as Defence Critic from 1966-1979 and served over that period of time as a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

From 1979-1984, the Honourable J. Michael Forrestall served as a member or alternate to the North Atlantic Assembly. During that period of time he also served as General Rapporteur of the North Atlantic Assembly’s Military Committee and presented the committee report entitled Alliance Security in the 1980's. In November of 1984, Senator Forrestall led the Canadian delegation to the 30th Annual Session of the North Atlantic Assembly.

In 1984, the Honourable J. Michael Forrestall was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, and in 1986, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Minister of State for Science and Technology. He was a candidate in the 1988 General Election and defeated. In 1989, Senator Forrestall was appointed to the Board of Directors of Marine Atlantic, and then in 1990, appointed to the Veterans Appeal Board.

On September 27, 1990, the Honourable J. Michael Forrestall was appointed to the Senate of Canada. From 1993-1994 he was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Canada’s Defence Policy and serves to this day as Defence critic in the Senate. Senator Forrestall is currently Deputy Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence, a Member of the Interim Committee on National Security, and a member of the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament. The Honourable J. Michael Forrestall has, in the past, served as a member of the Senate Special Committee on the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia, Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senate Sub-Committee on Veterans Affairs and Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and Chair of the Special Senate Committee on Transportation Safety and Security.

The Honourable J. Michael Forrestall is currently a member of the NATO Parliamentary Association, Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, Inter-Parliamentary Union, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group and the Royal Canadian Legion and a Director of the North Atlantic Council of Canada.

The Honourable COLIN KENNY, Senator

Career History

Sworn in on June 29th, 1984 representing the Province of Ontario. His early political career began in 1968 as the Executive Director of the Liberal Party in Ontario. From 1969 until 1979 he worked in the Prime Minister's Office as Special Assistant, Director of Operations, Policy Advisor and Assistant Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau.

Committee Involvement

During his parliamentary career, Senator Kenny has served on numerous committees. They include the Special Committee on Terrorism and Security (1986-88) and (1989-91), the Special Joint Committee on Canada’s Defence Policy (1994), the Standing Committee on Banking Trade and Commerce, the Standing Committee on National Finance, and the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.

He is currently Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. The Senator is also currently a member of the Steering Committee of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, Chair of the Subcommittee on Member Services.

Defence Matters

Senator Kenny has been elected as Rapporteur for the Defence and Security Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Prior to that he was Chair of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Subcommittee on the Future Security and Defence Capabilities and Vice-Chair of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Subcommittee on the Future of the Armed Forces.

EMAIL: kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca

Website: http://sen.parl.gc.ca/ckenny

The Honourable MICHAEL A. MEIGHEN, Senator

Appointed to the Senate in 1990, the Honourable Michael Meighen serves on various Senate Standing Committees including Banking Trade and Commerce, Fisheries, National Security and Defence, and chairs the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. He has also served on the Special Joint Committee on Canada’s Defence Policy and the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada.

In his private career, Senator Meighen practiced litigation and commercial law in Montreal and Toronto. He is Counsel to the law firm Ogilvy Renault, and was Co-Legal Counsel to the Deschênes Commission on War Criminals. He sits on the Boards of Directors of Paribas Participations Limited, J.C. Clark Ltd. (Toronto), and Sentry Select Capital Corp. (Toronto).

Senator Meighen’s present involvement in community service includes the Salvation Army (Past Chair), Stratford Festival (past Chair), Prostate Cancer Research Foundation (Director), Atlantic Salmon Federation - Canada (President), University of King’s College (Chancellor), University of Waterloo Centre for Cultural Management (Chair, Board of Governors), McGill University (Governor).

Senator Meighen is a graduate of McGill University and Université Laval and was awarded Honorary Doctorates in Civil Law from Mount Allison University in 2001 and from University of New Brunswick in 2002. He lives in Toronto with his wife Kelly and their three sons.

The Honourable JIM MUNSON, Senator

Jim Munson is best known to Canadians as a trusted journalist and public affairs specialist. He was nominated twice for a Gemini in recognition of excellence in journalism.

As a journalist, he reported news for close to thirty years, more recently as a television correspondent for the CTV network. During those years he applied his knowledge, his skills and his wit as an acute observer of people and politics to write and deliver compelling television stories and reports from all parts of Canada and around the world for Canadian viewers. He covered national events such as election campaigns and the governments of Pierre Trudeau, Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney, as well as international events such as the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf War and the Tiananmen Massacre in Beijing on June 4, 1989.

After a brief period of consulting with the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, he joined the Prime Minister’s Office, first as a Special Communications Advisor before being promoted to Director of Communications.

Jim Munson was called to the Senate of Canada on 10 December 2003, to represent the province of Ontario.

He is currently a member of the Committee on National Security and Defence, Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and the Committee on Official Languages.

Born in Woodstock, New Brunswick, Jim Munson and his wife Ginette live in Ottawa with their two sons.

The Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin, Senator

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin was first appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Mulroney on June 18, 1993 to represent the district of De Salaberry in Quebec.

Since his appointment, he has been an active parliamentarian nationally and on the international scene. He is the Vice-Chair of the Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budget and Administration. He is also a member of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. From 1999 to 2002, he chaired the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs.

At the international level, he serves as the Vice-President of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association and General Rapporteur of the Science and Technology Committee.

Senator Nolin is lawyer and has been a member of the Quebec Bar Association since 1977. He has worked for several law firms.

Before his appointment, he was active politically serving in key posts inside and outside the federal government. He was chief of staff for the Minister of Public Works from 1984 to 1986. He was subsequently named to the position of special assistant to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He left the federal government to assume the position of Director General of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. He also served as Co-Chair of the 1997 Electoral Campaign.

Born in Montreal, Senator Nolin is the son the Honourable Jean Claude Nolin, Judge, Quebec Superior Court and Jacqueline Quevillon. He is married to Camille Desjardins and they have 3 children, Simon, Louis and Virginie.

APPENDIX XVI

Biographies of the Committee Secretariat

Major-General (Ret’d) G. Keith McDonald, Senior Military Advisor

MGen McDonald grew up in Edmonton, attended College Militaire Royal in St. Jean and Royal Military College in Kingston (RMC), graduating in 1966 and being awarded his pilot wings in 1967.

MGen McDonald operationally flew the Tutor, T-33, CF5, CF104 and CF18 aircraft accumulating over 4000 hours of pilot in command throughout his 37-year career in the Air Force, Canadian Forces.

He held staff positions at the Royal Military College, in Baden Soellingen Germany, at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa and at the North American Aerospace Command in Colorado Springs. Command positions include CF18 Squadron Commander, Base and Wing Commander in Baden Soellingen, Germany.

Major General McDonald ended his military career as the Director of Combat Operations at Headquarters North American Aerospace Defence Command at Colorado Springs, USA.

After leaving the military in 1998, General McDonald served a period of “conflict of interest” prior to joining BMCI Consulting as a Principal Consultant in the Aerospace and Defence Division. He left BMCI in 2002 to set up his own consulting company, KM Aerospace Consulting.

Major General McDonald has a degree in Political and Economic Science (Honours Courses) from the Royal Military College. He has completed Canadian Forces staff school, the Royal Air Force (England) Staff College, the National Security studies course, Post Graduate Courses in Business at Queens University, Electronic Warfare Courses at the University of California Los Angeles, the Law of Armed Conflict at San Remo, Italy, and numerous project management courses.

General McDonald is married to the former Catherine Grunder of Kincardine, Ontario, and they have two grown daughters, Jocelyn and Amy.

Barry A. Denofsky, National Security Advisor

Barry Denofsky recently retired after having completed 35 years with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Mr. Denofsky joined the RCMP in January 1969 and worked as a peace officer in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Quebec. In 1972, he was transferred to the RCMP Security Service where he was involved in a variety of national security investigations. With the creation of CSIS in 1984, Mr. Denofsky maintained his interest and involvement in matters of national security with the new Service.

Mr. Denofsky held a variety of operational and senior management positions with CSIS which have included the following: Chief, Counter Intelligence, Quebec Region, Deputy Director General Operations, Ottawa Region, Deputy Director General Counter Terrorism, Headquarters, Ottawa, and Director General Counter Intelligence, Headquarters, Ottawa. On retirement from CSIS, Mr. Denofsky was the Director General, Research, Analysis and Production, Headquarters, Ottawa. In that capacity, he was responsible for the production and provision to government of all source analytical products concerning threats to the security of Canada

Mr. Denofsky also represented CSIS for many years at meetings of the NATO Special Committee in Brussels, Belgium. The Special Committee is an organization of security and intelligence services representing all member nations of NATO. In 2002, Mr. Denofsky was the Chair of the NATO Special Committee Working Group.

Mr. Denofsky is a graduate of the University of Toronto, and holds a graduate Diploma in Public Administration from Carleton University in Ottawa. He is a member of the Council of Advisors, the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies, (CCISS), Carleton University. He is married and has two children.

Dr. Grant Dawson, Analyst

Grant Dawson joined the Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament in March 2003. He serves as the Research Officer for the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.

Dr. Dawson received his Double Honours B.A. (History and English) and M.A. (History) from the University of Manitoba, and his Ph.D. in History from Carleton University, Ottawa. His dissertation is the first critical examination of the Canadian government's decision-making in relation to its contribution of troops to the Somalia peace operations in1992. Dr. Dawson's academic research interests include Canadian diplomatic and military history, peace history (especially the writings of Jean de Bloch), peacekeeping and peacebuilding. Dr. Dawson has published in the "Journal of Contemporary History" (lead article in January 2002), "International Journal" (Spring 2000), and the 2001 and 2003 editions of the foreign policy essay collection "Canada Among Nations."

Dr. Dawson has lectured for the Royal Military College, Kingston, and was a recipient of a Department of National Defence / Security and Defence Forum Ph.D. Fellowship in 2001-02 and 2002-03.

Liam Price, Analyst

F. William Price joined the Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament in January 2004. He serves as a Research Officer for the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.

Mr. Price received a cum laude Bachelor of Science Foreign Service in International Politics Security Studies from Georgetown University in Washington, DC, and a Masters of Literature in International Security Studies from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. At Georgetown, Mr. Price completed a certificate in International Business Diplomacy and co-designed a course on the Idea of Canada in a Globalizing World; also he earned the Learning, Peace and Freedom and Krogh Medals, and was selected to be a speaker at Convocation.

Mr. Price's recent studies have included work on post-positivist international relations theory, military responses to terrorism and the emergence of Private Military Companies in Sierra Leone.

Brigadier-General James S. Cox OMM CD MA (Retired), Analyst

Brigadier General James S. Cox was born in Toronto, Ontario. In 1967 he was commissioned into the infantry and served in Canada and Cyprus. During the period 1972-74, he served with the Gloucestershire Regiment, then part of the British Army of the Rhine.

In following years, Brigadier General Cox served with the Infantry School, Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (Land), twice with the Canadian Airborne Regiment and in senior staff appointments in Army Headquarters and National Defence Headquarters. From 1985 until 1987 he commanded the 3^rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment and from 1991 to 1992 he served as Deputy Commander of the Special Service Force before taking up duty as the Military Chief of Staff of the United Nations Operation in Somalia I and II, until 1993. Upon return to Canada in the summer of 1993, Brigadier General Cox was appointed Commander, 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. In 1995 he was appointed Director General Land Force Development in Ottawa. From 1996 until 1998, he was the Army Command Inspector. In July 1998 Brigadier General Cox was appointed Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff Intelligence at Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe, in Mons, Belgium.

Brigadier General Cox completed six operational tours of duty with the United Nations. He has trained with the United States Army, The United States Marine Corps, the British Army Special Air Service and the Royal Marines. He is a graduate of the University of Manitoba, the Royal Military College of Canada, the Canadian Forces College, and has studied at the NATO Defence College in Rome. In 1993 he was awarded the Order of Military Merit in the grade of Officer.

Since retiring from the Army in August 2001, Brigadier General (Ret’d) Cox has worked as a consultant in Ottawa, completed graduate studies and served as the Executive Secretary of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies. In addition to his current position as a Library of Parliament Researcher, he is a doctoral candidate in War Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada.

Daniel Charbonneau, Committee Clerk

Dan joined the Senate Committees Directorate as a committee clerk in 2001 and has worked on several committees including: National Security and Defence, Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Agriculture and Forestry and Illegal Drugs.

Dan graduated from Laurentian University with an Honours B.A. in Political Science specializing in Canadian Government. As a student, he was active on campus and held several key positions in the Association des étudiantes et étudiants francophones (AEF) including president and C.E.O. He served on the university’s academic Senate and several of its committees. Following graduation, he continued his involvement as a board member of the Laurentian University Alumni Association.

From 1995 to 2000, Dan worked as a Special Assistant and a Senior Outreach Officer for a member of the House of Commons.

Currently, he is a part-time student at Algonquin College studying to become a sommelier.

Jodi Turner, Committee Clerk

Jodi Turner joined the Committees Branch of the Senate in January 2005. She serves as the Co-clerk for the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.

Ms. Turner received a cum laude Double Honours Bachelor of Arts (French and Political Studies) and a cum laude Masters in Public Administration (specialization in Canadian Politics), from the University of Manitoba.

Previous to joining the Committee, she served as Chief of Staff to the Speaker of the Senate from 2002 – 2005; and was Vice-President of Research for Western Opinion Research in Winnipeg, Manitoba from 2000 – 2002.

Kevin Pittman – Legislative Clerk

Kevin studied history at Memorial University of Newfoundland and then went on to complete a Political Science degree at Laval University.

Following a 3 year period overseas in Asia, he undertook his graduate studies in Policy Analysis at Laval University.

He began working at the Committees Directorate in September, 2004. For the two years previous, he was with Parliamentary Public Programs at the Library of Parliament.

[1] The statistic is for 2002. See Industry Canada, “More Important than was Thought: A Profile of Canadian Small Business Exporters - Detailed Results,” (December 23, 2004). Available at: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insbrp-rppe.nsf/en/rd00970e.html. Last visited: April 14, 2005. Canada’s exports to the U.S. of goods and services totalled $382.1 billion in 2002. See Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “Fifth Annual Report on Canada’s State of Trade: Trade Update,” (Ottawa: March 2004): 4. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eet/pdf/SOT-2004-en.pdf . Last visited: May 11, 2005.

[2] Approximately 14 million commercial trucks cross the Canada-U.S. border each year, which accounts for approximately 70% of Canada-U.S. trade. Commercial truck traffic is expected to increase by 118% over the next 30 years.

[3] Canada’s two-way trade with the U.S. averages over $600 billion (CDN) annually. The total value of trade moved by land between Canada and the U.S. was $482.2 billion (CDN) in 2001. Source: Federal Law Enforcement at the Borders and Ports of Entry: Challenges and Solutions, Report of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, 107th Congress, 2nd Sess., (Washington, D.C.: July 2002) 18.

[4] The basic assumption behind the $7 million (CDN) and $14.3 million (CDN) figures are that border delays interrupt time-sensitive supply-chains leading to temporary losses in industrial production. The segments of the Canadian economy most likely to experience production delays and costs due a 4-hour border delay as of September 2003 were: Animal/Plant - $1,400,971; Forest - $970,970; Metal - $1,373,229; Machinery/Electronics - $1,553,552; Autos - $804,518; and Other - $915,486 (total = $7,018,726 CDN). The segments of the United States economy most likely to experience production delays and costs due a 4-hour border delay as of September 2003 were: Animal/Plant - $221,936; Forest - $332,904; Metal - $1,179,035; Machinery/Electronics - $1,220,648; Autos - $10,361,637; and Other - $1,012,583 (total = $14,300,000 CDN or $10,310,000 USD). Source: Michael H. Belzer, “The Jobs Tunnel: The Economic Impact of Adequate Border-Crossing Infrastructure,” Report Commissioned by the Detroit River Tunnel Partnership, (November 2003): 49-50, 53. Available at: http://www.culma.wayne.edu/pubs/belzer/20031103%20Jobs_Tunnel_Econom.pdf. Last visited: May 11, 2005.

According to a recent Ontario Chamber of Commerce member survey, most respondents said that they experience delays of 1 to 2 hours almost daily. The length of delay at the border is difficult to predict. This makes it impossible to plan for delays in advance and helps explain why delays are so costly. See Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Cost of Border Delays to Ontario (May 2004), 6. Available at: http://www.occ.on.ca/2policysubmissions/OCC%20Borders%20Cost%20Study%20(ONTARIO).pdf. Last visited: May 11, 2005.

[5] Canada-United States-Ontario-Michigan Border Transportation Partnership, “Planning / Need and Feasibility Study – Regional and National Economic Impact of Increasing Delay and Delay-Related Costs at the Windsor-Detroit Crossings – Final Report,” Report prepared by HLB Decision Economics Inc., (January 2004) 47.

[6] See for example, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, “Creating a North American Community,” Chairman’s Statement (March 15, 2005), 10. Available at: http://www.cfr.org/pdf/NorthAmerica_TF_eng.pdf. Last visited: April 28, 2005.

[7] The Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985 and expanded into the Schengen Convention and Schengen acquis in 1995. The EU signatories are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Italy, Sweden, Luxembourg, Spain, and the Netherlands. Norway and Iceland are non-EU parties to the Convention. Ireland and the United Kingdom are not parties to the agreements, but they may take part in some or all of its provisions. The 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 are not yet full operational members of the Schengen area. Cited from: “Glossary--Schengen Agreement and Convention” (European Communities, 1995-2005) Available at: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/glossary/schengen_agreement_en.htm. Last visited: May 25, 2005.

[8] Canada Border Services Agency, “Response to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence – 66 Questions – Border Security” (February 1, 2005): 9.

[9] Dave McIntosh, The Collectors: A History of Canadian Customs and Excise(Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada, 1984) 133.

[10] Canada Border Services Agency, Comptrollership Branch. In 2003-04, the government collected approximately $76.65 million in customs import duties on personal goods for all travelers entering Canada from the United States. This amount does not include commercial customs duties and provincial and federal taxes, including the Goods and Services Tax / Harmonized Sales Tax (GST / HST).

[11] This figure does not include any GST or provincial taxes collected or excise duties on items such as tobacco and alcohol. See Department of Finance, “Federal Government Public Accounts, Table 3 – Budgetary Revenues,” (October 2004). Available at: http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt/2004/frt04_1e.html#Table3. Last visited: April 14, 2005.

[12] In October 2004, the government transferred further functions to CBSA, making it responsible for the on-going delivery of immigration operations at ports of entry. With this, the government completed the integration of customs, immigration, and food inspection personnel into an integrated border inspection corps. See Canada Border Services Agency, “Government of Canada announces transfer of certain functions between Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency,” (October 12, 2004). Available at: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/releases/2004/1012functions-e.html. Last visited: April 29, 2005.

[13] Canada Border Services Agency, “2005-2006 to 2007-2008 Estimates, Part III – Report on Plans and Priorities,” (2005): 16-7.

[14] This would include special items such as cigarettes, perfume and wine.

[15] On September 18, 2003, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution co-sponsored by Senator Susan Collin (R-ME), and Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Domenici, Clinton and Murray. The resolution called on the U.S. Government to pressure the Canadian and Mexican governments to bring their exemption limit structures in line with U.S. limits because their current lower exemption limits disadvantage U.S. businesses. The Committee met with Senator Collins in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2005 and discussed its proposal to not only achieve parity with U.S. limits but to also raise both Canadian and U.S. exemption limits in the interest of national security. Senator Collins said that she would support such a proposal.

[16] Denis Lefebvre, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (February 7, 2005).

[17] VACISing was an expression used in discussion between Senator Kenny and Mr. Lefebvre to describe the process of examining trains with a Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System, an x-ray based technology that allows Inspectors to determine the contents of a container or a truck without opening it.

[18] Free and Secure Trade (FAST) and NEXUS Highway are joint Canada-U.S. programs designed to increase border efficiency. Under FAST, commercial processes have been harmonized to ease the clearance of commercial shipments. Drivers of FAST shipments are pre-approved. Similarly, NEXUS effectively pre-clears travelers. Both programs allow participants to use the special lanes where available to expedite their crossings.

[19] The Committee is convinced that Canada could be moving towards doing the same thing but it isn’t because of a lack of manpower and equipment.

[20] Canada Border Services Agency, “2005-2006 to 2007-2008 Estimates, Part III – Report on Plans and Priorities,” (2005): 7.

[21] Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “Box E: NAFTA@10,” Fifth Annual Report on

Canada’s State of Trade: Trade Update, (Ottawa: March 2004): 28. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eet/pdf/SOT-2004-en.pdf. Last visited: April 30, 2005.

[22] According to the Department of National Revenue in 1992-93 there were 8,330 full-time equivalents delivering the customs program. According to the Auditor General in 2003, about 8,300 people were employed by the customs program. See Department of National Revenue, “1994-95 Estimates – Part 3, Expenditure Plan,” (Ottawa: 1994) 2-34; and Auditor General of Canada, “Canada Customs and Revenue Agency — Managing the Risks of Non-Compliance for Customs,”2003 Status Report, (Ottawa: May 2003): paras. 2-10.

[23] Customs Excise Union, “Security Problems at Canada’s Border Crossings: Evidence & Recommendations,” Submission to the Stand Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (April 7, 2005), 23

[24] Reuters, “Lawmakers Criticize Bush on Border Security,’ (March 3, 2005). Available at: http://edition.cnn.com. Last visited: March 16, 2005; and Department of Homeland Security, “Agents Added to U.S.-Canada Border to Enhance Homeland Security,” (July 2, 2003). Available at: http:www.usembassycanada.gov/content/index.asp. Last visted, April 20, 2005. While the U.S.-Canadian Border is approximately 8892 kilometers long, and the U.S.-Mexican border is approximately 3200 kilometers long, the northern border is guarded by only 10 per cent of U.S. agents assigned to the southern border.

[25] Canada Border Services Agency, “Response to SCONSAD – 66 Questions,” (February 1, 2005): 4.

[26] Cited in Catherine Solyom, “Border agents doze at posts, traveler says,” Montreal Gazette, Thursday, January 20, 2005: A7.

[27] These statistics come from a Canada Border Services Agency written response to a list of Committee questions. According to the Agency, it had 2006 full-time equivalent indeterminate employees working at land border crossings in 2003-04. The figure of 589 was the amount of replacements on strength during last July, the peak month for replacement employment. Cited from Canada Border Services Agency, “Response to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence – 66 Questions – Border Security,” (February 1, 2005): 2.

[28] Canada Border Services Agency, “Response to SCONSAD – 66 Questions,” (February 1, 2005): 10.

[29] Denis Lefebvre, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (February 7, 2005).

[30] Canada Border Services Agency, “Response to SCONSAD – 66 Questions,” (February 1, 2005): 10-11.

[31] Lefebvre, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (February 7, 2005).

[32] Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, Canadian Security Guidebook: 2005 Edition, (December 2004) 27.

[33] CBSA defines critical incidents as events that could lead to police involvement and arrests and involve criminal incidents (situations like threats and assaults to officers). ModuSpec Risk Management Services, Customs Inspectors and Superintendents Job Hazard Analysis – Final Report – Working Draft, 16, 25-6. In a response to the Committee’s inquiries about critical incidents facing officers, CBSA noted that of these 63 critical incidents: a. there were no reported assaults with weapons (even though weapons were seized); b. it should be further noted all injuries to officers were minor in nature; c. None of incidents resulted in fatalities or permanent disabilities to officers.

[34] The Canada Border Services Agency estimated that in 2004 there were approximately 1,600 border runners or failure to report instances. CBSA said that those numbers are so high (in part) because many travelers do not intentionally fail to report, but only omit to do so because of their lack of understanding of their obligation under the law. See: Canada Border Services Agency, “Response to SCONSAD – 66 Questions,” (February 1,

2005): 12.

[35] There are several complicated issues that need to be resolved with regards to border runners. The committee is not addressing the border runner problem directly in this report and will examine and comment on those issues in a later report as part of an examination of security between land border crossings.

[36] These "temporary" instructions were issued to border personnel three years ago and have not been replaced. See Jim Abbott, “Speech to Parliament,” House of Commons Hansard, (December 13, 2004). Available at: /38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/044_2004-12-13/han044_1730-E.htm. Last visited: April 30, 2005.

[37] Elinor Caplan, “Address to the Custom Program’s Senior Managers, Cornwall, Ontario,” (February 5, 2003). Available at: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/speeches/2003/cornwall-e.html. Last visited: March 16, 2005.

[38] Customs Excise Union, “Security Problems at Canada’s Border Crossings: Evidence & Recommendations,” Submission to the Stand Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (April 7, 2005).

[39] ModuSpec Risk Management Services, Customs Inspectors and Superintendents Job Hazard Analysis – Final Report – Working Draft, 26.

[40] ModuSpec Risk Management Services, Customs Inspectors and Superintendents Job Hazard Analysis – Final Report – Draft, (January 2003) 31.

[41] Alain Jolicoeur, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (April 11, 2005).

[42] Stephan Zuberec, “Letter to Senator Colin Kenny,” (April 28, 2005) 1.

[43] See Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, The Myth of Security at Canada's Airports (January 2003): 34-5. The Committee raised the issue of whether border officials should be armed in its first and eighth reports, Canadian Security and Military Preparedness (February 2002) and Canadian Security Guidebook: 2005 Edition (December 2004). On page 31 of the latter, the Committee stated that it would "continue to assess" arming border personnel and "welcome any further evidence" that facilitated this reassessment.

[44] ModuSpec conducted about 200 interviews with customs officers and found that 75% do not believe carrying a gun is necessary. See ModuSpec Risk Management Services, Customs Inspectors and Superintendents Job Hazard Analysis – Final Report – Draft, (January 2003) 31.

[45] Elinor Caplan, “Address to the Custom Program’s Senior Managers,” Cornwall, Ontario, (February 5, 2003). Available at: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/speeches/2003/cornwall-e.html. Last visited: May 18, 2005; and Canada Border Services Agency, “Response to SCONSAD – 66 Questions,” (February 1, 2005): 12.

[46] Canada Border Services Agency, “Response to SCONSAD – 66 Questions,” (February 1, 2005): 12.

[47] Bandwidth refers to a data transmission rate; a certain amount of bandwidth is the amount of information (bits/second) that can be transmitted along a communications channel, like a phone line or a satellite connection. Bandwidth is determined by the technological infrastructure including communications networks, computer hardware and software that is in place. Alain Jolicoeur, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (April 11, 2005).

[48] Customs Excise Union, “Security Problems at Canada’s Border Crossings,” 10. According to the union, if PALS registers a “hit” as the result of a query to the Field Operated Support System (FOSS), the database for immigration officers, it will not display more than “FOSS” on screen. That FOSS record could be the result of an expired visa or a warning that a person is a wanted fugitive considered armed and dangerous.

[49]According to the fifth status report on the Smart Border Action Plan, Canada and the United States have “agreed to work with stakeholders to examine a pilot on full pre-clearance at the same crossing.” See Government of Canada, “Smart Border Action Plan Status Report,” Fifth Annual Report, (December 17, 2004). Available at: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/menu-en.asp?act=v&mid=1&cat=10&did=2465. Last visited: May 18, 2005.

[50] Jolicoeur, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (April 11, 2005).

[51] Jolicoeur, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (April 11, 2005)..

[52] Anne McLellan, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (April 11, 2005).

[53] The U.S. extended pre-clearance to Halifax International Airport in December 2004. This made it the 8^th Canadian airport to offer pre-clearance. Halifax pre-clearance operations will not begin until 2006, when construction of its pre-clearance facility is completed. The Canadian airports already with pre-clearance are Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. See Halifax International Airport Authority, “Halifax International Airport Gains United States Pre-clearance,” (December 17, 2004). Available at: http://www.hiaa.ca. Last visited: May 18, 2005.

[54] Detroit River International Crossing, Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference, 12.

[55] Detroit River International Crossing, Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference – Supporting Documentation, (May 2004) 179.

[56] In 2004, Canada's trade with the Western Europe and Asia-Pacific regions was worth $159.47 Billion (CDN) combined and the United States' trade with the Federal Republic of Germany was worth $108.6 Billion (USD). Sources: International Trade Canada, "Merchandise Trade by Country," (May 12, 2005). http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eet/cimt/2004/pfact_annual_trade_2005-05-en.asp. Last visited: May 30, 2005. US Census Bureau, "Top Trading Partners - Total Trade, Exports, Imports," (May 3, 2005). Available at: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top0412.html. Last visited: May 30, 2005.

[57] U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "BTS Transborder Surface Freight Database." Available at: http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/tbsf/tbdr/by_port_can.pl. Search conducted on: June 2, 2005. All figures calculated at present exchange rates on June 2, 2005.

[58] Greg Keenan, “Governments urged to fix Detroit-Windsor border troubles,” The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, June 16, 2004: B4.

[59] A non-tariff barrier is an economic, political, legal, or administrative impediment to trade other that does not involve a duty or a tax. Examples include import quotas, discriminatory government procurement practices, and discriminatory product standards. Border risk is a non-tariff barrier to trade is so much as the uncertainty related to the reliability of the border is affects the likelihood of investors wanting to split production across the border.

[60] The Honourable David L. Emerson, “Speaking Points to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce,” Calgary, Alberta (September 20, 2004). Available at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/welcomeic.nsf/0/85256a5d006b972085256f1500748b47?OpenDocument. Last visited: May 22, 2005.

[61] Michael H. Belzer, “The Jobs Tunnel: The Economic Impact of Adequate Border-Crossing Infrastructure,” 49-50, 53. These figures translate into lost productivity and fewer jobs.

[62] Michael H. Belzer, “The Jobs Tunnel: The Economic Impact of Adequate Border-Crossing Infrastructure,” 49-50, 53.

[63] Michael H. Belzer, “The Jobs Tunnel: The Economic Impact of Adequate Border-Crossing Infrastructure,” 49-50, 53.

[64] The City of Windsor was not a signatory to the agreement, though the federal government and province said that it would “play a key role in the process.” Government of Ontario, “News Release – $300 Million Canada-Ontario Investment at the Windsor Gateway,” (September 25, 2002). Available at: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/news/provincial/2002/092502.htm. Last visited: April 29, 2005. See also the “Backgrounder – Windsor Agreement.”

[65] The Canada-U.S.-Ontario-Michigan Border Transportation Partnership consists of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Transport Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and the Michigan Department of Transportation.

[66] Kristine Burr, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (February 7, 2005).

[67] George Bush, “Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Chretien on U.S. - Canada Smart Borders,” (September 09, 2002) Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020909-4.html. Last visited: June 06, 2005.

[68] Roger F. Noriega, “Remarks to the Canadian-American Business Council Washington, DC,” (April 14, 2004) Available at: http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/rm/31402.htm. Last visited: June 06, 2005.

[69] Tom Ridge, “Remarks by Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge at a Press Conference with Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan” (December 17, 2004) Available at: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0569.xml. Last visited: June 06, 2005.

[70] Tom Ridge, “Progress Report - Security and Opportunity at the U.S.-Canada Border,” (June 28, 2002) Available at: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=43&content=392&print=true. Last visited June 06, 2005.

[71] State of Michigan, “Press Release – Windsor-Detroit Crossing Study Moves Forward” (February 15, 2005) Available at: http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/pdfs/MDOT_News_Release.pdf. Last visited: June 02, 2005.

[72] Disinvestment would be accurately defined as the withdrawal of capital investment from Canada.

[73] Michael Vaughn, "Five Questions for…The President, Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association" The Globe and Mail (Thursday September 23, 2004): G2.

[74] Forbes Magazine has alleged that the owner of the Ambassador Bridge contributed to the electoral campaigns of U.S. Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick and Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick in an effort to slow down construction of border crossing infrastructure. Stephane Fitch and Joann Muller, “The Troll Under The Bridge,” Forbes Magazine (November 15, 2004): 135-141.

[75] Bruce McCuaig, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (December 1, 2004); and Guy Bujold, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (February 7, 2005).

[76] Sam Schwartz Engineering PLLC (SSC) was retained by the City of Windsor, Ontario, to provide the City with a recommended approach on how to address both commercial and passenger related traffic issues as they relate to the Detroit-Windsor border crossings.

[77] The Committee is of the view that the government only needs to begin design on four of the five alternatives because the fifth option, which involves twinning an existing crossing, fails to provide the redundancy the Committee believes is necessary for Windsor-Detroit. The Committee recommended that redundancy be a key element of any crossing above on page 45.

[78] Bujold, “Testimony,” Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, (February 7, 2005).

[79]The Bill in question is the Real ID Act of 2005. It is available at http://thomas.loc.gov.

[80] IBETs are deployed in-between border points and are not involved in customs and immigration processing.

[81] The Committee’s early impression is that insufficient equipment has been deployed across Canada and that which has is being used unevenly.

[82] McLellan, “Testimony,” (April, 11, 2005); and Alain Jolicoeur, “Enhancing Canada's Borders in the 21st Century,” Presentation to Armchair Discussion at Canada School of Public Service, (February 10, 2005). Available at: http://www.myschool-monecole.gc.ca/events/archives/Armchair/docs/ecb10-02-05_e.ppt. Last visited: April 6, 2005.

[83] Canada Border Services Agency, “Fact Sheet: Free and Secure Trade program,” (January 2005) and “Fact Sheet: NEXUS Highway program,” (January 2005). Available at: www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsheets/2005/0125fast-e.html and www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsheets/2005/0125nexus_highway-e.html. Last visited: April 10, 2005.

[84] Our early impressions are not many. In its investigations to date, the Committee has heard an anecdotal account from a FAST program participant at Windsor that random checks are extremely rare.

[85] “Too Much Secrecy,” Washington-Post (August 28, 2004): A24.

PDF FORMAT

The Committee report is available in PDF format (Portable Document Format). These type of electronic documents retain the original look and feel -- complete with text, graphics, photos and colour -- of their printed versions, and can be disseminated independently of computer platform or distribution media.

Acrobat Readers are freely available and enable Windows, Macintosh, DOS and UNIX users to view, navigate through and print any PDF document.

If you need more information on how to use this format or require a reader for your platform, you may wish to visit Adobe Systems Incorporated.