THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 8, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I am Tony Dean, a senator from Ontario, chair of the committee. I would invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, beginning with our deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I am Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
Senator Boisvenu: I am Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Good afternoon. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Today, we begin our examination of the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 24, Part 4 as contained in Bill C-47, An Act to amend certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, and other measures.
Division 24 amends the Customs Act, among other things, in two ways: First, it would allow a person arriving in Canada to present themselves to the Canada Border Services Agency, also known as CBSA, by means of telecommunication; and, secondly, subject to regulations, require that the operator of a commercial aircraft arriving in Canada ensure that the baggage onboard is transported without delay to the nearest baggage area.
In our first panel we are pleased to welcome today, all from the Canada Border Services Agency, Graeme Hamilton, Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy in the Strategic Policy Branch; John Ommanney, Associate Vice President, Traveller Branch; Jeff Carr, Director General, Chief Data Officer in the Strategic Policy Branch, and Kelly Belanger, Associate Vice-President and Deputy Chief Information Officer in the Information, Science and Technology Branch.
Thank you for joining us today. We will begin by inviting you to provide your opening remarks, followed by questions from our members. I understand opening remarks today will be delivered by Mr. Ommanney.
Mr. Ommanney, please proceed whenever you are ready.
[Translation]
John Ommanney, Associate Vice President, Traveller Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss proposed legislative amendments to the Customs Act. My name is John Ommanney, and I am the Associate Vice-President of the CBSA’s Travellers Branch.
This afternoon, I am accompanied by colleagues from various areas of the agency, whom the chair has already introduced. The amendments I’ll speak to today are necessary to address current barriers to advancing the CBSA’s Traveller Modernization initiative, which was announced in the 2020-21 budget.
Through this modernization initiative, the agency will transform traveller processing over the long term by introducing a suite of voluntary self-service tools to speed up the border crossing experience and reduce overall wait times.
[English]
Like many border agencies around the world, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the CBSA encountered challenges managing rising traveller volumes, given the widespread use of manual and paper-based processing at the border. Once public health measures were lifted in the summer 2022, the CBSA encountered similar issues with the resurgence of traveller volumes.
The amendments we are discussing today will allow the agency to facilitate the use of voluntary, self-service digital technologies that will modernize and simplify border processing.
For example, travellers arriving in Canada will have the option to present themselves through telecommunications, such as a mobile application, where offered. In so doing, travellers will interact with the CBSA digitally and in advance of their arrival in Canada.
Traditional, in-person processing will remain available for persons who choose not to use the new technologies or who opt out. These amendments don’t change what the agency does, but how it will do it. These changes address many requests the CBSA has received from the travel and tourism industry to establish a modern travel continuum by enabling the use of voluntary, digital self-service technologies.
[Translation]
While this initiative seeks to modernize the border crossing experience for travellers, we’re also focused on improving processes for our officers. With funding from the 2020-21 budget, the agency will deploy digital tools to minimize the amount of time spent on administrative work, such as issuing paper receipts. This will free up time for officers to focus on risk assessment and enforcement activities.
New technologies will also make better use of data to support decision making. The CBSA is committed to ensuring that its front line remains agile, and these changes will support the mobilization of resources to priority activities.
[English]
Hearing directly from front-line officers is helping us design and plan our development efforts and support the eventual rollout by identifying essential requirements like training needs.
Over the past seven months, I’ve spoken to over 1,000 front‑line officers, superintendents and chiefs in four of our seven regions. I’m talking to them about how our efforts seek to improve the way these new tools and information sources will support their important work. I’ll be visiting the remaining three regions this month to continue this dialogue with front-line officers.
We have also struck multiple working groups with officers so we can continue to work together.
[Translation]
I have also spoken to the Customs and Immigration Union, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the National Security Transparency Advisory Group.
We’ve reaffirmed that Traveller Modernization is not about replacing officers with technology. It’s about leveraging technology to support the front line in doing their jobs effectively and efficiently.
The legislative amendments to the Customs Act we’re discussing today will also clarify that travellers have to answer questions asked by an officer and provide requested information that is related to the border clearance process. This includes passport details and responses to declaration questions that travellers, such as yourselves, are already accustomed to providing when crossing the border.
[English]
The new authorities support border integrity at crossing locations that are not staffed by a CBSA officer by requiring information from travellers in advance of their arrival. Additionally, they will allow officers to direct individuals to present in person if an officer deems this necessary, even if the traveller tried to present by telecommunications.
The last set of amendments seeks to address a long-standing gap in the baggage delivery process. Commercial air carriers will be required to bring bags to a designated international baggage area unless exempted under regulations. In practice, this amendment will formalize existing policy requirements and will not result in any new changes for air carriers.
[Translation]
While these amendments will remove legislative barriers for Traveller Modernization, the CBSA is planning to implement this initiative incrementally over a number of years. We will continue to collaborate with industry, through informed and open consultations on the regulatory elements over the next 12 to 18 months.
These amendments are critical to the CBSA’s Traveller Modernization initiative, and support the Government of Canada’s broader priorities of modernization and digitization.
[English]
Thank you very much for your time today. We look forward to answering any questions you may have regarding the proposed amendments.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ommanney, for your clear and concise description of the purpose of the proposed changes. I’m sure there will be considerable interest from my colleagues.
Before proceeding to questions, I ask participants in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so; this will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Ommanney, Mr. Carr and Ms. Belanger are with us until 5:15. In order to ensure that each member has time to participate fully, I will limit each question — including the answer — to five minutes this afternoon. Please keep your questions succinct and identify the person you are addressing the question to.
As in the normal course, I offer the first question to our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to the witnesses. My question is for Mr. Ommanney. Before I get to the initiative to modernize traveller processing for those arriving in the country, Mr. Ommanney, I’d like to look back at an initiative that clearly has not worked well this last year. I’m talking about the issuing of NEXUS cards for Canadians.
NEXUS service centres on Canadian soil were supposed to reopen to applicants in April, so I’d like you to confirm whether everything is in place. If it’s true that NEXUS applications take 12 to 14 months to process, what measures have been put in place to address the backlog? Have you added staff to reduce wait times?
Mr. Ommanney: Thank you for your question.
We were in talks with our U.S. partners on resuming NEXUS service. It’s a binational program, so both countries have to agree and work together. There was disagreement on certain protections that were available to the Americans under the program.
The disagreement was resolved, and we reopened the NEXUS enrolment centres in the States a few months ago, and all the NEXUS airport enrolment centres have just reopened. We are continuing to increase our capacity at those centres.
[English]
Prior to the pandemic, about 65% of the capacity was in Canada with these jointly staffed enrollment centres. We have made a number of changes and reopened the American ones. We have reopened the Canadian ones. We have come up with some approaches to address our risk and our approval process separately so that we don’t have to be together in the same place. There are additional system changes we are pursuing in the fall.
We’re essentially closing in on the capacity, keeping pace with the volumes that are coming in. There is still an inventory of applications that we need to resolve. I apologize, I don’t have the numbers with me here today, so I can’t answer whether we’re still in that 12 to 18 months, but we have extended the membership for those that if it’s expired, it will continue until we’re able to schedule an interview.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: One of the reasons the Canadian NEXUS offices were closed was that Canada refused to let American officers carry a firearm on the job, as though they were on U.S. soil.
How did you resolve the problem? Do they carry a firearm today? Did they get what they were asking for? Did Canada end up conceding to the Americans, who aren’t known for making concessions in those types of situations? Isn’t it true that the delays Canadian NEXUS applicants are dealing with are due to the Canadian government’s stubborn refusal to let U.S. officers carry a firearm in NEXUS centres, plain and simple?
Mr. Ommanney: The issue didn’t have to do with the ability to carry a firearm. It had to do with the protections under the Preclearance Act.
[English]
There are protections given to American officers who are performing pre-clearance duties under the Preclearance Act. That was part of the negotiation of that international agreement. The difference of opinion was whether or not those protections should be extended to include other activities.
There is a sovereignty dimension to this, and the position under the Preclearance Act was that pre-clearance activities would be covered, but at the time, NEXUS was specifically excluded. It didn’t have to do with whether they can be armed or not. It was whether or not the protections under the Preclearance Act were afforded.
In the end, the resolution we came to was that we would separate what had previously been joint interview processes in Canada. The U.S. is conducting their portion of the interviews in the pre-clearance areas as part of entry into the U.S., and we’re conducting our piece of it separately.
It didn’t have to do with whether they were able to be armed or not. It was a separate issue. We have been able to resolve it by reopening the U.S. enrollment centres and by separating some of the elements of the enrollment process that previously had been done jointly. We have, as I said, reopened all of the enrollment centres in Canadian airports in the last month, and we’re back to keeping pace with the incoming demand.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have one last question.
Coming back to the budget, I’d like to know whether any funding was earmarked or added to get the NEXUS situation under control as quickly as possible, or were you simply told to leave things be because the situation would work itself out?
Mr. Ommanney: No, we had the funding we needed. It was more about re-evaluating the options for enrolling Canadians and Americans wanting to become NEXUS members.
We are in the process of considering investments to see whether there is another way to do things under the system. We are looking for a way to restore interview capacity. No additional funding was needed.
Senator Dagenais: I see. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you to the witnesses for being here with us. What will be the advantages and disadvantages of allowing travellers arriving in Canada to present themselves to a CBSA officer by means of telecommunication?
Mr. Ommanney: Thank you for the question. There are a few advantages to the agency and to travellers as well.
If I use advanced declaration as an example, which you may be familiar with, at participating kiosk-enabled airports — the 10 largest airports — travellers now have the option to complete their customs declaration on their phone instead of having to do it at the kiosk. The declaration questions themselves have not changed. The process post-kiosk with officers has not changed. All we have done is given the traveller the option to complete that information in advance.
From our perspective, the advantage is that work doesn’t need to take place in the arrivals hall. That’s where we start to get concerned about the volumes that arrive and the slowdowns you sometimes see reported. The measures that we have is that that saves the traveller about 30% of the time they previously spent at the kiosk.
The process is the same in the sense that you arrive at the kiosk, and your facial biometric is captured and compared to the photo in the chip in your passport. Previously, you would answer the customs declaration at the kiosk. That process would take you about two minutes. Now with this option on your phone, you can answer those questions ahead of time. You are still having your facial biometric captured and compared with the chip in your passport where we establish that the individual presenting is, in fact, the individual in the identity document and has the right to enter the country, and they just confirm their declaration.
That saves, as I said, about a third of the time. That’s 40 seconds less time at the kiosk that needs to be spent by the traveller. From our perspective, we can start to accumulate those savings across the travellers who are doing that, and it improves our throughput in the arrivals.
There is a convenience factor and a streamlined processing advantage for the traveller when they arrive. From our perspective, it’s a way for us to streamline that process by pushing some of the work away from the arrivals hall. That is one example.
Another example is a remote processing context. There will be areas where it might be challenging for us to rally a physical presence. Today, we have got remote reporting sites where people can arrive in a marine vessel, for example, and then they have to phone in and get cleared in that way. Remote tools offer another alternative to people to submit that information in advance. We can assess it and do some of the work ahead of time. Ultimately, when they arrive, their process is streamlined, and it doesn’t change the information that we require or need. In some cases, it gets us that information in the advance, so the ability to make risk assessments and other things is improved.
Senator Oh: For my last two or three trips coming back from overseas, in the aircraft, before you land, they normally hand you the customs declaration paper. Is that no longer being used?
Mr. Ommanney: That’s right. You would either fill in that information at the kiosk or on your smartphone. We have digitized a lot of that information. There are still situations where we might revert to paper, such as if we have a technical issue with the kiosks. I think there are still some smaller airports where they are still using paper, but you are right, that is the advantage of having these tools. You can give another means for travellers to complete the information.
Again, the idea is it’s voluntary. It’s an option if they want to exercise it. It allows them to complete that information in the comfort of their home or the plane as opposed to in an arrivals hall where, if you come back from March break like me, the kids are screaming and stuff.
Senator Oh: What happens with seniors? Some seniors don’t have a phone with 4G. Some of them are still using their phone as just a basic communication tool.
Mr. Ommanney: Absolutely. The intention here is that these are voluntary tools. For those who either don’t want to use them or don’t have the technology or are uncomfortable using them, they can continue to access traditional processing. For someone that doesn’t want to complete the declaration on their phone, they can still land at the airport and either go to a kiosk or an officer to satisfy their entry requirements.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for being here and explaining this. It’s interesting and a bit complex. I am always a bit nervous when people use the word “modernization,” because all sorts of things get swept into that or swept under the rug.
Right now, you can walk up to one of those kiosks and it takes your picture. Now you will be able to do it on your phone while you’re on the plane, before you land. Is that the difference in terms of this use of the term “means of telecommunication”?
Mr. Ommanney: What we would like to do is to turn your smartphone on and allow it to do the things that we do with a kiosk today. There are three basic things that we need to do when you arrive. We need to establish that you are who you say you are, your underlying travel document — that is, are you admissible to the country — and whether you have satisfied your border-related obligations.
Today, the way in which we link you to your identity document is done through an officer who might look at you, look at your passport and determine it’s the same. The conversation that ensues is the border-related requirements. That is, do you have any currency to declare, are you within your threshold, those kinds of things. We also use kiosks to do that. That’s where I said the facial biometric will capture your image to ensure that it’s the same image in the passport and that the passport grants you admission to the country. You then answer your customs declaration answers on the kiosk. The customs declaration can also be done on the smartphone. We haven’t yet introduced this capability, but it’s our intention to allow the smartphone to serve the other purpose that the kiosk serves today, which is to capture your facial biometric and to create a digital travel credential that we can then use to ensure that you are who you say and you are admissible. That will open up possibilities in a remote setting, for example.
We have a big border. A lot of people, as I said, come in today to a remote reporting site on a marine craft. They have to phone in, and then it’s a conversation with an officer that is establishing all of those things. We’re looking to add functionality and to give travellers the option if they want so we can still fulfill our core mandate, namely, establishing you are who you say you are, you are admissible to the country and you satisfy your obligations.
Senator Cardozo: It is left up to the officer — and I can’t tell you exactly what section it is, but it’s somewhere under section 476 — who can decide to have you come to the desk if they don’t see the picture well enough.
You have experience with this because you have been using photo technology. How do you make sure you don’t have systemic discrimination happening? I’m thinking about people with darker skin, or turbans, or hijabs, who might not be seen as well. How do you ensure that they are not always the people getting sent to the desk while, at the same time, ensuring a security?
Are all these decisions appealable to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency or the Public Complaints and Review Commission?
Mr. Ommanney: I will answer and then invite Mr. Carr to weigh in on your questions around bias.
I think I mentioned in my opening remarks that I had engaged the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. We’ve also been to The National Security Transparency Advisory Group. We wanted their advice in this area, as to the kinds of things that we needed to think about. A number of factors come into play with facial biometrics. It’s not just demographic factors, but the technology itself, the environmental factors, the lighting, and so on. That’s why it’s easier for us to contemplate the use of facial biometrics in an air environment, where we can control those things, as opposed to a land setting with a car and other things like that.
Senator Cardozo: But if you’re sitting in a plane, there’s not much light.
Mr. Ommanney: For sure. These are all the things we need to take into account, and then we need to monitor them to see if there is a different outcome being experienced by different groups. I will ask Mr. Carr to speak to that in a second.
Senator Cardozo: Are these decisions appealable to those agencies?
Mr. Ommanney: Right. There is an existing complaints process. Also, the intention is that any kind of decision that has a negative impact on a traveller will be taken by a human being. That is another core piece of this. For example, if you go to a kiosk today and the kiosk is not able to resolve your facial biometric capture with a photo in the chip — and it could be that some of the photos and chips are really poor quality — that has nothing to do with either the person or the technology. It might be the underlying document. In that case, a BSO, Border Services Officer, will ultimately resolve that link between individual and identity.
Maybe, Mr. Carr, I can ask you to speak a bit to bias.
Jeff Carr, Director General, Chief Data Office, Strategic Policy Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: The risk of bias is something we consider seriously in every process. That is why we’re going to be focused on working with the best in class technology as we roll this out. Part of that will be looking at international standards such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology. They have standards on facial recognition. We also have an internal lab and we’re going to bring in every piece of technology and test it ourselves for both performance and differential impacts on different groups to identify any bias that may exist.
The other important piece will be that we will work to monitor it in the field. Anything that we have deployed, we will monitor and assess. Any time we find bias, we will adjust. That could be the technology, namely, the position of cameras and those kinds of issues; the environmental factors that you talked about, like the lighting in the airport not working for certain groups; or, the underlying software. We’re building in-house expertise. We’re going to test all of that.
The final piece is we’re going to work with academia and civil society and are being transparent by indicating this is what we are doing, this is how we’re testing it, what are your concerns and how can we address them?
Senator Cardozo: When does this all go into effect?
Mr. Ommanney: The project itself has a lifespan of about five to seven years, and different technologies will roll out at different times. We have just rolled out the advance declaration to the major airports. The next focus for us will be in highway mode in the major land crossings. Remote processing will be unlocked for us through some of these changes and then there will be the consequential regulations that will be made as we roll things out.
When we want to use your phone as a kiosk, for example, a number of elements come into play. We talked about environmental factors. We can control those factors in an arrival hall. I think you used the example of someone trying to do it on an airplane or somewhere else. We’re still in the early stages. A big part of how we’re going to test and acquire different technologies will be rooted in how well they perform from a bias standpoint and whether they meet international standards, and so on.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I want to recognize an important event. On May 8, 1945, the war in Europe ended with the capitulation of Nazi Germany. The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs wishes to observe that historic day and thank Canadians who fought in the war, as well as families who lost loved ones.
Welcome to the witnesses.
I’m going to put myself in the average Canadian’s shoes, because this is all confusing. Right now, people can complete their declaration electronically, mainly, in the case of air travel. Do you have plans to make that option available at all customs control sites, including land borders?
Will travellers still have to show their passport to an officer or scan it at a terminal? Are the two systems similar — the one you want to implement and the one air travellers are already using?
Mr. Ommanney: What we are trying to do is give travellers the option of using their smartphones to complete their declarations at the border. It’s an option for all modes of transportation, but it’s the air travel declaration process that we want to extend to all modes of travel. We want to make available the form people have to fill out. It can be done digitally, and there is also a tool to calculate duties that are owing.
Senator Boisvenu: Say I present at the border crossing in Lacolle with my electronic declaration. Do I go straight through, or do I have to see a customs officer?
Mr. Ommanney: You have to see a customs officer, but for payment, the officer doesn’t have to take your passport, scan it and enter the information. We anticipate two advantages in the case of land crossings. First, it will eliminate the need for the officer to —
Senator Boisvenu: — ask questions?
Mr. Ommanney: They can still ask questions, but they will already have the answers to the questions on the declaration form. That way, if something strikes them as —
Senator Boisvenu: — suspicious?
Mr. Ommanney: They can steer the conversation accordingly. The purpose is really to eliminate some of the administrative elements such as the entry of the information, the answering of the questions, so everything is already there.
We are still in the planning stage. I can explain what our plan is, but it could change. The idea is to submit the declaration in advance. That way, when the licence plate is read as the vehicle approaches the officer in the pill booth, the officer will already have the person’s identity information and declaration answers so they can focus on the interaction with the traveller.
Senator Boisvenu: I’d like to know what happens when people have trouble with electronic devices, for whatever reason — a certain problem or difficulty understanding something. Will they still be able to follow the old procedure, presenting to the officer, giving their name and passport number, and so forth?
Mr. Ommanney: For existing ports of entry in airports and at land borders, but when we’re talking about providing remote processing options, I would say it somewhat depends. Travellers will still have the option of using a land port of entry, but if travellers on cruises, say, want the benefits, we need the necessary information and functionality. Traditional options will still be available to people.
Senator Boisvenu: You’re saying that an officer could ask a traveller to present in person.
Mr. Ommanney: Yes, that’s right.
Senator Boisvenu: When the traveller returns to the country, will they still come into contact with a customs officer?
Mr. Ommanney: This example is for a traveller entering the country who wants to use a remote option. Say I want to cross the border at Northwest Angle, I have the option to provide my information and establish my identity, but if, for instance, I need an immigration officer, a permit has to be filled out.
Senator Boisvenu: Under what circumstances would the customs officer make the traveller report in person? You said in your opening remarks that the customs officer would still have the ability to make the traveller report in person. Under what circumstances could that happen?
[English]
Mr. Ommanney: An example would be if someone were looking to cross in a remote setting. They’ve provided their information, but they need immigration processing. Notwithstanding the fact that they’ve provided their declaration and established their identity, on receipt, we will recognize that there is processing work needed and therefore tell that traveller that it’s not an option for them to enter in this fashion and they need to present at a staff location.
Another example would be if there’s past enforcement history with an individual. Then, we would insist they enter through a staff location — not in every circumstance, but that would be an example where we might want to insist that someone go through a staff location. The option will be there for people to do it, but we need to preserve the right for a border officer to say, “Notwithstanding the fact you’ve provided this information and satisfied your border-related obligations through these smartphone tools, we still want to see you.”
We will also have the option to have officers out in the field in what we call flexible response teams to present at remote marine sites, for example, to do random checks and other things to make sure the folks that are arriving there are doing that. In fact, that’s part of the objective here. If we can free up time by not focusing on low-risk travellers, we’ll be able to do that more regularly and improve on our enforcement outcomes.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here. I think a couple of things are really clear. No one is going to be left behind depending on where they are in the technological continuum and their comfort with devices and what they’re using. I would say when you come to the Hill, you’re probably talking with folks who are on planes all the time. We have our own experiences. I know you must be piloting and testing these. I’m thrilled with the advanced declaration. I didn’t really understand it at first, but I’ve seen a number of things happening in Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. I think those are great steps. When you look at a room full of 600 people, and you take that times 25 seconds, those numbers add up very quickly.
I want to ask two questions related to that. First, I’d like a bit of a landscape — pandemic and post-pandemic. What is your sense with your staffing, retaining staff during the pandemic and how it went based on staff that can’t work from home? I’m curious, first of all, to see what that impact was. Then I’ll ask a supplementary question to that.
Mr. Ommanney: Thank you. First of all, I’ll just pile on that first comment you made about the importance of this in the arrival hall. I don’t know if you’re hearing from industry as part of your testimony, but there’s a lot of interest from the air sector to introduce new technologies to help with those throughput challenge volumes and moving through low-risk travellers. If you travel internationally, you’ll see it in place in other countries. By frame of reference, last week at Pearson, more than 150,000 travellers landed in Terminal 1. That has our highest uptake of advanced declaration. It’s sitting at about 20%. That’s 36,000 travellers or so — a large number of travellers that will have saved 40 seconds at a kiosk. That starts to add up and make a big difference in terms of how many folks we can move through the arrival hall.
In terms of staffing, I think one of the challenges for us is that new border officers come through the college. It’s not like we can hire new officers off the street. They need to go through the college, be trained and be prepared. During the pandemic, we had a suspension of the generation of new border officers through the college. We’ve since caught up to that, but that definitely created a bit of a challenge.
We did take steps during the pandemic to try to safeguard our operational capability by giving additional leave to some officers so as not to expose everyone to COVID and create some operational challenges for ourselves. For sure, the pandemic, as with everyone, created some challenges. We are a front-line organization, and, as you say, the option of remote work isn’t there — although there are some things we can do with our accommodated officers and other things. But from the latest numbers I’ve seen, I think we’ve caught up in terms of what we lost from the college, and we’re continuing to turn out the officers we need.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for giving us that sense of the landscape.
If I look at this and the technology piece, I am puzzled by one piece at this point, and that is the information being reviewed through telecommunications. If a traveller presents themselves to the Canada Border Services Agency — through automation, as we’ve talked about today — will that information at some stage eventually be reviewed by a human eye or will it go into an algorithm and be parsed through information to flag any issues of concern?
Mr. Ommanney: We’ll have tools that support the officer’s decision making. We are including tools that look at the information we have at our disposal and feed it to officers to inform their decision. In addition to the advanced information that might be submitted by a traveller, there’s already risking work we do in the organization to support the decision of officers.
The referral decisions will continue to be made by officers, and the decisions to intervene will continue to be made by officers. If I use the telephone reporting centre example — again, a remote, marine site — they show up, and they have to phone in and talk to an officer. Sometimes there’s a wait. In the summertime, there’s a lot of marine traffic, and people are waiting to get that clearance from an officer. This gives another avenue for that to be submitted in advance and for that risking. As well, there may be the ability to, for example, send a note back to that traveller to tell them that, okay, they’re clear to come in when they arrive and that they’ve been assessed. However, that’s an assessment still being done by the agency. If there’s a decision to intervene with that traveller, either we would direct them to come to a staff location, or we may choose to rally a flexible response team out to that site to intervene and interview the traveller.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today. I have two perhaps rather basic questions. The first one involves how you handle security of the applications, because the evil actors out there are always catching up, whether it’s through their own use of algorithms or countermeasures of some kind. There are a lot of scams out there as well, and people can fall into those. Senator Oh mentioned it’s difficult for elderly people who are not that computer literate to move through the system, even when they try.
I’m wondering, having noticed that the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security was here last week, whether you are looking at programs to counter malign actors and whether you’re working closely with the United States in that regard.
Mr. Ommanney: Maybe I can turn to Ms. Belanger to talk about cybersecurity.
Kelly Belanger, Associate Vice-President and Deputy Chief Information Officer, Information, Science and Technology Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: Thank you for the question. Privacy and security are key considerations for us, and they continue to be. We absolutely do work with the U.S. We have our partner organizations that we talk to. We’ve talked to them about cybersecurity, how they work, what they use, whether it’s data centres, the cloud, et cetera.
We do have safeguards in place. We do work on a privacy‑by‑design point of view. We have very strong encryption techniques. Data is encrypted at rest and as it travels. Within Shared Services Canada, there is a secure cloud enablement, so anything going from the cloud to the ground is securely transferred with that encryption.
We also use what you see in a lot of industry right now — multi-factor authentication. You have to have that second device for the second piece of authentication that we do have.
Additionally, information is only used and has to be used by those on a need-to-know basis. We have our employees who are able to view it; we have logs, so we can see who has gone in and used it; and we have security standards and controls for our screening of both the establishments where we hold data as well as the individuals who have access to it.
The last thing I will say is that we also have privacy considerations built into our contracts with those who are working, so if they’re not employees of the Government of Canada, we ensure those contracts have the clauses to ensure they comply with our privacy as well.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, Ms. Belanger.
Mr. Carr mentioned earlier that you’ll be working with civil society and interested consumer organizations in rolling out these new programs. Does that include letting people know who the fakes are out there? If you go to the internet and want to download the ArriveCAN app, you have a number of options. A few of them require a credit card number, but it’s a scam. It’s important, I think, to get the word out as to what the bona fide program in fact is. Do you have a comment on that?
Ms. Belanger: When we find out about that type of site, we look into it and work with our security staff in cases to try to pull them down. As you know, in a lot of cases, as you mentioned with the ArriveCAN one, there is one still up and running. We have our support staff who are informed when people call in about that type of thing, what the responses are and to let people know that they are not true sites. But we have also worked with our communication team to make sure if there are sites like that, it is clear on our websites that they are fraudulent or not the true sites that we have. I’m not sure, Mr. Ommanney, if there’s anything else that you’re aware of.
Mr. Ommanney: Not that I’m aware of. Again, it’s a perennial problem across comms, trying to make it clear that we’re never going to ask you to pay for it. It’s a bit like what CRA goes through during tax season every year. Aside from staying on top of it, trying to make it as clear as possible that those are not legitimate sites, where we can take steps to try to bring them down, we will.
Senator Boehm: A few years ago, pre-pandemic, even before that, there was always a plan out there to set up a pilot project in the U.S. where Canada would have pre-clearance capability, shall we say, whether it was a plaza or something in a major airport. I’m wondering whether, in light of recent events and recent consultations, this idea is still alive and, if so, what does it look like?
Mr. Ommanney: It is still something that we’re discussing with our U.S. counterparts. I’d say we’re still in very early phases about where this would make sense from our perspective and from the U.S. perspective, both in a traveller space and in commercial space that we operate in. I don’t have any specifics I can offer today as to what exactly that might look like, other than to say it is a subject of ongoing conversation.
Senator Boehm: So the dream is still alive?
Mr. Ommanney: It is.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
The Chair: A quick follow-up before we go on: I’m presuming you operate under the umbrella of the Communications Security Establishment in terms of cybersecurity and you’re connected. Thank you. I would have thought so.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Mr. Ommanney, you spoke earlier about coming into one of our major airports. I’m familiar with coming into Toronto quite often, and I’ve never gotten to the kiosk in 30 seconds. If I could get to the kiosk in 30 seconds, I’d be a very happy person, but the reality, of course, for many folks who live in the Greater Toronto Area, is that it’s always crowded. It’s the busiest airport in the country. I understand the need to incorporate some technology to speed up the process. We do that right now. The airlines get a lot of information from me when I get on a flight, and the U.S. gets it in advance before I get on the ground. I understand all of that.
In the context of doing this, how would the use of this new telecommunications process impact the employment of CBSA officers going forward, including other issues that might have an impact?
Mr. Ommanney: To come back on your 30 seconds, maybe I misspoke, but what we’re seeing with advanced declaration, if you don’t use it, it takes the average traveller, once they reach the kiosk, about two minutes to complete that biometric capture, identity resolution and customs declaration, and it’s about a third faster, so about 40 seconds faster if you’ve done your declaration in advance. Sorry if I misspoke earlier.
There’s no part of traveller modernization that has as an objective reduction of staff. We want to spend less of our time facilitating low-risk travellers, addressing problems such as you’re talking about in terms of congestion in the arrival hall at Pearson and spending more of our time on higher value enforcement activities and improve the experience for travellers — make technology more available, improve their user experience and the user experience for officers. A big chunk of the work we’re doing is about improving the user interface for our officers, the information that’s available to them, reducing the kinds of administrative tasks they have to do, whether it’s data capture, data entry or better supporting the communications that they need operationally between a primary officer and a secondary officer, for example. Those are all things that will require less time for them to process a traveller, and, therefore, that time overall can be better spent on higher value enforcement activities.
There’s no intention here of replacing officers with technology. There’s a huge piece of this work which is engaging officers to say: How do you need technology to help you in the work that you do? What information do you need to see? How do you want to see it? How do you need to communicate? Frankly, we have a lot of systems in the back end, and that creates a lot of friction for officers who have to log in to multiple systems. There’s a lot of room for us to simplify and improve the user experience for them. It will ultimately free up their time to spend on what we would consider higher value activities and, at the same time, provides a better traveller experience and a streamlined experience for a low-risk traveller.
Senator Yussuff: The CBSA officer is only one point of the process of getting through when you come back. How does it impact customs officers, which is a separate line that you go through? Would this in any way assist them in the work they do? They have the ability to screen every traveller; they’re there getting the declaration form. How would this impact the customs officer, which is a secondary screening you go through as you get through CBSA?
Mr. Ommanney: I think you’re referring to the secondary officer if we make a referral. If we give better information to the primary officer, so they can more quickly identify low-risk travellers and send them on their way, that also helps them focus on the higher risk or more interesting travellers that they may want to refer. One of the objectives is to improve the effectiveness of those referrals.
There are other elements I would point you to, and I alluded to them a moment ago. One of the things I’ve heard in the sessions when I have been out speaking to officers is to say, “Hey, what do you need these new tools to do for you?”
One of the things often highlighted is helping them communicate with each other better. When a primary officer makes a referral to the secondary, it’s not always obvious to the secondary officer why that referral was made. If we can allow for the system to allow for better communication between the two, that removes that kind of information gap that exists today.
There are ways like that, where the tools and information that we’re providing will lead to better and quicker primary decisions, but will also have a positive impact on the secondary referrals and the results we see there.
Senator Yussuff: Right now when I come in I pass CBSA. Before I can go through, get my bags and get out of the airport, the customs officer collects that piece of paper from me. How would they get that piece of paper now, electronically?
Mr. Ommanney: The reason for that is to satisfy the existing presentation requirements in the act. That’s one of the things that’s been changed here.
We have the information already in the system. We don’t need to print the paper and have the person hand off the paper. We may be able to provide a QR code on your phone. Again, it’s early days. We have not landed on how that would work. That is one of the things these changes would allow us to adjust.
Senator Yussuff: I want to pick up on a question my colleague Senator Cardozo asked, which has been an issue that comes up every so often from different communities in terms of challenges they face and racial profiling. In the context of all of this, recognizing we’ve had these problems and many attempts have been made to train officers and sensitize them to that we’re a very diverse country.
Technologies are not neutral. What you put in is what comes out at the end. How would we avoid this in the context of going forward and ensuring other communities are not stigmatized by this?
Mr. Ommanney: For sure. I will ask Mr. Carr to weigh in on the work we’re doing to try to monitor and assess whether bias exists and how we can then deal with it.
I will speak to the other point you made. There’s an ongoing need, which we are doing — which is the training and education of officers — to make sure that people are aware of what the issues are. We also need to look at our human-driven decision making in terms of differential outcomes.
When it comes to the system, this is something that we’re very seized with. I think I mentioned earlier the point that both the OPC and The National Security Transparency Advisory Group emphasizes the importance of not only addressing this but being transparent in how we address it, and reassure Canadians that this is something we’re taking seriously and addressing.
I will turn it over to Mr. Carr.
Mr. Carr: Yes. I have a team dedicated to bias and ethics analysis of what’s currently the processes in place. Any technology or algorithm that goes forward will be evaluated from a bias and ethics perspective, measuring differential outcomes, designing any sort of technology or algorithms with that in mind so that any element that we can remove from those algorithms or technology is removed before their impact.
As you said, any bad data feeding into the creation risks perpetuating that bias in the future, which is why we’re being extremely careful with what gets fed in, so that we can be sure that we’re minimizing any bias that gets into the system going forward. Then we’ll be monitoring and evaluating on a regular basis going forward.
Senator Dasko: Thank you for being here. I have a few questions as most of my questions have been answered.
I find the NEXUS card works very well in travelling to the U.S. Will this process be better, faster, quicker than NEXUS? I find it’s impossible to live without a NEXUS card, so don’t take it away. I know it’s the American’s, but you know what I mean.
Mr. Ommanney: The operational model for NEXUS is very much what we have in mind for how we would deal with low‑risk travellers. The trick is in determining who belongs in that stream.
The experience for the traveller and the experience from our end is — again, at this early stage of how we’re thinking about it — analogous to how that NEXUS flow operates.
Senator Dasko: Did you get the idea from that and how well that works?
Mr. Ommanney: I don’t know where the idea came from, to be honest. This is a challenge that border agencies around the world are dealing with: How to streamline the low-risk traveller so we can focus on the higher-risk activity, whether that’s driven by the people crossing, the commercial goods entering or what have you.
That notion that you acquire a degree of confidence or reassurance that these folks need less attention and, therefore, can be handled in a streamlined fashion, that’s what NEXUS is about. We handle that through the assessment process up front and then ongoing monitoring of the behaviours of the folks in the program.
Senator Dasko: I have a question about travelling by car. I am doomed to use Pearson every week, as my colleague is. Earlier this year, I travelled over the Ambassador Bridge and came back via the Walpole Island Ferry, which is an interesting eight-minute ferry that crosses from Michigan to Ontario.
Let’s say you’re travelling by car, approaching the border and coming back to Canada. You say, “All those trucks are here.” Can you pull out your mobile and do the form right there, just before you get there?
Mr. Ommanney: Yes.
Senator Dasko: You can.
Mr. Ommanney: The idea is you can do it up to 72 hours in advance, again, is our thinking now. You could do it. Then it’s about confirming that the declaration still stands at the point of your crossing.
Senator Dasko: I see. So you have to do it 72 hours ahead?
Mr. Ommanney: You don’t have to, up to.
Senator Dasko: I understand.
Mr. Ommanney: If you’re at a border crossing, you’re sitting in a long line, and there’s a line over there for people who have NEXUS or who have done advanced declaration, I would suggest filling it in before you grab the wheel and turn.
Senator Dasko: Right. You’re in the line and say this is terrible. I’m going to fill out the form, and off I go over here.
Mr. Ommanney: Again, the idea for us in terms of where we see this going, we ultimately want to incorporate all of the border-related obligations, but also things like wait times and helping you, as a traveller, decide where the best place is for me to go. Let me satisfy all requirements, calculate and pay my duties and taxes. That will ultimately streamline. It works for you because it helps you streamline your process when you arrive. It works for us because, especially on land, that’s information that we would get in advance that we don’t get today.
Senator Dasko: Right.
Mr. Ommanney: The ability to get a sense, operationally, of what kind of volumes are coming our way, or individuals, the risking that we can now do on that information, the determination that can be made most of the way, until we then see the person, confirm the declaration and whether there’s anything of note that the officer notices.
Senator Dasko: Do these procedures affect commercial traffic at all?
Mr. Ommanney: These are focused on the travellers and business.
One of the things that I’m discussing with officers when I’m talking to them — because for them, on the front line, they often float between traveller operations and commercial operations.
For sure, the emphasis and the focus of our work is on travellers’ processing, tools for travellers and then how do we process that information; how do we support officers’ decision as they relate to travellers?
As we’re going out and soliciting the requirements from officers around what the officer interface needs to look like, what kind of requirements does he need to take on board? We do want to do that mindful of the fact that their work is not uniquely travellers. They might sometimes float.
It is possible that there will be certain elements that touch on our commercial business that are reflected in what we would push out to officers. From a non-CBSA user standpoint, it’s focused on travellers only.
Senator Dasko: Do you envision that people will continue to have a choice at most border crossings?
Mr. Ommanney: Yes.
Senator Dasko: Land or air?
Mr. Ommanney: The analogy one of my colleagues likes to use is the banking one, where you can still go and talk to a teller; you can go to an ATM, or you can do banking on your phone. We want to provide a range of options. Certainly, there are many advantages, from our perspective, to having folks use this.
We talked before with your colleague’s question a moment ago about Pearson. There’s an advantage for us. If we can push the processing away from the port of arrival, that means people spend less time when they arrive; that’s important to us, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and our industry partners.
We also have a joint interest in improving the traveller experience. How do we make this as seamless and easy as possible?
That’s driving us on those tools, but we recognize — as has been raised a few times — that not everyone will want to use them and not everyone will be in a position to use them. We will maintain access to traditional processing, but it becomes more challenging if we’re talking about remote tools. Again, the notion is I’m giving you an option instead of crossing in the middle of the Great Lakes. If you don’t want to use those tools, though, maybe you have to go through the nearest land port of entry. There will be circumstances where this might be the only option. However, when it comes to major airports and land crossings — that is, what’s available today — we see offering this as the ability to expand the services and the reach of services that are currently available.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Anderson: Thank you to the witnesses. Is it the plan for the Canada Border Services Agency to utilize or expand the use of artificial intelligence, or AI? If so, are there regulations and guidelines for the deployment, use and advancement of AI in line with the rollout of this new legislation?
Mr. Ommanney: Mr. Carr, can you help on what constitutes or falls within AI? It is our intention to use analytics to support the decisions of officers, for example, to run indicators that might be interesting from a risk standpoint and then to provide that input to officers to inform their decision making. Maybe I’ll turn to you now.
Mr. Carr: We’re certainly exploring the potential use of artificial intelligence in that risking work going forward. Everything we’re doing is not only in compliance with Treasury Board regulations and standards but also it exceeds them in every way. It’s not something we’re going to rush out the door quickly, but it’s something we’re exploring. Once we have enough confidence in the tools — that is, once they’ve been thoroughly tested and piloted and we have strong buy-in from external groups that can challenge us — we could implement them.
Senator Anderson: If you decided to implement them, do the regulations currently in existence address any security concerns for individuals’ information, or is that something that would have to follow any decisions you make?
Mr. Carr: I might turn to Mr. Hamilton on legislation. Any time we would be implementing artificial intelligence, it would be with full knowledge. It would be publicized to the public that these kinds of tools are being used in this process. People would be informed.
Mr. Ommanney: I don’t know if the algorithmic impact assessment will speak to that as well. Anytime we use algorithms in decision making, there is a process through Treasury Board regarding what its impact is and then there is an assessment.
Mr. Carr: It has to be evaluated and published on the Treasury Board website to all Canadians so that they know, for example, we are using artificial intelligence in risking decisions at the border. Here’s why we’re using it. Here’s the information that we’re using, and here’s the types of decisions. That would be posted there.
Graeme Hamilton, Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy, Strategic Policy Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: The legislation and the amendments that are being brought forward in the budget do not speak to any changes related to the use of AI and part of that risking. That’s all governed through the Treasury Board framework that already exists and we would be compliant with that. We already have limitations within the Customs Act around sharing information between departments. That isn’t touched on in the legislative scheme either. This is on options for presenting to the agency. Elements related to sharing that information around the privacy of the information and the use of AI would continue to be governed by existing frameworks across the Government of Canada. In the context of AI, the Treasury Board would hold them.
Mr. Ommanney: In addition, the same limitations in the Customs Act on what information we can ask for remain. These aren’t changing that in any way, so the limitations that are already in place in the Customs Act carry forward to anything that has been discussed today.
The Chair: We have just enough time for three more questions from Senators Boisvenu, Yussuff and Cardozo. Three minutes each, and I’m going to be very strict about three minutes.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Again, I’d like to thank the witnesses. Will this system apply only to Canadian residents, or will it also apply to Americans wanting to enter Canada?
Mr. Ommanney: The idea is to make the tools available to anyone.
However, the traveller category will inform the risk assessment. Also, the case of a Canadian returning to the country is simpler than a situation where the traveller is a foreigner and needs to see an immigration officer.
Senator Boisvenu: Are the Americans developing similar systems for their citizens or for Canadians who travel to the U.S. a lot? As far as modernizing systems goes, are we pretty much on a par with one another?
Mr. Ommanney: We both have the same challenges in that regard. We have a lot of travellers arriving, so we need to verify their identity as quickly as possible and determine whether they are individuals we want to interact with. Our countries are quite vast.
Senator Boisvenu: It’s a fact that the Americans are always reluctant to let people into the country. They have something of an obsession with controlling their border. Is that a barrier that would stop them from developing tools similar to ours?
Mr. Ommanney: It’s more of a barrier when it comes to the categories of travellers who have access to those tools. They have similar tools, and they are looking at similar technologies, addressing similar challenges.
[English]
We’re thinking about the same technologies. Perhaps we’re going to implement them differently because there are sovereign differences and different preoccupations. In terms of basic challenges, namely, how to resolve identity and provide people a means of entering remotely; or how to streamline low-risk travellers in a major airport or a land crossing, those challenges are the same. They may manifest slightly differently, but we’re going to have similar types of technologies in play and similar types of approaches.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: There is one other elephant in the room that we didn’t talk about. What happens if I was found out to be lying on what I submitted in regard to my pre-clearance information? Do I get flagged in the system forever? Does that get shared with other countries?
Mr. Ommanney: I guess it’s probably no different than today, in the sense that there is a positive obligation on someone entering the country to provide information to a border officer honestly. If they are found not to be doing that, there is an enforcement record and that will be in the system.
Questions around how are you are determined to be low risk, and if you are no longer determined as such how you get back to low risk designation haven’t been answered yet. However, in past enforcement history, it’s relevant to us when you drive up and talk to an officer at a land crossing. If you have had past enforcement action, that will be part of how they look at you when they are interacting with you and it will inform their decision on a referral. Those elements will continue to be important to us in terms of assessing the risk of a given traveller coming in. But exactly how that will work is undetermined. It will be informed very much by how it works today, subject to comments that have been made before about an assessment. We don’t want to import bias, as you raised in your earlier question, so if there have been differential outcomes around some enforcement results, for example, we will look closely at that before we import that into a system that is now helping inform future referrals.
Senator Yussuff: Right now in terms of your NEXUS card, if you are found to be in violation, essentially you are flagged and you are constantly being checked. Maybe you are not there yet, but I assume something will happen and you will have to see an agent to get —
Mr. Ommanney: We get between 900 and 100 million travellers a year. We’re still trying to figure out what normal looks like post COVID, but that was the trend line before COVID. The idea isn’t that these are for everyone. We’re trying to reduce the degree of unknown travellers. Because right now, our history is that everyone is treated as an unknown traveller, and that’s not actually the case. In some cases, we have a lot of information on travellers that can help us recognize — like you mentioned, senator, the Ambassador Bridge. There are a lot of commuters in Windsor. A lot of folks go work in Detroit and come back every day at 5:30 p.m. — same car, same travellers.
I mentioned earlier about some of the engagement sessions I have had with officers. I go to every port, and they have some notion already of what a low-risk traveller looks like for them. It’s different in each of the ports. It’s really about trying to help us bottle that experience and then share it with our colleagues across the country so we can spend as little time as possible with the people who are ultimately low risk and who we’re not interested in — to approve their experience and free us up to focus on high-value activities.
Senator Cardozo: If I can just go back to the complaint mechanisms I had asked about. There’s the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the Public Complaints and Review Commission. Can you tell me what the difference between them is, which ones apply to your work and which ones apply to someone who has a complaint based on this new process?
Mr. Ommanney: We have our own internal Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, complaints process.
Senator Cardozo: It’s different from these two that I mentioned?
Mr. Ommanney: If you are a traveller and you feel that you have been mistreated at the border or are unhappy about the decision, there is a recourse mechanism — a complaint mechanism within CBSA. I think you are talking about some of the bodies of government — the national security community writ large. I’m not familiar with the distinctions.
Mr. Hamilton: I wouldn’t want to misrepresent exactly what their mandates are. Maybe that’s a question we can take back and provide you a bit more information on.
Senator Cardozo: If you can just let me know what the name of the commission is — the CBSA complaints commission.
Mr. Ommanney: We don’t have an oversight body. There is a piece of legislation contemplating the creation of that, but it has not passed the House yet.
Senator Cardozo: So at this point, there is no oversight body for CBSA?
Mr. Ommanney: Correct.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Verifying the identities of travellers arriving in Canada electronically worries me a bit, not because I’m against modernization, but because the federal and provincial governments don’t have great track records when it comes to IT transformation. Take Phoenix or SAAQclic, for example. I get even more worried when I hear you say that you’re working with a seven-year horizon. What works today may be totally outdated by the time you finish your testing, seven years down the road.
Practically speaking, are you going to acquire equipment that has proven effective elsewhere in the world, or are you going to try to develop and implement a system here?
[English]
Mr. Ommanney: I may ask Ms. Belanger to speak to our IT development process.
The answer to your question is probably that it’s both — there will be areas where we’ll go and look to acquire existing, tried and tested technologies. An example would be, in the remote processing space, being able to acquire remote gates that could be operated from a neighbouring port of entry. We’re probably looking for an established technology in that space. In other cases, when we’re looking at our own internal systems and looking at ways to inform our decision making, we would want to control that. We would want to develop that. So there will be pieces that we look to develop in house, and then there will be pieces where we go out to look for the tried and tested.
Biometric algorithms would be an example of tried and tested. We don’t want to be at the leading edge of that. We want to go to things that have been endorsed by the National Institute of Science and Technology. We have discussed issues already around bias and other things. There are international bodies that say, “These algorithms work, and these don’t.” We’ll want tried, tested technology for those kinds of things.
I guess the other point I would make — and then I’ll invite Ms. Belanger to add anything — is that we’re very much in the space of wanting to deliver small, incremental things as we go. We’re not looking to deliver a big solution at the end of seven years. We want to roll out one piece and see if it is working. Then we can say, “Okay, great, let’s expand it.” That’s our thinking right now when it comes to expanding the advanced declaration functionality to land. We’ll test it at a few sites and see if it’s working. Is it delivering the efficiencies that we want? Is it working for travellers and officers? If so, great. Let’s expand it to our other sites.
We have a big, complicated operation. We have a lot of modes of travel. I’ve been in the CBSA about three and a half years now, and what I have learned is that there are so many permutations of travellers. We want to create as much optionality as possible but also recognize the real diversity in our business. We need to get out and test these little pieces in incremental ways. That’s kind of our philosophy and approach.
The other big advantage from my perspective — again, back to the engagements I have had with officers — is that we want to show the officers the improvements and put them in their hands, so they feel the change and see the benefits of it. That’s another important driver for us to really tackle this in an incremental way.
Ms. Belanger: Absolutely. I was going to touch on the incremental pieces as well, but the other thing I wanted to mention is that as we’re doing this — if we’re piloting and if we’re doing proof of concepts with the officers — the one thing we want to ensure is that the architecture and the security we have are scalable. Sometimes things work well in one location but you can’t bring it everywhere else. That’s going to be key to us as we’re doing this design and looking at what to purchase and what to build. We need to make sure it is scalable and can be used in multiple areas across the country.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This brings us to the end of the panel. Let me first thank you, Mr. Ommanney, Ms. Belanger, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Carr, for contributing greatly to our consideration of this legislation and bringing lots of clarity to it. I thank our colleagues for their testing questions and for your fulsome responses. You have helped us considerably. As we like to do when we have senior public servants, academics and others in front of us, we thank you for the contributions you make, the work you do and the service you provide to Canadians. You certainly do that in finding a balance between efficiency and security and with an eye to equity, as we have heard today. We’re very appreciative, and we can’t thank you enough.
We now move to our second panel. For those joining us live this afternoon, we are examining the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 24 of Part 4, as contained in Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, also known as the budget implementation act.
In the second panel, we are pleased to welcome, by video conference, from the Customs and Immigration Union, Mark Weber, National President; and on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, David Fraser, who is a member of the National Privacy and Access Law Section.
We thank both of you for joining us today. We look forward to hearing from you. We’re going to begin by inviting you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you each have five minutes for opening statements.
Mr. Fraser, we’ll begin with you. The floor is yours.
David T.S. Fraser, Member, National Privacy and Access Law Section, Canadian Bar Association: Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before this committee as a member of the National Privacy and Access Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association as it carries out its important study of proposed amendments to the Customs Act related to traveller modernization.
I should note from the outset that the CBA has a very rigorous process to review formal submissions to be made to parliamentary committees such as this one and, unfortunately, have not yet had the opportunity to fully bring that process to bear on this particular legislative initiative. I say that as a caution or a caveat so that this committee does not consider my comments today to be the final word or the formal position of the CBA. My comments today are informed by previous submissions that we have made before parliamentary committees on matters related to privacy at the border.
In advance of my testimony today, we have provided the clerk with a copy of the CBA’s previous submissions on related topics, but they don’t address this particular legislative initiative.
The Canadian Bar Association always strives to uphold the rule of law, the administration of justice, equality and equity, all values that are underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This initiative seems designed to provide greater flexibility for individuals who are entering Canada to submit to an interview or review by the CBSA, using certain technologies where that is an efficient and desirable way to carry out that interview or review. It would appear that many of the details and the mechanics of this process will be left to regulations, which have not yet been provided to us and, I don’t expect, have been published for comment yet.
What we would focus on as an organization is to ensure that whatever technology that is adopted has the highest levels of privacy protection and does not inadvertently exclude or disadvantage individuals who may not have access to particular technologies or particular tools.
For example, if the Canada Border Services Agency was to propose adding to the functionality of the ArriveCAN application to include the possibility of video conferencing with CBSA officers, presumably along with geolocation information to determine whether the individual is at an authorized border crossing, this should be done in a transparent manner and accompanied by a robust privacy impact assessment, commonly known as PIA, to ensure that the privacy principles and legal requirements under the Privacy Act, the Customs Act and, of course, the Charter are closely adhered to.
The bill also talks about “prescribed information” to be provided in the “prescribed circumstances.” Of course, that means that these details will be left to the regulations. This should be limited to information that’s reasonably necessary in order to evaluate eligibility to enter Canada and should be tailored to prevent fishing expeditions or incursions into important legal rights such as solicitor-client privilege.
The CBA recommended in its submission on privacy and privilege at the border that the CBSA adopt policies to clarify that information protected by solicitor-client privilege cannot be disclosed without the client’s consent or by court order. CBSA officers must respect all claims of solicitor-client privilege, whether made by the lawyer or their client.
CBSA officers must follow an expedited procedure to address claims of solicitor-client privilege. Determinations about the applicability of solicitor-client privilege can’t be made by CBSA officers but must be made by a Canadian court.
A fulsome review of the proposal along with a robust privacy impact assessment will be important to this. The PIA will ask, among other important questions: What is the legislative basis for this collection of personal information? What is the scope of that basis? Is what is collected limited to what is for a lawful purpose? Is it limited to the information that’s strictly necessary for those purposes? With respect to a video call or the images, is that recorded? If so, how is it protected and what are the limitations on subsequent use? How long is that information retained, and who has access to those recordings? And, of course: How is all of this secured?
Hopefully, the PIA would be reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and would also be made fully public.
You may recall at the beginning of the pandemic the Government of Canada provided a COVID exposure alerting app called “COVID Alert.” While it never had the level of success hoped for, it does stand as a model of transparent application development and deployment. The source code was made available for scrutiny so that individuals knew what it did exactly and nothing more. There has been some controversy associated with the ArriveCAN app, which, in my view, likely could have been alleviated by making the source code available to security and privacy experts for scrutiny and third-party review. It was also deemed to be mandatory, in some cases causing huge problems for those who do not travel with a smartphone.
Therefore, it would be our recommendation that whatever technology be adopted and deployed in order to facilitate this new mode of entering Canada, it be subjected to a thorough privacy impact assessment and independent review to ensure that privacy and security are protected using best practices.
A number of issues were encountered by individuals using the ArriveCAN app for a number of reasons, for example, people who do not use smartphones or do not have access to that particular technology. Any deployment of a new technological solution needs to be mindful of and take into account the fact that we do have a digital divide in Canada, and that digital divide may be even greater among the travelling public who may be seeking to lawfully enter Canada. There should be means implemented to ensure that accommodation can appropriately be made for individuals who perhaps do not have a smartphone with them or choose not to use one for this purpose.
Equity and inclusion also require that the technological solution that is adopted and deployed does not have an adverse impact on individuals with disabilities. The Canada Human Rights Act provides a clear set of requirements with respect to ensuring that all government programs and systems do not discriminate against individuals on prohibited grounds of discrimination.
As I wrap up my comments, I want to reiterate that the CBA has not yet had the opportunity fully deploy all of its resources to consider this particular mandate. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Fraser, thank you very much for bearing with us. I have to tell you that we are having some technical issues here and that we probably will not be able to engage in a Q & A with you. But I know that some of our members would have enjoyed that, and we will see if we can follow up in some way if there is interest, and I’m sure there will be.
At this point, we’re going to move over to our second witness, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber, I was uncertain whether you wanted to provide some opening remarks or to just take some questions. I’ll leave it in your hands. How would you like to proceed?
Mark Weber, National President, Customs and Immigration Union: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have not provided an opening statement, but if I were allowed to speak for a moment, I would like to do so.
The Chair: Yes, you’re welcome to do that.
Mr. Weber: Thank you for providing us the opportunity speak to you here today. We were not consulted on any of the proposed changes to the Customs Act, so we’re reading what’s coming out as it is and trying to interpret how it will change the job and the landscape for our members. We do have some concerns.
We look at subclause 11(1) of the Customs Act and some of the proposed changes there, it talks about having to report to “(a) an officer in person.” The words “in person” have been added. But the biggest change is to 11(1)(b), where it talks about travellers having to report to the agency by “means of telecommunication that is specified by the Minister for use at that customs office.” Reading it, it would seem that the intent of this bill is to allow travellers to not only present themselves by means of telecommunication, such as the ArriveCAN app, the internet or phone, but also looks as though this information need not be reviewed by an officer or even by a person.
Another concern we’re seeing is in subclause 11(7), where it says that officers have the ability to request that a person present themselves in person. Nothing in the proposed legislation seems to be an officer being able to mandatorily have someone to present to a person. Our concern is surely if an officer has concerns about any potential criminality, smuggling, whatnot, it has to be more than just a request that a person present themselves in person.
The concerns that I’ll be speaking about today are the concerns that come from our membership, which are largely around security and understaffing. As many of you know, the CBSA is quite badly understaffed. We estimate that we would need another 2,000 to 2,500 officers to make the operation run properly.
We’re seeing this kind of technology in many ways being proposed as a way to replace officers, and we hear comparisons such as to an ATM or an automated kiosk. We understand that an automated kiosk might work at a grocery store, but the grocery stores do not have prohibited weapons, synthetic opioids, child pornography, the kinds of things we’re there to intercede.
We talk about having a stream of low-risk travellers who won’t have to interact with any customs officer. Who is low risk, and who decides who is low risk? If they’re not speaking to anyone, how are they deemed low risk? Is it AI that does this?
We don’t have specifics on any of that, but it is worrisome, especially when we look at a promotional video around border modernization put out by the CBSA which shows a car driving through the border, putting their phone up to a screen, the gate opening, and the tag line is something to the effect of “I can’t believe I just cleared the border. I didn’t have to speak to anyone.”
We are very concerned. We’re concerned for the security of Canada. We take great pride in the work we do. We think that some of the proposals around the technology around ArriveCAN being put in so people can complete their declarations before they arrive at the airport and save that time you waste at the kiosk, that was the case before the kiosks. When the kiosks came out, we advised the CBSA at the time that the kiosks wouldn’t work, and, sure enough, the kiosks have slowed things down considerably. When it used to be an officer at a booth and the kiosks were not there, you completed your declaration on the plane before you arrived.
It’s exactly what we said would happen, and now we’re introducing new technology to fix the technology that didn’t work and that we said wouldn’t work in the first place.
It is frustrating. Our members are very frustrated. Mr. Ommanney has done many tours, to his credit, and spoken with our member CBSA employees about the challenges they experience.
What we need here is a way to ensure that we are able to speak to all travellers and ensure we get the staffing levels up to where they need to be.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks you, Mr. Weber.
We’ll now go to questions. I’m afraid that the questions that we have as we move forward we can only raise for Mr. Weber. Certainly, Mr. Fraser, if hearing these questions you want to supplement the submissions that you’ve already made, we’d encourage you to do that, and we would be happy to receive them.
I remind members that we have until 6:40 p.m. for this panel. I would ask you to keep your questions succinct and identify the person you’re addressing the question to. We should comfortably be able to have four to four and a half minutes for each question and answer.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Weber. It’s a shame that you weren’t consulted on the technological tools and that your expertise in using new tools wasn’t taken into account. Between you and me, you are on the front line. As a former police officer, I can tell you that we were replaced by photo radar. I don’t know whether it’s more efficient, but I understand your concern.
The smuggling of guns and gun parts across the U.S.-Canada border is a scourge that has led to numerous murders right across the country, especially in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
What is your assessment of the measures in place to combat organized crime? Organized criminals don’t seem to have much trouble thwarting border controls. Will the new measures — the technological tools — make the problem worse?
[English]
Mr. Weber: Thank you for the question. Before I answer, I should qualify that Mr. Ommanney and his team have consulted with us and our members about the proposed changes and some of the challenges that we do face. What we didn’t get any consultation on are the changes to the Customs Act specifically. Of course, I don’t know if any of those technological changes could happen without those changes to the Customs Act.
We do have a joint task force. Obviously, there is a lot of work that is done around the smuggling of illegal firearms into Canada. Anytime you remove the interaction of an officer with a traveller, you’re somewhat weakening your border security. That’s really what we’re there for.
There are technologies that could be useful to us that we do need, such as facilities to inspect rail. We don’t really have that, and we don’t inspect rail. Marine, we inspect a tiny fraction of what comes in. Our officers need more hand-held X-rays. We don’t have those. Simple things like access to in-and-out information regarding travellers going to the U.S. and coming back, we lack that. Some kind of way to automatically identify if someone shows up in the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC system, that’s not something that we have.
There are technologies that can help, and even some of the technologies being proposed by the CBSA could help as long as that interaction with the traveller is still there. Again, the big fear is that a group or subgroup will be arbitrarily deemed low risk, and we will simply never interact with them, never get any intelligence from them, never know what is going on at the border at all, which is a scary thought for us.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: You mentioned the staff shortage. The Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP and police forces across the country are struggling to recruit people.
Do you think the working conditions of border officers are good enough to attract interested people?
[English]
Mr. Weber: The current situation for the CBSA is not a lack of interest in the job. It’s really a lack of facilities to train enough recruits to get those staffing levels up. Currently, we have one college in Rigaud, Quebec, which trains all of our recruits. If that college is operating at maximum capacity, that’s under 600 recruits a year, which isn’t covering attrition.
It’s a matter of opening a second college, increasing the capacity of Rigaud, or finding some way to get those numbers to go up. They never increase even if we are operating at maximum.
The situation right now is that we are so short-staffed that regions are hesitant to release people to be trainers at Rigaud to train new people to get those numbers up, to give you an idea of how short we are staff-wise.
It is a critical situation. We’re looking at a summer action plan for us where leave will be limited, where we’ll be looking at things like mandatory overtime again.
The CBSA has gone out and is asking retired officers to come back to work on 90-day contracts. It is an all hands on deck, desperate situation for us to get enough people to work on the border right now.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome to the witnesses.
Mr. Weber, my questions are for you. You said some things that really worry me. You said that the information in the IT system provided via a smartphone or other means may not be reviewed or checked by an officer. That means you are losing information. Is that the case with ArriveCAN? Is some of the information entered into ArriveCAN being lost?
[English]
Mr. Weber: The information entered on ArriveCAN is not lost. It doesn’t disappear. The concern is that if the person using ArriveCAN never has any interaction with an officer, or if an officer never has that ability to interact with them, there’s no ability to use that information. Once someone is in Canada, for lack of a better way to put it, that ship has sailed.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: You said that travellers could enter Canada without seeing a customs officer. Is that what you said?
[English]
Mr. Weber: Currently, unfortunately, that does exist. Again, from what we’ve seen in that promotional video created by the CBSA, that’s exactly what they show. It shows someone flashing their phone at a screen at the border and driving on, with a tag line to the effect of, “I can’t believe I’ve just crossed the border.”
Right now, to give you an idea with the automated kiosks that were mentioned earlier at our major airports, the idea of the automated kiosk was that there would be officers roving so that, if someone declared at an automated machine as they left primary and went into the baggage hall, there would be officers to interview every so many travellers. There would still be some interaction. The reality is that staffing levels are so low in many cases there are no roving officers. At many airports, you are now quite often in a situation where people self-declare to a machine, the card is handed in and they’re out the door. We don’t really have any interaction with them.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I asked the head of the agency this question. Will all citizens entering the country have in-person contact with a customs officer? He said yes. I’m trying to figure it out. You’re saying no: some people will enter without seeing an officer. Others are saying yes: everyone will be seen by a customs officer.
The union and the agency seem to have conflicting views.
[English]
Mr. Weber: Perhaps it would help if I spelled out the process step by step, for example, coming through one of our major airports. A traveller declares right now at what they call a pick machine, one of the automated kiosks.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’m familiar with the process. You’re saying that people could gain free entry into Canada, without seeing an officer. When I asked the head of the agency, he said that all citizens returning to Canada would interact with an officer.
It’s worrisome if citizens are indeed entering Canada without seeing an officer. Is it possible that you don’t have all the information? Perhaps you weren’t able to find everything out when you were consulted. I’m trying to ascertain why you and the head of the agency are saying two contradictory things.
[English]
Mr. Weber: With your indulgence, that’s why I thought if I spelled out the process it might answer the question.
Again, a traveller gets off an airplane. They go to an automated kiosk, make their declaration to a machine and the machine prints out a piece of paper. As they walk through, they have to show that piece of paper with their ID to make sure that it’s the person who’s travelling who has a piece of paper. If there aren’t any rovers on duty, then they pick up their baggage, hand in their card as they exit and then exit. If you’re saying the interaction is the officer who just looks at the ID and the declaration card, I wouldn’t call that interaction with an officer. Perhaps that’s what’s meant.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’ve never experienced that. I’ve never gone through customs at an airport without seeing an officer. I’m not familiar with that situation.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: My question is for Mr. Weber. You say that you’re short about 2,000 people. The CBSA site on the internet notes that you’ve got 6,500 uniformed CBSA officers. Is that the full amount that you have or do you need another 2,000? Do you need another 2,000 and then you’ll have 6,500 or do you have 6,500 less 2,000 currently?
Mr. Weber: Yes. Currently, those are the numbers we are getting from the CBSA as well. We estimate that we would need at least another 2,000 to 2,500 to be at capacity to operate as we should.
Senator Cardozo: Doing the math, that would suggest you have 4.5 people per border crossing. That’s an average. Given that many of them will need many more than that number, some will have fewer than five people. If a border crossing is open 24 hours a day, that’s a small number of people trying to manage a border crossing.
Currently, are there NEXUS points, for example, where they don’t have people present? I say this out of my one experience. I was driving across Niagara Falls, from New York State to Ontario, and my GPS kept taking me to the NEXUS crossing but I didn’t have a NEXUS card. It wouldn’t tell me where the regular crossing was, so I thought I’d drive up to the gate and go and ask somebody where the other place was. I wasn’t a senator at the time, so I did so with considerably more trepidation than I would today. However, nobody was around. I couldn’t see anyone within eyesight, so I ended up driving around and finding my way to the other place.
Are there currently crossings where you don’t have people and it’s all done by photo recognition or some kind of video control?
Mr. Weber: The NEXUS system is a trusted traveller program. It’s something you have to apply for or pass a certain screening and qualify for it. It’s a different situation than when we talk about the general travelling public. You are given a certain amount of faith in your declaration when you do have the NEXUS card because you’ve gone through that screening ahead of time.
We do have telephone reporting centres that are completely remote, yes. There’s a remote area border crossing permit that someone could get to cross without declaring in remote areas. There are different situations, yes.
Senator Cardozo: My other question is with regard to the public complaints review commission. Our researcher, Mr. Shapiro, just confirmed for me that there is a bill before the House that has passed second reading to create the public complaints review commission which would combine the complaints for CBSA and RCMP.
I’d like any thoughts you have on that. I see that our other guest, Mr. Fraser, has left, but I’d be interested in hearing the thoughts of the Canadian Bar Association on that commission. Mr. Fraser, could you send us your thoughts on a complaints bill that is currently before the House of Commons by email?
Mr. Weber, do you have any comments on this complaints mechanism that is currently before the House of Commons?
Mr. Weber: Thank you. I don’t right now. It’s not something that I’m prepared to answer or put much research into. I’d rather have an opportunity to provide a fulsome answer later if I could.
Senator Cardozo: Okay. Thank you. I suppose, Mr. Chair, that bill would come to us if it ever moves through the House. It’s an interesting point that currently CBSA exists without any form of civilian oversight or complaints mechanism.
The Chair: I suspect so. It has been discussed here before when we’ve reviewed similar legislation or at least legislation in the same field. We’ll follow up on that.
I will just mention that if Mr. Fraser wants to email anything to us in the course of the balance of this meeting, we’ll read your comments into the record as we go, Mr. Fraser.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Weber, for being here this afternoon.
A couple of things — I am concerned, and I think I’ll address it directly in a question. I feel like, on the one hand, I’m hearing that this is about efficiency and using technology and not about HR and staffing, and on the other hand, that this could be about HR and staffing and having bodies. I’m just trying to work through that through a couple of questions I have.
It did occur to me — I wish had I brought it up in the last panel — that we discuss things like telecommunications. I always think — well, we all do — of the recent experience of the Rogers outage in the last year and the cascading effects from that, which we continue to learn about. If a similar thing happened, what would happen at the border with these proposed automated features? Are there only one or two border service officers for every few hundred people who would have otherwise used automation to declare? Do you know anything about that?
Mr. Weber: I could speak to that in terms of what happened during the COVID pandemic when we were dealing with ArriveCAN, when it was being used specifically to answer questions around those public health measures. We do have ports where there is no Wi-Fi where people did have trouble. There were also people who simply didn’t know how to use the technology or did not have smartphones and such. It did create significant back-ups when that was happening. I can say that, for sure.
Senator M. Deacon: Okay. Let’s go back to the staffing part, then. You have concerns that staffing levels at the border are nowhere near where they need to be, and you have also mentioned a scarcity of places where we can train. You talked about one site for new CBSA, agents. Are you worried that more automation — as we increase that — is going to chip away further at the experience and expertise needed to train border officers as time goes on? Do you see this as a roadblock as opposed to an opportunity?
Mr. Weber: I think it’s possible long term. Again, I think that each time someone is not interacting with an officer, you are eroding that border security somewhat. Again, if we’re creating a subclass of low-risk travellers, we don’t really know how that is being determined.
Our training is extensive. I think with the experience of working on the border and dealing with hundreds of travellers a day, you really learn what you need to look for and what normal travel looks like. I’m not sure that AI is set up to be able to do that. Again, if we don’t have the people there and we put the technology in place, even in eventualities where the technology would not be used — such as issues with Wi-Fi or connectivity — we really don’t have the capacity or the people to do the job properly or keep the borders moving.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that. I have to think about that a little.
I’m sure you saw our last panel, and there were concerns expressed in the last panel around algorithms and their tendency to duplicate human prejudice, particularly when it comes to race. We did receive some encouragement from the officials that they are aware of this and will not allow this to happen. Are you confident that in our times of change and growth technology that they will be able to accomplish this?
Mr. Weber: No I’m not. It is a major concern. It’s actually something I should have mentioned in our opening statement as one of the union’s main concerns. To give you an example of where we’re at, we had arranged joint anti-discrimination training with the CBSA that was arbitrarily cancelled on March 31 by the CBSA. We don’t know why. We think it’s important that our officers continue to learn and do everything we can to ensure that absolutely everyone is treated the same when they come to the border.
We have read about some of the biases that AI has, and we’re looking now at legislative changes that will allow this to just be used without really knowing exactly how it’s going to work, where that’s going to go and what the biases are going to be. I think it’s really premature to be looking at making those changes before this has really been worked on and tested properly.
Senator Boehm: My question is for Mr. Weber. We have heard your concerns, but in looking at the issues that occur through modernization — let’s just use that word for the moment — this is something that is global. Large countries that have many travellers — whether it is by air, sea or land — are also trying to modernize as best they can and use technology to effect.
I realize that in Europe there is a Schengen area, and there are those who are out of the Schengen area. Of course, we are closely integrated with the U.S. I’m wondering whether you have had the opportunity to discuss your concerns with other bargaining units in other jurisdictions who might have similar concerns. I know not everyone is unionized, but the problems are, by and large, the same. It seems to me that in having some discussion together, you might be able to pinpoint a path forward.
Mr. Weber: Thank you for that. It’s an excellent suggestion and not something we have done yet. We have not spoken with counterparts in other countries. I’m sure a lot of these issues are similar across the globe.
Again, we’re not dinosaurs. Technology keeps moving, and we understand that we need to adapt. A lot of the things that are being proposed could be potentially useful. The real fear here is that it’s replacing officers. Again, can AI or a computer really do what an officer does and as efficiently or quickly? I can guarantee that it can’t.
Creating that subclass of traveller is really troubling. We’re just going to say they are low risk and that there’s no need to ever speak to them — flash your phone and off you go. Obviously, anyone interested in smuggling won’t take very long to figure out exactly how that’s going to work, right? We work with that all the time. We deal with it all the time. The criminal element is right there, and it’s naive to think they are not smart enough to figure out how to circumvent these things and aren’t already thinking about potentially how to do it.
Senator Boehm: I recently travelled to Mexico City, and the Mexican border authorities had instituted a new system for travellers from within the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. It was very new. I think we went through there on the second day it was in operation. Basically, it just required walking into a kiosk and having your passport scanned, and that was it. No forms on the plane. The old system was gone, at least for NAFTA travellers — so the U.S. and Canada coming into Mexico. When I asked the question as to why they were doing this, the answer was that they wanted to reduce personnel. That seems to be a standardized approach.
You can comment on that, but my suggestion to you is that there are things happening within the NAFTA space that are probably moving along very quickly, so it might be useful to speak to American or Mexican counterparts as you look ahead.
Mr. Weber: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you to both witnesses, and thank you, Mr. Weber, for your opening statement.
I did ask your counterpart who was here earlier regarding reduction of the workforce, and the answer is very obvious. That’s not the intention of this new technology. I understand your concern. Obviously, the worry is that technology always stands, over time, to erode the number of people you might need because they don’t have to do the same thing.
I’m trying to reconcile your comments with the comments we heard earlier. We’re likely to believe somebody, so who should we believe in the context of the answers we’re getting here?
Mr. Weber: My role here is to provide you facts and my expertise based on the input of our members who speak to me about this all the time. I could say that CBSA employees and Customs and Immigration Union, or CIU, members take great pride in their work. It’s funny, we’re a union where, often, rather than bread-and-butter labour issues such as pay and benefits and such, we’re dealing with security issues. What I hear from my members, almost before I hear the labour issues, is: I want to be able to do my job. I’m here to keep Canadians safe. We don’t have enough people. We don’t have the ability to do the work that we’re supposed to be doing. For many of our members, that’s the primary concern for them — and good on them; I respect that. It shows the kind of people we have working on our borders.
If I had to provide a subjective guess, in this case, we’re not looking so much at the erosion of our current numbers. I think we’re looking at technology being looked at simply because we can’t get to the number we should be at in the first place. I don’t think it’s necessarily about losing the number we have now. The reality is that we need a lot more people working at the border than we have now.
The other concern that I can share with you, which I hear from my members all the time and I know firsthand in my work, is that my counterparts and the people I deal with at the CBSA who make these decisions have almost universally never worked as an officer. In law enforcement, I can tell you that is quite unique. In other law enforcement agencies, when you get to those upper echelons, you are dealing with people who worked as police officers for many years, worked their way up the ranks and know what they are talking about when they get to that level. The CBSA uniquely seems to have an almost constantly revolving cast of characters that they bring in from outside to try to fix this.
A similar thing happened when they started with the automated kiosks at the airport. The union told them exactly what was going to happen with those kiosks, and exactly what we said would happen, happened. But no one wants to listen to anyone who has ever worked at an airport. I believe it’s a fundamental flaw in a lot of thinking that happens.
I’m not saying that everything Mr. Ommanney brought forward is necessarily a bad idea. I think much of it could be very useful. I commend him for travelling across the country and speaking with our members to get their input, but the input they’re giving him almost universally is, “We need a lot more people. We need to be double the people we are at this workplace. Forget things around ArriveCAN.” That is what he is hearing and what I’m hearing.
Senator Yussuff: You would agree there is some degree of frustration, as we have seen most recently at airports: Canadians waiting on airplanes; they can’t get off the plane; they can’t get processed because the line-ups are too long. There is that reality that I’m sure the government is struggling to figure out how to do that better.
Equally, I appreciate, more importantly, the work that your members do in regard to the security of the country. They are the first line of defence against the security of the country, and we would not want to see that compromised in any way.
Is there anything you can suggest in regard to how this legislation has been constructed that will assure us that the security of the nation will not be compromised in any way, given that there is some degree of technology that will be implemented in the near future that, obviously, will help the travellers being processed at the border much faster? That’s obviously a concern for Canadians in general. More importantly, of course, how do we balance that responsibility?
Mr. Weber: Thank you. Two things pop out to me. The decision to refer or release always has to be up to an officer. That cannot be left to technology. That’s a change I would not like to see made.
The other is that if an officer needs to speak with a traveller for any reason, that cannot be a request the traveller can simply ignore. If an officer has to speak with someone for whatever reason, that has to be a must, not a request.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, again, for providing us some context to this new implementation process. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Weber. My first question to you was whether you had been consulted. You said that you had been consulted on the amendments to the act, but not on the technological tools.
Right now, you are short 2,000 border services officers. Are you worried about officers being replaced by machines? It’s a lot easier for the government to negotiate with machines than with a union.
I’m worried because, in many places, travellers would not interact with an officer and could cross the border without coming into contact with anyone. With that in mind, I don’t think the government or the people in charge of border services are going to open a second school. I visited the one in Rigaud, by the way, and it’s a great school. That said, I get the feeling that you’re being replaced by machines, and that puts Canada’s border at risk.
[English]
Mr. Weber: I echo those concerns. I’m sorry if my previous comments led to some confusion around consultation or not. To be clear, there has been consultation around the technological change. There hasn’t been any consultation on the changes to the act.
Yes, absolutely, it’s concerning. I don’t know how a computerized system, as I said, a robot or whatnot, could possibly do the job of an officer. I don’t think that’s replaceable. You hear comments like, “We’ll run the port remotely,” and, “We’ll have a gate that goes up or down.” Not to sound facetious, but that’s not going to be too hard for anyone to circumvent, right? When it comes to security, I think a lot of the things that are proposed and thought of, such as looking at automation like an automated kiosk at a grocery store or a bank — I mean, that’s our national security; that’s the safety of our communities. I have a hard time seeing some of those analogies as being fair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you.
Senator Boisvenu: Like Senator Yussuff, I want you to know, Mr. Weber, how much we appreciate the work your officers do to secure the border. I find it troubling that the union wasn’t consulted on the proposed changes, which, to my mind, go to the very heart of border security and traveller screening.
My question is pretty straightforward. How does the union work with the agency when changes as fundamental as the ones in the bill are brought forward? What is your working relationship like? It seems as though there are two different worlds, the employer’s and the union’s, and my sense is that they don’t communicate. How do you work together to make sure that any amendments to the act don’t put the safety of travellers or border security at risk, not to mention the safety of your members?
[English]
Mr. Weber: Thank you for that. Our union works very hard to make sure we get as much consultation as possible. Again, there was consultation around some of the technological advances. There hasn’t been any around the changes to the Customs Act that would allow those technological changes to take place. It’s a challenge. It’s an uphill battle. I described what we went through in the past when automated kiosks were first put in. It can be extremely frustrating for our union and the members, the people who have actually done the job, to bring forward what are, to us, obvious concerns and issues and to not be heard by people who haven’t done the job.
How do we work together? Again, I don’t think it’s two solitudes. I don’t think anything is black and white. I don’t think all technology is bad. I don’t think everything being proposed is bad and is not usable. I think there are definitely things in there that are. We’ll continue to work with the CBSA as best we can. But, again, if we get to the point where decisions on admissibility are being made independently of a CBSA officer, where it’s artificial intelligence or a robot or whatever doing this, I think our border security is going to be greatly compromised.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, Mr. Weber.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Mr. Ommanney talked about a number of steps which will flow out over the next few years. Is this bill a great big deal, or is this just part of the ongoing automation of how we do border clearances?
Mr. Weber: Well, I spoke earlier about paragraph 11(1)(b) specifically. If the intent of it is that a person never be cleared by a person or an officer and it can be done entirely by a computer or artificial intelligence, then I think the changes to this bill are extremely concerning. I think before any changes are made, we have to be 100% sure that that is not the intent.
The other part I mentioned in subclause 11(7) of the act is that if officers have a reason why they need to speak with a traveller, the wording cannot be left that that be a request.
You cannot suspect that a traveller is trying to smuggle in something that is not legally allowed to enter Canada, and then the officer can simply make a request that can be ignored or not. That wording absolutely has to be looked at.
Senator Cardozo: In terms of the work CBSA does with the RCMP at border crossings, are both agencies present? Does the RCMP do some stuff and do you do some stuff? How does it work?
Mr. Weber: At the port of entry, it is us. Between ports of entry and inside Canada, it is the RCMP who deals with that.
Senator Cardozo: Say that again.
Mr. Weber: At the port of entry it is the CBSA.
Senator Cardozo: Okay.
Mr. Weber: Between ports of entry and inside Canada it is the RCMP.
Senator Cardozo: At a port of entry, such as the airport or Niagara Falls, it’s totally CBSA?
Mr. Weber: Correct, yes.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. If Mr. Fraser does have anything more to add, I would be interested in hearing what the Canadian Bar Association has to say about this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you all.
First of all, thanks to my colleagues for your questions which, as usual, have brought the very best of our witnesses.
This brings us to the end of our panel. I want to thank both of our guests, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Weber, for your participation as we examine the subject matter of this bill. We are grateful for your time and expertise.
I want to apologize again on behalf of the committee to Mr. Fraser for the technical problems that have limited your ability to participate fully in our meeting today. The last thing that you said stuck with me. I’m going to just repeat it here. I recall you saying that you would put a significant focus on the protection of personal information, regardless of what technology is deployed. That should be subject to a privacy impact assessment, all of which should be subject — to the extent possible — to an independent review. It struck me that really was at the core of your remarks.
We invite you to submit any supplementary information to us. We will have it translated and get it into the hands of our colleagues quickly.
Senators, with your agreement now, we will proceed to the in camera discussion of the information that we have heard today. If everybody is agreeable to that — it looks as though you are — we will briefly suspend to prepare for what will, hopefully, be a brief discussion.
(The committee continued in camera.)