Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 7 - Evidence - June 8, 2009
OTTAWA, Monday, June 8, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:06 p.m. to examine and report on the national security policy of Canada (topic: border security).
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. My name is Colin Kenny and I chair the committee.
Before we begin, I would like to introduce the members of the committee. On my extreme right is Senator Dennis Dawson. He began his career in public life as one of the youngest elected school board trustees in Quebec and was elected as chair of Quebec's second-largest school board. In 1977, he was elected as one of the youngest members of Parliament in Canadian history where he served his constituents of Louis-Hébert for three consecutive terms. Senator Dawson is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, as well as the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. He is a very busy senator.
[Translation]
On my left is Senator Pierre Claude Nolin from Quebec. He is a lawyer and was appointed to the Senate in June of 1993. Senator Nolin is currently deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and is also a member of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
[English]
To Senator Nolin's left is Senator Wilfred Moore. He was called to the Senate in 1996. He represents the senatorial division of Stanhope Street-South Shore in Nova Scotia. He has been active at the city level in Halifax-Dartmouth and has served as a member of the board of governors of Saint Mary's University. He is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
To my immediate right is Senator Michael Meighen, from Ontario. He was appointed to the Senate in 1990. He is a lawyer, a member of the bars of Quebec and Ontario, and is currently chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
On my immediate left is Senator Pamela Wallin. She is from Saskatchewan and was appointed to the Senate in January 2009. After a long career in journalism, Senator Wallin went on to serve as Consul General of Canada in New York and also served at the request of Prime Minister Harper on the special Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan. She is the deputy chair of this committee and is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
On her left is Senator Jim Munson. He is a well-respected Canadian journalist from Ontario. He was CTV's bureau chief in Beijing from 1987 to 1992, reporting on events such as the Tiananmen Square massacre. He has served as bureau chief and senior correspondent in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and London, England. He has covered the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War and the Philippines. Senator Munson is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights and the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
To his left is Senator Fabian Manning. Senator Manning has dedicated his career to serving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at all three levels of government. He was appointed to the Senate in January 2009. He also chairs the Conservative government's Atlantic caucus and is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
At the far end of the table is Senator Grant Mitchell. He was appointed to the Senate in March 2005. He is from Edmonton, Alberta, and has had careers in the Alberta public service, the financial industry and politics. He is deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and is a member of the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance.
Honourable senators, today we are studying Canada's border security. Border security is incredibly important to Canada. Canada exports to the United States approximately $375 billion worth of goods a year, and the United States exports to Canada roughly $227 billion of goods each year.
In 2007, it was estimated that more than 42 million Canadian visits took place in the United States and, during the same period, Americans made more than 25 million visits to Canada.
The purpose of our hearing is to prepare the committee for subsequent visits it will make to the Canada-U.S. border this summer. Appearing before us today to discuss this issue and to assist us in understanding the challenges of securing the border is Assistant Commissioner Mike Cabana, Federal and International Operations; and Superintendent Warren Coons, Director of the Integrated Border Enforcement Team.
Assistant Commissioner Cabana, I understand you have a brief opening statement.
Mike Cabana, Assistant Commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Yes, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. I would like to start by thanking the committee for the opportunity to discuss the importance of maintaining the integrity of our borders and for your ongoing review and advice on border security- related matters.
In order to provide you with the most complete information possible, I have with me today Superintendent Warren Coons, who is the Director of the Integrated Border Enforcement Team.
In my opening remarks, I will provide an overview of what the RCMP is doing in the air, marine and land environments, and hopefully I will provide some insight with respect to what the RCMP believes should be the way forward.
Before I elaborate on these points, though, Mr. Chair, I would like to describe the foundation upon which we have built our border strategy. The RCMP has built its strategy on a foundation that recognizes that smart and secure borders are all about a balanced, multi-faceted, intelligence-led approach. This is manifested through improved integration and requires a clear understanding of threats and risks at the border; enhanced use of intelligence, technology and personnel; and partnering with domestic and international stakeholders.
[Translation]
Sophisticated criminal organizations exploit vulnerabilities in border demographics, geography and enforcement to smuggle people, narcotics, currency, firearms and contraband tobacco between Canada and the United States.
Such criminality not only compromises the integrity of our border but poses a real threat to the security and economic prosperity of both countries.
[English]
Most often, though, the people we catch at the border are expendable to criminal organizations. More often than not, they are low-level couriers or players who are carrying out duties as part of a more sophisticated network. Stopping them is critical, of course, but stopping them before they get there should be our goal.
Mr. Chair, I am not saying the border does not matter. Of course it does. Some people see the border as our first line of defence. I believe it should instead be looked at as one of the last lines of defence and an important line of demarcation. It is also a choke point where the criminal conspiracies are most vulnerable.
The RCMP works closely with its counterparts, regionally, nationally and internationally, to identify border threats, risks and vulnerabilities. In the air environment, there are three distinct policing roles at airports: federal policing, police force of jurisdictions and, of course, protection services. Although the RCMP is responsible for the enforcement of federal statutes at all airports, the RCMP has the Airport Federal Enforcement Section on site only at the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver international airports, as well as an informal unit here at the Ottawa airport.
The Airport Federal Enforcement Section works in cooperation with all domestic airport enforcement security agencies such as the Canada Border Services Agency, Transport Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and municipal and provincial police services.
The Airport Federal Enforcement Section also works with international agencies such as the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[Translation]
In 2008 the RCMP, in partnership with key stakeholders, completed Project SPAWN, an assessment of criminal activity and organized crime infiltration at Canada's eight Class 1 airports.
[English]
Project SPAWN identified gaps and made recommendations to improve security. To this end, a number of improvements and successes have already been realized.
The RCMP is working with partner agencies to improve information sharing by exploring a number of options through the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Aviation Security Committee. Furthermore, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Criminal Intelligence Directorate recently signed a new agreement with Transport Canada that will enhance the transport security clearance background check processes for airport and marine port workers.
[Translation]
With respect to the marine and ports environment, the RCMP has established several programs and initiatives to target the networks that may utilize Canada's seaports, coastlines, waterways and marine borders as a conduit for their criminal activities. These include National Port Enforcement Teams, Marine Security Enforcement Teams, the National Waterside Security Coordination Team, Marine Security Emergency Response Teams, and the Great Lakes Marine Security Operations Centre.
[English]
For example, the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Marine Security Operations Centre, under the lead of the RCMP, is designed to enhance the security of Canada's marine transportation system and maritime border. The primary purpose of a marine security operations centre, MSOC, is to produce actionable intelligence and to communicate the information to the appropriate jurisdiction in a timely fashion. The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Marine Security Operations Centre is fully integrated and consists of government departments responsible for marine security and for providing asset support and maritime expertise, including the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA; the Department of National Defence, DND; the Canadian Coast Guard; and Transport Canada. In addition, the Department of Justice Canada, Public Safety Canada and provincial and local municipal police agencies are partners in this program. The RCMP also participates in the coastal MSOCs in Esquimalt and Halifax that are led by DND.
In the land environment, the Integrated Border Enforcement Team program, the IBET program, continues to be a key component of the RCMP's border security strategy. IBETs are binational, multi-agency law enforcement teams that emphasize a harmonized and integrated approach to Canadian and U.S. efforts for detecting, disrupting and interdicting threats to national security, organized crime and other criminality transiting the Canada-U.S. border between the ports of entry.
[Translation]
IBET also encourages the involvement of municipal, provincial, state, federal and First nations law enforcement agencies, other stakeholder agencies and related government departments.
[English]
Fifteen IBET regions have been created with integrated units implemented in 24 different locations along the shared border between Canada and the U.S. The five core IBET agencies are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Canada Border Services Agency; U.S. Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the U.S. Coast Guard. These agencies are dedicated to building and maintaining strong relationships, sharing information, sharing best practices and threat assessments. IBET has succeeded in opening the lines of communication between binational law enforcement agencies and has resulted in the common targeting of threats along our shared border.
Intelligence-based joint threat and risk assessments are at the foundation of the RCMP's risk-management approach to increase security between the ports of entry and are completed on a regular basis. The threat assessments have also indicated that organized crime, which has been identified as the most prevalent threat along the border, is extremely adaptable to heightened enforcement activities. This emphasizes the need for a comprehensive border strategy with flexible solutions to address the displacement of criminal activity from one geographic area to another.
Another initiative under the IBET governance structure is the Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations, commonly known as Shiprider. This is an integrated operational approach to maritime law enforcement and security in shared waters, both inland and coastal, led by the RCMP and the U.S. Coast Guard. It involves reciprocal arrangements by which law enforcement personnel of Canada and the U.S. embark on and conduct operations from each other's law enforcement vessels in the sovereign waters of both countries. In the interests of time, Mr. Chair, I will not elaborate further, but would be pleased to respond to any questions the committee may have on this important initiative.
In the immediate future, the RCMP Border Integrity Program will be focused on the lack of a dedicated, intelligence-led, uniformed presence between the ports of entry. This is a requirement that cannot be addressed through the leveraging of existing resources. The RCMP does not have a border patrol, nor is a border patrol being considered, as simply patrolling our vast frontier hoping for a random encounter with criminal activity is not an effective utilization of limited law enforcement resources.
However, the RCMP and CBSA have been exploring options to enhance border security, including the establishment of a pilot project to bolster law enforcement presence between the ports of entry. This project will complement the IBET model by introducing a visible policing presence to the delivery of the RCMP's federal policing mandate in the Province of Quebec. Its primary objectives will be to engage the community through awareness; seek their collaboration in border security issues; complement the work of the established IBETs; add an intelligence-led, visible law enforcement presence of uniformed officers directed to areas warranting greater presence; and provide a dedicated uniformed and marked police car response capability to respond to emerging events at and between the ports of entry.
[Translation]
Although further internal and external consultations with appropriate stakeholders still need to be undertaken, the completion of the proposal is anticipated in the very near future.
[English]
In closing, Mr. Chair, we are continuously examining new and innovative initiatives to counter the ever-evolving threat. We should never be satisfied or become complacent when it comes to border security. Law enforcement must address both the border and inland communities to target effectively organized criminal groups.
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank this committee for inviting us here today. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Assistant Commissioner Cabana. Before we begin, I have a brief point for clarification.
On page 6, you talked about the Airport Federal Enforcement Section, AFES, and an informal unit in Ottawa. What does an informal unit have as opposed to a formal unit?
Mr. Cabana: A formal unit has dedicated resources obtained specifically for the purpose of creating a unit. The unit presently operating in Ottawa was implemented from existing resources. It could be argued that it may have a negative impact on other initiatives that we have. The decision to implement a team in Ottawa was based on intelligence in our possession that indicated an enhanced presence would be beneficial at the Ottawa airport.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Wallin: I have a couple of questions. Some see the border as the first line of defence, and you said you would prefer to see it as the last line of defence. I want to take you back to ensure we have the context for the border discussions regarding our relations with the U.S. post-9/11. This is where the notion of a perimeter was first raised in discussions with the government of the day on this side of the border about whether that would infringe on Canada's sovereignty, et cetera.
The perimeter security approach, by design, puts emphasis on the 49th parallel and our vast border. How did the thinking evolve from that time where we would not focus on the perimeter to how we went down this road?
Mr. Cabana: Thank you for the question, senator. The model we are promoting has not changed significantly. We recognize the importance of a balanced approach in ensuring the security of the border. Criminal organizations transiting the Canada-U.S. border are not operating at the border. They are located in major centres or in other foreign jurisdictions.
For us, the model is to try to push out the border, while keeping an emphasis on the actual line in the sand, and paying attention to and developing intelligence in the major centres and internationally to gain a sense of what is coming toward Canada.
Senator Wallin: We still have this focus because, as you noted, we cannot realistically do border patrols along the 49th parallel, for example.
Mr. Cabana: Yes.
Senator Wallin: We are trying to push those borders back internally — north-south as opposed to east-west.
Mr. Cabana: We are also pushing the borders east-west. We have initiatives and resources that are deployed internationally specifically for the purpose of sharing intelligence with foreign law enforcement agencies to be able to identify the threat to our borders, whether it is the eastern or western border or the north-south border, before they reach our shores.
Senator Wallin: Canada took much of the initiative for the general smart border approach to this. Now, we are starting to talk about the Shiprider program and other programs. Again, how was the priority established? How was it envisioned in the beginning? Why have we done it in the order that we have done it?
Mr. Cabana: Actually, senator, that precedes my arrival. It is quite difficult for me to give you the history and the specific reason that certain initiatives were prioritized versus others. For example, one of the first ones to be promoted was the IBET model.
Senator Wallin: Right.
Mr. Cabana: IBET was already in existence pre-9/11. An IBET unit existed in British Columbia that was actually quite successful. The thought of the day when looking at best practices was that this was clearly identified as a best practice and, therefore, was promoted right away as a potential solution to secure our collective borders.
Senator Wallin: With the obvious security parameters about what you two gentleman can discuss today, not wanting to give away all the details of what we do to the bad guys, you have talked about an intelligence-led approach and you make the distinction between national security issues and criminal threat issues. Can you tell us how you see that?
Mr. Cabana: That is an interesting question. Potentially, there is a somewhat blurred demarcation between the two. The criminality of today might turn out to be a national security issue of tomorrow. Mr. Coons, you may respond here as well if you want, but in the context of the IBET, all interdiction that occurs at the border generates information that is shared with our national security teams. If they are in possession of any information that our criminal team might not have knowledge of, it ensures that the right evaluation and the right actions will be taken.
Senator Wallin: What about the other direction? What is the flow of information from those assessing national security to the criminal area?
Mr. Cabana: The flow of information from our national security teams to our criminal teams is somewhat limited. Again, it is on a need-to-know basis. If our initiatives or criminal teams have a role to play in the investigation of a national security issue, they are engaged and are made aware of the information. Basically, they are tasked with certain actions.
Senator Wallin: Is it up to the people involved to make that assessment?
Mr. Cabana: Absolutely. It is on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Wallin: I will leave it at that unless you have something to add, Mr. Coons.
Warren Coons, Director of the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET), Royal Canadian Mounted Police: No, I simply echo the comments of Assistant Commissioner Cabana. National security information within the IBET world is essentially a one-way transfer of information. It is for all the right reasons to ensure that the national security issues of our country are respected. The trained investigators in the best position to investigate national security matters are tasked with that. If the information needs to flow down to other investigators within the organization, then we will know about it. We do not expect any interaction between the two from the national security sections.
Senator Wallin: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Thank you for coming here this afternoon to take part in our proceedings. Assistant Commissioner Cabana, I would like to delve further with you into the role of the RCMP in ensuring the security of the Canada-U.S. border in Quebec. I would like us to go back in time to help those tuning in to understand the services you described in your opening remarks and the ones that were provided in years past, before the new system was implemented.
To further people's understanding, can you tell us how many Canada-US border crossings there are in Quebec?
Mr. Cabana: I really could not tell what the number is for Quebec.
Senator Nolin: Can you give us some idea? Are the over 100 of them? Are there fewer than 500 crossings?
Mr. Cabana: Fewer than 100.
Senator Nolin: How did it work in years past? Were many Quebec detachments responsible, among other things, for manning these border crossings?
Mr. Cabana: Some of the detachments that were in place at the time are still there. I would imagine that you are referring to those that have been shut down.
Senator Nolin: The communities affected by this decision are quite concerned.
Mr. Cabana: This was indeed a controversial decision, senator. Prior to this decision, the work done by our police officers in these detachments was largely "reactive.'' They responded to incidents at the border. Their investigative capability was minimal, simply because of the size of the detachments. There were very few investigators, maybe two or three in some detachments, which really did not allow them to investigate organized crime. As I indicated in my opening remarks, organized crime poses the biggest threat at this time to our border security.
In either 2002 or 2003, the RCMP did a study in which it examined how staff was assigned in order to achieve the best possible results. A similar exercise was conducted in Ontario in the mid 1990s. It is conducted regularly to ensure that staff is assigned to the right locations.
The finding at the time was that staff levels in these small detachments precluded any possibility of their being proactive.
Senator Nolin: How many officers were assigned at the time to these various detachments?
Mr. Cabana: If memory serves me well, there were 42 investigators or person-years, because I am not certain that all of the officers were investigators. Some of these staff could have been support workers. In total, there were 42 people assigned to these detachments. We came to the realization that in order to be proactive and to tackle organized crime at the right level, we need to build capacity. For that reason, we made the decision to reassign some of these officers to other detachments to increase capacity.
The decision was also made to open the Stanstead detachment, based on information that showed the Stanstead region was in need of more attention. This detachment has the capability to conduct large-scale investigations. What I call a detachment is in fact an IBET, or Integrated Border Enforcement Team.
Senator Nolin: Going back to your earlier explanation, this is a type of detachment that works with similar teams, but on the other side of the border. Is that correct?
Mr. Cabana: Absolutely, that is the nature of the IBET teams.
Senator Nolin: So then, if I understand correctly, in order to improve the efficiency of RCMP services in Quebec, you concluded that it was important to target organized crime and maybe pull out of other, more "reactive'' activities, to use your expression. Correct?
Let me rephrase the question in a more concise way. Are you concerned about persons illegally crossing into Canada at a border point without stopping?
Mr. Cabana: Are you referring to the type of incidents that are occurring these days?
Senator Nolin: I was getting to that. I would imagine that you have sophisticated equipment to support the work of the Americans. Is that correct?
Mr. Cabana: Indeed we do.
Senator Nolin: U.S. television described in great detail the tools US authorities have at their disposal to guard our border. Would it be correct to assume that we have the same tools at our disposal?
Mr. Cabana: We have comparable tools.
Senator Nolin: So then, you would be informed if an automobile goes through a border post without stopping.
Mr. Cabana: I cannot say that we would be informed every single time it happened, but most of the time, that information will be conveyed to us.
Senator Nolin: I read in a report that is undoubtedly confidential that 200 people once crossed the border illegally at the Coaticook post in a single day. In cases like this, is your response reactive? In other words, do you react when a situation is brought to your attention?
Mr. Cabana: If you are referring to the Coaticook border point, it is manned by CBSA employees. If we are contacted by the agency, we will. . .
Senator Nolin: Are you referring to the Canada Border Services Agency?
Mr. Cabana: Yes.
Senator Nolin: That is responsible for customs?
Mr. Cabana: Exactly. We will respond if they call us for assistance. We work in partnership with a number of agencies. An agency other than the RCMP could respond to the situation.
Senator Nolin: About five years ago, Parliament authorized the RCMP to create 600 positions to improve the service's efficiency. However, we see that the objective of creating 600 new positions has not been met fully and that the RCMP has no used all of the funds allocated for that purpose.
Did you in fact use these funds to pay recruits an allowance? After all, this is a fairly recent development.
Mr. Cabana: Providing financial support to recruits?
Senator Nolin: Paying recruits an allowance.
Mr. Cabana: The government has indeed authorized the payment of an allowance to recruits currently attending our training facility
Senator Nolin: And it is only in the past five years that you have been able to hire and train new agents to staff border posts, among other things. Correct?
Mr. Cabana: Yes. Using the funds to pay recruits an allowance is a relatively recent decision. Authorization to use the funds for this purpose was given only a year ago. In the past, infrastructures need to be put in place to increase our recruitment and training capacity. The process took a certain amount of time.
Senator Nolin: Quebec has lost 42 positions. Can you claim that we have more efficient service today?
Mr. Cabana: I would like to make a small correction. I worked at C Division in Quebec for three years.
Senator Nolin: That is why I am putting these questions to you.
Mr. Cabana: These 42 positions were not lost, but reassigned within the division in the province. As I see it, Quebec benefitted because the move enhanced our ability to fight organized crime.
[English]
The Chair: For clarity on this point, it was in the first budget of this government; it was 500 person years or the equivalent. Of those, 360 went to the RCMP, and the others went to the Department of Justice Canada and to Public Safety Canada to be officials.
Senator Nolin: My question goes a little further back. It did not start only with this government. The previous government also introduced, through budgets, more money for the RCMP to hire more people.
The Chair: They spent a lot of time cutting.
Senator Nolin: That is why I am asking the question of those who know.
Senator Munson: I have a supplementary. Do you have enough personnel to do your job?
Mr. Cabana: I doubt very much that anyone representing a federal agency would appear before a committee and say that they have enough resources. Of course, we could use additional resources to allow us to better do our work or implement new initiatives. I can tell you that the resources that we have at this time are deployed to the best of our ability.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in the CBSA arming initiative. I know the RCMP has played a role in the training process. Could you give us an update on that process, commissioner, where it stands and what kind of pressure it is putting on RCMP resources, if any?
Mr. Cabana: Unfortunately, senator, my knowledge of the rollout of the arming initiative for CBSA is somewhat limited. The question is probably best directed to CBSA officials.
In terms of pressure it has created on the RCMP, I would say that it has been minimal. Individuals within our organization were identified specifically to provide a certain level of training through a trainer-to-trainer approach so that CBSA employees would develop their own expertise.
Senator Mitchell: Would you have a particularly intimate knowledge of the Akwesasne issue, with the protest there against CBSA officers wearing firearms?
Mr. Cabana: I probably have the same knowledge as the rest of the room here.
Senator Mitchell: That was really the focus of my interest. Thank you very much.
Senator Manning: I have a couple of questions on the marine import security program established, I believe, in 2004. My understanding is that we have marine security operation centres in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia, which are more or less led by the Department of National Defence, and an interim one in Niagara, Ontario, led by the RCMP.
Can you give us information on the effectiveness of those centres since 2004 — close to five years now — and how they have given more legitimacy to your operations of protecting our borders? Can you tell us about the role they are playing and compare what you had before to what you have now?
Mr. Cabana: In the relatively short time frame that these centres have been in existence they have played a significant role in a number of incidents that have occurred on the East Coast. I can think of one on the Great Lakes. Like with any new initiative, agencies may not have a long history of working together. When initiatives are implemented, there are growing pains and delays.
I realize that the time frame that has elapsed since the inception of the initiative might seem like a long time. I know that all agencies involved in the MSOC initiative would have liked the initiative to progress a little faster. However, many issues need to be looked at in terms of coordination and information sharing. Despite that, I believe that it was last year, with the seal hunt, where the MSOC on the East Coast and in Halifax played a significant role in monitoring and providing law enforcement as well as the Coast Guard with domain awareness in terms of where some of the protesters were located.
Similarly, for some of the interdictions — that is, the importation of narcotics that have taken place — the centre was able to provide real-time domain awareness in terms of progression. Their capabilities are quite significant. However, concepts of operations still need to be finalized and developed. It is like anything that is new; it takes time.
Mr. Coons: In terms of its effectiveness, it buys readiness as well. That is something that we cannot underestimate. When incidents arise, it is there — not that there have necessarily been great volumes of incidents in which it has participated, but it is an important tool that provides us that domain awareness in the marine environment. It is critical. I do not think it is best measured by the number of incidents, but rather by the picture that it provides law enforcement.
Senator Manning: Regarding some of the issues that you have spoken about, I understand that the following departments and agencies are involved: Canada Border Services Agency; the Coast Guard; the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; the Department of National Defence; the Department of Transport; and the RCMP. The coming together of all those federal agencies to work on a uniform basis is commendable, although I realize there are always growing pains with something of that nature. What are the issues around that? Are these offices operating to full capacity now, with cooperation from the different agencies?
Mr. Cabana: Of the coastal centres, the Department of National Defence would probably be best positioned to speak to today's reality regarding ramp-up and whether or not they are fully staffed. In terms of the Great Lakes — the interim one that is located in Niagara — additional resources were provided late last fall, if I remember correctly.
The integration with all the partners is there. We have representation from all partners except one. Everyone is there full time. For the RCMP, four people were assigned last fall, but they have not been completely staffed yet. In the interim form, the centre is fully operational.
Senator Manning: Maybe you cannot answer this question, but I will ask it anyway. Why would the offices on the East Coast and the West Coast be led by the Department of National Defence and the interim one in the Niagara region be led by the RCMP? Why is there a difference there?
Mr. Cabana: It was a policy decision that was made based on the roles of the different agencies. There is a difference between the function of the coastal MSOCs and the Great Lakes MSOCs. The Great Lakes MSOCs look more at criminality domestically, which is not a DND function or role.
Senator Manning: Newfoundland and Labrador, where I am from, had one of the largest drug seizures in Eastern Canada. It happened in Ireland's Eye. As you may know, we have in excess of 700 abandoned communities from the settlement days that are open to drug smugglers. Why would there not be an office in Newfoundland and Labrador for that?
Mr. Cabana: An MSOC office?
Senator Manning: Yes.
Mr. Cabana: Again, that question probably would be best directed to officials from the Department of National Defence. The capacity and the infrastructure were already in place in Halifax, through DND. The reach of the MSOC in Halifax covers Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: If I could follow up on Senator Manning's questions, ATHENA and TRINITY are the MSOCs on each coast. Are you looking at Niagara or at Burlington?
Mr. Cabana: Niagara.
The Chair: Would it create a real-time Maritime picture? Is that the objective on the Great Lakes? If so, for how many of the Great Lakes would it have a picture?
Mr. Cabana: The main awareness picture will still be dependent on Halifax. I believe it still will be dependent on Halifax.
In terms of the actual domain awareness, the information coming from Halifax will not provide us with a full picture, as you know, especially for the smaller vessels that may be transiting through the Great Lakes. Infrastructure and technology are being deployed to provide that picture.
The Chair: The situation in Halifax is that they are dependent on provincial airways, which provide them with coverage a day late. They have radar available and they have tested different frequency radar that is not functioning very well; it is not a very clear picture.
Mr. Cabana: No.
The Chair: The biggest hurdle is the lack of GPS transponders. The current requirement is only for those vessels of 200 tonnes and over.
Mr. Cabana: Absolutely.
The Chair: Do you see that being lowered? This committee is on record as favouring a one-tonne requirement for GPS transponders. We do not think you will have a picture until vessels that size have GPS transponders on them.
Mr. Cabana: I would tend to agree with you. That goes to my comment that the picture we have is not a complete picture.
The Chair: We get reports back from the Toronto Police Service, for example. When they had radar up and functioning, they would see boats crossing from Oshawa to Pickering at 2 a.m., and they assumed it was not for some inexpensive shopping, or vessels going out from Oakville to meet ships in the middle of the Great Lakes, and they assumed it was not a pizza pickup.
What do you have in the MSOC that will prevent that from happening?
Mr. Cabana: We do not have anything presently in the MSOC that will prevent those things from happening. What we are implementing is technology that will be able to inform us when it is happening so that we can take appropriate action with our partners to be able to respond.
Presently, we have a limited capacity. That is why we are deploying more technology.
The Chair: You said "limited capacity.'' My head shot up when you said that you had only four positions assigned to the MSOC for 24/7 operation and you did not have the four filled. You cannot keep someone there 24/7 with only four people unless you will be working extraordinary shifts and no holidays or sick days. How will you manage that?
Mr. Cabana: The four resources are four new resources that were assigned last fall.
The Chair: How many will you have in total, then?
Mr. Cabana: Superintendent Coons will check. I believe we have a total of 15 resources.
The Chair: While he is checking on the numbers, could you tell us this: Do you anticipate using chartered aircraft such as they have on the East Coast where provincial airways fly over? Do you anticipate using unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, to provide for coverage as the Americans have in the prairies? How will you find the anomalies on the Great Lakes, and what sort of equipment will you use?
Mr. Cabana: All of those things and others. As I said, the model that we promote is an integrated, multi-layered model. We cannot lose sight of the existence of other initiatives that are in place. The Toronto Police Service, as you pointed out, is very active, especially in the Toronto area and the port. We have the Marine Security Enforcement Teams, MSETs, which patrol some of the Great Lakes. The information that is collected by all of those different entities, plus the technology, eventually will give us a much better picture of the traffic and what is occurring on the Great Lakes.
Will we ever have a complete picture, 100 per cent? It depends how good the technology is, but I doubt it.
The Chair: How will you deal with the seasonality? The number of boats on Lake Ontario, for example, goes up by a factor of 100 in the summertime. Your demand will be very irregular. How will you address that?
Mr. Cabana: In terms of resourcing, once fully implemented, the MSOC will be operating 24/7. Whether there is a high volume of traffic or a low volume of traffic, they will be there. They are not expected to respond to any incident. The challenge will come more on the response side.
The Chair: I thought the challenge would come on identifying the anomalies. If you suddenly have 1,000 vessels out and you have to separate the sheep from the goats, you will need people at the MSOC saying, "No, that vessel should be here, and this vessel I do not know about.''
Mr. Cabana: This goes to the intelligence-led approach. If there are 1,000 vessels on the Great Lakes at any point in time, our ability to be able to verify 1,000 vessels is non-existent. This is why we have to rely on the intelligence that different parties bring to the table, whether Transport Canada, CBSA, ourselves, Toronto, or the OPP, to be able to target the right vessels.
The Chair: Then you need to interdict.
Mr. Cabana: Then we need to have the capacity to interdict, absolutely.
The Chair: Where will you get that capacity?
Mr. Cabana: At the present time, as you know, senator, we have the Marine Security Enforcement Teams patrolling, and they are providing a capacity; some would say a limited capacity.
The Chair: How many vessels for how many lakes?
Mr. Cabana: We have four vessels.
The Chair: Is that one per lake?
Mr. Cabana: No, because there is one that is assigned to the St. Lawrence Seaway. It gives us three vessels, if we are talking about the Great Lakes.
There are also the IBET units situated along some of the Great Lakes that will provide a capacity onshore or near shore to interdict.
The Chair: Do the Americans have an MSOC on their side?
Mr. Cabana: No.
The Chair: Do they not have a centre where they can get a maritime picture of what is going on?
Mr. Cabana: They have a centre that can get a maritime picture, but it is not necessarily an integrated centre that brings to bear the information and resources of different agencies like we have in Canada.
The Chair: Do they share the picture they have, and will we share the picture that we have?
Mr. Coons: We certainly share the intelligence back and forth, and the U.S. Coast Guard is an IBET partner that we have regular dealings with.
The reality is that it is a tough nut to crack. The problem you have identified of the volume of traffic on the Great Lakes, especially during peak periods, is extraordinarily difficult for law enforcement and one I can assure you the U.S. is trying to work on as well.
I am not aware of any definite solution that has been developed. I know that we are all working towards technology that will help isolate the more suspicious vessels, but again, as Assistant Commissioner Cabana referred to, it is important to be intelligence-led. It is best for us to have the information beforehand so that we know what we are looking at before we try to pick up those anomalies in the water.
The Chair: Every time we hear "intelligence-led'' at the committee, we translate that into "We do not have enough people.''
Mr. Coons: I do not think that is a fair assessment. It is not to say that we have enough people, but I will tell you that intelligence-led is the manner in which we conduct our law enforcement operations. It has to be that way because of the length of the border and the geography we are dealing with. It is virtually impossible, no matter where you are, no matter what the law enforcement environment is, to not have intelligence drive your operations. There simply are not enough people in the world to not be intelligence-led.
The Chair: On the subject of people, have you had a chance to find the number you were looking for?
Mr. Cabana: Yes. We are looking at 12 regular members and 3 civilian members.
The Chair: Is that for 24/7?
Mr. Cabana: With the addition of the new resources, 24/7 will come.
The Chair: It is not seasonal; is it year-end?
Mr. Cabana: It is year-end.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Munson: I will be brief on following up on what the chair just said. For the last while we have been talking about the MSOC. I asked the question earlier about personnel to do your job and you sort of answered it, but what would it take to make your job easier?
Mr. Cabana: The RCMP has developed border strategy looking at future investments. The requirement is not strictly around resources but also around partnerships for existing agencies and technology that needs to be implemented. I am afraid I cannot provide you with actual numbers today.
Senator Munson: I believe you are saying you really do need more people to make this country more secure.
Mr. Cabana: In order to implement other initiatives, such as an intelligence-led uniform presence between the ports of entry, absolutely. This is not something we can implement with existing resources.
Senator Munson: I know there is probably a theme on these questions. I have a couple of other questions on training.
When new RCMP officers assigned to border security are in training, do they do any field work? Are there training deficiencies? Are you satisfied with the training that is taking place or does it need to be improved?
Mr. Cabana: Are you referring to the basic training provided at our training academy in Depot?
Senator Munson: To border security services.
Mr. Cabana: Are you referring to members assigned to a border?
Senator Munson: Yes.
Mr. Coons: Each member assigned to our border security units receives a course on that particular field, whether it is the marine environment or the IBET environment. There are mandatory courses that members must take to familiarize them with the actual specific area for which they are responsible.
Senator Munson: Is it in collaboration with your American counterparts? For example, would there be American trainers training the RCMP?
Mr. Coons: In the case of the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams, which is a bilateral enforcement initiative, we have joint training. We have the IBET intelligence and investigations course, which is conducted for both our Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers together and is actually facilitated by both Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers.
Senator Munson: Do you see any deficiencies? Are there areas that need to be improved?
Mr. Coons: We do a significant amount of training with the IBETs working together now. I cannot think off the top of my head of a specific area in which we require greater training. A couple of years ago we conducted a survey within the IBET program that talked about areas where we did require training according to the front-line personnel. They identified two particular areas. Those would be information sharing between our two countries — front-line law enforcement officers from both countries — as well as terrorism training.
As a result, through the international joint management team, which is basically the governance board for the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams, we developed two solutions to that, including a terrorism workshop, which we have now rolled out to most of the law enforcement members. I believe that for over 1,100 law enforcement members along the border the terrorism workshop has been very successful and well received. As well, on the information- sharing side of the training, through the international coordination team, which is the day-to-day governance body of the IBET program, we developed a series of matrices that we believe has resolved in large measure the problems of information sharing by front-line personnel in the IBET program. I have the statistics on how many have received that training. We have trained nearly all IBET personnel in the country. A total of 247 individuals from 10 IBETs have been trained thus far, and we have scheduled training sessions in June and September for those who still require training.
Those were the two primary training deficiencies. I believe we have addressed those. I am not aware of any other significant issue that is consistent across the country.
Senator Meighen: You rightly said that intelligence is at the basis of your ability to counter risk. To what extent have you been able to strengthen your intelligence-gathering capabilities, if at all? Second, in the cross-border teams, such as the IBETs and the Shiprider program, is there a genuine sharing of intelligence across the border with the Americans and vice versa?
Mr. Cabana: As to our ability to develop intelligence, we need to clearly identify that the intelligence we are referring to is not strictly RCMP intelligence. Since adopting the intelligence-led model, the RCMP has put significant emphasis on developing their intelligence program.
However, the intelligence also resides with other agencies. In other words, we recognize that the RCMP has one piece of the puzzle. Other agencies, some of which are not law enforcement agencies, may have another piece of the puzzle. The importance of the intelligence-led model is to bring all these pieces together to get a global picture of what is going on.
Senator Meighen: That is not only important, it is the challenge.
Mr. Cabana: Absolutely.
Senator Meighen: Am I not correct that in the past there has been some question as to the willingness of various agencies, including the RCMP, to share their intelligence with others? Do you believe we have made progress in that area?
Mr. Cabana: I think we have made significant progress, and I think we continue to do so. The RCMP and its partners are continuously looking at the information-sharing protocols and models that are in place and evaluating the impact of the legislative framework that allows us to share, to ensure that we respect that legislative framework and use it to its maximum.
There are 55 law enforcement agencies that are part of the joint management team of the IBET. Those agencies share the information real-time in order to identify risks coming to our border, either south or north, and take the appropriate action in coordination and cooperation with one another.
The days of protectionism of intelligence are miles away. However, there are still challenges to our ability to share information.
Senator Meighen: Are those challenges mainly of human nature in origin or are they legislative?
Mr. Cabana: I would say both, although in large part human nature.
Senator Meighen: Protecting your own turf?
Mr. Cabana: Exchange of information in based in large part on personalities. In some areas the exchange is much more fluid than in others. There must be consistency in the interpretation of the legislation. Both CBSA and the RCMP have taken action to ensure that consistent interpretation is implemented, but there are still some legislative impediments. Some legislation is quite dated and precludes us from sharing some information.
Mr. Coons: As we went through the information-sharing protocols and the development of protocols for our agencies, we discovered that the largest problem was education. After 9/11, the O'Connor commission of inquiry and a number of other incidents, there was a reluctance with regard to cross-border sharing. There was a misapprehension on the Canadian side about exactly what could be shared.
Once we educated front-line officers on what could be shared, the sharing increased. More than legislative impediments, it is a matter of education so that front-line personnel on both sides of the border understand what they can expect to receive from the other country and what they can provide in order to maximize the amount of information that can be shared within the legal frameworks available to both countries.
Mr. Cabana: As well as managing expectations.
Senator Meighen: Fair enough. Given that so much of your success depends not necessarily on having another fast boat but on having fast and accurate intelligence, are you spending enough on intelligence or are you inclined to put your money into fast boats? If you do not have the intelligence, that boat will not know where to go or who to apprehend.
Mr. Cabana: You are absolutely right. This goes to the balanced approach that I spoke of earlier. In terms of investment, we need to ensure we have a balanced approach. We cannot lose sight of the importance intelligence plays in our responses on a daily basis.
Senator Meighen: How are you getting on with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, these days?
Mr. Cabana: Much better. Working groups are in place at the highest level looking at sharing mechanisms between CSIS and us. It is much better than it was.
Senator Meighen: Senator Nolin wanted to raise the Shiprider program, but he had to leave. Given that you are dealing with the Great Lakes and the Seaway area, where there is a large number of francophones, what steps do you take to ensure that bilingual members of the force are present on all operations?
Mr. Cabana: We take our obligations quite seriously. In assigning members to patrols in different areas, this is taken into consideration.
Senator Meighen: I hope you not only take it into consideration but do something about the Canadian reality.
[Translation]
This is a reality here in Canada that we do not necessarily encounter on the other side of the border.
Mr. Cabana: You are quite right.
Senator Meighen: We will continue to monitor the situation closely.
[English]
The Chair: Assistant Commissioner, we can evaluate and measure the speed of a fast boat. How do you evaluate and measure whether you are getting good intelligence, and how do you audit for stovepipes and people who are not sharing?
Mr. Cabana: I understood the first part of your question, Mr. Chair, but I am not sure about the second part.
The Chair: Well, the first part was about fast boats.
Mr. Cabana: Yes, I understood that.
The Chair: That is easy to measure. The hard part is determining whether you are getting good intelligence. How do you measure whether you are? Also, how do you audit for whether you are sharing information?
If one of us had to do a study, how would we find out whether information is being shared between one part of the RCMP and another or between the RCMP and CSIS or CBSA? How does one root out stovepipes?
Mr. Cabana: I am not sure how one would go about that. It would almost have to be done on a case-by-case basis by determining how the information was exchanged.
The measure of our success in information sharing goes to our ability to interdict activities and, to some extent, to predict the activities of criminal organizations.
The Chair: Everyone who appears before us and says that they are intelligence-based also says that it is a lot better than it used to be and that they are really sharing a lot of information. Nobody will appear before us and say, "Boy, is it the pits. We have terrible relations with organization X or Y.'' People have great difficulty explaining how they know it is getting better and how they measure it. What are the metrics?
Mr. Coons: In the world of Integrated Border Enforcement Teams, we meet on a regular basis at the ground level where we are targeting threats in that local area of operation. We know there are exchanges going on between the local law enforcement agencies that have access to the border in that area. That was not happening before we had those teams established. It is clear we do have something tangible that we can point to that talks about the exchange of intelligence between law enforcement agencies in that area, which we never had in the past.
We also have monthly intelligence reports that are circulated to our national headquarters. We have the ability to monitor, if you will, the amount of intelligence that is being exchanged in the field.
I do not think there is a specific tool that addresses precisely your point. However, on an anecdotal basis, we are able to say that we do have more regular contact with law enforcement agencies and we know we are doing more integrated operations with them and, therefore, we are exchanging more information and ultimately intelligence. That may not precisely answer your question, but that is one example.
Mr. Cabana: A distinction that also needs to be made is sharing of criminal information and sharing of national security-type information. Senator Meighen asked whether our relationship with CSIS was better than it used to be. It is, but there is still a limited sharing of information between our criminal teams and CSIS. Sharing of information between the RCMP and CSIS occurs through our national security teams.
Senator Moore: After 9/11, we developed a smart border action plan with our American counterparts. The theme was shared management of our border. At the beginning of today's session, the chair mentioned the $1.6 billion trading that goes back and forth between our two countries every day.
In that context, given the importance of the border to Canada, the security that is involved and the even flow of people in commerce, on March 25 of this year, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, in a speech to the Brookings Institution said that we are now in the midst of a culture change in the sense that the closer relationship still exists, but the reality exists that there is a border there too and the accoutrements of a border now are being put in place.
On April 13, I was in Washington for a border trade and security symposium. At that event, Secretary Napolitano characterized herself as a myth buster — her words — with regard to the border and the reality of the Northern U.S. border being the border with Canada. The implied myth was that the border did not exist, that we were not giving it its proper due with respect to security.
You gentlemen belong to our chief law enforcement authority. I would like to know, did the RCMP treat the border any less seriously in the past, whether it was with regard to culture or security, than it does today? I do not understand the comments of the secretary about the myth. I never thought that Canadians treated the border without respect, without sharing whatever we had to do to make it effective, secure and so on.
Mr. Cabana: No, I do not believe that is the case. I think that the RCMP has always treated the border the same way. The public focus on the border has changed significantly since 9/11.
Senator Moore: Agreed.
Mr. Cabana: Similarly, the number of initiatives that have been implemented since 9/11 has also increased the level of resources that are focusing their attention on the border. In that sense, you can say we have an increased attention on the border. However, in terms of strategy towards border enforcement, that has not changed.
Senator Moore: Do you have anything to add to that, Superintendent Coons?
Mr. Coons: No, I would agree. We have new initiatives in place obviously since 9/11, but the RCMP has always had the mandate — at least since 1932 — for the security of the border between the ports of entry, which remains the same today.
Senator Lang: Welcome. I want to follow up on Senator Moore's question because we have heard the statements by the United States Secretary of Homeland Security and also from the Secretary of State.
Is the U.S. government, in their observations on the border, expecting us as a government to do more on the border than what we are already doing? Have they actually put something forward to say that they are expecting the Canadian government to put more resources towards the borders?
Mr. Cabana: I am not sure that is a question I can actually answer. It would probably be better directed to U.S. authorities.
Probably everyone in the room here has seen the rhetoric in the media about the attention the new U.S. administration is intending to place on the northern border. It clearly indicates that they will be focusing their attention on the enforcement initiatives and what Canada is doing to contribute to securing the border.
However, I do not think that it will change the relationship that exists with some of the U.S. border agencies that have been in place, U.S. border patrol for example, since 1926. The RCMP has been working hand-in-hand with border patrol to secure the border. That will not change.
Senator Lang: No, but I guess my question is whether or not the United States government has approached any agency, whether it be the RCMP or any of the other agencies that you work with day to day, expecting that we do more than we are already doing.
Mr. Cabana: I can only speak for the RCMP, and I am not aware of any discussions to that end taking place.
Senator Lang: I believe it was Senator Kenny who touched earlier on the question of vessels on the Great Lakes. Obviously, we can only have so many vessels. Intelligence, as Senator Meighen said, is obviously of the highest of importance.
If there is action going on in one of the Great Lakes and we do not have a vessel there or the ability to apprehend, if the American Coast Guard is there, for example, do they have the ability to apprehend in Canadian waters as well as American waters?
Mr. Cabana: No, sir. Not at this point in time.
Senator Lang: What would be done in that case if we knew or suspected there was a situation in which an individual or group should be apprehended? What can be done? Who apprehends them?
Mr. Cabana: Again, we are talking hypothetical situations here, so it is hard to identify exactly who would be in a position to respond.
On a daily basis, in any of the activities that we undertake, we seek to maximize the capabilities of all of our partners, including the RCMP. Should there be an incident in one of the Great Lakes where there is no vessel, there would be discussions happening at the front-line level, through either the IBETs or some of the other initiatives we have in order to determine who is in the best position to take the appropriate action. In all likelihood, it would be a coordinated response.
Senator Lang: Could we be satisfied one way or the other that the vessel in question would be apprehended?
Mr. Cabana: Based on this hypothetical situation, I cannot give you that kind of certainty today. I will not tell you that we would be 100 per cent guaranteed to be in a position to apprehend. I cannot do that. All I can guarantee you is that all necessary actions would be taken to maximize our chances of being able to apprehend.
Senator Wallin: I have a clarification to Senator Lang's point. The Secretary of Homeland Security had her wrist slapped fairly quickly on the statement about the border being too porous and this being a very serious situation — did we not know — since 9/11. It does raise a question about whether, in the new Obama administration, where they seem on some of these issues to be rediscovering the wheel and where we were seeing some fairly serious protectionist tendencies, they will do it themselves, separate and apart from anyone else. Do you see that impacting the security issue as well?
Mr. Cabana: It is always a possibility. Based on the discussions that I have had with my counterparts in some of the agencies, I do not think we will see that, simply because, for the most part, we basically are on the same page regarding the border reality.
Senator Wallin: The process is in train?
Mr. Cabana: Absolutely.
Senator Mitchell: On the boats, you are probably not going to want to tell us which of the lakes does not have one. Having said that, while I think we all agree it is not a question of any organization ever having enough resources, would it be reasonable to expect that you might want a fifth boat so that you could at least have one on each of the major lakes?
Mr. Cabana: Potentially. It is important here to make the distinction that the boats are not assigned to specific lakes; the boats are roaming. At any given time, there might be two boats in a lake, or actually three. Again, they are directed by the intelligence that we have.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in following up, as well, on the intelligence issue. You are making the point that things have changed. It is difficult, I know — I think it is clear — to really assess the impact.
Could you give us some sense of whether you are getting more intelligence reports? Are the reports more reliable? Are you receiving more specific apprehensions as a result of that? Can you make some assessment for us in that regard?
Mr. Cabana: I am not quite sure how I could provide you an assessment.
Senator Mitchell: Are you catching more people now because of intelligence being shared?
Mr. Cabana: Over the past several years, if you look at some of the cases where we have been successful, and you look at the level of interdiction of those criminal organizations, there is a clear indication that the law enforcement community in Canada, and internationally, has taken down some of the barriers. I guess that is the best way to say it. The collaboration and information sharing is occurring in a fairly robust fashion. I can think of a project that involved a number of agencies internationally, and the sharing of information in support of that file was quite significant.
Senator Mitchell: Are you getting an increased volume of intelligence from U.S. sources, and is that coming directly to the RCMP or does it go through CSIS and then to the RCMP?
Mr. Cabana: Again, it depends on the nature of the information. If the information is of national security connotation, it might reach the RCMP through our national security teams, or it might reach Canada through CSIS. There are sharing mechanisms in place between the two agencies to be able to communicate and share that information.
If it is in a criminal realm, there are mechanisms in place. Canadian Integrated Response to Organized Crime, CIROC, encompasses representatives from all major police forces in Canada, including the RCMP. It is there specifically to ensure that there is appropriate sharing of information.
Interestingly, with CIROC, there is coordination around the actioning of intelligence between the different agencies.
These are all mechanisms that, just a few years ago, did not necessarily exist.
Mr. Coons: On a weekly basis, investigations are conducted by U.S. and Canadian law enforcement that might not be the huge investigations. We are not talking about tons of narcotics or things like that, but a couple of illegal migrants going across the border. Those kinds of things happen on a weekly basis because of the sharing of intelligence. They are not necessarily things that capture the imagination of the public and make the papers, but these are ongoing on a regular basis.
The other important thing to point out is that our international coordination team at the RCMP headquarters in Ottawa has representation from each of the five core agencies. I work with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. border patrol, as well as the CBSA all in the same office. That kind of interaction leads to that exchange of information and coordination between our agencies.
Senator Lang: If I could, I just want to follow up on the vessels in the Great Lakes and the Shiprider program that was announced here in May. I am assuming that we will have Canadians on American vessels and vice versa in order to do this, to work together.
Mr. Cabana: Yes, senator, we will.
Senator Lang: Do the Americans have a set number of vessels on the Great Lakes and in the seaway?
Mr. Cabana: We need to make a distinction here between the Marine Security Enforcement Teams that we have on the Great Lakes, which are fairly sizable vessels out patrolling, manned strictly with Canadian representatives — Canada Coast Guard and the RCMP. Shiprider is a separate initiative looking specifically at implementing the necessary legal framework to be able to have joint maritime enforcement initiatives in place.
The Chair: Could you connect for us how the Marine Security Enforcement Teams relate to the National Port Enforcement Teams, and then to the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre and the National Risk Assessment Centre? We see a plethora of organizations out there. Superintendent Coons was talking about how he functioned with a range of organizations. Could you explain to the committee how these four organizations relate to each other?
Mr. Cabana: I can try. Some of the relationships or the linkages between the agencies are — I hate to use the term — "minimal.''
In terms of the enforcement initiatives, you made reference to the Marine Security Enforcement Teams and the National Port Enforcement Teams. Those are all under the umbrella of Border Integrity within the RCMP.
The Chair: IBET as well?
Mr. Cabana: IBET as well. The coordination between the border programs that the RCMP manages all falls under one umbrella and is managed and coordinated out of headquarters.
The Chair: They report to a chief superintendent who reports to you?
Mr. Cabana: Absolutely. They report to Superintendent Coons, who is responsible for the IBET initiative and Shiprider.
The Chair: Joe Oliver.
Mr. Cabana: Joe Oliver is now the director general for Border Integrity. All of that reports to him, and Chief Superintendent Oliver reports to me.
This is how we ensure the coordination, the sharing of the information internally, between all of those different initiatives.
ITAC and the CBSA Threat Assessment Centre do not necessarily play a significant role. ITAC collects information from all the different agencies and provides intelligence products to the community. We get those and we use some of that intelligence.
The Chair: Do the first three generate their own intelligence or do they get intelligence from the ITAC and the National Risk Assessment Centre?
Mr. Cabana: Both. However, they mostly develop their own intelligence or obtain the intelligence from partner agencies — the 55 agencies that are sitting at the table. However, they are receiving intelligence products from groups like ITAC.
The Chair: We are right on the button in terms of time. It has been a very informative briefing session. As we get closer to visiting the different parts of the border, which we will virtually do from coast to coast, we will undoubtedly have more questions for you and your people. We hope that they can be as informative as you have been today. We appreciate your appearance here very much, as well as your previous briefing on Shiprider, which you covered in great detail.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you both very much for appearing here today.
For the members of the public who are viewing this meeting, if you have any questions or comments, please visit our website at www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony, committee reports and confirmed hearing schedules. Otherwise, you may contact the clerk of the committee by calling 1-800-267-7362 for further information or assistance in contacting members of the committee.
(The committee adjourned.)