Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 5 - Evidence, Morning meeting
WINDSOR, Wednesday, December 1, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 8:10 a.m. to examine and report on the need for a national security policy for Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning. This is the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. I would like to welcome everyone here today to the meeting.
My understanding is that Mr. McCuaig is in transit, so I will proceed with the introductions. My name is Colin Kenny. I am a senator from Ontario, and I chair the committee.
On my immediate right is the distinguished senator from Nova Scotia, Senator Michael Forrestall. Senator Forrestall has served the constituents of Dartmouth for the past 37 years, first as their member of the House of Commons and then as senator. During his tenure in the house, he served as parliamentary secretary to several cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion.
On the far right of the table is Senator Norman Atkins from Ontario. Senator Atkins came to the Senate in 1986, with more than 27 years in the field of communications. He is the former president of Camp Associates Advertising Limited, and he also served as an advisor to Premier William Davis of Ontario.
Beside him is Senator Tommy Banks from Alberta. Senator Banks is well known to Canadians as one of our most versatile musicians and entertainers. His musical career has spanned over 50 years. He has received a Juno award and is an officer of the Order of Canada. Senator is chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and is chair of the Alberta Liberal Caucus.
On my left is Senator Jane Cordy, who is from Nova Scotia. Senator Cordy is an accomplished educator, with an extensive record of community involvement including serving as vice-chair of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission. She is also the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
Beside her is Senator Michael Meighen from Ontario. Senator Meighen is a lawyer and a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the bar of the Province of Quebec. Currently, he is chair of our subcommittee on veteran's affairs. Senator Meighen is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
At the end of the table on the left is Senator Jim Munson from Ontario. Senator Munson was a trusted journalist and former director of communications for Prime Minister Chrétien before he was called to the Senate in 2003. Senator Munson has been twice nominated for Gemini awards in recognition of excellence in journalism.
Our committee is the first permanent Senate committee mandated to examine national security and defence. The Senate has asked our committee to examine a national security policy. So far, we have released five reports on this subject. The committee is now turning its attention to a review of Canada's border infrastructure.
The committee is working on a report that covers the subject of infrastructure, and that is also the subject of today's hearing. This review will include studying various physical networks that link Canada and the United States.
This is not our first trip to Windsor. We were here last in February 2003, and today we are fortunate enough to have a separate and new panel of witnesses. They include Mr. Bruce McCuaig, who works with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. I am told he is on his way and will be here shortly. Mr. McCuaig is the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Policy, Planning and Standards Division. His division is responsible for the ministry's policy and regulatory agenda, long-range planning and the development of engineering standards.
We also have with us today Mr. Shelby Slater, who is the director of homeland security for the City of Detroit. As director, he is responsible for implementing and ensuring the city's adherence to the city's homeland security plan. Mr. Slater holds a bachelor's degree in police administration and a master's degree in interdisciplinary technology from Eastern Michigan University.
We also have with us Mr. Mario Iatonna, who is the city engineer for the City of Windsor. Mr. Iatonna heads the engineering and corporate projects department. He is responsible for the administration of the Windsor Airport and the Windsor half of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. Mr. Iatonna has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's degree in business administration from the University of Windsor.
Finally, we have with us Mr. Kirk Steudle, who is the deputy chief director of the Michigan Department of Transportation. He is engaged in all aspects of transportation in the state. Mr. Steudle is a graduate of Lawrence Technological University, with a B.Sc. in construction engineering and is a registered professional engineer in Michigan.
Gentlemen, we understand you all have brief statements to make. We will begin with you, Mr. Iatonna.
Mr. Mario Iatonna, Municipal Engineer, City of Windsor: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the City of Windsor is keenly interested in the Senate committee's continuing study of border security and critical infrastructure. The City of Windsor is not only a border town; the city has owned the Canadian half of the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel since its construction in the late 1920s. The tunnel has been operated on behalf of the City of Windsor and the City of Detroit for the American half by a private firm currently known as the Detroit & Windsor Tunnel Corporation. That company and its predecessor companies has operated the tunnel since its opening.
As with other border crossings, the events of 9/11 and the subsequent and ongoing implementation of increasing security measures has seriously compromised the operation of the tunnel. Traffic has fallen off steadily since 9/11, with declines over the past three years of 10 per cent, 9.6 per cent and 5.8 per cent, respectively. Year-to-date figures for 2004 show another 6 per cent decline in traffic over last year.
The problem appears to be two-fold. First, there may be a continued reluctance by travellers, particularly Americans who would have previously ventured into Canada, to cross the border, due to latent concerns over the events of 9/11. The traffic numbers suggest that, while the trend is moving to a return to pre-9/11 levels, we are still far short of where we were before those terrible events.
The second problem we are facing is clearly the imposition of more onerous security measures, particularly on the U.S. side, which is continuing to cause significant delays for motorists accessing the border. With a regular reporting by the media of border delays and through normal word of mouth, a public perception has been created that the border is not easily traversed. This may be contributing to the reluctance of discretionary travellers from using the tunnel.
These real delays have also had a pronounced effect on commuters and commercial traffic, particularly truck traffic. Commuters must travel across the border on a daily basis, and their options between Windsor and Detroit are limited to only two, the tunnel or the Ambassador Bridge. For commercial truckers, depending on origin and destination, their options may also include the Blue Water Bridge at Sarnia. However, the just-in-time requirements of local industry in both Canada and the United States, specifically for the predominant auto industry and manufacturers in this area, limit the options to the two Windsor crossings.
The impact on trade, commerce and tourism has been and continues to be significant. The City of Windsor relies on its industry and tourist attractions to contribute to a vital and vibrant community for its residents and businesses. Unless viable and long-term solutions are found for the delays at the border, the negative future effect on both the local and the Canadian economy will continue to be substantial.
The Governments of Canada and Ontario have recognized the need to address issues at the Windsor border through the allocation of $300 million from the Border Infrastructure Fund to improve access to Windsor crossings. The already announced phase-one projects amount to $52 million of infrastructure enhancements in the City of Windsor. This includes an allocation of $20 million, split evenly between the federal and provincial governments, for improvements to the tunnel plaza and approaches.
A master planning study is currently under way for the work under the provisions of both the federal and provincial environmental assessment processes. The net result is expected to be an enhancement of access to the tunnel in general and the dedication of specific lanes to facilitate the use of our advanced toll-collection system, known as NEXPRESS, an advanced Canadian customs clearance under the NEXUS program. However, the environmental assessment processes are lengthy, and the main improvements are not expected to be constructed until late 2005, or more realistically into 2006. Nevertheless, the city is looking at short-term interim measures under the border fund to improve routing and access to the existing plaza configuration.
The various levels of government are also currently involved in a binational study that is investigating the feasibility of a third crossing between Windsor and Detroit. From a national perspective, this added crossing will increase capacity at the border, increase redundancy and thereby improve national security. It will also serve to increase local capacity, and if the premise that development follows infrastructure holds true, this will be a boon to the national and local economies on both sides of the border.
It must be emphasized that neither the short-term improvements nor the longer-term improvements will resolve the primary issue of delays arising out of U.S. customs clearance procedures. While security measures are necessary to safeguard the citizens of both countries, it must be implemented in a manner that allows the border to remain essentially free-flowing, with minimal delays, as was the case in the past.
The reality is that the economies of Windsor and Detroit, Ontario and Michigan, and Canada and the U.S. are closely linked and intertwined in this region. The region's future viability relies on constant attention to maintaining a relatively open border.
While the City of Windsor as owner of one half of the tunnel can make representations to local Detroit-area U.S. customs officials to solicit cooperation, the fact is that security measures are directed from the national level. It is imperative that the Government of Canada continues to play an active role in ensuring not only that security is not compromised on either side of the border, but also that the border continues to be viewed and treated as a vital and critical component of the national and local economies.
Mr. Shelby Slater, Director, Homeland Security, City of Detroit: Good morning, and thank you for inviting me. This opportunity is really critical for the City of Detroit and for the State of Michigan in getting our views known. While Detroit faces many of the same concerns as other major metropolitan areas, in many ways the city is unique and faces unique challenges.
As you know, Detroit is the largest city in Michigan, the ninth-largest city in the United States and the largest city with an international border. Major challenges facing the city include border security, securing critical infrastructures and key assets, information sharing, first-responder equipment, training and adequate funding. Adequate funding should be underscored.
The top three economic areas that have a major impact on Detroit and Michigan are manufacturing, tourism and agriculture. The U.S.-Canada trading relationship is the largest in the world. Canadians purchased in excess of 59 per cent of Michigan's exported products. The state's next largest export market accounts for less than one quarter of what Canadians purchased from Michigan in 2002. Also in 2002, bilateral trade exceeded $66 billion and supported tens of thousands of jobs on both sides of the border.
Detroit is a major point of entry for our nation's northern border, with more than 24 million automobiles and 4.5 million trucks crossing the Michigan-Ontario border every year. Transportation trade accounted for over 75 per cent of the bilateral trade in 2002. Michigan and Canada's automotive industries are highly integrated and co-dependent. They exchanged close to $50-billion worth of automobile trucks and auto parts in 2002.
Over $1.5 billion in commerce crosses between Michigan and Ontario daily. On a daily basis, 26,500 vehicles traverse the Ambassador Bridge. Experts are suggesting an increase in commercial traffic of 150 per cent and in passenger traffic of 70 per cent by 2030. The Detroit River is responsible for moving about 80 million tons of cargo each year, of which over 7 million tons crosses annually at the Port of Detroit.
Because of the just-in-time delivery principle utilized at auto plants on both sides of the border, any disruption of border traffic that causes an auto plant shutdown costs approximately $1.5 million per hour. A four-hour disruption at the Ambassador Bridge results in a gross regional product loss of approximately $10.3 million. We are all aware of the frequent long truck lines on both sides of the border. Trucks delays result in increased operating costs to manufacturers, obviously. It is estimated that if these delays continue, they will cost Michigan and Ontario $6 billion by the year 2020, and that will result in both direct and indirect unemployment.
A significant number of both critical infrastructures and key assets are located in Detroit, including global headquarters of three of the world's top automakers, one of the largest convention facilities in the United States, several professional sporting arenas, and a regional international airport. Not only is the effective flow of commerce across the border a local economic product for the City of Detroit, but our border security efforts also have a direct impact on state, national and international economies. Border areas, particularly border cities, must therefore be given greater consideration when identifying critical factors to target national resources.
Let me talk about what has been done to date in the City of Detroit. Mayor Kilpatrick recognizes that regional cooperation is vital to the Detroit area as well as to the nation as a whole. Detroit's approach to homeland security efforts therefore focus on establishing and strengthening the linkages with local, state, federal, and international intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
During my first weeks on the job, I made it a point to contact and visit representatives from all of these agencies, in an effort to establish new relationships and strengthen existing relationships. Detroit knows that the communications, information and operations systems used to provide effective emergency and non-emergency service every day are the foundations of this homeland defence effort.
The City of Detroit is a major urban area that is an attractive target for criminal and terrorist activity and therefore needs to be part of a much larger response plan. Detroit has engaged in several projects and initiatives in an effort to strengthen our state, city, cross-border coordination and cooperation, including some of the following: We have acquired equipment to link the independent radio systems currently used by our police, fire and EMS personnel. We have implemented a new 800-megahertz project to fully integrate our radio systems into the State of Michigan system. We have also collaborated with the City of Windsor to make sure that they have the ability to communicate with our radio system, should there be a need.
We have established new linkages across the border. The Cross Border Contingency Committee is one of those. We are part of the Integrated Border Enforcement Team, and we sit on the executive board of the Port Security Council. We have begun to work on collaboration as an equal partner with federal, state, local and international partners to ensure a coordinated, effective and efficient national border strategy. We have done this through port security grants. We are members of the state's homeland security advisory council and a part of the urban area security initiative.
We have organized and participated in training exercises with other local, state, federal and Canadian authorities. They include the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel and Ambassador Bridge exercises that we conduct on an annual basis, the North American International Auto Show exercises that include first responders from Windsor and other parts of Canada, the most recent four-day American Red Cross exercise.
We are planning a Major League All-Star Game exercise in anticipation for next year's game, and we have invited Canadian first responders to participate with us in an integrated emergency management course exercise in January of next year. It is a four and a half day course and will be conducted in Anniston, Alabama. It is totally free, being paid for by the federal government, and to this point two of the Windsor first responding agencies have agreed to participate with us, and we certainly appreciate that. We continually evaluate and update our security needs as outlined in our original homeland security strategy and action plan.
Let us look at our plans for the future. As Detroit looks to the future, greater emphasis will be placed on enhancing the city's and ultimately the region's ability to collect, analyze and distribute critical terrorism-related intelligence and relevant information. The City of Detroit and Wayne County are working to merge and prioritize our individual goals and objectives, to ensure a unified approach to facilitating city and county needs.
We will continue to meet regularly, in an effort to streamline the decision-making authority for the City of Detroit and Wayne County. The City of Detroit is also working to create an integrated system to collect, analyze and distribute information, which will be the foundation for a multidiscipline prevention-focus effort to terrorist threats and other critical incidents. We are developing a strategic management centre whose responsibilities in part are to monitor homeland security-related efforts in the City of Detroit as well as in the region.
Our most important part of our homeland security effort is involving residents and community groups in our emergency preparedness mechanisms. The Detroit office of homeland security has initiated several programs to foster community involvement. Currently, four community emergency response teams are trained within the city, and others are being trained as we speak.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Slater. I apologize for interrupting you. The testimony we are looking for today relates to crossing the river and issues in relation to how we can expedite that. You obviously have an extensive program of homeland security, and we accept that you do have that program, but if you could confine your testimony to the efforts that are involved in the bridge crossing or the tunnel crossing or whatever means may be under consideration, we would appreciate that very much.
Mr. Slater: Certainly, I can do that. My only effort in these comments was to show the importance of the bridge and the tunnel as critical infrastructures to the City of Detroit as well as to Canada.
In terms of what we are doing to ensure safe crossings, to facilitate those crossings, we are working with Canadian counterparts, with customs and immigration's enforcement to ensure that the security for those infrastructures is maintained.
If the homeland security national threat level does increase, we have instituted mechanisms called core response mechanisms for each department, and primarily for the police department to respond to the bridge and provide that extra security that is needed to the inspectors, again to facilitate getting traffic across the bridge efficiently while protecting the security of the country.
Mr. Kirk Steudle, Chief Deputy Director, Michigan Department of Transportation: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. As you heard from Mr. Slater, we are involved with a lot of coordination efforts, many of which he has covered and I do not plan to cover again.
I would like to talk about the fact that the border is the lifeblood between our two countries. I know this group clearly understands that Michigan and Ontario's economies and, I believe, the U.S. and Canadian economies are really tied to the border crossing. I look at it as larger than the two crossings in Detroit; it also includes the crossing between Port Huron and Sarnia and the two Sault Ste. Maries, those being critical crossings as well, especially from a redundancy standpoint.
As you know, much of the trade that crosses the Ambassador Bridge and the Blue Water Bridge ends up in 26 other states on the U.S. side and in Canada. Hence, it is hugely important for us to make sure that that continues very effectively. Our state transportation commission recently passed a border policy aimed at addressing security objectives. It involves upgrading facilities to provide an appropriate level of redundancy among the crossings and provides options in increased economic security to help to ensure the flow of goods and people across the border. It also provides for the expansion of infrastructure to meet security needs as well as future commercial growth.
Those two go hand in hand, and the state transportation commission clearly recognized that border processing and infrastructure have to go hand in hand. You cannot do one without the other.
The commission also directed us in a policy to work cooperatively with other agencies to improve the border inspection processes, facilitate the movement of low-risk passengers, of cargo, provide adequate inspection staff and the use of technology to reduce border time crossings and enhance security.
That follows out of a transportation summit we had last December in Michigan, with 500 participants. One of the issues was commerce and trade focused primarily at the U.S.-Canadian border and how enable that to move faster. We termed it safe mobility. Many times, the missions of the Michigan Department of Transportation and border protection agencies clash. The transportation folks would like to move people as fast as possible, and the border protection needs to stop everybody to talk with them as fast as possible.
Hence, we have established the Ontario-Michigan Border Working Group, which has representatives from the Michigan Department of the Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, both its Michigan division and its Washington office, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Transport Canada, and the border processing agencies from both sides. That group meets about every six weeks or eight weeks, as needed. That group has identified its vision and objectives for the short and long terms. They envisage a border between Michigan and Ontario that develops and preserves its open character, while protecting our communities, pretty much safe mobility. How do we move people? How do we get back to a border that operated before September 11? How do we enable that?
The group has identified some short- and long-term objectives as well as some goals and projects. Realizing the long-term one is more in the form of the binational partnership, an additional crossing somewhere, which is moving ahead. I believe Mr. McCuaig will talk a little bit about where we are in the process.
On the U.S. side, we are almost ready to hire our consultant. In fact, we will sign the contract at the beginning of January, to start the environmental assessment work on the U.S. side for that crossing, evaluating the alternatives. So, we are on track on the long-term schedule.
On the short-term side, we have said that we cannot wait until 2010 or 2013, do nothing before then, so what can we do now with the infrastructure that we have? How can we make it more efficient? We have identified a couple of things in that regard.
The first was the promotion of the FAST and NEXUS programs, which enables us to identify and process quickly low-risk passengers on the NEXUS side and commercial carriers on the FAST side, allow them extra room to be able to get past the queues that are backed up and move them through faster. This group also identified the fact that we should promote that more. We have got this in place, but we need to get it out to the people and get them signed up.
The second one was intelligent transportation system — ITS — enhancements, notifying citizens on both sides of the border as to what exactly is happening from a traffic management standpoint. What are their best options? How can they get around? When they get off the tunnel, how do they move? We are talking about managing that through our ITS or our transportation maintenance management centre in downtown Detroit.
A third critical piece is the expansion of the American plaza at the Ambassador Bridge. We are in phase four of that five-phase project. The final phase begins in 2006, just after all our worldwide guests come to the big football game in January. A lot of the difficult connections to get onto the interstate, I-96 and I-75, will be eliminated. The investment in the plaza is estimated at a $170 million. The project includes moving the border processing booths off the plaza and providing longer space and greater capacity within the inspection areas themselves, so that we can handle trucks more easily. Then, as importantly, the trucks will be routed directly onto the freeway, thereby eliminating some of the traffic backups that occur when people are snaking around the plaza, as is currently the case. Those significant short-term projects will help alleviate some of those problems. The plaza redesign is also designed for the future.
If the alternative of an additional span at the plaza came forward, the plaza would be able to accommodate that. We would not be moving into an additional reconstruction of the plaza again. That is "if." It is one of the five alternatives; the alternative could be something else. However, if that alternative does present itself, the plaza would be expanded large enough to be able to handle that capacity.
Again, thank you for being here. I welcome your questions.
Mr. Bruce McCuaig, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ontario Ministry of Transportation: It is a pleasure to be here this morning. I have a written presentation, which I will not go through in detail. It is there for you as a resource, if you are looking for facts and figures and information. I am also pleased to say that the document represents not just the work of the Province of Ontario, but it represents the work of Canada, the Michigan Department of Transportation and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration on the development of a long-term strategy for the bi-national area in the Windsor-Detroit gateway.
I should like to emphasize five keys messages or points for your consideration. They are as follows: First, Ontario acknowledges that action is necessary in the Windsor-Detroit area. Second, we need to work on both sides of the border towards a shared vision of how we manage this area. Third, we need to address both border infrastructure and border process issues. Fourth, we need to take a systems view towards how we address the problem at the gateway. And fifth, we need to balance the national and provincial objectives in terms of moving commerce and people through the gateway with the legitimate local concerns in terms of the impact of hosting an international gateway here in the Windsor-Detroit community.
Very briefly on the first point, we do not question that action is required. Windsor is our busiest border crossing, with our largest trading partner, and it is critical to the success of our national, provincial and local economies. All parties agree that the status quo is not acceptable, and our challenge is to find a path forward that addresses the need for action in the short, medium and long terms.
On the second point, the economies of southwestern Ontario and southeastern Michigan are closely integrated. We need to find a solution for the binational region, and not plan for our side of the border and have the Americans plan for their side of the border. We are talking in our view about a single economic region, and we need to make sure that our processes as well are a single integrated process. We are talking about a system that needs to be seamless for the economy and for our citizens.
Third, we cannot solve our problems simply by building more infrastructure or by providing better business processes at the border crossings themselves. Both of these are important in their own right, but both rely on the other in terms of finding an effective solution for the future. An example of this is building more roads without addressing some of the border process issues. Without having the capacity and border process, essentially we will be building expensive infrastructure that will be used for storage of vehicles as we wait for vehicles to move through the border process experience.
Some of the recent impacts of building four additional inspection booths on the American plaza showed the dramatic impact that having better processes, the right resources at the border crossing, can have in terms of a more efficient and effective border crossing.
Fourth, we cannot deal with a single crossing like the Ambassador Bridge. We cannot even deal with the two crossings here in the Windsor community. We also have to think about the Sarnia crossing and how the various crossings act as a system together, and think about as well other elements of the network including the rail tunnels and the ferry crossings. Hence, we need to think about a larger region and to think about this from a system perspective.
Fifth, we know that our solutions must address the broad national and provincial objectives to keep traffic and commerce moving, but we must also be aware of the impacts on the host community and the local environment. We recognize that there are going to be some difficult decisions as we move forward with new infrastructure through this region. The processes that we have in place we believe can identify the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits and find the right solution after weighing those different factors.
We believe that the province is taking decisive steps forward to address the issues of the Windsor-Detroit gateway. We are working with our partners in the binational planning process. Let me draw your attention to three of the slides in this package.
The first slide I would point to is slide 6, which basically outlines the mandate for the binational study, and we are looking at developing a 30-year transportation strategy for the region. This would be completed outside the formal environmental assessment process in any one jurisdiction, but it would be a single one that addresses all the requirements of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. It would deal with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as well as the U.S. National Environmental Protection legislation. In developing this strategy, we would look at border process issues. We would look at how we can optimize the existing transportation system, deal with demand management techniques and develop new or expanded international crossings in the gateway.
The next slide I would draw your attention to is slide 14, which identifies the five key corridors that the work to date has identified for further consideration for an expanded or new border crossing. You will see that option 3 on this image looks at the twinning of the existing Ambassador Bridge. Option 4 involved the CP rail corridor. Option 2 looks at a new bridge location downstream from the existing Ambassador Bridge, and Options 1 and 5 look at alternative locations for a new crossing. These alternatives will be reviewed in an open public forum as we go forward to determine which provides the best solutions to some of our problems in the area.
The last slide I will speak to is slide 19, and it is the process that we are actually following. We have received approval in the Ontario environmental process for the terms of reference, and as my colleague mentioned a few moments ago both Michigan and Ontario are in the final stages of retaining the consultant team that will help us take us through the environmental assessment process. We are anticipating that we would have an approval of the preferred alternative by the end of 2007, go forward with design, engineering and land acquisition, leading towards construction and opening in the first half of the next decade. Those are essentially the timeframes that we are looking at now.
We also recognize as a province though that we need to take some actions in the short term and medium term to carry through on some of the commitments that have been made by the federal and provincial governments. We have come to an agreement with the City of Windsor on a variety of phase-one improvements that were announced earlier this year. Work is under way on five or six different initiatives designed to make some improvements to how the transportation system operates in the Windsor community, to lay the foundation for how we can move forward.
We are also working with Canada and Windsor in terms of discussing a possible phase-two agreement, again starting to build the foundation of how we can build the gateway for the future and working with all levels of government to find a package of initiatives that achieve the objectives and principles that were laid out in a memorandum of understanding that was signed earlier this year.
I would be happy to take your questions.
Senator Banks: Thank you all for being here and for your opening statements. I would like to address my first statement to Mr. Slater.
We have been looking, Mr. Slater, at a lot of the questions that you have addressed, and you are particularly well suited to answer some of them because we have found in each city that we have visited across Canada that the connections that used to be absent in the main between the respective first responding agencies are being fixed. The capacity for interoperability, particularly with respect to communications, is being improved. They are not fixed yet, they are not completely eliminated yet or completely improved yet, but they are getting there.
Needless to say, in the border cities, of which we have a few in this country, but none more important than this one, matters are exacerbated because of different orders of government in the respective countries and the fact that there are two countries. As Mr. Steudle said, this is really in respect of a catastrophic event of whatever source; a community has to be treated as a community.
I would appreciate if you would spend a couple of minutes telling us about the interoperability across the river with respect to a catastrophic event of some kind. Can we help you? Can you help us, and what would be the impediments to the first responders in any event zipping across the river by some means, if that is an appropriate word, to assist on the other side? Also, with respect to normal everyday stuff, are we getting to the cooperation that we need to have in communities like this?
Mr. Slater: As to the cooperation, short term, yes, we are getting a lot of cooperation. I mentioned the cross-border contingency committee that I formed. This committee is made up of individuals from both the Canadian side and the U.S. side. We are developing a cross-border contingency plan that looks at how we would coordinate our resources, exchange resources, move from one side of the border to the other if there were a significant incident, especially an incident that compromised either the bridge or the tunnel.
As you well know, there are a number of nurses who commute from Windsor to the Detroit side, to work at the Detroit Medical Center. The medical services would be severely impacted if we could not get those personnel across the border.
As far as communications currently, I talked about the link that is established with the current communication system. The current system in Detroit is inadequate. It is for that reason that we are going to the new 800-megahertz system. I bought two portable units, which will allow disparate radio systems to be connected and talk to each other. When I tested those units out, I asked members of the Windsor fire and police departments to bring their radios, to make sure those radios also work with this system, and as it turns out they do. Hence, in the planning we are now doing in respect of communications, training and coordination of resources, we are including our Canadian counterparts.
Senator Banks: That is very good and very hopeful.
My second question is along the same lines; it relates to turf wars. On our side of the border, we have seen some movement in respect of breaking down barriers to better cooperation and active cooperation, particularly with respect to exchange of information, not the ability to exchange information that you were just talking about, but the willingness to exchange information. Are you happy with the way that is going? Are you experiencing red-tape problems, particularly with respect to getting back and forth across the river, that are frustrating you?
Mr. Slater: In the last few years, I have seen a significant improvement in information sharing across the river. In the first cross-border contingency meeting, the Windsor Fire Department raised the concern of their haz-mat unit having some difficulty coming across through the inspection process, if they had to respond to an incident in another part of Canada. In many cases, it is easier to get from Windsor to other parts of Canada through the U.S. side than it is on the Canadian side, and there were some difficulties in getting the rigs, the personnel along with the supplies, through the inspection process. Mr. Kevin Weeks, the director of ICE on the Detroit side, was brought into the picture and worked out this issue. That problem does not exist any longer, at least to my knowledge. So that is an example of how we are working together to address some of those issues. As they are presented to us, we sit down with the appropriate people and try to work those issues out.
The Chairman: Could you advise us what ICE is, please, sir?
Mr. Slater: ICE is Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. That is a new name, since immigration went up out of the Department of Homeland Security. The name has changed about four or five times now.
The Chairman: I would ask the panel to not use acronyms or initials. Assume that we do not know what any of them mean. Please give us the full name, which will help the record a great deal.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for attending here this morning. You all spoke about the cooperation that is needed between Windsor and Detroit, and certainly cooperation between the two countries. Mr. Slater, you talked about co-dependency, and that is an excellent term, because we need one another.
Mr. Slater, you spoke about the radio system, and in answering Senator Banks' question you spoke about communication between people working on the bridge. When you were talking about a radio system, I assumed you meant a frequency for emergencies. Do you have both, or do you have a radio station for emergencies? Is that what you meant when you were speaking to us?
Mr. Slater: The current portable system that we have in place is for emergencies. However, the new 800-megahertz system that will be in place by March of next year is both for day-to-day traffic as well as emergencies, and I know that representatives from Canada have been attending the meetings of 800-megahertz committees to determine how to link the systems together.
Senator Cordy: So currently we cannot be linked, but that is something that you are working on?
Mr. Slater: Currently, we have the ability to communicate across the border using the portable system, but only in an emergency situation. There has been an exchange of radios between the Windsor and Detroit fire departments, but again that is for emergency situations. It is not used on a day-to-day basis for day-to-day operations.
Senator Cordy: You also spoke about bridge and tunnel exercises. Could you tell us exactly what those exercises are? Who is involved, and what exactly do you do?
Mr. Slater: Once a year, Detroit first responders, police, fire, EMS and others, schedules a date with Windsor first responders, same departments, and develop a scenario of an incident that could occur in the tunnel or on the bridge. It is always scheduled on Sunday morning, when there is less traffic. The tunnel or the bridge is shut down, and we conduct the exercise. It could be a chemical spill; it might be an explosion. It is whatever scenario the committee decides they want to test.
Fire departments and police departments respond as they would in such an incident. We make a determination of where our weaknesses are, and we try to resolve those weaknesses the next time around. Again, this is done on an annual basis. The last Ambassador Bridge exercise involved the U.S. federal government, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Canadian federal government.
Senator Cordy: It involves first responders from both sides of the border.
Mr. Slater: Yes.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Steudle, you spoke about coordination efforts. In the event of an alert on your side, who contacts the border workers? Who is responsible? Is a mechanism in place so that both sides of the border are made aware of what is going on? Is there a system in place to ensure that both sides of the border are made aware of any alerts that may come up?
Mr. Steudle: I would like to follow up on your last question. When those exercises are taking place, they include as well the state government as well, the Michigan State Police are involved with that, and from a communication standpoint there is a high level of communication within the State of Michigan's agencies through the department of transportation's employees, through the Michigan State Police employees. Most of the communication goes between the workers at the bridge, from one plaza to the other plaza, with the border-processing managers that would be there, the infrastructure managers.
Keep in mind that the Ambassador Bridge is privately owned. As a result, there is no state or federal employee at the plaza, only a border-processing agent. So there has to be communication. In the case of this bridge, being privately owned, they had ability to talk from one side of the company to the other side and make that connection loop.
To point to a specific person who picks up the phone in the case of an event, I cannot; however, there is daily communication. There are informal networks vis-à-vis who is doing what on each side, including communicating backups, et cetera. So there is pretty constant communication.
If there is an alert regarding a certain type of vehicle that is coming, again I am speaking for the border protection agencies, to my knowledge that is communicated to both of them through those two organizations. I hope I answered that for you.
Senator Cordy: We heard yesterday from some workers that they are not always notified as often as they should be, and I just wondered if there was a mechanism in place to ensure that both sides were notified.
Mr. Steudle: To workers —
Senator Cordy: To border workers, that if there was an alert on the American side that the Canadians do not necessarily hear about it.
Mr. Steudle: I cannot address what the border-processing agency does internally with notifying, how far down within their organization. I would assume the customs agent is notified, but I cannot confirm in regard to the toll taker, say, because there are a variety of potential threats that come in. Each event has to be evaluated, as to whether it is a threat or not.
It would be unadvisable to turn each report into a Chicken Little event, each time somebody called to report an event when in fact it may not be happening. Hence, I cannot really address the internal communication process within the border processing agency, because I do not have any control over that.
Senator Cordy: I am interested in the FAST and NEXUS programs. Yesterday, we had the opportunity to speak to some truckers who were stopped — and no trucker likes to be stopped; however, it is the name of the game. We asked one of them whether he was involved in the FAST program. He responded, "What's the use? It is not really going to make it any faster," because of the lineups and whatever.
Was he, in fact, correct? I think, Mr. Steudle, you spoke about a need for public relations, to get more people involved in the program. However, if a trucker is making that comment in the hearing range of other truckers, then maybe a better job best be done either on the PR part of it or on the program itself. Is it working?
Mr. Steudle: I would offer that that gentleman may want to talk to somebody who has one of those, to actually find out what the impacts are. Clearly, there is an infrastructure tied to this as well. A certain amount of space is required for the dedicated area, for them to get out of the queue and get up to the FAST booths. Hence, if the backup is significant, they are still sitting in it; but as they get to processing, they move over, and they do clear faster. Is it ideal? No, but it certainly speeds it up.
If we move to the Sarnia-Port Huron crossing at the Blue Water Bridge where we have got additional capacity, where there is a dedicated lane for the FAST vehicles as they come on to the approach, they have got a dedicated lane all the way across, and that saves significant time. So, again, this really is an example of how border processing and infrastructure are really tied together.
The Chairman: Before I continue with the list, I would like to make a general observation. We are here because we do not think that 2013 is a reasonable time to solve this problem. It is important that we get the background. It is important that we understand how complicated the issue is, and you are the group of officials we thought could help us most with that. What is not coming across to the committee, frankly, is a sense of urgency.
We are not hearing that this is a problem that 2013 is too long for. We have concerns as a committee that neither country can afford to wait until 2013 to resolve this, and we would be very thankful for any information you can provide us that would demonstrate that we are going to see a solution here well before 2013.
In the view of this committee, 2013 is an unacceptable date. So we would like to hear what steps are being taken — and if you could incorporate them into your answers — to move this project forward? Is the leadership there? Is the direction there? If it is not, where should it be coming from? If you could reflect on that as we go forward with the questions from the committee, we would be most grateful.
Senator Atkins: The chair almost took away my first question, but I refer to page 19 of your presentation, Mr. McCuaig. As I read it, what you are suggesting is that 2013 will mark the start of construction?
Mr. McCuaig: The program that we have under way right now would see construction completed by about that time frame.
Senator Atkins: Completed.
Mr. McCuaig: Yes. Now, of course, a lot of that depends upon decisions being taken throughout this process, what the preferred alternative is in the end, and how complex a construction undertaking it is, but that is what the program is targeting at this point.
Senator Atkins: What are the current bottlenecks in reaching that time frame? Is it the cross-government approvals, the environmental approvals? What is it that prevents this thing from moving forward faster, as our chair is indicating?
Mr. McCuaig: There are a couple of factors to look at. First, we are looking at putting a major piece of infrastructure into a complex urban environment. That, of course, entails a full review of all alternatives — determining what is the best solution and reducing or mitigating the impacts on those urban environments, on the environment in the region. Therefore, there is a significant amount of work to be done with the communities as we evaluate the kinds of alternatives that are contained on that map. That is a by-product of the legislative framework that all levels of government have put in place to look at these kinds of generational decisions.
The time frame that we are looking at here is similar to the time frames that would apply with other major pieces of infrastructure, whether it is a major transit corridor, a major new highway facility or other significant pieces of infrastructure. Yes, it is time-consuming, but we are living in an increasingly complex environment and as such have to respond to the issues that are raised in that process.
We have attempted from an administrative perspective to harmonize and integrate the three pieces of legislation as we go through this process so that, in the end, when we get an approval, it is a single approval from all jurisdictions. We are committed to finding additional administrative ways to streamline the process as we go forward, and I can honestly say that the partnership among the four governments spends a considerable amount of time trying to identify ways of going from step to step as efficiently as possible.
We agree that it takes a long time. I think that is also why the federal and provincial governments are working with the city to look at some short- and medium-term improvements that do not prejudice or prejudge the outcome but make investments in infrastructure that make sense for now and into the future — in other words, how can we take steps in the interim to help us move towards the long term?
Senator Atkins: Do you anticipate financing being a problem in any project that is decided on?
Mr. McCuaig: I think the decision of how you actually deliver the project is a decision governments will have to make when we have an outcome. Whether it will be delivered in a traditional public-sector model, or involve different kinds of innovative financing pieces, I do not know; I cannot speak for any of the governments. However, everyone is committed to moving ahead as quickly as possible. I cannot imagine a scenario where funding or financing the project would become a constraint to delivering the project. This is a significant investment for our national, provincial, state, regional economies, and it must be done.
The Chairman: Given the costs per day we have been hearing about, and we have heard it from the panel already today, the costs per hour of bottlenecks on the bridges or on the tunnel, the scenario if one or the other was not functioning, you could make mistakes two or three times over in your choices and it would still be cheaper to have the wrong choice two or three times. The citizens of Michigan and Ontario or the United States and Canada would still be better off if you made those mistakes.
We recognize that there are laws and constraints you have to conform to. Having said that, however, our impression is that by the time we get to the right decision on this both sides are going to be immensely poorer. Does anyone have a comment to that?
Mr. McCuaig: I assume you are referring to how long it takes to get to the end, and what are the implications in the short term.
Let me turn your attention to slide 9. You will see there that we have tried to identify when we anticipate hitting capacity in different pieces of infrastructure. So, for example, you will see that some of the border processes and the plazas are constrained in the near term, and that is why, for example, Michigan is proceeding with the Ambassador Bridge and the gateway project, I would hazard, on the American side of the border. There are constraints in the plaza on the American side at Port Huron-Sarnia, and there is work under way in that area.
So I would not look at just the new crossing itself as an issue that needs to be addressed, albeit it is a significant one. Rather, there are a variety of things that need to be done in this interim period. More specifically, there are border process and plaza improvements that we can do in the shorter term and medium term to help bridge us, if I could use that word, to the time at which new capacity comes on stream in terms of a new border crossing.
Technically, the throughput capacity of the Ambassador Bridge does not reach capacity according to the work that has been done to date for 10 years to 15 years. That is not to say that we have an optimal situation. I do not think anyone would suggest that we have an optimal situation, but the physically capacity is there, if we can move the traffic through the plazas and through the roads for the next 10 years physically on that bridge.
Senator Atkins: Mr. Slater, could you take us through what, in fact, would happen if Governor Ridge were to declare an orange alert today?
Mr. Slater: Absolutely. As I said before, each one of our departments has developed a core policy for how it would respond to an elevation in the threat level. We asked them to do that so that their employees would have less anxiety of not knowing what that department is going to do.
First of all, the Detroit Police Department has a unit at two different precincts that would supply additional personnel to both the bridge and the tunnel. The Detroit Fire Department would augment those fire houses that are closest to those infrastructures. There would be increased patrols, deployment of patrols from the police department around critical infrastructures, all of those, the bridge, the tunnel as well as other critical infrastructures within the city.
The emergency operations centre normally is partially activated. That is where I operate out of when there is a critical situation, partially activated by my staff. That partial activation would mean that we would capture any information that came in that was significant and get that disseminated out to the mayor's office and other critical dissemination points.
Senator Atkins: How does it relate to the Windsor side?
Mr. Slater: To the Windsor side, the information would go to the police department and to the fire department. The Detroit side has direct links with their counterparts on the Windsor side. I also have a direct link to a gentleman named Guy Dorion, who I contact on a weekly basis. If there was significant information that had to go out, I would directly contact him by phone.
Senator Atkins: Are you in charge?
Mr. Slater: I am in charge.
Senator Atkins: In one of your presentations, you said that since 9/11 the traffic flow on the bridge and tunnel has been reduced and has not come back to the original traffic volume. How do you account for that? What do you think the reasons are?
Mr. Iatonna: In my presentation, I suggested two potential reasons. One, there is still a concern over 9/11 with travelling, it appears, certainly travelling across the border. We see it in some of our operations and some of our businesses. Casino Windsor for one is a major tourist draw, and that has clearly been affected. We are working with the owners and operators of the casino to improve the flow of traffic to and from the border.
The second issue is perception, at least the perception if not the reality, that there are significant delays at the border. Most times of the day there are not, but the long lines of trucks and cars stay with people when they see them on the news or hear about them. We hear anecdotally from people on both sides of the border that they will not travel because of those delays, that they will make other choices, whether it is for business or entertainment.
Senator Atkins: Is tourism down?
Mr. Iatonna: Tourism is down. I do not have specific numbers, but it is down. It more or less mirrors the decline at the border crossings.
Senator Meighen: Of course, one way to deal with or to accommodate the long time frame is to have fewer people crossing, but that is not the objective of any of us, clearly. I think Mr. Iatonna has hit the nail on the head — there is a perception. Is anybody doing anything to counteract that perception?
We were told yesterday that the average delay is 10 minutes on weekdays and 20 minutes on holidays and weekends. That would come as a great surprise, as you have suggested, to most people. Who is telling the public about this?
Mr. Iatonna: I can tell you what we are doing locally. As owner of the tunnel, we have a marketing plan and we are actively advertising, particularly in the Detroit area, that the tunnel is accessible and that you can get through fairly quickly. We are attempting to give them the facts. We are using all types of media — television, radio and newspaper — to get that message out. We also use press releases to advise the public.
For quite a period of time after 9/11, we had an Internet site that informed people of specific delays at the border and other crossings. So we have attempted locally to do what we can, but it is a broader issue.
Mr. McCuaig: In addition to some of the local activities, we also attempt to communicate border delays or wait times across the province, and we do that through websites, working with stakeholders like the trucking association. We are also trying to work with our federal partners to support and promote NEXUS and FAST, so that our frequent travellers, commercial and otherwise, can take best advantage of those dedicated lanes.
With respect to the Queenston-Lewiston Bridge, the Blue Water Bridge and the Peace Bridge, efforts are under way to look at how we can add some dedicated capacity. It is a little bit more challenging in the Windsor environment with the Ambassador Bridge, given some of the limitations with the existing approach road, but conversations are occurring with local agencies on that point as well.
The main effort of the province has been to demonstrate action by making investments in improvements in the short term and medium term. Hence, you will see investments respecting the road-rail grade separation on Walker Road, to improve local accessibility from some of the auto plants. Investments are being made in intelligent transportation systems, in pedestrian grade separations along Huron Church Road. We know that these are not the ultimate solution, but they are ways we can demonstrate progress as we move towards a more substantial solution.
Senator Meighen: You will forgive me if I jump around from subject to subject. There is not much left at this point in time in terms of good questions. The tunnel, of course, is owned by Detroit and Windsor. The bridge is owned by a private concern. Without in any way suggesting or imputing anything, I am sure that they are totally cooperative, what are the challenges posed by a privately owned crossing as opposed to a publicly owned crossing, if any?
Mr. Iatonna: I could take a stab at that. I will give you the scenario that currently exists at the tunnel. The tunnel is operated by a private company on behalf of both Windsor and Detroit. Windsor takes a greater interest in the day-to-day operations of the tunnel. It views the tunnel as a public utility, an important transportation link, and makes decisions with respect to the tunnel, decisions, for example, on how to set tolls on the basis of it being a public utility. The private operator on the other side views it strictly as a business, to make a profit for the company. Hence, in those two cases, the decisions on either side may vary, given the philosophy that is employed.
I cannot speak directly to the bridge, but I would assume a similar philosophy is in place there, that it is first and foremost a business and, second, as Windsor views the crossings, a public utility.
Senator Meighen: Yes, but as a traveller, it makes no difference to me, except what comes out of my pocket, I suppose, in terms of toll. I do not even know whether it is more expensive to go over the bridge or through the tunnel, but in terms of the speed with which I get across the river does the different ownership structure have any impact in the view of any one of you?
Mr. Iatonna: Again, I would suggest that on the two issues you have mentioned, toll and speed, our experience has been that the level of toll really does not affect the decision of which border crossing to use or whether to use the border or not. It is the speed or perception of how fast one can get across the border, as well as convenience of location. For example, with respect to access to our casino, many Americans will come over via the bridge and return to the U.S. via the tunnel. Hence, speed is the first priority, and I think it is a goal of operators, private or public, to make sure that traffic moves quickly.
Senator Meighen: What I hear you saying is that the structure really does not make a heck of a lot of difference in terms of dealing with the problems we have been discussing this morning.
Mr. Iatonna: Correct.
Senator Meighen: We were talking about FAST and NEXUS. It has been suggested to me that perhaps there is some considerable abuse of one or both. Is there any monitoring taking place to check that, or has the time frame still been too short to get a handle as to whether those two systems are being abused in a significant way or not?
Mr. Steudle: Senator, I have not heard of significant abuse of either of those programs, but I will certainly check into that. Our information is such that they have both been very effective. I have not heard of any abuse. We will certainly follow up with that.
The Chairman: Could you advise the committee of that, sir? Would it be possible for you to write the committee on that?
Mr. Steudle: Sure, certainly.
Senator Meighen: I am not suggesting there has been. Someone told me that they felt there was considerable abuse; that it was a licence to smuggle, if you will, because nobody was going to check.
Mr. Steudle: Was it speculation? Did the individual clarify the story; did he or she actually know that that was happening?
Senator Meighen: It was anecdotal. There were no facts or figures, but in the opinion of the individual that is going on.
Mr. Steudle: Those passes are issued after pretty extensive security checks.
Senator Meighen: Yes, I appreciate that.
Mr. Steudle: I would say that that perception could be there, yes, and that probability could exist. The only way to ensure that that would never happen would be to have neither program.
Senator Meighen: I agree.
Mr. Steudle: So I think it is a risk. I will follow up with that.
Senator Meighen: Are spot checks carried out of NEXUS and FAST holders?
Mr. Steudle: That I do not know. I will check.
Senator Meighen: Nobody knows? Do any of you have an opinion as to whether increased personnel, customs and immigration people at either side, would make a significant difference in terms of getting people across more quickly, people and goods? Is that a problem? Do we need more people?
Mr. Slater: On the U.S. side, additional staff has been added to the customs force. I do not think the number of people affects the inspection process. The inspectors have procedures to follow, to determine whether something is out of the ordinary. Obviously, with more personnel there are shorter shifts and increased shifts. Instead of two 12-hour shifts or two 10-hour shifts, they can work eight-hour shifts, and that is easier, but the process of inspection I think is what impacts the speed.
Senator Meighen: Do any of the Canadian panellists have an opinion?
Mr. Iatonna: I would like to speak to that. There has been significant improvement on the bridge with the addition of the four inspection lanes on the American side. Mr. Slater is quite correct. There are a sufficient number of booths and personnel. However, if the level of inspection increases — and one of the problems is that the level of inspection can increase on a moment's notice. As a result, we cannot manage the traffic through the tunnel, and that becomes a problem. In the tunnel plaza on both sides of the —
Senator Meighen: Excuse me, just so I understand. You say it increases in a moment's notice. Is that if Mr. Slater gets word that the level of alert has been raised?
Mr. Iatonna: We are advised that it has been raised. We do not get forewarning necessarily of an alert being imposed.
Senator Meighen: Let me follow this along a bit. What is the time lapse before somebody on this side finds out that the level has gone up? Obviously, if the alert has gone up, it would be in everybody's interest if we got more people to process the travellers.
Mr. Slater: Let me give you two scenarios. Roughly 14 months ago, I would find out from CNN — that is a true statement. I would then start making calls on my phone. I now get somewhat of a pre-emptory call from the Department of Homeland Security, letting us know that this is about to happen, and we make the dissemination calls.
Senator Meighen: Does that include Canada?
Mr. Slater: That includes directors of departments who are to call Canada, police and fire.
Senator Meighen: Are you satisfied that they do that within a short period of time?
Mr. Slater: In all honesty, I do not check up on them. I just assume that their processes allow them to make those calls as we require them to do. I have not received any feedback from my Canadian partner saying that they have not gotten timely calls. It may have happened, but I have not gotten any feedback.
Mr. Iatonna: I can give you feedback. We do get very timely calls. Our tunnel operator knows immediately when the inspection level goes up, and notifies us. There are two levels of notification. There is an email tree, and for higher levels of alert there is a phone tree. So the notification works. The issue is that the decision is made and implemented immediately, and we are notified at that instant.
Senator Meighen: So you try to get more people presumably, but it is after the fact.
Mr. Iatonna: Correct.
The Chairman: It seems, if I may on this, Senator Meighen, there is a surge-capacity problem with the customs. If I understand your testimony correctly, there is a surge-capacity problem with the customs. You are hearing about it immediately, you understand there is a problem, but you cannot get enough people in the booths fast enough to stop the backups from happening.
Mr. Iatonna: We are not the ones controlling the customs borders, but yes.
The Chairman: No, I understand that. However, you know there is a problem, you communicate it to the appropriate customs officials, and then it is their responsibility to scramble around and find X-number of people to do the inspections, and they do not have the surge capacity to produce a dozen new inspectors or 30 new inspectors on an hour's notice. Is that what you are telling the committee?
Mr. Iatonna: That is a fair statement.
The Chairman: Is that the only problem, or is that just a component of the problem?
Mr. McCuaig: Well, there is no question that as the security level increases the throughput capacity through that plaza is going to decrease if the level of personnel has not changed, and with the way they are staffed, on a moment's notice, I do not think there is a significant increase in the number of staffing. That may happen as shifts change, but, yes, in that moment in time there is reduced throughput. As the level of inspection goes up, throughput goes down through any one inspector.
That being said, with the opening of the four booths and some of the additional personnel that have been provided, the more recent experience has been much more positive than what we were experiencing in the Windsor area even a year, year and a half ago. Perhaps my colleague from Windsor can comment on that, but our impression is that the length of the queues and how often they occur has changed over the last little while. That is largely a function of better plaza orientation, more personnel, and some process changes.
Senator Meighen: Has anybody given any consideration, and if so where we are at in the discussions, to stationing, as we do in airports, U.S. customs and immigration personnel on Canadian soil, and vice versa?
Mr. Slater: There has been quite a bit of discussion about reverse inspections. Each time that I have had an opportunity to talk to Secretary Ridge, I have asked the question about reverse inspections, because there is a major concern about the ability of someone to enter into that infrastructure, whether it be the bridge or the tunnel, and do something bad, if you will, before they are ever inspected. Each time, the Secretary has indicated to me that we are still working on it, that there are issues of sovereignty and other political issues. I do not know what the status of it is. It is still a high priority in the homeland security community in Michigan.
Senator Meighen: That is too bad. We have worked it out for airplanes. Why can we not work it out for automobiles?
Mr. Slater: I agree.
Senator Forrestall: Welcome, gentlemen, and may I say to our American friends today, how pleasant it is to have you present with us — and I am proud that the President is in Halifax today.
I want to talk a little bit about alert systems. In the United States, you have red, green, orange, purple, and so forth. We have a national alert system, too — are you familiar with it — Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson, CBC and CTV, both television networks.
I will direct my question to the deputy minister. Is there any need in Canada for us to develop a national alert system, colour-coded or otherwise?
Mr. Slater: If I can address that, the colour-coded system in the United States is well-intentioned. However, not enough definitive information went along with it in terms of how individuals or organizations are to respond that made it worthwhile. Now, obviously when there is an elevation, we know that something is happening, but there was nothing in the way of procedural guidelines or any other guidelines to tell cities, organizations or residents what actions to take when these colour codes changed from yellow to orange and from orange to red. That is the reason that in the City of Detroit we developed core protective measures, so that our department units, directors, deputy directors, and staff members knew exactly what to do based upon the guidelines that we gave them.
In answer to your question, I am not sure of the benefits. I do know that it provides some level of precautionary information to your citizens. It depends on how it is developed. There has to be some structure there. There has to be some guidance once you implement such a system as to what individuals or organizations should do.
Senator Forrestall: In your city, do you use the national colour code system?
Mr. Slater: We do.
Senator Forrestall: That is the same as the federal?
Mr. Slater: It is the same as the federal system, the Department of Homeland Security system.
Senator Forrestall: Obviously, they must differentiate. There is quite a difference between a perceived terrorism threat against air traffic all over North America and a bridge problem between Detroit and Windsor. Is there a differentiation model that works? How do people know it is just a local problem?
Mr. Slater: There is no differentiation for us other than to add more detailed information to each one of those colour codes.
Senator Forrestall: That is sort of a function of 9/11, fire, police and ambulances respond. You determine what the problem is and deal with it.
Mr. Slater: Right. There are specific functions on each one of those colour codes for each department, but that was developed out of my office. Those functions were not developed by the state or federal government. The State has also put out some information on the colour code, but in the City of Detroit there are specific response mechanisms that we have that need to be incorporated into a definition of each one of those colours.
Mr. Steudle: Senator, at the state level, we use the exact same colour code system, and we have done similar to what the city has.
Let me use the Mackinac Bridge as a specific example. We use that same system, and as it changes there are protocols for various staff to do different activities, depending on the nature of the threat, but we use the same general premise of that same system. In many cases, it is very site-specific. As you can imagine, the Mackinac Bridge does become a target occasionally.
Senator Atkins: Would you care to comment on the economic impact of the colour-coding system?
Mr. Slater: Certainly. The increase in the colour code last Christmas, right around the Christmas-New Year holiday period, cost the police department approximately $9 million, to respond and to go through the mechanisms that we have put in place. So there is a budgetary impact on our first responders.
Senator Forrestall: I must say, Mr. Slater, it is a pleasure to have heard you say, "I am in charge." You are the first person to say that in three years. We are always looking for where the buck stops.
I have a couple of very brief questions. In your twin city cooperation here, do helicopters come into play in the event of strategic movement capability across the bridge or through the tunnel?
Mr. Slater: Helicopters do play a significant role; however, the City of Detroit's helicopter that is flown by the police department is in dire need of repair. So we do not always have the ability to put it up in the air. We are seeking some federal funding that will allow us to buy aerial support. However, that has not happened yet.
Senator Forrestall: Does Detroit have that capacity, Mr. Iatonna, at all?
Mr. Iatonna: Are you asking if Windsor has the capacity? Windsor does not have one helicopter. However, I would add that — and I hate to bring up another issue — give the health care system here in Windsor, it is a concern when the border is backed up. We use Detroit hospitals for emergency patients, and helicopters are used quite frequently to transport patients across the border.
Senator Forrestall: Do you have a protocol with the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Coast Guard to utilize some of their equipment?
Mr. Iatonna: That I do not know.
Senator Forrestall: Do you know, deputy?
Mr. McCuaig: No, I am sorry, I do not know.
Senator Forrestall: Let me ask a question right out of the blue. The last time I was here, we asked a simple question about the Department of National Health and Welfare's cache of medical and other supplies to the appropriate time of extreme necessity and urgency. The response at the time to the panel, a very distinguished panel, was a blank look. Not only did they not know about it; no one knew who might know and indeed who in the hell had the key. It was, from the point of view of an emergency, a disappointment to hear that kind of news. Perhaps somebody from the City of Windsor could indicate to us whether the emergency cache of medical supplies, blankets, stretchers, and other equipment has been located, beefed up and is available to the citizenry.
Mr. Iatonna: The City of Windsor does have a comprehensive emergency plan, and actually it is undergoing an update as we speak. Part of that update will be to review the inventory. There is an inventory. As to whether it is sufficient, given the current realities at the border, we will assess that in our update.
Senator Forrestall: I hesitate, chair, to put this to you, but I will put it to you again. Are you aware that there is a national program? Senators right across the country have an emergency supply, as I have mentioned. Do you know?
The Chairman: Senator Forrestall, these witnesses are not here to testify on this. We have not advised them that this is a subject matter that we would be raising. It is really the emergency preparedness operations that would deal with it.
Senator Forrestall: Surely, you are part of the emergency preparedness operation.
Mr. Iatonna: I am part of what is known as the emergency control group, but I would not have knowledge of that program.
Senator Forrestall: That is fine; that is fair ball.
My other question related to the abuses that can come about with respect to something like NEXUS or FAST pass capabilities. An attitude exists in the community, state or provincial governments about having voluntary or mandatory officers in the booths at the crossings, tunnel and bridge: "Who in the hell are you, and where are you going, buddy?" They are not armed in Canada.
Obviously, I should stop there.
The Chairman: Yes, it is the wrong panel, Senator Forestall. Do you have other questions that relate to the bridge or the crossing?
Senator Forrestall: None that would interest you, sir.
The Chairman: That is evident.
Senator Munson: Are there estimated costs associated with the design phase yet? How much would it cost to start design on all projects now?
Mr. McCuaig: No. We have not gone into detailed cost estimates at this point. We are still identifying and evaluating the alternatives. Costs will be part of the next stage in the process.
Senator Munson: How long will that stage take?
Mr. McCuaig: We anticipate receiving environmental approvals from all levels of government by the end of 2007. Again, cost is one of the evaluation criteria that go into the relative comparison and the different alternatives. Over the next two years, or thereabouts, that process will be underway.
Senator Munson: Why do these environmental approvals take so long?
Mr. McCuaig: I go back to my earlier comments about the complexity of the environment that we are going through and the issues that need to be addressed, whether the issue is raised by the community affected by the infrastructure, whether it is the environmental features in the area. There is a significant amount of work that goes into ensuring that we have done our homework, before we go out and speak to these communities. We have a significant amount of work to do as issues are raised, and we try to respond to them and build that into the process.
So, yes, I think everyone agrees it takes a long time. Our experience has been that, in any number of environmental processes, this is the amount of effort required in this kind of a process.
Senator Munson: Are not the dates on slide 9 slightly misleading? What happens to the dates on slide 9 if you lose one of these crossings, tragedy? You have all these expectations here. Those dates would be out of whack, would they not?
Mr. McCuaig: You mean if one of the crossings were no longer available?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Mr. McCuaig: That is not an assumption that has gone into this evaluation. If there were an event of that nature, then some other action is going to be required to respond to that. This process is not built on the assumption that we would lose access to one of the crossings.
Senator Munson: Earlier, Mr. Slater, you talked about the bridge or tunnel closing once a year, on a Sunday morning, to look at weaknesses and deficiencies. Can you tell the panel what you discovered specifically in the last little while and what you have done to improve that with the Canadians?
Mr. Slater: I do not necessarily want to go into specifics, but what I can tell you is that there were certain response mechanisms from both the American and the Canadian side that had to be improved upon. Communication was a big issue. We found several instances in the tunnel, where we thought we had shored up communication issues, that they were not quite as efficient as we wanted them to be — procedures for getting equipment through the tunnel and making sure that on one side or the other there was interoperable connection mechanisms, especially for fire and within the tunnel, and we found initially that some of the connectors were not consistent with one or the other departments. That was resolved.
There were not any major deficiencies, but putting all of them together could have been a pretty significant problem, and each year when we do these exercises, we try to design a new scenario that will test processes and procedures to identify other issues that we may not have thought about.
Senator Banks: A short question to Mr. Iatonna. You said that traffic was down. Is that mainly tourism traffic, or is it commercial truck traffic? Do you know what part of that 10.9 per cent reduction was trucks and what part of it was tourists?
Mr. Iatonna: Given the constraints at the tunnel, the percentage of truck traffic as a percentage of the entire volume is very low, and we have noticed a decline in the truck traffic. I do not have those numbers with me. It is difficult for us to determine what the split is, because we are not running a single crossing in this region. We have two crossings. We can speculate, and I have suggested that perhaps it is the discretionary traveller in tourism, but certainly there has been an impact on commercial traffic.
The tunnel from the truck perspective principally serves local businesses. For example, our local salt mine provides coarse rock salt to Michigan transportation agencies during the winter, and that is one of our biggest clients at the tunnel. So it serves mainly the regional user.
Mr. Steudle: Senator, if we look at other border crossings, at Sault Ste. Marie, for example, there is a decrease in passenger vehicles there as well. Traffic is down at other bridges as well. We see that at the International Bridge. At our own Mackinac Bridge, which is between the two peninsulas, traffic is also down.
Senator Banks: Is it the discretionary traffic that is down or the essential commercial traffic that is down, or are you able to tell? Is the truck traffic down?
Mr. McCuaig: We do have information that we can provide to you, as a follow-up if you would like, senator, which talks about both the auto traffic and the commercial traffic. We can provide that information.
Senator Banks: If you would let the clerk know, that would be very useful to us. My last question, chair, is to Mr. McCuaig and Mr. Steudle. One of our colleagues, Senator Grafstein, made a speech in Washington a couple of weeks ago in which he was talking about the frustration that we all have about how fast this is moving, not just at this crossing, but mainly this crossing. This crossing is, as you have all pointed out, fundamentally important to the good health of the economy on both sides of the border and to the security.
He suggested that the frustration level was to the point that if we are going to actually get anything done in time to solve the problem there needs to be a super commission, a new commission, a new international commission with powers and authority to cut through, to be colloquial, the red tape. The red tape I am talking about it is six orders of government and commercial interests. It is even more complicated than six orders of government. The six orders of government and international commercial interests have to come to the table and all agree before anything is going to happen, including the environmental and all the other considerations.
In order to solve the problem, somebody needs to be put in place who can say, as Mr. Slater has said to us today, I am in charge. Someone needs to say: "We are in charge, and we are going to cut through this red tape and solve the border crossing problem."
Do you think that is a good idea?
Mr. McCuaig: In terms of whether it is a good idea, I have not really given a lot of thought to it. I am sure there are some benefits for having a single entity or individual who has responsibility and the authority to achieve those kinds of objectives.
Senator Banks: Like an international commission?
Mr. McCuaig: I am sure there would be some benefits to that process. There are probably a number of issues to that kind of a process as well.
In my experience, sometimes, in establishing a new governance arrangement, you can spend a significant amount of time, effort and resources to get simply another governance arrangement, and you still have not moved towards solving your fundamental problem.
So one concern I might just put on the table is that it may take some effort to get to a consensus that you would set up such a powerful cross border authority, and then you still have to do the work to actually get to the solution.
Mr. Steudle: Just following that last piece, I would also think that that commission would have to be able to deal with the environmental laws in both countries, recognizing that they are in place and that there were reasons to put them in place. So that commission would have to have some form of authority to modify those or circumvent those or whatever.
Senator Banks: Or deal with them more quickly.
Mr. Steudle: Or deal with them quickly. There are certainly, as Mr. McCuaig says, some positives to that. I am sure there are some issues that we would get tangled in, trying to get that set up as well. It is an interesting thought.
Senator Banks: The IJC though, for example, has solved a lot of problems and, one assumes, obviated a whole lot of problems that otherwise might have occurred. It is a super powerful international commission that has done a lot of good.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the panel very much. We have had a constructive morning. We appreciate the time and effort that you took in preparing for it, and we are very grateful to you for assisting us in understanding the complex issues that relate to border crossings. We understand even more clearly after having heard from you just how difficult the task and challenge facing you is.
We remain concerned about the timeline involved. I am sure you share our concern about it, and we will continue our examination of this subject with the timeline being the overhanging issue that we wish to focus on. Thank you once again for attending here; we appreciate your contribution.
Honourable senators, we now have before us Mr. Mark Norman, the chairman, president and CEO of DaimlerChrysler Canada. Mr. Norman is representing the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council — CAPC. Prior to his appointment, he held the position of vice-president of sales and marketing operations for DaimlerChrysler.
We also have before us Mr. Bob Keyes, who is the senior vice-president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Prior to joining the chamber, Mr. Keyes was vice-president of economic affairs for the Mining Association of Canada, with responsibility for a wide range of economic issues, including international trade and investment policy. As senior vice-president, he manages the chamber's international program and activities.
Gentlemen, I understand you both have a short statement for us.
Mr. Bob Keyes, Senior Vice-President, International, Canadian Chamber of Commerce: Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here to be able to talk to you about critical infrastructure and border crossings and some of the key issues around this. The secretary provided me with some questions as a guide, and I think I will follow them, but I am sure we are going to wander into many other areas in the discussion period.
With respect to the economic importance of the border, it is useful to pause for a moment and ask ourselves what a border is and what it does. A border is much more than the crossings we see out there. A border is a complex, dynamic system that has a multiplicity of functions across the country, multiple modes, multiple things that it has to do. Whenever we talk about infrastructure, we have to think broadly about this thing called "the border."
How important is this border to us? There is a plethora of numbers out there, and one only has to look out the window and watch the trucks crossing the bridge. Canada exports over 40 per cent of its GDP, and these goods and services have to cross a border and go to somewhere else. When we export 85 per cent of our exports to the United States, as we did last year, these goods and services have to clear out of Canada and into the U.S. As such, ensuring that all this happens efficiently is critical.
In terms of Canada-U.S. trade, clearly this morning we sit beside a major artery. Over a quarter of our trade goes through this corridor, moving from industrial heartland to industrial heartland. The infrastructure that services this corridor is a strategic asset, facilitating the movement of goods, people and services two ways, not just one way, because of the nature of our integrated economies. So if we do not manage these crossings, if we do not invest in them, if we do not look after these assets, we will be in deep economic trouble.
Infrastructure supply is more than just the supply of infrastructure. It has got to be the right infrastructure in the right place and doing the right things. The December 2001 30-Point Action Plan, and subsequently the Smart Border Accord, has been hugely important in focusing on the border and the state of the border.
Pre-9/11, the border suffered from benign neglect. We were in sleepwalk mode. Growth in trade and border traffic was outstripping the ability of border machinery to keep up, this, despite having had a shared border accord since the mid-1990s, despite the efforts of Prime Minister Chrétien and President Clinton to have attention on a Canada-U.S. partnership. We just did not have the investment, the dollars and the attention that we needed.
Post-9/11, of course, the situation changed dramatically, and there were new priorities and a new agenda, primarily around the security question.
We give full marks to the Canadian government for its initiatives in taking things to the Americans and doing things that really met both their needs and our needs, especially on the security side of things.
The border today has got a new vocabulary around it — words like integrate, cooperate, harmonize, streamline, coordinate, share, innovate, and, of course, obviously, security. This is incumbent not only on governments, but also on businesses, because it is businesses that move the goods and much of the people. Hence, we have to be a vital partner with governments; we have a huge stake in ensuring that the border is done right.
A key deliverable from the 30-Point Action Plan under the Smart Border Accord has been the implementation of programs like FAST and NEXUS. However, as good as these programs are, they are only going to work and work well if the infrastructure is there to let them work at maximum efficiency. Until we systematically address the infrastructure crunch, these programs cannot do what they are designed to do, and it is of little use having dedicated FAST lanes if the trucks cannot get to them or get to them only a short way from an actual crossing. The potential to do everything we want these things to do is just not there.
Expansion and modernization of infrastructure is badly needed at numerous border crossings, not all, but certainly many of them, and there is no more critical corridor than where we sit today in the Detroit-Windsor area. With better infrastructure, as I have mentioned a moment ago, programs like NEXUS and FAST and everything else can work as intended, streaming low-risk traffic and leaving the security efforts to focus on the high-risk movements.
Better infrastructure is also critical to new ideas emerging, such as the pre-clearance kind of approach, because they have to be matched with the infrastructure. You have got to have the space to put these facilities into place.
On the last question, Canada really has to press on the implementation of infrastructure. There has been hundreds of millions of dollars worth of funds allocated in the federal budget, but only a small amount of that has actually been spent, some three years down the road from 9/11 and the flurry of spending announcements that followed afterwards.
Yes, the system is a complex one, one that involves two national governments and a host of subnational jurisdictions. Everybody brings their own priorities and problems and financial constraints to the table, and you have competing ideas from the private sector on top of this, and they have each got their pros and cons. However, let us be clear: Infrastructure is a strategic asset of critical importance to both Canada and the United States.
I do not know that we have a shared vision of what is needed on a consistent basis across the country. As two countries, have we done a strategic needs analysis? Do we know what the priority is? Do we know the sequence of investments that have to be made to prepare for the future? This is certainly something that Prime Minister Martin and President Bush highlighted coming out of their statement yesterday. There is lots of agency-to-agency coordination. The linkage between Canadian and U.S. authorities is good. It is getting better, but have we really got a joint strategic consensus?
In our view and in the view of our members, the strategic importance of the border to Canada, to our economy, means there is a need for action on the additional border infrastructure, and we have to break out of the current inertia. Local concerns, environmental assessments, competing proposals and the like — we must find a way to fast track and deal with this thing because these assets, the infrastructure, are critical to Canada. If we do not get it right and get it right soon, we are literally jeopardizing our economy.
In the integrated economic space that Canada and the U.S. share, companies like Mr. Norman's find themselves with an international border in the middle of their production line. That is the reality. So business needs a border that is efficient and fluid, one that is neutral from a business decision-making perspective. If we do not have that, then the risk is that the investment, the jobs, the prosperity and our competitiveness is going to go elsewhere.
One final thought. The geopolitical and geo-economic forces around the world are changing. We have got to think about the smooth performance of the North American economic unit versus Asia versus Europe. This is not just about Canada and the U.S. This is us acting as an economic unit, and that means the dividing line between the two economic partners — that is, the border — has to work efficiently and has to work securely.
I am sure we are going to have lots of interesting discussion around these issues, and I would look forward to it, and thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion with you.
Mr. Mark Norman, President, DaimlerChrysler, and Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, Canadian Automotive Partnership Council: Let me just build on the foundation that Mr. Keyes laid for commerce in general and talk specifically about our national dependence on the auto industry and some of the underpinnings it provides for our economy, and clearly our industry's dependence on the border in our continual striving for global competitive advantage, not just in Canada but across a northern continental cluster for the industry.
Briefly, many of you are aware that the auto industry generates an annual trade surplus of nearly $12 billion for Canada. Over half a million Canadians are employed directly in the industry; spillover employment — the spillover effects in the economy — comprises one in seven jobs. As Mr. Keyes said, it is a fully integrated sector that is highly competitive and global in nature.
So when we talk about regional trade, I am talking about a cluster that spans from Chicago through Ohio, through Ontario, Quebec, as far south as Mississippi. When we compete for competitiveness in jobs, we are talking about a regional cluster at stake that is competing with Southeast Asia, with China, with South America. So the interdependencies are massive.
In Canada, we are focused on a net export advantage, something that started 40 years ago. We produce 65 per cent more cars in Canada as an industry than consumers buy here in Canada, thereby requiring us as an industry to stay two steps ahead.
Two countries export more on a percentage basis, and that is Korea and Japan. To stay ahead of the U.S., Germany and the U.K., we have to do exactly what Bob talked about — that is, remove the border as even a perceived impediment to doing business. In a span of 10 kilometres between suppliers and manufacturers, if the border is in between, the perception gap can be much greater than that.
Briefly, with respect to DaimlerChrysler, we have invested in excess of $2.5 billion in the last three years in Canada, more than any other manufacturer in any three-year period in time. As we work with the CAPC group, we are looking for more visibility, to help us sustain the advantage we have created as an industry and to lay out some of the key points that we can do to keep it in the forefront for a generation to come. A call to action was presented in Ottawa early last month, and the border is one of the critical issues on it. I lead the trade and infrastructure subcommittee, and as a Windsor resident, I am the expert vis-à-vis speaking for the suppliers and the big customers for the industry.
So with our investment here, we speak to 1,400 trucks a day that cross the bridge. About 15 per cent of the entire Ambassador Bridge traffic is DaimlerChrysler product, never mind the amount that goes with and for our suppliers. Consider, too, just the other dependent economies, the tool and die companies, the industrial mould makers, where 20 per cent of all tool and die companies and 50 per cent of all industrial mould makers are in Windsor and Essex County. So again it is not just large OEM — original equipment manufacturers — that we are talking about here but the dependent economies as well.
I will now speak to our dependence on the border and some of the things that we know we can do for immediate term and mid-term action that will make a difference. The first is better coordination of trade and security objectives on a binational basis. What do we mean by that? We mean better coordination of criteria for program entry, where we can make sure it is seamless and simple. Given the number of different levels of administration involved, the opportunity is ripe to add requirement to requirement which is adding to these invisible barriers.
We have had great success with Customs Self-Assessment — CSA — Partners in Protection and FAST for unsecured trade, but that is just a start. If those pre-cleared types of mechanisms still wait in lines, then they are not really being utilized to their fullest potential. We can create a better balance between trade and security. We are certainly sensitive to the security tradeoffs and want to make sure that we are not compromising anything in that regard, but promoting efficient and expedited trade is key. These programs, by pushing border processing away from the border, move the bottleneck away from our geographic constraints. We just do not have enough land and crossing throughput to address these things for, as I said, a generation to come. Certainly, they reduce processing time and help reduce uncertainty at the borders.
There are no surprises when a truck is at the border and says, "Hey, all the paperwork has been cleared." We know what this company does; we know what it is moving they are okay. We have got to help the FAST participants move through expeditiously. The flow of traffic is important; they cannot get caught in the flow of uncleared goods.
To that end, we recommend and continue to support a binational border authority, to help streamline regulation. It helps provide factual accountability to say what are the facts on throughput, so we are dealing expeditiously with perception versus reality and can deal quickly with crisis management, if an emergency should arise, an accident on one of the throughways or even a labour strike like we had earlier this year. So an authority like that has the potential to help us respond quickly, effectively and sensitively to the number of various parties involved.
I cannot emphasize enough, and I know Mr. Keyes did as well, the need for us to continue to push on the infrastructure investment. The phase-one allocation of $80 million of pre-work that was articulated back in March — the fact that we are still very slow on getting those initial steps underway really keeps us from working on the Canadian roadway infrastructure, not just in crossings, but in getting to those crossings. That is the $300 million that has been allocated, but again we have made very slow and patient progress on it. We need to continue to push.
From our standpoint, we need to push on coordination of trade and security objectives, definitely supporting a binational border authority, and definitely pushing expeditiously on continued infrastructure investment inasmuch as a crossing in the mid-term, but some much more fundamental foundational investments in the short term are where we see the priorities.
Senator Atkins: Mr. Norman, you talk about a seamless cross border process. Can you tell me what impediments concern you the most in terms of trucking parts, and what is your timeframe that affects your assembly lines?
Mr. Norman: The biggest thing that affects us is volatility — the variability, the risk of a small delay. For example, something as minor as the truck exit on Huron Church Road can have a massive ripple effect, hitting our suppliers first, because they have to put more trucks in the system to meet our just-in-time requirements at the plants.
We are frequently asked: How much is it costing you when you are down? Well, we do not ever want to be down. That is a disaster that we cannot face, but having to put more inventory in the system to keep up with that due to potential volatility in those numbers is really our biggest risk. So something that is monitoring the flow of goods, is helping make expeditious decisions on whether it is adding customs guards, whether it is rerouting traffic across different crossings, those are the kinds of things that can make a short-term impact for us, towards your question.
Senator Atkins: Can you describe to us the effect when things are not working properly in terms of jobs, in terms of —
Mr. Norman: In a crisis mode, it is as severe as a labour strike. Shutting down a plant, the burn rate of the assets, the labour involved not working when we are on a real time supply chain, all this is very severe — but again no less severe than the power outages from over a year ago, things like that.
Mr. Keyes: To give you an illustration, this is not just a preoccupation for us here in Canada and the United States. We are tied in with the International Chamber of Commerce. We talk to people from embassies. The trade and investment people in embassies and consulates here in Canada are watching what is going on, are providing information and intelligence and opinions back to their national industries that are looking at sighting investments.
I received a not too long ago from a trade commissioner from a major European embassy telling me that one of their companies was thinking of making a major investment in North America and asking me about where to site that plant and what I think will happen with the border. I mean this becomes a strategic issue.
When we go to meetings in Paris at the International Chamber of Commerce, people ask me to brief them on what is going on in Canada-U.S. relations and how the border is working. There is a perception out there that we have to deal with. This is real, and this is a competitive and strategic issue for Canada.
Senator Atkins: Do you feel there is enough urgency being applied to the alternative possibilities of crossings between Detroit and Windsor?
Mr. Keyes: Some days yes and many other days no. We have a situation in this corridor where clearly more capacity is needed, and there are a variety of processes in place, but it just seems to be like the energizer process, just going and going and going. At what point are we going to get to decision mode and see some things actually start to happen on the ground? This is a critical corridor. However, southern B.C., Quebec-New York State, you will see some of the same issues — albeit not as severe as here, they are real.
As I said, through the 1990s there was benign neglect. We were not paying much attention to it, notwithstanding a lot of good words and will. CCRA, as it was at the time, stayed static but the traffic was increasing. There was a gap. We are now into a very different era, and there have been a lot of good things done, and full marks to Minister Manley and Minister McLellan for pushing the button, and full marks as well to Secretary Ridge who has been a real asset in this process. From our perspective, we are sorry to see him leave that job.
I just do not think we are as seized with this as we should be, given the strategic nature of this issue.
Mr. Norman: There is a lot of urgency and attention to the prospect of crossing capacity but maybe sometimes at the expense of the attention and urgency we need to place on some of the shorter-term infrastructure developments. A lot of dialogue is happening on 5-, 10- and 15-year solutions, almost at the exclusion of, well, if we do not get that solved, we do not need to do these other things, which is probably not good economic development on all of our parts.
Senator Atkins: In the presentation prior to your appearance, we looked at the critical path. It seems eight years is a long time, especially in your industry, where, I assume, technology and the demand for product is increasing at a significant rate. It must be somewhat frustrating to you.
Mr. Norman: We see shorter and shorter life cycles for products, which means more flexibility across plants. We have more and more choices and alternatives in terms of resourcing, which, in turn, puts more burden on suppliers. So eight years is an eternity in the foreign direct investment world.
Senator Atkins: Yes, that is what it seems to us. You referred to shared vision. Where is the conflict?
Mr. Keyes: I am not sure, senator, that there is a conflict. I think we both have ideas on where we want to get to, but there have been different priorities.
Senator Atkins: Are we talking about the third crossing?
Mr. Keyes: Here?
Senator Atkins: Yes.
Mr. Keyes: Greater capacity. Does that mean new crossings, building on existing crossings? There is a multiplicity of ideas. We have to get to a decision-making point and get on with it. That seems to be where the inertia is — there are studies, and different ideas and competing proposals.
Mr. Norman talked about some kind of joint authority, whatever that might be. There is a whole range of possibilities that one could think of.
Senator Atkins: Who should drive the agenda?
Mr. Keyes: That is a good question. There are six governments involved, as well as business. We are all wrestling with the steering wheel, but we all want the bus to keep moving.
Senator Atkins: We met with Secretary Ridge, and he expressed the frustration of the problem of all the jurisdictions getting together to make it happen. It seems that that is one of the first things they have to deal with — that is, who drives the agenda and makes it happen.
Mr. Keyes: You have a legal agenda, a process agenda. There are environmental requirements, laws, processes on both sides — but we cannot afford to wait eight years.
Senator Atkins: Well, that is our impression.
Mr. Norman: We are in agreement on the agenda, but not as to primary authority. If there is a federal review twice a year or once a quarter, and provincially or on a state basis there is monthly accountability, and then there is some local support for that — the agenda is trade and security. The question for everybody is this: Do we have zero security risk? Do we have 100 per cent trade flow?
All of that is easier said than done. However, we are in violent agreement on agendas, maybe not so much on authorities.
Senator Atkins: Are you supportive of the measures that are being implemented until there is a major decision made in terms of a third crossing?
Mr. Norman: We have to push the nine-point plan in Windsor, the Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving Strategy, regardless of what the solution is. The infrastructure around town routes is important, regardless of the solution, and that will not be decided in months, perhaps longer, by the time we get through environmental assessment. We need to expedite that, but we have to invest in our home infrastructure at the same time. We cannot wait for a solution and then decide what supports it.
Senator Atkins: Just a final question. You say 1,400 vehicles. Is that just your company, a day?
Mr. Norman: Yes.
Senator Munson: We have heard a lot of buzzwords in the last few days — seamless, simple. In terms of specifics, you said that something has to be done now, in a shorter term, infrastructure-wise. Can you be specific as to what you would like to see built or done as part of the program, to make things more efficient here?
Mr. Norman: The Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving has critical points on infrastructure. It has been laid out. It has not changed in the last year. Again, we are not trying to invent new solutions but rather to implement the ones that we have largely agreed on at several levels of government.
Senator Munson: I would like to hear them.
Mr. Norman: The widening of E.C. Row, is one; the Lauzon Parkway is another major artery through town. Some phase-one elements were approved, simple, minor things — for example, a road-rail grade separation for Walker Road, an overpass at Huron Church. Again, those are moving, but slowly, and are precursors to phase two. These are basic county-, municipal-, and provincial-type matters that deal with the health of the thoroughfares in town. The aim is to help keep trucks moving through the city, wherever they are going, to current crossings or new crossings. This is not difficult; it is basic maintenance. It involves unclogging our arteries.
Senator Munson: Do you have any idea what is holding this up? It always comes down to money.
Mr. Norman: Believe it or not, that has not been as much of the factor — $300 million earmarked for these things, and $80 million has been set aside for phase one. Many of the phase-one elements — and I am talking of very small, simple things; $1-million worth of overpass types of things — are slow partly because of environmental assessment. We do not want to minimize the importance of due process, but we cannot wait for an eight- or 15-year solution on some of the other things.
Senator Munson: I do not know if it is a fair question, but you talked about 1,400 trucks, 15 per cent of the traffic. Customs officials and others at both borders, would that more than make your job easier —
Mr. Norman: That has definitely helped. Opening four new booths on the U.S. side this year, again they are aware of the role on the U.S. side for security capacity.
There is an opportunity for something like a border authority to be addressing some of the labour infrastructure, as well as concrete or technology infrastructure. It is all part of a joint solution here, I think.
Senator Banks: I think Mr. Keyes heard a question that I asked of the last panel that I would like to get a short answer from him on. It is entirely theoretical, but it was in response to a suggestion that has probably been made otherwise but was made recently by one of our colleagues in a speech in Washington. Senator Grafstein suggested that in order to solve this problem and not to obviate or circumvent but to speed up the impediments to doing the things you are talking about that perhaps a solution is the quick creation of a new international commission of eminent people with clout, authority, influence to be able to move, not to end the processes, not to circumvent things, but to move things along more quickly and get stuff done.
Does that make any sense to you as a tool pusher to the solution?
Mr. Norman: Sure, again tying on to some of the comments, the two-pronged elements that could support that. A binational commission that can support an authority that is responsible for flow and a planning commission that is responsible for strategy and major investments makes all the sense in the world. I believe there is a way to interface with these multiple levels of government, which have important interests, but streamline through one body like that. It is brilliant.
Mr. Keyes: CUSBA, the Canada-U.S. Border Authority. I think we have to look at how we are jointly managing this border, and you can think of models like the International Joint Commission, which has a hands-on role, is very helpful in solving things. Look at the NACEC, North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation under NAFTA, where the countries have experts on environmental issues. Theirs is a research process, making recommendations to governments; they do not have string-pulling ability. However, some kind of joint action might be possible.
Let's not forget that on an agency-to-agency level, between the Canadian Border Services Agency, the CBSA, and the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, there is a lot of interaction already. Where does it all come together, and by whom and how are decisions made in the timely fashion? Those are key questions.
Senator Banks: But does it come together?
Mr. Keyes: Under Minister McLellan, a lot of the issues around the security side come together.
Senator Banks: Forgive me, but this is Minister of Transport territory.
Mr. Keyes: It is Minister of Transport, but it is also Industry Canada. I believe that is the stream through which infrastructure Canada reports.
So where does it come together? Well, in our system it would come together at the cabinet table. However, that may be too remote a mechanism, in terms of decision making on a day-to-day basis and dealing with real problems in a quick fashion, as opposed to resolving things at the political level — which is all well and good and relevant for setting the broad decisions but not perhaps the specifics.
Senator Forrestall: Mr. Norman, how quickly would you want to see this binational authority in place? How quickly do you think we could put it in place?
Mr. Norman: In the private sector, it is always yesterday. Our business results are equally urgent. We are not putting any different standard on anybody else, but it could not happen soon enough.
Senator Forrestall: Do you think it could be done; do you have 10 names you could suggest?
Mr. Norman: Not specifically, but it does not take long.
Senator Forrestall: That is my point. Could you come up with 10 names in 72 hours?
Mr. Norman: Yes. Pragmatically, we are talking a month or two, on the outside.
The Chairman: The question is: How many years do you think it would take Congress and Parliament to agree on the appropriate authority to do this?
Mr. Norman: Again, I understand where you are going. However, if there are two elements — one on trade and flow and the other on planning — clearly the planning element is much tougher, a much more belaboured process. There were good signs in the last couple of days, however, good acknowledgement on the U.S. side, of crossing capacity needs, increasing awareness of interdependence across the industries on a cluster economy. This is not just a Canadian trade issue. Hence, if we could start small, with something like an authority, we could build credibility and receptivity towards the bigger issues on crossing and approvals.
Senator Forrestall: Its fundamental authority would have to be at the top of the food chain, the federal government, the federal authority, the cabinet level.
Mr. Norman: It does need to be.
Senator Banks: So if that were to happen, it would have to come from the very top. The president and the prime minister would have to decide that it is a matter of such urgency that this is how it is going to be dealt with, and you guys fix it. I am reacting here to your comments, Mr. Norman, about why we are so slow in getting underway.
Moving to a slightly different area, I wish to refer to a document entitled, "A Call For Action: A Canadian Auto Strategy," with which I expect you are more than grazingly familiar, Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman: I am.
Senator Banks: I am looking at page 9 of that document, which talks about weaknesses in our present situation with respect to the border. One of our concerns, of course, is that if this all is made impractical, this umbilical connection, the connection between the elements of a production line intersected by a border, then people are going to build things somewhere else where they do not have that problem.
One of the things you say here in terms of the investment attraction is that "relative to competitor jurisdictions, non-Canadian jurisdictions, the investment attraction process in Canada is perceived as disjointed, inconsistent with various levels of government and exclusively government involved. Meanwhile, the process in some competitor jurisdictions is well coordinated with industry, labour and government jointly involved."
Would you expand on that for us, because it sounds like what you are saying is that the problem in Canada is a government problem, period, and that it is being solved elsewhere by trilateral undertakings?
Mr. Norman: There are two different extremes on how other jurisdictions have handled the prospect and the opportunity for auto investment. In some southern states, for example, there is almost a turnkey solution that is often presented to prospective plant investors. What do I mean by that? The municipality helps out with land, with tax relief and other incentives. The municipality tells a prospective investor, "Here you go. We have the infrastructure, the land, the support. It is ready to go. Put a plant here."
In other nations, there is federal support for this type of thing. There has been this type of support in Japan for years, as well as in China. In Malaysia and other developing economies, there is federal strategic investment in labour, training. They go after the industries they want there. This is what we want to grow.
In the past, and it has improved markedly in the last year, there was the same kind of border confusion on, say, automotive investment. Is it federal? Is it provincial? Is it local? We have made a lot of headway, with the Province of Ontario stepping up and saying, "This is important to us for jobs." The province has allocated some investment-matching funds to do that. Ottawa is looking to the future in terms of investing in R&D.
How do we invest in labour development, getting to your other point, not just government but also union or other sources of labour? We have had the various ministers of those files involved.
I would say tremendous progress has been made even in the last 12 months in Canada on jurisdiction, on collaborative support. However, the scenario I gave you of the developing nations or developing states, we have not been that proactive. We are hoping to see some of that change.
Senator Banks: By comparison with other jurisdictions.
Mr. Norman: Yes.
Senator Banks: Just a closing question, and I have more for the second round if we have time, chair.
You referred to a shorter and shorter life span of products. Why is that? You are a manufacturer. The last thing you would want people to say is that your products have a shorter and shorter lifespan.
Mr. Norman: Excuse me, life cycle rather than lifespan. What I mean by that is the speed with which the product is completely renovated and redone. In the past, a product might have been largely unchanged for seven or eight years. Now, you are seeing a wholesale renewal in shorter times, and that is just a function of speed to market, more efficient, more competitive research and development, more competitiveness.
It requires us, with a net export advantage, to run that much faster, to work several cycles into the future, to make sure we have always got what is freshest and most competitive.
Mr. Keyes: I just wondered, Mr. Chair, if I could just add a postscript to Senator Banks' question and Senator Forrestall's supplementary, in terms of time frame and who you get and how you do it. There are some nascent groups there already. Think of what happened immediately post-9/11. The business community came together. We put together a coalition for secure and trade-efficient borders, produced a report in six weeks. We worked with our government colleagues on designing the 30, now 32, point plan. There was a lot of very good close cooperation.
We worked with our colleagues in the United States, formed coalitions, ourselves with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example. There is no reason the same kind of thing could not be done around the infrastructure question to get something on the table very specifically geared to the infrastructure situation and into the hands of both governments.
There is a consultative mechanism on the Canadian side chaired by Rob Wright, on the U.S. side chaired by Rob Bonner, that has come together a couple of times to talk about some of the specific initiatives, and that is business and government together. That is another group that you could draw on. So I think the foundation is there, that something could be done quicker perhaps than we think, certainly in terms of hard and fast recommendations.
In terms of the legal authority, that is another story.
Mr. Norman: In terms of crisis response and contingency planning, which is very top of mind and very urgent, and something that I think everyone is willing to invest their respective powers of authority to supporting, if that draws a bigger need and improves some results on the planning side, all the better for all of us.
Senator Meighen: In politics, perception is reality, and I think you, Mr. Keyes, touched on the perception, and we dealt with perception in the previous panel, in terms of bridge delays.
We were told that the delay is generally 10 minutes on weekdays and 20 minutes, on average, on weekends or holidays. Mr. Norman, is that unacceptable to your industry and the just-in-time method of operation?
Mr. Norman: I would say the averages, in an environment that is concerned about volatility, do not tell the story. We have got to look at extremes in ranges. If everything is 100 per cent predictable on 10 to 20 minutes, and we are working on making it 8 to 12 minutes, that is a great foundation for progress, but the volatility is greater than that. That is why we need different safety nets.
When there is a combination of a technology slowdown on computers, a labour strike and a car accident all in the same week, it takes hours at the border, and it is all over the front pages of international media the next day. Is it reality that day? By all means. Does it fuel a perception that lasts much longer than that? By all means.
Mr. Keyes: Could If you think of cycles and amplitudes in the physics sense, you get a mean; but it is these variations, the up and down, and the uncertainty, that is of concern. I regularly look at DHS and CBSA's websites, at their charts on border crossings and delays. Two things strike me. First, at a lot of crossings, yes, things by and large work. However, there are ups and downs, and regularly I see one-hour, two-hour, three-hour delays at certain critical points. I will then go to the DHS site, and the reported delay times are totally different. So we do not even have a common reporting method between our two authorities. So if somebody is checking websites to see where the delays are, they will get two get different estimates of delay times often.
The Chairman: Are they not measuring traffic going in different directions?
Mr. Keyes: No, they both report in and out and commercial and non-commercial at all the crossings. There are days when everything runs well, even with the standard periods of volume. However, there are other times when there are long delays. For truck drivers and manufacturers, those stats are of little comfort.
One of our board members owns a trucking company, and he has people all over North America. His drivers are now demanding that he pay waiting time. All of that factors into competitiveness.
Senator Meighen: I am being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but accidents happen. People get delayed. People miss getting to a play in Stratford from Toronto because the 401 is all tied up. It is annoying. If it happened every time, it would be more than just annoying.
So could I make a distinction between Mr. Norman's industry, which is really right here in the dual community, if you will, and the industry of importing fruit to Canada from Mexico? If I can, are there any concessions given to your local industry because it a local industry? Would it be valid to do so? Can you envisage a dedicated lane for the automotive industry? Is it more critical for you to avoid these three-hour delays, four-hour delays, than it is for a truck driver coming from Mexico to Toronto with a load of bananas?
Mr. Norman: To your point on accidents happen, the issue is bottlenecks and accidents, right? A truck accident a couple of months ago on the 401 shut the place down for a few hours. So what do we do with the bottlenecks? Remember, we are logistically intertwined across the continent. Yes, there is a choke point here, and there are advantages with pre-clearance mechanisms.
To a degree, we have the underpinnings of what you just suggested. However, some of it is geographic infrastructure, where there are not sufficient lanes to route traffic. In the case, you have to do some other things, whether it is, as I said, moving the border further away with some of the pre-clearance or a border authority that can reroute and best manipulate the pre-bottlenecks. You are on the right line of thought, but it is probably not a simple matter.
Senator Meighen: Yes, fair enough.
Does either or both of you feel that the steam has gone out of the urgency feeling a little bit? As we move further away from 9/11, as the process seems to stretch out to 2013 or whatever, are other people who are not immediately starting to lose that drive, and consequently have governments started to lose a bit of drive?
Mr. Keyes: Yes.
Mr. Norman: A bit. I think there is a lot of agitation in Ottawa and Queens Park, and we have probably slowed down a bit on some of the local solutions.
Senator Meighen: Well, we will see what we can do for you.
Mr. Keyes: Senator, it was a very cryptic answer, but I think the nature of the situation has changed. There has been attention on some of the choke points, but we are also dealing with new initiatives out of the U.S. that were not envisaged at the time we did the 30-point plan. We have got a U.S. visit, and the implications of a U.S. visit rolling out, and how that is going to affect traffic. We have had the bioterrorism regulations, which for some people has been a very difficult transition to get ready for.
There have been a continuing series of new data requirements that industry AND business has to get ready for, different standards of security, documentation, and so I think the tension has been diverted by some authorities to dealing with how we cope with some of these things, and perhaps the eye is off the ball a little on the infrastructure and actually getting to decision points.
Senator Meighen: Just one more. It may not affect you, Mr. Norman, at all, but what about rail? Is the problem less acute with respect to rail and getting across the border?
Mr. Keyes: The rail situation has been a little more manageable, and certainly the people on the rail side will tell you that even immediately post-9/11 a lot of rail shipments continued without the kind of disruption that you had at the borders on the truck side. You are dealing with bulk commodities that are not time-sensitive, a different range of goods, but they have got machines in place for screening, crews that can just take the train right across the border without stopping. So it is a different type of problem in order of magnitude.
Equally as critical is the position of our ports on the West Coast and Halifax, who are trying to position themselves to receive and clear traffic, and then have that product loaded on a train and moved right across the border — in other words, using our ports as access into the U.S. It is of economic benefit to Canada to have a rail system that is working and in time.
There are U.S. customs authorities working in our ports to clear what has been put on those trains, so that they do not have to stop at the border.
Senator Meighen: Yes, we are aware of that. You do not use rail shipments at all, do you, Mr. Norman?
Mr. Norman: We do, but with the just-in-time supplier shipments, it is a little more truck dependent.
We are talking about a whole supply chain that is very multimodal dependent, and a big part of our planning is on flexibility and intermodal capability.
Senator Meighen: Finally, this sounds like a contradiction in terms, but under just-in-time is there any predictability?
Mr. Norman: There is a lot of it.
Senator Meighen: A lot of what?
Mr. Norman: There is a lot of predictability.
Senator Meighen: So you could say, "It is just-in-time, but it will be just-in-time next Thursday that I am going to need a high volume of shipments?"
Mr. Norman: Definitely, and to put more in transit, for volatility in clearance times.
Senator Meighen: So you could tell the Customs people, "We are going to have a lot of business coming across that bridge next Thursday evening."
Mr. Norman: No, I am sorry. Our business is a little more even flow. I thought you meant do we make adjustments on our capacity based on different things that we have got to deal with, and the answer is, yes, and our flow is fairly predictable and fairly stable. It is not like there are a lot of peaks and valleys.
The Chairman: Just touching on the just-in-time, it seems to me it is a question of where you are shifting the inventory to. You are shifting your inventory to your suppliers; you do not want to have inventory where you are assembling. At some point, there must be a business case for increasing the size of your inventory versus the cost of your shutdowns.
Mr. Norman: Either way, it raises the cost, and that is our concern.
The Chairman: Either way it raises the cost, but there is a lesser cost for one model than another over time, one would presume.
Mr. Norman: In an environment where we are working very diligently to pull five cents out of a plastic part of a car, the cost of inventory, whether ours or our suppliers — this is not just to push it on them. This is a system cost that we bear —
The Chairman: I understand that, but if you are looking out to 2013, you plan accordingly.
Mr. Norman: We do, but again that is where the cluster is at risk, if there is more inventory required than in another part of the world.
The Chairman: Why is it my impression that one way or another the cost consequences, the job consequences have not been driven home to the various orders of government?
Mr. Norman: I think we have done a good job with the call to action document that you referred to to escalate that locally, and there is increasing awareness and interdependence on the various states that do the preponderance of trade, at least in our business, and that it is not necessarily a federal issue all the time in the U.S., but it is clearly an interstate commercial issue. So we are working on that, and that is generally the comment we get through all levels of government — that is, how many other people know that? We do a lot publicly and privately to escalate that.
The Chairman: The two of you have described to us a situation that seems, to this committee, to have severe consequences, and you are talking about a process that has lost momentum, a process that is no longer urgent, a process that shows no likelihood of providing results within what we all agree are reasonable timeframes.
So what does it take? What do you think needs to happen so that governments focus sufficiently, that we do see some leadership emerge, and we do see some of these decisions being taken in a shorter time period?
Mr. Norman: Continued awareness, and I think urgent action on the part of yourselves. We have made the same case with the prime minister. He told our group specifically of his dedication, and through President Bush and Mr. Ridge and his successor, and that of Minister McLellan. Again, we have got urgency and awareness at the highest levels, and want to make sure that we are working that through the various supporting levels as well. Also, I speak regularly with city council and with the mayor of Windsor.
It is not for lack of urgent discussion and urgent dialogue. Nobody in this room has walked away from the cause. We are trying to bring specific proactive solutions that are not easy. Many have not been done before, but they are necessary and not at exorbitant cost either, I do not think. We are trying to do this in a way that generates a good return for business and for Canada.
The Chairman: Having said that, I do not think we have heard anything this morning that moves 2013 to 2012.
Mr. Norman: No, but I think tremendous improvement by 2006 will ensure that we get the best throughput that we have. Maybe 2012 and 2013 are not as important when we are working on the right size of any capacity enhancement by being 200 per cent effective with what we do have.
The Chairman: In what we have heard from you and the previous panel, I had the impression that one of the principal problems we are facing is the lack of surge capacity at the customs booths.
Mr. Keyes: I think there are staffing issues on both sides of the border. I hear this from across the country. "Only half the booths were open."
Mr. Norman: A joint authority could help there. They could ensure that the resources are available, to deal with variable capacity.
The Chairman: Is it possible to make a case that demonstrates the cost of surge capacity versus the lost revenue to government for not getting these vehicles through?
Senator Atkins: And the loss of jobs.
Mr. Norman: I think that is possible, but it is only a fraction of the perception cost, which is a little tougher to quantify.
Mr. Keyes: Just a few thoughts that come to mind, Mr. Chair. On the numbers, I do not know if you have seen the paper the Ontario chamber put out on the cost of border delays. If you have not seen it, I certainly commend it to you.
The Chairman: It is in our briefing book.
Mr. Keyes: Good, because there are some interesting numbers in there.
My second thought is this: I think we see the trade agenda and the security agenda coming together, and Canada and Canadian officials and ministers to their credit taking a lot of ideas to the U.S., which I do not think were ever in the U.S.'s mind to start with, and pushing and pushing and pushing.
The next one now is going to be the question of land pre-clearance and the possibility of a trial in Niagara.
The Chairman: We talked to Commissioner Bonner about that last March, and he looked at us with a glazed look in his eye.
Mr. Keyes: Well, I will be at a discussion with U.S. customs authorities and our own authorities next week with some firm ideas and plans for how to get that thing launched, and it got referenced yesterday between the president and the prime minister that this has got to go.
The Chairman: Is it your view that this is the appropriate solution?
Mr. Keyes: It is a solution we have got to look at. We have got to make sure that it works, and that it is right, and that we are not complicating the system, but if we can do everything that we have to do in one spot that meets the security and the economic needs, and then the trucks roll —
The Chairman: Senator Meighen, before the last panel, discussed the airport example, where we have seven airports with pre-clearing principles established. So in terms of principle, it is hard to see that there are problems there. There may be problems in terms of zoning or rights of way, but one would presume that could be resolved as well.
Mr. Keyes: In discussions I have had with our authorities, taking the air model and applying it to the land model, there is a lot that can happen without significant regulatory or legislative change. There is a framework there that can be put in, and if you have the space to create the facilities to bring the two together and do it and do it once and do it right, then it should be a go.
Let me just come back to your question about capacity, and again I just want to emphasize the multidimensional, multimodal nature of this border. I have not been through Montreal since the new customs hall opened, but I went through Montreal coming from Washington a couple of times late last fall. Seven of 12 booths were open. There were 800 to 900 people waiting to get through. On one of those trips, I was with somebody who had come off a flight from England — to talk to somebody about an investment — and he called us "bush league" because of the delay we experienced. It took us over an hour to get through that line. I missed my connecting flight to Ottawa and ended up taking the bus. Of course, that is a border at an airport. However, we have to think about the whole system, the border in all its modes, as an integrated system.
If the committee's terms of reference are broad enough to encompass the whole border, I would encourage you to think very broadly.
The Chairman: I take your point. I would love to take that traveller back and show him some of my experiences at Heathrow, but we will not go there.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Norman, when you were discussing cross border travel, you said that we need better criteria for entry. Is there confusion among truckers particularly as to what the criteria are? I am just wondering whether there is a standard, and if there is a standard, is the standard consistent, or are people finding that they change from week to week or month to month?
Mr. Norman: The standards that are out there are consistent, but sometimes there are jurisdictions that are competitive, especially with new ideas. For example, there is a shortage of truckers, and getting truckers cleared can take three to six months. In terms of pre-clearance mechanisms, if we can simplify them, and make them go through a common process, that will frees up forces to do staffing at borders and some of the other things we are trying to attack.
So I did not want to imply that it is totally ambiguous, but it is not as quick and clear and simple and easy as the strategies would lead you to believe.
Mr. Keyes: The sign-up and the process for getting into these programs have not been as user friendly as it could have been. For some people, it has been an effort to have to be there at the right time. When NEXUS began, the office was open from eight to one. They ended up with a huge backlog, which took a long time to work through. So the user friendliness of the thing is certainly an issue.
In Canada, the take-up on FAST has not been nearly as high as we all hoped it would be, because it has been tied to customs self-assessment. CSA is a criterion for companies to enrol in FAST, and that has had a lot of teething pains for a lot of companies, which is why we have very few companies signed up in FAST.
The Chairman: Could you elaborate on that for us, please?
Mr. Keyes: Customs self-assessment — CSA — and the new AMPS program, the Administrative Monetary Penalty System — if you have not fulfilled requirements in the customs process, there are increasingly high monetary penalties. So you will get a $100 fine the first time, $1,000 the next time, $10,000 the next time, and it goes up.
We have tied FAST in Canada to being eligibility for customs self-assessment, which means you have to meet a certain level of recordkeeping and certification.
In the United States, they have not tied it this way, so the take-up and sign-up for companies under FAST has been much higher in the United States than it has in Canada. There are inequities in the AMPS system with CAS. I would be happy to provide you with some background information in terms of what some of our members have said about their dealings with AMPS.
The Chairman: I would appreciate your providing it that to the clerk.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, I will. This tie-in has been a problem and has dampened enthusiasm from a company perspective on FAST.
Mr. Norman: This is an example of inconsistency across the borders. The fewer the fewer definitions that have to be ironed out, the more likely we are to work on bigger common goals.
Senator Cordy: You will send us some information, Mr. Keyes?
Mr. Keyes: I will send you some information.
Senator Banks: I have a quick supplementary. The application form for a driver to get a FAST pass certification — which I looked at yesterday for the first time — requires information about the last five years — complete addresses, complete employment history, complete. I do not know whether you can answer this question, but that might discourage some folks from applying.
Are the investigations into the security reliability of those persons taken that far? Are your neighbours interviewed about your last five years? Are your bosses over the last five years interviewed? I am not saying that they should not be or they should be, but does that actually happen, or do you know?
Mr. Keyes: I do not know. I can only use as an example the last time I applied for a passport, and certainly the level of security and checking has been upped dramatically. To quality in the FAST system, a driver has met a certain risk category, low risk, so I would assume that indeed the process is a very thorough one.
Mr. Norman: We can check on that, if you would like us to provide it.
Senator Banks: You should not have to; I just thought you might know.
Mr. Keyes: Added to all this are the requirements to go into the U.S. Truck drivers who are not Canadian citizens and do not meet the criteria for the current exemption do not like the hassle every time they are at the border, fingerprinting and photographing. There are new requirements that affect the willingness of some drivers even to be in these kinds of programs and to go into the U.S.
Senator Banks: Here is my second naive question. It seems that the bottleneck with respect to traffic going across the bridge — I am talking about your 1,400 trucks, Mr. Norman, which I presume go both ways — occurs before the clearance process. In other words, I understand there is not a FAST lane dedicated to drivers who are certified. Have I got that right?
Mr. Norman: Not to the bridge, but once they get across. There are 25 or so lanes, and it only takes a certain amount of queue in any of the lanes for the FAST lane to be blocked. It does not happen all the time, but it does not take much to choke that, to get to the four lanes on the bridge.
Same is true at the tunnel. The NEXUS lane gets blocked.
Senator Banks: So if there were a dedicated FAST lane from wherever you get on to the track, would that not make a big difference?
Mr. Norman: That has to help, but at some point I think physics prevails — you get too many trucks on the bridge. That is why we keep pushing for the infrastructure on our side, because we have got to work on the routing, too. The bridge does a good job of managing those flows by the way.
Senator Banks: Who does, sorry?
Mr. Norman: The bridge authority.
Senator Banks: Is the fault in terms of arriving at the infrastructure solutions to these problems any greater on one side of the border than on the other? Are the Canadians sitting waiting for the Americans to come along, or are the Americans saying, We are ready to go; can't those Canadian get in order?" Are either of those things true?
Mr. Norman: On the U.S. side, booth staffing, for example, and a little bit of insensitivity at times to a back-up on Huron Church Road are issues. They do not know how far back it is going. On our side, it is local infrastructure related, ease of access to the borders.
So there are delays, but for different reasons; they are not stonewalling each other, per se. They have different concerns.
Senator Atkins: You referred to a nine-point program that could be implemented. Can you expand on that a little?
Mr. Norman: The current version of the infrastructure for Windsor and Essex County is the Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving. It is referred to in the CAPC document. It is the latest and greatest consensus. We can get a copy to you on those respective elements.
Senator Forrestall: In terms of the efforts to combat time to qualify a driver does, DaimlerChrysler have an in-house training program for new drivers? Do you recruit new drivers, or do you just want skilled drivers?
Mr. Norman: We do, and our flow is pretty good. However, remember that we are at the mercy of any delays on our suppliers, too, and so I do not want to see them saddled with costs. As a company, we get the right kinds of access and good flow and do not have bottlenecks in recruiting and development on our own, but again we are dependent on a whole infrastructure.
Senator Forrestall: How long does it take a driver to fill out his application, to get a clearance for a FAST pass?
Mr. Norman: I will get you the exact answer on that. I do not know it off the top of my head.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you.
Senator Atkins: We talk about the lack of urgency the further we get away from 9/11. It has been my experience around governments that the way to get their attention is to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, and I would say to you that if you want to really reach the heart of Queens Park, that is the way to go, and I say that to my friend here with the chamber because —
Mr. Keyes: Hence the Ontario chamber document.
The Chairman: You were not hear for Senator Atkins' introduction, but he is a long-time advisor to a former premier at Queens Park and understands Queens Park far better than I dare say anybody in this room.
Senator Meighen: You have to watch those documents — if you added up all the jobs, you would have a population of 50 million in the Ontario; I am sure they are well researched, and I am sure you can document them.
As a resident of Toronto who is ashamed that our garbage goes to Michigan and appalled at the number of trucks carrying the garbage, do they go across this bridge, or do they cross at Sarnia. If they do go across this bridge, have you noticed their presence and has it caused a little blip in the load factors?
Mr. Keyes: I do not know. I live in Ottawa.
Senator Meighen: Mr. Norman, you are the resident.
Mr. Norman: I have not noticed an increase in garbage flow overload.
Senator Meighen: I was hoping your answer would be different, but they we are. I heard the figure of 1,200 trucks, but I am sure that is perhaps exaggerated.
Mr. Norman: I will be watching for them now.
Senator Meighen: Just keep your nose tilted in the right direction, and you may find them, but certainly driving on the 401 you notice their presence.
Mr. Keyes: Oh, I have seen them on the 401.
Senator Meighen: And obviously they have got to get across the border somewhere, and I just do not know where it is.
The Chairman: Gentlemen, on behalf of the committee I would like to thank you very much for taking the time out of your day to appear before us. We recognize it is a complex problem. We recognize that it is an important issue in terms of the economy of both countries, probably several states, and certainly this community. We are very conscious of the time issue.
This committee is on the record as being very unhappy with the timelines as we see them laid out before us. We would welcome any further communications you wish to have with us that suggests other or better solutions, but in the meanwhile thank you very much for exchanging your views with us. You have been of great assistance.
The committee adjourned.