Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 7 - Evidence - Meeting of May 14, 2012
OTTAWA, Monday, May 14, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 3:59 p.m. to examine the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 12 of Part 4 of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012, and other measures.
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we will formally begin this session of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. I will give just a little background on our discussions today.
Back in 2005, under a previous Liberal government, Canada and the United States embarked on a pilot project known as Shiprider. RCMP and U.S. Coast Guard officers were working together as teams authorized to act as peace officers in each other's countries along shared waterways so that criminals fleeing the RCMP, for example, could no longer get away by simply crossing into American waters.
The pilot project was overwhelmingly successful, so an agreement was then reached by Canada and the United States for an Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Policy. Legislation to implement this agreement was approved by the Senate in the last Parliament but died on the Order Paper when the election was called.
As I said to some of our guests today, it is déjà vu all over again looking at this. The legislation is back before us again in Bill C-38, the Budget Implementation Bill, under Part 4, Division 12. The legislation is essentially the same, with some operational changes. For example, one new principle this time is that Shiprider operations must be conducted as directed by a designated officer from the host country.
Last week, many of you will be aware that we passed a motion in the Senate referring to this committee the papers, evidence and work accomplished on what was then called Bill S-13 in the last session of this Parliament. That has all been brought forward. I hope you had a chance to go to the website to review anything there — it is under the SCONSAD on our Senate committee website — because we did have extensive testimony at the time. Again, that is available online.
A little later today we will hear from the RCMP, who of course are crucial and key to this, but we begin today with an explanation of Shiprider. We have four witnesses with us today from Public Safety Canada: Stephen Bolton, Director, Border Law Enforcement Strategies Division; and Richard Wex, Assistant Deputy Minister, Law Enforcement and Policing. From Justice Canada we have Michael Zigayer, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section; and Sophie Beecher, Counsel, Legal Services.
I understand Mr. Wex has an opening statement.
Richard Wex, Assistant Deputy Minister, Law Enforcement and Policing, Public Safety Canada: I do. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you very much for inviting us today to appear. You have summarized much of our opening remarks rather succinctly, but for purposes of the record, I will still read in the statement.
Just by way of background, the purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide a statutory basis and ratify the framework agreement that was entered into between the Government of Canada and the government of the United States in May 2009, on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations, more commonly known as Shiprider. The previous bill is essentially the same as the bill before us today. They were introduced in the House in 2009 and again in the Senate in 2010. As was noted by the chair, both bills died on the Order Paper.
The policing model outlined in the framework agreement represents an evolution of how Canada and the United States are looking to secure the maritime border, moving from traditional cooperative and collaborative policing models to a focus on true physical integration of our law enforcement officers to patrol our maritime border.
Law enforcement agencies working near the Canada-U.S. border are increasingly faced with investigating criminal activity that extends beyond our respective boundaries. Cross-border investigations such as the smuggling of guns, contraband tobacco and people, for example, are hindered because law enforcement officers lose their status as peace officers the moment they move outside their jurisdiction and cross the boundary; the moment the suspected criminals cross the boundary line, our officers lose the ability to chase them down and effect an arrest. The border becomes a barrier to our police officers.
The same limitation applies to American law enforcement officers. Criminals are aware of these limitations and, frankly, use this to their advantage, certainly in the maritime context, to evade arrest and avoid prosecution.
The Shiprider model is aimed at closing this gap. It involves marine vessels jointly crewed by specially trained and designated Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers who are authorized to enforce the law on both sides of the international boundary line. Working together, armed Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers are able to transit freely back and forth across the border in the same vessel to deal with cross-border criminality in shared waterways. Designated Canadian and American officers participating in Shiprider operations would be able to enforce the law on both sides of the border and deal with criminal activity on either side of the border without the limitations of traditional police jurisdictions.
Just as the criminals do not see the border as an impediment to their business, we want to remove the barriers to Canadian and American law enforcement officers, to level the playing field and to allow them to do their jobs.
Questions in the past have focused on the issue sovereignty. It is important to understand, as noted in the chair's opening comments, that all Shiprider operations will be conducted under the direction and control of law enforcement officers of what we refer to as the "host country " and they are assisted by law enforcement officers of the "visiting country. "
In Canadian waters, for example, operations will always be conducted according to Canadian laws, according to Canadian policies, practices — including the Charter — and under the direction of a Canadian law enforcement officer.
[Translation]
It is important to understand that all Shiprider operations will be conducted under the direction and control of law enforcement officers of the host country, and in compliance with Canadian legislation.
[English]
This innovative, cooperative policing model not only leverages law enforcement resources, including officers and vessels, more efficiently but has been proven to be an effective method of deterring and interdicting cross-border criminality.
As you may recall, Canada and the United States undertook a number of initial pilot projects to test and assess the effectiveness of the Shiprider concept between 2005 and 2007. In short, the evaluations concluded that the pilots were both viable operationally and had a measurable impact on cross-border criminal activity.
Following the success of the pilots and following consultations in 2008-09, the framework agreement between Canada and the United States was finalized and signed by the Minister of Public Safety and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the spring of 2009. The agreement was then tabled in Parliament in the fall of 2009 and, as I mentioned at the outset, legislation seeking to implement the agreement has now twice been introduced to Parliament, first as Bill C-60 in the House of Commons and then as Bill S-13 in the Senate.
Some of you will recall the former Bill S-13 as it was passed by this committee prior to the dissolution of Parliament last year. The proposed legislation now before you is essentially the same, with a few modest amendments, including the one that was pointed out by the chair in terms of the principle underlining sovereignty. There is another principle that has been removed. There is a new provision regarding the issuance of certificates to designated officers for evidentiary purposes in court and otherwise; a significant streamlining of the oversight provisions and making the oversight regime generally mirror that which currently applies to all other RCMP activities under the RCMP Act; and a new provision that would a how cross-designated officers to maintain their status when conducting incidental activities to Shiprider operations, such as travelling to a work site or operating in court, which we felt was implied but, for purposes of clarity, has been made more express in this bill. We would be happy to walk you through all of these changes in more detail, perhaps during the course of our discussions.
Upon coming into force, the proposed legislation will establish a legal framework, and enable the deployment of regularized Shiprider operations. This will then allow the government to meet a key commitment under the cross- border law enforcement pillar in the Canada-U.S. Beyond the Border action plan initiative that was announced by the Prime Minister and the President last year.
This concludes our opening remarks. We would be pleased to entertain any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to ask a clarification on the new provision you and I mentioned, specifically about the host country. Is that declared at the beginning of an operation, if they are on a boat and they are going down the river?
Mr. Wex: It is a governing principle for all Shiprider operations. It is actually contained in the framework agreement itself was successfully negotiated in 2009. For all activities in Canada, it will be conducted under the directional control of the host country, namely the Canadian law enforcement officer, and the central authority, the RCMP, and vice versa — the principle of reciprocity applies throughout — in the United States when operations are across the border.
The Chair: If they are literally in the middle of the waterway and they have begun to apprehend this criminal on the Canadian side, and the boat crosses over, how does that work?
Mr. Wex: The way it works is that it is based on the GPS at the time. That country will determine how to affect the arrest.
The Chair: Great. We will begin our formal questioning.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to direct your attention to page 273, section 4, subsection (b), paragraph (iii): ". . . be conducted as directed by a designated officer from the host country. " That is significantly different from the text in Bill S-13, which reads as follows:
[English]
. . . be intelligence driven, based on threat and risk assessments conducted jointly by Canada and the United States and coordinated with existing cooperative policy programs and activities.
Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Safety Flack uttered those words. What happened to all this intelligence-based operations and preventative stuff? Why bring it down to something that can more easily lead to a discussion on the nature of the concepts of how the apprehension and processes are being used on the border?
Mr. Wex: Thank you for that question. That is one of the seven or so amendments we were referring to earlier that have been made. It may be useful at a certain point to go through all those seven changes, if the chair or honourable senators wish to, because we may run into questions like this, where we are identifying each of them.
The Chair: That would be helpful. Do you want to do that now?
Mr. Wex: I am happy to start with that one. The senator is absolutely correct. Though I do not have it in front of me, the old principle referred to reflected that activities would be based on threat and risk assessments has been removed for purposes of operational flexibility so as not to constrain necessarily the police officers carrying out the Shiprider operations. Of course, it will be informed by recent threat and risk assessments, but if, for example, a Shiprider operation needs to react on the spot or to respond to something that is not necessarily identified as a priority threat or risk but does have other valid criminal purposes, we felt that the previous wording was operationally restrictive.
The principle that has been inserted, which is yet another change, is exactly that which we talked about at the outset. Separate from the first point, we felt it incredibly important for Canadians to understand, despite it being a principle and an article of the framework agreement, that the act reflects the importance of sovereignty and that all activities and Shiprider operations will be under the direct control and management, if you will, of the host country. There are two separate amendments — one adding a new principle underlining the importance of host country control, which was already in the framework agreement and would have applied in any event but which is brought to the attention of parliamentarians more expressly, and two deleting an earlier provision, which, though generally accurate, was felt to be operationally restrictive to the law enforcement officers.
Senator Dallaire: This is exactly the area of concern we had with Bill S-13. You are mixing different types of operations together. The Coast Guard is a national service within the U.S, and so it is part of the five national military and paramilitary structures. We have police, and they are not gendarmerie or paramilitary; they are police. The procedures and the concepts of operations used by the American Coast Guard are different from classic policing.
Taking this out, I believe, takes away the overriding reason for Shiprider. It was not just for drugs; it was for terrorists, arms and that kind of stuff. It was not just how we police the border a little better. If it needed a bit of a nuance, you could have fiddled with it instead of taking away the real nature of why we brought in this legislation.
Mr. Wex: Thank you, senator, for that comment. I believe Mr. Zigayer would like to add something, but I would simply note that, of course, our job here is to assist the committee in understanding what is here, not necessarily what is not here. The framework agreement, I believe, does address some of the issues you are raising in the sense that it does refer to what the intent of Shiprider is meant to achieve in terms of being committed to the prevention, detection, suppression and investigation of any criminal offence relating to border enforcement, including but not limited to: illicit drug trade, migrant smuggling, trafficking of firearms, smuggling of counterfeit goods and monies, and terrorism. The general intent is there. I believe that the concern that some had about the previous wording was simply that it was maybe too restrictive or constricting as things change. You may have a risk and threat assessment at a certain date, but you may have something on the water that is also important but does not necessarily fit into the constraints of that risk assessment. The only other point I would make with respect to the U.S. Coast Guard, which is an important point, is that there is a big distinction between the U.S. Coast Guard and their law enforcement authorities and our Coast Guard. All of the U.S. Coast Guard participating officers, as well as all other officers participating from the American side — just to remind everyone — will be specifically trained and designated with respect to our laws and practices in order to be designated as Shiprider officers under this legislation.
The Chair: When we had this discussion before — and you can clarify if I am not remembering correctly — part of the reason it was a limitation there, as opposed to in the overall framework, is that, on the surface, you may be stopping someone from transporting goods or money, but it actually has a terrorist component. Am I remembering that correctly? I think we had this debate.
Michael Zigayer, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: I note that the RCMP will be testifying after us.
You are correct, senator, that the U.S. Coast Guard has a military function. We are not dealing with those people. We are dealing with the other hat because the Coast Guard wears two hats. We are dealing with the hat that is a law enforcement hat. They are two separate missions. They have a security mission and a law enforcement mission. We are only dealing with the people engaged in law enforcement. You may be interested to know — and the RCMP can confirm this later — that their rules of engagement and approaches to the use of force are very similar, if not identical. I will leave that to the RCMP to go further into.
Of course, Mr. Wex is correct in the comments he made. I would just say that the provision that was taken out was viewed as overly restrictive because, if you read it closely, it would indicate that, basically, you could not leave port unless you had some intelligence leading you to believe that something was about to happen. It is just better law enforcement if you can actually go out and perhaps be on the water, not on speck but doing a normal patrol. Even in the absence of intelligence, you might actually encounter some criminality. That was the reason why we made it more flexible, as Mr. Wex has said.
The Chair: Mr. Wex, do you want to run through the highlights?
Mr. Wex: It may be helpful. We have covered the first two of the seven by virtue of Senator Dallaire's questions. I thank the senator for that.
Senator Day: Then those two are just clarification. They are both in the same clause, just two different principles in the same clause.
Mr. Wex: It is the same clause. One has been removed and one has been replaced. We have the replacement of an old one.
Senator Day: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Wex: That section was deleted and replaced with this one. That is right.
The next section to bring to the committee's attention would be proposed section 10(1) on page 274:
The Central Authority for Canada may issue a certificate to any designated officer stating that the person to whom it is issued is a designated officer for the purposes of this Act.
I think that is fairly straightforward. There is a similar provision in the RCMP Act. It is essentially for evidentiary purposes in court, in a prosecution or otherwise. It certifies that the individual is, in fact, a cross-border law enforcement officer, and the certificate is evidence of the status of the designated officer in all proceedings.
Also, frankly, if someone gets pulled over and says, "Who are you and what are you doing? " presumably, depending on the size of the certificate, it is another badge that can always be displayed.
This certificate is similar to the certificate described in section 7(4) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
The next section to bring to your attention would be on page 275, but stay on 274 for a second. It is related to the powers of designated officers. Proposed section 12 says:
Every designated officer has the same power to enforce an Act of Parliament as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when
(b) engaging in an activity incidental to such an operation, including travel for the purpose of participating in the operation and appearances in court arising from the operation.
So 12(a) was there. Obviously, these individuals have the power to enforce an act of Parliament for the purposes of participating in a Shiprider operation, but what is being added, just for clarity purposes, is that they also have the same powers for activities incidental to that. They are driving to work and home from work, and they have all the necessary protections. Some of these officers are wearing protective equipment that they otherwise would not necessarily have the authority to wear, or they are carrying a sidearm. This provides that authority when they are travelling to and from work.
Senator Dallaire: This does not mean travelling across the country to go to an operation, right?
Mr. Wex: No. "Incidental " is carefully chosen to limit the activity that is required. You are going from point A to point B to get on the vessel to do your job.
The next section is somewhat extensive in terms of the changes that were made, but it is rather simple in their application. They all deal with the oversight regime — the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, Division 369 — and are on page 277.
If you turn to page 277, this section has been significantly streamlined. At the time that this was last introduced as Bill S-13, you may recall there was another bill in the house, unfortunately for our purposes today, also known as Bill C-38, which was intended to modernize the oversight regime of the RCMP, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. It contained a number of powers that would strengthen the oversight body. This Bill S-13 was moving in tandem with that; and therefore it was incorporating, if you will, by reference, cutting and pasting from that bill into the S-13, all the new provisions because we were not sure which bill would move and be passed first.
This bill before you today, but for a couple of exceptions I will mention in a moment, simply aligns entirely the Shiprider operation with the current oversight of the RCMP, so the current CPC applied to the activities of the RCMP and their day-to-day conduct. That body would now apply in the same way to all Shiprider operations, so a lot has been taken out of this bill to simply align it with that which is in the RCMP Act. If and when the government chooses to reintroduce the legislation to modernize and strengthen the existing Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, then there may be consequential amendments to this act to align it with the new powers of the CPC.
I would note a couple of points for our purposes. There are three exceptions, if you will, that are a little bit different from what is in the RCMP Act with respect to other RCMP activities.
Number one, provincial bodies can be an intake for a complaint made against a Shiprider officer, and the reason for that, quite frankly, is, down the road, Shiprider operations may be integrated with provincial police officers as well, as we have talked about in the past, and we do not want any wrong door, if you will. A citizen does not know which body to complain to, sometimes which jurisdiction. If a provincial body is involved and there is a provincial oversight regime, they can file it with the provincial body, and they will figure out amongst themselves administratively how to handle it.
Second, there is a requirement to report to the provinces, so again, in the context of integrated operations between an RCMP and a provincial officer, both of whom are designated under the RCMP Act to be designated Shiprider officers, it is appropriate that this oversight body, when they conduct their annual reports, share it with the province because some of their agents and officers are participating in this initiative.
Last, this act would allow for joint investigations. Again, in the context of integrated operations, if there is a complaint, either with the Americans or with another province, there is no point having two bodies reviewing the same conduct, the same issue. It enables that. It does not require it, but it enables that.
Those are some of the important changes with respect to oversight. The only other point I would note is clause 370. That is on page 279 at proposed section 50.1. Clause 370 was amended to specify that exemptions for penalties for failing to facilitate a public investigation would only be limited to U.S.-designated officers.
Currently under the CPC, there are penalties associated with Canadian officers, RCMP members, who do not facilitate the investigation with the CPC; so there is an incentive to support the review, failing which there are some penalties. Under the previous bill there was an exemption that was a bit of a drafting error that applied not only to the U.S. officers, who are not subject to those penalties because the framework agreement talks about the U.S. having to meet best efforts to support their review by the oversight body, but there are no penalties if they do not, which is reciprocal in our case as well. However, unfortunately in Bill S-13 it also exempted Canadian officers from helping out, and that was not intended and has been addressed.
The last amendment that I would refer to is not here because it is a removal, and that is what is known as consequential amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act. This was to allow foreign officers to cross the border carrying weapons, if you will, to work without having to comply with certain export and import regulations; and frankly, regulations already dealt with that issue, so there was no need for it in the act and it was redundant, so it has been removed.
Are there additions that folks would like to mention?
Mr. Zigayer: At 371 we amended the Criminal Code with respect to peace officer status, a definition of "peace officer, " and consistent with the provision that Mr. Wex previously discussed with respect to incidental activities, we included or amended the definition here as well to also cover off activities that are incidental to Shiprider operations.
The Chair: Are there any other comments from our witnesses?
We will resume our questioning then with Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: You touched on a question I had, but I want you to clear it up just in my mind. The central authority for Canada, as you stated, is a commissioner for the RCMP. If it is an OPP officer or a First Nations police or any other police, does the RCMP commissioner designate them with the Shiprider designation? Is that correct?
Mr. Wex: That is correct.
Senator Plett: My other question might be splitting hairs a bit, but it is following up on what the chair asked at the start. If you are on a river, zigzagging back and forth, and eventually you apprehend the suspect on the Canadian side, but it is just on the Canadian side and the boat drifts, and I am sure they would throw down an anchor, is there any cause for a person to appeal in court and say, "I was actually picked up in the other side of the border as opposed to the side you are saying I was picked up on "?
Mr. Zigayer: Senator, when you conduct a prosecution, one of the questions that the court wants to have addressed is jurisdiction over the alleged offence, and you will have to demonstrate that the offence, whatever it was, was actually committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The GPS that Mr. Wex referred to earlier will be very important, because if you cannot satisfy the court that the crime was committed in the jurisdiction of the court, then there will not be a conviction. The prosecution will fail.
That anchor is very important, especially if you are close to the line, I suppose. It is always important to remember that you can only be prosecuted in Canada for the Canadian offence. It is the same thing in the U.S., so if you have drifted and the boat goes into the other territory, then that Canadian offence is no longer being investigated or prosecuted. You are now in U.S. territory, but on the other hand, whatever the act was or conduct was may be an offence under U.S. law, and at that point, just as they traded roles in terms of who is directing the operation, it may then be an American investigation and may be subject to prosecution in the American courts.
Senator Plett: If the crime is committed in the United States and a person is apprehended in Canada, we would try to have some —
Mr. Zigayer: It would not be like that. We only prosecute a crime committed in Canada. There are two types of crime. Let us say it is a crime we have in common in the U.S., trafficking in some contraband, let us say drugs. If it is illegal in Canada to be in possession for the purposes of trafficking, say, 2,000 pounds of cocaine, it is likely to be a crime in the U.S. as well. You apprehend in Canada, you arrest in Canada, you will be conducting the prosecution in Canada. Even if that person has run into Canada from the U.S. and the police may be in hot pursuit, as soon as they hit the line, the investigation and prosecution and the chase under American law ends, but you immediately commence a fresh pursuit. You are now enforcing the Canadian law. I hope that is clear.
Senator Plett: It is not quite clear. If someone robs a bank in the United States and then comes across into Canada, the robbing of a bank is obviously illegal on both sides. In that scenario, if they are arrested under the Shiprider program, what do we do with the person?
Mr. Zigayer: That would be the other type of offence. The crime is entirely committed in the U.S. We have no jurisdiction over that offence, or an assault or a sexual assault, that is completely committed in the U.S. We essentially have someone running across the border and crossing between ports of entry. There might be an immigration offence that we could apprehend on, and the U.S., while we have that person in custody, might immediately take action to commence the extradition of that person back to the U.S. to stand trial for that robbery or whatever the other offence was. Essentially, the person running the border between ports of entry is not quite as serious as the robbery. We would expect, of course, the Americans to let us know.
If not, if the person is released from Canada, and say it is an American, he is probably going to be sent back to the U.S., and the police in the U.S. can then pursue the investigation.
The Chair: It is crimes committed in one country or the other versus those that actually take place across the border literally, such as running drugs from one country to the other across that body of water.
Mr. Zigayer: Exactly. I believe you could say that this type of legislation is particularly well suited to contraband smuggling or dealing with illegal trafficking in any substance, or even illegal immigration.
Senator Manning: On page 274, under "Central Authority for Canada, " proposed subsection 7(2) reads:
(2) An individual may be appointed under subsection (1) only if they have satisfactorily completed the required training, approved by the Central Authority for Canada, for appointment as a designated officer.
8(1) The Central Authority for Canada may appoint as a cross-border maritime law enforcement officer an individual who is . . .
I am wondering about the training that would be required. We have RCMP officers, as an example, who will be training under Canadian law. When they are in hot pursuit and end up being in U.S. jurisdiction, I realize they will have partnerships there, but is there specialized training for this particular type of designated cross-border Maritime law enforcement officer as an extra to the training that they already have? Is it the same on the U.S. side as well?
Mr. Wex: Yes, there is specific training that has been developed and is given to Shiprider officers, designated officers — for example, for American designated officers in Canada, use of force, how to engage our Charter, our rights and freedoms that we have, our general legal framework and operating context. These are all sorts of issues they are exposed to and appropriately trained on with a graduating ceremony. There may be others on the panel that wish to supplement that.
Mr. Zigayer: The RCMP officers following us are best placed to answer that, but absolutely, there is specific training, and it is one of the essential elements of this whole program. Certainly, one would expect that the Canadian officers would be more familiar with the Canadian laws, but both of them have to be knowledgeable about what the rules really are in dealing with people and the enforcement of Canadian law. There may be slight differences with regard to how you conduct yourself on both sides, but that is part of the training that has been delivered in the past for the pilot projects, and it continues to be provided. The most recent opportunity to use this type of training was in 2010, both at the Vancouver Olympics and also at the G20. There was a marine security operation in that context. I am sure the RCMP will answer that.
Senator Manning: I know back when we discussed the last bill that was before the Senate, there was a concern because most of what we are dealing with here has to do with on the water and whether we are crossing into American water or crossing back into Canadian waters.
Has any consideration been given in regard to a land component to this? What happens when you are chasing someone and they go off the water and end up on land? I know the question has been brought up before, but I have not seen it addressed in regard to what is happening here. Can someone touch on that, please?
Mr. Wex: I will start off, and maybe someone can help me find the exact section for the benefit of the members. There is a provision in the act.
Of course, this act is all aimed with respect to the maritime border and shared waterways between Canada and the United States, so the spirit and intent of this is not land-based. Shiprider is just that — vessels on water.
That said, there may be exceptional circumstances where a Shiprider vessel is chasing down a suspect vessel and that suspect vessel docks and the guys run off with their contraband or otherwise. In that hot pursuit situation, there is authority in this bill for the Shiprider vessels and the Shiprider designated officers to pursue the suspect vessel and, at the same time, to try to engage with the police of local jurisdiction to effect the arrest and apprehension. Certainly the hot pursuit provision, with land adjacent to the shared waterway, is contemplated for and provided for in this act. Generally, the spirit and intent of this act is limited to the Maritime context.
Mr. Zigayer: I can perhaps refer you to Article 3 of the framework agreement. It does speak to these exceptional circumstances where the boat makes it to shore and the pursuing Shipriders, both of them, hop out of their boat and follow, hoping to have those persons who are escaping intercepted by police onshore.
Senator Day: This is legislation that we would like passed to implement the framework agreement; is that correct?
Mr. Zigayer: Yes.
Senator Day: Mr. Zigayer, paragraph four of this legislation or bill that you hope will become legislation seems to adopt contract or MOU type wording. Are you satisfied that words like "it is recognized and declared " create legal obligations and rights?
Mr. Zigayer: This is in the statement of principles?
Senator Day: Yes. It is at the beginning of the principles, which sounds very contractual to me.
Mr. Zigayer: The framework agreement essentially is a contract between Canada and the United States. We believe it to be a treaty. The provision in question, I think, is a statement of principles. You see it rarely, but it does exist in other pieces or portions of our law.
Senator Day: Should we treat this like the preamble to a piece of legislation?
Mr. Zigayer: You would not be able to refer to the preamble once the legislation was enacted. We wanted to put this inside the legislation. It is that important us to. If you look at some of these items, these are key and important matters. When we did our consultations with the attorneys generals and with other interested parties, the bar associations, a number of these items came forward as being things that were of great concern to them. Respect for sovereignty was one and ensuring that American officers in Canada would be subject to Canadian law, should they engage in some kind of illegal activity and that operations would be conducted in accordance with the rule of law.
These were principles that we were getting across the board, whether it was the prosecutors, the attorneys general, or the defence counsel or others. These principles kept being repeated. There was consensus on these items, and we thought it would be important to include that in the legislation to assist in the interpretation and the application of the law.
Sophie Beecher, Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Justice Canada: I will add something, if I may. Principles are a nice "juste milieu " between the body of the act and a preamble. The point of principles is that they should inform the rest of the legislation, but it is practical to have them as part of the body as well because, as stated by Mr. Zigayer, you can then refer to them as part of the legislation as opposed to having a floating preamble somewhere in the law.
It is also for greater certainty; it is nice to have it in law as opposed to just in the agreement. They are already imposed by the agreement on both parties, but it is nice to have the statement of principles in our actual laws so they are accessible to all when they read the law.
Senator Day: From the legal point of view, are they here to help a judge interpret the other provisions of the statute?
Ms. Beecher: Certainly, and a judge would consider them as applying and informing the rest of the act.
Senator Day: In the principles, paragraph 4(b)(iii) under Division 12 that we talked about already, integrated cross- border operations "must ", not "shall, " be conducted as directed by a designated officer from the host country. We talked about that. However, in Mr. Wex's introduction, he used the term "command and control, " or something along those lines, whereas this says "conducted. " Is there a difference? Could you explain your interpretation of "command and control "?
Mr. Wex: I am not sure if I referred to "command and control " in the introductory statements, which would have been carefully vetted before I read them, but perhaps when I was answering more informally.
The exact wording should be: "be conducted as directed by a designated officer from the host country. " That is the intent. The bottom line is that the operation is being carried out under the authority of the host country.
Senator Day: This is the police operation; it is not the operation of the vehicle they might happen to be on. I just want to have that clarified.
Mr. Wex: That is very correct. That is important, and you are correct.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I presume that the Americans, for their part, have had to adopt enabling legislation to allow for the organization of this agreement. What is the status of that legislation?
[English]
Mr. Wex: Thank you for the question, senator. You are correct: Much like us, the Americans do need to implement the framework agreement through legislation. They already have legislation that authorizes foreign officers to be designated as the equivalent of peace officer status under their customs Title 19 act and they have submitted to the Government of Canada a diplomatic note that they have done so.
Therefore, they have taken all the necessary measures to implement the framework agreement that was negotiated between us in 2009. Passing this legislation would achieve that which the Americans have already implemented.
Senator Nolin: Can you tell us when that took place?
Mr. Wex: I believe it was 2009, but I will confirm it.
Stephen Bolton, Director, Border Law Enforcement Strategies Division, Public Safety Canada: It was October 2009.
Senator Nolin: It is all done. They are waiting for us.
My second question goes along with what is happening in the U.S. Alan Bersin, who was Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, testified in front of the U.S. Senate last May, referring to joint threat and risk assessment evaluation. Are you familiar with that assessment? I presume we were a part of that assessment? What is the process to have another such assessment?
Mr. Wex: I am very familiar with Mr. Alan Bersin, who is now an assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
I am not familiar with the document that you are referring to by the name you are referring to. I do know — and will point out to the committee — that there are joint threat and risk assessments conducted regularly between Canada and the United States. They are bi-national documents; we work together to develop them and share them.
Senator Nolin: He mentioned that when he was testifying in May 2011. My question was really that I understand that we are informed of that and I am sure we are informed of the result of those evaluations. Are they positive?
Mr. Wex: I cannot speak to the exact document that you are referring to because I would have to look at the transcript. I do know, again, that we are involved. We developed these documents together in order to development joint threat and risk assessment so that we can deploy our resources in a manner that is based on the evidence and intelligence out there. The evaluations, frankly, are more like assessments, as I understand them, and they identify where our priority threats are by commodity, by location, which groups are involved, and so on and so forth.
The RCMP, who will be testifying shortly, is in a better situation than I would be to speak to the details of that.
The Chair: How do you describe the status of Shiprider right now? Pending this legislation, is it still a pilot program?
Mr. Wex: It is not necessarily a program, per se. It is a policing model that the two governments believe is effective and will address an important gap in our maritime boundary. As you know, we have conducted a number of pilots.
This legislation is an enabling framework, and it will enable the deployment of regularized Shiprider operations. Pending this legislation, Shiprider operations would only be conducted on pilot basis and there have not been any pilots for some time.
The Chair: Do you have any assessment — and we will ask the RCMP about this as well — about successes or missions accomplished so far?
Mr. Wex: Yes, I do. As we indicated at the outset, the first pilot was in 2005 and the idea was to test the concept: Does it work? Can it how? How does it work? It was also to look at the relationships, training, designation, et cetera.
There was a subsequent pilot in 2007; it was a two-month pilot focused on the Cornwall St. Lawrence Seaway region. There were a number of direct impacts on criminality. There were six direct requests; the pilots led to 41 additional arrests. There was an abducted child who was recovered as a result of the operation. There were major seizures, including $1.4 million contraband cigarettes; in addition to a couple of hundred pounds of marijuana and some cocaine; and vessels, vehicles and equipment that were significant in value.
The West Coast also had very positive evaluations in terms of the pilot that took place at the same time; there were two pilots over that two-month period.
Again, as Mr. Zigayer and others noted, the Vancouver Olympics and the G8 and G20 were important law enforcement activities that were undertaken that underscored the importance and significance of the pilot.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: The ships that sail the Great Lakes, in particular, have the capacity to land helicopters on board.
In the application of this bill, are there any indications on the methods those helicopters, aircraft or drones use in surveillance? If that is the case, who receives the information?
[English]
Are the MSOCs managing those things? What is the air platform status within this legislation?
Mr. Wex: Thank you, senator, for the comment with respect to aerial support. There is a provision in the agreement on page 273 that does allow for the appointment of a pilot or a co-pilot.
The idea here is to have aerial support — basically to be the "eye in the sky " for to Shiprider vessel, to provide monitoring surveillance, not for direct enforcement activity but rather to help the Shiprider vessel improve the awareness of the maritime domain. Basically, if there is a suspect vessel hiding behind an island somewhere and the Shiprider vessel lost track of them, the aerial support will help out. It is certainly an additional asset and tool that it makes sense to have in support of the Shiprider vessel.
It would still always be under the control of the host country, and the officers that would be piloting would also undergo the necessary training and be designated as Shiprider officers.
Senator Dallaire: You are saying it is an extension to surveillance. Are those aircraft armed?
Mr. Zigayer: They are not armed. If the persons on board the aircraft are peace officers and are wearing their side arms, those would be the weapons on board. Otherwise, we are talking about observation aircraft and about fairly small vessels.
The last time I appeared, I provided pictures. We are talking about RIBs, which are fairly small. You will not land a helicopter on this.
Senator Dallaire: I am not worried about our side.
Mr. Zigayer: I think both sides will also be contributing the same type of equipment towards the operation because part of the training is also training with regard to the handling and use of the particular vessels in question.
In fact, as the RCMP can pursue, the training is both training in the law, practical matters and policies and training on how to get on and get off a vessel. Certainly, the Coast Guard has a lot of experience with that, but, for many of the RCMP officers, this is new. They are good with other things.
Senator Dallaire: There are provincial and municipal level capabilities. It was not clear the last time how much they will be engaged in Shiprider. Is the municipal level sort of holding the fort on the wharves? Is it the RCMP, the provincial level and then maybe them? What would be the nature of the handover of a scenario?
Mr. Zigayer: The actual Shiprider operations would be working in conjunction with existing, cooperative or whatever law enforcement arrangements existed, but the Shiprider designated officers would have a specific mission. They could be from municipal police forces, from provincial forces or from the RCMP.
In fact, there were municipal police officers participating in the 2007 pilot off of Vancouver, and one could expect that our provincial and municipal partners would be invited to participate — more people to join the party.
Senator Dallaire: This includes the Aboriginal police forces?
Mr. Zigayer: Absolutely.
Senator Day: Do you envisage the pilot and the co-pilot or anybody on an aircraft conducting an activity by themselves without a ship?
Mr. Wex: No, I do not.
Senator Day: That must be in the background document that you have.
What do you have to avoid being overwhelmed by a much larger U.S. partner on this? Do you have written into the protocol that there will be an equal number of designated officers from each country? Is there some protection that we will not have just one guy out there on 10,000 U.S. ships, with them basically doing all of the functions?
The Chair: Would we not want their equipment?
An Hon. Senator: I was going to say that that would be a good thing.
Senator Dallaire: It would be the War of 1812 again.
Mr. Wex: There is nothing in the act that provides a ratio. However, the argument can be made that, to the extent that we can gain access to the American platform and vehicles, all the better in the sense that once they go into our territory they become, for all intents and purposes, peace officers in Canada, and we have just leveraged significant resources.
There are other issues that you implied in your question.
Senator Day: Yes, I think there are other issues. I would not make light of that, frankly.
Mr. Wex: I am not, but, on that point, there is an argument to be made about leveraging resources, which is important to us as well. To answer your question directly, there is nothing.
The RCMP or Mr. Bolton may want to add some comments to that.
Mr. Bolton: I was just going to say that there is a protection in the sense that there is a central authority, and that is the commissioner for the RCMP. He will designate the U.S. officials working in the program, so the Americans would not be able to slip in 5,000 people without the RCMP Commissioner seeing that. They will be designated, so there is a control mechanism built into the legislation.
Senator Nolin: In Senator Dallaire's question, he referred to drones. I understand, obviously, that there is no pilot. In section 8, you are referring to pilots and co-pilots, but the Americans are known to be already using drones to protect their own border.
[Translation]
Is it possible to imagine — and I am going to use the same words that you use in section 8: "and that is used to provide aerial support in an integrated cross-border operation. " — is it possible that the Americans, who are already using this type of equipment to provide the services I have just described, could fly over Canadian territory to support an activity that is covered in another way by Shiprider?
Mr. Zigayer: It is true that the Americans are already using drones, quite large predators.
Senator Nolin: That are armed.
Mr. Zigayer: Not on our border, but in Afghanistan, yes. They are quite large. They are based in Grand Forks, North Dakota. I have visited them. Their mission, for the time being, is the Prairie border. But the clause in question is not really aimed at that type of activity. If you look at the clause, they are talking about the crew of an aircraft.
Senator Nolin: I see, but my question followed on the fact, firstly, that Senator Dallaire mentioned unmanned aircraft, and I am referring to the matter of technical support. If the Americans use technical support for an operation, and if that operation — because it is ongoing and the Americans decide, together with the Canadians, that that operation is a part of Shiprider, will the drone stay in the United States or will it continue on over Canada? That is my question.
Mr. Zigayer: For the moment, I think that the drone will stay over land.
Senator Nolin: In the United States.
Mr. Zigayer: In which case, there will not be a problem.
[English]
Senator Peterson: I have a question on the surveillance data that will probably be collected on Canadians in this operation, both by towers and by drones. Where would that information go and what control do you have over it so that we know what is happening?
Mr. Wex: I will start off speaking to the general information-sharing provisions, if you will, and then turn to others to complement that.
Lots of work has been done on this file in the context of the information-sharing regime. Frankly, from everything I have heard, seen and been briefed on, it sounds like it is the gold standard in terms of collaborative law enforcement models when it comes to information sharing, on the one hand, making sure information is shared for law enforcement operations to get the job done and, on the other hand, being mindful of the privacy considerations of Canadians.
It tries to achieve that balance between the two. There is an information sharing framework that is both in the framework agreement and elsewhere and that is layered, if you will.
The first layer, essentially, is that it is limited in scope, so the information is shared purely for cross-border law enforcement purposes between Canada and the United States. If there is any further use or disclosure of that information, generally it requires the consent of the other party. That is new.
There are exceptions where consent is not required by virtue of the domestic law of the other country. The Americans have and we have situations where information should be shared with other agencies. In those cases, the framework agreement and the arrangement that we have with the United States in this context requires notice, so there are notice provisions in those exceptional circumstances that are required.
Further, the framework agreement provides that written agreements need to be entered into between Canada and the United States with respect to the sharing of information, with respect to its collection, its use, its further sharing and its destruction, and other elements as well. Therefore, the framework agreement, which has already been negotiated, contemplates and requires that the parties enter into further written agreements to appropriately confine the issue that you have raised.
I do not know if anyone else has anything else they want to add to that.
Ms. Beecher: I can complete this answer. You mentioned information collection, not just sharing. Traditionally, when we engage with the U.S., we share information because we are on either side of the border. In this particular instance, American officers will be on Canadian territory collecting information, and we actually contemplated that in the framework agreement, and article 14(5) deals with information collection specifically. The U.S. officers in Canada will be bound by the same rules as just outlined for information sharing for the information that they collect when they are, in fact, on Canadian territory.
The second thing that should be added is that we have in the framework agreement itself article 14(6). We have the possibility to impose additional restrictions on information sharing when the information is particularly sensitive, and if you refer to that subsection, you will see that the receiving party has two choices. They can agree to these additional restrictions or simply state that they want to decline the reception of the information. That is, I would say, an additional layer to this multi-layered approach to information sharing.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I would like to thank our witnesses for coming back again and answering more questions about this. We appreciate the detail that you have gone into, and even dealing with some of our hypotheticals.
Under the Shiprider legislation, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner, or his or her delegate, is known as the central authority for Canada with the responsibility for directing and managing integrated cross-border operations in cooperation with the American central authority. RCMP officers were involved in the Shiprider pilot projects and will play a major role as integrated cross-border operations begin once this legislation is passed.
To explain some of the changes in the Shiprider legislation from the RCMP perspective, we are pleased to have with us again Deputy Commissioner for Federal Policing Mike Cabana, and also with us Chief Superintendent Joe Oliver, Director General for Border Integrity.
I understand the deputy commissioner has some opening remarks.
Mike Cabana, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you, senator, and thank you, members of the committee, for providing the RCMP the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss the Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations component of the Jobs, Growth, and Long-term Prosperity Act. With me here today, as Senator Wallin pointed out, is Chief Superintendent Joe Oliver, Director General, Border Integrity, whom I consider to be a subject matter expert on the issue.
It is a pleasure to be here to discuss an issue which is so important to the people of Canada and the United States — the security of our shared border.
[Translation]
The United States and Canada have always enjoyed a special relationship, including a long history of cooperation. Lying at the very heart of that relationship is an 8,800-kilometre-long line on the map. Our shared border is unique — not only in the volume of trade, but in size and terrain.
Unfortunately, transnational crime continues to be a threat to public safety and national security. Cross-border crime is a two-way problem that has implications for both Canadian and U.S. citizens.
Criminal organizations are not restricted by jurisdictional boundaries, and in fact they seek to exploit jurisdictional weaknesses at international borders for illicit purposes. In response, law enforcement partners must continue to develop relevant, modern approaches to strengthen the integrity of the border, including the pursuit of new, innovative cross-border law enforcement models that leverage the law enforcement resources of both countries.
[English]
As the committee knows, no single agency has the sole responsibility, let alone the ability, to secure our shared border. That is why initiatives such as the well-established Integrated Border Enforcement Teams and the more recent Integrated Cross-border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations, commonly known as Shiprider, are such good examples of how law enforcement relationships have evolved from cooperation to collaboration and then to integration.
They are models of how we continue to build our partnerships. The Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations bill will deepen Canada-U.S. law enforcement collaboration and strengthen our cross border crime-fighting capabilities.
Shiprider represents a truly integrated approach to combatting cross-border crime on shared waterways between Canada and the U.S. Shiprider involves vessels jointly crewed by especially trained and designated Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers who are authorized to enforce the law on both sides of the international boundary line. Working together, armed Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers are able to transit back and forth across the border to deal with cross-border criminality in our shared waterways.
In the past, we were not able to pursue criminals across the border, and they knew it. All they had to do was reach that international line to escape apprehension and prosecution. Unlike law enforcement, criminals were not bound by jurisdictional limitations, and they used it to their advantage.
With the new Shiprider authorities, criminals will no longer be able to use the border to evade justice and accountability. The RCMP and the U.S. Coast Guard have been refining the Shiprider initiative since 2005 when the first joint pilot project took place. Since 2005, a number of Shiprider pilot projects have been conducted, including one during the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver and another that took place during the G20 summit on Lake Ontario.
Since the first pilot project was carried out, training has been of utmost importance. In order to participate in Shiprider operations, officers from Canadian and U.S. law enforcement agencies are required to successfully complete comprehensive training which is delivered at the U.S. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Charleston, South Carolina.
The training is truly binational with Canadian and American instructors and includes in-class seminars, case study scenarios and vessel training. However, perhaps most importantly, the students acquire a full understanding of the criminal laws, privacy laws and policies of Canada and the U.S., as well as respective domestic enforcement authorities and on-water operational procedures.
[Translation]
Other very important components of the Shiprider model are the built-in protections and safeguards. Canada-U.S. Shiprider operations adhere to the principles of reciprocity and sovereignty, and respect the fundamental rights, freedoms and the rule of law of both countries. While Shiprider removes jurisdictional roadblocks associated with an international border, all Shiprider operations undertaken on Canadian territory have been, and will continue to be, carried out in accordance with Canadian law and policy and executed under the direction and control of a Canadian law enforcement officer. The reverse applies in U.S. waters.
Command authority for all operations is determined by the host country. Participating law enforcement officers would only enforce the domestic laws of the host country and prosecutions are conducted in the country where the offence took place.
[English]
Sophisticated criminal organizations exploit vulnerabilities in border, geography and enforcement patterns. They do this to smuggle people and commodities such as narcotics, currency, firearms and contraband tobacco between Canada and the U.S.
Criminals are also constantly adapting and expanding their activities. This compromises our border integrity, posing a real threat to the safety and security of our communities. We should never become complacent about border security. We must always be vigilant, working collaboratively with our American counterparts to identify solutions that overcome barriers to effective cross-border enforcement.
We are confronting these challenges by building meaningful partnerships and developing innovative ideas and solutions, such as Shiprider. The Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations bill will enable the RCMP to operationalize Shiprider and increase our ability to leverage resources and suppress cross-border crime in the marine environment. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, deputy commissioner. Just a word to you, Chief Superintendent Oliver. As you were described as the chief content guy on this, we have heard from our previous witnesses that they consulted pretty thoroughly post the last attempt of this legislation. Do you feel it has captured some of the concerns you had, or did these come from other enforcement agencies?
Chief Superintendent Joseph Oliver, Director General, Border Integrity, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: I think the amendments or changes between Bill S-13 and Bill C-38 have captured some of the elements we have identified as potential gaps in going forward, particularly with respect to certificates, incidental activities. As we looked at the technical language in the previous iteration, we found that there was the possibility, while implied, of a gap in terms of the authorities the visiting officers would have with respect to carrying their prohibited weapons to and from the work site, so I think provisions like that address some of those gaps.
The Chair: Thank you for that. We will begin our questioning with Senator Dallaire.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: The seaway is an international seaway, that is to say that many international ships navigate those waters. Boarding parties have reasons to search a foreign ship that is navigating toward an American or Canadian centre.
Is this done in the context of applying Shiprider, or is there a special criterion that must be considered in light of the fact that these ships come from a third country?
Mr. Cabana: Ships are subject to the laws of the country where they navigate.
[English]
Mr. Oliver: The authorities that are provided with Shiprider just enable the leveraging of each other's resources and cross-designation. In terms of the objectives, your authority to search and board vessels comes from other pieces of legislation, such as our Customs Act and our immigration laws. They would apply, in the border context, based on a reasonable suspicion that there may have been an infraction, but there are also authorities to investigate and board vessels for safety violations while in the maritime context.
In the Great Lakes, we are most likely to encounter Canadian- and U.S.-registered vessels, but if Shiprider is deployed on the coastal approaches, there is a possibility that foreign vessels may be encountered as well. However, for the most part when we operationalize Shiprider, we are talking about smaller boats as opposed to ships.
Operationally it would not be necessarily appropriate for Shiprider to try to board a large frigate that may be coming from overseas and entering the Georgian Strait. We would rely on the Canada Border Services Agency to inspect that vessel once it arrives safely in port.
Senator Dallaire: It leads me to the point of intelligence gathering and where the threat is. This has all been brought about not because we want to stop illegal cigarettes. The aim is to reinforce our security in the context of a growing international threat that we believe can be moving arms, could be moving people, to conduct God knows what. They can be moving whatever other materials. It can be coming from outside into our territory or waterways or inside our waterways. In your response, you did not tell me if you gave them any ship boarding party training, but that is another thing.
Does the intelligence structure really now have an integrated capability electronically? Do your computers talk to each other, between you, the province, the Coast Guard, the border services, the Aboriginal people? How structured is that intelligence exchange in collating information and disseminating the information in order to take the appropriate action?
Mr. Cabana: I will try to answer your question to the best of my ability, but this is actually quite a broad question.
Senator Dallaire: Give us classified material, too.
Mr. Cabana: If your question is specific to whether there is the existence of a single system that allows all law enforcement agencies and government agencies to share information real-time, unfortunately, my answer is no. The closest we have is probably ASIS, which is the system of choice for law enforcement communities to be able to share intelligence. However, there are mechanisms in place that exist within the various communities. There are initiatives that exist to facilitate the real-time sharing of information, so we have the Marine Security Operation Centres that house a number of different federal government agencies, as well as provincial and municipal, that each have their system collocated with personnel to be able to do the search and share the intelligence as close to real-time as possible.
Therefore, a single system does not exist but the processes are in place to facilitate the sharing of information to the greatest potential.
Senator Dallaire: To what extent do you actually run formal exercises in looking at all the different potential contingency plans of getting all this together?
As an example, in your marine intelligence-gathering centre, how many Americans are sitting in there, feeding you information, or do they simply do it electronically? Do you have exchange officers on both sides to be able to protect, as an example, the human rights or the freedoms of our people because the Americans have a different perspective on those than we do?
Mr. Cabana: They do, and there are exchanges that take place. I know in Niagara there is an exchange; we have Americans that are collocated with us and we have some of our members in their centre, as well, to facilitate that exchange. There are processes and protocols that have been implemented, as you point out, out of concern to ensure the privacy and the security of Canadians and to ensure that the Canadian information that exists is properly maintained and properly shared.
I do not know if Mr. Oliver wants to add to that.
Mr. Oliver: I might add a couple of elements. One is that the Marine Security Operations Centre, which is in the Niagara region, is collocated with Transport Canada, Canadian Forces, DND, CBSA, Canadian Coast Guard and RCMP. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard has a representative that attends that.
That is a fusion centre in terms of maritime domain awareness. They are also leveraging technologies available, such as radar and cameras, to gain better situation awareness.
We have exchanged an RCMP intelligence resource with the Operational Integration Center, which is a similar entity on the U.S. side at Selfridge Air Force Base, which is run by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. They are maintaining a situation awareness of technology and assets on the American side of the border.
Therefore, there are mechanisms where appropriate that information could be shared.
In addition, the Integrated Border Enforcement Team produces an annual threat assessment that has input from Canada Border Services Agency, RCMP, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection from the U.S. They prepare an annual threat assessment that looks at each of the IBET regions, identifies the number of organized crime groups in each region and what kind of crime trends are encountered.
While the focus is always national security regarding a terrorist threat — that is the number one priority — the reality is that, during our day-to-day interactions, the most prevalent threat we encounter is organized crime and criminal entrepreneurs. Although everyone is on the lookout for the terrorist threat, the reality is that we encounter in our day-to-day operations organized crime threats.
That information is shared. That helps us organize how we work together and identify those priority areas where we need to allocate our resources.
The Chair: Thanks for that clarification, because I know you have said this program was not designed to do that but that is very much part of what it does.
Senator Plett: Could you talk a little bit about the genesis of Shiprider? Where did it start? Did it start because of the Olympics? Who came up with it — was it government, RCMP or the Canadian Coast Guard? I have a reason for the question.
Mr. Cabana: I will let Mr. Oliver provide the details because he has been part of border integrity a lot longer than I have. He has history. However, I can confirm that the creation or the genesis of the idea of Shiprider significantly predates the Olympics. The discussion started even before the first pilot project, which was I believe in 2005, and it was borne out of discussion between Canadian and U.S. agencies in terms of some of the gaps that existed to be able to address some of the criminality that was encountered in the marine environment.
Mr. Oliver: I think this was a grassroots law enforcement idea. It was partially built on the many years of experience that U.S. Coast Guard had working what they call Shiprider operations in the Caribbean, where they receive authority from a host nation. However, it is not the same as this. This is fully reciprocal where officers are cross-designated in both directions. With the construct that the U.S. Coast Guard employs abroad, it is just the U.S. Coast Guard that is receiving authorities from foreign government.
The reason that we looked at bringing this type of innovative law enforcement practice to the Canada-U.S. border is precisely as stated in the opening remarks and as others have commented: Organized crime is exploiting the fact that we have to respect our boundaries and stop at the border. We have had instances where we have engaged in the attempts to interdict vessels in our shared waterways and the vessel has fled into the other territory and has escaped apprehension. By the time we try to community with our U.S. counterparts, the vessel has made it to a safe haven and has avoided apprehension altogether.
Senator Plett: One of the reasons for my question is, as you suggest, deputy commissioner, we have an 8,800 kilometre- long line on the map. I am from the Prairies and there is some water there between Canada and the United States, but not a lot. Therefore, why would we not have gone one step further and included land and air in this, as well? Obviously we have all-terrain vehicles that will be doing much of what we see happening on the water and small aircraft could fly narcotics and arms across? Why could we not have included everything?
Mr. Cabana: First, the discussion started with respect to marine environment and, second, baby steps. We started with marine simply because it was a controlled environment with basically two agencies that had responsibility for the marine border environment.
It was seen as probably the most logical place to start to explore the possibilities and try to identify the gaps that existed, and decide whether they could be addressed by such an approach.
Mr. Oliver: I think that biggest issue was the fact that we recognized early that this approach would raise concerns about the sovereignty, privacy and civil liberties of Canadians. We also recognized that we are trying to integrate training procedures, SOPs and different organizational cultures. You have the Coast Guard, which is basically a maritime law enforcement agency, and the RCMP.
Recognizing all of those things, we said let us take baby steps. Let us start with two agencies to test the concept. Let us demonstrate to Canadians and Americans that such an approach might work. Let us evaluate it; let us improve it. Let us test it again and evaluate and approve it again. We did so to the point that both governments were confident with the approach and sat down at the negotiating table to establish the framework agreement. Here we are today with the next step, which is creating legislation to operationalize it.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much. I appreciate the fact that this is a baby step. Senator Wallin and I hoped that some of this would come to the Prairies.
The Chair: In the post-9/11 environment, we need to be looking at all of those 8,000 kilometres.
Senator Day: Could you give us a flavour how this will work through the U.S. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Charleston, South Carolina? How many people have we sent down there for training now, and is there a regular class?
Mr. Cabana: There are yearly classes. This year there were three different convocations. I am actually leaving tomorrow to attend the last graduation in South Carolina.
This year we had three classes of 28 individuals, both Canadian and American, and I think the training has been ongoing now for the past three years. The training has been modified based on lessons learned and the operationalization, so in the implementation within the pilot context issues that were identified, the training was modified, and the following year the individuals would receive the amended training.
In terms of actual numbers, I believe in the vicinity of 140 different police officers, Canadians and Americans, have been trained so far.
Senator Day: The number that you gave us of 28 is not just Canadians. They are Americans as well in that class? It is combined?
Mr. Cabana: Yes, it is combined. Canadian representatives include First Nation police representatives, and we have had municipal as well as provincial police representatives.
Senator Day: Let us say 100 Canadians approximately have been trained over the last three years. Once they have done the trainings, are they designated, and is this just one of the qualifications that those hundred officers have, or would they be designated for an operation?
Mr. Cabana: They are certified as Shiprider-trained members, both in Canada and in the U.S. They will be designated when there is a Shiprider initiative or project that is actually implemented. At that time, members will be identified. At that time, the central authorities for both countries will go through the designation process.
Senator Day: They would stay designated as long as that particular operation is ongoing, and then they would drop back to certified and do another job?
Mr. Cabana: As long as they participate within the Shiprider context, they will be designated.
Senator Day: It could be a number of operations over a period of years?
Mr. Cabana: That is right. Assuming that Shiprider becomes a permanent entity in a certain area of the country, at that point there will be transfers in and out and new members trained and just a normal rotation.
Senator Day: Could you tell me the cost of this particular training session? Is that paid for out of the RCMP or the municipal authority that is sending an officer down there? Is that paid for out of normal operations, or are you anticipating coming back to get more funds once this legislation is passed?
Mr. Cabana: So far, for the costs associated with training, we in Canada bear the cost of travel for the members and expenses for the members to be there. The cost of the course is covered by the Americans. It is a shared cost approach.
Senator Day: Out of operations?
Mr. Cabana: Out of operations, yes.
Senator Day: Do you anticipate coming back to Parliament to ask for more funds once this legislation is passed?
Mr. Cabana: Again, it would be speculation on my part without knowing exactly the extent of the implementation of the initiative should the legislation be passed. It is hard for me to say whether we would have the capacity to continue to cover the cost through our operating funds or whether there would be a need.
Senator Day: I will go on round two. I do not mind asking the question on round two.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: May I congratulate you once again on your presentation; you are a perfect example of the result of bilingualism policies within the RCMP, something we would not have seen some 30 or 40 years ago.
I would not call myself a radical when it comes to the topic of bilingualism; however I imagine that there are not many francophones that can be operational in their language. You talked about the respect of fundamental rights; I suspect that in order to promote effectiveness, certain principles sometimes have to be set aside, and among these, the principle of official language equality within binational law enforcement forces. All the more so since certainly, in the case of the Sûreté du Québec, and the infernal triangle formed by Ontario, Quebec, and Canada — and the United States in the case of our friends the aboriginals — there must certainly be problems regarding effectiveness or functionality between the francophones of the Sûreté du Québec, the anglophones from the United States and perhaps the bilingual officers of the RCMP and the Coast Guard. How do you deal with that problem? You referred to it yourself and you are an example of a great success. I thank you for that. You came here well prepared in both languages. But where does the respect for fundamental rights end, in the case of francophones, in these transborder operations?
Mr. Cabana: Thank you for the question. The respect of fundamental rights, especially the linguistic aspect in operations, depending on the operational environment, becomes very important, as you mentioned, especially in the triangle I believe you referred to as "infernal ".
To the extent that it is possible, the members who take part in Shiprider operations in the context of an environment like that one, have the capacity to interact, if you will, with people who will be French as well as English-speaking. We make sure that there is a linguistic capacity in the patrol in question.
Senator Dawson: I presume then that these would be Canadian members, and not members from the other side of the border.
Mr. Cabana: No, precisely.
Senator Dawson: But it is a concern, and there is a process ensuring that this factor is taken into account, on balance?
Mr. Cabana: Absolutely.
Senator Dawson: I am talking about the Quebec border in particular.
Mr. Cabana: Absolutely, and especially in the context of the pilot project for Cornwall in —
Mr. Oliver: In 2007.
Mr. Cabana: This is a component we took into account in order to ensure that the problem would not surface.
Senator Dawson: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
Senator Peterson: Thank you for being here. You mentioned in your presentation that the vessels involved in this operation would be jointly staffed with Canadians and Americans. I would like to think that a number of these vessels would be Canadian. Is that the case?
Mr. Cabana: That is the case, absolutely.
Senator Dallaire: The last time, we did not get any answers either. How many bodies will you actually commit to this? How many surface vessels do we have? How many 50-calibre machine guns are we using? What is the structure of meeting this requirement from our side? I think the previous answer was a little flippant regarding our sovereignty, having a whole bunch of U.S. Coast Guard ships sailing our waters.
Mr. Cabana: Currently, the RCMP — Canada — has four vessels, or what we refer to as "Shiprider " vessels. The concept calls for an equal number of Canadian and U.S. vessels in a given area.
Senator Dallaire: It does?
Senator Day: Four vessels where?
Mr. Cabana: Currently?
Senator Day: Is that on the Great Lakes?
Mr. Cabana: The current location of the vessel is kind of irrelevant to the extent that the vessels will be moved to the area where Shiprider will be implemented.
We do have vessels available for the Great Lakes as well as the west coast.
Mr. Oliver: The RCMP has some 400 boats, the smaller vessels, and they are deployed often in the contract policing role or the federal policing environment.
We learned with Shiprider that the U.S. has moved to a Shiprider on the U.S. side. They are safe boats. They have moved to a standard vessel so that a Shiprider from no matter where, to address things like displacement, can arrive with a turnkey operation.
We started over the past couple of years trying to emulate that by developing a standard Shiprider vessel, so no matter where officers come from, they have a standard vessel. They know where the equipment is; it comes with standard equipment. As the deputy commissioner mentioned, we now have been slowly increasing that capability. We have four vessels that we consider standardized vessels that can be deployed in support of Shiprider operations.
Senator Day: I would like to go back to my line of questioning earlier on, asking about costs and coming out of general revenue.
How much has the RCMP spent on Shiprider thus far, and what do you anticipate, once this legislation is passed, that you will be spending on an annual basis or that you will need to spend?
Mr. Oliver: For the pilot so far, and I think this was a parliamentary question we responded to, we have invested in terms of the pilots, the training and the acquisition of the four vessels, is approximately $3 million since 2005, understanding that these were short-term operations, and that includes the training. Each of the courses is about $75,000 for the travel of officers, for the accommodations, the facilitation and so forth.
The total that we have been able to calculate is not precise because our financial system does not track down to that level.
The Chair: Presumably, you have training for other events as well, and that comes out of training money.
Senator Day: We are trying to determine how much it will cost for this particular activity. It is $3 million over the past seven years and various models that you have tried to implement. The first one was, I think, a Super Bowl game that was going on at the same time down in the Windsor-Detroit area.
How much do you anticipate that the RCMP will budget for Shiprider if this legislation is passed, planning forward, capital and operating?
Mr. Oliver: There is no funding that has been identified for this today. I think many of those considerations form part of the budget process, which will be considered advice to the minister.
The Chair: I do not think he could answer that in theory. They have to wait until the legislation is passed, presumably.
Senator Day: If this bill is passed tomorrow, you will not do anything until you have a budget and go through the budgeting process, which can take upwards of a year?
Mr. Cabana: We already have some capacity that has been implemented over the course of the past seven years. We can leverage that capacity in the immediate, should the bill pass tomorrow.
In terms of the extent of the program post-legislation, as I said earlier, that would be speculation. To the extent that there are discussions, that would be considered to be ministerial advice, so unfortunately we cannot get into that.
Senator Day: That is unfortunate. You want us to pass this, but you do not want to tell us how much it will cost.
Mr. Oliver: Even in the absence of dedicated resources, there will be things like the Olympics and the G20. This will provide us an effective legislative tool in our tool box that we can deploy on an as-needed basis. We may not be steady state and we may not have the resources. However, there is the opportunity for us to leverage our existing resources with the U.S. Coast Guard to deploy these operations because we require the legislation in order to take advantage of the concept.
Senator Day: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for this. I think you have helped us see it from your point of view and to give us a clear picture of what it means for your operations, what it means for this country and how we can leverage assets on both sides of the border to make that shared border a much more secure one.
Thank you for your attendance. We will bring this meeting to a close and continue these discussions next week.
(The committee adjourned.)