Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 27 - Evidence, October 31, 2005
OTTAWA, Monday, October 31, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-26, to establish the Canada Border Services Agency, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. My name is Colin Kenny and I chair the committee.
Today we will hear testimony relating to the consideration of Bill C-26, to establish the Canada Border Services Agency. Before we begin, I will briefly introduce the members of the committee.
On my immediate right is the distinguished senator from Nova Scotia, Senator Michael Forrestall. He has served the constituents of Dartmouth for 37 years, first as a member of the House of Commons and then as their senator. While in the Commons, he served as the official opposition defence critic. He is also a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
Beside him is Senator Michael Meighen from Ontario. Senator Meighen is a lawyer in both the Quebec and Ontario bars. He is also the chancellor of the University of King's College and past chair of the Stratford Festival. He is the chair of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
On my immediate left is Senator Jim Munson from Ontario. Senator Munson was a trusted journalist and a former director of communications for Prime Minister Chrétien before being 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 Transport and Communications.
Beside him is Senator Joseph Day from New Brunswick. Senator Day is a lawyer and an engineer. He is a member of the bar of New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, and a fellow of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. He is Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and also of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
The committee is now reviewing Bill C-26, to establish the Canada Border Services Agency. The bill formally establishes the CBSA as a corporate body with a mandate to administer and enforce all aspects of Canada 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 Underdefended Borders in the World, the committee recommended the creation of a permanent department under the direction of the Prime Minister to oversee borders, national security issues, natural and man-made disasters and the coasts. We are pleased to see that the draft legislation has arrived here today.
We also have with us today Senator Norman Atkins from Ontario. He came to the Senate with 27 years of experience in the field of communications. He served as a senior adviser to former federal Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, Premier William Davis of Ontario and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He is also a member of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
Honourable senators, we have before us today members representing the Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise, which is referred to in the briefing notes as CEUDA. Representing them is their president, Mr. Ron Moran. Mr. Moran was acclaimed to his third term as Customs Excise Union national president at the 14th national convention held in Ottawa in September 2005. As the union's national president, he is the chief executive officer and an ex officio member of all of their committees. He directs the day-to-day operations of the union's national office in Ottawa and he chairs the Customs Excise Union national executive and the national board of directors' meetings, as well as meetings of their holding company.
With him is Mr. Jean-Pierre Fortin, National Vice-president. Mr. Fortin was recently re-elected to the national executive at the fall meeting. In this position, he is accountable for the following three portfolios: grievances and appeals; national office operations; and national staff collective bargaining. He is also the chair of the human resources working committee and its subcommittees and the border security committee. Mr. Fortin is also responsible for all four district branches in the Quebec region, as well as the headquarters district branch.
I understand you have a brief statement you would like to make. The floor is yours. Please proceed.
Ron Moran, National President, Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise: Honourable senators, it is an honour to be here. Thank you for inviting us and for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-26. It is more so than anything an honour to be here, given the fact that Bill C-26 formally recognizes the law enforcement and public security focus and mandate of the border service. Certainly, for those reasons, and for something that we have been advocating for so long, it is a privilege to be here speaking with you this morning.
As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, I am indeed here with Mr. Fortin who is here in his capacity as chair of our union's border security committee. I would add that, between the two of us, we have 48 years of experience in the customs service, 43 of which we served in union representation.
We provided the clerk of the committee with a brief last week, which has been forwarded to you. We will briefly go through this presentation and then open the floor to questions, which is my understanding of how the committee prefers to operate.
We applaud the move of carving out the Customs Service from Revenue where it had resided historically for over 200 years, and placing it alongside CSIS, the RCMP and corrections. It is now in a home that is more appropriate and more fitting to the refocused primary mandate.
As I am sure you have realized from reading our brief, we are still highly concerned about how the bureaucracy does was not quick to acknowledge that the border service had evolved, had changed. By creating the agency by an Order-in-Council, our sentiment is that many senior level managers feel that they have been dragged by the collar into an area in which they may not necessarily be comfortable, or into which they may not have wanted to go. Having said that, had there been no Order-in-Council I believe we would have had endless committees and endless analyses and we would still be talking about it as a project years from now. We applaud the government for the manner by which they created the agency.
While we realize this bill is not at all specific to some of the pre-dominating issues of our organization, we never give up an opportunity to highlight some of those main concerns, most of which your committee has already made recommendations on and agrees with, thereby. The side arm issue and the arming of customs officers is a predominant one.
We are also concerned about how inaccurate information is provided to parliamentary committees, including yours and the House of Commons Justice Committee. We are concerned that it was implied in testimony that there are memoranda of agreement to do with port runners and, as an example, that there are police agreements in place as to how port runners will be dealt with. We have, however, yet to find any form of evidence. We have received confirmation from Mr. Menard that he knows there is no such agreement in the Province of Quebec. We have consistently found agreements that have to do with individuals who are arrested, for example, for drunk driving or for other criminal offences, and how they are handled by police from that point, but there are no agreements specifically to do with port running. We hope that there will be an effort to get to the bottom of that. We have put in an ATIP request, however nothing has yet surfaced from that.
Your committee has pointed out that response times are in a dangerous range when it comes to counting on police response time in situations where there is an urgency at the border. As you have also pointed out, the duty of care is thereby questioned. One of the reasons is that the border service agency continues, much to everybody's astonishment, to rely on what it considers to be a job hazard analysis that has been demonstrated to have been fabricated in at least part of its findings, namely the fact that their own consultant had concluded that at least at some border crossings — the most dangerous ones — there needs to be an armed presence. Those particular findings were literally buried and were not part of the final report. Yet, that report was initially portrayed as being the actual findings of the consultants. There is a significant amount of concern gravitating around that.
We have also found, when talking to and in lobbying for many of these issues, that stakeholders and Canadians are most concerned that the policy for the customs service, when dealing with the most dangerous layer of individuals, armed and dangerous individuals, is to disengage and to release these individuals into the country. Again that ties into the arming issue. Customs officers are not equipped to deal with that. It becomes troubling to most Canadians when they realize that the filter they believe to be in place, the service that is supposed to keep out individuals and goods that should not be allowed into the country, when you get to the most dangerous level, the policy becomes to disengage and release.
We have provided copies of the actual ATIP request, simply because it is almost unbelievable. We have provided those to one of the clerks for you to pursue. We have requested from the border service information about the number of times this happens, that is, we want to know how many times armed and dangerous individuals are released into the country. The response from their ATIP office was that they do not keep those stats. It is a most troubling concept, that they would not know, and that they obviously do not want to know.
You will see at the tail end of the brief that this is recent information that has been brought to our attention. We are prepared to provide you with all of the follow up material. Information has been shared with us regarding what is referred to as the border management plan. This is no less than a quota system, and it allows managers to collect their bonuses based on attaining search quotas. The troubling part is that, routinely, targeted shipments present a more complicated or time-consuming effort on the part of officers. These are discarded in favour of two or three simpler and more easily accessible searches and verifications. That simply is because the stats need to be kept regarding the quotas. Bonuses are attained by managers who provide the service under budget. Offering a financial incentive in law enforcement is a dangerous concept.
We will be pleased to answer questions that committee members may have.
Senator Munson: I should like to know your reaction to our committee report, Borderline Insecure, which was published this year. Has there been an effort to reduce the number of single-person ports?
Mr. Moran: We find it relatively troubling that there has been no formal response from the border services to any of your recommendations, be they related to students, arming, or single-person posts. Our understanding, informally, is that a few of the border ports doubled up based on some kind of risk assessment of which we are unaware. We do not know what formula was used. An insignificant number of the single operation ports have seen an increase.
For all intents and purposes, we have been advised, formally, of none. We are hearing through our networks of a few coming down the pike. However, no efforts have been brought to our attention.
Senator Munson: What is the mood at these single-person ports? Do these people still feel unsafe?
Mr. Moran: They feel unsafe. It has always been like that. This committee changed the landscape, you have to realize, of many of these issues. In the past, it was left to CEUDA, an organization whose recommendations could be discarded easily through the making of self-serving comments such as any change was an effort to increase our membership or the wages of our membership. Many CBSA managers will imply that we want to arm our officers only so they can receive higher wages, and that this is a backdoor to that. It is of great concern to us that they do not consider some of these issues.
This committee has changed the landscape drastically in that it is no longer left to CEUDA alone, the organization with, perhaps, self-serving motives, but there must also be agreement by a parliamentary committee that a genuine danger is not being addressed at these crossings.
Senator Munson: We noticed work stoppages over the summer at various spots in southwestern Ontario and Quebec. You were informed that a dangerous person might try to cross the border. How did you hear about that? Was it through media reports? Did the work stoppages occur after you heard about this threat? Was there a format and procedure in conjunction with the police that you had to follow? To some of us, a work stoppage seems to be a drastic move when you are told that some particular person might try to cross the border.
Mr. Moran: We referred to our "lookouts" — our formal, intelligence-driven front line lookouts — that are circulated. Through the lookouts, we can have reason to believe that a certain individual or group of individuals are heading toward the border. I am more familiar with the one in Quebec where an armed and dangerous felon had shot a law enforcement officer on the U.S. side. He was known to be heading north toward the Canadian border. We do not base it on what we think or what we might have heard on public radio, rather, we base it on specific intelligence.
[Translation]
Jean-Pierre Fortin, National Vice-President, Responsible for Quebec and NCR, Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise (CEUDA): Mr. Chairman, I should point out that although the union has often been credited with these actions, they were actually already happening within the context of the Canada Labour Code. What our people are saying is that they will no longer put their lives at risk.
In terms of the committee's impact, I would say that the most positive impact has been the attention people on Parliament Hill are paying to safety. Previously, that support was not there. We want to thank you for that. Your interest has had an enormous impact on what our people are now doing in the field.
[English]
Senator Munson: You would not hesitate to do that again should you have that kind of information.
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin: As Mr. Moran explained, this involved an individual near the Lacolle customs office who had just shot at police officers. Our people said very clearly that they will no longer put their lives at risk without adequate equipment and without armed forces at the border.
[English]
Senator Munson: You managed to do a good job of getting a front-page story in the National Post this morning on the issues that concern the CEUDA. Could you be more specific and provide the committee with some examples of dealing with contraband as a secondary goal? The headline was: "National security is compromised by a quota system..." Could you be more specific about how that allegedly works?
Mr. Moran: The issue at hand exists in Atlantic Canada where many vessels dock. For example, a vessel from Venezuela can dock far from the location of the main customs office. If intelligence or educated targeting points to an investigation of that vessel, it could take a few hours just to drive to the dockage site, then more time to perform the search and then two hours to drive back to the customs' office. What happens in such cases has been consistent. Systematically, they are instructed not to do such searches because they are too time-consuming, but to do three to five verifications in the bay where the team is located and where they are asked frequently to do a low-risk search of a vessel. The only goal is to have higher statistics on the number of searches that take place.
Senator Munson: Do you want that changed and, if you do, how can that be done?
Mr. Moran: Fundamentally, the government has created what is clearly a public security, law enforcement focused organization.
Senator Munson: You think it is a public relations exercise.
Mr. Moran: No. We need people with a national law enforcement, public security background to head this up. That is the only way that it can work. You need a notion of what you have in your hands and, as was pointed out by this committee, the focus is and continues to be on generating revenue. Although generating revenue and protecting the economy will always be a central part of the service, it is no longer the primary focus, and that has to be acknowledged and substantiated. Fundamental issues need to be dealt with in terms of addressing those kinds of existing concepts.
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin: There are currently 250 to 260 unpatrolled roads in the country. We absolutely have to be unpredictable at the border. We are too predictable. The RCMP has closed several detachments near the borders. They are no longer ensuring systematic patrols throughout the country.
We have to give our staff the tools they need to do their job properly and safely so that we can carry out our mandate. I have worked at the border, in offices, alone, for 17 years. I know the field and I know their job. These are customs officers talking to you. We represent an organization. I know that you travelled across the country and saw what we are talking about for yourselves. This is what our staff truly feels right now.
[English]
Senator Meighen: I want to pursue the line of investigation that Senator Munson initiated in respect of the widely reported incidents when you received information that someone armed and dangerous would likely present at the border. The result of that was a work stoppage by your membership who were concerned about their safety.
As to whether your members should be armed, you will recall that this committee said it could go along with that if, as was our first preference, the government could provide police protection. If the government could not provide that, then we understood and accepted the case you made for being armed.
In the instances to which we refer when you had information on someone armed and dangerous approaching the border, was a request made for a police presence?
What was the lapse of time between information coming to you that somebody was approaching the border and the moment when the work stoppage was instituted?
Mr. Moran: Let us consider the case in Fort Erie. The police who came to the border had information that the person was armed and dangerous. They had an indication that he was going to cross either at Niagara Falls or Fort Erie. The Fort Erie police showed up at the border in tactical mode with weapons drawn. They placed a police officer in every one of the booths. As the evening progressed, they became unsure. They were tracking him by cellphone. Whenever he phoned they knew where he was. There was a shift change and they moved from the booths to the plaza. At some point they had fewer officers, so they moved to what the officers told me was an underpass, which was several thousand yards from the border crossing itself. The instructions to our members were: "If he comes in, just advise us, let him through and we will intercept him." That is when our members said, "We will not do this under those conditions. If this person is dangerous enough for you to have weapons drawn to intercept him, we will not deal with him."
As I pointed out, he had already shot at a law enforcement officer and hit him. It is a safe assumption that this individual would not hesitate to shoot again.
Senator Meighen: I do not understand why the armed police withdrew, as you say. My other comment is that I do not know the circumstances under which this person shot at and hit a law enforcement officer in the United States. Maybe it was because that law enforcement officer drew his or her gun and, therefore, this person reacted. As I understand, you were being asked to not react to this armed and dangerous person. I presume he would not have any motive to draw his gun and shoot at you. Let the person go through and advise the armed police officers, who would then grab that individual on the Canadian side.
Those are my comments, but I would like to hear from Mr. Fortin.
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin: When the Lacolle incident occurred, I was there. We were not as fortunate as the people in Fort Erie because no police officers arrived when I was there, at the time of the incident.
Senator Meighen: How did you get your information?
Mr. Fortin: We received information from our intelligence services very early that morning. The union was only advised afterwards, in other words after our staff had exercised their right to withdraw from their duties. It is important to note that management's reaction was to order that students replace regular staff.
Following some very strong reactions, the situation was immediately corrected. For obvious reasons, the students were told that there had been a withdrawal from work and that police officers had not shown up.
Senator Meighen: Did you request the presence of police officers?
Mr. Fortin: Yes. Management had requested their assistance. They informed us that one RCMP officer was on duty at that time. The RCMP tried to bring in other officers but the incident ended at 1:15 p.m.
[English]
Senator Meighen: That is the line of questioning I wanted to explore. I do not know if Mr. Moran had anything further on my gratuitous comments as to the circumstances under which the U.S. police officer was shot at and hit. Does it not make sense to not offer any resistance to avoid incidents? If I am armed and dangerous and you wave me through, what likelihood is there that I would shot at you? Why would I shoot? If I want to cross at the border and you let me cross, what is the problem?
Mr. Moran: It is easy from where we are sitting today to make those assumptions. As you were saying earlier, we are not aware of the specific circumstances of the shooting of the law enforcement officer.
I think our organization has lobbied and used the public arena enough that Canadians for the most part are aware that customs officers are not armed, but when we get media calls or comments from the U.S. side, it is clear that they find it hard to believe that we are not armed.
I do not know if you have had a chance to look at what a customs officer dresses like, but with the utility belt and everything else, the assumption of just about every American is that our officers are armed. If an individual sees unusual activity and notices an increase in the police presence, he or she may figure out that it may well be because of something that may be going to happen to them. Who knows what could happen at that point in time? If an armed and dangerous individual who has already shot at a law enforcement officer may well assume everyone is armed, then the likelihood is that shots will be fired in those circumstances.
Senator Atkins: Do I take it from your comments that you are against the quota system?
Mr. Moran: Absolutely.
Senator Atkins: Are the incentives only provided to the managers within the agency?
Mr. Moran: Yes. There is no bonus system for anyone except managers.
Senator Atkins: We were told on one of our trips to Windsor-Detroit that not only are the people on the line expected to proceed quickly, if they take too much time they can be called on the carpet. Is that still the case?
Mr. Moran: Yes, absolutely. I am a customs officer at an airport. You have, for example, somebody whom you have no reason not to admit, but you get all kinds of indicators. You have conducted a secondary examination; you have done a relatively in-depth examination of this person, and because of the countries they travel to and the frequency of their travels and what you assume is their income based on what they tell you they do for a living, there are many things that do not make sense. However, you have no reason not to admit them. As a customs officer, you would like to be able to take 10 to 15 minutes and log all that information, because that is intelligence gathering. That information can become an important part of a puzzle down the road in an investigation. That is a luxury in time that is non-existent.
I work at Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport. We herd them in and herd them out. That is how the operation works. As you saw first-hand in Windsor, there is actual intimidation of the line officers if they take too long in their questioning or if they go into too much depth with any given passenger. They are to move them along or, as you put it, they will be taken to task on it.
Senator Atkins: Are you telling me that the line officers cannot make any basic judgment calls? Do they just follow the rules and procedures and accommodate management?
Mr. Moran: The volumes, as I am sure you are aware, have doubled over the past decade. In some areas, the number of employees has remained static. We have to deal with this volume. We have to deal as well with these new concerns of national security and counterterrorism, and we do not have the resources to do it. If you want to launch a serious war on, for example, copyright and trademark, you have to invest resources. Organized crime will always be entrenched wherever there is easy money to be made and when we do not take advantage of enforcing the law at the point of entry. Everybody has to report to customs. That is brilliant. Everybody is subjected to it. It is your one opportunity to stop individuals and goods. If you do not capitalize on it then and there, you have to hope that another police force somewhere catches up.
Senator Atkins: You are suggesting that your officers should have more of a free hand and be given a little more freedom in terms of the judgment that they would apply.
Mr. Moran: They would like to have a little more of a free hand and be able to use the judgment that they develop. However, the reality is that, if there is a two-mile line up at the border, and you stumble across somebody whom you think you should examine in depth and but the supervisor tells you, "Sorry, but you are going back to the booth and we are continuing to move him along here," then that is what will happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin: I am sure that Mr. Jolicoeur, from the Canada Border Services Agency, will speak about the various programs such as NEXUS, CANPASS and FAST. These programs all aim to speed up the movement of people and goods. They are not necessarily bad programs, but when you take measures intended to make life easier for the general public you also have to increase security in order to strike the right balance.
With globalization, we have become much more focused on increasing the movement of people and goods and more and more people are slipping through. We need to act. The programs are increasing the movement of people but we also need to tighten security at our weak points. There seems to be a lack of interest in funding this because it slows things down, it has an impact on the economy. That is the debate your committee has begun, that is, what is the right balance? We think movement is being favoured because it does not require hiring more staff or putting money into new technology. The budget being quoted is approximately $1 billion. The people on the front line do not see that money. Granted, slowly, new uniforms have been provided. However, today we are telling you that currently in Quebec only 50 per cent of the offices are connected. As Mr. Moran said earlier, thanks to your assistance, the issue is being resolved but the offices are still not connected.
[English]
Senator Atkins: On average, do you think it would slow things down much?
Mr. Moran: If officers were permitted to follow through whenever they get indicators and so on, absolutely, because we do not have the personnel to effectively follow up. Whenever an in-depth secondary or a number of them occurs simultaneously, there is inadequate personnel to deal with them all. You have to deal with them randomly. You cannot blame the supervisors because they are trying to keep the operation heads above water. They may tell us to deal with two and ignore another five, because we do not have the personnel to do them all.
The Chairman: Mr. Moran, on how many occasions will an official conclude that a number of indices are causing him or her concern? Would it be one out of 10, one out of 100 or one out of 1,000? Are we talking about many occasions or a small number of them?
Mr. Moran: I have to give you a little background on how we came across this situation.
As you are aware, because we are of the clear view that a genuine, unbiased risk analysis has not been conducted in the customs stream when it comes to the issue of arming, we commissioned our own. In other words, the front line officers are paying for their own analysis.
The Chairman: I am not talking about arming. I am talking about the situation.
Mr. Moran: I understand that. However, the Northgate Group came to see us last week and told us that they are about to draft a report. They told us that they are consistently coming across information that is not specific to arming, and they asked us how we wanted them to capture it. They said, "It would be unconscionable or immoral for us not to capture it in our report." I asked them to give me an example of that, and the example they used is that, consistently across the country, they were told of the concern of front-line officers that quotas trump their ability to target the targets on which they should be focussing.
We have indicated in our brief that an unaltered version of the findings of our consultants will be shared with your committee. I have asked them to provide that information, which, as I said, is not specific to arming but it is information that they felt they had to capture. It will be included with their specific findings.
The Chairman: I am trying to get an understanding of a couple of things. First, you are not talking about one in 10 people. You are talking about a small percentage of people; is that correct?
Mr. Moran: Do you mean people who are interviewed?
The Chairman: No, I am referring to those people whom you wanted to interview more and check out further.
Mr. Moran: We have intelligence analysts and all they do is set targets.
The Chairman: I am not being clear. You were describing a situation where an individual interviewed someone who wanted to come to Canada and there were a number of indices that made the interviewer curious.
Mr. Moran: This should be logged somewhere. You admit the person because you have no reason not to admit him or her.
The Chairman: How frequently would you estimate that happens? Is it a small or large percentage?
Mr. Moran: In the bigger operations, for example, the Pearson and Pierre Elliott Trudeau airports of the world and the Windsors of the world, it is how they operate. It is a luxury in time to take aside officers and have them log what they think should be logged.
The Chairman: What percentage is that? Does it happen one time in 10 or one time in a thousand?
Mr. Moran: It is hard to put a number to that. I can tell you, as a line officer myself, I have come across situations like that on a regular basis; and that would happen before 9/11.
The Chairman: Mr. Moran, you are not being helpful in this regard. I want an order of magnitude, and my suspicion is that it is a small percentage, but I cannot get you to say that.
Mr. Moran: Definitely, it is a small percentage.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Moran: It definitely is a small percentage. One is too many in our books.
The Chairman: Thank you. That is all I wanted to know.
If it is a small percentage of people, can you document it? Does someone record these concerns concerning someone coming into the country? They find themselves putting people through into the country, and their conscience bothers them because they do not think that person should go in unlogged and unreported. I am trying to get specifics on this. We need to move from your sense and your suspicions to hard facts and cases: "Yes, on this date, this person came into the country. We would have liked to log him. We could not do it because we did not have the time to do it." When we that information, we can take action on it. However, nobody can do anything if you cannot tell us about the magnitude of the problem. If you can say, for example, "This occurred on 10 occasions and, if you want, I can arrange to have the witnesses come before you and they can describe it to you"; or "I have a document here that lists what happened and when it happened," then we can get our teeth into it.
It is difficult for us to address a broad allegation. It is impossible for us to approach the minister or the minister's staff without specific details. We cannot proceed on what is simply unfounded rumour. Can you provide the committee with specific information about when this happens?
Mr. Moran: Absolutely. As I think you are aware more than most, we have been relatively effective at gathering and following up, whenever yours or any other parliamentary committees have placed a specific order on what you would like to see. Very often what we feel is a good avenue to pursue, you might not agree with or vice versa. Clearly, you are indicating today that you would like us to substantiate our comments and get back to you with more details on that specific issue. We will gladly assemble that for you.
The Chairman: We need the date, time, place, why there was concern, and why it was cut off. We could start with a small number of examples. A dozen examples would be fine. Then we can look at it further.
You also testified that you have posts where the volumes have doubled and the staff numbers have remained static. Could you provide the committee with the posts, and demonstrate to the committee the change in volumes and that the staff are static? It is difficult for us to function with specific details.
We need examples of the ports of entry, the staff numbers five or 10 years ago, the volumes that went through then, and then we need to know the staff numbers now and the volume of traffic. That information would be of great assistance to us.
Mr. Moran: That is a simple one to assemble.
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin: Mr. Moran said that Northgate was collecting that kind of information. We will ask them to be specific on the senators' questions. We will try to do the impossible to get more factual answers.
They asked Mr. Moran if they could include that in their report. You will therefore get much more detailed information. The report will come out in December or January and you will receive a copy.
[English]
Senator Atkins: I want to ask you about the booth, the procedure and technology. Is there a better way of providing a more efficient way of dealing with traffic as it is coming through? Do you see that coming down the pike?
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin: Most of our main offices lack staff and consequently are not efficient. Our most pressing need is border security. As I stated earlier, about 50 per cent of our offices are not connected.
The Canada Border Services Agency's plan is based on an analysis. Minister Anne McLellan and Mr. Jolicoeur appeared before the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence and on several occasions told you that they were trying to make sure there was a list of travellers available before departure as well as a detailed analysis.
Currently, the small customs offices at the border do not have a list of travellers. The net is not effective due to our inability to obtain a detailed analysis.
Take, for example, an individual who usually goes through Lacolle or Windsor customs and all of a sudden starts using the smaller customs offices that lack new technology. You have to wonder why. That should raise suspicions. This is a concrete example of what I am trying to tell you. The Canada Border Services Agency's system depends on that analysis. The more information you can have ahead of time, the more effective you can be.
The first thing American customs will do is enter your licence plate number in their system in order to get that analysis. We do not do that but it would make us more effective because we would know who we were speaking to and who we were dealing with.
[English]
Senator Atkins: If you were someone who wanted to come into Canada because you wanted to bring something in that was illegal or whatever, are there posts that are far easier to get through than those?
The Chairman: You do not have to answer if you do not want to.
Mr. Fortin: Between Canada and the U.S., we have 250 unguarded roads where no one is patrolling right now. There is no customs officer there. We even have the decency to keep these roads open wintertime.
Senator Meighen: You have sensors, do you not?
Mr. Fortin: The Americans do, but we do not have them on our side.
The Chairman: Do the Americans share information with you when the border is violated?
Mr. Fortin: The RCMP does have those reports and I think they share it with our intelligence. We have been trying to get those reports, but we are having a hard time getting them, senator.
Senator Atkins: At border crossings is a quota applied to every tenth car or whatever?
Mr. Fortin: No.
The Chairman: When you chose the word "vessel" earlier in your testimony, Mr. Moran, were you specifically talking about ships? You were not talking about trucks or cars. That has only happened at seaports as opposed to at land crossings, is that correct?
Mr. Moran: The phenomenon seems to be predominant in marine mode as opposed to other modes.
Senator Forrestall: You told us you that you are to get more detailed information from a company doing survey work. Is that survey work being done at the request of the union or is it an independent study?
Mr. Moran: It is an independent study commissioned by the union. We did approach the CBSA and ask that it be done jointly in light of the fact that there was confirmation that the findings on arming in the initial report that was commissioned by the government had been altered. We said we wanted somebody who has the expertise to assess the risk. We asked the agency. Not only did they refuse to jointly do it, they refused the company access to the work sites.
However, that has backfired on the agency because many people, including managers, are coming in to testify, people who we believe would never have done it in broad daylight, so to speak, at the work sites themselves. They are conducting interviews off-site, very often in hotel meeting rooms or so on. The officers go off-hours and, by the end of the study, will have interviewed between 350 and 400 front-line staff of intelligence investigators, uniformed officers and front-line managers.
Senator Forrestall: The minister will be with us this afternoon. If you had the opportunity to ask her a question, what would you ask?
Mr. Moran: We are focusing our brief on putting in place a border patrol. In our opinion, that would be a tangible move in the right direction. It is, or should be, a troubling thought for anyone that there are no resources dedicated to patrolling the border between points of entry. Currently, no one is doing that.
As Commissioner Zaccardelli clearly testified before the Commons Justice Committee, the RCMP does not see itself as a visible police force on the border. Rather, the RCMP envisions itself participating in IBETs and, therefore, as taking on an intelligence and investigation role, which is important. However, it cannot be done in the absence of a visible police force.
Law enforcement specialists around the world agree that visible patrolling is the single most effective deterrent. When we are driving and we see a patrol car, we watch our speed more carefully. That is human nature. If there is a visible police force presence, people are not as likely to be tempted to break the law.
The border patrol would be the one element that our organization would ask Minister McLellan to consider. It would assist in other situations as well, such as one-person operations and as back-up when something goes wrong at the border. Patrollers would be in the immediate vicinity to offer assistance, and sometimes they would be right at the facility.
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin: Just to give you a picture of what we are dealing with, according to the figures we received, there are approximately 4,600 people entering the country illegally. You wonder why people are using the unpatrolled routes that become, so to speak, "illegal".
We obtained our information through access to information. They do not keep a list of the people they catch because, in our opinion, they do not catch them — especially since the RCMP no longer systematically patrols the border.
I will give you a concrete example. In Quebec, operations have been carried out in relation to the increasingly widespread phenomenon of marijuana plantations along both sides of the border. The RCMP pointed out how effective they had been after last summer's big seizure in Bedford, during Operation CURE.
The heads of operations are located within one to two kilometres of the border. They have continuous access to these routes. The RCMP told us they had been effective because they had gotten results. However, according to the Sûreté du Québec, the investigation took 15 years. What happened over those 15 years?
Granted, we got results and we are very proud of that. We were involved in the operation. When I say, however, that we have to be unpredictable, that is what I mean. That is what is important. Currently, we are predictable.
[English]
Senator Forrestall: Of the 250 open border crossings, how many do the Americans keep an eye on?
Mr. Fortin: They keep an eye on all of them. Their border patrol systemically patrols all of those roads. Since 9/11, they have more than doubled their patrolling on the northern border.
Senator Forrestall: Among the other things you are telling us that you are not happy with, is the Integrated Border Enforcement Team, IBET.
Mr. Moran: No, I said only that IBET is essential in any law enforcement organization. You have to have intelligence gathering in the context of customs international investigations. We are also saying that those cannot be carried out at the expense of patrolling the border. You cannot imply that IBETs can be carried out effectively in lieu of patrolling the border. That is our message. We are not saying they are unimportant because, in fact, they are essential.
The Chairman: If I may, Senator Forrestall, I have a brief supplementary. For the benefit of the committee, would you indicate what kind of qualifications your membership has to carry on such a function? I do not see it contemplated anywhere. Could you indicate to the committee what would qualify you to carry on these tasks in addition to your understanding of the legislation that you currently enforce? What skills and training do your members have in police work?
Mr. Moran: I want to be clear on your question, senator. You are asking what additional training or what capacity customs officers have that would extend to the role of border patrol?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Moran: In our view, it would have to be a distinct job description, as we mentioned in our brief. People would have to apply and qualify for the position of border patrol. Such a role is as close as you can get to police work because a patrol would be required to go into the bush, do surveillance work, and deal with the unexpected as well as the expected from intelligence information gathered. Specifically, a person would have to meet a standard that likely would be at least comparable to that of a police officer to carry out that kind of duty. Does that answer your question?
The Chairman: Yes, it does very well.
Why would you not recommend to this committee that police officers do this work and, thereby, enhance their understanding of the statutes in respect of customs work?
Mr. Moran: Under the existing law, it is the mandate of the RCMP. As you know, Commissioner Zaccardelli appeared before the Commons Justice Committee and indicated that the RCMP has no appetite for becoming a visible police force on the border, but that it will continue to go to a border crossing according to specific intelligence that it receives on a specific investigation. As the specific day-to-day eyes and ears on the ground, the RCMP does not see its organization as playing that role. In their absence, someone else must do it. We have come to the table with the solution that is before this committee: the customs service should do it.
The Chairman: We do not want you to put words in Commissioner Zaccardelli's mouth so we will invite him to appear before the committee. Did he not indicate to you that, given his resource limitations, he was taking care of his responsibilities respecting the border as effectively as he could?
Mr. Moran: The Commissioner of the RCMP was not always clear that it was a problem of resources as much as it was a refocusing of what they thought would be in the best interests of Canadians. I suspect you are right, though, that there is a definite resource problem within the RCMP.
Commissioner Zaccardelli went as far as defining "border patrolling" as "burning gas." In other words, he said that it was a waste. That brings many concerns into question. For example, why do the Americans still patrol their border? Do we know something that the Americans do not know? Why is pre-emptive patrolling going on in all of the communities of this nation? Visible patrolling is a recognized deterrent that needs to occur. Commissioner Zaccardelli went further than just saying he does not have the resources. In fact, I do not think he ever said that. He implied that it is a waste of time, energy and resources to have patrols at the border, a position with which we strongly disagree.
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin: Why us and not the RCMP? There is a simple answer to that. We are already deployed in 147 locations along the border. Who knows the ground better than we do? Who knows better than we do what is happening between customs locations?
Second, we currently have no agreement with the RCMP on catching people going right through our customs offices. The same is true for the Sûreté du Québec. No one has this responsibility.
Last, staff working alone in the booths needs assistance in order to carry out their mandate. In the smaller offices, they are working alone. The agency's policy is very clear: if there is any question of danger, allow them to pass. Is that the kind of customs Canadians want? That is what we are asking.
[English]
Senator Forrestall: You have implied a serious charge in your presentation that Canada Border Services Agency officials have been less than truthful when appearing before parliamentary committees. I assume that is not just this committee; that it includes the committee in the other place. Do you have any examples to substantiate this claim, and are you in a position to provide the committee with documentation in this regard?
Mr. Moran: My colleague was just using the example that it was brought to the attention of the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights. There was testimony brought forward that memorandums of agreement exist with regard to port runners. Port runners are not people who travel on unguarded roads. They go to a legitimate border crossing. They do not stop at the primary inspection booth, or, if they are instructed to report for a secondary inspection by the PIL officer, they bolt north. It was implied that memorandums of agreement exist between the police forces and the customs service on how to deal with those. We are telling you that no such agreements exist. That is one example.
Another example is the ModuSpec report. We represent people who proudly enforce the laws of this nation. It is one thing to stick your head in the sand and not want to deal with how the job has changed, but it is another thing to bury evidence and to present a report as though it were something that it is not. That is a Criminal Code offence, if you want to push it to the extreme. If your own adviser in the domain of risk analysis tells you that you must have an armed presence at certain named locations, and that is then taken out of his report and that report is portrayed as his report, that is very troubling, if you push it to the extreme. I assume that your committee was troubled by it because you pointed out in your Borderline Insecure report that the ModuSpec report had been falsified.
Senator Forrestall: This is a job for the Halifax Rifles.
Mr. Moran: I do not understand what you mean by that.
The Chairman: Be grateful.
Senator Forrestall: Perhaps I should put it another way. Do you have a developed thought about the use of reserve units across Canada to meet some of these problems? Do you have an opinion as to whether or not reserve or militia units across the country, many of which have been stood down as not being required, might be retrained or trained specifically to do border control work? Do you have an opinion with respect to their usefulness in this role?
Mr. Moran: I would suggest that the majority of the new recruits who come to the service are law enforcement minded. They would have no trouble qualifying and would want to do this type of work.
By the same token, we have a number of officers in the twilight of their careers. They tell us that they were never hired to do policing work. They were never hired to pull drunks out of cars, which is now part of the work that is carried on at the border. Many would not want to do this work, or would not qualify if they were interested. However, there would be absolutely no problem staffing and achieving the interest level that would be required to put this type of border patrol in place.
Senator Forrestall: Would that be from within your own ranks?
Mr. Moran: For the most part, it would be. I have no doubt that there are parts of the country that would have to go outside. For the most part, there would be enough of an interest from within to staff those positions.
Senator Forrestall: Good luck.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Chairman, was the question of labour relations and grievances raised? Excuse me for being late.
The Chairman: In a broad sense we have been talking about labour relations, but not in a specific sense.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: My questions are on your labour relations with the agency. As you know, the committee travelled throughout Canada. We asked the agency to give us specific information on the state of their labour relations.
I read over your introductory comments briefly and it is my impression that things have gotten worse since the agency provided us with the number of grievances between you and the agency.
I would like to know what the general nature of these grievances is without going into detail. Do they deal with the workload compared to the number of employees at the border points? Are they administrative issues?
Mr. Fortin: Are you referring to the grievances dealing with the right to withdraw from work that our staff exercised?
Senator Nolin: I assume that is why you decided to withdraw, because there was a dangerous environment. That is your right.
Mr. Fortin: Exactly. We tried to explain to the committee that it is up to the inspectors themselves to exercise that right. Our organization does not secretly plan these things.
Senator Nolin: Could you explain, for the benefit of all of us, what you mean by inspectors, which inspectors? Who pays them? Who are they? What is their role?
Mr. Fortin: We are referring to the customs officers in Fort Erie, at Lacolle, in those areas where our staff exercised their right to withdraw from their duties. For example, a police officer on the American side had been shot at. According to our information, the individual was heading towards our border point.
The customs officers acted in accordance with part II of the Canada Labour Code. They withdrew from their duties because they were not adequately equipped to face that threat and there were no police officers available at that location when the incident occurred.
To be very clear, these are claims that the union has made, but we did not tell our staff to withdraw as soon as a situation became dangerous.
Senator Nolin: My question was of a more general nature. The agency has told us that there are 1,690 grievances pending. I have the impression that that number has quite likely increased since we were given the information. What is the nature of those grievances? Do they deal with safety? Workload? The ratio of workload to number of customs officers deployed at a specific location? Management? Is it an issue of lack of adequate training for the required workload? That is what I am trying to understand.
Mr. Fortin: I would say that our workplace is not much different from other workplaces. Most of the grievances that have been laid over the last few months and years are on the matter of position classification and job description.
When I speak with the media, I often tell them we have police officers at the border. We have people who have the same authority as police officers. We have breathalyser tests at our border crossings.
Our staff have laid many grievances to the effect that they have not been remunerated accordingly. It is a question of acknowledgement. If you want to acknowledge their true value, then you need to remunerate them according to what they are being asked to perform.
Most of the grievances come from customs officers, inspectors, intelligence officers and trade policy officers.
Approximately two weeks ago, we were told that a grievance had not been heard because of its classification. The very creation of our organization has caused these kinds of problems. There was a group of managers who were classified MG, Management. These people have to go back to their previous classification. It seems that the organization had to do this because of the legislation. They are just as unhappy as we are.
Senator Nolin: If I have understood correctly, your grievances deal with remuneration?
Mr. Fortin: Remuneration with respect to job description. Our staff are comparable with Parks Canada officers and Fisheries and Oceans Canada officers. We are comparable to similar organizations without presuming to be 100 per cent comparable to police officers. Our salaries should be somewhere between what we are earning now and what police officers earn. That is not currently the case.
Senator Nolin: You mentioned breathalyser tests and specific equipment that your officers use. What is the level of training provided for these officers to be able to use that equipment?
Mr. Moran: I would just like to point out that in terms of grievances, it is important to understand that grievances cannot deal with operations. Management, the employer, has the absolute right to decide how their operations will function, what the level of training will be, how many people will be required, what type of exam these people will have to pass and how much they will have to do. That is management's absolute right. We cannot lay grievances dealing with that. No labour tribunal will rule on that. That is an absolute right.
Senator Nolin: Let us make sure we understand each other. If, for example, I, the employer, ask you to use certain equipment for a certain type of work, then I must provide you with adequate training. If you do not feel that you have been adequately trained, you can tell your employer that you do not agree with the level of training you have been given. The employee is therefore making a complaint.
Mr. Moran: Absolutely, but it will not be through a grievance. The employer only has formal recourse when his or her personal safety is threatened. Earlier, we talked about right of refusal, the right to file a complaint to the authorities involved in security, but nothing beyond that. Our only other recourse is to appear before your committee and hope to put forward these constraints and argue that the public interest is at stake in the work of our employees.
Mr. Fortin: We do not systematically have grievances against our employer with regard to training. For example, to become a border officer now, we are talking about 13 weeks' training, which is very similar to that of police officers in Nicolet or other police forces. When our officers were trained to use pepper spray and night sticks, they got exactly the same training as RCMP officers, because they were trained by RCMP officers in Regina.
Our standards are higher than that of police officers because every three years, our officers get three days of new training in order to keep up their skills.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you for appearing before us. There is some specific information we have asked for and look forward to it in the future.
We would like to contact you with some more questions, and if you could give them your attention we would be grateful.
To members and the public viewing this program, if you have any questions or comments please visits our website by going to www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony as well as confirmed hearing schedules. 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.
We have before us the Honourable Anne McLellan who, on June 28, 2004, was elected to her fourth term as Member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre. First appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in December 2003, Ms. McLellan was reappointed to those positions in July 2004.
In addition to her ministerial duties, Ms. McLellan chairs two cabinet committees, the Operations Committee and the Security, Public Health and Emergencies Committee. She also sits on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee and, as Deputy Prime Minister, is an ex officio member of all other cabinet committees.
Previously, Ms. McLellan was Minister of Health, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Natural Resources and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-status Indians. That is a spectacular record, minister.
With her is Alain Jolicoeur, President, Canada Border Services Agency. Mr. Jolicoeur has held that position since December 2003. He has been with the Public Service of Canada since 1973. He has served in a number of different positions with Environment Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. In July of 1999 he became Associate Deputy Minister, National Revenue, and Deputy Commissioner of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
In September 2002, he was named Deputy Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and occupied that post until assuming his current position.
Minister, we understand you have a statement you would like to make to the committee.
Hon. Anne McLellan, P.C., M.P., Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you Bill C-26, to establish the Canada Border Services Agency.
As you undoubtedly are aware, this is largely a machinery bill that vests in the CBSA the same powers and authorities that exist in portions of its three legacy organizations. However, the creation of the CBSA has strengthened our capacity to facilitate legitimate cross-border traffic and trade and respond quickly and effectively to threats that face the country.
This proposed legislation is a critical step toward delivering on the Government of Canada's core commitment to protect the safety and security of Canadians.
With the passage earlier this year of Bill C-6, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, we have integrated the core activities of the previous Department of the Solicitor General, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, and the National Crime Prevention Centre.
With the passage of Bill C-26, we will be integrating key tasks in border management, including customs and immigration operations at border points, airports and seaports, enforcement and intelligence activities and the inspection of food, plants and animal imports.
Bringing together interrelated functions from the former CCRA, CIC and the CFIA enables the new agency to strengthen Canada's capacity to protect the security and prosperity of our citizens.
[Translation]
This legislation will firmly establish the CBSA and provide it with the management structure and legal authorities necessary to anticipate and respond to our ever-increasing security challenges.
[English]
We know that the creation of this agency has meant a sharper focus on what this committee has identified as a key priority — border security. Passage of this bill is needed to confirm this direction and ensure that the agency has a foundation in legislation and can carry forward the border security initiatives needed in the management of a modern-day border.
Let me talk briefly about the initiatives that embody our goals and priorities for this agency.
Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity we have had to meet you since you published your report on border security. While the government has not responded officially, I would like to offer some comments, and I would like to start by, again, thanking you and your committee for your ongoing work and interest. It is clear that the level of commitment and expertise that your committee has developed is probably unique in the federal government at this time, and I want to thank you for the ongoing commitment that your committee has taken up in relation to issues around national security.
We are always looking for ways to work together to enhance the safety and prosperity of our country. Since September 11, 2001, the government has invested over $9 billion, as you know, to protect Canadians against threats of all kinds. The Government of Canada is committed to building on the foundations that we initiated in the machinery changes of December 2003, with the creation of this new department.
We are doing this through increased targeted investments in the CBSA and elsewhere. For example, Budget 2005 provided more than $500 million in new funding to improve border security and management.
Among other things, an additional 270 border services officers will be hired over the next five years. I would add that a part of these funds is being invested in measures to improve the health and safety of our border service officers.
The CBSA also recently received funding from Treasury Board to replace the Primary Automated Lookout System, otherwise known as PALS, with a system that can read government issued documents and licence plate readers at high volume sites. It will allow border services officers to search enforcement databases for lost, stolen or fraudulent documents and display intelligence information in real time.
We are committed to securing our borders and the CBSA's efforts to date have been, I believe, successful. Does that mean that we do not have more to do? No, it does not, as your report has indicated. However, considering that CBSA is still a relatively young organization, a great deal has been accomplished.
We stop people and goods that pose a risk to Canada, we facilitate legitimate cross-border traffic that supports Canada's economic development, and we maintain a border that ensures both Canada and the United States benefit from the fluid movement of travellers and goods.
This committee's recommendations to date have been both helpful and essential and have assisted in shaping border management. For example, given the importance of national and economic security here and south of the border, we agree that capacity must exist to accommodate expanding trade at vital border crossings, such as the Windsor-Detroit gateway. To that end, we are working closely with the United States and operators on both sides of the border to provide the leadership and the investments necessary to improve traffic flows and to reduce wait times, which I know is a preoccupation for us all across the Windsor-Detroit gateway, by 25 per cent by the end of 2005.
You probably know the 25 per cent number as the "25 per cent challenge," which was announced by my former colleague Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge and myself in Detroit in December of 2003.
Steps taken since 2004 include improving infrastructure in the United States and hiring an additional 30 border service officers in Windsor. Sixteen of those officers have successfully completed our training program and are working on site; 10 are currently being trained; and four will start their training soon.
On this most important topic of training, I want to highlight the development of a new integrated program which focuses on preparing recruits to perform a variety of duties at ports of entry in customs, immigration, plants, animal and food inspection, as well as the use of force.
The program is being piloted this year and will be adjusted as necessary, according to lessons learned in 2006. The first class of recruits graduated this past June.
I am pleased to announce, Mr. Chair, that the progress to date indicates that not only is the 25 per cent challenge being met, it is also being exceeded for both traveller and commercial traffic. I have seen the first concrete documented results around the 25 per cent challenge, and it is fair to say that they are outstanding. We are exceeding that challenge now, which is why we are getting requests from, for example, the Niagara area to extend the 25 per cent challenge to other border crossings in this country.
Certainly, in the future, that will clearly be our goal. To date, where the 25 per cent challenge is in place, the results are remarkable. You may have your own views on that, but the numbers — and I do not know whether they have been shared with you but I can leave them with you — speak, both on the commercial side and on the traveller side, to a very clear commitment on both sides of the border to move traffic through these key points.
As well, we are moving forward with land pre-clearance pilot projects at two locations, one on each side of the border. Anticipating that these planned infrastructure projects will better position border agencies to respond to a future increase in volume, we are in the process of negotiating a legally binding agreement with the United States. However, you can imagine that, on both sides of the border, this is a complex process. On both sides of the border, legislative change will be required but our negotiators, our officials and lawyers on both sides, are working hard with clear instructions to try to ensure that this happens as quickly as possible.
Following up on another of your recommendations, the CBSA has accelerated its plans to provide connectivity for remote ports and has made significant progress to connect unconnected sites. Of the 43 sites that are not connected, 39 will be connected by May 2006.
As far as we have come, Mr. Chair, more needs to be done, particularly in the effort to press forward on the agenda for the new security and prosperity for North America planned by our Prime Minister, the United States President and the President of Mexico in March of this year. We are extending our collaboration to include Mexico as we work on trilateral issues to boost North American prosperity and security. Together, we face shared security challenges and, at the same time, aim to improve our competitiveness as a trading bloc in the global market. We will continue our united fight against terrorism, human and drug trafficking and cross-border crime.
Today, in terms of Canada-U.S. cooperation, Foreign Affairs Canada is submitting our official response to the State Department in their consultation period on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, otherwise known as WHTI. We want to avoid and mitigate complications that this proposed measure may involve. More importantly, we want and are committed to work with the United States on document integrity and joint security measures that make the border more secure to meet our common objectives.
On the international trade front, we have worked with our U.S. and international partners to achieve the widespread adoption of the World Customs Organization Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade. I will not even begin to create an acronym out of that title. This has allowed us to push the borders out, enabling all 115 signatory countries to better manage and integrate the global supply chain, while promoting security and facilitating trade in all modes.
Mr. Chair, and honourable senators, this committee has indicated that there must be a culture change at the CBSA, away from tax collection and toward engaging in the fight against terrorism. I would argue that the culture that the new CBSA is building is well under way and moving in the direction that you indicated.
I know this to be true because managing the border is no longer limited to physically placing people at strategic locations. Like you, we believe that it also requires partnerships and dialogue with key stakeholders here and abroad, as well as with our public safety and security partners. Partnerships are key to the CBSA's success, and dialogue is critical so that we stay connected with stakeholders and clients to understand their expectations, priorities, issues and perspectives.
It also requires the knowledge, know-how and sophisticated technologies in the development of strategies and initiatives to move clearing processes away from the border and facilitate the movement of lawful people and trade, while never compromising security and safety.
As an example of its leadership in the area of technology, the CBSA was recently honoured at this year's Government Technology Week distinction awards. These awards recognize and celebrate leadership, innovation and excellence in the management and use of information and information technologies at all levels of the public service in Canada.
G-Tech is a fierce and prestigious competition, and this year the CBSA was the most recognized organization, winning five gold medals. I would like to publicly congratulate the president, Mr. Jolicoeur, and everyone who works at the CBSA for this outstanding distinction in being awarded these five gold medals. Among these was a gold medal for the targeting tool called Titan. As you know, that is a risk assessment computer model that evaluates risk on commercial cargo. Canada has been using this tool to ensure the security of the supply chain. We are confident it is the best targeting tool in the world today. The NEXUS highway program also was recognized with a gold medal.
All of these examples and others such as developing a stronger analytical capacity within the CBSA, promoting the role of science and technology in every part of the agency, focusing on smarter approaches and strategies to border management, accelerating the development of the Smart Border initiatives and taking a leadership role in the international scene have contributed to firmly establishing the new CBSA culture. They also demonstrate the fundamental new approach this government has taken to meet the new challenges we are facing today.
The CBSA has spent the past 22 months building an efficient and streamlined organization and has assembled a competent and knowledgeable team of professionals representing all facets of border management. Its position within PSEP strengthens its relationships with other portfolio agencies such as the RCMP and CSIS.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, I am proud of what the CBSA has achieved in its 22 months of existence. It is successfully weathering the transition of reorganization, while continuing normal day-to-day operations and dealing with urgent national and international challenges.
[English]
Being in the public safety and security business means our job is never done. Honourable senators can rest assured that we are constantly looking at ways to improve, because one can never do too much to protect our society.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to acknowledge your requests by way of the Library of Parliament to the heads of agencies, as well as myself and other ministers, for information and updates on the status of your recommendations. I reiterate our commitment to work with you and assist you as much as we can in your work.
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with your committee today. I look forward to answering your questions and receiving your suggestions and comments.
Senator Forrestall: We welcome both to you and Mr. Jolicoeur. You have done an excellent job. You are making progress.
In the last three or four minutes, you dealt with some of the issues that are of concern to this committee. In April, you talked about transparency. Would you expand on that subject for us today? I will then have two or three other questions.
Ms. McLellan: When I was here in April, 2005, I talked about the importance of transparency. For a host of reasons, I believe that it is key to everything my department does. The public wants to be reassured about our spending of their tax dollars, and they want to know the effectiveness of that spending. Obviously, committees like yours want to know what we are doing and whether we are expending our resources in the most cost-effective way in aid of protecting Canadian security and facilitating trade. My commitment to transparency and accountability is clear.
Last time we discussed certain aspects of that, particularly as those relate to the release of various kinds of information. Mr. Jolicoeur, I know that you were here when I made the commitment and you are implementing parts of that commitment to transparency.
Obviously, senators, we have the normal kinds of oversight and audits. As senators are aware, the Auditor General carefully watches what we do in the whole area of national security, with the CBSA being a key part of that. We evaluate everything we do, whether it is the effectiveness of the 25 per cent challenge or whether we are achieving our targets related to our risk assessment models, such as Titan. We also evaluate our ability to ensure that we expend resources intelligently to produce the desired results.
Mr. Jolicoeur might want to be more specific about his current project.
Alain Jolicoeur, President, Canada Border Services Agency: We are working on aspects of these areas. Obviously, we share the view that the only way to improve from year to year is to be more transparent about results. The specific concerns of senators at our last discussion were about the ability of our targeting machinery to allow us to inspect where inspections are warranted. As well, the committee wanted to see some numbers reflecting results. We have committed to, and we will deliver on, showing global results by the end of this fiscal year in terms of success, using targeting analysis vis-à-vis success. We will utilize random sampling of containers or trucks. We will have those global numbers and then determine how we can be more specific, without being specific about local rates of inspection, because that would create some difficulty.
Senator Forrestall: That was not very transparent, I suggest to you, Minister. I once described Bill C-26 in a radio interview as a dangling participle with which the minister had to deal. We now have it and you will have it back shortly. How do you assess the effectiveness of transparency? How do you gauge it?
Ms. McLellan: Are you asking how to measure the effectiveness of transparency as opposed to the effectiveness of the tool?
Senator Forrestall: That would leave us no questions to ask you in our report.
Ms. McLellan: You will always have questions. In a sense, it would be up to you to tell us. There are degrees of transparency, obviously. As Mr. Jolicoeur has tried to explain, in some situations we will choose not to provide site-specific numbers. It might be a small site or that numbers would reveal things about our operations that, in the interest of national security, should not be revealed. Certainly, we could talk about that.
In respect of providing global numbers, we are committed to obtaining the information on our targets, how we do it, what the results are and whether we are being effective. You might say that global numbers are not good enough and, for certain sites, you would like specific numbers. This committee might well choose to make that request. I will certainly take that request seriously.
We are moving in stages to try to meet the request that you and others have made in respect of transparency. It is like everything else, I think, in this area. A business such as ours is a continuum and an ongoing challenge. I am not one who would say that I have done everything that I need to do around transparency and accountability. I do not think that is the way of the world. Depending on what we learn, how we deal with business and technology, we can always be more transparent or, in certain cases, we might choose, having made the case, to not provide specific information. Transparency, whether we have met the standard, is very much in the eye of the beholder, whether that is the committee, the public, or those who use the borders. There may be different demands for different kinds of transparency. Therefore, we need to continue to work on it and take the advice of this committee and other committees.
Senator Forrestall: Could you give us a specific example of where, between April and October, you have moved with respect to openness?
Ms. McLellan: We are working on the goal of providing global information to you by the end of this fiscal year. Part of it is, of course, collecting enough data for an assessment to determine whether it answers our questions around transparency, or at least some of them. If it does not, then we have to determine where the gaps are. The deadline is the end of this fiscal year. We hope that we will have a body of data for presentation to the committee on our effectiveness with these various targeting tools.
Have I explained that accurately?
Mr. Jolicoeur: Absolutely, minister. As you said, your reaction to the first report will be one of the guides for the department to determine further development. Now, processes and reports are moving in that direction, but they appear at the highest level. As senators are aware, we report to Parliament each year with our departmental performance report on the plan for that specific year. Below that, we have other kinds of reports. You are asking, at the level of the organization's tactics and the specific use of analytical tools, to make some decisions at the local level. This is why we are coming up with a window or a dashboard that you will probably find useful but, if you do not find it so, we will continue to work on it.
Senator Forrestall: Are the unions involved in this process?
Mr. Jolicoeur: No.
Senator Forrestall: Why is that?
Mr. Jolicoeur: Why would they be involved?
Senator Forrestall: In the name of openness; and they are Canadian citizens.
Mr. Jolicoeur: Certainly, they will get their report but this is an operational question.
Senator Forrestall: That is a convenient answer for the department.
Mr. Jolicoeur: No, it is not. If you want to design a car, you work with the designers, then everyone is interested because they want to buy or to not buy that car. Then it is improved.
Senator Nolin: I am sure designers question drivers.
Mr. Jolicoeur: Sure.
Ms. McLellan: The drivers are our clients. They are the people who cross the border every day and who buy the service.
Mr. Jolicoeur: People look at how the border is managed, like car drivers look at cars. Everybody looks at how the border is managed. From that, we receive all kinds of input. There is no question about that. Take the land border as opposed to the perimeter. There are people in front of the border and people behind the border. When I cross the border, I see a border officer with our new CBSA uniform. I interact with the officer and either I am sent to secondary or I am not sent. In that way, I am able to determine how the border is managed.
If we give the border agency one more dollar and people were asked where that dollar should be put, I expect they would say that we need a few more border officers or officers at the official ports of entry, et cetera.
The analogy is that of a football game. We want to be tougher and cover as much territory as possible. The more we do of that, the better we will do.
If you ask the people in the background, because there are four levels of security clearance in the organization and you have other people with more information about intelligence, they would say, "No, the game that is being played at the border against terrorists and organized crime is more of a chess game. It is not a football game, it is a chess game. What counts are not how many bodies you have on the frontline, but how you can outsmart the other side. What kind of an analysis will tell you where to look and what to worry about?"
The people I am asking to produce the kind of report that we want are those who look at the game as a chess game as opposed to a football game. They see it at another level. This year this organization is hiring the most successful Ph.D. graduate in mathematics in the country. That person is coming to our organization because that person understands the kind of challenge that we are facing and what we are trying to do. We are not playing football. We are playing chess. The people who will design this will do it from an analytical perspective. They look at it from a numbers perspective. This is pure maths and modeling. Then it will be on the table for unions, employees, and the public to have a look and decide whether it is successful or not. We need a strong analysis first. This is what we are doing.
Senator Forrestall: While we welcome what you have said this morning, we are somewhat concerned about the culture change, the need to address the ongoing question of an armed patrol or security for those officers. Government has done a study and unions have commissioned a study, so we will have two studies with conflicting views. The one thing we do not have, that speaks to openness, is the statistical data respecting what is happening. That is not accessible to this committee. It is not that it is being withheld; it is just not being collected. I see that as a bit of a problem and I would appreciate it if you would address it in a general way.
Ms. McLellan: We have provided statistical data in relation to a number of questions that you submitted to us around, for example, incidents involving officers at the border.
You may be suggesting that that information is incomplete, and it may well be. In that sense, we probably need to ensure that we are collecting all the reasonable information that needs to be collected so that we can get a complete picture of what is happening at the border, both in terms of the comings and goings and the nature of our targeting, and also in terms of incidents involving our officers and implications for safety and security. If that information is not being collected in an appropriate way, then I would be most interested in your recommendations.
I do know that we have provided you with some information, some statistics around that. If it is not the right information or if you think it is not enough or detailed enough, please tell us and I will take that up and we will see how we can move forward in terms of collecting better and more detailed particulars.
Senator Forrestall: Minister, it is not the intention of this committee to manage in a micro, macro or any other way whatsoever. We would just like to see information on the table being available to those people who are interested. I suspect that not everyone is interested. It may be a relatively small number of Canadians. You might receive a pile of complaints but not everybody is interested. However, for those who are and can make contributions, because of their interest and expertise, it is important that the information be collected cleanly.
I leave that with you.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Madam Minister, Mr. Jolicoeur, it is a pleasure to see you again. My first question will deal with the underlying reasons for this bill.
[English]
Is there any new power or a change in powers given to the new agency through the bill, or is the purpose of the bill to create a new structure?
Ms. McLellan: It is largely about the constructing of a new agency, bringing together parts of three, what we call, legacy organizations. Through this legislation, one hopes to integrate those three powers, even in the context of training our officers, bringing skills together through our new training program so that we have what one would describe as not three separate parts under one umbrella, but an agency where people are integrated. That is our goal.
Senator Nolin: There would be no new powers?
Mr. Jolicoeur: No, now every employee, no matter where he or she comes from, will have the power that was given to the other employee, with the exception that one of the provisions will allow this organization to provide service to other organizations in the portfolio of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Ms. McLellan: That is within public safety.
Mr. Jolicoeur: It is so that we can work together.
Senator Nolin: That is the only one.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: My next questions will deal with workplace safety. Mr. Jolicoeur, you are certainly familiar with incidents that occurred at certain border stations, during which officers decided to withdraw, believing that their safety was not being insured.
I would like to hear your comments on that. What measures have been taken to make sure this does not happen again?
Mr. Jolicoeur: This happened at several border crossings over the past three months and sometimes on several occasions at the same border crossing in various incidents.
Such acts are covered under the Canada Labour Code. The purpose of the code is to ensure that no one is forced to work in a situation of undue risk. When that happens, there is a process that consists in asking Labour Canada to conduct an investigation and decide whether or not the situation was potentially dangerous and justified a work stoppage.
On each of these occasions, the Labour Canada inspectors conducted an investigation and submitted recommendations, and each time, they concluded there was no danger, and that the employees could continue their work.
If this type of situation happens often, it becomes a labour relations issue. I do not think that we will wait for the 128th decision to convince our employees that in such cases, competent authorities have concluded that there was no problem.
Senator Nolin: Without going into great detail, if an armed individual commits criminal acts on the American side and comes back to Canada, what I understand from your testimony, is that inspectors from Labour Canada would not have to deem this sufficiently alarming for an officer who has responsibility for enforcing the law on the Canadian side to feel endangered because such an individual is coming across.
Mr. Jolicoeur: You are absolutely right. It is the correct interpretation, it is a clear and precise decision that was repeated again and again in different situations, and in different ports. On several occasions in the same port, each time, the conclusion of different Labour Canada officers who reviewed each situation separately was that this did not justify a work stoppage.
Senator Nolin: I understand that our country is serious and that this is known worldwide. American border officers warn their Canadian colleagues when an ill-intentioned individual will be arriving from the United States. If that individual has a sufficiently reprehensible attitude in the United States for American border officers to warn us, we must not imagine that this ill-intentioned individual will stop being that way simply because that is just not done in Canada and that he will somehow respect that. Between you and me, that does not make sense.
Mr. Jolicoeur: You are asking me to say that the decision by each of the Labour Canada experts was wrong. I am not an expert in security.
Senator Nolin: These are publicly known facts. There is an ill-intentioned individual in the United States and he is coming to Canada. You think that American border officers will tell us that they had trouble with him and that perhaps we will too in Canada, and Labour Canada will say that it is not that serious.
Mr. Jolicoeur: There are two things here. Under no circumstances do we ever ask our employees to put themselves in danger and confront an individual who is out of control. That is the job of the police.
In the case of incidents where we are warned ahead of time, the police is also notified. The police is there to support us. That is not really the job of our officers.
Senator Nolin: You are talking about police officers and that brings me to another question. Have you considered increasing police presence at our borders?
Mr. Jolicoeur: Perhaps the minister would prefer to answer that.
[English]
Ms. McLellan: We are aware of the interest of this committee and others in terms of the increase of police presence at the borders, or some form of armed presence at the borders, or at least key border crossings that represent the vast majority of activity at our borders. In fact, we have taken this up and at this point the CBSA and the RCMP — I have met with Mr. Jolicoeur and Commissioner Zaccardelli — are in the process of determining how best to ensure that at least at key identified major border crossings we have an enhanced armed presence. Whether this happens in the context of our Integrated Border Enforcement Teams, which already exist in 15 locations, or whether it happens in some other forum, we are conscious of the concern that has been expressed by you, by the union representatives, for example, in terms of the desire to see an enhanced presence, armed, dare I say, at the border. Consequently, I am hopeful that we will be able to indicate the way forward in this regard in the coming months.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Jolicoeur, I will continue discussing security measures. Last week you were in Toronto at the international mail sorting centre. Your own managers raised an issue ten times last year — this may seem banal, but to my mind it is not — which was that they had to evacuate the premises because of packages containing grenades. They were asked what kind of legislative amendments they would like to see. That was one of their recommendations. I took a quick look, but I did not see any amendments to the Criminal Code targeting this type of new offence. There are measures such as wearing Kevlar gloves, for instance, to handle packages that may be dangerous.
Obviously, those are two examples of action that is relatively easy to take, according to the legislative amendment. Not too many people would object to such a measure. So why do you not undertake this kind of amendment? I am thinking of Kevlar gloves, among other things.
Mr. Jolicoeur: With regard to our three postal centres, obviously at all levels, be it workplace health and safety, operational logistics, and the fundamental mandate of the Canada Border Services Agency for postal operations, we do need quite a significant review.
We are already working with Canada Post which has offered its assistance for logistics, to see how we could completely modernize our procedures in postal centres. So that is an important objective in the short and medium term.
With respect to security measures involving Kevlar gloves, that is the first time I hear this type of comment. However, I do know that health and safety committees throughout the country, including those in postal sorting stations, are reviewing additional measures that could be useful. I will therefore look into the issue of Kevlar gloves.
Senator Nolin: We visited these centres and I was surprised at the efficiency and importance of human beings in this type of work. I would encourage you to make sure that the work of these employees is facilitated through small details with respect to this grenade incident. It would be easy to make it illegal to send a grenade through the mail even if it is disarmed. It seems to me that that would be quite easy to do.
[English]
Ms. McLellan: There are probably general provisions in the code that would cover that now, but it is an interesting suggestion and one that we will take up in our attempts to try and make as specific as possible some of the criminal prohibitions in this area.
Senator Nolin: The problem is they have to shut down the operation for half a day just to clear the place.
Ms. McLellan: Yes. It is a serious matter. Just as Mr. Jolicoeur can take up the issue around things such as the gloves, I will talk to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, around whether a possible amendment to the Criminal Code in this context would be a good thing to do.
The Chairman: Not just perhaps only with grenades. There may be other things in the mail.
Ms. McLellan: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: You would be surprised.
Senator Nolin: We were surprised.
The Chairman: Your officials there did not feel they had the legislative tools they needed.
Ms. McLellan: I will definitely take this up with the Minister of Justice.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: With regard to my last question, Mr. Jolicoeur, concerning that infamous "welcome," I noticed your new sign when one arrives in Montreal. I do not know if it is because of us, but I almost perceived this as a wink when I saw the sign.
Mr. Jolicoeur: You are efficient!
Senator Nolin: I noticed that your officers now ask questions concerning food products. When we arrive, we are asked if we have food. That happened to me. I do not know whether that is part of the new rules, perhaps it is that move toward integration that led to this type of question.
It is the smile that interests me. That is what I would like to see. I have in my notes references to these thousands of officers who welcome tourists, ordinary people, the public, but without a smile. I would like to see a smile and not get the impression that I am somehow disturbing them. One gets that impression and it is unfortunate. That is the first contact foreigners have with Canadians, and these agents stubbornly refuse to be welcoming.
[English]
Ms. McLellan: I wish to say something about that. I could not agree more with you.
Senator Nolin: I think there is a full week on that in Rigaud.
Ms. McLellan: I have had some recent experiences myself returning from international locations, in terms of being met at Pearson and elsewhere. I could not agree with you more. It is absolutely key that the people who greet returning Canadians — who are almost always relieved to be home — and visitors to our country do so with a smile and in either of our two official languages where possible, and, if one knows the flight is arriving from a place such as Pakistan, in other languages as well.
I saw a situation of absolute confusion, which did not involve our people, at a baggage carousel at the Toronto airport, concerning an older woman who did not speak English or French and had no idea what was happening to her or what was expected of her. We forget how frightening and alienating coming to a new situation can be. I have no doubt her family were waiting outside, but she had a long way to go before she got to her family who could make her feel comfortable.
This situation is a challenge, I think, for airports. It is also a challenge for CBSA agents. Our commitment is to have an agency that represents the pluralism of this country. If we know a flight — and I know we try to do this as much as possible — is coming from somewhere such as Pakistan and if there are going to be people on that plane who in all likelihood only speak Urdu, we should have an Urdu-speaking CBSA agent, because Pakistanis are the third-largest source of new Canadians. We need to do smile, have the right people at the right places when planes arrive, and make every one of those people feel we are glad that they are here, whether they are coming home to visit family or coming as visitor on a business trip.
Front-line service must be a goal. It is important at McDonald's or Harvey's, but nowhere is it more important than with the people who meet those who first arrive in a nation, whether it is ours or another. Consequently, I could not agree with you more. I have my own personal experiences. I am glad you raised this.
I forgot to share them with you, Mr. Jolicoeur, but I will do so.
Senator Day: You just did.
Senator Nolin: Do as I do: take notes.
Ms. McLellan: Mr. Jolicoeur may wish to add something.
Mr. Jolicoeur: With regard to the question of diversity, 70 per cent of our students this year at Pearson International Airport who worked at the port of entry were visible minorities. This is quite an achievement, if compared with the past.
With regard to service in general, the minister has asked us to launch a fairness initiative. This initiative will see us publish and be out there explaining what our standards are, what our clients can expect from us, what we expect from our clients, and measures that will facilitate dealing with complaints. This is a big initiative, for which we will start consultation this fall. In fact, we have already started it.
In terms of the smile, I came back to this country twice in the last two weeks. Once I got a smile and once I did not.
Senator Nolin: Even you?
Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes.
Senator Nolin: If there is one individual in the country who should get a smile, it is you.
Mr. Jolicoeur: I agree that it is a challenge. I have had many experiences where I felt that I was not all that welcome.
This is an important and difficult cultural change. We must take time and go at it with a multi-pronged approach. You flagged the training at Rigaud. That is important. We need to come back regularly and push that.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I see that that phenomenon is more prevalent among younger people who have less training. I get the impression that the treatment is more "humane" on the part of older and more experienced officers. My experience is mainly in Montreal, since that is where I live, but the minister for her part is talking about Toronto.
[English]
Senator Forrestall: I have a brief intervention of one sentence. Take a look at the Robert L. Stanfield Terminal Building at the Halifax International Airport and you will find a perfect resolution to the problem we all face. We have volunteers who do extraordinarily well in at least six different languages.
Ms. McLellan: However, they are outside.
Senator Forrestall: No, they are not. They are inside and they also have access to international flights. They are not the first ones who meet people, but they are there and they are seen. It works beautifully.
The Chairman: I think we have established that, when they are not smiling at us, it is not because we are senators.
Senator Munson: Minister, in answer to a question you spoke of discussions about an enhanced armed presence. That is the first time I have heard you say that. You appeared to be a bit reticent at an earlier time when this committee recommended this sort of thing. Have you had a change of heart? How far do you think it will go?
Ms. McLellan: I would not say I have had a change of heart. Certainly, we listened carefully. We are in an evolutionary business. We learn. Obviously, your committee has done a fair bit of work around this particular topic. The union has expressed its views on this issue.
We want to ensure that we have the safest and most secure border possible. Therefore, I have asked the CBSA and the RCMP to take up the challenge of determining what kind of armed presence on an ongoing basis we might have, at least at key entry points involving the vast majority of the travelling public, be it commercial or not. As you know, we have IBETs along the border. There are 23 of them in 15 locations. That project is being evaluated now. Perhaps there is potential to work under that umbrella. My view is that we do not need another new agency. We have many police forces: the RCMP and police forces of local jurisdiction. We had entities and agencies such as the CBSA and IBETs. I have requested that we look at existing mechanisms — the national police force, IBETs. We need to talk to police forces of local jurisdiction, because in fact one cannot simply ride roughshod over them in terms of the jurisdictional mandates they do have.
Therefore, I have asked for recommendations from the CBSA and the RCMP as to how we can have an armed presence where risk assessment would indicate perhaps some reason for it. My goal is to see how we can accommodate these continued requests from this committee and elsewhere.
Senator Munson: Depending on the recommendation, do you make the final decision or does cabinet?
Ms. McLellan: I would go to my cabinet colleagues to inform them because any significant change around police presence or otherwise at the border is something that attracts a great deal of public and media attention. Consequently, while the authority probably rests with me and the commissioner of the RCMP and Mr. Jolicoeur, depending on what form it might take, I certainly would not do that without informing my colleagues and seeking their general agreement.
Senator Munson: The committee recommended that the CBSA should refocus its efforts from taxation to security. Do either of you have a point of view on getting the balance right to move toward more time on security than on collecting customs duties?
Ms. McLellan: We are moving in that direction. As I said in my remarks, we agree that cultural change is an important one. However, it does not mean that collecting revenues at the border is not still an important task. That will not change in the foreseeable future.
It is not simply about customs. It is not simply about collecting money at the border. You have all been at border crossings, and you know that. It is more than that. In a modern border services agency, the culture has to be within the broader context of public safety and national security. Then, within that context, whether on this side or the U.S. side of the border, revenue collection is some part of that and will be, I believe, for the foreseeable future. However, in my mind, it is not the key task by any means of what these people do in a modern border agency.
Senator Munson: Should the threshold be raised to collecting the duties and letting people come in?
Ms. McLellan: That is an issue for the Minister of Revenue. I cannot comment on that. Truthfully, I do not have views on what the level should be to bring goods into the country duty-free.
I do have a view that, as long as we have that as a legislated mandate, this agency must discharge that obligation along with other duties, which is the reason for the training we have and the efforts that we are all making — front-line officers as well as management — to ensure that we have a modern, well-trained sophisticated professional border services agency. Dare I say that only one part, and not a large part, of this agency's obligations are, by law — not law emanating from me or my department — the collection of certain revenues in certain circumstances.
The Chairman: Minister, you did not mean the Minister of Revenue, did you? You meant the Minister of Finance.
Ms. McLellan: I am sorry; it is the Minister of Finance. It is a matter of tax policy.
The Chairman: Would it not be a dialogue between you and the Minister of Finance as to the trade-off between revenues and security?
Ms. McLellan: I would certainly expect to be brought into a discussion around implications for the CBSA.
The Chairman: Presumably, it would have to be something that would be initiated by you saying, "We recognize that there are costs associated with this, but we think the enhanced security would be..."
Ms. McLellan: It is fair to say that at this point I do not intend to have those discussions with the Minister of Finance.
The Chairman: Do you expect him to come to you and say, "Why do I not reduce revenues?"
Ms. McLellan: I will be candid. I do not think this is a priority for the government at this time. Our priority is to create a CBSA with the appropriate culture that strikes the right balance.
Senator Munson: Two weeks ago, Greg Goatbe from the Privy Council Border Task Force told this committee that pre-clearance projects at the Peace Bridge and the Thousand Islands Bridge are quite a few years away from being up and running. As a committee, we are curious to know why it will take so long to get it off the ground.
Ms. McLellan: First, as I mentioned in my comments, it will require legislative change on both sides of the border. We have had detailed discussions with our American counterparts in Homeland Security. I can assure you that there are those in the United States — and certainly Commissioner Bonner has been clear about this, although he is leaving the agency — that have questions around the kinds of powers that they would want their agents to have on our side of the border. Some of those create problems for us in relation to the criminal law power and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, we are working hard with them to see if we can come close on both sides to powers that meet everybody's reasonable needs around public safety and security.
There is no question that there are things that U.S. border agents have the power to do in relation to things like search and seizure that our officers do not. Clearly, we have to crunch some of those things. We are getting opinions from both the Canadian and American departments of justice. Some of these things create major risk factors for us around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A complex set of discussions is ongoing. However, I have Michael Chertoff's commitment that he wants to move forward on pre-clearance, and we are committed to having our officials work on this as hard and as quickly as possible. We see it as an important example, on both sides of the border, in terms of how we can work together, and I do believe that it is also an important deliverable under the security and prosperity partnership agreement.
Senator Munson: I was at a meeting in Washington a few weeks ago, and there was a lot of concern over a so-called new document being proposed and the discussions about giving information to Homeland Security. We have been talking in about it in this country, but not as much as they have been talking about it in the United States. People have been using the word "passport," but I got the impression from Commissioner Bonner and others at that meeting that some sort of document is coming our way, and we will have to live with it whether we like it or not. It will cause a lot of problems. We have heard the ambassador, and others have spoken about it. I do not feel the discussion has reached the point where Canadians are informed about exactly what we have to expect perhaps in a year and a half.
Ms. McLellan: Let me take this opportunity to clarify for anyone who is listening and watching out there. There are those who choose to use the easy shorthand language of "passport." However, the official language is the "Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative." The word "passport" does not appear there. It is not about passports. It is about a secure identity document with a biometric embedded in it. That may be a passport, and for some 40 per cent of the Canadian population, it will be. It is a much smaller percentage in the United States; some 27 per cent, I believe, have passports.
It could be a secure identity document with a biometric embedded in it. That is the way we are moving to meet new global standards around integrity of passports. It could be NEXUS or FAST; it could be something else. For example, governors of states like Michigan and New York are talking to premiers, for example, Premiers McGuinty and Charest, about whether one could, even using a document like a driver's licence that people understand and accept, have agreed feeder documents in terms of who is the person who is seeking the licence. You do the security check on the person, you issue the licence and it is a secure document with the biometric embedded in it.
I was with my colleague Jean Lapierre at the federal-provincial-territorial transport ministers official meeting a few weeks ago. A great deal of work is being done among provinces and territories around a standard for a driver's licence. I am not suggesting that that is the answer; however, I am suggesting that those are the kinds of discussions that are taking place. Therefore, we should not describe it as a "passport initiative." That is a misnomer. You are right about that.
Senator Munson: A lot of work without much time.
Ms. McLellan: Later this afternoon, we will submit our response to the rules that have been put forward in the United States on the federal register, and we will certainly provide you with a copy of that response. I think that is appropriate; I have no problem with that. You will see what we are saying there.
We have been clear all along that we want to work very closely — and we are — with our U.S. counterparts. If there is to be some new kind of document that the U.S. uses for its citizens — and by extension others, including Canadians — we want to work with them closely on what it would be, what it would cost and how it would work at major, high-volume border centres like Windsor-Detroit and others. We would like to have pilot projects in real time to determine how this document could be read, what kind of delays potentially it would create at major land borders — and we want to work on systems development, too.
For example, you have readers that read NEXUS or FAST. If there is a new document, what kind of system will read it? Will a new system be required? We should integrate all these things eventually. We do not want three or four or five different systems reading three or four or five different documents if we can avoid it. The goal of integration around the border and the security and prosperity partnership is to have — for example, trusted traveller, where you apply once, it meets the requirements from both sides of the border, you get whatever document it is, it is read and you are through in a matter of seconds if you are one of those trusted travellers.
This is a major challenge for both sides of the border. We are very aware of the nature of the challenge, as are officials at all levels, as is the private sector. You hear the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and others speaking out — individual CEOs, Perrin Beatty on behalf of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters — everyone you can imagine is involved.
Foreign Affairs and our department held consultations across the country before submitting our brief to the U.S. government, and all these organizations were involved, including tourism associations. Everyone has been involved in terms of making their views clear on both sides of the border. That is why you see Senator Clinton and Governor Pataki and the governor of Michigan and others saying "We are all for enhanced security, but let us make sure we are not doing things that are counterproductive to the movement of low-risk goods and people across our shared border." That is why we want to work closely with the U.S. If it is a new document that they choose — they are a sovereign state — then we will have participated in the development of it and we know the impact on our border.
Senator Meighen: Welcome, minister and Mr. Jolicoeur.
Just more for my enlightenment, and perhaps for the clarification of people watching, there are two expressions used a lot in terms of border-crossing clearances: One is "pre-clearance" and one is "reverse clearance." In your remarks, minister, I think you referred only to pre-clearance. Did your comments also apply to reverse clearance?
Ms. McLellan: I talked specifically about our two pilot projects that we are developing with the United States on pre-clearance.
Senator Meighen: They are pre-clearance.
Ms. McLellan: Do you want to speak about reverse clearance?
Mr. Jolicoeur: If we have a treaty with the U.S. and get our legislation for pre-clearance, de facto we get the tools for doing reverse. Reverse is basically the same thing, except that both sides switch; we go to the other side and they come on our side. That is by far the preferred option coming from customs and border protection; and in some places, it would be the best recipe. In other places, it would not work for logistic and space reasons.
Senator Meighen: Minister, could you tell us to what extent security considerations are getting built in at the earliest opportunity to things such as new border crossings? I am thinking of the new bridge at St. Stephen-Calais, and also of Windsor-Detroit, where, if memory serves me correctly, there are a number of potential additional crossings that have been reduced to three or four.
Ms. McLellan: In the coming weeks, we would like to have the number of potential crossings reduced to those that one would describe as probable or realistic — whatever the right word is. We will not be doing that, nor will the other side of the border; the binational process is there and it is exactly what it is called. We presume that they will be narrowing the options for possible new crossings to two or three in the very near term. That is our hope.
Senator Meighen: If one of them were to be a twinning of the present Ambassador Bridge, would that cause you concern in terms of national security?
Ms. McLellan: Obviously, I do not determine the outcome, nor can I in any way prejudge what a possible outcome would be. We have been over this territory before so I choose my words very carefully.
I would say, however, that redundancy is an important principle when one looks at safety and security — and it is one that we talked about here before. Clearly, there are a host of considerations that one would take into account, whether it is at Windsor-Detroit, St. Stephen or wherever. Yes, you have to anticipate what the likely risks are at any one of these crossings and you have to build that in to what you ultimately decide, whether it is in terms of physical infrastructure, human resources, specialized forms of training or whatever might be needed. Redundancy would be one of those principles that have to be taken into account when you are looking at something like a crossing over a river.
Senator Meighen: Given that we all agree the absolutely critical importance of the crossing or crossings in the Windsor-Detroit area, and the impact that any blockage or destruction or hindrance to that free flow of goods and people would cause principally to Canada, do you see any hope of reducing the expected time frame of 2013 until we get something new there?
Ms. McLellan: It would be our shared goal on both sides of the border to accelerate that as much as possible, keeping in mind that we have seen examples of what happens when we do not follow the required legal processes; you end up in court and the project can be delayed many years past a targeted date of, say, 2013. While we want to do things right, we want to do the necessary due diligence. Our goal is to try to expedite the process as quickly as possible.
Having said that, when you look at the numbers for things like the 25 per cent challenge, keep in mind that it is predicted that the present crossings will reach capacity past 2013. With the 25 per cent challenge, and now that we appear to have been successful in that and beyond, there is no reason why we cannot drive that further, thereby ensuring that full capacity on existing crossings is not reached until a time that may be even past that which is now predicted for a finished crossing of whatever sort.
I must take the opportunity to thank everybody at the crossings — the operators and officials on both sides, agents, the private sector. This 25 per cent challenge has taken off in a way that Tom Ridge and I knew could be met, but it has become part of the psyche already to such a degree. It is fair to say that most days there are not many inordinate waits at major borders such as Windsor-Detroit and the Bluewater Bridge at Sarnia-Port Huron. At Niagara, they want the 25 per cent challenge in place because it focuses people. What can we do with our existing infrastructure to drive down those wait times? Did we distribute this, Mr. Jolicoeur?
Mr. Jolicoeur: I do not think we distributed the figures.
Ms. McLellan: We will distribute these figures in the name of transparency. At the Ambassador Bridge, wait times for Canada-bound is down 72 per cent and for U.S.-bound are down 71 per cent. At the Bluewater Bridge, Canada-bound commercial wait times are down 83 per cent and U.S.-bound are down 64 per cent. People have embraced this initiative with enormous alacrity, understanding the challenge. Some of these came about because of physical changes, such as more booths, more people, changing lanes, et cetera, while others happened because officers are more focused in working together to put in place any element that will continue to drive these wait times down. We are working to ensure that those existing crossings have the capacity to deal with the expected volumes between now and 2013. If we can get that bridge done faster, Senator Meighen, we will do it. You and I can cut the ribbon together.
Senator Meighen: I will look forward to that. That is excellent news and all involved are to be congratulated. We can only hope that it does not act like a double-edged sword and relax the atmosphere to the point that people do not understand there is an urgency.
Ms. McLellan: I can assure you, from the Prime Minister down, that there is an urgency to ensure that we are focused on that new crossing, wherever it might be.
The Chairman: If I may, all committee members think that the 25 per cent challenge is terrific.
Senator Meighen: We have just heard from union representatives that there is a clear push not to go to secondary. Mr. Jolicoeur will be dying to answer this.
Ms. McLellan: Yes, he is, I can assure you.
Senator Meighen: The great push is to increase the throughput, in effect. There is a tacit or implicit discouragement, according to some witnesses before the committee, to take people to secondary because that slows the entire lineup. Could we have your comments on that? Is that why the 25 per cent challenge is working so well?
Mr. Jolicoeur: In terms of the statistics shared by the minister and the additional details that we will share, it is because of two specific things. It has been measured not only by CBSA but also by different agencies, the private sector and people who were tasked to deal with the challenge. Primarily on the Canadian side of the Ambassador Bridge bound for the U.S it is because of additional booths and officers deployed to Windsor.
I will use this opportunity, if I may, to respond more broadly to the question. Like others, I read the front page of the National Post this morning about our managers receiving bonus or performance pay on the basis of not doing more investigation, not sending more to secondary or not doing more verification than what they would have been given centrally. That is absolutely ridiculous and has nothing to do with reality, but it is worth a discussion on how the system works.
As I said earlier, we are not letting the system go and trying to stop everything. Everything within the organization is planned. It is true that through central discussions with input from each of the locations every year and with input from the intelligence section it is determined where we are more vulnerable and where we should ask for more verification and checks in some areas rather than in other areas. This is not linked in any way, shape or form with performance pay. Performance pay in this organization is pre-CBSA for all supervisors up to the executive level. There was an up-to-5 per cent performance pay linked to good people management. This no longer exists in CBSA because we fall under Treasury Board as an employer. That performance pay has been eliminated. What remains for executives and up is the standard performance pay that is basically applied under Treasury Board rules. In this organization, we do not penalize someone for doing too many checks; it is quite the contrary. I would be concerned if a local manager did not take into consideration all of the advice he receives from his field and from headquarters on where the risks are. They use that information as a guideline to determine how to deploy their resources, when they should look at something and where there is greater risk. That is the intelligence managing of the organization. What I read in the National Post was ridiculous.
Senator Meighen: Thank you for that. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion. Your testimony stands in contrast to what we heard earlier; and I hope you can resolve that.
I have two final questions. Let us talk about those 250 unmanned road crossings across the country. Some Americans, if not all, have sensors. First, could you tell us to what extent the information they pick up is transmitted freely and in a timely fashion to our authorities, if it is sent? Second, what plans, other than hiring more officers, do we have to cover those crossings?
Mr. Jolicoeur: The analogy of football vis-à-vis chess that I used earlier works well in the universe for which I am responsible. The responsibility for those roads between ports is basically in Canada with the RCMP. Those officers play the same role that border patrol officers play in the U.S.
Yes, we receive information from Americans using sensors. I do not know to what extent that occurs but I could look into it and obtain the information for the committee.
Senator Meighen: Thank you. Minister, I wish you good luck in pursuing your thoughts about having a kind of enhanced armed presence at the borders. You will find that it is a matter of resources. If the RCMP continues to rush around trying to patrol these 250 unmanned roads and if, perhaps, we are to be more available at one-man border posts, then we may need more RCMP officers.
Ms. McLellan: I know that Commissioner Zaccardelli will thank you for that comment.
Senator Meighen: I have great admiration for the Commissioner of the RCMP.
Senator Day: I will follow up on a couple of points that were made earlier by other senators, after which I will have a new question or two. With regard to the National Post article this morning, you might do well to hear this other statement that no one from the Canada Border Services Agency was available to comment. This committee receives coverage of its hearings so this might be an opportune time to comment on the article. This goes to the issue of the football player and the chess player, again.
The quote here is: "Intelligence-based targeted high-risk searches are routinely discouraged." Would you comment on that statement? Intelligence-based is your chess player, versus the football player. Intelligence-based high-risk routine searches are routinely discouraged because of the time involved.
Mr. Jolicoeur: I do not think that is right. It is quite the contrary. We are pushing for intelligence-based high-risk checks. The point was probably made in the context of the balance between facilitation and security, or it may have been made in the context of availability of resources in the organization. The important point is that the knowledge about what is more critical and what is less critical must be applied in the context of security clearance in the organization.
As I said earlier, in this chess game, we have four levels of security clearance. It may be that an intelligence officer at one level knows more about what are the real concerns versus the lesser concerns. It is difficult to relate to such a statement in a vacuum.
Senator Day: I think your opening comment that this is incorrect invites you to determine whether it is or is not correct.
Ms. McLellan: I would agree, except that that statement flies in the face of everything a modern border services agency must be about. It must be intelligence-led.
Random checks obviously have their place, but we must be intelligence-led. The culture must change to accept the fact that what you do is first and foremost driven by the intelligence as collected. That is why we are increasing the number of intelligence officers in the CBSA. They work within the CBSA with other agencies, both Canadian and U.S., at the national, provincial and local levels to collect the intelligence, and to then get it in a real-time way back to the front lines so that it can be used.
Senator Day: Minister, we understand that. This committee has heard extensive testimony in that regard.
Ms. McLellan: Yes.
Senator Day: If a manager at the border crossing on the ground can override all of that, then everything you are doing is for naught.
Ms. McLellan: Speaking for Mr. Jolicoeur, which is always dangerous, he would say that he does not accept that statement or description of events. Certainly, I would suggest that Mr. Jolicoeur will follow up on that statement as quickly as possible. It flies in the face of everything we want this agency to be and to do.
Senator Day: Perfect. We would appreciate hearing from you with respect to your investigation in that regard. I think it is important to deal with that. It does fly in the face of everything we have heard.
The other follow-up question I had related to the St. Stephen-Calais crossing, for obvious reasons. I am pleased to advise that we are proceeding nicely in that regard. Funding from both sides — Canada and the United States — is in place. Expropriations of land are taking place. The environmental assessments are proceeding. What input do you have with respect to the facilities at border crossings? Bear in mind the discussion we had of pre-clearance, the potential joint operation between Canada and the United States, the reverse inspection. You say the negotiations are ongoing. Are we building it in facilities now or will we have to redesign this three, four or five years from now?
Mr. Jolicoeur: That is all a question of timing. In this case, I am told that if it were to be designed and planned for a reverse inspection mode or a pre-clearance mode, that because of the timing, because of the plan, because as you say it is progressing well, it would likely be stalled. It would not be able to proceed because of everything that has to be done on the pre-clearance side. It is caught a little bit in this timing situation.
The conclusion was that we would rather proceed with it and, yes, possibly at some point we might consider switching sides. For the moment, it would be detrimental to the project to link it to the other initiatives.
Senator Day: I hear what you are saying. I would not want to see it delayed either. However, it is unfortunate that, when you are building a new facility, you cannot design it for the future as opposed to designing it for the past.
Ms. McLellan: We do design it as much as possible for the future. That must be part of the plan. We do need to think where we will be 10 years from now.
Senator Day: We need to think where we will be in five years.
Ms. McLellan: I am even more futuristic than you are.
Senator Forrestall: Perhaps you are not futuristic enough.
Senator Day: The container security initiative was rolled out last week, I believe.
Mr. Jolicoeur, when you were here back in the spring you talked about the initiative. Is there anything in this new initiative that was not announced six or eight months ago? Is there anything of which we should be aware?
Mr. Jolicoeur: What is new is that we have reached an agreement with DHS to ensure that our deployment overseas is complementary to their initiative in that we share information that we receive and that they receive on each of those sites, and that we use the knowledge that they have been able to obtain when they started this deployment to ports overseas to facilitate our deployment. We have a formal agreement with CBP. I believe it was signed two weeks ago.
Ms. McLellan: There is nothing new, senator, in the sense that the initiative has been announced before. In the name of transparency — and also, as Senator Meighen has said, the politics of repetition — you cannot say these things often enough. People are busy. Every time we say it we are, we hope, reaching another small group of people who say, "Okay, that is something they are doing to push our borders out and help keep our country safer."
The initiative is not new; it has been announced before. However, each step of the way we want to announce that real progress has been made. The signing of the MOU is another example of that concrete progress.
Senator Day: That is helpful. We visited Halifax a while back and were surprised to learn of the high percentage of containers that come into Halifax that actually proceed by train directly — or indirectly — to the United States. We understand the importance of this initiative. We know that we have already agreed to have U.S. inspectors in the Port of Halifax. This is just an extension of that to send people offshore to where the containers are.
Will you be using high-tech equipment to seal these containers and track them after they are inspected where they are loaded?
Mr. Jolicoeur: Right now, a container that is of concern to us will not even be allowed to be boarded on ships. We would work with and negotiate agreements, and possibly other announcements, with local customs authorities in each of those countries so that they do the verification to ensure that we do not board anything that would be of concern to us.
Senator Day: Something that might be of concern to us is fertilizer. Fertilizer can be used to make bombs. That will be of concern, but you will surely not stop containers of fertilizer from coming here. What would you do with those things?
Ms. McLellan: We are a huge exporter of fertilizer. We do not import fertilizer. I have had the benefit of talking to the fertilizer industry.
Senator Day: Fertilizer is often a combination of different products, such potash and nitrogen. Are you suggesting that we would not bring in any product that might be used for a purpose other its initial intended purpose?
Mr. Jolicoeur: No, I am not saying that. What I would like to say, though, is that we are using the most advanced risk algorithm in the world to decide whether we are importing what might be of concern from the perspective of material that could be used to build a bomb, to decide whether this thing is coming for the right purpose or not. Basically, by linking the source, the transfer, the importer, what they have done in the past, we are building knowledge in the system about each of the players along the way. Then we can say, yes, this one is coming for the right thing, but this one is strange; why is it coming?
Senator Day: I appreciate that. That is important knowledge that I did not have — that you are looking at surrounding factors.
On the technology aspect, we had a representative before us a while back talking about satellite technology and the use of tracking, and sealing these containers so you know they have not been tampered with. Are we into that yet? Is it coming?
Mr. Jolicoeur: We are not into it yet. It is being discussed. The Department of Transport, from the perspective of security of transport, I believe, is also looking at that. This is something that I want to look at in the future.
Senator Forrestall: Minister, we are talking a lot today about transparency and openness. You may recall, during the debate in the Senate chamber, some of us expressed concern about the absence of provision for an annual report. The suggestion from the government was that the report by Treasury Board be considered the annual report of the Canada Border Services Agency. Have you had a change of heart; and, if so, in light of the need for apparent transparency —
Ms. McLellan: Are you asking if I, as minister, would submit an annual report to Parliament?
Senator Forrestall: I would submit that the agency should submit an annual report to Parliament through you.
Ms. McLellan: It is being done. Mr. Jolicoeur tells me that.
Mr. Jolicoeur: There was an amendment to our legislation to ensure that we would provide that report to Parliament. It is done through the normal Treasury Board initiative of asking each department to provide the departmental performance report.
Senator Forrestall: That is not quite good enough. Your report has been filtered through another hand before it comes to the public. In fairness to the proposition of fairness and transparency and openness, I think you should be seen to be speaking for yourselves.
Ms. McLellan: Can I take that back and think about it in the next day or so?
Senator Forrestall: I wish you would.
Ms. McLellan: I will.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you, minister.
The Chairman: I have a couple of brief points, minister. One, can you advise the committee if the agency has made any progress in terms of having more inspectors who are fully trained to the level of indeterminate employees?
Mr. Jolicoeur: I am not sure I understand the question. All our permanent employees are fully trained.
The Chairman: Yes, we understand that. It is the problem with your non-permanent employees I am addressing; is the percentage moving in the right direction? You have a significant number of people, particularly in the summer, who —
Ms. McLellan: Students, you mean?
The Chairman: Yes — who are not fully trained. Are you making any progress in increasing the number of people who are fully trained?
Mr. Jolicoeur: I am not planning to change the ratio of employees and students, except in a review that we are doing — actually, also following your last report — on the question of students working alone. I do not have a plan to change the ratio of students and employees.
The Chairman: This is something that will be on the mind of the committee going forward. I hope you will include data on that.
Ms. McLellan: We want to look at the whole question of students. We believe they are an important part of the CBSA. However, we also want to ensure that they are being used appropriately — whether it is working alone, whether it is other issues that might arise in the context of students. We want to review that, and that was one of the issues that you identified in your report
The Chairman: On the question of keeping a log of the vehicles that do not stop at border crossings, is there such a log? We have been told there is not.
Mr. Jolicoeur: There is no such log at the moment. I can commit to develop a very simple system that would allow us to collect that information.
The Chairman: We think it is important. We would go further. We would be interested in knowing not only the number of vehicles that fail to stop, but what actions were taken — whether the police were advised and, further, whether the police eventually apprehended the individuals. We understand this is beyond your agency, Mr. Jolicoeur, but it is not beyond yours, minister. We would like to have the complete picture, if people are coming into the country illegally; I believe the estimate was around 1,600.
Ms. McLellan: I think even at Lacolle, if I am not wrong, we changed the physical infrastructure, and there was an enormous percentage drop of people being able to run the border. Is that right, Mr. Jolicoeur? I know that is only one part of the information you are seeking.
Mr. Jolicoeur: First, the number is lower than that, but there are three locations where we had significant concerns. They were Lacolle, and the physical arrangement has been patched — that one was football. The second concern was with secondary commercial in Windsor that is not right at the border but at some distance. We have put in place a number of measures to ensure that nobody on the commercial side avoids going through secondary when they should. We have additional people and processes in place to guarantee that.
The third one, I can never remember the name of the place, but it again has to do with the geography in B.C, where people take a ship to go from one side to the other. There is regular confusion where people go to the wrong side, do not realize —
Ms. McLellan: They end up unwittingly being in the other country.
Mr. Jolicoeur: We are working with the municipality on signs, trying to repair that one.
With regard to the others, we will collect the information and provide a table to you.
The Chairman: I trust the information will take us right through not only the individuals who make it but also what happens to them; the follow up on it would be helpful.
Finally, I wish to make an observation that the relationship between management and labour within the agency seems to be fractious, seems to be contentious. I am a little concerned with the analogy that you used about a chess player — a chess player plays chess by himself; football players play with a team and work in a cooperative fashion. I wonder whether you want to really use the chess analogy in future, because I suspect you would sooner have a cooperative team. I think we all sense that there appear to be two sides. Obviously, in any organization, there will be management and labour. However, I got a sense from you today, Mr. Jolicoeur, when you were describing things that you were not seeking out the views of your employees, that, in fact, that was not something important to you.
Ms. McLellan: Before Mr. Jolicoeur speaks, let me say that in all my talks with Mr. Jolicoeur he has always put at the forefront what front-line officers are dealing with and what they are thinking. That does not mean we always agree, nor should we. What Mr. Jolicoeur was saying, if you want to use the football-chess analogy, is that both games are being played in the Canada Border Services Agency. You could also say that one is in front of the curtain while the other is behind. You need the people who designed the systems to help us collect the intelligence, hence the mathematician, who may or may not work alone; you also have to draw upon the reality of life on the front line. There is no point in developing a system that does not bear any reality or that is not workable in the context of the men and women on the front line. It is a different job however you describe it.
Then you have front line officers who interact with the public every day and are left to implement the systems that are developed. To use our football-chess analogy, both games are being played but at the end of the day people have to come together and share information and realities so that we get the system right.
I want to reassure you that Mr. Jolicoeur has always struck me as someone who is most interested in what is happening with front-line officers.
I want to come back, however, to the point that the first and paramount obligation of all of us, those front-line officers, Mr. Jolicoeur, myself and all of you, is to public safety and national security. If you have a problem, fine, let us sit down and talk about it. Do not, however, endanger public safety or national security in terms of how one goes about what one does.
There is a higher obligation, and I believe that profoundly. That obligation rests with me, but it also rests with every man and woman who is on that border. I am more than willing to listen to concerns. That is why we are doing the things we are doing. If you are a professional, you have got to be able to commit to every other Canadian that you put their safety and security first.
The Chairman: Well, minister, I understand what you are saying and I get the point, but the point I was trying to make to you was that Mr. Jolicoeur did not sound like he was trying to build a team when he was giving the chess analogy.
Ms. McLellan: I understand that. Do you want to say anything?
Mr. Jolicoeur: I have played chess in teams. I have done it often and it is doable. You work with people. You discuss strategy. I believe in the analogy.
I have been in charge of different labour relations in the public service for many years. I would say that the CBSA is one of the two or three organizations that have had the most difficulty. I do not blame anyone, nor do I blame myself. On the customs side, the history of labour relations goes back well before the creation of CBSA.
CBSA was created on December 12, 2003. I did not even have an office. I was creating a new organization. The Tuesday right after that Friday, I had all of the union leaders in a meeting room to discuss the problems, how they were seeing them and what they thought I should be doing. I involved them all throughout the creation of the CBSA; I have done my best. I increased the classification level of our first-line customs officers; they had been fighting it for years. That was done shortly after the creation of CBSA. I have kept my door open. Whenever I travel across the country to see managers, I take the time to meet union reps. I meet with them one on one just to find out what the problems are. I, therefore, do not share your view on my not being a team player or not being open to good labour relations.
The Chairman: You shared it to the extent that you agreed that CBSA is one of the problem agencies in terms of labour relations. I am simply expressing the wish and the hope that this be an objective for the very reasons that the minister described. National security is too important to have the playing field muddied by people who do not feel they are all playing on the same side. It is of concern to the committee. I am pleased to hear that it is an objective of the leadership of the department to improve that and to be more cooperative.
Ms. McLellan: I agree with what you have said. I find it interesting, gentlemen, that there are only two women here and yet things have been discussed today with the analogies of games like football. I will leave it at that.
The Chairman: We did not bring it up; it was not our idea.
Senator Meighen: Women play chess, do they not?
Ms. McLellan: Women play football, too.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Chairman, do we have on file a detailed explanation on the courses that are given in Rigaud?
The Chairman: We have some information, but it is not comprehensive.
Ms. McLellan: We can get it.
Senator Nolin: It is related to the change of culture, and the various courses that are given on how to detect fraud or problems.
Senator Meighen: Would that also indicate which courses are taken by students and employees?
Senator Nolin: Yes, it would deal with comprehensive packages, the objective of the courses and how you deal with those problems.
The Chairman: Colleagues, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank very much for appearing before us and for providing us with assistance in dealing with this piece of legislation.
For members of the public who are watching on these proceedings on television, if you have questions or comments, visit our website by going to www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony. Otherwise, you may contact the clerk at 1-800-267-7362 for further information.
Ms. McLellan, thank you very much. Mr. Jolicoeur, thank you very much.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-26, to establish the Canada Border Services Agency?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Unless the committee decides otherwise, the normal procedure is to postpone consideration of the long title, the preamble and the short title contained in clause 1. Shall the committee proceed in the normal way?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I propose that the committee consider clauses according to the various headings of the bill. Shall we proceed in that manner?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 under the heading "Interpretation" carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 3, 4 and 5 under the heading "Establishment and Mandate of the Agency" carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 6 under the heading "Minister" carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 under the heading "President and Executive Vice-president" carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 11 under the heading "Human Resources" carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 12, 13 and 14 under the heading "Powers of the Agency" carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The Chairman: Shall clause 15 under the heading "Expenditures" carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 15.1 under the heading "Annual Report" carry?
Senator Forrestall: I do not see that.
Senator Nolin: It is 15.1.
Senator Forrestall: I do not see it here.
The Chairman: Will you take it over and show it to Senator Forrestall, please?
I have it here on page 6b.
Senator Forrestall: It has been put in since last June.
Senator Nolin: That is the answer to your question.
Senator Forrestall: No, it is not. That is not my point. I will make this observation with respect to that clause. Unless somebody is in a position to tell me how that got in there, then I must say that the matter went through the chamber and was referred to committee without that being included. That is what I want to know.
Obviously, the minister was not aware, and that disturbs me. Mr. Jolicoeur was not aware, and that disturbs me, too. What I am asking, chair, is how it got there.
The Chairman: Senator Forrestall, if I recall the discussion, you were concerned that it be according to Treasury Board or similar reports, and you used the words that you did not want it going through other hands, and she said she would consider that. What it says here is that, as the Treasury Board requires similar reports, this obligation may be met by tabling these reports to avoid duplication of effort.
Senator Forrestall: All right, then it is a report of the Treasury Board of Canada with respect to the competence with which the Canada Border Services is carrying out its mandate.
It is not an annual report.
The Chairman: The minister's answer to that was, "Allow me time to consider that, please."
Senator Forrestall: Therefore, we are going to pass clause 15.1. That is not in the interpretation, but I just read it.
The Chairman: We will come back to 15.1. Are we agreed to hold this and come back to it, colleagues?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 16 through 28 under the heading "Transitional Provisions" carry?
Honourable senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 30 through 143 under the heading "Consequential Amendments" carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 144, 145 and 146 under the heading "Coordinating Amendments" carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The Chairman: Shall clause 147 under the heading "Coming into Force" carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause one, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Senator Forrestall: Not yet. We have yet to deal with clause 15.1.
Senator Nolin: Have we covered clauses 17 to 29?
The Chairman: We covered 16 through 28. You are correct, Senator Nolin. Which ones are we missing?
Shall clause 29 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Day: We have not dealt with clause 15.1.
The Chairman: We are at a discussion stage of that clause, honourable senators.
Senator Forrestall: Clause 15.1, "Annual Report," and I am looking at page 6b, under "Clause by Clause Analysis" which states:
This provision requires the Minister to lay before each House of Parliament a report of the operations and performance of the Agency for that fiscal year. As the Treasury Board requires similar reports, this obligation may be met by tabling these reports to avoid duplication of effort.
It may avoid duplication of effort, but it leaves the Canadian public in possession of a report that has been filtered through another agency of government, and, to that end, I am opposed to that clause. I do not want this to wait until the minister responds. I think it should be dealt with now. It is long overdue.
Therefore, I have a dilemma. I want to register my opposition to this clause of the bill, but I do not want to hold up the bill.
Are you the chess player in this match, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: I am a football guy.
Senator Day: I think he is the referee.
Senator Nolin: To be fair to the minister, because she has agreed to think about it, should we wait?
Senator Forrestall: There is a quid pro quo. Tell her to come with a positive report next Monday and she will have her report.
Senator Nolin: We do not have a meeting next Monday. That is the problem.
Senator Forrestall: That is another matter.
I do not quite know how to deal with it. It comes as a surprise to me. I do not know how it got in, when it got in, or at whose initiative. I can tell you that a member of Parliament did in fact raise the matter before the House, but his suggestions were rejected. Now we are being asked to agree to this. I do not think that is how we should deal with draft legislation.
Senator Day: Mr. Chairman, I am hearing Senator Forrestall's concern, and I also heard the minister say that she would look at this and consider our concern.
Clause 15.1(1) says the minister shall do something. Clause 15.2 says the minister has some flexibility. She may consider other reports as satisfying her obligation. Having said that, she might also take into consideration our comments. I would suggest that we pass this clause and take the minister at her word that she will consider our concerns. The minister has the flexibility to do what she thinks is right, provided she meets the obligations under 15.1(2).
Senator Forrestall: It would appear to me that to open the matter up by way of an amendment would come at great cost. Will the omnibus bill be introduced this fall?
Senator Nolin: That occurs every two years.
Senator Forrestall: Will that be this fall or next fall?
Senator Nolin: We have not had one for many years.
The Chairman: I would be surprised if anything is introduced this fall.
Senator Forrestall: That would be the only opportunity for an amendment without incurring enormous cost. It costs a great deal to amend a bill. I have made my observations; and I will abstain on this clause.
The Chairman: Senators, shall clause 15.1, under the heading of "Annual Report" carry; noting that Senator Forrestall is abstaining?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
We have dealt with the title. Is it agreed that the bill be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Does the committee wish any observations appended to the report?
Senator Day: No.
Senator Forrestall: I would like the observations made by the minister responsible in the matter of clause 15.1 appended to the report to the Senate. I suppose I cannot comment on why I abstained.
The Chairman: Senator Forrestall, do you want us to note that the minister made this observation and then quote her words?
Senator Forrestall: Yes.
The Chairman: Would that be satisfactory to the committee?
Senator Nolin: Do we understand that she may contemplate the idea, even though she must report annually through Treasury Board, of making her own report to Parliament? Is that your understanding?
Senator Day: Not quite. My understanding is that the minister has an obligation to report to both Houses of Parliament and that the minister has the flexibility, if she believes that her obligation under 15.1 is met by using reports provided under Treasury Board requirements, to use that as the report to Parliament.
Senator Nolin: On what will she reflect?
Senator Day: She will reflect on whether she will prepare a separate, independent report for Parliament.
Senator Nolin: We should add that to the observations. That is my understanding of the minister's comment this morning. In the bill, the minister has a legal obligation to report to Treasury Board. We should add that, provided we do not break the fundamental principle of not speaking twice, in law. The meaning of 15.1 is that the minister has to report, but if the report from Treasury Board is sufficient, it can be used, unless the minister decides to prepare a different report for Parliament.
Senator Day: Exactly.
Senator Nolin: That is it.
The Chairman: May I have authority from the committee to endeavour to reflect that? We will try to put Senator Forrestall's concerns ahead of that to provide context, and that the committee ask that this be included. I will refer to it as a committee request, that the minister consider this additional report, and then quote her reply. Would that satisfy members of the committee?
Senator Nolin: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: The minister was taken aback by the suggestion that we might suggest it would be a filtered report.
Senator Nolin: There is a big difference between five pages and 50 pages.
Senator Forrestall: There is a distance between the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, and Treasury Board's public exposure of what might be in the annual report. That is only one of three or four examples that could be used, and we are adding a much more important one. The underlying legislation has been laid to rest. We should have as clear a piece of legislation as is possible. These comments will be on the record, I assume.
The Chairman: Yes, this portion of the meeting is public.
Senator Forrestall: A filtered report flies in the face of her consistency of evidence before the committee; her written statement; and, in response to questions from senators, her openness, which was an important part of her agenda. I will leave it to her good judgment to correct it. I would suggest that an amendment be made through an omnibus bill at the earliest opportunity.
The Chairman: I am still in a quandary as to what to say in the report to the Senate. What comments shall I make?
Senator Day: In reply to Senator Forrestall, the minister talked about a separate, stand-alone report to the Houses of Parliament. We would encourage her to consider her options under 15.1(2) to do so, rather than rely on other reports that might have gone to Treasury Board.
Senator Forrestall: That is fine.
The Chairman: I will quote the minister.
Senator Day: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: Yes.
The Chairman: I will endeavour to do that. Is it agreed that I report this bill with these observations at the next sitting of the Senate?
Senator Day: Yes, without amendment.
The Chairman: I will report the bill without amendment at the next sitting of the Senate. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Honourable senators, that completes our business for today.
The committee continued in camera.