Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 26 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, October 17, 2005
The Standing Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 5:05 p.m. to examine and report on the national security policy for Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome to the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. My name is Colin Kenny and I chair the committee. On my immediate right is the distinguished Senator Michael Forrestall, from Nova Scotia; beside him is Senator Tommy Banks, from Alberta; beside him is Senator Joseph Day, from New Brunswick; and on my left is Senator Jim Munson, from Ontario.
Today, we will take a different approach to the meeting. We have brought together a distinguished panel of experts from across the country to comment on defence policy and to share their thoughts on the most urgent changes necessary to remedy the state of the Canadian Forces. We have asked each expert before us to comment on the question: Given that the defence policy statement has broadly identified three main roles for the Canadian Forces — protecting Canada and Canadians, defending North America and contributing to a safer and more secure world by addressing the threats of terrorism and failed states — what, based on your expertise, is the most important thing that Canada needs to do to ensure that it is capable of fulfilling these roles?
We will begin with Rear Admiral Ken Summers (Ret'd) and then work around the table to the other experts. I ask each of you to self-identify, including your previous or current career, and to provide your comments to the committee.
RAdm. Summers, please proceed.
Rear Admiral (Ret'd) Ken Summers, as an individual: I appreciate the ability to appear before the committee again. Mr. Chairman, I follow the work of the committee closely and truly appreciate your efforts to engage Canadians in defence issues. You are having an effect such that it is becoming an important issue to the public.
This is my first opportunity to discuss the committee's first report. First, I would like to comment on the report and then, perhaps tomorrow, I could address the question in respect of the future roles and what is most important for Canada. I received the report just before I left for Afghanistan. It provided light reading, so to speak, for the flight over to Afghanistan and my return flight to Canada. I observed that the main points in the report are valid and on the mark.
If the goal is to make the issue somewhat sensational to get peoples' attention, then you have achieved that with your first report. I found nothing new in the first report that people did not already know. It is the way it was put together that was new.
However, having said that, the real basis for your first report was the impact statements. From my experience, the impact statements that have come out over the past few years have tended to be overstatements by the various environmental chiefs of staff, ECSs, and other stakeholders. If they say they have enough money or sufficient resources to be able to do the job, they know well that when it comes to dividing up any monies that may come their way they will not get a piece of the pie. The impact statements address the ideal but all stakeholders cannot do things to the extent they may want. That was the basis of a lot of work there.
I found that it was, surprisingly, too colloquial, with too many personal observations that may or may not have been taken out of context when you looked at the full statements individuals had made. I was concerned and I still maintain, as you probably appreciate, close liaison with people south of the border since I have spent a good portion of the last 10 years when I was in service in the United States. I have been exposed to an interesting reaction from people down there. As well, during the Afghan trip a number of our defence attachés from around the world — close allies — were also with us and a goodly number of them were also well aware of that report, which surprised me. Their reaction, too, has been, ``Gee, I did not think it was all that bad. I thought you guys were sorting things out.'' The reaction to the overstatements has perhaps hurt efforts somewhat that may be ongoing to correct the state that the military found themselves in a couple of years ago.
I say all that as background because I am not too concerned about the past. However, I am concerned about reports two and three, which we will discuss in the days ahead; that is the ones you will produce in the next couple of months. Those reports will not talk about the problems — everyone knows the problems — they will talk about the solutions. They will talk about how to establish funding and a reasonable level of people in the military; how the training will be re-established; how the infrastructure can be repaired and what infrastructure is necessary; how we will address the major equipment shortfalls of the military; and then the whole question of openness to the Parliament and committees. I think those things will come out in reports two and three. I am concerned that those reports be based on solid, businesslike in some cases, arguments as opposed to something that may be more of a colloquial nature. I look forward in the next few days to go through that and hopefully we will put things in that light as opposed to perhaps what was in report one.
You got peoples' attention with report one, which is great. That is the way it should be. Now, I would like to see in reports two and three solid arguments that would justify producing financial levels that will allow the department to correct the training, the people problems, and the infrastructure problems for the future.
Douglas Bland, Chair, as an individual: I, too, read and admired your report. I would like to pick up on the theme that is captured in the title of the report of disappearing options, and address those in relation to solving that difficulty.
The options that are disappearing are foreign policy, national security policy and international relations options that follow from the lack of military capabilities. Insofar as the military is necessary to achieve what we want to do nationally and internationally, the options truly are disappearing for government. I have talked to you before about this issue and we have written some work at Queen's University about Canada without Armed Forces. The crisis we face now is not one of good intentions or of future minutes and so on, but a crisis of declining capabilities. In some respects, major capabilities will disappear in the next five, six or seven years.
The problem facing the country and the governments is to redress that decline. My research and our studies over the last number of weeks and months highlight the real dilemma facing the country: The problem of decline or redressing the decline is not one of money or, perhaps, even of political will in all respects but, rather, it is a problem of time. There simply is not enough time under current administrative circumstances to save major capabilities that are crashing.
The argument here is that we need not only a transformation of Canadian defence policy in the Canadian Armed Forces and their capabilities, but a government-wide transformation of the way we produce defence outcomes. The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces may try all they like to recreate and reorganize the armed forces but the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence are not responsible for, or in control of, many factors that lead to new outcomes. The challenge, therefore, is to find a way immediately to change the procurement system, the human resources system, the recruiting system, the organization of headquarters and the decision-making systems in government that produce outcomes. That kind of transformation within the civil administration cannot be done without strong and direct political leadership.
When I say that the administration of defence outcomes is scattered through many departments with different interests and different policies, it makes me conclude that no one is in charge of defence outcomes and the transformation of the armed forces except the Prime Minister. To redress some of the problems that you have identified so far and I know you will probably identify in the future, we need to start by changing the government-wide system of administration, and not just transforming the armed forces.
[Translation]
Lt. Col (ret'd) Rémi Landry, as an individual: I wish to thank the members of the committee for their invitation. I am a retired Lt. Col and I am presently working as associate researcher with the Groupe de recherche sur la sécurité internationale at the University of Montreal. I will limit myself specifically to the question the committee put to us which is, to my mind, inappropriate and proof of Canada's naivety in discussing national security and, indirectly, sovereignty. Have we learned nothing in matters of defence over the last 50 years? What lessons have we drawn over the last 15 years from the disastrous impact of our decision-makers, who while they were seeking to preserve our military commitments progressively weakened our national intervention capability? Indeed, they reassured us by telling us that our security, and indirectly, our sovereignty, were first and foremost ensured by our capability to fulfil our military commitments vis-à-vis our alliances, which were to guarantee our sovereignty if the need arose. What about our capability during the 1997 ice storm, when we had to ask the Americans to transport our troops from the West to deploy them in the Eastern region of the country? What about the long weeks it took to complete our troop deployment in Kandahar, in Afghanistan, in 2002? American airlift was not always available and at times a detour had to be made via the Philippines. What about our lack of means of transportation of a few hundred troops to East Timor and our having to wait for the Australians to find some room for us on their ships in order to get our soldiers to East Timor? The question should therefore be the following: what is required by us in the 21st century in order to ensure and guarantee our security, our sovereignty and, thus, our autonomy and our independence of action, while at the same time recognizing our needs in the context of multilateral alliances, in order to maintain and fulfil our commitments as a medium-size world power within the international community? The answer is simple: it resides in the balance between our internal and our external needs.
Indeed, the military, as an institution, is also a means to display our sovereignty domestically in cooperation with the other Canadian institutions, a means to intervene within a spectrum that extends from being a promotion agent for citizenship and Canadian patriotism to guaranteeing the security of our fellow Canadians in times of crisis, be they natural disasters or threats to civil power from within.
The Oka crisis is a good example. External sovereignty should include a dissuasion capability so as to be able to exhibit and gain respect for our territorial sovereignty within the community of sovereign States, as well as an intervention capability so as to be able to display our autonomy and pursue our national interests, by means of the promotion and defence of our Canadian values, including those of the international community, and extending to the defence of our sovereignty in conflict situations.
How to go about this while at the same time maintaining this balance? I believe that the key is maintaining sufficient autonomous capability to be able to act alone. Let us not forget that, whatever the nature of our relations with our allies, we alone, as Canadians, are the most able to promote our interests and fully ensure our security.
Our decisions in matters of security and sovereignty, in view of maintaining and preserving this autonomy, should be guided first and foremost by our needs. I define these needs in terms of internal sovereignty; it is around these same resources that we require in order to brandish this internal autonomy that we must build our capability to fulfil our international commitments.
It is interesting to look at the defence policy overhaul the Australians have carried out since the mid-90s. Of course, there are tremendous differences between Australia and Canada. As a first step, they asked themselves what they needed in order to quickly be in a position to fully fulfil their role with regard to internal sovereignty and to have a deterrent force. It is then that they were able to build their regional and international engagement around these capabilities.
[English]
The Hon. David Collenette, as an individual: I was minister of defence from 1993 to 1996, minister of transport from 1997 to 2003 and a member of Parliament for 20 years. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you. It is nice to be back on Parliament Hill.
I am currently a Distinguished Fellow at Glendon College, York University in Toronto and a member of the international advisory council of Intergraph, a U.S.-based world leader in software integration for security systems in the defence and transportation industries.
I will make a few comments based on your first report, which I think must be commended — something I may not have said always with regard to your earlier reports on transportation when I was a minister, but time marches on.
Since the late 1960s, Canadian defence policy has, I believe, been driven by the financial allocation of government, not by policy mandate. Despite the welcome infusion of money in the 2004 budget, defence expenditures are still significantly less in real terms than before the last wave of budget-cutting that began in 1994. Generally, the political reasoning of governments is that most Canadians are indifferent to the Canadian military and spending. Other priorities are deemed more important. However, this attitude has put the Canadian Forces on life support, which seems to be a view shared by members of this committee.
Soon, the Canadian Forces will not have the means to meet domestic, North American and international commitments. The basic precepts of the 1994 white paper are still sound, and they were reiterated in the 2004 policy statement. More money must be allocated to provide for adequate personnel levels and appropriate commitments to discharge the basic policy outlined in these two documents.
I want to focus first on staffing levels. Before 1994, there were roughly 76,000 members of the regular forces. This number was reduced to a target of 60,000 in the 1994 white paper, a number that was bare bones and barely enough to discharge policy commitments. In reality, the effective strength has been around 52,000. The recent promise to add another 5,000 people still brings the total to 3,000 less than advocated in the white paper in 1994. The primary reserves were pegged at 18,000 in 1994 and increased to 21,500 a year later. In reality, primary reserves hovered around 15,000 or less and increased in the 2004 statement to 18,500, some 3,000 less than called for a decade earlier.
The regular forces need to be increased to at least 75,000 people, and the reserves to 50,000 composed of 30,000 primary reserves and 20,000 supplementary reserves. This latter group, which most people do not focus on, consists of those people who have served in the regular forces in the past. They exist on paper; they sign a document when they leave the forces but nothing is ever done with them. They have never been activated. I believe that large numbers of retired military personnel would be willing to engage in some activity so that they could be called upon in emergency situations; for example, aid to the civil power. This group would permit the primary reserve to augment the regular forces for overseas missions, as they have been doing for the better parts of the last 10 years.
I have long been a partisan of expanded reserves, and not only from a military point of view. I believe the reserves based in armouries, wings and naval stations across the country, and in smaller communities in particular, contribute to nation building.
The second issue to be addressed is equipment. We have allowed much of our equipment to become obsolete, requiring heavier maintenance at higher cost. The two most obvious examples are in the air force with ship-borne helicopters and strategic airlift. The first appears to have been resolved with the helicopter purchases. The second is still an issue, but if it is allowed to continue, it will virtually erode any flexibility for deployment. The CF-130 Hercules must be replaced quickly, probably with updated Hercules models, and I would say by sole-source contract, something that is not popular within certain circles in the country. Heavy lift capability must be available within the forces; not from leased aircraft that are not always readily available. The C-17s and C-5s come to mind.
It is crucial that we maintain a fighter component within the air force. I may be a little rusty on some of my statistics, but I think about half the fleet is mothballed and not operational. As a result, our commitment to NATO and NORAD is considerably diminished.
Our navy is in reasonably good shape with up-to-date equipment, but it lacks financial resources to do much of the work that is expected of it. Canada, with the world's longest navigable coastline, which is growing, especially as the Arctic warms, must see its navy at full operational strength. Additional vessels must be brought into the fleet.
The army has received an infusion of new equipment over recent years that helps it achieve a multifaceted role, but more needs to be done. I am particularly proud of the fact that new armoured personnel carriers were authorized when I was minister early in the 1990s.
We need to accelerate the procurement timetable. In the private sector, the notion that it would take 10 to 15 years to select any piece of equipment would be laughable. I cannot believe that we allow this to happen in government. I do not mean to say that we have to sole source everything. When we went to a sole source for the armoured personnel carriers, APCs, in the 1990s, there was criticism in certain circles, but with the right oversight and the right financial controls, you can get a good deal for the taxpayers, and you can get those pieces of equipment in situ quickly. The APCs have performed admirably.
We made a good start at reviving the Canadian Forces in the last budget, but much more money must be allocated. I look forward to further reports from this committee to assist Canadians in directing the government of the day to make the right choices so that we have an Armed Forces that can do the job required of it, that is, to protect Canadians at home and in North America, and to protect our interests on the world stage.
Rob Huebert, as an individual: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you. I am the Associate Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, and I am also with the Department of Political Science.
First, I wish to congratulate you on your report. One of the most striking things in it, for which you deserve incredible credit, is your effort to engage Canadians. The language you used was, for the first time, an institutional effort to make defence issues accessible to Canadians who do not spend all their free time examining this issue, as well as to younger Canadians. This effort must be encouraged. Even if not every word is exactly correct, this trend must be repeated.
I wish to make four major points on how to address the issue of ensuring the development of Canadian security and defence policy. First and foremost, we need to ensure, elevate and develop a means of evaluating the immediate medium- and long-term threats facing Canada. We have fallen into this trap where we only seriously consider the various threat environments facing Canada at the beginning of a government's new term, and inevitably it never follows in the second term. The only time we seem to have a public and open discussion on the threats facing Canada is at election time and with a new government.
We need to break the practice in the context of how we engage in assessments in Canada. Something along the lines of an ongoing ability perhaps represented by your committee may be one step in the right direction.
The second point is that we need to connect the policy somehow with the funding, the obvious problem that we face. This is what your report is all about. Perhaps some radical solution could be found such as legislating that actual dollars have to be tied to any white policy paper. You may say it is not a white paper and we do not want to tie ourselves down to that context. However, if there was a legislative requirement, perhaps we might see the day where the government takes seriously the commitment in white papers rather than the six months that it takes to emanate them and then promptly forget about them.
The third point is one where the recent work you have been doing has been so important. It is the engagement of Canadian political elites and Canadians at large.
One of the greatest challenges when facing security issues in the context of Canada is trying to break the mythologies. One of the greatest problems about any aspect in which we put the words Canada and defence together, is we are invariably faced with certain mythologies that run counter to the requirements to ensure proper security.
Briefly, the three most enduring mythologies that act as a great hindrance to a proper and rational defence policy is, first and foremost, that the Canadian Forces only do peacekeeping; that they do not have any other major objective; that is their major raison d'être and has been since the 1960s.
The second mythology is that there is no threat to Canada, nor will there be any threat to Canada or Canadian security anywhere in the future.
The third mythology is that even if there is a threat, which there probably will not be, the United States will take care of it. We have to find some way in which Canadians are simply told the truth in these regards, that in fact the forces are for much more than simply peacekeeping; that there have been and will continue to be threats in the future that threaten Canadians: not North Americans, but Canadians.
As significant as the assistance by the Americans has been to us in the past, we have to recognize that our interests are not completely in lock-step with us. There have been historical examples of us going to war without them, and there will be issues in the future where we clearly have different defence needs than our American friends and allies.
One of two areas we must keep constant vigilance on that perhaps Canada's International Policy Statement, IPS, has not fully looked at is the issue of space. As we look over the growing threat environment, space is the next frontier. It has arrived in many contexts. Once again, the mythology that we cannot link militarization with weaponization and space and therefore cannot do anything in the long term will be a great hindrance for true Canadian defence and security policies.
I would like to call attention to the fact that even though IPS has recognized the importance of the Arctic, that we remember our history, which is our legacy, we tend to recognize the Arctic as a security requirement and then promptly forget about it. There is a requirement to ensure that we keep our vigilance when it comes to Arctic security as well.
Colonel Brian MacDonald, as an individual: You have asked us to focus on the question of what is the most important thing to be done to achieve the objectives of the defence policy review.
I will translate that: What is the most significant barrier preventing the department from achieving those objectives? As you know, the bulk of my research in recent years has focused on the capital equipment inventory of the department. This is the critical aspect of the future ability of the department to achieve its objectives.
Without equipment capabilities, there is no capability of achieving those objectives. The department finds itself, unfortunately, at the intersection of three extremely different factors that, together, render the situation bleak indeed.
The first factor is simply that of the equipment life cycles of the major equipment platforms of the department. Here we have the advantage that the Treasury Board has established planning parameters in terms of the life expectancies of various types of equipment. The Treasury Board, for example, argues that the life expectancy of a military vehicle is somewhere between 3 to 10 years; that of a ship is 20 years; and that of an aircraft is 20 years.
When we measure the department's capital inventory service by service against those yardsticks, we discover some uncomfortable realities. For example, 71 per cent of the Air Force's major platforms are now beyond their life expectancy. They are dead. The remaining 29 per cent are beyond half their life expectancy. They have less than half of those life expectancies left.
Of the Navy's fleet, 48 per cent is beyond its life expectancy. Another 40 per cent has less than half its life expectancy left. Of the army's equipment, 27 per cent is beyond its life expectancy, and 18 per cent has less than half its life expectancy left. To sum up the department as a whole, 43 per cent of the department's equipment fleets are now beyond their life expectancy, according to the Treasury Board figures, and 26 per cent have less than half their life expectancy left.
That is the physical dimension of rust-out. There is, as well, the technological dimension of rust-out. Treasury Board has noted that for information and communications technology, which is sometimes referred to by the buzz word infomatics hardware, we expect computers, such as the things that we have on our own desks, to have a technology life cycle of between three and five years.
We see, then, that even in terms of a major platform that has a theoretical physical life expectancy of, say, 20 years, there will be a requirement to upgrade its technology according to the technology cycle. The equipment may require four cycles to be dealt with during the course of the physical life of that platform.
The barrier is the reality of the department's procurement cycle. Something that the minister's advisory committee pointed out in an excellent report to the minister is the observation that we are now dealing with a procurement cycle that is some 15 to 16 years long.
Interestingly, of course, in 16 years we could have fought World War I four times and done it as a best three-out-of-five opportunity. The problem is that we now have a situation in which the procurement cycle averages 75 per cent of the physical life cycle of the major platforms, according to Treasury Board figures. If we take a look at the army side, the procurement cycle is now 150 per cent of the army's military vehicle life cycle.
Unless we now take steps promptly to solve the problem of the procurement cycle, the department is in an ever-narrowing death spiral that will lead, as I have said before, to the probability of a mass extinction of the forces within the next 10 to 15 years. I think we are closer to 10 than to 15.
The Chairman: Mr. Macdonald did not mention that he is an officer with the Royal Canadian Military Institute.
Col. MacDonald: That is correct.
John Scott Cowan, as an individual: I am the principal of the Royal Military College of Canada, the only federal university. Yes, we are a walking constitutional crisis.
Senator Kenny and other members of the committee, I have already had an opportunity to comment on your first report, and I have indicated how much I support your conclusions. I would like to hit on six things that I consider essential to implementing the government's vision. They relate either to issues in your first report or those that you telegraphed to be treated in your second or third reports.
First, and you have already dealt with it, is the concept of adequate and stable funding; that is to say, funding known far in advance. Given the way government works in Canada, it is extremely difficult for government to say unambiguously what resources will be available far in advance. Parliament votes for budgets on an annual basis. Once adequacy is achieved, the only way that kind of stability can be assured is if we develop, in effect, the instantaneous tradition that governments give clear moral commitments to what they will do. If there is political damage associated with deviating far from those commitments, only then will the predictability exist for such a long-term venture to thrive.
My second point — and you propose to treat it in your second volume under the rubric of the Canadian Forces as an organization different from the others — is recognition that the service provided by the Canadian Forces is a form of essential service unlike many others. Hence, all possible steps need to be taken to reduce the political factors in all decisions associated with it. Political factors can never be reduced to zero, but there are techniques to reduce these things to a reasonable level. I will touch on some with my third point.
Honourable senators propose to treat the area of procurement in a subsequent volume. Col. MacDonald and others have already touched on this. Procurement needs to be simplified and speeded up. There are many aspects of this and I will touch on only two now.
First, Canada needs a system for large government contracts to negotiate economic offsets, which is not entirely honest in my view, because it assumes that there is no additional cost to the economic offsets. The whole mythology is predicated on there being no additional costs and it is simply taken into consideration in the bid. No one actually believes that there are no additional costs to the economic offsets. In many other nation states, the way this is handled is to give the department engaging in the procurement the basic money required to obtain the items they need, and to give a department responsible for economic offsets its separate budget to buy however much economic offset it can with that budget. Initially, a single bidder is not selected, but those bidders that are fully compliant are chosen. From there, the other entity spends those separate dollars in buying whatever economic offset can be bought. This process is more honest and would prevent us, first, from looking inefficient and, second, from being inefficient beyond some predetermined level that the government commits is okay; that is, the dollars available for buying economic offsets.
Second, something honourable senators have already made clear, that in procurement, often the perfect is the enemy of the good. You have already said it; it cannot be said often enough.
My fourth point goes to the issue of sufficiency, which is something you want to treat in your second volume and relates to people. There is not an inexhaustible supply of excellent people to do this work. We need a revolution in terms of flexibility in service. There is a great deal of rigidity currently, particularly as it applies to the use of re-enrolees for periods of time. This matter needs examination and considerable modification so that these re-enrolees are not hugely penalized for having spent periods of time out of the Canadian Forces. There is a huge pool of talent there that has already been mentioned that could be used from time to time.
My fifth point relates to something you will treat in the third volume, which is the future threat environment. We are all agreed that it is fairly complicated. The world is not a safe place and some aspects of lack of safety are new and different from what we have experienced. We need to continue to improve the level of education and professional development in the officer corps and amongst the non-commissioned members, NCMs. We will not be able to fully deal with complexity unless we continue to evolve in this direction. A significant amount of progress has been made in this area, but this is not a time to stop just because we are heavily taxed.
My sixth point relates to something you wanted to treat in your third volume, which is the ease with which those who serve can tell truth to power; that is, can be frank and candid with the power structure in this country. Certainly, they have been in the past, but one of the missing links, which is something we have been seeking for over six years — I am familiar with it because of the work in establishing the Canadian Military Journal — was the finalization and promulgation of the rules allowing responsible comment amongst those who serve. These rules now have been six years in the waiting. Various defence ministers have made considerable effort to make interim statements that would fill the gap. Those rules have still not been promulgated. I am advised that is because other departments are concerned about the latitude that it might give to civil servants to be candid. We need to get that problem unstuck.
Barry Cooper, as an individual: Honourable senators, I am the managing director of the Alberta office of the Fraser Institute, in Calgary, and a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
First, congratulations on another useful report. It is extremely important to get the message out beyond the community that takes a professional interest in these things, even if you offend a few delicate sensibilities.
I will not repeat what some of my colleagues have said. I have three additional things to say. One thing you have done is very important; namely, to draw attention to the rhetorical imprecision regarding the purpose of the Canadian Forces, in particular how, when and at what cost the Canadian Forces will be restored to some kind of respectable capability.
As a first cut, I urge you to emphasize the distinction between military equipment and fax machines at Canadian Heritage, for instance. There should be different Treasury Board guidelines on how these are acquired and what the particular mix is. You probably know that far better than I.
One thing does seem clear: It does not make much sense in the long run to rely on maintenance budgets for capital expenditures. The Hercules CC-130s are a perfect example of that. We spend far more money on trying to keep these pieces of junk in the air than it would cost to buy new ones.
Second, on the subject of future threats, failed states are important and external terrorism is important, as is domestically-generated terrorism and traditional threats, particularly state enablers of domestic as well as foreign terrorism. I urge honourable senators not to forget those in the future as well.
Third is the business about Canadian values. Articulating Canadian values without any muscle is an invitation for other countries to treat us with contempt because of the hypocrisy involved. That contempt comes from our friends as well as our foes and competitors. Values with muscle, at least in political science, are called interests. Interests can conflict and they need to be asserted as well as defended, especially in connection with our chief allies, the Americans.
One aspect is particularly important and that is forward engagement. That is not just a military concept; it is also important in relief, most recently in Pakistan. That means heavy lift and I do not mean Antonovs, I mean Canadian C-17s or J-model Hercules.
[Translation]
Mr. David Rudd, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening everyone. I am President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, in Toronto.
[English]
Thank you very much for the invitation. This is my first appearance before your committee. I can only ask: What took you so long?
You have set the bar very high for us today. Identifying a single issue that will result either in policy success or failure is extremely difficult. It is difficult to identify one single thing that might lead us to either stagnation or success but, at the risk of sounding idle, I will echo some of the views my colleagues have put forth.
Human resources is the trap door underlying the three main goals outlined in the defence policy statement. Put simply, defence policy, like any other, is first and foremost about people. Unless you have the right number of well-trained, well-led people, it makes no difference how good your equipment or infrastructure is, although I do not disagree with Brian MacDonald that modern equipment is absolutely critical.
In view of this, it is incumbent upon the Government of Canada, this committee, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veteran Affairs, SCONDVA, and any other parties to ensure that the recruiting and retention of qualified Canadians is assured so that the inevitable loss of skilled personnel to age, retirement and infirmity now and in the years ahead does not result in policy failure. I regret we may already be too late.
Keep in mind that recruiting is more than taking people in at the bottom of the ladder. It is also a matter, as you have heard, of re-engaging in the most expeditious manner possible those who have left the service and wish to return. Retention also means allowing those in, say, the regular forces to be transferred to the reserves if, for example, they wish to start a family or another career. Offering them a transfer to the reserves can ensure their skill sets are not irrevocably lost and that these multi-million dollar investments we have made are not sent to the ashcan.
Likewise, transfers back from the reserves to the regular forces should also be as seamless as possible. Operational service gained by reservists while on deployment should be recognized and credited when they enter the other component. Does a reserve non-commissioned member who has been made a patrol commander in Afghanistan need to go through all four phases of infantry officer training if he or she wishes to obtain a regular commission? These are some things we can look at.
You alluded to the necessity of us not simply identifying problems but identifying solutions. Let me try to do that. To facilitate recruiting and retention in all their facets, to ensure that those entering or re-entering the military may be brought up to a standard as quickly as possible, the training system must be protected at all costs from the demands of operational deployments. Neither the instructors nor the equipment sets at the training schools should be pilfered to fill in gaps in units heading for deployment. Barring a major domestic cataclysm, they should be untouchable.
The Chief of the Defence Staff understandably wants to put operations first, but he cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. Leave Peter alone. Either give more resources to Paul or resist the temptation to constantly send him on overseas deployments.
We cannot discuss or encourage a renewed emphasis on recruiting and retention without addressing the issues that stymie them — Mr. Bland mentioned these earlier — namely, the inefficiencies in defence administration. These two subjects are interrelated. I alluded to the administrative obstacles preventing seamless cross-component transfer from regular to reserve. Another administrative issue related to personnel is the size of National Defence Headquarters to which former minister John McCallum referred in his minister's efficiency study. He talked about the drain on policy. The study found, among other things, that work performed within the walls of NDHQ did not have to be performed there, if at all. The fact that shortly after his departure from his portfolio the report was deleted from the Department of National Defence website suggests that the allegation he made was accurate and that some people were afraid to ask the question: What does this or that job have to do with the generation of hard military power?
It is the latter that should concern this committee: Having enough people in the right place with the right training and leadership stands the best chance of generating hard power.
I am not suggesting we should stop thinking about processes of recruitment and training, but we need to think more about outcome: how to get those people into the system and keep them there where we need them. As with the equipment curve that Col. MacDonald referred to, we are well behind the human resources curve. We need to get out in front of it, fast.
Allan D. English, as an individual: I am from the Department of history at Queen's University, where I teach a graduate course in Canadian military history. I will bore you with a historian's perspective.
Thank you for inviting me. It is a pleasure to be here and I enjoyed reading your reports.
What strikes me about what is going on today with the Canadian Forces is that the current approach to ensuring that Canada is prepared to fulfil its security and defence needs, which is the question you posed to me, is called transformation. This is not the first time that the Canadian Forces has attempted to transform itself. My theme — the only one I will raise in the time available — is that the Canadian Forces should not be so interested in trying to transform itself from time to time but, rather, be prepared for continuous adaptation to the changing world.
In my view, to do this there are two major requirements. The first is continuity and the second is expertise. It is wonderful that bodies such as the Senate are prepared to provide continuity because those in the House of Commons tend to come and go more frequently.
The other great source of continuity is public servants.
As far as expertise is concerned, there are many different sources of expertise on security and defence issues, but we need to take advantage of those that allow members of the public service and the Department of National Defence uniformed members, the Canadian Forces, to understand cultural values as well as the nitty-gritties of defence and security issues.
Brigadier-General (Ret'd) Joe Sharpe and I interviewed General Ray Henault shortly before he went off to his new job with NATO. There is an article in the latest Bravo Defence where he said he believed that one of his greatest accomplishments was putting senior officers in the Privy Council Office and other government departments because, as a graduate of National Defence College, General Henault appreciated the value of working together as a team with public servants, exchanging expertise and ideas.
As many of you know, from the early 1950s until the early 1990s when it was closed, the National Defence College in Kingston allowed Canada to build a large pool of public servants and Canadian Forces officers who were imbued with a deep understanding of the Department of National Defence, both from an expertise and factual point of view and from a cultural point of view. Approximately two senior public servants per year were sent on this 10-month course. This opportunity ended with the closure of National Defence College.
However, in 1998 a new course was started at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto, where I have taught for the past eight years. This course is the National Securities Studies Course, which is a six-month course that has a great deal of academic rigour and offers the same potential as National Defence College.
Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the college, no public servants have yet been able to attend that course. The excuse they are given is that they are too busy. This is exactly the same excuse that the Canadian Forces once used to avoid professional military education in a serious way. They were too busy doing operations to engage in serious professional military education. That argument is rather strange to many in other professions, such as medicine or law; to say that you are too busy doing your work to upgrade yourself professionally.
In many ways, it is not perfect, as Dr. Cowan has alluded to. The Canadian Forces professional military education system is not perfect but I think there have been great strides in the last eight years. In combination with these exchanges within the public service, the Canadian Forces is making great strides. Perhaps we could say that the Canadian Forces is doing its part for professional education and the exchange of culture values in security and defence issues.
I close with the question: Will the public service do its part?
The Chairman: To all of you, this has been a fascinating experiment for us. I do not think we have had so much intellectual support and rigour in the room at one time before. We are grateful to you for your assistance, for the support you have given the staff and for your help as a mid-course reality check for us as we are going through the three-report process. Some of you were helpful this morning and others will be equally helpful tomorrow morning. We look forward to that. We wanted to have an opportunity to thank you and recognize how much assistance you are providing the committee on how together we can better serve Canadians.
The meeting stands suspended and we will continue in camera.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed.
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. My name is Colin Kenny, and I chair the committee.
Tonight, we will hear testimony relating to the consideration of Bill C-26, an Act to establish the Canada Border Services Agency.
Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to thank two members who worked with the committee and have been vital to our efforts over the course of the past year. They are Captain (Naval) Ken Stewart, and Dan Charbonneau, a former clerk of the committee.
Both Captain Stewart and Dan Charbonneau joined the committee last fall and served through this past spring. Captain Stewart served as our military liaison officer, while Dan served as committee clerk. Captain Stewart and Dan worked through a particularly intense time that included 183.7 hours of hearings. It was the last .7 that did it, I think: visits across Canada and to the United States, the United Kingdom, NATO headquarters in Belgium and Afghanistan.
We wish to sincerely thank both of you for your hard work and loyalty. Though sometimes we seem to forget it, our success is a result of your efforts and comes primarily because of the hard work and hours that the staff put in behind the scenes.
In exchange for what I hope and believe was a rewarding experience with the committee, we want to thank you for playing such a vital role in what we do.
In recognition of your service, Senator Forrestall will make a small presentation to each of you.
Senator Forrestall: Allow me to join with the chair in the expression of appreciation in recognition of your professionalism, both of you, and you will understand why I am so pleased to do this.
I was the recipient of the chair's first idea, and you will recognize it immediately, captain — isn't that nice?
Look at those fellows in the white and red, and there is the inspector over there. I thought that was one of the finest examples of Canadian participation in anything I have ever seen in my life. It is beautiful.
We thank you for having been with us. We wish you well in the future.
I do not know what you would have done if it had not been for the mayors of Newfoundland — all of Newfoundland, not just parts of it — but the same goes for you, for your many, many hours. While we may have worked — how many hours was it, chair?
The Chairman: It was 183.7.
Senator Forrestall: Let me say that for every hour that we spent as a committee talking to witnesses and trying to prepare reports, Dan and the others around us in this room spent I would think easily seven hours. So seven for one and then they had to sit here for the 183.7.
Thank you very much.
Captain Kenneth Stewart: I want to thank you for the experience of this past year; it will be one of my highlights in my career. I also wanted to express my deep appreciation for the serious concern that all members of the committee have for my profession. I thank you for your tireless efforts to address those concerns.
Dan Charbonneau, Former Clerk of the Committee: I will not say much because clerks are not supposed to be seen or heard.
It has been an honour to travel across the country and halfway across the world with all the members of the committee. I hope to one day come back, once I am done my rotation.
The Chairman: I will now return to the business at hand.
We have before us today a panel from the Privy Council Office, Borders Task Force, led by Greg Goatbe, who is Director of Operations for the Borders Task Force in the security and intelligence secretariat of the Privy Council Office. He has held this position since January 2005.
His primary responsibilities include providing leadership in creating and coordinating a government-wide security policy framework for the cross-border traffic of people and goods, supporting the deputy Prime Minister in managing the economic and security issues related to the border with the United States and working to ensure the effective implementation of the Smart Border Action Plan and the overall future direction and management of the Borders Task Force.
Mr. Goatbe is accompanied by Paul Gibbard, who is one of the policy analysts with the Borders Task Force.
I understand, Mr. Goatbe, that you have a brief statement that you would like to commence with. The floor is yours.
Greg Goatbe, Director of Operations, Borders Task Force, Privy Council Office: Thank you, senator, for the opportunity to speak to you this evening.
I will give you a quick snapshot of the two major thrusts within the Borders Task Force right now. I will talk to you about the land preclearance initiative for which we are responsible and then the security and prosperity partnership and, in particular, the security component of that, which we have been responsible for negotiating with the U.S. and Mexico.
I will then take your questions.
Land preclearance is a priority for both the Canadian and U.S. governments and is also a high priority for Canadian and U.S. stakeholders. In particular, it is a high priority for Canadian stakeholders because we want to ensure that we eliminate to the greatest extent possible backlogs of Canadian exports going into the U.S, and at the Peace Bridge going into the U.S. The U.S. facility is small and constrained and we periodically have backlogs going in there. Land preclearance is viewed from a Canadian perspective as a solution to that particular problem.
The December 2004 announcement on land preclearance included principles to underpin a land preclearance agreement between the U.S. and Canada. A key principle is to build upon the air preclearance processes, which you have all no doubt experienced in using the Canadian airports that have U.S. air preclearance in place, but to not provide for full powers, which was the original U.S. request. They wanted to be able to do everything they do today in Buffalo within the land preclearance agreement. The agreement was not limited to air preclearance — more than that but not as far as full powers.
The public commitment is in place now for the two preclearance sites we would like to put in place. The U.S. facility is planned for Fort Erie, which was announced in December 2004; and the Canadian facility will be at the Thousand Islands, which was announced in June 2005.
I have talked briefly about why land preclearance is so important to Canada. It will help reduce border congestion. It amplifies the advantage of border programs such as NEXUS and Free and Secure Trade, FAST. There is an opportunity to apply this concept to other ports down the road, particularly small remote ports where we have issues on both the Canadian and U.S. side.
In terms of progress to date, we have announced the land preclearance framework in December 2004. The deputy Prime Minister and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge made that announcement. We have had three plenary negotiating sessions to date with the U.S. We are making headway on some of the primary and secondary processing issues, but we have a number still to be resolved. We need to reconcile some of the differences between U.S. and Canadian approaches to border screening.
In general, Canadian border screening focuses on the primary and secondary customs and immigration processes. Then it becomes a criminal or policing issue after that. From a U.S. perspective, there is more of a continuum where they look at primary processing and secondary processing. Then they have some of their response agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, carry on with some of the policing or criminal investigations before they bring that process to a close.
That difference is fairly fundamental in terms of the processes between Canada and the U.S., and something we need to sort out with the U.S. in coming to an agreement on land preclearance.
The next step for land preclearance is the next plenary negotiating session, which is this week in Washington, October 19 and 20. We have a December 2005 deadline for completion of the negotiations. The intent is to arrive at an agreement in principle by December. Legislative amendments likely will be required to support this agreement once it is in place. That is a quick snapshot on land preclearance.
I will now turn to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, SSP, and, in particular, the security component. You are no doubt familiar with the fact that the leaders of the three countries announced the SPP on March 23, 2005. Subsequent to that, there has been a report to leaders by the ministers responsible for developing these initiatives. They announced the detailed initiative annex on June 27, 2005. It includes three components: security, prosperity and equality of life.
The security component is comprised of three themes. The first theme is securing North America from external threats, and underneath that you have traveller security, cargo security and bio-protection initiatives.
The second theme is preventing and responding to threats within North America. Under that, you have aviation security; maritime security; law enforcement cooperation; intelligence cooperation; and protection, prevention and response to either terrorist threats or natural disasters.
The third theme is to further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across our shared borders. Underneath that is border facilitation, and science, technology and cooperation initiatives.
In all, from a security perspective, more than 100 initiatives are outlined under the 10 categories within the security component. Delivery timeframes for these initiatives range from three months to three years. It is an evergreen document that will evolve as initiatives are completed and new initiatives are identified.
Nine security working groups have been established. They have begun the process of planning and delivering these initiatives. There is one under the leadership of CBSA that deals with traveller security, cargo security and border facilitation. Another under Transport Canada deals with transportation security and infrastructure. A third under PCEPS deals with law enforcement cooperation, intelligence partnerships and protection prevention and response. A fourth is led by DND on science and technology cooperation. A fifth on bio-protection and public health is led by Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada. Another bio-protection initiative focused on food and agriculture is led by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA and Health Canada. A seventh, on export controls, is led by International Trade Canada. The eighth is the trilateral nuclear and radiological protection working group, led by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC. The ninth is Canada and the United States preclearance working group, which was just mentioned and is led by the Privy Council Office. The tenth is the Canada-United States geospatial and imagery working group led by DND.
We will provide regular progress reports to ministers and leaders, and we are currently in the process of assessing departmental funding requirements for all aspects of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, SPP, including security. That is where we sit.
Departments and agencies are beginning the process of designing, developing and implementing these initiatives, in partnership with the U.S. and Mexico. In some instances the initiatives are bilateral, and in others they are trilateral. The vast majority of initiatives are binational and bilateral where we deal with the U.S., or Mexico deals with the U.S., but we do have some trilateral initiatives as well.
That concludes my brief opening comments, and I am ready to respond to your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Goatbe. Before I recognize Senator Forrestall, could you take care not to give us initials? If you could give us the full term, it is clearer. There is also an audience watching that is not familiar with the public service.
Mr. Goatbe: I will try to do that. It is a bad habit I have.
The Chairman: We used to have a system of fines. I am not sure if we have reinstituted it or not, but it was a quarter per letter.
Mr. Goatbe: I am probably bankrupt by now.
The Chairman: It is expensive.
Senator Forrestall: Welcome. It has been a while since we have had a chance to chat about border matters. The last time we talked, approximately a year ago, we had decided that we would try a couple of points, such as the Peace Bridge between Fort Erie and Buffalo and the Thousand Islands Bridge itself.
We were talking at the time of some 32 areas to be worked on under the smart border crossings initiatives. You will be aware of some concerns that have come to us as parliamentarians with respect to any more delays at borders.
In terms of the pilot projects, first at the Peace Bridge and secondly at the Thousand Islands Bridge, can you tell us whether these projects were sufficiently successful — I am not sure you were clear about this — so as to allow us or encourage us to go on with the other 32? Perhaps as well, because it is so closely interrelated, are there any plans at present to engage in or to introduce reverse clearance or reverse inspections at our international points?
Mr. Goatbe: With respect to your first question, senator, in terms of whether the pilots will be successful, I should clarify that they are not in place yet. Nothing has been put in place from a land preclearance perspective. We are still in the process of negotiating the potential agreement with the United States. The plan is to negotiate agreement in principle by the end of this year, then put in place any legislative amendments required in the two countries to support that, as well as plan the infrastructure design, development and building in both these sites. That process will take some time.
The bridge authorities in Buffalo, Fort Erie and the Thousand Islands will not want to make a commitment to actually begin building on either side of the border until they see that the agreement is in place and signed. As you can imagine, the cost of putting these facilities in place will be very significant. They want some assurance that, in fact, these pilots have been approved.
I should clarify as well that when we talk about pilots, normally we talk about putting something in place for several months or maybe a year, depending on how long you need to test it. In these instances, we are looking at putting pilots in place that will last probably 20, 30 or 40 years, because we need to put them in place long enough that there is a payback for the investment in the infrastructure that the bridge corporations will need to put in place. We call them pilots, and we want to test them, but we need to be pretty sure this will work well because we are putting them in place for a long time. If we concluded after a year that they do not work, it would be difficult to go back and rebuild the infrastructure on the other side of the border. I am sure the bridge and tunnel or the two bridge operators in this case would be unable to go back and rebuild a facility, given they have just gone through the time and expense of putting in a new facility on the other side.
Would you like me to stop there?
Senator Forrestall: How much longer will the other 30 points have to wait that we have already discussed and that are in some urgent need before the people who use these crossings enjoy the benefits that will come through this system. I presume that the old system will stay in place and our good friends down south will not change their minds and are on the same camel we are on. We could be a long time with many difficulties.
Mr. Goatbe: Agreed. In terms of expanding a land preclearance agreement to other sites, that is not something that we have spent a lot of time thinking about at this point in time. Our focus is on negotiating an agreement and getting it in place at these two pilot sites.
We have kept in the back of our mind the fact that if we can negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to both countries and put something in place that works and is proven to work, then it could be applicable to other sites. It could be applicable to small remote sites where we generally have one Canadian facility on one side of the border and a U.S. facility on the other side, out in the middle of nowhere. If we could come to an agreement on land preclearance and put them together in some fashion, that would make a lot of sense.
Senator Forrestall: How do you guard against one program for some Canadians and Americans and another or different programs for other transborder movers?
Mr. Goatbe: One of the basic premises of land preclearance is not to provide for different processes. We are trying to put in place, as a result of negotiating this agreement, a system whereby whether you are the U.S. authority or the Canadian authority the process to which you will subject people and goods arriving at that preclearance site would be as close as possible to the current process they are subject to on the Canadian side or the U.S. side. The U.S. would like to do the same processing at the preclearance site in Fort Erie as it does now at the Buffalo site. We would like to do the same processing at the Thousand Islands site. We hope to reach a scenario whereby there is no significant difference between what happens at the preclearance sites and at the other sites across Canada and the U.S.
Senator Forrestall: You leave me somewhat apprehensive. It sounds good when said with confidence but, in the implementation, if someone can cross the border at the Thousand Islands in five minutes whereas it might take one hour and five minutes at St. Stephen-Calais, you will not have a problem but many people such as me will have problems to the point that members of Parliament will have enormous problems trying to sort out the complaints. I suppose it will be because of the status of discussions with the United States in respect of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative that would require passports or some other secure, acceptable document to enter or re-enter the United States. As you are aware, that process has proven to be somewhat difficult already.
Mr. Goatbe: Allow me to clarify some of those points. Without question, we know that we need to put in place a wide variety of initiatives that will deal with border congestion along the Canada-U.S. border. Land preclearance is only one aspect of what we might do to address the issue. There are other initiatives in the Security and Prosperity Partnership, SPP, as security components. One of those is called the 25 Percent Challenge, which has been reasonably successful to date at the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit. Part of the success of the 25 Percent Challenge is the fact that the U.S. has added four additional commercial primary inspection lanes, PILs, and staffed them. Canada has added additional staff to allow us to staff two additional existing PILs that were generally not staffed before. If you travel to the Ambassador Bridge today to cross either way, most of the delays that we experienced before are gone. That is not to say that on any given day you might have a backup for some reason but, generally, those day-to-day backlogs have disappeared. That is the view of not only government but also of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, CME, and the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. They agree that there has been a significant improvement at the Ambassador Bridge and part of the reason is the 25 Percent Challenge. As part of SPP, we hope to take that 25 Percent Challenge and expand it all along the border. Clearly, the intent is to put a raft of different initiatives in place all along the Canada-U.S. border to deal with the issues that you have flagged.
Another initiative in place, or to be in place, as part of the SPP is to expand FAST by devising green lanes for FAST to expand its capacity to move low-risk cargo back and forth, and to expand NEXUS for greater participation to achieve better flows. There are numerous initiatives in the SPP that we hope will address that.
Senator Forrestall: Are Senator Hillary Clinton and the governor still actively pushing to have that provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act altered or dropped?
Mr. Goatbe: To the best of my knowledge, they remain opposed to putting the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative into play. That is based on articles we have read over the last week.
You are aware, no doubt, that as of September 1, the U.S. has invited comment to their proposed rule-making for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The Government of Canada is in the process of formulating its submission to the U.S. by October 31. PCO is in the process, in partnership with Foreign Affairs Canada, and other departments and agencies, of consulting private sector stakeholders, the provinces and territories, and others who have a stake in this, to determine what they think of it, what options beyond passport should be considered, and what the Government of Canada's input to this process should look like. By the end of this month we should have it pulled together in a package that reflects the views of all. We will go forward with a series of recommendations to the U.S. in terms of what we think would make sense.
Senator Forrestall: Was Ambassador Frank McKenna correct when he said that it could result in the reduction of 7.7 million visits, or the loss of almost $2 billion? Is that information accurate to your knowledge?
Mr. Goatbe: I cannot verify the numbers but I can tell you that one of the big concerns that most people have is that if a passport remains the sole vehicle for crossing the Canada-U.S. border, particularly for U.S. citizens to return home, the incidents of spontaneous travel by U.S. residents into Canada to visit the casinos in Windsor or Niagara Falls for the day will likely be affected. The requirement for a passport will probably have a significant impact on that kind of travel. There are concerns about the impact it might have on travel for convention business. We are in the process of trying to work out these significant concerns.
The Chairman: Mr. Goatbe, I have a couple of things to clear up. You referred to green lanes. The term is known to committee members but could you define green lanes, NEXUS and FAST? During the course of the rest of your testimony, when you use acronyms could you please provide an explanation of the program? We are conscious of the fact that a number of people watching these proceedings may not be familiar with the acronyms you are using.
Mr. Goatbe: The term ``green lanes'' is still subject to interpretation within the Canada-U.S. context. The intent behind green lanes is to enhance the existing Free and Secure Trade program, FAST, which is designed to allow guaranteed access to Canada and the U.S. if you have applied as an importer and have been FAST-approved by the governments of Canada and the U.S., if the carrier you are using is FAST-approved by the governments of Canada and the U.S. and if the driver moving the shipment back and forth has been FAST-approved. If you have all those factors in place, then for the shipments going back and forth there is reasonable certainty on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and Customs and Border Protection in the U.S. that this is a reasonably low-risk shipment that does not require much time to approve.
In addition, we have dedicated FAST lanes going into Canada and into the U.S. Instead of having a line-up in the regular lanes, FAST shipments can line up in these lanes and receive expedited processing. We would like to take FAST to the next level. FAST shipments arrive at their dedicated lanes but they are still stopped to verify that the driver who should be in the vehicle is indeed in the vehicle, et cetera, and there may be some questions from a customs perspective. We would like to explore with the U.S. whether we can reach a scenario using technology to make such verifications. For example, the driver's picture would be put on the computer screen before the inspectors and, if nothing raises any issues, the driver can simply roll through. Drivers do not cross without stopping so the inspector still has an opportunity to look more closely or question something. We want to explore the possibilities of such a system to increase the flow and the through-put at land border points.
The Chairman: Is that a green lane?
Mr. Goatbe: That is probably my definition of a green lane. It is something a little different in the U.S. but something along those lines is what we will work toward.
The Chairman: Prior to that you referred to the 25 Percent Challenge. Would you elaborate on that for the committee, please?
Mr. Goatbe: The 25 Percent Challenge is an initiative that U.S. Customs and Border Protection initially brought to the table and suggested it is something we might want to participate in. We have agreed to do that. It is a challenge to see what we can do with bridge and tunnel operators, the border authorities, and all the other players that are involved in moving goods back and forth across the border. It is a challenge to improve the efficiency and throughput at these border points by 25 per cent. That is the underpinning theme. To a large extent there has been significant progress made at the Ambassador Bridge.
The Chairman: From the sounds of it, this is an arbitrary goal that you have set. Can you give us examples of how people on both sides plan to reach this target?
Mr. Goatbe: I cannot specifically. That question is better put to Canada Border Services Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection because they are charged with taking a look at the 25 Percent Challenge and deciding what should be put in place to help deal with that.
The initial focus was to add commercial primary inspection lanes and staff them on the U.S. side. When you arrive at a land border, if you are in your car you pull up to the booth with the customs inspector or the immigration inspector. That is a primary inspection booth or primary inspection lane.
The Chairman: You raised with us the question of the 25 Percent Challenge and you said what they have done at Windsor-Detroit is an example of how things have improved. Tell us more. What have they done and how have things improved?
Mr. Goatbe: Principally on the U.S. side they have added four commercial primary inspection lanes and staffed them. Their throughput has almost doubled in capacity. On the Canadian side we had 10 commercial primary inspection lanes. We had the capacity to staff 8 of those 10. We now have the capacity to staff 10 of those 10, when required. They are not required all the time, but when required staff are there to operate them. The throughput going into both countries has been significantly expanded.
The Chairman: Are you telling the committee that you now have met the 25 per cent reduction target you had set?
Mr. Goatbe: No, I am not.
The Chairman: How much improvement have you achieved as a result of these changes?
Mr. Goatbe: I am not sure what the specific percentage is because I am not intimately familiar with the results of the particular initiative. I think Canada Border Services Agency will probably be better able to give you a sense of exactly where they sit with respect to whether they have achieved the 25 per cent.
The Chairman: With respect, it seems strange that you would give that to us as an example of how things have improved and you are not clear as to whether they have improved or how much they have improved.
Mr. Goatbe: I know that it has improved because everyone I have talked to in the importing and exporting communities, including the bridge operator, have said that the delays we had been plagued with, particularly going into the U.S. but coming into Canada as well, have by and large disappeared. That in itself is probably a good measure of the fact that this has been particularly effective.
The Chairman: Could we receive the documentation that indicates how much improvement has taken place since these initiatives have happened?
Mr. Goatbe: I will talk to CBSA but I will get the information from them and make sure you get it.
The Chairman: To go back to your initial testimony, if I understood it correctly, you are still in the process of negotiating a land preclearance pilot project. How long will it take before you expect to finish the negotiations?
Mr. Goatbe: The tentative plan now is to complete the negotiations agreement in principle by the end of December of this year.
The Chairman: You said that after the negotiations were done you anticipated that legislation would probably need to be introduced in both countries. Legislation is notoriously unpredictable in terms of timing, but what would you project for the committee? What would you anticipate a reasonable time might be for that legislation to pass both Congress and Parliament?
Mr. Goatbe: We do not have any projected time frames at this point in time because we do not have a good sense of exactly what the agreement will look like. We need to have a really good sense of what the agreement will look like so we know how much legislative change will be required in each country. Once we get that sense, I think we will be in a better position to respond to you in terms of approximately how long it would take to put the legislation into place.
The Chairman: Then you have said that the bridge operators, being prudent people, were not going to start any construction or presumably spend any money on design until the legislation was passed in both countries.
Mr. Goatbe: The bridge operators will want to see an agreement in place, legislation in place, before they begin to actually break ground and build something. I believe they are clearly interested in beginning to plan that process now. In fact, I know that discussions are going on between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Peace Bridge Authority in terms of what their new facility should look like.
The Chairman: If we were going to sum it up, are we talking about 2010, 2015 or 2020?
Mr. Goatbe: I do not have a date. If we had an agreement by the end of the year as planned, the question that we have is, as you have pointed out, how long will it take to put the legislation in place? Can you build facilities concurrently while moving the legislation forward? Will they accept an agreement signed? I expect facility construction is probably a two-year or three-year process from approval, to putting shovels in ground, to completion and operation. I do not know whether we will have an agreement in place by December 2005, and how long it will take to put legislation in place after that.
The Chairman: You then talked about the facilities. You said you expected the pilot project to go on for perhaps 20 years or longer, and that it would be difficult if people had to switch sides again. Are the facilities required on one side much different than the facilities required on the other side?
Mr. Goatbe: If I can give you an example to explain that better, the plan, assuming we negotiate the agreement, is to take the U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility that currently exists in Buffalo and replicate that on the Fort Erie side in its entirety; its primary, secondary and all those components. Once you turn on that facility on the Canadian side, the facility on the U.S. side ceases to be required and they would do away with that. I think they will probably take a look at what they can do to improve travel flows. That facility ceases to function and will likely be torn down.
Once you do that, if you ever made a decision that it does not work and we have to move the U.S. back to the U.S. side or the Canadian back to the Canadian side, then you need to rebuild a facility for them.
The Chairman: How do you ensure that the bridge is secure if from one side of the bridge there is no inspection?
Mr. Goatbe: This is the question of reverse inspection that Senator Forrestall raised earlier and I did not get to it. For the question of security of infrastructure, particularly critical infrastructure such as the Peace Bridge, the Ambassador Bridge or the Blue Water Bridge in Sarnia, there are a number of factors that you need to look at to ensure security. One is, what is happening on top of the bridge, and could that be a threat? One is, what is going underneath the bridge on local roads? For all these bridges there are local roads that go underneath them that are close to the infrastructure itself, so there is a threat there. Another is, what is going under them from a river perspective in terms of pleasure boats or freighters? What kind of threat could come from those, and what kind of threat can come from small airplanes and things like that if one were to crash into a bridge?
The overall question of security of this type of critical infrastructure will need to take a look at all those aspects and come up with a strategy to deal with those particular risks, as opposed to just the one piece in terms of screening people before they get on the bridge.
Some bridge and tunnel operators will tell you that the real threat to a bridge is more what blows up underneath it as opposed to what blows up on it because explosions tend to go up. That is not to say that you cannot do damage to a bridge by exploding something on it or dumping some sort of corrosive material on it. However, current thinking is that we need to take a comprehensive look at all the security issues for these critical pieces of infrastructure.
The Chairman: Mr. Goatbe, the tense you are using surprises me very much. You appear to be talking in a prospective matter. We have been concerned about the infrastructure at border crossings since 9/11. Why are you talking about it in the future rather than saying that the plans we have in place now take into account the following items?
Mr. Goatbe: First, you need to talk to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada and Transport Canada, because they can probably give you more detailed answers in terms what is happening right now. I am talking about this from a Security and Prosperity Partnership perspective. Within the SPP we have initiatives designed to have both the U.S. and Canada look at critical infrastructure and decide what they should or should not do in terms of additional protection. That is not limited to bridges and tunnels; it is looking at critical infrastructure all along the border.
The Chairman: My last question about your exchange with Senator Forrestall relates to the shared facilities you were talking about at small crossings.
The previous Minister of Revenue, Elinor Caplan, expressed real concern about a common site. Is it correct that there already are some common sites?
Mr. Goatbe: Yes.
The Chairman: She said that if she had known that she would have to conform to the building codes that applied on both sides of the border, she never would have gotten into a common and single site. You were talking as though this is a positive and good step forward. Does this mean you have overcome the municipal and state regulations that would apply to these locations?
Mr. Goatbe: No, the issues that the minister referred to still exist today.
I suggested that if we came to an agreement in principle on land preclearance, rather than having a joint facility that straddles the border, we could add on to the U.S. facility. In fact, the U.S. facility at a particular small port was the most modern and it made sense to use that with additional infrastructure to handle the Canadian facilities. It would be built entirely in the U.S. and built to the U.S. standard, or, if a Canadian facility made more sense, to the Canadian standard. The potential exists that we could apply this to the small ports in the future and eliminate some of those problems.
The Chairman: I understand. Thank you for answering so patiently.
Senator Munson: I want to pursue the topic that Senator Forrestall raised. The United States is not only proposing a new security document; it will happen. I was in Washington a few weeks ago at a Canadian-American conference. The bridge operators are talking about it and everyone connected with the border are concerned about what is coming to our theatre.
We heard from the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security, Robert Bonner. He was adamant about what will happen. There was much nervousness in that room from industry and tourism. Ambassador McKenna has talked about it since then.
No one likes seeing what will come close to us. I do not think we have had that debate in this country at all. Have we done enough to educate our public about what will happen soon? By ``soon'' I mean 18 months. For the sake of the public I will say that if you do not have a passport, you will have a strict security card, which I am sure terrorists will figure out how to use to get across a border. There are many nervous people, and not only grandmothers going back and forth between New Brunswick and Maine. I am upset that we have not yet had that debate in this country.
Senator Meighen: Senator Munson is from Bathurst, which is not a border community. I can assure you that in border communities there is a lot of talk about it and a lot of consternation, as Senator Munson indicated.
Senator Munson: Mr. Bonner was clear about it. There is the 60-day comment period that you talked about, but once that is over, something new is coming.
Mr. Goatbe: Without question this is a fairly significant issue for both sides of the border in terms of what it will mean to travel back and forth. We are currently engaging the provinces and territories and all the Canadian stakeholders. We need not do much to engage them because, as Senator Meighen has pointed out, many people are concerned about this.
Our intent is to craft Government of Canada positions, suggestions and recommendations to the U.S. and submit them at the end of the comment period at the end of this month. While the U.S. is concerned about security, they do not want to put anything in place at any border that will create backlogs of legitimate low-risk people and goods. They will be concerned with that as they go forward with their plans to deal with this particular requirement. We will ensure that the Canadian concerns, views and suggestions with regard to what might be done to meet this requirement in different fashions are put forward.
Senator Munson: Is it your view that we need a new security document to travel between Canada and the United States?
Mr. Goatbe: The Government of Canada has not yet established a position, and I will be guided by that position.
It is desirable to enhance security and facilitate trade at the same time. Examples of that are the FAST program and the NEXUS program. If you can be assured that individuals and shipments are low risk, you can provide streamlined movement into the country for those people and goods. If you can do those types of things, it makes sense; it is a win-win situation. Adding security that may create backlogs is a problem we are trying to avoid in the security component initiatives of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
Senator Munson: Some critics believe that the government is slow in requiring documentation that is tamper-proof, machine-readable and biometrically enhanced, and also with regard to having some sort of document known to be issued on the basis of reliable documentation. I presume you do not share that view. We have not taken the steps yet for all people.
Mr. Goatbe: Passport Canada, Customs and Immigration Canada and CBSA are probably better positioned to give you a specific outline of exactly what they are doing. There are a number of initiatives in the Security and Prosperity Partnership on which we will work with the U.S. to determine how we can make passports and travel documentation more secure. That is provided for in the SPP.
Senator Munson: You probably know that the committee has proposed that the government restructure exemption limits, which would allow border inspectors to focus on security. The proposal is to increase the exemption to $2,000 per visit by the year 2010. We were serious about that recommendation. What challenges does the government face when considering restructuring personal exemption limits? I know that is difficult, as a bureaucrat, to answer.
Mr. Goatbe: I have to plead some ignorance on this because the decisions with respect to what will be done with exemption limits are generally made by the Department of Finance. They are best positioned to give you an overview of what would go into a decision to either raise or lower exemptions.
The Chairman: On that subject, Mr. Goatbe, have you made representations to the Department of Finance that would enhance the security process at the border if officials working there were able to focus on asking questions relating to security rather than collecting taxes?
Mr. Goatbe: I have not personally.
The Chairman: Are you aware of anyone having done that?
Mr. Goatbe: I am not aware of that, but discussions between CBSA, the Department of Finance and others may have occurred.
The Chairman: Is this not an area that you oversee for the minister and the Prime Minister?
Mr. Goatbe: My primary focus in the last several months has been the security and prosperity partnership and land preclearance so I cannot knowledgeably comment on that particular issue. I apologize.
Senator Day: During your comments earlier, you talked about December of this year with respect to the pilot project. You hope to arrive at an agreement in principle. That, to some of us, means that you come to an agreement with respect to the basic points, but you have not sent it to the Department of Justice or to the lawyers. It has not been developed into an agreement yet. Am I misreading this? Are we way back at the stage where you hope to have certain principles agreed to by December of 2005?
Mr. Goatbe: No, I probably have not explained this in sufficient detail.
The negotiations that are ongoing right now involve justice and all departments and agencies. When we say we have come to an agreement in principle, it will be vetted by all the Canadian departments and agencies, including justice.
Senator Day: You will have an agreement that is ready to sign, assuming the governments wish to sign it.
Mr. Goatbe: It would be an agreement that would probably have to be turned into a treaty in terms of treaty language.
Senator Day: I see.
Senator Forrestall: Who is the bus driver? Do you know his name? Who is driving the bus that you are working on? Is it you? Who is in charge?
Mr. Goatbe: I work within the security and intelligence sector.
Senator Forrestall: Who is the bus driver? Who is in charge?
Mr. Goatbe: Bill Elliott is the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, and Stephen Rigby is the assistant.
Senator Forrestall: Is he driving the bus that you are working on?
Mr. Goatbe: Stephen Rigby is driving my bus, yes.
Senator Forrestall: What is his position?
Mr. Goatbe: He is the Assistant Secretary to Cabinet, Security and Intelligence.
Senator Forrestall: I am no more enlightened now than I was five minutes ago.
Senator Day: No, but you have a couple more names.
Mr. Goatbe: We can provide you with an organization chart, if that would be of assistance.
The Chairman: The last time we had a national security advisor here, we provided him with his organization chart.
Senator Day: I want to understand the point that was made earlier about the building codes. You talked about this land preclearance pilot project where there will be a building where U.S. customs or border security people will be on Canadian soil and preclearing before the truck goes into the United States. That building is being built in Canada and will be subject to Canadian building codes. I do not see any problem with that.
With respect to Thousand Islands, if we were to build a building on the U.S. side in upper New York State to preclear, we would build according to the building code of the United States.
Mr. Goatbe: Yes.
Senator Day: These are two separate buildings. Is there a problem of combining them once we determine the protocol of having one building for both border security people on one side or the other?
Mr. Goatbe: In theory, you could build them separately or you could combine them. I do not know the answer to this for certain, but it may make most sense to keep large facilities at large border crossings separate. There may be some benefit in sharing some of the mobile X-ray facilities and so on.
The specific issue I referred to earlier was small remote sites, where you have a small U.S. customs and border protection office or a small customs and border services agency site on the Canadian side. If one is in better shape than the other, and you want to have joint facilities on one side, that is where you get away from these issues of building a joint site that straddles the border, where you have Canadian standards on one side and U.S. standards on the other. Working to build something joint in either country would eliminate that issue, but we have not reached that point yet. We have to come up with an agreement in principle and then decide whether there is application to expand it to some of those sites.
Senator Day: I was trying to get to your comment that we have to experiment with a number of different ways of doing things to find the ones that work best. It may be a combination, depending on whether it is a small border crossing or a border crossing that has a river dividing the two countries. There may be a number of different models you will want to work on.
Mr. Goatbe: That is without question. Once we get a model in place and we can test it out, the possibilities may be endless in terms of how to apply a land preclearance in different parts all along one border.
Senator Day: We heard an anecdotal story here a while back. It was a small border crossing somewhere between Quebec and the United States where they had different electronics and communications on each side. It was a shared facility. The U.S. customs people had firearms and the Canadians did not, so the U.S. customs people could not cross a certain line on the floor. It was right on the border, but they could not go into the Canadian territory because of the firearms. Is the firearms issue one of the things that is holding up a more coordinated joint effort on these border crossings?
Mr. Goatbe: It is certainly one of the issues we are talking to the U.S. about. Because we are still in discussion, I cannot give you any sense as to whether this issue is holding it up, but I do not think that will be an issue for us. Personally, I do not think it will be, but time will tell. As I say, the discussions are still ongoing.
Senator Day: Are shared facilities still on the table for discussion?
Mr. Goatbe: They have not specifically been put on the table because the nature of the agreement will allow for separate facilities or shared facilities. It is possible that there will be a business case to have a shared facility at one or both of the sites that we are talking about. I do not think that will be the case in Fort Erie. However, it would be possible, I suppose, at the Thousand Islands site. Time will tell in terms of what makes most sense.
Senator Day: At this time, will the only two border crossings in this pilot project for preclearance be the Thousand Islands, where Canada will build a facility in the U.S., and Fort Erie-Buffalo, where the U.S. will build a facility in Canada at Fort Erie?
Mr. Goatbe: That is correct. Those two sites have been announced publicly.
Senator Day: Is there a possibility in the next two or three years for other facilities to be added?
Mr. Goatbe: No one has consciously decided that we should look at another site other than to say there are possibilities down the road, but nothing is firm on that.
Senator Day: For smaller border crossings, is anything being discussed to improve the security and the flow of trade back and forth? These crossings are both fairly large.
Mr. Goatbe: We could, along the lines of what we talked about, at a small point potentially apply a land preclearance agreement to some of those small sites as well, but no firm decision has been taken to spend a lot of time considering those now. The focus is to come up with the land preclearance agreement. Get those two pilot sites in place, and once that is done, then we will look at whether other applications should be explored.
Senator Day: A decision has been made to go ahead with a new bridge between St. Stephen and Calais. That border crossing is tremendously important for Atlantic Canada. It has been congested for years, and the traffic is backed up to both towns. I was there a few days ago, and the situation continues. The possibility does not exist of putting more people on to move more vehicles through. The bridge will be built, but would that be a logical place to consider one of these preclearance projects? When you build a bridge, you have to build buildings for border security on both sides of that bridge. Is that not one of the places where you would say, ``Maybe we should have one building on one side or the other that would do preclearance for one side or the other?''
Mr. Goatbe: I am not familiar with all the details of the new crossing. I am sure some efficiencies are associated with building one facility on one side that houses both. Before we put land preclearance in place all along the Canada-U.S. border, we need to put these two pilot sites in place and evaluate them to make sure they work the way we hope they would work before we begin to expand them elsewhere. If there are problems, we do not want to create these problems all along the Canada-U.S. border.
Senator Day: I understand that, but you understand my point. This bridge is new. New buildings will be built for customs and border security. Should that be at the top of the list of places where you want to develop an efficient border crossing, the best we can do?
Mr. Goatbe: Without question. I am not sure what the constraints are at that particular new facility: whether there is enough space on both the Canadian and U.S. side to build the kind of facilities needed to ensure that you can process all the traffic, or whether it makes sense to put one facility for both on one side because there is more space on that side. I do not know the answer to that question.
I go back to the fact that we have agreed to put in place these two sites we have announced as pilot tests. We probably need to put them in place, evaluate them and ensure that they work as we hope they do before we begin to expand all along the border.
Senator Day: When you plan border crossings all across Canada, if you know there is major new construction going on and major new access roads, perhaps this is an area to do some forward thinking rather than saying, we have a couple of spots in some existing bridges; let us build them the way we always build them and see what happens in 20 years. That was the point I was trying to make.
Mr. Goatbe: Your argument applies equally to a new crossing being built along the Niagara gateway to augment the Peace Bridge or providing something else. Discussions are ongoing in Windsor-Detroit as you know about a new crossing there. Your argument would apply equally to that.
Senator Day: I hope when you finally get around to building a new crossing at Detroit-Windsor, that is exactly what you would think — and that would be at the top of the list.
Mr. Goatbe: At a minimum, we need to nail down the agreement in principle so we know exactly how it will work and what it means for both sides. Then potentially we can give some thought as to what might happen beyond the two pilot sites.
Senator Day: My colleague, Senator Meighen, and I are both familiar with the New Brunswick-Maine border and the Quebec-New England border. I will pass to my colleague in relation to an issue we are both interested in with regard to the vigilante groups that are working along the border.
Senator Meighen: Senator Day is nice enough to allow someone who has come in late to ask this question, but we have heard a lot in the press about the Minuteman project. Has the U.S. given any official notification to us of their presence or actions?
Second, have their presence or actions had any impact on the negotiations that you have been talking about this evening?
Mr. Goatbe: To the best of my knowledge, we have not received any notification from the U.S. government because these groups are not U.S. government-sanctioned. They are private sector groups that have sprung up on their own. No, there has been absolutely no impact on the discussions with respect to this particular initiative that has sprung up both on the Mexican border and the U.S.-Canada border.
Senator Meighen: Do I take from your answer that you are not aware of any reports that they have interfered or participated in any border crossing actions?
Mr. Goatbe: There are none that I am aware of and I would probably be aware of them if they had happened.
Senator Meighen: I see. Thank you very much.
What is the difference between a pilot project and a project? Is the difference one project as opposed to implementing the same project at a number of sites?
Mr. Goatbe: I will give you my definition of ``pilot project'' and it may or may not be correct. To me, a pilot project is something that you want to put in place at one site or a couple of sites and test it before you roll it out for national implementation. A project would be something you are reasonably certain would work well. You design, develop and implement the project, and roll it out nationally without any kind of limited pilot test.
Senator Meighen: Thank you. That agrees with what I would assume it was. You have probably answered this before, but when talking about a place such as Fort Erie — a Buffalo crossing where there is to be a pilot project and full preclearance — does that involve construction of facilities? I assume it would.
Mr. Goatbe: Yes.
Senator Meighen: If the pilot project does not work, are those facilities built for naught?
Mr. Goatbe: Yes, and that was one of the issues we have talked about. We need to ensure that things will work well because it is not a pilot in the normal sense, where you can test it for 6 or 12 months and return to what you had before. Once you build these facilities, bridge and tunnel operators will need to be assured they are there for 20 or 30 years, or however long it is they need to have them in operation to recoup their investment.
Senator Meighen: In terms of border crossings and infrastructure such as bridges and what not, do you get any sense that there is less enthusiasm from our American friends for the implementation of these projects than from our side? The simple reason might be that perhaps it would encourage investment in plants and equipment on the Canadian side that could then get the products into the American market to the advantage of Canada, rather than having a complicated border crossing and thereby indirectly encouraging investment in the U.S. rather than in Canada?
Mr. Goatbe: My experience is that no, that is not true in the development of the security and prosperity initiative, particularly the security components. There was great enthusiasm on the part of all three countries, but the U.S. in particular, in terms of looking at both — enhancing security but also ensuring the free flow of trade and low risk individuals. Without question, that has underpinned everything we have talked about, and it is something that the U.S. certainly brings to the table whenever we talk about these initiatives. They are committed to this.
Free and secure trade, FAST, and NEXUS are good examples of things that the U.S., in conjunction with the Canada Border Services Agency, have put in place with great enthusiasm on both sides. I think the U.S. is committed to those types of initiatives.
The Chairman: You have talked to us now a fair bit about the pilot projects and wanting to see if they work. Will you define what you mean by ``seeing if they work?'' What measurements will you use to evaluate whether a crossing works or it does not work? What are the tests that you envision being put in place to determine success?
Mr. Goatbe: Principally, will the U.S. or Canadian authorities be able to operate in a manner that is similarly effective in a land preclearance site in the other country, as they do today? Do we have as good or better flow of traffic back and forth so that, hopefully, we can improve the flow of traffic back and forth as opposed to causing any backlogs? What are the costs involved in doing so? Are there significant additional costs to put that in place? Are there any other issues that we have not flagged? Things always come up that you do not anticipate. What are they? What impact do they have?
I cannot categorize those for you right now, but the first three would be the three principal factors that we would look at. We have to lay out an evaluation strategy once we get an agreement in principle, but I think those three factors are key in terms of what we would look at in evaluating not only this proposal, but anything we put in place along the land border.
The Chairman: What about the evaluations that take place now? Do you have a process of evaluating crossings now?
Mr. Goatbe: We do, but I think CBSA is probably best equipped to give you some sense as to how they evaluate their process and how they make decisions. I am not intimately familiar with that. I used to be, but not any more. My knowledge is dated.
The Chairman: Are there lessons that have been learned from the airport experience? Is it seven airports?
Mr. Goatbe: Seven, with Halifax coming shortly.
The Chairman: After we evaluated them, are there lessons that we came away with?
Mr. Goatbe: The principal lesson learned was from the U.S. perspective. One of their requests in moving forward with land preclearance was that they would like to replicate more completely the types of powers and enforcement actions and processes they have in place today at Buffalo in a land preclearance environment. In air preclearance, they have certain powers under the air preclearance agreement to conduct the primary question and secondary question, but if there is enforcement action, they immediately turn that over to Canadian authorities. One U.S. request was, in a land preclearance environment, can we see if we can do more than what is allowed under air preclearance?
The Chairman: I never understood that. If someone who did not have preclearance was flying into an airport in the United States that did not have preclearance in Canada, authorities would get the usual advance notification. The individual would get off in the United States. The authorities would have an opportunity to conduct an interview. Then the individual would disappear into the population. However, when they do preclearance in Canada, authorities get the usual advance information. They have an opportunity to do the interview, but then they have a pause for the duration of the flight. That gives them perhaps another hour, two hours or three hours to think about whether they made the right decision or not. They still have the opportunity to apprehend the person when they land. What am I missing?
Mr. Goatbe: In terms of what the U.S. would like to see? In an airport in New York or anywhere in the U.S., for that matter, when someone flies in that has not gone through preclearance, authorities can run through the entire spectrum of their process, including primary inspection and secondary inspection. Then, if there is some type of action, be it criminality, suspicion of terrorism or national security, the authorities involve their response agencies in that process. In an air preclearance environment, authorities do the initial screening for customs and immigration purposes, but if there is some type of criminality or national security issue, that is handed over to Canadian authorities.
In a perfect world, when they talk about wanting to replicate exactly what they do in their U.S. offices in a preclearance environment, that is what they are talking about. They would like to be able to bring all those cases to a conclusion.
The Chairman: Or they keep mum until the person lands into the United States, and then they deal with them however they chose. They have the extra hour or two of the flight to think about it and to put the resources in place to do that.
Mr. Goatbe: I cannot adequately speak for U.S. customs and border protection and U.S. authorities in terms of what underlies their demands. All I can say is what I have told you today in terms of what they have asked for.
The Chairman: But in the process of the negotiations, they do not say, ``Here are the advantages, and here are the things we think we lose,'' or you do not point out that they perhaps have an advantage with the time delay?
Mr. Goatbe: They appreciate that if you screen someone or something before it arrives in the United States, or any country for that matter, that you deal with it before it gets into the country. Therefore, it is less of a threat. The U.S. sees it as a benefit there.
They also see what they are doing with respect to advance passenger information and passenger name record, as you pointed out, where they get the information in advance and have the ability to screen people and deal with them when they arrive. They have some of that, but not all. They clearly see some benefits of an air preclearance environment, but they do not get to complete the discussion or the process in an air preclearance environment the way they do in a New York City airport where they process people coming in.
They have to train their people. When you bring somebody into Canada from U.S. Customs and Border Protection who is used to processing people in a New York City airport, you have to train them in terms of the way we operate in Canada under the air preclearance agreement. That is different, so you have to train them differently.
The Chairman: Who absorbs the additional costs of these people providing the preclearance? In other words, when a U.S. customs and immigration officer comes to Canada at an airport, who picks up the additional costs involved?
Mr. Goatbe: The facilities are provided by the airports. I will have to confirm, because I do not know and I should, but I believe the costs are absorbed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. I say that because one of the issues in terms of putting people into Halifax was whether they had proper allocation of funding, but I will confirm that.
The Chairman: I have no idea how my colleagues feel about it, but hearing you describe the process you are going through in terms of the pilot projects, I do not get the impression there is a lot of urgency. I do not want to do you a disservice. However, I get the impression that this process is fairly leisurely, and that it will not come to a conclusion for a number of years. There is a sense, on the part of some members of the committee, and certainly on my part, that this matter is urgent. Could you take a second shot at it and tell me whether urgency is associated with this, and why the process seems to be so slow? So many years have passed, and we are still at the point of discussing general principles. There are still three or four major time-consuming steps yet to go.
Mr. Goatbe: Both governments attach a high priority to the process, which is why we have established a December 2005 date for the agreement in principle. Once in place, that will drive a lot of the other initiatives that need to run concurrently to put facilities in place and to have staff there. Until we get the agreement in principle, some of these things by definition have to wait for that agreement so we know exactly what will happen.
As I indicated, some planning for facilities can begin in advance of that. You would have some sense as to what U.S. Customs and Border Protection would like to see in their facility in Fort Erie, and what Canada Border Services Agency would like to see in place on the Thousand Islands side of the U.S. for their facility. Some of that is beginning, but you need to have the agreement in principle in place so you can understand exactly how the process will work before you can finalize legislation. Bridge and tunnel operators must have the confidence that they can begin to make the investments they need to do. It has a very high priority within both governments.
I appreciate that you have been talking and hearing about this for some time, but we are moving forward as quickly as we can.
Senator Forrestall: I have a question about whether the Ship Rider program was successful, and about the joint port exercises between Canada and the United States last spring. I have not heard anything about them. Did they work? Were they successful? Will we do more of that? Will we do more of the Ship Rider cooperation?
Mr. Goatbe: Ship Rider, as you know, was a pilot that has been run in the last month. I am not sure when the evaluation is due to be completed, but it has not been completed yet. Any expansion of Ship Rider will depend upon that joint evaluation. I do not know off the top of my head what the date is for the completion of that evaluation. We can try to get back to you with that information.
The Chairman: Mr. Goatbe and Mr. Gibbard, I thank you for appearing before the committee. We appreciate your taking the time to share your views.
Before proceeding with the next panel of witnesses, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-26 formally establishes the Canada Border Services Agency as a corporate body with a mandate to administer and enforce all aspects of Canada's border services under the authority and within the portfolio of the Minister of Public Security and Emergency Preparedness.
In its October 2003 report entitled Canada's Coastlines: The Longest Under-defended Border in the World, the committee recommended the creation of a permanent department under the direction of the deputy prime minister to oversee borders, national security issues, coasts, and natural and manmade disasters. We are pleased to see this proposed legislation has arrived.
I will introduce the members of the committee. The distinguished Senator Michael Forrestall, from Nova Scotia, has served the constituents of Dartmouth for 37 years, first as their member of the House of Commons and now as their senator. While in the Commons, he served as the official opposition defence critic. He is also a member of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
Senator Joseph Day, from New Brunswick, is a lawyer and an engineer. He is a member of the bars of New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec and a Fellow of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. He is the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and sits on the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
Senator Michael Meighen, from Ontario, is a lawyer and a member of the bars of Ontario and Quebec. He is also Chancellor of the University of King's College and past Chair of the Stratford Festival. He is Chair of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. 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. He is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications.
We have before us today Helena Borges. Ms. Borges is the Director General, Surface Transportation Policy with Transport Canada. She has been with Transport Canada for the past 15 years. In July 2005, she took on the duties of Director General, where her responsibilities include policy development for rail, motor carrier, intermodal, urban transportation, highways and border crossing infrastructure, and intelligent transportation systems.
With her is Douglas Challborn. He is the Deputy Director of U.S. Relations Division, Foreign Affairs Canada. In this position he manages a team of officers on issues relating to border management, including cross-border transportation, customs and the movement of people.
Accompanying them is Pete DiPonio, Regional Director, Canada Border Services Agency. Mr. DiPonio hosted us when we visited Windsor and we are happy to see him again.
Helena Borges, Director General, Special Projects, Policy Group, Transport Canada: My comments will focus on two areas of the work in which I am involved. The first one is Transport Canada's border activities at the Windsor-Detroit gateway. The second one, which is closely related but a bit broader, is the work we do on the Canada-U.S. Transportation Border Working Group.
With regard to the first topic, the federal government is working actively in Windsor-Detroit at new crossing capacity. We recognize the importance of this crossing. It is the most important trade corridor in North America.
In recognition of the importance of the corridor, the federal government is taking a two-pronged approach to addressing congestion issues in Windsor. Over the long term, we are working with our binational partners, which include the Province of Ontario, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the State of Michigan to develop new crossing capacity.
Recognizing that this will take some time to develop and that we need to continue making improvements in Windsor, we are also working with the Province of Ontario and local governments — being the City of Windsor and the county governments — to implement initiatives that will help improve traffic flows to the existing crossings.
This evening I will provide an update on the progress we are making on both the long-term and short-term initiatives. My ADM was here last February to provide an update on the binational process, but since then we have had progress so I can give an update on that.
Last June, the Detroit River International Crossing Project that is looking at the expansion of a crossing capacity in Windsor-Detroit made its next significant step. It identified 15 possible route alignments that were presented to the public in a series of open houses on both sides of the border. These 15 alignments showed where the bridge would be, and the connecting roads to the interstate and Highway 401 on both sides of the border.
A couple of weeks ago, on October 4 and 5, the partnership announced the elimination of eight of these alignment alternatives because they do not meet the technical criteria. These alignments are basically downriver from Windsor, across from LaSalle and Amherstburg, and upriver near Belle Isle. The work continues on the environmental assessments to reduce the remaining seven routes to a short list of about two or three by late November 2005. These routes will be released to the public for consultation, as was the process in June.
We continue to seek ways to accelerate the process to have the expanded or new crossing in place by 2013, but we must adhere to the environmental legislation in both Canada and the United States. To do otherwise would jeopardize the schedule by opening us up to legal challenges. The additional Detroit River crossing capacity will be subject to appropriate public oversight in both countries.
The partnership, in addition to looking at location for the crossing, is also looking at various governance models and accountability frameworks. These models could include alternative financing and procurement opportunities such as private sector collaboration and possible establishment of public entities such as an authority, the Peace Bridge being an example of that.
With respect to the short-term initiatives, which we call the ``Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving Strategy,'' these are moving forward. The strategy was announced in March 2004 by the governments of Canada, Ontario and the City of Windsor. At the time, five initial projects were announced, totalling over $80 million. I will not go through these. I believe you have a list but I can repeat them later if you like.
In April of this year, the governments of Canada and Ontario announced an additional investment of $129 million, comprising about another seven or eight initiatives.
All the projects under phase one are currently underway, and the projects in phase two are proceeding with the exception of one environmental assessment that the City of Windsor has put on hold pending further discussions between us and them. We are continuing discussions with the city and our provincial colleagues to explore whether there are additional initiatives that we could pursue jointly to improve traffic flows in the short term and the medium term as well.
I will now say a few words about the Canada-U.S. Transportation Border Working Group. In October 2000, Transport Canada and the U.S. Department of Transportation concluded a memorandum of cooperation that highlighted the importance of coordinating closely on transportation initiatives along the Canada-U.S. border. The memorandum cited the need for increasing degree and speed of communication between both departments, and stressed the importance of meeting more regularly to conduct information exchanges and discuss issues of mutual interest.
Out of that memorandum, the Canada-U.S. Transportation Border Working Group was formed in January 2002. Its core membership includes federal, state and provincial departments of transportation from both sides of the border, as well as U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Canada Border Services Agency. In addition, we also have the Department of Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Department of State participating, as well as other partners including regional planning entities. All the U.S. northern border states and the Canadian provinces are partners in this forum. Transport Canada and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration act as co-chairs.
The mission of the working group is to facilitate the safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible movement of people and goods across the Canada-U.S. border. By bringing together these multiple transportation and border agencies and other organizations, the working group seeks to coordinate transportation planning, policy implementation, and the deployment of technology to enhance border infrastructure and operations. As such, this forum fosters an ongoing communication, information sharing, and the exchange of best practices to improve transportation and the safety and security systems that connect our two countries.
The working group meets in plenary twice annually in Canada and the U.S. and we alternate as hosts. In addition, there are subcommittees of the working group that meet regularly throughout the year to pursue issues and initiatives that are of broad interests to the partners. In an effort to ensure the forum remains productive, in the summer of 2004 the co-chairs took stock of the working group's accomplishments and issued a survey to all members that requested feedback on future directions. Since then the working group has been restructured and refocused. It is now driven by a representative steering committee to provide for the inclusive and efficient coordination of all working group activities.
As you are well aware, in March 2005, the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico unveiled a new Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that speaks to the increasing continental integration: the need to work trilaterally to make our societies more secure and our economies more resilient. Border issues figure prominently on the SPP agenda, and the U.S. and Canada agreed that the working group will play a role in the delivery of the border facilitation commitments. Furthermore, it was recognized that some of the working group subcommittee initiatives have such potential that they have been included in the SPP agenda.
For example, Canada and the United States have committed to completing a border information flow architecture to enhance border technology and interoperability, as well as a border infrastructure compendium that compiles descriptive information on infrastructure needs for the busiest Canada-U.S. border ports of entry.
In addition, Transport Canada is developing the 2006 National Roadside Survey to collect data on heavy truck activity at the border and on major interprovincial corridors. The Federal Highway Administration and several U.S. states are partnering in this effort and are participating in the component of this initiative. Transport Canada continues to utilize the working group to keep our U.S. partners informed of the progress on the National Roadside Survey and to pursue the possibility of their more extensive involvement.
Since the former Minister of Transport and the former Secretary of Transportation signed the memorandum of cooperation in 2000, the Transportation Border Working Group has grown into a network of nearly 140 policy advisers, transportation planners and other professionals across more than 20 border jurisdictions, a dozen federal agencies and several planning organizations. As well, the group has gelled into an active mechanism for sharing information in Canada and the United States, and we are pursuing initiatives along the border that add value to the largest binational trading partnership in the world.
I thank the committee for this opportunity, and I will be pleased to respond to your questions.
Douglas Challborn, Deputy Director, U.S. Relations Division, Foreign Affairs Canada: I have responsibility for border and transportation issues in the U.S. Relations Division within the North America branch at Foreign Affairs Canada.
The other areas of my division are organized around some of the broader foreign policy and defence issues as well as environmental and natural resource issues. I work closely with our sister divisions. We have one division that is specifically focused on advocacy efforts in the United States and another division that is responsible for Mexico. Together, we comprise the North America branch.
I will begin by making a couple of general observations followed by specific examples that I believe will be of direct interest to you as you search for further information about the role of my department on border issues.
As you know, last April the government tabled a new international policy statement. A period of four or five months is a long time in the world of government statements, but it is important to recognize that the international policy statement is guiding our international policy in important new ways, including with the United States. It is the first such statement that not only integrates the objectives of the four core international departments — Foreign Affairs Canada, CIDA, the Department of National Defence and International Trade Canada — but also takes into account the international role of all other federal departments as well as untapped resources at the provincial and municipal levels.
For example, the international policy statement represents the first time we have recognized North America as a concept beyond the North American Free Trade Agreement. In other words, the international policy statement proposes that, just as many Europeans and East Asians are thinking regionally, we in North America need to think about where this continent is headed in relation to China or the European Union. If we think in those terms, the next logical step is to look at how to make this economic space more efficient and how to cooperate more effectively on new common security challenges, such as Haiti.
The Chairman: Mr. Challborn, we are a little concerned at the length of the two statements. If you could simply summarize, we will all read this document.
Mr. Challborn: I would be happy to summarize.
I would like to give some examples of how the Department of Foreign Affairs works with its partner departments in support of border issues and Canadian interests on the border. A current example is the so-called Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The WHTI is intended to implement a provision of the Congressional Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of December 2004. The WHTI requires all U.S. citizens and citizens of Canada, Mexico and Bermuda to have a passport or other accepted alternative documentation that establishes the bearer's identity and citizenship to enter or re-enter the United States, by December 31, 2006 by air and sea, and by December 2007 at land borders.
On December 1, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State issued a proposed rule-making on this initiative. In response, the Department of Foreign Affairs has informed the provinces, territories and all major national stakeholders. We have begun the work of coordinating and developing a Canadian policy position with respect to WHTI, working closely with PCO Borders Task Force and other departments and agencies including CBSA, CIC and Passport Canada.
We are currently just past the middle of this process. On Tuesday we will host, here in Ottawa, a major conference on the implications of WHTI where we will receive the views and comments of provinces and stakeholders. This information will help inform our Canadian position, which we must submit to the U.S. government by October 31.
We have been active through our embassy in Washington, D.C., our consulates in Seattle, Minneapolis, Detroit, Buffalo and our office in Anchorage, in raising Canadian questions and concerns about WHTI with governors and legislators, and in engaging stakeholders in border communities.
I will give a few more concrete examples before I conclude. All our missions in the United States provide weekly border reports to Foreign Affairs Canada and key partner departments. They constantly engage stakeholders, state and provincial governments and legislators, mayors and associations on Canadian and shared positions. We have succeeded in creating, in certain cases, cross-border networks such as the Binational Tourism Alliance in the Niagara region and the New York State Smart Border Coalition.
Foreign Affairs Canada and our missions provide important support to key border initiatives such as the PCO-led negotiations towards pre-clearance pilot projects at the land border. We do this by providing perspectives on U.S. interests and treaty and legal advice, as well as by engaging key stakeholders in those border communities in support of the concept.
Next week we hope to convene some preparatory meetings with our American colleagues to discuss certain air pre-clearance issues that have arisen. The Department of Foreign Affairs has the legal responsibility for the air preclearance agreement, so we are an important part of those discussions.
In Detroit, our mission is helping to co-chair the Northern Border for Economic Security and Trade task force of the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, which brings together major border stakeholders from both sides of the border. Our missions also provide important advice to major associations here in Canada such as the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the Ontario Trucking Alliance, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.
I wanted to give those examples in particular to give the members of the committee an idea of how the Department of Foreign Affairs here in Ottawa and also our missions help support departments such as Transport Canada and CBSA in their efforts to advance our interests at the border.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Challborn. You made reference to a conference that is happening tomorrow. What steps have you taken to inform parliamentarians of this conference, and specifically committees that have worked on this subject?
Mr. Challborn: There has been earlier engagement through the interparliamentary group with respect to the general WHTI issue. More recently, a letter was prepared by Roy Cullen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, sending information about the WHTI to his parliamentary colleagues. It is a recent letter, so it may still be on its way.
The Chairman: You have a conference tomorrow, and there are a number of people in both Houses that have a real interest in this.
Senator Meighen: They might have some knowledge as well.
The Chairman: There is an off chance they might even know something about the subject. You are telling us that had we not invited you to come as a witness tonight, we would just read about it in the papers on Wednesday.
Mr. Challborn: It is a conference specifically addressed to provinces, territories and major stakeholders.
The Chairman: Would you say Parliament is a stakeholder in this?
Mr. Challborn: Of course Parliament is a stakeholder.
The Chairman: Then why does no word come to folks such as us or our colleagues in the other place?
Mr. Challborn: I believe a judgment was made to have the conference involve provincial and territorial representatives, and representatives of major associations in Canada from the tourism community and elsewhere.
Senator Forrestall: Someone forgot all about us.
The Chairman: I understand that. Who is responsible for the conference, please?
Mr. Challborn: The invitation was sent via my assistant deputy minister, Peter Boehm.
The Chairman: Would you have him advise us in writing why parliamentarians were not included?
Mr. Challborn: I would be pleased to.
The Chairman: Would you tell him the committee would like him to do that. We would like to know the reasons why we did not have advance notice of the meeting, why we have not received agendas, and why we do not have background information on it. Please advise him that, depending on the quality of his reply, we may well want him to appear before us and explain it in person.
Mr. Challborn: I would be pleased to follow up immediately with that request.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I will look forward to seeing the letter tomorrow morning.
The conference starts tomorrow, does it not?
Mr. Challborn: The conference begins tomorrow, yes.
Senator Day: Ms. Borges, I have a series of questions with respect to what you describe as a short-term initiative, Let us get Windsor-Essex moving.
I notice in phase one there is a reference to an environmental assessment, and in phase two, three or four environmental assessment categories again.
Who performs these environmental assessments, private sector companies or a government agency?
Ms. Borges: The environmental assessments are led usually by the government agencies. Depending on the project, it could be either the City of Windsor or the Province of Ontario. They are responsible for conducting them, and they usually hire private-sector consulting firms to help undertake the work.
Senator Day: It seems to me that many of the delays here seem to relate to environmental assessments. Is there any possibility of accelerating them by having them done by the private sector? Have you looked at ways of speeding up the environmental assessment process?
Ms. Borges: We continuously look at ways to expedite the environmental assessment processes. Depending on the scope of the project, for example, if it is an existing piece of work, a road that already exists, then the environmental process can be shortened because the road infrastructure is already there. The corridor already exists.
A brand new crossing, road or facility normally takes longer, depending on the environmental process being put in place. There are different time frames for the environmental processes already.
Senator Day: Are you looking at ways to expedite this particular aspect?
Ms. Borges: Yes, the list that you are looking at for individual projects is the environmental assessments. They are in different jurisdictions as well. Some belong to the province, some to the City of Windsor and one to the County of Essex. Each has to undertake that environmental assessment for that project individually.
Senator Day: However, the environmental assessment could be, and in many cases is, done by a private-sector company at the request of the municipality or the government, whatever government might be involved.
Ms. Borges: That is correct.
Senator Meighen: On that environmental question, wearing your hat as a member of the Transportation Border Working Group, you alluded to the environmental assessment requirements in Canada, but, presumably, we can multiply that by two, if not more, because the Americans have to go through the same process, do they not?
Ms. Borges: For an international facility, yes. The projects that Senator Day was referring to are projects in Canada, so only the Canadian processes apply.
Senator Meighen: I am alluding to a bridge or a tunnel, which would involve both.
Ms. Borges: That is right. In fact, there are three environmental assessments required, and they are all being harmonized on the Canadian side. It is the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and, on the U.S. side, the National Environmental Policy Act. Currently, the two Canadian assessments are being harmonized into one. On the U.S. side, we are coordinating the EAs together, so we have a team in Canada working with a team in the United States, and they are being done simultaneously.
Senator Meighen: That is the best news we have heard since I got here. That is wonderful. I wish you could apply that to municipalities and provinces across the country so that environmental processes could move forward a little more rapidly.
Senator Day: Ms. Borges, I do not want you to get the idea or form a conclusion that we are not interested in following along with respect to environmental assessments. I am looking for ways to do things more quickly, and 2013 seems like a lifetime away.
Ms. Borges: The environmental assessment will be completed by the end of 2007 for the new crossing. The rest of the time is required for property acquisition because we will have to acquire the properties where the bridge structure and the access roads will be, as well as for the design, proper engineering and actual construction.
Senator Day: I will get on to the long term, namely, the bridge, in a minute. I am still on the short term.
Ms. Borges: The short-term ones will not take long. Most of those projects will be implemented within the next three or four years.
Senator Day: Phase one of your short term was March 2004, a year and a half ago. You say that phase one projects are proceeding.
How long has this Lauzon Road environmental assessment, which is pending further discussion with the city of Windsor, been pending? Give us a flavour for what is holding this up?
Ms. Borges: I will give you an example. Under phase two, there was a project for a pedestrian overpass on Church Road. That project has been completed, and the pedestrian overpass was opened at the end of September. We announced that project in March 2004, and it is now operating.
For the environmental assessments for Lauzon, for example, we announced those in April of this year, and we are in discussions right now with the city about how to proceed. We have to develop the terms of reference, go for requests for proposals and then get the environmental assessment done. We expect that will take about 18 months to complete, and after the 18 months, design and construction could proceed after that.
Senator Day: You, being the federal government, announced you will do something with respect to Lauzon Parkway; is that correct?
Ms. Borges: Correct.
Senator Day: You made the announcement back in April, and you are still pending discussions with the City of Windsor?
Ms. Borges: That is right.
Senator Day: Why in six months have you not been able to talk to the City of Windsor?
Ms. Borges: There was an issue related to another project that the city wanted to have included. Until we resolved the issue on that other project, they refused to go ahead with this one.
Senator Day: Do you get that leverage from various parties saying, ``We will do this if you do that''?
Ms. Borges: Somewhat, yes.
Senator Day: Do you have any sense of dragging of heels from our U.S. cousins because it is to their advantage not to improve crossing in terms of business development in the northern U.S. states?
Ms. Borges: Are you referring to the bridge crossing?
Senator Day: I am referring to any activity that requires environmental assessments or cooperation from certain partners.
Ms. Borges: From the U.S., we have encountered no resistance at all. In fact, we work lockstep with our partners in Michigan on the federal highways, and we are working at the same pace. We do the assessments together and the public information open houses on both sides of the border at the same time.
For example, I mentioned that in June, for the new crossing, we announced the 15 alignments. That was announced in Canada at the same time as the United States. We are working together.
Two weeks ago we announced the short list. Eight crossing alignments were removed. It was announced in the U.S. one evening and we came out in Canada the next morning. We are working in lockstep there.
Senator Day: You are not getting internationally the same kind of leverage or tying one issue with another that you described with respect to the City of Windsor?
Ms. Borges: Yes, on the binational front, this is a four-government project and we are working together. The City of Windsor and the other projects that we mentioned in phase 1 and phase 2 involved those governments. The facilities belong to those governments so we have to work with them to make sure that they do the proper work and that they have the wherewithal to implement them.
For the most part, it has been collaborative. All the other projects are moving ahead. That one is the only one we are still discussing.
Senator Day: I appreciate you telling us about these projects because it gives us a bit of a flavour for your challenges. If there are any other major projects that you think you should tell us about as we go along, I would appreciate any of you letting us know that.
As I understand your evidence now, you are down to seven routes. I was wondering why, when you are trying to save time here and move this along, you went to a public presentation when you had 15 possible routes? Why would you talk to the public about what is going to happen and upset certain groups and all of the things that come from a public presentation when you knew you would not go ahead with 14 of those 15? Why would you not break them down internally, apply priorities and then go to the public when you were down to two or three?
Ms. Borges: Part of the environmental assessment process involves consultation with the public at various stages in the process. We try to be as transparent and inclusive as possible in terms of obtaining public input and participation in the various steps.
In June, we identified the possible alignments. We went to consultation for the public's opinion on the factors to consider in trying to narrow down the alignments. We feel public input is important on that because of the various factors that go into narrowing a list. Factors include environmental issues, social issues, historical issues, emissions and things such as that. All those factors play into the decision and we want to ensure that the public is aware of and involved in those decisions.
Senator Day: Senator Kenny has a supplementary question on a question that I asked and then I will carry on.
The Chairman: This is a two-part question. First, did I understand you correctly to say that the City of Windsor held up negotiations that would affect a second crossing, over an unrelated issue?
Ms. Borges: No, the negotiations with the City of Windsor were related to medium and short-term projects within the City of Windsor, and not to the binational crossing at all.
The Chairman: I still do not understand. Perhaps I did not pose the question correctly. The City of Windsor chose not to negotiate with the federal government because of an issue that related to the crossing or because of an issue that did not relate to the crossing?
Ms. Borges: They chose to stop discussions because of another project that they proposed to be built in Windsor.
The Chairman: That project had nothing to do with crossing the border?
Ms. Borges: It had nothing to do with the new crossing but we felt that one particular project could have an implication on the international crossing because it was in one of the alignment areas, or several of the alignment areas, for the new crossing. We did not want to consider new alignments in that area outside of the binational process.
The Chairman: One reason that Senator Day is pursuing the question of the reaction in the United States is that when we were in Washington, our colleagues in Congress told us that they were not receiving any pressure to move forward expeditiously on the crossing. They said they heard from a lot of Canadians but they did not hear from anyone that voted for members of the Congress. Has that been reflected in your experience?
Ms. Borges: No, we have been working with our American counterparts since 2001 on developing a new crossing and so far we have encountered no resistance from them. We are working collaboratively with them. Whether or not there is as active representation in the U.S. at the political or government levels, I do not know. We get a lot of representation in Canada, but Americans are working with us full speed ahead and we are not encountering any obstacles in working with them.
The Chairman: It was not just one Congressman: we met with a number of Michigan Congressmen who said this seems to be a hot issue for us but it is not for them. More than that, they saw a lot of not-in-my-backyard reactions. There are municipal and state elections, and no one will move on these issues until all those elections are resolved. This is not part of your reaction?
Ms. Borges: No.
The Chairman: How about Foreign Affairs? Are you hearing about this?
Mr. Challborn: To my knowledge, I have not heard of those pressures that you speak of. From what we can see through our consulate in Detroit, the cooperation on the file is excellent between the jurisdictions. I cannot recall any particular information I have seen recently through our missions on that issue in terms of pressures received by U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen on the issue.
Senator Day: I am into the issue of the crossing now as opposed to the short term, ``Let us get Windsor-Essex moving'' project, which is good. I think it is good that you are working on that.
We are now into the crossing. I would like to establish that we all agree that a disabling or loss of a crossing at Windsor-Detroit would have a devastating effect on the economies of Canada and the U.S. Can we agree on that?
Ms. Borges: We agree on that.
Senator Day: Are each of you satisfied that we are doing everything we can to mitigate the risk of something such as that happening?
Ms. Borges: I believe we are. I believe that we are working not just at that bridge crossing but also at the tunnel crossing. We are working with the ferry operator that also provides transportation into the U.S. We are working in Sarnia, which is part of the southwestern Ontario border gateway and, in fact, making improvements both on the Canadian and the U.S. side of that border crossing.
We are working with rail as well. You have probably heard of the vehicle and cargo inspection system, VACIS, technology to X-ray all trains. That technology is being implemented right now in Windsor. As of this week, all trains going to Detroit will be X-rayed so that they are fully compliant with U.S. requirements. It is the same in Sarnia with the CN lines.
We are taking a multimodal approach so that if something happens on one crossing, traffic can go to another crossing and continue to flow. At the same time, we are working for new border capacity.
Senator Day: I understand that. Regarding the new crossing, do you have it written up on the board somewhere? You have a line diagram of where you want to get various things done here, right?
Ms. Borges: Yes.
Senator Day: We will do that and the assessment by this date. Do you have written on top of that to keep in mind what might happen if one of the existing transborder facilities went down for whatever reason?
Ms. Borges: Every day.
Senator Day: Let us get on with this?
Ms. Borges: Let us get on with this.
Senator Day: You are all thinking that way?
Ms. Borges: We are all thinking that way and I can assure you, as of today we are on schedule in terms of the environmental assessment process. It is not an easy task getting all that work done with four partners and the number of parties that are involved but we are on schedule.
Senator Day: Bruce McQuaig of the Ontario Ministry of Transport told our committee that a long-term disruption due to damage or destruction of a crossing had not been factored into your timeline estimates. Do you disagree with that?
Ms. Borges: Had not been factored in?
Senator Day: Had not been factored in.
Ms. Borges: I am not sure I fully understand the response and the question. We are proceeding with the new crossing development, to get it done as soon as we can. We are working on all the border crossings to ensure that if something happens at one border crossing or in one mode that there is, call it redundancy or additional capacity to handle the traffic. We are trying to expedite the binational every day to ensure that we do it as fast as we can so we have a new crossing in place as soon as possible.
Senator Day: You went over various contingency plans if one of those crossings went down at Detroit-Windsor. Have you told us about all the plans, and have you factored in security issues as well?
Ms. Borges: Yes, shortly after September 11, many of those plans were put into place. For example, at that time, the delays to cross the Ambassador Bridge were probably up to 12 hours or longer. Certain companies, including Chrysler Canada, contracted with CP Rail to provide a shuttle service back and forth between Detroit and Windsor for their operations. There is the ability to do that. We notice every day that if construction or a disruption is happening at one area, the traffic has information early enough about delays that they can go to another crossing.
Senator Day: You have told us about your timeline to do various things, and you are coming down to three possible crossings. Is there any predisposition by any of the partners in either having a crossing within the city or the urban area? I noticed that the eight you dropped off from the 15 were above and below the urban area. Can you tell us if that is coincidental?
Ms. Borges: The area where the seven options are still on the table ranges for probably a distance of five to eight kilometres. Are you familiar with the geography in Windsor?
Senator Day: Yes, our committee visited there.
Ms. Borges: If you know where the current CP Rail tunnel is, that would be the most eastern crossing still on the table, then heading southwest, across from the north of LaSalle and the Ojibway Parkway area. There are seven crossing locations there, including the Detroit River tunnel, twinning of the Ambassador Bridge, plus several other brand new crossing locations. Those still remain on the table.
Senator Day: Getting away from Detroit-Windsor for a second and taking you down east, I am familiar with the decision as to where the new bridge crossing is planned over the St. Croix River. That is out of the city. Was there municipal input into having it in or out of the city? Is that a factor? Was security factored into this decision?
Ms. Borges: Yes to all the above. In fact, we do the public consultation for that kind of input. The community in Windsor and in Detroit has been vocal about certain crossing alternatives. For example, the Detroit River tunnel partnership, which is the conversion of a rail line to a truck route, has received extensive opposition in the City of Windsor. On the Detroit side, there has been more opposition to the two peripheries but less opposition where the current crossing is and a little bit further east, because it is mainly an industrial area.
On the Canadian table, there has been some concern with the routings across from the Ojibway Parkway, primarily because there are sensitive environmental parks in that area. We have heard from various groups that we need to pay attention to those parks and ensure that wherever the road alignment goes, we avoid those sensitive natural science areas.
Senator Day: Do I interpret your answer correctly that the predisposition would be to have another crossing close to the ones that are already there, because people are already accustomed to having traffic and activity there?
Ms. Borges: They probably would prefer not to have it in the exact location where the crossings are today, but probably further south and west in the industrial areas. That location seems to be more reasonable. They do not like to have them in residential or commercial areas, but more in industrial areas where they pose perhaps less disruption to community life. As well, the environmental impacts are probably reduced.
Senator Day: From a public consultation point of view, you will get that kind of reaction: not in my backyard. It would be great to have, but put it somewhere else.
Ms. Borges: All the time.
Senator Day: Who factors in the security aspects in doing the assessment?
Ms. Borges: It is the same people that look at all the factors. All aspects are looked at. We have extensive consultations with our colleagues at the Canada Border Services Agency. We have had meetings on security measures with the Canadian Coast Guard, our own colleagues in the department, Public Security and Emergency Preparedness Canada, and counterparts in the U.S. These groups are part of our process, and we are working closely with them. We have brought them into the fold so we take those things into account.
Senator Day: When you say the same people, it is not the public process that factors in security. That is another input by the decision-making group.
Ms. Borges: That is right.
Senator Day: Are you familiar with the Schwartz Engineering proposal? I have it in my office. The Honourable Jim Peterson indicated that this plan should be adopted and that we should get on with it. Can you tell me what is happening with respect to that engineering plan?
Ms. Borges: I am familiar with that report. The Government of Canada has adopted a few of the initiatives that were included in the Schwartz report. In fact, the phase two initiatives that you asked me about earlier are all in the Schwartz report.
Senator Day: Including the short term?
Ms. Borges: Yes. There is one project that we have not adopted in the Schwartz report. Last week in Windsor, we tabled a report of an independent engineer that we hired to do some due diligence on one project proposed by the city. They call the project a bypass off Huron Church Road to divert trucks for a distance of two kilometres off Huron Church Road and then a loop back in. We had concerns about that project both as to what it proposed to do and the implications for the binational process. We did not accept to fund that one or to go ahead with it. We hired an independent engineer to give us advice on that in case we were interpreting it wrong. The independent engineer validated our concerns on that project. We will not move ahead with that one, but we are doing something on all the rest of the Schwartz Engineering report elements.
Senator Day: In terms of the new crossing, you have given us a timeline, and you say we will continue to seek ways of accelerating the process to have a new and expanded crossing in place by 2013. If you do not find new ways of accelerating the process, will you not have it in place by 2013?
Ms. Borges: No, 2013 is our expected date of having the crossing operational, so we will have it in place by that point in time.
Senator Day: If you continue to seek ways of accelerating the process, is it possible that you might have it before 2013?
Ms. Borges: We keep trying to do that, to see if we have missed something. We have asked different consulting firms to give us advice: Can we shorten something, as you mentioned, on the environmental assessment? We do a lot of our work in parallel, so when we do the environmental assessment, what are the properties that will be required? We start looking at the property requirements. We call it double tracking. We double track all our work to ensure that we do as much as possible simultaneously and in both countries.
Senator Day: Are you able to identify any impediments that might delay this, or any areas other than the environmental assessment process that we have already discussed where you are might be able to save significant time?
Ms. Borges: As part of the environmental assessment, we are already doing part of the design for the new crossing, so that will help expedite the design process. Normally, you wait until the environmental assessment is done, and then you do the design and the detailed engineering. As part of the environmental assessment, we will look at those things to be done within the next two years.
Senator Day: Is that on the two or three you hope to come down to?
Ms. Borges: Yes, on the three, and then, when we get down to the one, we will be into the more detailed design.
In terms of possible impediments, the biggest one could be on the environmental assessment process. When we say that we have to be diligent in the process to avoid any potential challenges, there are many entities with different interests in the new crossing. We know we are involving everybody. We involve the communities, the governments and private sector entities. Anyone who wants to provide input is able to provide it. Depending on what the final decision is, someone might be unhappy and want to challenge us. Our objective is to ensure that we have a rigorous, deliberate and totally documented process so that if anyone were to challenge us in a court we would have all our ducks in order and all the information available so that we would not face delays. However, that is always a risk.
Senator Day: Do you seek the less expensive environmental assessment process that the minister can authorize or do you simply go for a full-blown public hearing and environmental assessment process in every instance?
Ms. Borges: In this instance, given the magnitude of the project, of the undertaking with four levels of government involved that affect several communities, it is called a full environmental process. I do not think we would be able to do anything less in this case. We would not want to do anything less, to ensure we have the public's views and the views of the interested parties in those locations as well.
Senator Forrestall: Does the environmental process deter the private sector from activity with regard to the water causeway, in particular?
Ms. Borges: Does it deter?
Senator Forrestall: I have the impression that you have not had a flood of offers from the private sector to build four or five bridges across the river.
Ms. Borges: Currently, there are three private-sector proposals —
Senator Forrestall: They are from one side only.
Ms. Borges: No, they are for both sides. The Detroit River Tunnel Partnership is a Canadian consortium that would build on both sides. The consortium has acquired land in Detroit and is prepared to build the entire crossing. The current owner of the Ambassador Bridge has put forward a proposal as well.
Senator Meighen: He has acquired the land as well.
Ms. Borges: That is correct. A third party, called the Mishkan Group, has been much less proactive. They are developers from the United States who have expressed an interest but, unlike the other two, have not been as proactive.
Senator Forrestall: That is good. I am pleased. I wonder whether they were pressured by the enormous cost of a full environmental assessment.
Ms. Borges: They are not paying for our environmental assessment. Rather, the governments of Canada and Ontario pay for it on the Canadian side and the Government of Michigan and the federal government pay for it on the U.S. side.
Senator Forrestall: Whether the option is for private-sector or government initiative, those costs have been paid for?
Ms. Borges: The environmental assessment will have been paid for and the governments will decide whether the crossing will be —
Senator Forrestall: The cost will be recovered through a tax or other form.
Ms. Borges: Yes.
Senator Day: I wanted to let our three witnesses know that we consider their actions extremely important for Canada. For economic and security reasons, we are anxious that they proceed as expeditiously and thoroughly as possible.
Ms. Borges: We appreciate your support and will continue to work as hard as we can.
Senator Meighen: Senator Day has left a few tag ends but not many because he has covered the waterfronts, if you will pardon the pun. I have one or two items that I would like to raise.
The first and only date I have heard mentioned for completion is the year 2013. You reported the best news about a harmonization of the environmental assessments between Canadian and American authorities. I hope that will help speed up the process now. However, after listening to you I do not see much chance that you can beat the 2013 deadline, although I might be unduly pessimistic. Committee members and most Canadians concerned with the issue find that a long time to wait. You have alluded to many of the constraints that, understandably, you have to concern yourself with.
We have not been able to shorten that time frame, unless I am mistaken, from the outset. Notwithstanding the successes you have alluded to, is there anything that could improve the chances of reducing the time frame by one or two years?
Ms. Borges: In the later stages after the environmental assessment is completed, we will look at how to build the structure. Normally, governments have traditional procurements whereby firms are contracted to build. We are looking into whether there are opportunities whereby the private sector can be contracted to deliver a project faster in some form of public-private partnership. We hope that we might be able to expedite the time as well, and we are examining those possibilities. It does not mean that the crossing has to be privately owned but that the contracting would be private. When you place performance requirements on certain contractors, they tend to deliver more expeditiously. We are looking at those kinds of possibilities. You can appreciate that we are dealing with four governments, each of which has different procurement policies to be considered. However, there might be an opportunity in that area to reduce the time frame.
Senator Meighen: You have testified that the number is seven or eight.
Ms. Borges: There are seven.
Senator Meighen: Are they above ground?
Ms. Borges: Yes, one of the conclusions in June was that an under-the-tunnel crossing would be difficult in that region because of the water table and other issues such as salt, brine extraction and various other environmental considerations. It will have to be a bridge in that area.
Senator Meighen: If it has to be a bridge, can you tell me what the official position is, if any, of the owner of the Ambassador Bridge?
Ms. Borges: They are collaborating as part of the private-sector interest groups in the binational crossing. We have asked them for a significant amount of information on their plans. As I mentioned earlier, they have a proposal on the table to twin the bridge, and we have been examining that information. They have cooperated fully with us. Last year, they tabled an application with the federal government under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to seek environmental approval for their twinning proposal. We have responded in that respect but there has been no further activity to date. I can conclude only that they, and the others, are waiting to see what the short list of potential crossing locations will be.
Senator Meighen: I presume that once a project is identified as the one to proceed, then you do not have to negotiate with landowners in a normal commercial sense to acquire the land necessary to construct the structure. Rather, expropriation would be a method of proceeding.
Ms. Borges: Yes.
Senator Meighen: That could expedite the process.
Ms. Borges: That is an option. Our preference would be to buy properties voluntarily from people willing to give them up. You are right in saying that both the provincial and federal governments have expropriation powers and will use them as needed to ensure that we obtain the land required for the project.
Senator Meighen: Are national security issues automatically factored into environmental assessments? Where would they rank on the list of priorities?
Ms. Borges: They rank fairly high. In a crossing such as at Windsor, we are working with our colleagues at the Canada Border Services Agency, the Coast Guard and security officials at Transport Canada to ensure that we take security into account as we identify the locations. In terms of security, part of it is the redundancy factor to ensure that any new crossing provides the redundancy needed in the event of an unfortunate tragedy at any location.
Senator Meighen: Given the fact that we are dealing with a bridge, has your organization taken any position? Has a joint, international position been taken? Are you jointly investigating a best method to inspect traffic at the new facility, whether jointly, separately or through a preclearance or other system? Would that depend on the site more than on any other factor?
Ms. Borges: No, we have factored that into our considerations. Some of our first meetings with the Canada Border Services Agency and the Customs and Border Protection Agency were to work with them in identifying the possible options for the inspection services.
Senator Meighen: Have I not alluded to most of them?
Ms. Borges: Yes.
Senator Meighen: Which way are you going?
Ms. Borges: At this point, we are keeping the options open for both a preclearance type of arrangement or reverse clearance, as well as a traditional approach. We are aiming not to have the clearance facilities anywhere on the bridge but, rather, on the land. If I recall correctly, the amount of land that we are reserving for the inspection facilities is 100 acres of property. That would accommodate either of those scenarios.
Senator Meighen: Not to have it on a bridge is dictated, I presume, by security considerations and by perhaps cost considerations in having to build a structure in the middle of a bridge.
Ms. Borges: A lot of it is security, but also it is to avoid congestion issues, so environmental noise, emissions and that kind of thing. If you keep traffic on the surface it will be easier to control the traffic and the backups rather than having them on the bridge.
Senator Meighen: You made mention of VACIS, which is always of interest to this committee, particularly when we went to Windsor. I think you said that beginning next week VACIS would be used on all trains coming into Canada.
Ms. Borges: All trains going into the United States.
Senator Meighen: What about coming into Canada?
Ms. Borges: Canada does not currently have a policy for using VACIS on rail traffic coming into Canada.
Senator Meighen: Rail traffic comes in without being inspected by VACIS. Is it inspected otherwise?
Ms. Borges: I will let Mr. DiPonio answer that one since he is with the Canada Border Services Agency and he can tell you what they currently do.
Pete DiPonio, Regional Director, Canada Border Services Agency: Yes, it is subject to the normal inspection procedures that we have in all the modes. We assess high risk and inspect those containers, cargo, that we feel are required. We do not have a policy of 100-per-cent inspection in any of the modes of travel to Canada.
Senator Meighen: I know. What about trucks? When we were there, trucks coming into Canada were not inspected 24 hours a day as I recall. Has there been any change?
Mr. DiPonio: No, we do have inspection capability 24 hours per day. We do not operate the VACIS 24/7.
Senator Meighen: I should have phrased my question more clearly. You do not operate the VACIS 24 hours a day?
Mr. DiPonio: Correct.
Senator Meighen: Is there a reason for that other than cost?
Mr. DiPonio: It is expensive so there are cost considerations. As you saw when you were there, there is a fairly significant crew. We target when we think the best opportunities are to operate the VACIS.
Senator Meighen: What do the Americans do?
Mr. DiPonio: They operate under similar circumstances, except when they are at a heightened-alert status.
Senator Meighen: Perhaps the chairman will cover this in a supplementary question, but my recollection has been that there was a well known period when inspections were less rigid or the VACIS was not employed. The truckers all knew that and tried to take advantage of it if for no other reason than avoiding loss of time.
Mr. DiPonio: I do not think that is ever the case. As you heard in previous testimony, truckers are pretty smart guys and women. They know when we operate at a higher level of inspection, which is why higher levels of inspection from our point of view, sustained higher levels of inspection, are really not advisable. It is a tactic that you cannot sustain and the operators can wait you out. We find it preferable to operate when we believe it is in our interests to do so, when we think we have our best chance of success.
Senator Meighen: Is it on the basis of intelligence information?
Mr. DiPonio: Correct, and it is the direction that we have been heading in for a number of years and that drives our organization now: what kind of intelligence we have and what kind of results we are getting.
The Chairman: My supplementary question had to do with your response when you said ``the usual procedures'' when you are inspecting trains. The usual procedures are what? Could you describe them to the committee?
Mr. DiPonio: Normally trains are not physically inspected. We have documents that are either electronically or physically presented to us. The usual procedures are assessing risk and conducting examinations on an as-required basis.
The Chairman: Your answer then would be that the Americans have chosen to use VACIS for every rail car going into the United States so that they have an x-ray picture of what is in every car going into their country, but we do not check any cars coming into our country, be it by VACIS or physically? Do we rely entirely on paper work and whatever other forms of intelligence you might have?
Mr. DiPonio: Your statement is almost entirely accurate except perhaps a qualifier on ``we do not check any.'' We check some but far less than the American protocol of 100-per-cent VACIS.
The Chairman: When you say you check some, my recollection of the testimony was that it is at the destination as opposed to audit.
Mr. DiPonio: Frequently, yes.
Senator Forrestall: My question relates to the issue of the legal arguments that will take place when we decide which side of the river to locate on, and how we will mingle, mix or integrate one agency that carry side arms and another that does not. Can you talk to us for a moment or two about that as a problem, or do you see it as a problem? I wanted to ask because you have been so closely attached in working face to face with the union and with the members. On occasions, not just in our visit with you but visits throughout the system in Canada, we have run across similar concerns expressed in conversation. Could you bring us up to date as to how that issue fits into your overall progress?
Ms. Borges: From our perspective in looking at the new border crossing, we try to work with the customs agencies, the inspection agencies, to ensure that we can accommodate whatever approach they decide best suits that crossing. Ultimately, they will make the decision. We talk to them frequently to ensure that whatever processes are used, they keep traffic flowing as efficiently as possible. So far, they have accomplished that in the current scenario in Windsor. However, we are trying to be accommodating in the planning to make sure that whatever the decision, we have the facilities available or the space available to then construct the facilities required to perform the inspection services.
Mr. DiPonio: I do not know if I have much to add in terms of the context of our current discussion.
Senator Forrestall: I want to know what you will do about your employees and guns. Sooner or later you will have to answer this question. Everyone has been ducking it, to the best of my knowledge, for 20 or 25 years. Perhaps it is time we did something about it. Now we have a good opportunity to insist that someone bend their intelligence and talent to solving this.
It is a long-term problem that will not get better; it will get worse. As the population grows, problems expand.
Where do we stand, or do you not want to deal with it?
Mr. DiPonio: That is obviously a national policy decision that I will not make. I know that there is interest and debate on that subject. I am capable of saying what our current results are, and they are very good. We can be proud of the work that our people do. We make many interdictions of dangerous people with dangerous weapons.
Senator Forrestall: You are almost condescending. I will not bite your head off.
Mr. DiPonio: I am trying to be as respectful as I can without telling you —
Senator Forrestall: Go ahead and tell me. You cannot be disrespectful to me. You pay my salary, so you can tell me whatever you want to tell me.
Mr. DiPonio: I do not think that is a decision I am capable of making.
Senator Forrestall: I am being a bit facetious. Would you agree that it is a question that is still unanswered? You may have a status quo, but the status quo has not been resolved. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. DiPonio: I think it is fair to say there is still lively debate.
Senator Forrestall: Would you care to enter into this interesting debate, Ms. Borges.
Ms. Borges: No.
Senator Forrestall: Would you care to tell us why?
Ms. Borges: My priorities are transportation and ensuring that we have the infrastructure ready to accommodate the flows and to support our colleagues in their inspection functions.
Senator Forrestall: Why do we not hire the U.S. customs and border officers to do both their work and our work? We will pay them.
Ms. Borges: You will have to ask the Deputy Prime Minister or the President of the CBSA that question.
Senator Forrestall: You have not suggested it to the Deputy Prime Minister?
Ms. Borges: No.
Senator Forrestall: You will not, either?
Ms. Borges: No.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you very much.
Senator Meighen: Ms. Borges, are you satisfied that you have investigated and identified every possible crossing site, or is there a possibility that someone will say, ``Why don't we put something over here?''
Ms. Borges: We are pretty comfortable that we have identified all of them. In February, when my boss was here, we had five corridors or swaths. Within those five swaths we identified the precise alignment, that is, where the crossing could be, where the customs facilities could be, and the roads leading back from the border to the interstate or Highway 401. We have done as good and as comprehensive a job as we can within that area. If you are talking about total kilometre coverage, it could cover 40 or 50 kilometres of waterfront.
We have demonstrated, according to the environmental assessment process, that we have looked at that. In the original needs and feasibility study that we did, we took a broader look, including Sarnia. We considered whether the crossing should be built in Sarnia or Windsor. The conclusion, based on the traffic forecast, was that Windsor was the right location, so we narrowed in on the Windsor area.
Senator Day: If you had more resources, more money, could you do this job faster?
Ms. Borges: No, resources are not an issue for us. We have devoted many resources to this. We have teams on both sides of the border. We have to comply with legal requirements that are in place for both the province and the state.
Senator Meighen: When you succeed, and when you have built —
Ms. Borges: I like your positive attitude.
Senator Meighen: — the new crossing, have you made any studies on what extent this will speed up the transborder flow and to what extent it will increase the transborder flow? To the extent that the latter is significant, what happens to the dear old, already-overcrowded, Highway 401?
Ms. Borges: As you may be aware, as part of our short-term projects we are currently expanding the 401 to make it six lanes from Windsor pretty much across the system. A small segment around Woodstock needs to be increased to six lanes.
Senator Meighen: That is where there are accidents all the time.
Ms. Borges: That is our next target. Highway 401 still has room to expand, so improvements can be made there as required. We have traffic projections for the next 30 years. The development of the new crossing is a 30-year strategy, and we are looking at it from both international and local traffic flows. Huron Church Road, for example, will continue to be in operation, as will the Ambassador Bridge. We have been able to get the best numbers possible in terms of the growth rates for truck traffic, car traffic, rail traffic, and possibly ferry traffic as well. All those projections are available on our website for the binational partnership if you would like more details on that.
Senator Meighen: I hope that excludes garbage trucks going to Michigan.
Ms. Borges: It includes garbage trucks.
Senator Meighen: That is discouraging.
The Chairman: Will you tell the committee what contingency plans you have if either of the current bridge or tunnel are disabled for a significant period of time?
Ms. Borges: The contingency plans are provided by the crossings themselves, and they have them in place. My colleagues in our bridge section deal with those, and they have frequent discussions with the crossing operators on the contingency plans that are in place. As well, the authorities that own them have contingency plans in place with all the emergency response people — the police, the fire departments, the custom agencies and so on.
The Chairman: My question is what you do if the Ambassador Bridge is disabled or destroyed. What contingency plans does the department have for cross-border traffic?
Ms. Borges: The contingency plans involve using the other facilities there. There is a tunnel there.
The Chairman: You have already explained to us that the tunnel is not a viable option because of salt.
Ms. Borges: No, the existing tunnel, the car tunnel, is there and it is operating.
The Chairman: It could handle the bridge traffic in addition to the traffic it handles already?
Ms. Borges: It could handle more traffic. I believe that the current traffic levels at the tunnel are lower today than they were in 2001, so the tunnel could handle more. The truck ferry could potentially handle more traffic as well. There is Sarnia. The Windsor and Sarnia crossings are not far apart. If anything were to happen, truck drivers and traffic can be alerted through information systems to use the other crossing. The rail system is there as well. We have experience from 2001 where more use was made of the rail system when the bridge was not operating at ideal capacity. It is making use of all the modes.
The Chairman: You told us you have a number of projections in place and you talked about the different of modes that you have projections for. What sort of projections do you have in place if either the bridge or the tunnel become non-functional for an indefinite period of time? How long would one have to line up if the bridge went, and how long would one have to line up if the tunnel went?
Ms. Borges: It would depend on what happens. There have been incidents on the bridge. For example, last summer a fuel spill on the bridge took about four hours to clean up. They closed the bridge for that period of time. As far as I know, some of the traffic was diverted to Sarnia. Some of it went through the tunnel. It took a couple of hours, but the issue was addressed.
It would depend on the situation and how much time you have to advise people about using the alternatives.
The Chairman: If you anticipated that the bridge was not going to be available for the foreseeable future, what contingency plan do you have? Does everyone go to Sarnia?
Ms. Borges: For now, a big part of the contingency plan would be to use Sarnia as well as rail. Rail is an option there, and the line has capacity, as well as using CN Rail in Sarnia.
The Chairman: How close is the Sarnia facility to capacity?
Ms. Borges: It has lots of capacity. It is nowhere near capacity.
The Chairman: It would be sufficient? Would the only delays be the extra time it takes to drive to Sarnia and then back south?
Ms. Borges: There might be some impact in the processing capacity, but I am sure that if something were happening in Windsor and more resources were needed in Sarnia, resources could be deployed to Sarnia to handle the additional clearance requirements.
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee I would like to thank the three of you for appearing before us and for providing us with the information you have. We look forward to hearing back from someone in Mr. Challborn's department about tomorrow's conference.
For members of the public viewing this program, if you have any questions or comments, please visit our websites by going to www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony as well as confirmed hearing schedules. Otherwise, you may contact the Clerk of the Committee by calling 1-800-267-7362 for further information or assistance in contacting members of the committee.
Honourable senators, this section of the meeting is suspended and the witnesses are excused.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed.
Senators, we have before us Lieutenant Colonel David Last, who was unable to join the panel at five o'clock. The committee has agreed to hear comments from him that relate to the earlier testimony. The testimony that we received from the earlier panel was a response to the following question: Given that the defence policy statement has broadly identified three main roles for the Canadian Forces — protecting Canada and Canadians, defending North America, and contributing to a safer and more secure world by addressing the threats of terrorism and failed states — what, based on your expertise, is the most important thing Canada needs to do to ensure its capability of fulfilling each of these roles?
Colonel, the floor is yours.
Lieutenant Colonel David Last, as an individual: I speak with the academic freedom that military faculty at the Royal Military College have, so my remarks are strictly my own views and not those of the Department of National Defence, Canadian Forces or the Royal Military College.
In answer to the question, if I was held to a single thing that it is important for Canada to do to defend Canadians, to defend North America and to build a more secure world, that would be to get the command relationships right between the Canadian Forces, Canadian governments and the resources and information that are necessary to support operations both before the battle is engaged and during any operations.
With that as a one-sentence answer, I am prepared to illustrate that with a tale of three cities, if you would like to hear a few more minutes.
The Chairman: You have two minutes left of three, so go ahead.
LCol. Last: The three cities are Vancouver, Windsor and Baghdad. In the first two, the command relationships that we have to look at carefully are between U.S. Northern Command, NORTHCOM, and Canada Command, CANCOM, between Homeland Security and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, PSEPC, and the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government.
If we think about the kinds of embarrassments that the United States has gone through with New Orleans, an earthquake in Vancouver could be considerably worse. If we have not spent the time to get command relations right and to organize resources effectively with our potentially cumbersome multiple levels of government, I think we have problems brewing.
I do not know how effectively our command and control relationships and resource allocations have been tested to look after this sort of impending problem, but I think the New Orleans flood illustrates the kind of command and control that we need to give serious consideration to if we are to protect Canadians effectively.
I will be brief on Windsor because you have spent a fair amount of time talking about these kinds of issues and know more about it than I do. I would suggest that it is the Homeland Security department, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, and federal, provincial and municipal levels of government that we want to look at there.
Beyond the immediate issue of defending the border, we need to look at the broader issue of the American plan for a layered and responsive defence in-depth and the potential of a security perimeter. My colleague, Joel Sokolski, if he is consulted by this committee, has a lot to say on the benefits of both belt and suspenders, the belt being the border and the suspenders being the security perimeter. The way in which we interact with the Americans, particularly for the security perimeter, is something that we need to get right.
The third one is perhaps the most difficult and sensitive issue. There are places in the world where the United States is waging its war on terror with finesse and sophistication.
The Philippines probably count as a success. The U.S. has had some successes in Afghanistan, in which Canada has been implicated. Baghdad is probably not an example of finesse and sophistication. The image of American involvement in Baghdad illustrates why it is so important for us to get our command relationships right. The image of the Americans in Baghdad is of a large number of isolated, culturally unaware and linguistically challenged foreign troops in a hostile sea. That is not how we win a global war on terror or engage the rest of the world in what has to be a collective effort. I think Canada can be most useful there in developing the kinds of command and control relationships that bring the effort back to the international community that engage our traditional allies and new allies, and that involve international organizations. If we get that part of the command and control equation right, we can be of enormous value to our American allies, and I think that is the aim in terms of building a more secure world — back to internationalism.
The committee adjourned.