Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence

Issue 10 - Evidence - Evening sitting

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 7:00 p.m. to conduct an introductory survey of the major security and defence issues facing Canada with a view to preparing a detailed work plan for future comprehensive studies.

Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We have before us tonight a panel of distinguished witnesses who are here to discuss Canada-U.S. border issues. The principal presenter is Mr. Jon Allen, Director General, North American Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs. Accompanying him are Mr. Greg Goatbe, Director General, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency; Ms Christine Nymark, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Transport Canada; Ms Joan Atkinson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizen and Immigration Canada; Mr. Paul Kennedy, Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Solicitor General Canada; and Mr. William Lenton, Assistant Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for appearing before us. We appreciate your assistance in helping us understand these issues. We are looking forward to hearing from you this evening.

Mr. Jon Allen, Director General, North America Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs: We had an opportunity to talk about Canada-U.S. relations in general this morning; but we did touch on the border, it being the topic of interest to most Canadians in the last four or five months. We will continue our dialogue on the border with the real experts on the file. Border management is a horizontal challenge involving the close cooperation of the departments represented before you today. The breadth of the Canada-U.S. bilateral relationship is such that all of our departments have dedicated fora through which we discuss and negotiate these issues of common interest and concern.

While the Department of Foreign Affairs has responsibility for the overall management of the relationship, a number of the experts on the issues that underpin that relationship are my colleagues with me tonight. Before inviting your questions, I have been asked to say a few words about the state of the border and the government's recent efforts on the file.

Before September 11, the departments represented here cooperated effectively with their U.S. counterparts on a range of border issues. The Office of the Solicitor General and the RCMP meet with U.S. counterparts at the FBI every year at the Cross-Border Crime Forum. Citizenship and Immigration meet regularly with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service at Border Vision meetings. CCRA, together with the Department of Immigration and the Department of Foreign Affairs, does the same with their American counterparts under the shared border accord. An MOU concluded in October, 2000 provides Transport Canada with an effective mechanism for engaging the U.S. Department of Transport on border and infrastructure issues.

Over the past two years, we participated together in what was called the Canada-U.S. Partnership, or the CUSP, which was an effort prior to September 11 to bring all the departments together with their U.S. counterparts to go across the country to engage Canadians and Americans to find out what they thought about the border and what should be done about it. In general, the objective of these various consultative mechanisms was to find ways to expedite the flow of low-risk goods and people while concentrating limited resources on the high-risk side of that equation.

While it has become a cliché to say that the world has changed since September 11, the reality for many of us is that it is true. It has changed the way we think about New York and Washington. I know you are heading down to Washington in about a week. Ambassador Kergin was on the sixth floor of the embassy meeting with his executive committee on the day of the World Trade Center incidents. As they were in the process of discussing those incidents, they looked across the Potomac and saw smoke rising up from the Pentagon. Our consulate in New York is surrounded by four buildings that were exposed to anthrax. Therefore, the people you will see, whether in the embassy or the Americans that you will meet, have experienced fundamentally what September 11 is all about.

September 11 has also changed the way we think about flying, and Ms Nymark from Transport Canada has been working on the air security file virtually non-stop since September 11.

Finally, September 11 has changed the way we think about the border. As I suggested this morning, from an economic and a security perspective, the early reactions to the events of September 11 have put into high relief Canada's interdependence and our own vulnerability in our relationship with the U.S. Given these new realities and that sense of vulnerability, our challenge these past few months in Canada and in the U.S. has been twofold: first, to respond quickly and effectively to our common public security concerns; second, to work together with the U.S. in order to protect and significantly enhance our economic security.

Our collective efforts have not been an attempt to go back to September 10. Our efforts have been to go beyond September 10 to a place where we have an efficient, effective and secure border. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, you will recall the lengthy lineups of trucks in southern Ontario. These lineups were quickly reduced and traffic flows returned to normal, but only through extensive Canada-U.S. cooperation and enormous efforts by the line staff on both sides of the border.

Those lineups, the temporary plant closures they caused, hints by foreign companies that they might reconsider new investment in Canada and the slowdown felt by our tourism sector from B.C. to Windsor all alerted us to what many knew already but had begun to take for granted, that is, that this country's prosperity and security depend on a border that operates efficiently and effectively under all circumstances.

We spoke briefly about the bilateral economic relationship this morning. I would like to mention a few additional statistics that further highlight the significance of the border. Two-way trade has doubled since 1993, at an annual rate of 12 per cent. That is eight years of 12 per cent increases. Over 200 million individuals cross our shared border. Soon we will be looking at about 1 million people each workday. Of the roughly $1.8 billion per day in cross-border trade that we talked about this morning, 70 per cent is carried by truck. Approximately 45,000 trucks cross the border each day, most of them at the same four or five border points in Southern Ontario. With traffic volumes projected to increase by 10 per cent annually over the next decade and border infrastructure and inspection resources at or near their limit now, it is not hard to see why the officials before you tonight have been working as hard as they have to get the border right.

If September 11 initially raised serious concerns about the border, the good news is that the most senior levels of government in Ottawa and Washington are now paying close attention to the problems and pressing each of us on both sides of the border for solutions. As we discussed this morning, the Prime Minister established the Ad Hoc Cabinet Committee on Public Safety and Anti-Terrorism, chaired by now Deputy Prime Minister John Manley. PSAC pushed through a range of measures in October and November to address security concerns. Mr. Manley and his committee then took on the border, both the security and the facilitation aspects. Supporting him, as I indicated, was Rob Fonberg, Deputy Secretary to the cabinet and head of a PCO task force on border management. Rob Fonberg has been working intensively with the departments represented here and with senior officials in Governor Tom Ridge's office to develop a plan for the border.

I would suggest that a great deal has been accomplished in a very short period of time. The December 10 budget, as we discussed this morning, addressed security in a big way, including more than $7.7 billion over the next five years, with $1.2 billion of that allocated for border-related matters. On December 12, the Canada-U.S. Smart Border Declaration was signed, and you have copies of the declaration's 30-point action plan in your information packages.

Senator Atkins asked this morning whether the action plan would be implemented. I believe it will be. As I mentioned, Minister Manley and Governor Ridge have said that they want to be able to report to the Prime Minister and the President on their progress at Kananaskis in June, less than five months from now.

Let me briefly summarize the four pillars of the action plan. First, with respect to the secure flow of people, our two sides are committed to identifying security risks, while expediting the flow of low-risk travellers, and identifying security threats before they arrive in North America. We are also committed to establishing a secure system to allow low-risk, frequent travellers between our countries to move efficiently across the border. CIC has the lead on that volley.

Second is the secure flow of goods. Our two countries will identify high-risk goods while expediting the flow of low-risk goods. We will identify security threats arriving from abroad by developing common standards for screening cargo before it arrives in North America, and we will work together to clear goods at the first port of entry. We will expedite the flow of low-risk goods between our countries by establishing secure procedures to clear goods away from the border, including at rail yards and at marine ports. CCRA has the lead on these objectives.

The third basket involves security on infrastructure. It requires relieving congestion at key crossing points by investing reciprocally in border infrastructure and identifying technological solutions that will help to speed movement across the border. It involves identifying threats to our critical infrastructure, including at airports, ports, bridges, tunnels, pipelines, et cetera. This is primarily a Transport Canada responsibility.

Finally, there is the coordination and information sharing required to make all these other objectives work. This involves, inter alia, the coordination between our enforcement agencies for addressing common threats. The Solicitor General has the lead on this item.

The plan is ambitious, we believe its goals are achievable, and Minister Manley and Governor Ridge have made it clear that they expect results. Indeed, we are well on the way to achieving some our objectives already. The NEXUS alternate inspection system is up and running, again at one port, and we hope to have more pilots by June. The new air preclearance agreement could be implemented by the end of April.

In addition to NEXUS, our other highest priorities are a safe third-country agreement to stem the flow of U.S. origin refugees, harmonized or complementary systems for commercial processing clearance away from the border, and infrastructure improvements.

The challenges ahead are many but the political will to make progress is palpable. I will stop here if I may, and invite questions from you. I know that my colleagues are eager to answer them.

Senator Cordy: The first item I would like to talk about is the safe third-country agreement. This is something that was on the books before we got our Smart Border Declaration between the two countries. We have been waiting for quite a long time to have an agreement with the U.S. to enforce this policy. How long will it take for this agreement to be operational between the two countries?

Ms Joan Atkinson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration: You are quite right that the safe third-country concept is not new. We have provisions in our current immigration legislation, and will have provisions in our new immigration legislation, which will allow us to have safe third-country agreements with countries on a reciprocal basis. In 1995, we attempted a negotiation with the United States on a safe third-country agreement. Those negotiations took place over a period of two years and, in 1997, we abandoned the negotiations because the American government was putting too many caveats, too many restrictions, on the table.

Mindful of that experience, we have approached the American government in a different way, and to a certain extent September 11 has given us new momentum to look at this in a different way. Our position is that we have a common problem in our respective territory, and that problem is one of irregular migration. Individuals arrive in the United States or in Canada, they are often undocumented and they claim protection, refugee status, oftentimes because they are perfectly legitimate refugees, but oftentimes because they are simply seeking to delay their removal from the country. This is a problem that we both share. We approached this in the spirit of the partnership that we had been building before, and which got new impetus post-September 11. This was a problem that we needed to deal with collectively. The difference between now and when we tried before and were unsuccessful in our negotiations is that there is indeed political will at the very highest levels of the American administration to make this happen, in the context of the Smart Border Declaration.

We are hopeful that we will be able to finalize a safe third-country agreement that will meet the needs of both the Americans and ourselves within a short period of time. Mr. Allen mentioned the G8 negotiations at Kananaskis. That is clearly an objective for us. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to reach an agreement in the intervening period, but we have set up a group and begun negotiations with the Americans. We are very optimistic that with the momentum that has been provided, and the framework and the context in which we are negotiating a safe third-country agreement, we will be successful this time.

Senator Cordy: Immediately after September 11, there was a lot of misinformation from a number of American media outlets. There was misinformation about Canada allowing so many people in. The reality is that one third to one half of the refugee claimants are coming in through the United States.

Could you tell me how this agreement will work? Will the refugee claimants be stopped at the border and sent back to the U.S.? How will this be implemented? Do you know that at this point in time?

Ms Atkinson: Essentially, it is the way you described it. Approximately 40 per cent of our refugee claimants came via the United States. They arrived in the United States, and then came north to the border. Under a safe third-country agreement with the Americans, if an individual arrives at the border and claims refugee status, and it is evident that he could have claimed refugee status in the United States because he was there, we would send that person back to the United States.

There may be room for some exceptions. In the case of individuals who have close family connections in Canada, or similar circumstances, we may consider making some exceptions to that general rule; but that is the basic principle.

Senator Cordy: I would like to move now to the shortage of customs officers at the borders. I have read in the material that we have before us that, without infrastructure, additional staff would not solve the capacity of security in the long term. I have also read that $400 million has been set aside by the Canadian government for border infrastructure. I do not have a picture in my mind of what exactly that means. What would border infrastructure entail?

Mr. Greg Goatbe, Director General, Program Strategy Directorate, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency: The $43-million funding that we received recently in the budget and the $100 million we received 18 months or two years ago for the Customs Action Plan is designed primarily to help us move into a better risk-management environment, so that we can do a better job of assessing where risk exists and, just as important, where it does not exist, for both people and goods as they move through the primary lines into Canada.

The money will be spent on new systems like NEXUS, which is a system that allows us to pre-register and pre-approve individuals, who will then be given a card to allow them to move back and forth across the border. That does two things, it enhances the security of the movement of individuals and it streamlines the movement of them. We want to roll those types of systems out across the border. We want to do the same thing for air passengers. We would also like to have a NEXUS equivalent for commercial shipments as they move across border, pre-registering them to allow CCRA to focus more time and efforts on shipments where we do not know the risk.

Much of the funding goes towards systems. An amount will go towards technical equipment like X-ray machines that will help us to detect drugs and explosives; and X-ray machines to examine containers so that we will not have to open them.

That helps us to do a better job in assessing whether there is a risk and it also speeds up the process because we do not have to open all of the containers.

Some of that money will be used for additional customs inspectors at airports and seaports where the risk is greatest from offshore threats. These items together will provide us with a better risk management system. The systems and infrastructure that we will put in place to do that will all contribute towards more security and a more streamlined movement of people and low-risk people and goods moving into and out of Canada.

Senator Cordy: I believe you referred to preclearance cards for commuters. If someone had a preclearance card in January, how would you ensure that it would still be deservedly in his or her hands in March or April or even in January of the next year.

Ms Atkinson: I assume you are referring to NEXUS, which is a pilot project that we established at the Port Huron-Sarnia border with the four agencies: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, CIC, U.S. Customs and CCRA. The idea was that we would pre-enrol persons. By doing that in the NEXUS pilot, we agreed on the common criteria for screening individuals. We would make a risk assessment in screening those individuals to ensure that they did not pose a threat to either country; that they were frequent travellers across the border; and that in pre-enrolling them and giving them a card, they would be able to use designated commuter lanes to facilitate their entry back and forth.

The four agencies together have been discussing expansion of that program and looking at the security features of our screening to ensure that, post-September 11, we have the most secure screening mechanism in place. In that way we can assure ourselves that we are properly evaluating the risk that individuals could pose. Our plan is to issue those NEXUS cards for a designated period of time. We would not necessarily renew them on an annual basis, but we are considering a three-year validity of the NEXUS card. We believe that pre-enrolment programs not only help to facilitate the frequent traveller, but they also have an important security component to them. They also allow the bearer to have a 30-second interaction with a customs officer at the primary lane of the border, or perhaps, if referred to an immigration officer in the secondary lane, the time would be a little longer. However, the card allows for a more in-depth screening of individuals, thus creating assurance that individuals pose no threat before they are issued cards, which thereafter facilitate entry each time.

Senator Cordy: In some ways, they obtain a more thorough investigation.

Ms Atkinson: Indeed. The NEXUS pilot offers an enhanced level of security, in fact.

Senator Cordy: I was on an inter-parliamentary committee where we heard from members of the U.S. Coast Guard. I do not recall the term they used, but I wrote it down as "common areas" or "shared areas" at the border. In other words, both the U.S. and Canada use joint facilities. What is the status of that? Is it still at the discussion stage or has it been implemented?

Mr. Goatbe: For a long time we have been talking with U.S. Customs about the possibility of establishing customs zones where the inspectors in one country would be on the actual soil of another country to enforce customs laws. The idea first arose about five or six years ago at the Peace Bridge between Fort Erie and Buffalo. The issue with U.S. Customs was that on their side of the border, they had extreme congestion, and they had no space for expansion because of the expressway and a variety of other constraints in terms of the lands available to them. However, on the Canadian side, there was more than sufficient land available. Thus, the idea was to move U.S. Customs to the Canadian side of the border and have cars and trucks processed there before they drove onto the bridge. Once they crossed the bridge, there would be no reason to stop and so they could go straight through.

Actually, U.S. Customs and the Peace Bridge Authority established a pre-processing centre as a first step toward that end. Pre-processing is different from preclearance in that the truck driver arrives, pulls into the centre and makes sure he has all the documentation required to clear U.S. Customs. The information is then faxed or emailed to the U.S. Customs broker who then processes it and sends it to U.S. Customs. They then examine the information, make a decision, and, when the truck arrives, they have that decision waiting. The truck simply waits in a compound on the Canadian side, and when it reaches the primary inspection lane in U.S. Customs, the decision is already waiting. Generally they are released, but some are referred for inspection.

That was step one. The fourth phase was to bring U.S. Customs inspectors to Canadian soil to do that work so that there would not be anyone on the U.S. side.

There were two issues raised with respect to the process. U.S. Customs wanted their inspectors to come over with their guns to enforce U.S. law and regulations on Canadian soil, which was another issue of sovereignty. Those two large issues were not resolved, the result of which was that nothing has happened in terms of extending the pre-processing centre in Fort Erie.

At the same time, there were discussions in respect of air preclearance to finalize the processes and training for U.S. Customs and Immigration inspectors that are present in Canadian airports. The process was to allow preclearance before passengers boarded planes to the U.S. The idea was that once it was finalized, we would use that as a model for the land borders. That has been put in place, but we are still left with those two issues of guns and sovereignty.

One of the points in the 30-point plan is clearance away from the border. Part of that is the idea of exploring international zones, pre-processing centres, reverse clearance and all of the issues that, in one fashion or another, would involve either U.S. Customs inspection staff on Canadian soil or Canadian Customs staff on U.S. soil.

It is not only the fact that they do not have space on the U.S. side, but in some instances, the Canadian border sites do not have much room for expansion. An example of that is at Queenston Bridge. In that instance, there would be a case to put us on the U.S. side. We are in the process of trying to crunch these issues so that we can explore all of the possibilities.

Senator Cordy: Is it still in the exploratory stage?

Mr. Goatbe: Yes.

Mr. Allen: We are also embarking on a project model of various sites along the border to better understand where the best sites would be for a particular choice, whether it is reverse inspection, a joint facility or a clearance away. We have to do this in Canada and in the United States. We need to come to an agreement on how it would be done. Then, of course, as Mr. Goatbe said, we would have to tackle the legal and charter issues. People are in the process of looking into those so that we can be in a position to make informed decisions.

The Chairman: To clarify, can you explain a reverse inspection?

Mr. Goatbe: Reverse inspection is a rather new term since the incidents of September 11. The Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association has members at most of the major crossings in Southern Ontario. Their idea is that to protect the infrastructure locally, provincially and federally, it would make more sense if Canada Customs were on the U.S. side of the Ambassador Bridge performing the inspection process in advance of someone actually entering the bridge. In that way, there is a greater chance of identification of someone actually attempting to bring a car or truck containing explosives across the bridge. They would be identified before they entered the bridge rather than after they paid the toll, came across the bridge and lined up.

The idea is that, in theory, we would be put on the U.S. side and the U.S. would be put on the Canadian side all along the border to protect critical infrastructure. However, there is significant infrastructure cost to move the two sides. There are also legal and political issues in respect of sovereignty and guns. It will probably take some time to put that in place because of the infrastructure issues. It is simply not something that can be done quickly. That is reverse inspection.

Senator Meighen: Maybe you will suggest that we could get this in another forum, but the guns and sovereignty issue seems to have been around for quite a while. Can anyone talk about possible avenues of solution?

Ms Christine Nymark, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Transport: We have resolved those issues for air preclearance at airports in a very limited way by having our own officers present at the preclearance sites for the Americans.

Senator Meighen: Would they be there with guns?

Mr. Paul Kennedy, Senior Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Solicitor General Canada: Yes. This is a very difficult issue. Just to put it in context, for instance, if a police officer in Canada discharges his weapon in the course of duties it could lead to a complaint, an investigation and things of that nature. There is always accountability, in terms of charges being laid and what courts prosecute. In the case of the RCMP, there is a public complaints commission that can hear the matter, as well as internal discipline issues. If there is another jurisdiction involved, such as an American officer in Canada, the agency he represents when he discharges his weapon must determine whether there is a problem in terms of the crime being investigated by municipal, provincial or federal police. To whom is he accountable in terms of a police officer in this country? Every police officer in Canada is subject to accountability, as is a foreign officer subject to accountability. There are issues of civil liability in terms of what law applies, in terms of liability and whether his action is subject to Charter rights in Canada.

It is an issue at which we are looking. We are looking at the issue, for example in Ottawa-Carleton, of an investigating officer driving across the bridge into Hull and his or her standing in that jurisdiction. Without arrangements, one cannot be a police officer over there. At an international border, the situation is exacerbated even further because of state laws, national laws, provincial laws and things of that nature.

We are wrestling with this issue. It is part of the dynamic in the new world, where cross-border crime exists. We are finding that for cooperation to occur we are looking at the kinds of arrangements you have heard about on the customs side. Our RCMP colleague, Assistant Commissioner Lenton, can talk about integrated border enforcement teams, where we are trying to work on the border with multiple jurisdictional teams and the challenges that that can create. We are seized with the issue. It may be that in order to have some sovereignty we will have to give up some sovereignty. Nevertheless, the issue of cross-border crime is causing us to re-examine some of the notions we have looked at. Computer crime is a classic example. It might run through 10 or 15 different countries and must be tracked in order to get all these countries to cooperate.

The issues of smuggling and crime activities on the border, plus terrorism, are causing us to seek an effective way to work and a way to address the issue of guns. One of the concerns - and perhaps Assistant Commissioner Lenton can give us some practical examples - is the requirement for some of the American officers, by law, to carry guns when they are on duty. How do they take their guns off when they have to come into another jurisdiction?

Mr. William Lenton, Assistant Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Because of the geography of Canada and the United States, in certain areas in the West, such as Point Roberts, there are customs officers who must go on duty in their jurisdiction in Point Roberts. The only way to access that area is to come through Canadian territory. We have the problem on the East Coast with Campobello Island, where people who have been arrested there in the RCMP jurisdiction, other than taking a helicopter or boat across the strait, have to be taken through the American jurisdiction. In that scenario, you have a marked RCMP cruiser, carrying an armed police officer and a prisoner, which has to get off the ferry and get through American jurisdiction. Obviously, there is the firearms issue, but there is also the issue of losing jurisdiction over your prisoner as soon as you step into another country.

All those issues have to be addressed and we have to make on-site adjustments to each scenario that arises. Then there is the scenario in recent case law - I believe in the Akwesasne area - where the road actually divided the American territory from the Canadian territory and as the officer was arresting the individual a fight ensued and both ended up in the ditch. The incident involved an American peace officer that ended up in the ditch on the Canadian side. He took his prisoner home, following which there were allegations of a forced extradition without having done the appropriate procedures because the individual was arrested on Canadian soil. The officer certainly had not intended to do wrong. He was dealing with the issue.

In another case, there might be an officer in a rural area who discovers a vehicle that is smuggling products across the border via a farmer's field. The intervention will happen, the exhibits will be seized and brought back to Canada or taken to their own office, which the officer would do normally, and then suddenly we realize the arrest took place on the American side of the border and those exhibits actually belong to the American jurisdiction. Steps then need to be addressed in that regard.

My colleagues have mentioned the types of issues that have been happening and there are ongoing discussions with respect to these things. To this point, we have had to resolve on a case-by-case basis.

Senator Meighen: I am sure Senator Day would agree with me about this: We can solve your problem if the government can be persuaded to provide a ferry from Campobello to Deer Island, and then you can go from Deer Island to the mainland. That would be cheaper than getting involved in legal issues with other jurisdictions.

Senator Day: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attending here today. Your testimony will help us in terms of trying to fill in the gaps. We are trying to prepare ourselves for our trip to Washington.

I find, Mr. Allen, the little anecdotes that you give helpful - for example, in describing trade that there is more business in a day over the bridge between Detroit and Windsor than between Japan and Mexico in a year. Would it be possible for you to prepare a one-page list of such points that can be given to all committee members? The percentages and the numbers are also helpful, but the anecdotes are most helpful. The U.S. sells more goods to Canada than all of the European Community countries combined.

Mr. Allen: Yes.

Senator Day: There are also the energy issues. If those could be provided, it would be appreciated.

I was pleased as well that you clearly outlined the number of cooperative efforts that existed between the various agencies - Canada-U.S. - before September 11. I do not think I had an appreciation of how much cooperation went on previously. Before September 11, we were moving nicely along that road of balancing efficient trade with the security issue, and the balance seemed to be going very nicely until the devastating events of September 11.

You said that we tried to respond quickly to public concerns and feelings of vulnerability in the United States. Since then, have we found the same desire to cooperate generally, or is this being pushed more from the Canadian side? We probably have a trade economic vulnerability whereas the Americans have a safety vulnerability, I would think.

Mr. Allen: We have found political will on both sides of the border. We see this in terms of bad news and good news. The bad news is obviously the tragedy that occurred, and I think, as Ms Atkinson said, this had been an opportunity for people on both sides of the border. We mentioned this afternoon that they took actions, but for a variety of reasons the political will was not there or there were simply more important issues on the table. That has given politicians and officials on both sides of the border the political impetus to move. A safe third country is a perfect example, where it is difficult to engage the Americans, but they have a much clearer appreciation of why we want to deal with this.

We must include a security component in each of these items. We must not say to the Americans, "Look, what is really important to us is trade and facilitation." We are trying to focus our limited resources in a serious way by dealing with our common security problem, and in doing so we will improve our efficiencies at the border. Americans like Tom Ridge understand that intuitively. One must keep hammering home the message that throwing people, inspectors and military guards at the border simply will not do the job if one is realistic about how to protect one's security.

Senator Day: Prior to September 11 and for a number of years there have been cross-border agreements where the same rule has been applied. In terms of produce trade, we have relied on potatoes on the East Coast and wood products. We have relied on the rules that have been agreed to between Canada and the United States. We have had agreements whereby we would rely on their inspection for Canadian national activities. Are Americans likely to feel more secure knowing that we are applying the same rules that they are applying?

Mr. Kennedy: There are many pieces of the pie, and you have only seen a small segment. My minister, Minister MacAulay, has a very solid relationship with Attorney General Ashcroft. One often reads expressions of support and gratitude from the Americans for the work that CSIS and the RCMP are doing. Those relationships to which you have alluded between the respective enforcement agencies of both jurisdictions are close and profound.

Canada has a unique relationship with the Americans because we tend to be common law jurisdictions founded upon the British common law system. We both have constitutionally enshrined Charters of Rights. We both have well-educated populations and professional, highly-skilled and not corrupt enforcements agencies.

Senator Day: We also have examples of civil law with Quebec and Louisiana.

Mr. Kennedy: That is correct and it is unique. The point is that we can carry on a dialogue concerning the problems we are facing, the solutions we try to craft in terms of balancing public safety and individual rights, and the techniques we use to address public safety problems. We do not throw brute force at these things because we must achieve balance. One can track many laws in our jurisdiction that come from the United States, and the Americans can take examples from us. Our wiretap laws are modelled upon their Title III. We have provisions in the Canada Immigration Act relating to terrorism and organized crime such as special hearings processes that the Americans have used as models. There is a unique dialogue that occurs.

I had occasion to meet with Attorney General Ashcroft, to meet with Attorney General Reno before that, and to meet with the American Bar Association. Many of the approaches to the challenges that Canada and the United States face in regard to transnational crime become models. We can reach a consensus sooner than many countries in the world because of the checks and balances that we must look at to create solutions.

Incidents such as the Ressam affair and the exchange of information between enforcement agencies from Canada and the United States have shown the efficient flow of information and the kinds of cooperation that are actually extended, such as extradition, mutual legal assistance and so forth. Those who live through these incidents marvel that many of the elements that have been there for quite a while really work.

Following the budget, bureaucrats can actually continue to enhance capabilities and implement information systems that will make things work. Our American colleagues see the solution as fortifying the Canada-U.S. border.

I had occasion to meet Senator Kennedy in the United States. He said that since we have such professional forces, we must look at information exchange and the use of technology to defend that border. This is not a case of lining up soldiers across the border. Ours is a smart border, as Mr. Allen has said. That is what they are seeking cooperation from us. They feel they can accomplish things with us that they might not be able to accomplish elsewhere in the world.

Senator Day: You indicated that the flow of business and the backlog of trucks is behind us now and that the flow is back to pre-September 11 levels; is that correct?

Mr. Allen: That is correct. Commercial flow returned to normal relatively quickly. The flow of people took much longer. That is due to a combination of the economic recession and some of the security issues and concerns that people would have to wait at the border. Those concerns reduced the number of Americans travelling to Canada. That continues to some extent to impact on the tourism industry, such as the casino in Windsor or in small communities such as Whistler. These communities continue to be affected.

It is difficult to measure whether we are speaking about economic recession, issues of security, or whether people simply do not want to take the chance of having to wait if there is an incident at the border that they cannot predict. To the extent possible, we are trying to bring back a sense of normalcy so that we can get that trade flowing again.

Senator Day: Are some businesses in the United States taking advantage of the delays at the border to say, "You cannot count on a supplier from Canada, therefore you must locate one in the States"? Are we seeing any statistics in that regard?

Mr. Goatbe: I was in Windsor on Friday and we were meeting with transport departments and U.S. Customs. The Regional Director for U.S. Customs in Detroit stated that the volumes were back up to normal and had actually surpassed levels from a previous period. Their wait times were better than pre-September 11 because of some of the processes they put in place and some of the people they put on the border.

One historical issue for them is that they had very few people on the border to process commercial shipments and people as opposed to the numbers we have. That is a good example that the numbers are back where they were pre-September 11. In that particular case, wait times are even less than they were. We are in pretty good shape. There are things we need to do to put infrastructure and new systems in place to ensure that continues, but for both sides going into the U.S. and coming into Canada, we are pretty much back to where we were.

Mr. Allen: It is difficult to know what foreign investors are thinking and doing and whether seeing some of the lineups at the border has had an impact. We certainly heard that some companies, such as Toyota, had discussed whether it would be easier to locate on the U.S. side of the border to avoid concern about the border. However, we have no statistical evidence to that effect. We are trying to ensure that the border is trade neutral as much as possible.

Senator Day: Presumably you are getting the message out that things are back to normal. Perhaps part of that message is your participation here and our trip next week to Washington.

I would like to go back to the security immigration issue. I am glad you mentioned the flow both ways because we hear a lot about the flow of illegal immigrants and the flow of drugs to the U.S. Do we have comparative statistics about the flow coming north from the United States? You mentioned the 40 per cent figure for refugee claimants. What about illegal immigrants other than refugee claimants? Do you have any statistics on that, or on drugs and the various other things about which the Americans complain as far as Canada is concerned? Is there something to balance that?

Ms Atkinson: Getting numbers on real illegal immigrants is difficult. Obviously, those people fly under the radar screen. That is the nature of being an illegal immigrant.

We talked about 40 per cent of our refugee claimants coming from the United States every year. That amounts to about 16,000 refugee claimants. Those would be individuals who arrived in the United States, sometimes with documents, and many times without, who then arrive at the Canadian border. For the most part, we do not know who they are because most of them arrive with no documents.

Some 99.9 per cent of travellers who cross the border are perfectly legitimate and pose no particular problem. The year 2000 is the last year for which we have figures. In that year, we wrote up approximately 22,000 reports on inadmissible persons coming to us from the United States. They were not all American citizens but people who, again, are coming north to Canada and who were potentially in violation of the Immigration Act, either through criminality or other issues.

Senator Day: Is that in addition to the 16,000?

Ms Atkinson: Yes.

We do not have figures for the flow from Canada into the United States. I do not know if our American colleagues have those numbers. We do know that the United States has a very large illegal immigration population. It is estimated that anywhere from 3 million to 6 million people are illegally residing in the United States. Obviously, not all of them are moving and coming north to Canada. Most are staying put in the United States.

Again, there are significant populations of people in the United States who are either undocumented or whose identity is not necessarily known. That is an issue for both countries. This is part of the spirit in which we have approached issues such as safe third country, visa policy convergence and so on. We look at these issues collectively.

Mr. Kennedy: I will speak to the issue of drugs, and Commissioner Lenton may want to add some comments.

Canada has been a leader in this regard. There is a drug commission of the Organization of American States called CICAD, and it has looked at the drug problem hemispherically. A mechanism has been created to do evaluations of each country. A hemispheric report and a country report for Canada were submitted at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. We could make that report available to you.

You heard reference in Mr. Allen's opening comments to the Cross-Border Crime Forum. That is a forum at which we sit down to deal with the United States and say, "We have a common problem here. Challenge the border." Historically, there was a tendency for the United States to do certifications of countries in terms of their drug problems. We have heard criticism in the past about marijuana grown in Canada and shipped south of the border. Obviously, that has been an irritant to our American colleagues, particularly hydroponic marijuana. Very high quality hydroponic marijuana comes out of British Columbia, Quebec and Manitoba.

It is really happenstance as to what kind of drugs are grown, where they are grown and where they go. We have noticed a historical change. I am sure you have all heard of raves and pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals, whether it is methamphetamines, speed, cocaine or heroin. It depends where they are grown and what markets they go reach.

It is not appropriate to talk about who has the problem and point out who is the producer and who is the consumer. We have tried to break out of that mould. The Americans have been very cooperative and are very strong partners in looking at this as a hemispheric, common problem. They are asking, "What will we do to fix it?"

With reference to your specific question about Canada and the U.S., at the cross-border crime forum we have asked that the intelligence and enforcement officers in the two jurisdictions produce a common drug assessment of the Canada-U.S. border and the drug problem in the United States and Canada. That has been done. The report is almost complete. We hope it will be signed off by Attorney General Ashcroft and Solicitor General MacAulay in the next few weeks, at which time we will make it public. I can undertake to table that report with you once it is public. It will be a microcosm view of Canada and the U.S.

We have approached this on the basis of it being a common problem with a common solution.

The Chairman: Do you detect a difference between the response of the administration and the response of Congress? Our problem sounds like a problem for the administration, as opposed to what we are expecting to meet when we go to the Senate and the House. Perhaps you could define your answer a little more, or perhaps you could be more specific.

Mr. Kennedy: Of course, what audience you speak to is always a challenge. Clearly, we are dealing with very senior officials of the administration.

Congress had mandated a requirement regarding where the certification process was be done. It was a requirement of Congress to perform an annual certification of various countries that would result in potentially punitive trade sanctions if there were a drug problem in that country. This year, Congress suspended that requirement. It is no longer being done. We believe, from officials, that it is done in response to the process that we are working through with the Organization of American States. Theirs is a hemispheric approach, recognizing that it is not one country's problem but a hemispheric problem. We have to work with each other to fix this problem. That is how we are approaching it.

Administrative officials, bureaucrats and law enforcement officers from all segments of their administration are in support of it. In terms of dynamics, I suppose it is like the Senate and the House here. Obviously, the Senate and the Congress represent different constituencies with their own perspectives. We are hoping that this will create an informed dialogue. The fact that Congress has suspended the requirement for the certification report this year is a good step forward. It must mean they are getting the message.

Mr. Allen: In terms of facts and figures, my understanding is that the majority of illegal weapons that come into this country come in across the border, south to north. For some Americans, weapons, generally, is not such a big issue. However, for Canadians it is a very significant issue. As a contribution to crime in this country it is a significant issue. That is certainly something that one could keep in the back of one's mind.

Mr. Kennedy: As I indicated, we have a very fruitful and positive engagement with our colleagues in the United States. The Cross-Border Crime Forum has set up about six different committees to look at various issues, one of which has to do with gun smuggling. It was identified in May or June when Attorney General Ashcroft was here. Obviously, he has heard about the issue of guns in the United States and the problem of guns being used illegally in Canada. I refer to guns that come from the U.S. A joint intelligence assessment has been conducted by the RCMP with their counterparts in the United States to give us a comprehensive document. That will give us a picture as to whether there are problems in terms of lack of enforcement in the United States. Is it a case of what are the laws and are they inappropriate? To what extent is that causing a problem for Canada? That is the sense of a reciprocal engagement. It is not a case of what problem Canada is causing in the United States, but the converse. How do their actions impact upon Canada? Alien smuggling is something my colleague will be looking at, and gun smuggling is another issue. Telemarketing fraud, organized crime and so on are the kinds of things we are looking at.

Allegedly, about 85 per cent of the weapons used in crime that are seized in Canada originate from the United States. That is the number I have heard. Part of our challenge - and we are doing this intelligence assessment - is to determine the actual numbers, the size of problem and what is causing it.

Senator Day: That is not to say that they came across border illegally.

Mr. Kennedy: We have to find the cause of the problem.

Senator Day: Would other departments like to comment on that, for example, Transport Canada?

Mr. Lenton: I do not have any statistics to offer you this evening, but I will see if I can find something prior to your trip. As Mr. Kennedy has indicated, it is a moving target. Several years ago, the issue was that drug products from South America would be put into staging zones either in northern Mexico or the mid-western states or mid-states and then be airlifted the rest of the way into Canada. Once that became more difficult, the companies or cartels started airlifting directly from Colombia into Canada, and the product was going southbound. Therefore, it depends on the organization you are dealing with.

The reason the term "B.C. bud" became popular was that it was an identifiable crop going south to a particular area, and it attained an aura that perhaps got more publicity than some other things going on. However, I will look for statistics for you prior to your meeting.

Senator Day: Any statistics you can give us will be helpful.

Mr. Kennedy, you are undertaking to produce the Quebec report and the other upcoming one would be helpful. From a customs or transport point of view, are there any comparative activities that we could talk about from the perspective of the border traffic coming north to balance the complaints of Americans about it going south?

Mr. Goatbe: From a customs perspective, the movement north has been covered by Mr. Lenton and Mr. Kennedy.

Senator Day: From a customs points of view, can the U.S. justifiably say that Canada Customs is not performing a level of inspection that is reasonable for containers that land in Canada and go on to the United States?

Mr. Goatbe: No, we can definitely say that that is not the case. In fact, we have had pilot projects with the Americans for some time taking a look at what is coming here versus what is coming to the U.S. from Canada. One of the 30-point action plan items is to look at in-transit containers and to put the U.S. targeters in place in Canada and Canadian targeters in place in the U.S. to further enhance our ability to identify any high-risk containers. There is no issue there. They are happy with what has been going on and will go on, and so are we.

Ms Nymark: With respect to air security, the Americans are satisfied with the cooperation they have received and with the way we are handling transborder passengers going into the United States from Canada. With respect to much of the security delays that you have probably experienced in terms of screening, the level of screening and the level of vigilance around that is far superior to what occurs in most airports in the United States, and the Americans acknowledge that. They have also asked for air marshals. We do not call them that, but they want a police presence on flights to Reagan Airport, and that has been done. Air Canada flights have started landing at Reagan Airport. We are working with the Americans in terms of preclearance to get that opened up again, and that seems to be moving fairly positively.

They have also asked for advance passenger information, and we have made changes to our legislation to accommodate that. From our perspective, the Americans are very comfortable with the air security measures we have put in place since September 11 and grateful for the amount of effort we have put into it, particularly in the days immediately following September 11.

Senator Day: The other side of that issue is that we are satisfied with what they are doing and the fact that they are giving us their lists and manifests the way they have asked us to do.

Ms Nymark: All of this is reciprocal.

Senator Meighen: Mr. Goatbe, if a container lands in Halifax, it would be inspected by Canada Customs, correct?

Mr. Goatbe: Correct.

Senator Meighen: Then if it goes on a train toward Chicago, do the Americans then inspect it again at the border?

Mr. Goatbe: They do.

Senator Meighen: Is there any way to cut out that step through negotiation?

Mr. Goatbe: There is, and that is one part of the 30-point action plan. With respect to in-transit containers, when they land in Halifax or Newark, but particularly in Halifax, the biggest issue U.S. Customs has had with those trains leaving Toronto for Chicago is they contain many containers that have come from offshore. Given that we will put into place screening of those in-transit containers at first points of arrival in Halifax, the risk associated with that train will dissipate. One thing we are hoping to look at doing in conjunction with in-transit container targeting is piloting a post-clearance review in Chicago, as opposed to stopping the train in Port Huron on its way to Chicago. We hope to pursue that as part of the 30-point plan.

Senator Meighen: Will they still want to inspect it in Chicago at the final destination?

Mr. Goatbe: Yes. They will want to look at it for trade purposes, to a large extent. Because they will be able to target and look at containers at Halifax, they will not be as concerned about stopping that train in Port Huron. They will let it go directly to Chicago. That is one of the pilot projects we have on the table.

Senator Day: Is anyone talking about open borders in terms of why we try to line up security people along the border between Canada and the United States? Why do we not just let the national laws take effect? If a person is doing something that the authorities do not want him or her to do, when that person gets into the United States, that person is violating U.S. law as soon as he or she goes across the border.

Ms Atkinson: When we look at the movement of people, we and the Americans have agreed that border control has to start long before you get to the 49th parallel. The 49th parallel, the land border and our international airports will continue to be important because there will always be the need to have a geopolitical line that divides. When talking about our shared responsibility in the context of the flow of people, we need to look at what we do at the first point there is an opportunity for us to identify the risk. In the context of movement of people, that starts overseas at visa posts abroad, where people go through a screening process in order to obtain a document to get on a plane to come to Canada or the United States. If individuals do not require a visa or they circumvent that requirement, they will get on a plane at the international airport. This give us another opportunity to intercept them and to identify individuals who may pose a threat to either Canada or the United States. When they are in transit through other countries, they can get off one plane and on to another, then finally into international airports and finally across the border. That does not mean that the border is not important. It does not mean that we will not continue to apply our respective laws.

In the 30-point action plan, we talk about visa convergence, which is not necessarily having exactly the same visa policies and the same immigration policies. However, we are talking about identifying where they converge and where can we learn from each other, where we are causing problems in terms of respective laws and processes, and where can we narrow differences that are causing us problems. It does not mean that we will end up having exactly the same laws, but we will share many similarities. As Mr. Kennedy explained in terms of law enforcement, there is much we share and there will be many common elements, but there will always continue to be differences.

Mr. Kennedy: I will put on my prosecution investigative hat. The border points are very useful in terms of choke points and funnel points for people to come into the country who you may be interested in. You have special powers there.

The courts have recognized that when you enter a country your expectations of privacy are different than if you are just wandering the streets in terms of your section 8 Charter rights. Things can be done at the point of entry in terms of search and seizure, such as searching your luggage and requiring you to identify yourself, all feed material that would assist in identifying you as a potential terrorist. The borders are important in terms of a tool to allow us to continue investigations. It is not just a case of trade that is whipped through the border. All I am saying is that for enforcing safety and security in the two countries, the border is an important investigative tool.

Mr. Allen: There is no question that this issue is open for debate. One could move to an open border, but right now we have different tariffs. We do not have labour mobility. We have mutual recognition on some items, but we certainly do not have enough. Customs is still regulating hundreds of products, and we are not there yet on that matter.

The border is operating. If we are to move to something like an open border, we will have to get through a number of these issues, and it is not clear that all Canadians or Americans want to go there. Traditionally, the Americans have been much more enforcement-oriented than us. There is a view that the Americans are trying to take down the border and open it up. I think you would find that many in those agencies are not interested in removing the border at all.

Senator Day: Have they become more enforcement oriented post-September 11?

Mr. Allen: Yes, and before that date as well.

The Chairman:Mr. Kennedy, you talked about the border serving as a choke point. Mr. Allen, you talked about the fact that we have different tariffs and do not have labour mobility. What problems are the Europeans having now that they do not have borders, as it relates to the security questions that you were addressing and the value of the choke point?

Mr. Lenton: The problem with that is that the border is only as strong as the weakest link. The difference in that context is that there are various jurisdictions from which you can enter the European Economic Community. Once people are inside the EEC, it becomes very difficult to reconcile issues. For example, controlling immigration and refugees and who makes claims and where they make the claims becomes very problematic. From a law enforcement perspective it is difficult. Europol is trying to forge a way of dealing with jurisdictional issues. Eurojust is trying to deal with how to collect evidence and approach problems in the various jurisdictions. The jurisdictional issue is making their lives more complicated from an enforcement perspective.

Ms Atkinson: Perhaps I can speak a little about the immigration context. A number of European countries have formed a Schengen zone, which is a common visa zone, where those countries have agreed they will have common visa issuance. However, there are distinctions even in the Schengen zone. There is a white list and a black list, and then a grey list where it is optional. Some countries in the Schengen zone will require visas and some will not. Even in that context, it is not a completely harmonized visa program.

One of the key components of making that system work is a shared database, a Schengen data base, where all individuals who apply for visas into the Schengen zone are in a common data base that all of those countries can share. Obviously, information sharing is a key part of what we are trying to do with our colleagues in the United States and making sure we have access to the same type of information on individuals who may pose a problem for us.

On the refugee side, as Mr. Lenton mentioned, they have had in place for some time the Dublin Convention, a third-country convention, similar to what we are trying to do with the Americans, where individuals are sent back to the European country that they first arrived in with respect to claiming refugee status. The difficulty is you are dealing with undocumented people. You do not know where they have come from and who they are. It is very difficult to send people back to a country when you are not sure that they actually came from that country in the first place.

We will be looking at other examples in the context of international zones. The entrance to the Chunnel between France and the U.K. is an international zone of a sort. Clearly, that is one of the examples we want to look at as we work on the some of the things that Mr. Goatbe was talking about in terms of international zones at our shared border with the Americans. There are clearly some examples there for us to learn from.

Mr. Kennedy: There may be one thing I can add because that is not just a jurisdictional issue. Canada has unique geography that can work to our advantage. The only way you can get to Canada from outside this jurisdiction is to either swim a long way, take a boat, fly in, or come across the U.S. border. We are uniquely positioned geographically such that if we are dealing with criminal or terrorist elements, a good collaboration with American colleagues protects our southern flank. If we have good enforcement of our points of entry, the choke points, we can do things more effectively than another country that has 13 or 15 countries bordering it.

The other thing is how our colleagues in Europe have reacted to the jurisdictional issue. One of the things they are looking at is Europol, where they have to start thinking of not just national police forces. Now they are dealing with people inside the EU who can move back and forth. That is creating a different dynamic in terms of how they harmonize their laws and whether they have to create a European police force. Now they are going to look at some of these things. This is causing challenges in terms of how they enforce things and what laws are enforced and what powers are given to a super body.

Mr. Lenton: Europol is a group that we are trying to become engaged with and involved with, particularly on the intelligence side of things. They are really at their beginnings as far as an agency, and they are starting to find their territory amongst the European policing community.

Another practical example that I could cite is the case of ecstasy, a designer club drug. The Netherlands are very much a source country for that particular product, for whatever reason. The difference that the jurisdiction makes is that a person can acquire the ecstasy in Holland, drive to Spain and then depart Spain to come to North America. That means that they have to pay attention to that particular product in all of the ports of entry, as opposed to checking in the first country the person would come to after leaving Holland, or the emphasis could be put on the airport from which they were leaving. Given that they can move freely between all the jurisdictions, you have to have all of your enforcement agencies in all the jurisdictions alive to the fact this product might be moved through their jurisdictions. It makes life a bit more complicated and difficult to work through.

Senator Atkins: I want to go back to a question that Senator Day had with regard to air marshals. Is Air Canada now providing air marshals at random between destinations in Canada and the U.S.?

Ms Nymark: They are currently doing so on all flights to Reagan International Airport. That was one of the conditions to resume service to Reagan International Airport.

Senator Banks: We were told by other folks that it was not all flights.

Ms Nymark: It will be random to other destinations, but it was a condition flying into Reagan.

Mr. Allen: Reagan is in a unique position, 15 minutes from the Pentagon.

Mr. Lenton: There are flights to Dulles in Washington that do not require air marshals, but as a precondition, every flight that goes to Reagan has to have an air marshal on it. That is a condition of landing rights. We are engaged in the process. The first group flew from Toronto. We have just started similar flights out of Montreal in the last week or so. As we are able to ramp up our capacity, then we will do random flights on other airlines.

Senator Atkins: Are they putting them on flights to other destinations internationally?

Mr. Lenton: Once the program is fully staffed and functional, it will be random. There will be a risk-assessment process and we will choose on which flights, both domestic and international, there will be air marshals potentially onboard.

Senator Atkins: What training will air marshals have?

Mr. Lenton: They have an extensive training package, although I do not have the details. In the short term, we have used our emergency response teams; these individuals have a higher level of weapons training. We have used the ERTs in the first instance.

Senator Atkins: Are they attached to the RCMP?

Mr. Lenton: Yes, they are all members of the RCMP.

Senator Atkins: You mentioned Bill C-44, which received Royal Assent before Christmas. That legislation guarantees that manifests will be given to the Americans. However, there was no reciprocal agreement in the bill, and I can only assume the Americans will also provide manifests.

How will customs process these manifests, if they are not completed until a plane almost leaves the ground and arrives at a Canadian destination? How can that be dealt with?

Ms Atkinson: I will start and then hand it over to my colleague. We are working closely with customs. Bill C-44 gave authority for Air Canada to provide manifest information to the Americans. There is legislation that allows CCRA and Citizenship and Immigration - the respective two agencies - to collect advance passenger information and passenger name record information from all airlines flying to Canada. We will be working with CCRA to set up a system that will allow us to receive that information.

There are two pieces of information: the advance passenger information, which is the manifest, and the passenger name record, which is information that would be received in advance of a plane leaving. We intend to use that information in an intelligent way to identify individuals who are booked on a flight. Passenger name record information then provides the opportunity to take action if it is required, to intercept individuals before they actually board the plane. Advance passenger information provides information in advance of the arrival of an aircraft, thus allowing allows you to take appropriate action when that aircraft arrives. That action might involve meeting the plane at the gate and dealing with individuals, who may be of concern, as soon as they disembark; or it may involve dealing advance notification to the PIL line or to immigration secondary that the individual requires closer scrutiny.

There are different ways the information can be used. We hope to be able to use that information to identify not only individuals but also trends, in terms of the sorts of people that travel. In the discussions with the Americans about the Smart Border Declaration, we have been looking at ways to collaborate, particularly at our international airports, through the use of joint passenger analysis units. In that way, we would be able to identify and share our analyses of the information, and identify trends and share that information with the agencies involved.

Senator Atkins: Would that apply to cruise ships and trains as well?

Mr. Allen: It could apply to them as well.

I do not think there is much to add to that, other than a response to your question about processing that information. I said earlier that we are in the process of developing risk-based systems. We have systems now for commercial shipments. Everything that enters Canada is run through one of our databases to identify whether there are any hits against it for anything that is at risk. We will do the same with the API information. We are in the process of developing that now, and, as Ms Atkinson said, we will be looking to the U.S. because they have more experience with API systems, to determine best practices and any other information they may be willing to share with us, to ensure that we put an efficient and effective system in place.

Senator Atkins: Mr. Allen indicated in his opening comments that the activity has increased 12 per cent over each of the last 10 years. That is well over 100 per cent. How have you been able to match those increases to the manpower?

Mr. Allen: Do you mean manpower at the border?

Senator Atkins: At the borders - at customs.

Mr. Allen: I will let my colleagues answer that. We were trying to say that we have been meeting with our colleagues across the border in recognition of the fact that things were beginning to clog. As Mr. Goatbe said earlier, we have been doing better on our side of the border than the Americans have been doing on their side. However, problems have clearly begun, in respect of infrastructure, total numbers, bridges and tunnels.

Senator Atkins: That is an incredible increase.

Mr. Allen: It is a phenomenal increase.

Senator Day: You predicted 10 per cent for the years to come. Did you not tell us that?

Mr. Allen: No, I did not.

Senator Day: That is what I wrote down.

Mr. Goatbe: We have survived over the last 10 years by moving to electronic commerce, so that we can receive data about commercial shipments faxed to us in advance of a shipment's arrival. We do not have to dedicate staff to picking up pieces of paper and keying information into the computer. We have electronic data that is run against our databanks; it puts the information in front of a customs inspector, who then makes the decision. That has really helped to minimize the effort that we have to expand on release processing for commercial shipments.

In addition, almost 70 per cent of the shipments that arrive at the land border today are what we call pre-arrival processing; hence, we have the information in advance. We have run them through our systems and the customs inspector has looked at it and made a decision. We have not communicated that decision to the drivers of the trucks, but the decision is ready and waiting. When they arrive at the primary inspection booth, they enter the transaction number and the recommendation comes up, rather than refer the drivers to the secondary lane, which involves a time-consuming process.

More than anything else, those are the two things that have helped us survive these significant increases. We need to continue the process to minimize what we do, particularly for low-risk shipments, so that we can focus our resources on the high-risk shipments.

Senator Atkins: I understand that your containers are not inspected at random, that they are selected for inspection by virtue of the paperwork that you are receiving. Is that correct?

Mr. Goatbe: We select them based on risk assessment - what is high risk and what is not high risk. Occasionally, we will look at it from a random perspective. A customs inspector always has the option to identify one for examination.

Senator Atkins: We were told that in Halifax, for instance, your inspection rate is between 2 and 3 per cent.

Mr. Goatbe: In general, that is correct.

Senator Atkins: In Halifax, we heard from witnesses representing labour and from CCRA witnesses. Of course, we received two different presentations, but both groups concentrated on the issue of training for permanent staff, students and temporary staff. Can you tell us if there has been a reassessment of that and where it will lead?

Ms Atkinson: I will attempt to answer that question because it is something we share in that both customs and immigration have people at the border. We work together in trying to ensure that customs officers on the PIL line have adequate training in the Immigration Act and regulations, so that they are able to identify those individuals who come to them and need to be referred to secondary and for immigration. It is a challenge to keep on top of that, particularly in the peak periods when we have students working on the PIL line, and when we may have summer students also working in secondary.

From the immigration perspective, we now have an opportunity because we will be implementing a new Immigration Act. The issue of training of our partners, specifically customs, on the PIL line has been very much a feature of our plans for training.

As we move to new legislation and training, we consider doing more self-study modules and computer-based training because it is not easy to put people in classroom training situations all the time. We need to move towards more innovative ways of delivering the training and we are clearly looking in the context of our new legislation.

Senator Atkins: Will you increase the number of permanent staff?

Ms Atkinson: Similar to our customs colleagues, we received additional monies in the first announcement that the government made, and then some further monies in the budget, part of which will go to increasing staff in our high volume ports. Yes, we are looking at increasing our staff somewhat, particularly at our busiest ports.

Senator Atkins: It was mentioned that some years the budgets for your departments went down.

Ms Atkinson: Yes, we were one of the departments most affected during the period of program review. We did have some fairly significant cuts in workforce during that period of time. We have been fortunate to receive increases in our resources through a number of initiatives, and we are obviously grateful to have received some additional resources in the current budget round as well.

Mr. Goatbe: When we talked about the increase in commercial volumes, it is fair to say our resources probably did not go down. If they went down, they went down slightly. There was an increase in commercial volumes with resource levels remaining flat. We survived by using electronic commerce and pre-arrival processing. Going into the next few years we are adding 130 customs inspectors at airports and seaports where we believe the risk to be greatest, and we are also investing significantly in X-ray technology and a variety of other systems to help us be more effective. Additional training for staff will go along with that to ensure that they are comfortable using the new systems and the new technology.

As Ms Atkinson indicated, we will use system-based training so that we will have a scenario where we bring people into Ottawa, train the trainers and then send them out. This is probably a much more efficient system which allows people to train and learn at their own speed. We think this process will help the staff to quickly become competent in the use of the new systems and the new technology that will come with those systems.

Senator Atkins: It will not surprise you that one of the groups felt that they should be carrying weapons.

Mr. Goatbe: No, it does not surprise us.

Senator Atkins: Do we really need Bill C-42?

Ms Atkinson: Since I come from a department that has a few items in Bill C-42, I cannot speak to the entire bill. I do not know whether Ms Nymark can speak to it. There were some elements in Bill C-42 that, in anticipation of that bill having reasonably quick passage, were elements of our new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which has Royal Assent but not yet proclaimed because we are going to the regulatory process, and it moved those elements forward so that we could use these tools sooner. They related to things like detention of undocumented individuals who appear not at the port of entry but inland. They related to our ability to be able to suspend processing at the refugee board of individuals found to pose a security threat, and put in place new tools from our new legislation to help us do that sooner, and to give us the ability to collect advance passenger information sooner.

We have those tools in the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and we are working hard to get that legislation in place as soon as we can. From our perspective, it depends on what happens with our legislation that has been given Royal Assent.

Ms Nymark: We also believe that the enhanced security requirements to maintain the confidence of the American and the Canadian flying public were required.

Mr. Kennedy: I have a crib sheet about six pages long of the elements within that particular legislation. Some items have not had much public profile, but this particular legislation has to work its way up through the system. There are elements in it that will allow Canada to implement the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. We would want to look at that. There are provisions relating to the Aeronautics Act dealing with unruly passengers. There are provisions dealing with criminal hoaxes, and that has been a particular problem. One anthrax scare causes many more across the country. They cause a great deal of difficulty. With an anthrax scare it takes you a while to find out if the substance is anthrax or not. People have to be treated in a particular medical fashion. It is highly disruptive. There are interim orders for emergency ministerial authorizations for about 10 different departments. There is the explosive sacks issue on which we have a convention with the Organization of American States that we have not yet been able to ratify because we must pass it into law. Those provisions are in there. There are amendments to import and export acts dealing with certain transfers of military and strategically sensitive technology. I can go on and on.

There are many elements in the bill, some of which have been highlighted in the press and to which people have reacted. Hopefully when the package is before you, senators will have an opportunity to wade through those items and assess they will assist our capacity.

Senator Atkins: How are we making out in finding the 7,000 immigrants who are lost?

Ms Atkinson: Perhaps you are referring to the 27,000 immigrants. That is the number of outstanding warrants in our warrant system. When someone is expected or asked to report for an immigration inquiry, or for removal, or for an examination, and they do not show up, we issue a warrant for their arrest, which is then put onto CPIC and it goes to the RCMP.

Many of those people have probably already left Canada. We have no exit controls. Individuals will often simply leave the country without notifying us. It is very difficult for us to know how many of those 27,000 are still in the country. It is erroneous to say that they are all still here because clearly they are not, but it is also very difficult for us to say exactly how many people are still here.

Part of the resources that we received in the budget will go towards our removals program, and a good part of those resources in the removals program will go to enhance our ability to conduct investigations. We prioritize our removals. The most important removals are those people who pose a security threat, such as serious criminals, terrorists and so on. Those individuals may be in detention. If they pose a threat to the Canadian public, they are put in detention, so we know where they are. We remove them as soon as we are able to do so.

Second on our list of priorities is refused refugee claimants, but obviously our investigation resources are used in trying to identify those who pose a threat. We will continue to direct our resources to those people. The additional resources for investigations will hopefully help in that regard.

Mr. Allen: In the vein of comparing Canadian and American experiences with refugees, although we do not like to hammer the Americans, when refugees come to Canada they are not detained in the normal course. People who have records or are potential threats will be detained, but in the normal course they are not detained, so we end up with a fair number of refugees. In the United States, they are detained. Therefore, people do not go to the United States and claim refugee status; they go underground.

As Ms Atkinson said, the United States has between 3 million and 6 million illegal refugees, while we have 27,000 documented refugees of whom we may not be able to keep track. If it is suggested that our system is much worse than theirs, you should have those facts and figures in your pocket because I am really not sure that the Americans can tell you where those 3 million to 6 million people are or what they are doing at any given time.

Senator Atkins: They are probably cheap labour.

Mr. Allen: Some of them are, but some of them may not be. You are probably right; the vast majority are in the southwest of the United States and are providing a useful function.

Senator Day: How many undocumented, illegal refugees would you estimate that we have?

Ms Atkinson: That is a very difficult number to arrive at. I have heard the number 250,000. We have no way of knowing for sure how many people are illegal.

Senator Day: You estimate between 3 million and 6 million in the U.S., but can you not estimate the number in Canada?

Ms Atkinson: That figures comes from an extrapolation from census data in the United States. It is very difficult for us to estimate how many people who are truly illegal are not in any kind of a process. One of the differences, as Mr. Allen has said, is that our refugee determination system is different from that of the Americans. We also have opportunities for people to use the immigration law to identify themselves and apply to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. That does not necessarily exist in the American context.

We have more opportunities for people to identify themselves and be dealt with legally in our system. That is not to say that we do not have some people who are truly underground and are not in any process, but it is very difficult for us to put a finger on how many such people there might be.

Senator Banks: In the last few minutes you have described one of the scenarios that led Americans to charge us with being the sieve through which people come into the United States. Put yourself in the position of a Canadian senator going to the United States to talk to their joint security committee of both houses. An American congressman may say to that senator: "When refugees come to the United States, we put them in jail, so they do not come here. They go to Canada and then they walk across the border with a suitcase full of bombs." That is obviously not always the case, but their concerns in that respect are very difficult for us to answer. Can you give us any help in that respect?

Ms Atkinson: It is true that when people claim refugee status in Canada we generally do not detain them. We detain people only if they pose a threat or if we believe that they may flee and not show up for their examinations. We do document them. Every refugee claimant who arrives in Canada is fingerprinted, photographed and checked against our databases.

Since September 11, we have gone a step further. We are conducting, on each and every refugee claimant that has arrived since September 11, an in-depth security review. This involves a two- to three-hour interview with an immigration officer. We work very closely with our colleagues in CSIS. When we identify an individual who may pose a concern, we call on CSIS. They often come to the port of entry and conduct interviews right then and there.

Since September 11, we have increased the level of security screening that we do on arrival. In addition, we have expended resources on looking at the current inventory of refugee claimants before our Immigration and Refugee Board. Because we did not do this front-end security screening before September 11, we have people in the inventory waiting to be heard by the board who have not been security screened. We are conducting a security screen of those individuals on paper. We are not, at this point, interviewing each one of them. We are, however, conducting a security screen of those individuals, referring to CSIS those cases that pose a concern, and then identifying those people who we need to find and deal with through the security process.

We have certainly taken steps to try to identify, on arrival, individuals who may pose a threat and those who are here in this country in our refugee claimant population. Part of the money we received in the budget went, in addition to removals, to increase our detention capacity. We have the ability in the current law and in the new law to detain people who are undocumented. We have not done that as a matter of course, partly because we do not believe it is absolutely necessary to detain people who do not pose a particular threat, but also because we have not had the capacity to detain. We receive upwards of 45,000 refugee claimants a year. To detain each of those refugee claimants would require very extensive detention facilities across the country.

Senator Banks: Part of the argument would be that if we did that as a matter of course, there would not be 45,000 claimants a year.

Ms Atkinson: Does detention act as a deterrent?

Senator Banks: It does in the United States.

Ms Atkinson: We know that people tend not to claim asylum on arrival in the United States, but as Mr. Allen has indicated, people still come to the United States. They go underground and claim asylum only when they are caught. Under our system, on the other hand, they claim asylum on arrival. They are fingerprinted, photographed, documented and interviewed. We know who they are and what their antecedents are and we can deal with that.

In the United States, people arrive and go underground. We do not know who they are, where they are or what they are doing. It is only when they are caught that they claim asylum and are in the system.

Senator Banks: I agree that our system is better.

The Chairman: What about the recent SIRC report commenting on the delays experienced by CSIS in investigating the people you refer to them?

Ms Atkinson: We must remember that it is only a relatively small number of cases where we have these extraordinary delays. Difficulties arise when we are dealing with particularly difficult cases where information is either hard to obtain or information can be obtained through our intelligence network, but we are unable to protect that information in going before an administrative tribunal such as the Immigration and Refugee Board.

We currently have in the Immigration Act, and will have in the new act, a security certificate process whereby the Solicitor General and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration can identify an individual who poses a threat to national security and issue a certificate. That certificate is reviewed by a Federal Court judge, and the evidence or information that is used to support the certificate is heard in camera by the Federal Court judge in order that the information can be protected.

When we are dealing with individuals who are not the subject of security certificates, but where there may be sensitive information that comes from third parties or intelligence sources and we are dealing with a detention review or a refugee hearing, we currently cannot protect that information. The new Immigration Act will give us the ability, similar to what we are able to do in the security certificate process, to hold these sorts of hearings in camera and protect that information. The individual is not present at these hearings. The individual is given a summary of the grounds upon which a finding of inadmissibility is made, but they are not present at those hearings and the adjudicator or the board member is able to deal with that information in the context of these hearings. That will be an important new tool.

We have a threshold, obviously, in the law that we need to meet in terms of finding an individual to be inadmissible to Canada, in addition to the issue of sensitive information. It is often difficult to collect enough evidence to adequately, properly and fairly meet the threshold that we must meet in order to determine whether someone is inadmissible under the Immigration Act. People will sometimes be in limbo for a period of time while we collect additional information.

The number of cases relating to that situation is small. We try to do our utmost to resolve those cases as quickly as we can. Unfortunately, in instances where we are dealing with sensitive information that cannot be protected or the difficulty of having significant enough evidence to meet the threshold to find them inadmissible, we are caught. We do not necessarily wish to proceed to grant status to an individual, but at the same time we cannot move forward as quickly as we would like in terms of finding someone inadmissible and putting them through the due process and treating them fairly.

Senator Meighen: Given the fact that we do not have an external, covert intelligence-gathering body, but given also the fact that there is a certain commonality of interest between ourselves and the Americans, to what extent do we have recourse to any information that they may have about individuals when making an assessment as to admissibility?

Mr. Kennedy: There are extensive information-sharing agreements not only with the United States but also with a large number of countries throughout the world. CSIS receives that information and it forms part of the CSIS assessment.

Ms Atkinson has referred to the 40.1 certificate process. That has been well used since the 1980s. That is where a person is deemed to be a member of an inadmissible class. We have classified security information and we want to use it to establish that the person is inadmissible. That is the regime where the Solicitor General and the Minister of Immigration sign certificates and the Federal Court then reviews the case. CSIS has extensive international sharing relationships and that information is used. I have been exposed to that for a long time. That information is there and it is used.

Senator Meighen: Is that a routine matter? If you were an officer listening to a refugee claimant's story and you checked everything out that was immediately available to you and something did not ring right, would your next step be to see if the Americans had anything on this individual?

Mr. Kennedy: Many of the organizations or individuals of concern are the subject of information that is shared on a continuous basis. That includes people who are threats to the security of Canada. According to the definition, that also includes those who are threats to other countries that Canada deals with. There are extensive data banks that the service has flowing from its investigations through the years. That information is looked at and the individuals are identified to see if there is information on them or individuals associated with them. Definitely there are systems in place.

Ms Atkinson: I would add that under the terms of a statement of mutual understanding that we signed with the Americans in 1999, we exchange data on terrorist lookouts. We receive from the Americans their terrorist lookout data from the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. We share a similar database with them.

Mr. Allen: Of the 19 terrorists who were flying on the planes, 17 were legal, one was an overstay, and one had some illegality connected to him. However, we are not talking about illegal immigrants, refugees or Canadians. We are talking about 17 people in the United States who were given visas.

When Ms Atkinson's colleague was before Congress and was asked why these people had been given visas, at one point she frankly said, "If we had been told by our intelligence agencies what the backgrounds of these people were, I assure you that we would not have given them visas."

This situation must be put into perspective. I return to what we said originally: It is key that Ms Atkinson and her colleagues, Mr. Kennedy and his colleagues and their American counterparts work together abroad and at our ports of entry and at the border to share as much information as possible to head off these people. To think that somehow our refugee system is the cause of terrorism throughout the world is simply trying to look for a scapegoat, to some extent.

As we discussed this afternoon, if you look at the history of our relationship, you know that Ahmed Ressam was caught at the border. Good customs officers in the United States caught him in part through intelligence that we provided. We must try to keep these things in perspective. We must remind our American colleagues that it is not that we do not think there is a threat. We want to work with them, but what is the reality out there?

Senator Banks: My question was based on perception, not reality. I understand that we do it better. I know we do it better. However, I also know what the perception is and the kind of questions we will be asked.

Mr. Kennedy, does the Aeronautics Act deal with the simple operation of an airline?

Mr. Kennedy: That is a question for our colleague at Transport Canada. We must have a broader point in the world now. Each organization should be looking at tools that people can use to effect public safety and security. We should be looking at how an aircraft can be turned into a flying bomb. Hopefully, our perspective would be broader than just aeronautic safety and would include public safety. There are mandate issues that come into play, but we have all had our eyes significantly opened since September 11.

Senator Banks: In terms of the intent of the act, is it the department's view that the Aeronautics Act includes the simple operation of an airline and the business of operating an airline?

Ms Nymark: That turns on your decision. If you are talking about the business operation of the airline, no, it does not.

Senator Banks: I am talking about the business operation of an airline and the cost thereof.

Ms Nymark: No, it does not. The Aeronautics Act does deal with security requirements for design and construction of aircraft and for airports and other aviation-related elements, but it does not deal with the business operation of running an airline.

Senator Banks: What is the PIL line?

Mr. Goatbe: That is the primary inspection line.

Senator Banks: There is a difference in respect of both customs and immigration officers in the PIL and the secondary line and the amount of training they get depending on whether they are term or indeterminate officers; am I right?

Mr. Goatbe: We do not put students through the customs inspector program at Rigaud.

Senator Banks: As I understand it, somewhere between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of the folks on those lines are term employees, not indeterminate employees.

Mr. Goatbe: No, not to the best of my knowledge. Most of them are indeterminate employees, other than our student population. We have a mix of indeterminate and determinate employees, along with some term, but not very many. I can get you the numbers.

Senator Banks: I would be grateful if you could do that, since it was a matter of some concern to us, specifically in the difference in the level of training received by term employees and indeterminate employees who are officers.

Mr. Goatbe: Before customs inspectors go to Rigaud to take the course, they are hired as term employees. The training they get prior to going to Rigaud is not the same as the training they get when they are in Rigaud.

Senator Banks: How many years are they likely to stay before they go to school?

Mr. Goatbe: I think it is months, but I would have to check.

Senator Banks: Would you check on that for us, please? That is quite different from what we have heard before.

Mr. Kennedy, with respect to marijuana and what was referred to as "B.C. bud," which is a very highly regarded and important Canadian product -

Mr. Kennedy: So you say.

Senator Banks: However you look at it, it is important.

Mr. Kennedy: It is not one of the exports we count in our figures.

Senator Banks: No, it is not. If we did, it would approximately double the GDP of British Columbia.

It is fair to say that both the societal outlook with respect to marijuana and the outlook of the agencies that deal with it, particularly with respect to simple possession in Canada on the one hand and in the United States on the other hand, are quite different. In the main, we have a different view in Canada among most of our enforcement agencies, who do not regard it as being all that serious in respect of simple possession. There are, of course, exceptions to that. However, I think it is a reasonably fair characterization to say that we do not regard it in the same way. In fact, the number of times on which there are criminal convictions of people in Canada for simple possession of marijuana is small. That is not always the case south of the 49th parallel.

What impact does that have upon the dealings of our officers and our law enforcement agencies in cooperating with each other? Or is it the case that our Canadian law enforcement agencies, for the purpose of exchange of information and the like, sort of subsume their interests to those of the American agencies with whom they are cooperating? I am asking everyone that question.

Mr. Kennedy: Perhaps Assistant Commissioner Lenton and I can deal with that for you, senator.

I spent three hours before a committee of the House that was dealing with the medical use of drugs. Of course, I know that marijuana is a preoccupation of the Senate. I am taking this as being another bootleg question that deals with Senator Nolin's committee.

Senator Banks: It arises out of what you said earlier.

Mr. Kennedy: We have to appreciate the fact that in the United States there are three sets of laws. In terms of a soft drug like marijuana, there are municipal bylaws that deal with it, along with state and federal laws. Obviously, possession of marijuana is still on the books in Canada. In fact, there are an awful lot of arrests for simple possession of marijuana. I agree with you that there are not many convictions because the usual disposition can be by way of an absolute or conditional discharge where the person goes to court. There definitely has been a change, if I can call it that, in that regard.

In 1997, Parliament passed a law dealing with controlled substances. That law actually tweaked the sentencing structure and modified it for all drugs, including marijuana. The reality in this country is that, by and large, police officers are not focusing on possession-of offences. The shortage of resources to deal with crime requires the police to priorize their activity. They tend to look at more serious crime, which includes, obviously, trafficking, although there can also be cultivation. There are fairly significant shipments of this kind of substance out there. We are talking multi-tonnes of such substances. You must be careful as to what you are looking at, who is doing it, and not confuse activities of organized crime with large quantities of drugs as opposed to individual possession.

Internationally, there are treaty obligations that have criminalized marijuana in terms of requiring states to take enforcement action and to penalize it. Currently, that is where the world stands.

In looking at what is happening in terms of cross-border activity, you should be raising the bar a little with regard to possession and actually look at fairly significant shipments.

I think Assistant Commissioner Lenton can expand on that in terms of the size of some of the shipments. There have been shipments of up to 25 tonnes, for example. We are not dealing with a small individual here, where we would look at it as a lifestyle or a health issue. We combine a whole host of things, whether it is marijuana, heroin or cocaine, where we try to treat the health aspect of the user as distinct from the element of organized crime. These people are in it for profit. They are not distinguishing between soft and hard drugs. They are in it for profit. The greed factor certainly drives serious behaviour on their part.

Senator Banks: I understand the distinction. I am only asking about simple possession. I appreciate your explanation. The reason I ask the question is because we anticipate that that will be among the questions that we might be asked by security people in the United States. They regard us as a source.

Mr. Kennedy: I know that that has been the point of view of my American colleagues in terms of the shipment of marijuana that is cultivated in Canada and goes south. Some of the criticisms are that the sentences imposed in Canada are not comparable to those imposed in the United States. There is a great philosophical debate as to whose technique is the most effective. The reality is that both jurisdictions are priorizing resources. Both jurisdictions are putting other kinds of programs in place to deal with the problem other than strictly enforcement. Lifestyle and things of that nature are being considered.

We are doing experiments in Canada with drug courts. We arrest people and we try to say, "Perhaps you should be doing other things to get off that kind of substance." The Americans have 600 or 800 drug courts. We have three pilot courts that we are running.

Both countries have a great deal in common with regard to how we are trying to approach the problem. I am not talking just about marijuana, but about cocaine, rave drugs and things of that nature. These things are cyclical.

What we are wrestling with now is the nature of this particular drug. The marijuana of today is not the marijuana of my youth. The marijuana of my youth had approximately 1 to 2 per cent of what is called THC. This super marijuana that is coming out can have between 20 and 25 per cent THC in it. If we made the analogy by way of alcohol, in terms of alcohol from your youth, and factored that kind of increase in potency, we are not dealing with the same thing. We do not have any good science at this time with regard to the effect on people. No one has done studies. Health Canada is trying to look at it now as part of what they are doing with the medical use of drugs. If you take something and multiply its potency by 10 or 12 times, it becomes a different thing. This is a health challenge. How do you teach a child in school who has been smoking up this kind of substance? They could very well be smoking away their life because those are the formative years.

If we do not criminalize it, what is the best way to deter people from doing it? We must deter them from smoking. There is more tar and nicotine in marijuana cigarettes than in tobacco cigarettes. We have to rationalize our behaviour in terms of how we are approaching that whole area.

Senator Banks: That was a bootleg answer because we are off the subject now. However, I appreciate what you said. I understand the difference.

Mr. Goatbe, am I right that you examine 3 per cent of containers, including those containers that will be in transit, that is to say a container arriving in Halifax that will go to Chicago by train? Do you inspect those?

Mr. Goatbe: It can include in-transit containers. It will include in-transit containers that the U.S. identifies as high risk from their perspective.

Senator Banks: Does it today?

Mr. Goatbe: Yes, on a random basis, unless there is something that we want to look at and we do not trust it going through Canada on the way to the U.S.

Senator Banks: Today there are containers which arrive in Halifax, marked for delivery in Duluth, for example, and the containers will leave Halifax on a train and go through Canada sealed, as it were, that we look at; is that correct?

Mr. Goatbe: We have a process in place that attempts to inform the U.S. that we have looked at them to avoid duplicate examination where possible.

Senator Banks: Does that 3 per cent number mean they are unstuffed or someone opened the back door and looked in?

Mr. Goatbe: It can mean they are fully destuffed, that we emptied the whole container. It can also mean that you opened a door and looked at the contents. It varies in the same way that truck examinations vary from a complete off-load to opening the door to see what is inside.

Senator Banks: We were told previously that the 3 per cent referred specifically to those containers that were unstuffed - lock, stock and barrel taken apart. Can you check on that and let us know?

Mr. Goatbe: Yes.

Senator Day: We were told out west the figure was 2 per cent, and in Halifax 3 per cent.

The Chairman: The national objective was 2 per cent in the west, and 3 per cent in the east. We were curious to find out what the national objective was for Ottawa.

Senator Banks: In one place, that included both unstuffed containers and those where only the back door was opened.

Mr. Goatbe: Percentage targets are based on risk and what is coming into a particular port, and that risk can differ from port to port, from a marine perspective, from an air perspective, from a land-border perspective, and with respect to the types of commodities coming in and the carriers bringing them in. We do not have one flat rate that applies nationally. It is targeted according to priorities and risk for each port.

Senator Banks: You referred several times to exit controls and to the fact that, if we had exit controls, we might have caught Ressam, for example. I know that costs a lot of money, but Japan, for example, has exit controls. Should we have those and will we have those? Are they on the board? Will having exit controls for emigration be talked about? That was a question for Ms Atkinson. We will write her a letter and ask her that question.

Mr. Lenton: When we were in discussions with our American counterparts, the question of exit and entrance controls was being discussed. Our immigration people could probably give you a more complete answer. They were part of the discussions last week.

Mr. Allen: It is not an easy control to enforce. The Mexicans have exit controls which do not function. You are required to hand in, and supposedly have, a piece of paper on the way out. It does not work in reality.

We, in respect of our relationship with the United States, fought at great length their suggestion that they would impose exit controls over two ago. It was a proposal called "Section 110" of their Immigration Act. Essentially, it would cause huge backups and blockages at the border because they would require everyone in cars and trucks to stop and fill out a form and hand one in, or at least stop and hand it over. We resisted that and built a great coalition with American business and border states. We were successful in postponing any implementation of that. From our perspective, from a trade facilitation and from a movement of low-risk goods and people point of view, we would not favour that.

Mr. Goatbe: Just to follow up on Mr. Lenton's comments, last week the U.S. INS put on the table the fact that it is mandated to look at exit and entry controls. They were looking at NEXUS, which is the pilot project we have now that provides an electronic record of when a person comes in, and, in theory, goes out of Canada. They were putting on the table that NEXUS would provide an excellent way to track the movement of people going in and out of both countries, and that might be a solution to some of their concerns. We will need to explore that not only with CIC, but also with the Department of Foreign Affairs and others to determine whether that is in our best interests.

Senator Meighen: Mr. Goatbe, you heard reference made to testimony we heard advocating that our customs officers be equipped with guns. One of the reasons, if my memory serves me well, justifying this contention was that, if an undesirable person turns up at a border point and is determined to be inadmissible to Canada and a danger, perhaps, to public safety, that person could more likely be persuaded to stay at the border point until police from either side arrive if the customs person had a gun. That is not the area I want to get into. I mention it because when I pay my fee and exit from a parking lot, a great big barrier is lifted. The barrier is there, presumably, to deter me from skipping out and not paying my fee. Why are there no barriers at highway points? It would involve a major expense. Of course, they could be circumvented, but it would cause a certain inconvenience. What is the criminal infraction if I disobey the order of a customs officer to stay and go around him or her and proceed into the country, where, presumably, I meet an accomplice, ditch the car I was in, transfer whatever illegal thing I am carrying to another car and abandon the first car, which is the one you are looking for?

Mr. Goatbe: I do not have a good answer for you, other than to say that if someone really wants to get into the country, parking lot barriers will not deter him or her. We have licence plate readers installed at most of our major land border points that provide us with a record of the car.

Senator Meighen: That is why I would switch the car quickly.

Mr. Goatbe: We have excellent cooperation with local police with respect to anyone who does that. We have a reasonable record in retrieving those people. It boils down to a question of cost and infrastructure. How much do you want to invest? Do you want to put gates or speed bumps in? Based on the risk that we are aware of today versus the expense, it is not something that makes much sense right now. If in the future it became a real issue in that dangerous individuals with criminal backgrounds were coming in and bringing guns in, then I suppose we would consider it. However, for the time being, based on risk and cost, it has not been an issue.

Senator Meighen: I presume it has not, therefore, been an issue at staffed points. What about unstaffed points? What about during the night, when people that are up to no good do come across? They may or may not be picked up by the American sensors and the information relayed to us. As I understand it, we have neither sensors nor barriers across what are often very small roads.

Ms Nymark: In transportation, we have found that barriers of that nature are not a deterrent. Unfortunately, you will notice that we do continue to have accidents where we have barriers over railway crossings and they are no deterrent, even there.

Senator Meighen: I suppose people try to run them because they are in a hurry. I am not so sure that on a small road you could put a barrier there to make it difficult for me to drive my car across.

Mr. Goatbe: Since September 11, and Senator Dorgan and his orange cones, U.S. Customs is obviously in the process of taking a look at what they can do to strengthen their capacity at small ports. We are interested in proceeding with that in cooperation with them as well. That is one of the initiatives we are in the process of developing with U.S. Customs and CIC and INS. We are studying what we can do at those small crossings through technology. We are taking a look at joint facilities where you can put two people in one building to increase security and potentially lengthen the hours that you are able to staff those facilities. There are a variety of things we are in the process of exploring with the U.S. in terms of what we might do.

Senator Banks: With respect to that exact situation, are we right and safe in saying that in those cases where the Canadian side of a border crossing at a small road, of which there are many across the border, is unmanned at night and the border guards go home, do the American border guards go home too?

Mr. Goatbe: To my knowledge, since September 11, they have been attempting to man those on a 7/24 basis.

Senator Banks: Do we do that?

Mr. Goatbe: We do not man them at present.

Senator Banks: At the moment, absent exit controls, someone leaving the United States, observed by a United States customs officer who is not much interested in seeing him because he is leaving, can come into Canada across those border points, but the reverse would not be the case?

Mr. Goatbe: That is one of the issues we are attempting to address.

Mr. Lenton: The other point you must bear in mind is the difference between a point of entry and a port of entry. You have the port of entry where you have the traffic cone, but absent that you have innumerable points of entry, not to mention the waterways and all the rest of it.

Again, I refer to the discussions last week. There is certainly a strong initiative on behalf of U.S. Customs to look at those remote border points, particularly the ones that have off hours, and to have them hardened. A determined person, if they will not get across there, they will find other places to cross. Certainly, on the prairies you must know of quarter section lots where you can drive across the border if you so desire. That is why some of my colleagues have mentioned that our approach is not an arm to arm or shoulder to shoulder along the border. It must be the case that we streamline the systems and make the systems compatible to the extent we can, and that we use intelligence to focus on what happens between the ports of entry. That is the role of the RCMP. The points of entry are of highest interest to us. We do not have the people to be shoulder to shoulder. We must work with intelligence, working with partnerships with our American enforcement and intelligence agencies to find out where we should deploy and how we should deal with those points where there is traffic and activity.

We have received funding in three initiatives recently from the government. There is funding not related to terrorism, such as funding made available through tobacco tax increases. This goes back to April of last year and related to additional technology for certain areas where tobacco smuggling was an issue. This technology would work just as well for picking up other types of contraband.

With respect to organized crime, money was made available to enhance our capacity at certain border points and locations that were at risk. In the anti-terrorism funding package in the budget of December of this year, we received funding, some of which has been directed toward technology. Canada Customs has some funding for that as well, and what we are doing now is working together to find out how to spread out that technology in the areas that are most at risk.

Senator Banks: I am talking about optics, appearances and perceptions. Mr. Goatbe, if you had 130 new officers, would that be enough to make sure that roads that are easily crossable now will be covered 24 hours, 7 days a week?

Mr. Goatbe: No. The answer to that is that those 130 officers will be deployed at airports and seaports, where we believe the risk to be far greater.

Senator Banks: If you had another 130 officers, would that be enough?

Mr. Goatbe: I do not know the answer to that question. We would have to take a look at the ports and figure out where the risk is and what the cost would be for staffing each one of them, so I cannot give you an answer to what the cost would be.

Senator Meighen: As regards airport screening, my recollection is that the general rule elsewhere in the world is that the security procedures are carried out by people employed by a government agency of some kind.

Ms Nymark: That is not the case in the United States.

Senator Meighen: I know that. I was thinking of Europe, but it is the case in Canada and the U.S.

Ms Nymark: Yes.

Senator Meighen: Is that question under discussion in this particular round?

Ms Nymark: We have announced in the budget that we are creating a national security aviation body that will take over the responsibility of airport screening from the private sector. That does not mean that we will not contract with the private sector, but there will be stringent processes for approval and licensing of those inspectors. This authority will completely change the nature of the way we run our screening process in terms of quality, monitoring and enforcement. We are indeed taking that responsibility back in Canada.

Senator Meighen: Do you have any information as to whether the Americans are intending to proceed along similar lines?

Ms Nymark: Yes, they have announced the same.

Senator Meighen: In terms of efficiency and speeding up the flow of travellers without compromising security, the practice we have all observed in Europe is the nothing to declare and something to declare line. Why has that not had much favourable reception on this side of the Atlantic?

Mr. Goatbe: It has not had a favourable reception and has not been implemented. It is part of risk-based processing. In terms of where we are going with risk-based processing and some of the things that we are doing with NEXUS and what we hope to do with IPS and with a commercial equivalent for low-risk importers, you could look at the next step. Once you get comfortable with that and you build a critical mass, you can look at the next step being a red door/green door type of approach for those types of importers who have been preregistered and pose little or no risk. The first step is to get those people and companies registered, get them going through the existing processes with dedicated lanes for them being manned by customs inspectors and immigration staff. Then the next step could be taking a look at the red door/green door approach, but that is not something on the books right now.

Senator Meighen: If you are referring to commercial trade, what about the ordinary traveller? The Europeans surely have had more difficulty with terrorism than we had over the years, and at the present time there is a red door/green door policy for the ordinary traveller arriving at Heathrow.

Mr. Goatbe: I am talking about travellers as well. NEXUS is the process for registering low-risk travellers. IPS will be the air equivalent for that.

Senator Meighen: But they have the red door/green door without the registration, as I understand it. We have decided that we would have the registration first, and then explore other options.

Mr. Goatbe: The registration gives us a level of security that I think we need post-September 11. Once we reach the point where we are comfortable with that and we build a critical mass, then depending on where we sit with risk and threat assessments, and if we have enough critical mass, we may be able to explore red-door green-door. It would have to be done in consultation with the U.S, because they need to be comfortable with it as well.

Senator Meighen: As I understood your testimony, NEXUS would be for those who cross the border frequently - travellers and commercial operators.

Mr. Goatbe: NEXUS is for pre-registered, low-risk travellers across land borders only between Canada and the U.S. We hope to harmonize a commercial system that would have the same principle. The importers would be registered and the check would be done on them. You would also check on the carrier that is moving the goods, and you would register the commercial truck driver as well. In that way, the risk in moving the goods back and forth is minimized.

Senator Meighen: Do you have an estimate of the percentage of frequent cross-border travellers that would be eligible for NEXUS?

Mr. Goatbe: I do not know that figure.

Senator Meighen: Do you think it is under 50 per cent? I would think that if 100 people crossed the border in a year, 90 of them would be casual vacationers.

Mr. Goatbe: It depends on the location. At Windsor-Detroit, there is a high volume of people that work on either side of the boarder. Thus, the volume of repeat or day-to-day crossing of the border would be higher than 10. It would be upwards of 20 per cent to 30 per cent, although I am guessing.

Mr. Kennedy: There are 10,000 people living in Windsor who work in Detroit, and there are 1,000 people living in Detroit who work in Windsor. Each day, 11,000 people go back and forth across the border.

Senator Meighen: I am thinking of Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto and the thousands of people going on holidays to the United States once per year, perhaps.

Ms Nymark: Air border is quite different from land border. There are truckers who go back and forth every few days.

Senator Meighen: NEXUS is not for the truckers.

Mr. Goatbe: There is a harmonized commercial process that we are hoping to identify for truckers.

Senator Meighen: That is following behind NEXUS, is it not? Will it be parallel?

Mr. Goatbe: It will be after. NEXUS is the first one out of the gate.

Ms Nymark: It is the pilot, and that is the important point.

Senator Banks: Is there not now in place a self-assessment? Is that not the first step in the harmonized trade process to which you refer? Are we not operating it now?

Mr. Goatbe: We are operating it now. It is Canadian only, and we certainly hope that it is the model for a harmonized commercial process with the U.S. That is still under discussion and is one of the things that we talked to the U.S. about last week. There will be much work done in the next month to assess whether that will be suitable from the U.S. perspective. The U.S. typically would like to see a little more information provided on individual shipments arriving at their points of entry. We release, under CSA, the importer name, the carrier name and the driver name. The driver is registered and the importer is registered, but U.S. customs would like to see more data, such as a description of the contents of the truck. It is our view that if the shipment is from GM, we do not care if it is tires or bumpers. We know the truck contains goods from GM, and so we do not want to spend time and effort on that at the border.

Senator Banks: The element of harmonization is finding a form, if that is the word, or a compendium of information that is the same on both sides of the border. However, the process is the same and would be on the basis of self-assessment.

Mr. Goatbe: We would hope to influence the U.S. to buy into the CSA with the three data elements, and that will be the basis for the discussion.

The Chairman: I have one last point, Mr. Allen. If you could add to your list, I am curious to know how many inspectors we have on each side of the border. I received the impression earlier that we have more inspectors than they have. If that is the case, it would be an interesting fact to take with us.

On behalf of the committee, I thank you, Mr. Allen, and your colleagues, Ms Nymark and Mr. Goatbe. We extend our thanks also to Ms Atkinson, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Lenton.

The committee adjourned.