Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 14 - Evidence - Afternoon sitting
OTTAWA, Monday, May 6, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 2:00 p.m. to examine and report on the need for a national security policy for Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Our committee is the first permanent Senate committee with a mandate to examine subjects of security and defence. Recently, we concluded a seven-month study of the major issues facing Canada, the result of which is a report entitled ``Canadian Security and Military Preparedness.'' During that study, which met for over 170 hours, we met with 204 persons from coast to coast and in Washington.
As the committee proceeded, it became increasingly evident that executive direction and coordination of activities is required when dealing with national incidents, whether natural, such as ice storms, floods or earthquakes, accidental, such as toxic derailments, or pre-medicated acts of terror, such as the events of September 11.
We found that there is no national security policy by which agencies at all levels of government can coordinate their efforts efficiently.
Given the importance of national security issues and the need to have procedures and policies in place before incidents happen, our committee recommended that a study be undertaken to develop a national security policy that will examine the role of all levels of government.
The Senate agreed with our recommendation and asked the National Security and Defence Committee to examine the need for a national security policy. Today, we begin this study.
Today, we will hear from Mr. Fantino, Chief of Police for the City of Toronto, one of the largest municipal police services in North America. The Toronto Police Service employs over 5,000 officers and more than 2,000 civilian staff to provide policing for almost 2.5 million people.
One aspect of our current study on national security policy is to examine the role of all levels of government. As a first provider, Mr. Fantino will speak to us about the challenges facing a major police force in responding to emergency situations.
Chief Julian Fantino, Toronto Police Service: Honourable senators, at the outset, I wish to express my appreciation to you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you to share my views and experience respecting issues that I believe are relevant to the important work being undertaken by your honourable committee.
I also appreciate having received your report. It is very insightful, giving me a great appreciation for the work that is being carried out.
As I indicated in my correspondence on March 27, 2002, I believe that the work of your committee respecting national security must also dwell on issues that are both linked and very relevant to local law enforcement agencies. In my correspondence of February 14, 2002, which I forwarded to senators, M.P.s and M.P.P.s from the Toronto area, I set out to be what I believe to be compelling information to make a case as why local law enforcement agencies such as the Toronto Police Service cannot and should not be discounted in a comprehensive national effort intended to address the threat of terrorism and the related safety and security concerns of all Canadians.
It has been stated quite accurately that the tragic events of September 11, 2001, have had a very significant impact on how we feel about our safety, our vulnerability, and just how quickly terror and disaster can strike.
The unimaginable events of September 11 have given us a new reality about the evil that dwells amongst us — evil that we really had never before experienced — and how this evil might again inflict horror, trauma, destruction and mayhem on innocent people.
Think about it. In spite of the most sophisticated international intelligence-gathering processes, the elaborate worldwide efforts against terrorism and more, 19 relatively unsophisticated individuals armed with nothing more than box cutting knives were able to carry out one of the most brutal peacetime attacks in history. That attack that took the lives of almost 3,000 innocent victims, including 25 Canadians, 343 firefighters and 71 law enforcement officers.
The property loss, the economic impact and the ruination of families and futures are incalculable. The full impact of the event is yet unknown.
As I ponder our own vulnerability on so many fronts, I am very concerned about the apparent lack of a truly integrated national terrorism response plan. I am concerned, in particular, that vulnerable cities such as Toronto, with only very minor exceptions, have been simply left to go it alone by senior levels of government.
This is an issue that the United States has also had to address. The United States National Commission on Terrorism, in compiling a report issued in the year 2000, failed to interview a single chief of police, mayor or governor. Governor Keating cautioned at the time that in the United States the response to terrorism does not begin and end in Washington, D.C.
It is important to note that if and when a major act of terrorism does occur in Canada it will most likely occur in one of our major cities. The first responders will be the local police, fire and medical personnel.
The passing of time and the fact that we have not had other actual terrorist attacks since 9/11 have people, especially in Canada, becoming less concerned about the threat of terrorism. This is a dangerous situation that promotes complacency and creates a false sense of security.
We know that terrorists can strike anytime and anywhere. Suicidal terrorists represent a particularly high threat. The causes and motivations for terrorists abound everywhere, including right here in Canada, and especially so in a potential terrorism-rich environment such as the City of Toronto and other large cities.
To deny or ignore this reality is short-sighted and dangerous. Former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, head of the newly formed Office of Homeland Security, is placing heavy emphasis on the role that local law enforcement agencies will play. Operation Enduring Freedom has been the national response to terrorism in the United States.
My counterparts in American law enforcement are absolutely convinced of their vulnerability, as are their political leaders at all levels of government. You may have experienced that in your travels and discussions with counterparts in the States.
Senator Bill Frist recently said that ``biological terrorism remains a serious threat to America.'' U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft recently said the following:
Here at the Department of Justice, our number one priority is the prevention of terrorist attacks; however, no agency, department, state or local government can do this job alone. Success in the war against terrorism depends upon successful cooperation among the various Federal Agencies and with State and Local Officials on the front lines of this battle.
Regrettably, these U.S. concepts are neither the approach nor the vision of the senior levels of government in Canada. Canadian law enforcement agencies have the will and determination to cooperate and integrate our efforts in fighting terrorism; senior levels of government, however, have not focused their attention to adequately address local vulnerabilities and needs. That is quite regrettable.
Ironically, the 60 Minutes television documentary aired on Sunday, April 28, 2002, portrayed Canada as a haven for terrorists. This image will further aggravate Canada's reputation as being a highly desirable country for organized criminals, including terrorists.
I shall now address the significance of local law enforcement as an equal partner in a truly integrated national front in fighting terrorism.
The immediate impact of 9/11 on the Toronto Police Service was the calling together of a Joint Intelligence Group, JIG, that was housed within the Toronto Police Service Intelligence Support Unit. This initiative brought together Toronto officers with surrounding police services and representatives from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Department of National Defence, the RCMP, the OPP, Immigration Canada and the FBI. We did this on our own. Toronto offered a logistical base for operations, because of our established communications network, centralized access to member agencies, ability to set up quickly, and proximity to local and regional government operations and other considerations.
Between September 12, 2001, and February 19, 2002, this particular unit received more than 2,300 calls related to 9/ 11, of which more than 600 calls, or 30 per cent, were directly related to the City of Toronto. As time went on, from the information gathered, it became apparent that extensive terrorist-related activity and connections existed in areas of Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area itself.
Unfortunately, financial and human resources were not sufficient to allow follow-up investigation by the Toronto Police Service to make final conclusions regarding these calls. The information has since been passed on to the RCMP and CSIS for further investigations, as is necessary.
From September 11, 2001, to December 31, 2001, the Toronto Police Service expended over $1 million on terrorism- related investigations alone. This amount does not include the added calls for service that resulted post-September 11.
As a result of 9/11, we have learned that attacks against any large city within Canada would have tremendous effects on the local population and the financial stability of the affected areas, let alone this country as a whole of course. However, the obvious targets, which would exact a similar impact on Canada as the New York attack did on the U.S., would be Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver and, to a lesser degree, other provincial capitals.
These cities are not only the most populated areas, but also the financial headquarters of most major corporations. These major cities also house municipal, provincial and federal government offices and services.
In a relative sense, Toronto is the Canadian equivalent of New York City. It is the financial and commercial centre of the country. Toronto is attractive as a target because 2.5 million people live in the city and over 5.2 million live in the GTA. Toronto is the largest municipality in Canada and the fifth largest in North America. It is home to one of the world's most diverse populations, including 122 synagogues, 18 Hindu temples and 34 Muslim mosques. Toronto is home to the Government of Ontario, including the legislative assembly. It is home to many federal government operations in numerous buildings. There are 90 foreign consulates with associated staff in Toronto. It is the financial centre of Canada and the fourth largest financial centre in North America. The Toronto Stock Exchange is the third largest exchange in North America by volume.
The GTA is the economic engine that drives the rest of the country's economy. Our country's economic infrastructure is not as well protected or diversified as that of the U.S. Our limited ability to recover from a major disaster attack would jeopardize the entire country's economy. Toronto is home to 90 per cent of Canada's foreign banks and 80 per cent of the largest research and development, law, advertising, and high-tech firms. Nearly all Canadian banks and financial sector companies have their head offices located in Toronto. There are 75,000 businesses employing 1.2 million people, comprising one sixth of all Canadian jobs.
Toronto has one of the world's best telecommunications networks with the highest percentage of fibre optic cable installed. Toronto has the fourth largest airport in North America, and the second largest public transportation system in North America, behind New York, with 6,000 kilometres of routes handling 450 million passengers a year. It is the hub of a regional and national transportation network that includes, road, rail, air and water facilities. As a result, I believe that in the event of a terrorism attack Toronto is the most likely Canadian target.
Nationally, other logistical targets include the infrastructure to support oil, gas, hydro lines and generation facilities, transportation centres, air, rail and road, major communications assets, water supplies and our banking and monetary infrastructure.
In the aftermath of 9/11, the experience worldwide is that many terrorist groups fund themselves through criminal activity. As large municipalities are easy places for terrorists to assimilate and hide, municipal police services provide the vital function of detection and prevention.
The current state of our technical detection-and-prevention capabilities is in dire straits, and I stress the need to move forward in this area. Specifically, the issue of lawful access requires immediate intervention by the federal government, to stop the erosion of law enforcement's capability to lawfully intercept communications and conduct electronic surveillance where authorized.
In order to be successful in achieving a truly effective national campaign against terrorism, local law enforcement agencies must be fully engaged as equal partners and not as mere token inclusions in provincial and federally funded initiatives. Not only are local police agencies on the frontline and the first to respond to a terrorist attack, they must also be proactively involved in the investigation and prevention of future terrorist attacks. Local police officers have intimate knowledge of their communities and have a close relationship with a wide variety of people and groups. They have the ability to both hear and track down information related to terrorism.
In addition, police officers performing very routine functions, such as patrolling, traffic stops, answering calls for service and other duties in the community, put them in contact with all kinds of people and circumstances. If properly trained in what to look for and what questions to ask, local police officers can be a very significant source of intelligence respecting terrorism and thus contribute significantly to the overall security of our nation.
If properly equipped with up-to-date intelligence information on terrorist activities and access to systems and databases, local police officers can assist with effective intelligence gathering when they are conducting their day-to-day activities. The war on terrorism — and it is a war — must be actively fought on two fronts, namely, prevention and incident management.
Aside from the intelligence-gathering capabilities, it will be local frontline police officers and other local emergency workers who will be the first to respond to any act of terrorism in our respective communities — a reality that has not as yet been fully appreciated by the federal and provincial levels of government. The two senior levels of government have attempted to respond to the threat of terrorism by basically resourcing only their respective law enforcement agencies, with little regard for the plight of local police services and the need to put in place effective preventive measures, acquire safety equipment and training for first responders and develop comprehensive emergency plans to adequately prepare for and respond to the threat of terrorism.
The catastrophic events of September 11 have significantly changed the focus and priorities of police operations. These events have placed an extraordinary burden on our already scarce resources. For example, the Toronto Police hate crime unit recorded a 66 per cent increase in hate crimes from 2000 to 2001, from 204 complaints to 338. The terrorist activities of September 11 were attributed to 90 per cent of this increase, a total of 121 occurrences.
The Muslim community in Toronto experienced 57 reported hate crimes in 2001, up from just one in the year 2000. Some 45 of the occurrences in 2001 were directly attributed to the events of 9/11. The Muslim community thus unfortunately joined other communities in Toronto that have long been the focus of hate activity.
For the first time, 200 bioterrorism threats were investigated by the Toronto Police Service Security Section, all of which related to the terrorist activities of 9/11. Responding to many of these incidents involved significant commitments of personnel and equipment. It also resulted in serious disruptions to the daily activities of the city due to the need for proper evacuation and decontamination procedures.
Since 9/11 and continuing into 2002, the hate crime unit has observed an increased level of fear among the various communities it serves. There is a heightened anxiety caused by 9/11 that has also translated into the reasonable expectation that the police service will pay greater attention to each hate crime reported to them.
Meeting the increased demands for service, along with the added workload resulting from the events of September 11, has created a serious negative impact on our ability to meet the many and varied expectations legitimately held by the public respecting safety, security and quality of life at all levels.
I am gravely concerned that the federal and provincial governments have not coordinated their response to the threat of terrorism. In particular, I am disappointed that the policy makers have overlooked the unique and value- added role that local police agencies have in any successful anti-terrorism initiative. Such oversight is not only naive but outright unacceptable. The safety and security of Canadians, almost 5.2 million of whom reside in the Greater Toronto Area, cannot be left solely to federal and provincial law enforcement agencies.
Consider if you will that you are the mayor or chief of police of a major Canadian city. Your unquestioned legal responsibility is to provide safety and security to your citizens. In reality, however, you have subcontracted out the protection of your citizens to the federal government and its various agencies. The safety of your citizens is now in the hands of people who do not live in your city and whose first responsibility is to the entire nation rather than your city alone.
In the interests of contributing to the important work of your committee, I offer the following recommendations that in the context of today's reality I believe will significantly enhance safety and security for all Canadians.
First, I recommend that a national audit be performed by the federal government to determine what safety measures have been implemented across the nation in the wake of September 11, 2001, how effective they have been and where and how the monies have been spent.
Second, the federal government should establish a coordinating oversight body that will be composed of key stakeholders at the federal, provincial and local levels to ensure an integrated approach to counterterrorism activities of all affected agencies.
Finally, the federal and provincial governments should provide adequate resources to local police agencies, particularly in large urban centres, to enable them to implement effective counterterrorism programs and improve response capabilities.
Senator Banks: Chief Fantino, thank you for being with us. I will ask you a ritual question, one that I ask all witnesses who appear before us. It has to do with disasters and the response to events of the kind to which you refer. It boils down to who is on first.
In the event of a national disaster, not the same as but of the same kind of scope as September 11, on the ground, who is in charge when that happens? If that were to happen in your city, who would run the show?
Mr. Fantino: That is a good question, senator. In the most immediate sense, it would be those responsible for emergency services and, ultimately, the mayor. However, as things evolve, other things will kick in. The most immediate people on the frontlines would be the fire chief, the medical officer of health, the police chief, and the mayor, who may or may not call upon other agencies to help us out.
Senator Banks: In Toronto, would the mayor coordinate and be sort of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff?
Mr. Fantino: He would be ultimately responsible. On September 11, we engaged the mayor in trying to coordinate a response to things about which we did not know that day. He was intimately involved. Any emergency response of a significant nature calls for the mayor and other civic leaders to be engaged in the decision-making process.
Senator Banks: Do you think that it is correct, right, reasonable and prudent that the first responders to an unnamed situation in Toronto ought to be the chief of police, the chief of the fire services, the Toronto emergency measures people?
Mr. Fantino: There is no getting away from that, senator; we will be there. It is just the way things are. We respond to everything. That is our jurisdiction. We have to be quipped, trained and prepared to respond to all of these things at the outset. Time is a critical issue. There is no way we can put a yellow tape around an event, waiting for other services to arrive. We will have to deal with it. That is the plea I have been making all along, which has been ignored.
Senator Banks: A few minutes ago, you were suggesting that the safety of your citizens — you were asking us to put ourselves in the position of police chief — is now in the hands of people who do not live in your city and whose first responsibility is to the nation. I cannot make those things fit together. Is it correct that a local response should be the first response?
Mr. Fantino: Yes, indeed. However, with all the issues we must contend with, we cannot respond adequately without the help of the two senior levels of government. That is my point. There have been great things done by both levels of government — I want to make that clear. However, when it comes to dealing with first responders, we have been basically left on our own. The point I am making is that with a significant disaster we should be made part a national response to any significant threat on Canadians, 2.5 million of whom live in Toronto.
Senator Banks: Our report agreed with that position. The question of coordination does not go along with the other thing you spoke about, which is financial resources.
Tell me why a person who lives in Lumsden, Saskatchewan, or Rosewood, Alberta, should pay for measures that, as you pointed out, are going to be in response to a situation that would inevitably happen in one of Canada's larger cities?
Mr. Fantino: For the same reasons we are all paying for our military to fight terrorism in other countries. We cannot ignore the plight of people in Toronto any more than I can ignore the plight of people in Saskatchewan or wherever. We are a country of one concern, that is, national safety. If Toronto — let me go back a step.
Senator Forrestall: You almost said it. As Toronto goes, the nation goes?
Mr. Fantino: We cannot afford to ignore the fact that all communities in our country need to be protected. That is why we have senior levels of government — for the greater good of all. We cannot say: ``It is not my problem.'' It is our problem, absolutely. We cannot, as a nation, ignore our duty and responsibility to every citizen in this country to ensure they are all equally protected, served and made to feel safe. They are entitled to that.
Senator Banks: The corollary is also true, that is, that the citizens of Toronto pay taxes, some of which go to agricultural and fisheries subsidies.
Mr. Fantino: That is why we cannot operate in a box. We are all part of the same milieu.
Senator Wiebe: How large an increase of funds has the City of Toronto allocated over the past six months to your department to deal with the things you have talked about? Has Toronto already come to the plate? Has the Province of Ontario already come to the plate?
Mr. Fantino: That is a very good question. Right off the bat, on September 11, we felt that we needed to do what was necessary to respond to this issue. Between September 11 and December 31, for instance, out of my existing operating budget, over $1 million was directed at terrorism investigations. We had to alter our priorities. We reallocated people right, left and centre, so there was a significant contribution. Since that time, we have been trying to purchase safety equipment for our first responders. There are monies to be allocated to help us do some training.
However, as a nation, all of these resources should be integrated. There is duplication in some areas of government; as far as I am concerned, that is why this whole thing should be reviewed. It has been eight months now, and I am still begging for the things I need to protect my community and my people.
Senator Wiebe: You said there are monies to be allocated; however, is that from within your department?
Mr. Fantino: It is from existing resources.
Senator Wiebe: So you have not yet been given any new resources from the City of Toronto.
Mr. Fantino: We have been given no new resources from anyone, basically.
Senator Wiebe: The reason I ask is that Toronto is, you might say, ``the'' city of Canada because of the large corporations there, the fact that it is a telecommunications centre, an aircraft hub and this sort of thing. The City of Toronto is amassing significant taxes from these corporations that that little town Senator Banks spoke of cannot resort to. When there is a problem, it is easy to pass the buck on to the provincial government and in turn for the provincial government to pass it on to the federal government. The federal government is where the buck stops.
You have asked the provincial and federal governments to put in money. I think we should see the City of Toronto step up to the plate.
Mr. Fantino: Both levels of government have allocated certain resources to the City of Toronto in response to this issue, and the City of Toronto has to match those resources. There is a shared responsibility. However, as I stated earlier, when it comes to the police side of the equation, with very few exceptions we have had nothing.
The Chairman: Chief Fantino, you said you allocated $1 million from your budget. Could you advise us what your total budget is and what monies have come from the federal and provincial levels that the city is matching?
Mr. Fantino: Our budget this year is approaching $600 million in 2002 terms. The federal government has allocated several hundred thousand dollars for training of heavy search and rescue, and the provincial government has allocated monies for equipment, hazardous material suits and so forth. There has also been an offer from the federal government to join an RCMP-run joint investigative team. From that grant, one position is funded to the Toronto Police Service. There is an offer on the table from the provincial government to allocate funding for two people to an OPP-led investigative team.
Again, we have two separate units. My point has been that this should all come together. We are chasing the same threat and we are facing the same issues. I have here the various announcements made by both levels of government respecting their response to terrorism. Both talk about intelligence gathering, and so on, and that monies have been identified. They are well-intentioned, and we appreciate them, but they have not integrated their response to all of this.
Senator Banks: We are finding that out more and more as we go along. However, am I correct in understanding that, since last September, the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario have allocated new resources to security measures in Toronto?
Mr. Fantino: They have.
Senator Banks: Did you say that the City of Toronto has not?
Mr. Fantino: No, the police department. Other than a couple of accommodations of personnel, we have nothing.
Senator Banks: Chief, on page 9 of your written brief, it says:
The current state of our technical detection and prevention capabilities is in dire straits and I stress the need to move forward in this area. Specifically, the issue of Lawful Access requires immediate intervention by the Federal Government.
What do you mean and what do you want?
Mr. Fantino: The advances in technology have been such that law enforcement agencies are no longer able to lawfully intercept communications.
Senator Banks: You are talking about communications, not about going into someone's house; correct?
Mr. Fantino: I am talking about communications. The advances being made in technology are to such a degree that we are not able to effectively carry out lawful intercepts of communications.
Senator Banks: It is not the law that is missing, it is the money to get the stuff that would permit you to act within the existing law and intercept communications; correct?
Mr. Fantino: Regulations must be in place so that, whatever technology is developed or to what degree, the technology is in place to permit law enforcement agencies to do intercepts. In other words, you must have the ability to do so. Right now, we are encrypted out. This is widely used by criminal elements and certainly by terrorists.
Senator Banks: If you had a court order that authorized you under existing law to intercept communications between two bad guys, you do not have the technical means to pursue that although you would be lawfully entitled to do so?
Mr. Fantino: Yes.
Senator Banks: You do not need a change in the regulations; you need more money to buy equipment, correct?
Mr. Fantino: We are saying that there should be regulations in place that allow, no matter what advances are made in technology, lawful access to those technologies, which we cannot get to in a lot of cases today.
Senator Banks: You are saying that, even if you had the means at the moment of decoding a piece of communication between two bad guys, there are now in the present law things that preclude your doing so?
Mr. Fantino: No, not in the law, in the advanced technology.
The Chairman: In other words, when you see new technologies coming on, you want a requirement that there be a key to allow people to get in and to keep track of them. As a new technology develops, the chief is asking that the provider of the technology also provide the police with access to the code. Am I on target?
Mr. Fantino: Yes, senator, you are quite right.
Senator Cordy: As a committee, it is important for us to have the municipal thoughts on security.
My questions concern intelligence gathering. In your comments, you did an excellent job of depicting the day of a police officer. You spoke about the close relationship that a police officer would have with the community and that he or she would have a finger on the pulse of what is happening.
Are you in the loop with other municipal jurisdictions, or even other federal jurisdictions such as CSIS or RCMP, or do you do it on your own?
Mr. Fantino: We have a good working relationship with all the various agencies. There is no shortage of exchanges of information. We operate on the basis of the greater good. We are extending our cooperation to them — and they are reciprocating — not only on a national level but also on an international level.
Senator Cordy: Do you actually work with communities in the United States and other areas?
Mr. Fantino: We work with law enforcement agencies in the United States, yes.
Senator Cordy: How can the federal government help you improve local intelligence gathering?
Mr. Fantino: My desire would be to see a fully integrated approach to intelligence gathering, where we have all of the various law enforcement and national security agencies at the table, in one room — to give you a mental picture — as we did with the Joint Intelligence Group. We felt a tremendous need to ensure we had dialogue and integration, and everyone was put in one room. Everyone had intelligence systems with them, computers and the like. Basically, we had everyone in one war room.
From my point of view, this is how the fight on terrorism or organized crime should take place. Maybe that needs to be mandated. I do not think we can leave things to accommodations between friends and colleagues.
Senator Cordy: Would it alleviate some of the duplication that is happening now?
Mr. Fantino: Yes, it would. Basically, we are chasing down the same people and the same information, and we are dealing with the same threat. Borders and jurisdictions no longer matter. They are only there for the sake of politics, et cetera. As far as the threat on public safety, for instance, organized crime and terrorism, borders and jurisdictions do not matter except to us. We need to break all of those down. That is why I feel strongly that national security is everyone's business.
Senator Cordy: In this situation, do you feel that the federal government would have to pull the lead role in getting everyone together?
Mr. Fantino: Yes. I have spoken with political people at both levels of government, and I hear the same thing: ``It is someone else's responsibility.'' It is time to get our collective act together, to create a united front against those things that threaten national security.
Senator Cordy: One of your recommendations was an oversight body that would have municipal, provincial and federal representation. You spoke about it briefly. How would you envisage that working?
Mr. Fantino: For instance, we have oversight bodies dealing with organized crime, where everyone comes to the table and we focus on our collective ability to respond to this threat. The whole issue of national security should be driven at the national level and people at all of the various areas of responsibility need to be involved.
Going back to what I said earlier, we have a lot to contribute; we should be at the table. In many of these media releases of initiatives and resources, no one has ever called me and asked me.
Senator Cordy: From a jurisdictional perspective, if you had the oversight body, would the federal government be in charge of it, or would it depend on the situation with which you were dealing?
Mr. Fantino: Dealing with national security, I would say that the federal government should take the lead on certain issues. There would be things that play out at the more local level, but I am addressing national security. I am thinking of Toronto as part of the nation; I am thinking of the Toronto Police Service as value-added to creating a united front and those things that threaten all of us as Canadians.
Senator Atkins: First, as one who has lived in Toronto for 40 years, I must congratulate you and your predecessors for running what I consider to be an outstanding police force.
Mr. Fantino: Thank you, senator.
Senator Atkins: We heard originally almost a year ago from two retired law enforcement officers. One was the former commissioner of the RCMP; the other was the former head of CSIS. We asked them about coordinating forces into, for lack of another term, a homeland security concept. Neither of them was in support of that.
There is a silo concept. They believe that they can work independently and yet work together. However, you are talking about a concept that is similar to that which is being developed under Governor Ridge. Is there a municipal representation in his organization as it has developed?
Mr. Fantino: There have been growing pains in the United States where local law enforcement agencies were not privileged to information from the federal level. Those barriers are fast coming down because of the political will.
I must disagree with those who proffer a federally led agency only, of any kind, dealing with national security. Simply stated, given what we today know about the threat that we face from terrorist groups, I do not see how any major city could be left out of the equation as an equal partner contributing to the security of our nation as a whole. I do not understand the logic in that.
Senator Atkins: Are you clearly in favour of the homeland security type of agency?
Mr. Fantino: Absolutely. I have attended a number of meetings since these issues arose. We are homeland defence. We are experiencing the most potential for the threat that we have ever experienced. We are experiencing great residual consequences of hate-motivated crimes. You cannot ignore our ability to provide a great resource to the overall safety of Canadians country-wide.
Senator Atkins: How has your approach to policing changed since September 11?
Mr. Fantino: It has changed a great deal. For instance, immediately after the events of 9/11, we felt vulnerable. There was concern about all kinds of issues. I began doing my homework to find out what I ought to have known and what I should know. On September 24, I wrote to the chairman of my police services board expressing some of my concerns about information that was even readily available that we did not pick up.
I do not think that anyone imagined that the weapon of mass destruction would be jet airlines loaded with aviation fuel and passengers. A lot of information was known about the activities of terrorism in Canada.
Therefore, I began to not only learn about the Canadian situation, but I involved myself greatly with my United States counterparts, the Major City Chiefs, of which Toronto is a member. These are the municipal police chiefs and sheriffs of major police agencies in the United States and Canada. I also did much homework with regard to our own Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
My concern has come from that. I have a duty to bring these issues forward and do the best that I can to create a compelling case for why local law enforcement must be included as frontline people in the fight and the prevention. We must also be involved in dealing with the tragic events that we may face in our city.
Senator Atkins: I assume it reaches right down to the grassroots. A polarization is taking place in the different cultural communities.
Do you wish to comment on that?
Mr. Fantino: Right off the bat, I became aware very quickly about the plight of the Muslim community in Toronto, and I reached out. I met with many of the leaders and others. We were then dealing with incidents arising in the education system with young Muslim children being targeted and abused. I then proceeded to have discussions with the various school boards.
You are right. We have had our synagogues sprayed with hate graffiti. There are 122 synagogues in Toronto. We had an epidemic of calls about the white powder. All of those had to be handled. The ethnic communities became quite distressed.
Things have calmed down now. My big fear is what will happen next. I do not think anyone knows.
Senator Atkins: Are the leaders of these communities cooperative with the police?
Mr. Fantino: Absolutely. They are great people, and we have a great rapport. We are paying attention to their issues and concerns. We are well connected with them, and they with us.
Senator Atkins: Lets talk about recruitment and training. I would have thought you had more members of the police force than you do. By the way, I am surprised by your budget. I thought it would be more than $600 million.
Mr. Fantino: We have had a number of years of cuts. We have sustained those as best we could. We have learned to do things in a more economical way, but we are not doing the things we used to do. We have had to walk away from a lot of things the public expected. We no longer have police officers walking the beat.
Our numbers have dwindled considerably over the years. We have several hundred fewer police officers today than we had in 1992. Our issues are growing exponentially.
Senator Atkins: Is this primarily because of budget cuts?
Mr. Fantino: That is correct, senator.
Senator Banks: I just need a little arithmetic help. We have been speaking with military officers for the last several months, and it is nice to meet someone who can put 5,000 armed people on the ground at one time.
Mr. Fantino: It is a challenge.
Senator Banks: Your police service polices the GTA, right?
Mr. Fantino: Our force polices the City of Toronto, senator.
Senator Banks: The 2.5 million people. If you have 5,000 officers, that ratio would be one officer for every 500 people. Am I correct?
Mr. Fantino: The ratio is quite disparate from that in the outlying areas because of the way in which we police.
Senator Banks: I know that the needs are greater when the population is concentrated. However, it is one officer for 500 people.
Mr. Fantino: Yes.
Senator Atkins: Has your approach to training changed since September 11?
Mr. Fantino: Yes, it has. We are now becoming concerned about the safety of our personnel when responding to these issues. We have to take on new equipment and new procedures. In other words, our demands vis-à-vis ensuring the safety of officers have increased greatly. If we cannot insure officer safety then we will not be able to render optimum safety for the public. Those needs have increased greatly.
Senator Atkins: Are the qualifications for the members that you are recruiting tougher now?
Mr. Fantino: Yes, the standards are quite substantial in terms of education and physical fitness. We are getting many mature people into law enforcement. People are coming from other professions, well-educated people. Our standards are as high as ever. We have many people who want to get into law enforcement.
Senator Atkins: From the military?
Mr. Fantino: A few. We have ex-military police officers. Coincidentally, we have quite a number of police officers that are volunteers in the military. There is a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo currently; a number of our police officers are there working with the civilian police.
Senator Atkins: How does Emergency Measures Ontario fit in with your operation?
Mr. Fantino: Emergency Measures Ontario is primarily responsible for developing policies and response. It is a very effective entity endeavouring to coordinate a response to any significant safety issue, be it terrorists, be it a disaster of any kind. Emergency Measures Ontario has received a substantial increase in funding substantially from the provincial government to upgrade their ability to respond to these issues as well.
Senator Atkins: Is that a federal body?
Mr. Fantino: It is provincial. There is also a federal agency, OCIPEP.
Senator Atkins: I remember in the Mississauga incident —
Mr. Fantino: The train derailment.
Senator Atkins: — it was the Solicitor General and Attorney General who coordinated, so that was the provincial government.
Mr. Fantino: That is correct. That agency, as I stated earlier, has received a substantial increase in their funding to enable them to respond more effectively to this situation.
Senator Day: Mr. Fantino, you were looking for your note in relation to Emergency Measures Ontario, were you?
Mr. Fantino: Thank you, senator. The provincial response to Emergency Measures Ontario was to double the budget with $3 million a year.
Senator Day: You mentioned the federal coordinating body, OCIPEP, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness. What, if any, contact do you have with that office?
Mr. Fantino: Through the fire chief, there is a plan in place to enable the Toronto Fire Services to basically effect heavy search and rescue, and some of the coordination and assistance is coming through that agency.
Senator Day: In terms of training?
Mr. Fantino: Training as well, yes.
Senator Day: In terms of equipment?
Mr. Fantino: I believe there is equipment as well.
Senator Day: As far as the police force is concerned, you are not receiving any funding for either training or equipment?
Mr. Fantino: Not as yet. However, I am lobbying to see that at least some of our people receive that training and equipment. I have been told that I should be able to access some of both.
Senator Day: Do you have any contact with the police force or the fire department here in Ottawa vis-à-vis the leadership role that they play in terms of first responder training?
Mr. Fantino: We have contact with them, but I have not studied their specific response. Obviously, we will be looking at all models. We need to gear up for some of this.
Senator Day: Is the fact that you have not geared up for that a money issue?
Mr. Fantino: Very much so.
Senator Day: Do you have a coordinating body now in Toronto with the police force and the medical community for first response?
Mr. Fantino: Yes, we do. We are trying to put together an integrated response. We are also looking to ensure that we do not duplicate one another's roles and responsibilities. That is now coming. It has taken us this long to get any kind of commitment as to funding. We have been a long time waiting for commitments to be made to enable us to put some kind of a plan together.
Senator Day: What kinds of commitment are we talking about that allow you to do that — a money commitment from the province?
Mr. Fantino: The provincial and federal governments.
Senator Day: Is that just for the Toronto police force, the Toronto medical group and the fire department?
Mr. Fantino: Yes. The heavy search and rescue unit will also be able to respond elsewhere outside the city, similar to what FEMA does in the United States. You may be aware of that. That is what we have offered. Since Toronto is such a major centre, we could make Toronto the resource for responding to any major events outside of our particular area.
Senator Day: Who makes that decision, that Toronto would become the area of expertise to assist Mississauga and Oshawa and Hamilton?
Mr. Fantino: We have offered that. I should be clear on this issue, that the provincial government has relegated this responsibility to the Ontario Provincial Police, a new anti-terrorism unit with 24 officers who will work in partnership with municipal police services and federal law enforcement agencies. This unit will receive $3.5 million a year and conduct multijurisdictional intelligence operations. There is also a response unit to hazardous materials.
The point I am making is that with that entity having responsibility for the province, if something happens, it will be my people as well as local firefighters and medical people that will have to respond. This is a good backup, but the initial response will be ours.
Senator Day: Presumably there will have to be units of first responders in different parts of the province and in different parts of the country.
Mr. Fantino: There will. However, in the City of Toronto, our point is that we have to be trained, equipped and capable of responding to these incidents as first responders, ensuring the safety of our personnel.
Sure, other people will come in. That is a given and we expect that. Our concern is this, however: What are we prepared for at the outset, when the call comes in or the event happens and we have to run? As I stated, we cannot put a yellow tape around the incident and wait for someone else to come in. We have to do it.
Senator Day: Will that take general training of all of your officers?
Mr. Fantino: Yes. Police departments in the United States are training and equipping all of their people, to the extent that they can, to respond to incidents of this nature in a safe way.
Senator Day: Have you put together a budget on what that will cost?
Mr. Fantino: We had a budget, but it has fallen off the table.
Senator Day: It was so large that it fell off, was it?
Mr. Fantino: We put a budget together that represented the needs of all emergency services — health, fire, ambulance and police. At the end of that, there were monies allocated to fire, health and ambulance, but the police got nothing other than a couple of seconded positions.
Senator Day: Apart from the Ontario Provincial Police, is there any coordinating body or association of chiefs of police in Ontario?
Mr. Fantino: There is. The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police put together a substantive proposal as well on a response to this issue. Some things were listened to. A terrorism conference was suggested, and that took place. A few other odds and ends happened.
In essence, what has happened, senator, is that the federal government has funded federal agencies and the provincial government has funded provincial agencies. We can say all we want about funding, but in the City of Toronto there are no more funds to be dedicated to this.
Senator Day: It would be helpful for us if there were proposals that are not confidential, that could be made public, if you could share those with us in terms, of proposed budgets and any proposals either by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police or of your municipal police in Toronto.
Mr. Fantino: I can make those available.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you, Chief Fantino, for your initiative in this regard. You are the first from your position to come forward with some concrete evidence of what of interest is happening in your community, how you are trying to cope with it and the failures and shortcomings that you see in the system.
Before your appearance here today, in terms of preparing your brief, et cetera, did you consult closely with the fire chief?
Mr. Fantino: I have been speaking with him, yes.
Senator Forrestall: Why is he not here today? I am asking it rhetorically.
Mr. Fantino: I am sure he would be happy to attend here.
Senator Forrestall: You spoke about the Provincial Association of Chiefs of Police. What about the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police? It would be very helpful if there were a national brief.
Mr. Fantino: I am sure they would be as willing as I have been to share their views with this committee.
Senator Forrestall: Would you prod them?
Mr. Fantino: I would be pleased to approach both of them, if you wish. I am on the board of Ontario chiefs and I am a member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I am sure that they would welcome the opportunity to have input.
Senator Forrestall: It would be valuable for us to have that kind of input or anything along those lines. Anything that broadens this, that takes it out of the conceptual orbit of it being a federal responsibility, and spreads it around is for the better.
In regard to the incidence of activity post 9/11, it is startling and scary. Has there been a levelling off or any diminution?
Mr. Fantino: It has levelled off considerably. We were event-driven there for some time. Now, it has tapered off.
Senator Forrestall: Are you abreast of the actions that were brought about as a result of calls?
Mr. Fantino: Yes. The numbers of white powder calls, for instance, created a great deal of havoc in the city. We treated those as bona fide situations. It is very disruptive. It terrorizes people. There are marginal folks in our society who use these events to create mischief.
Collectively, we have all done a fine job — that is, fire, ambulance, medical and the medical officer of health — to try to educate the public to relieve that high level of anxiety. We made absolutely certain that we responded effectively to each one of those calls, never anticipating or discounting any of them. That gave significant assurance to the community.
Senator Forrestall: In terms of your capacity to communicate with fire, health, federal resources and perhaps on the ground, do you have common technical capacity to achieve this?
Mr. Fantino: Yes, we do. For instance, I meet regularly with my counterparts in the emergency services. We have a good understanding of roles and responsibilities. We work collaboratively to come up with one unified response to our needs and our challenges post the September 11 situation for the city.
Senator Forrestall: In other words, the numbers that you have given us are just for Toronto. What is the population and the number of policemen in the Greater Toronto Area?
Mr. Fantino: The population of the GTA is 5-plus million. We are probably looking at another 2,500 police officers.
Senator Forrestall: Can one of your patrolmen talk from his car to an O.P.P. car?
Mr. Fantino: No, he cannot. We would have to go through a dispatch centre. We cannot speak to them directly.
Senator Forrestall: You have to be patched through?
Mr. Fantino: Yes, sir.
Senator Forrestall: Is that for your own security purposes?
Mr. Fantino: It has evolved that way. The systems are disparate. Because we are stand-alone police departments, we do what we believe is the right thing for our respective communities. Often, there is not this link.
Senator Forrestall: Can you speak to the RCMP?
Mr. Fantino: Not directly, no.
Senator Banks: What about the fire department?
Senator Forrestall: Surely, you can talk to the fire department.
Mr. Fantino: We can patch through to the fire department.
Senator Forrestall: You said ``patch through.''
Mr. Fantino: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: You cannot call them directly?
Mr. Fantino: With the new system we have put in, we can. However, it is not on an individual officer basis. We must switch the system over to be able to integrate all of the communications in the city.
Senator Forrestall: That can be done, though, can it?
Mr. Fantino: Yes, it can be done.
Senator Forrestall: Fairly quickly?
Mr. Fantino: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: How long would it take.
Mr. Fantino: Probably minutes. Someone would have to authorize it. It would have to be an emergency and then it would have to be authorized to switch over.
Senator Forrestall: Who would authorize that?
Mr. Fantino: We would — that is, either myself or someone else in our command.
Senator Forrestall: What about the military?
Mr. Fantino: No, we have no link with them except by phone. When we brought this Joint Investigative Unit together, we broke down all those barriers, enabling us to communicate with one another at least at the command level.
Senator Forrestall: Do you envision that the audit you are proposing would cover this type of concern?
Mr. Fantino: I would imagine that we would come up with one type of approach or response that would take into account all those emergency issues.
Senator Forrestall: On the question of training, do I understand the training of your police force to cope with biological and other unfamiliar forms of hostility other than crooks and that type of thing?
Mr. Fantino: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: How far would you want to go in this?
Mr. Fantino: The first responders would have to be trained sufficiently enough to use the proper equipment in responding to a situation. The first responders would have the ability to assess a situation properly. We do not expect that a first responder would have to take charge of a situation for an extended period of time. The problem we have is that, when something happens, the first people to respond would be the folks on the road or the fireman in a hall who is responding to a call.
Senator Forrestall: You are talking about upgrading their capacity to address a situation and say, ``Hey, we need a chief''?
Mr. Fantino: Yes, or to put on the appropriate clothing and conduct themselves in a way that will ensure safety.
Senator Forrestall: It is important that we hear — even if it is nothing more complicated than a letter to the chair — from your national association and anyone else that you can drum up.
Mr. Fantino: I am at your service. I would be pleased to extend encouragement to those folks to communicate with this committee.
Senator Forrestall: An invitation is extended to you for that purpose.
Mr. Fantino: I would certainly give my encouragement on the basis that it is very important to attend here to share with you. This is not a doom and gloom presentation. This is an issue of great concern to all of us. People in my position must articulate these issues. I am not professing to be right on every issue, but we must make you aware of what we are dealing with.
Senator Forrestall: That is vitally important. It is also important that, for example, I would hope Holland College is as removed and as safe as we feel. I live in a safe settlement. No one will go after me down there. There is not anything there but woods and salt water.
Have police colleges updated their curriculum with respect to terrorism identification and communications?
Mr. Fantino: I do not believe so. The police college in Toronto would be doing specialized courses on management and so forth. I have not heard that they have. I know that we are trying to get our recruit training upgraded. I do not know, senator, what they have done.
Senator Forrestall: When you say ``recruit training upgraded,'' are you referring to qualifications?
Mr. Fantino: This is first level entry police officers.
Senator Forrestall: What is the level today?
Mr. Fantino: Our recruits come in at age 21. There are two levels of training. The Canadian Police College provides specialized management-type training, with courses in fingerprint examination, bomb disposal and things that are of concern.
However, I am speaking of recruit training. The police college does not do any recruit training. That is done at Aylmer, Ontario. For the RCMP, it is done in Regina. There are two levels of training.
I am sure that under the circumstances everyone is revisiting and reviewing training to seek what further things should be put into the program.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you, chief, for taking the leadership and initiative of attending here.
Senator Wiebe: I will ask you a question I have asked every police group that has appeared before our committee in the last little while. We have heard from many of them. This country of ours has a tremendous amount of different police forces in it. We have municipal, provincial and federal law enforcement officers, as well as those at the ports and the borders. You name it; we have a barrage of police forces.
Within that I see a tremendous amount of duplication. I see a lot of different levels of training. In some cases, there is a very severe lack of knowledge on the job that they should be doing. In all cases, there is a severe lack of resources to do the job that they have been mandated to do.
Also, there is a tremendous inability in this day and age, where it is so vital, to share vital information between police forces quickly.
What would be wrong with a national police force? What would be wrong with one police force that would deal with all of these issues?
Say if it were the RCMP that became the national police force of Canada. It would then look after the ports, our cities and provinces. It would ensure that the proper training was the same across the board. There would not be a duplication of resources.
In your particular case as the police chief for Toronto, you would become the deputy commissioner of T-division. You would have the same responsibilities as you have now as chief of Toronto, but you would be part of a larger force that could provide you with immediate communication across this country. It could provide the same level of training as all the police chiefs and communities would have.
When you are talking one language, everyone who is involved in that police force understands it. I do not have that comfortable feeling that that is there right now.
With the tremendous resources that the crime segment has, it is so important that we have an exchange of information quickly. They are way ahead of us. We are falling farther and farther behind.
I hope that you do not mind me saying so, but it appears to me that we seem to be developing these little empires within our country with different police forces and different services. There is too much duplication, and that is costing us a tremendous amount of money.
What would your reaction be if the government were to accept a recommendation of this committee that we establish one police force in this country?
Mr. Fantino: Senator, you ask a probing question that deserves a direct answer. There would be nothing wrong with it.
Looking at the greater good on every issue — integration, united front and efficiencies — a great outcome could be achieved. I have no quarrel with that at all. Political issues may stand in the way.
You may be aware of the system in the United Kingdom. They have the Home Office concept, where, although there are different police departments, they are basically under one umbrella.
Certainly, from my point of view, and some of my colleagues may not appreciate these comments, I would embrace the concept of rationalizing, doing away with duplication, integrating our collective energy and resources and dealing with one issue in common. We want the best possible service to the public and provision of the best possible safety, security and quality of life for all of us.
If we could make that happen, I would agree that it would be a great outcome.
Senator Wiebe: I shall be working on my colleagues over the next little while to have that as one of our recommendations. To determine if I am successful, you will need to read the report.
Mr. Fantino: I will, senator. Some people will feel threatened by that. ``Bigger is not better,'' some will say. You have heard all these things before.
From a totally practical point of view of who am I and who am I here to serve, yes, I would embrace that.
The Chairman: Mr. Fantino, it has been a pleasure to have you here. We have appreciated your views. Your comments have been of great service to this committee. We hope to hear from you again before too long.
Mr. Fantino: Thank you.
The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Robert Wright. A career public servant, Mr. Wright has served in senior positions in the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Privy Council Office and Agriculture Canada before becoming Deputy Minister of Revenue Canada and commissioner of the new agency. Canada Customs is responsible for the enforcement of 70 acts and 50 agreements. There are 479 customs service locations, 412 of which are on the border.
Questions about the security of our borders were asked throughout our study. Today we have invited Commissioner Wright to speak to us about the work of his agency and the steps that have been implemented or are being undertaken to ensure the integrity of our borders.
Mr. Robert Wright, Commissioner, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency: I will make some brief comments and then entertain questions. I will tell you now that I am very proud to be here representing Canada Customs, and I am delighted you will be visiting Lansdowne tomorrow. I think you got out for an early phase of your study to meet with our people in Halifax and Vancouver. They are doing a tremendous job on the frontlines. Whenever lawmakers can get out and see what is happening on the frontline, it gives our people a boost, and I appreciate you taking the time to get out and see our people who are really getting it done. I am very proud of the work they are doing. I know our minister is. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council have taken occasion to comment upon the diligence that has taken place, particularly since September 11. Your being there also reinforces it.
We started looking fundamentally at our customs programs several years ago. Having had a free trade agreement in place for more than a decade, we wanted to modernize our customs processes to deal with the challenge of our shared border with the United States. Trade and travel between us have increased dramatically in the last 10 years and we want to ensure that our processes are keeping pace.
Mr. Lefebvre coordinated an outreach program, the Customs Blueprint Exercise, to consult within our organization with stakeholders like customs brokers and Canadian business to learn what we can do to modernize our processes on the border. We put together a Customs Action Plan for the minister of the day and talked about the changes to which we wanted to manage. That report received a great deal of support within government and the business community, and we commenced to implement it.
Then, of course, September 11 came along, heightening the concerns of everyone about the security of our borders and reinforcing our interest in re-examining the processes we had underway to ensure they were as secure and effective as possible. After consulting with the business community and other stakeholders, we did not change our course but determined that we should accelerate the implementation of some important changes at our shared border and otherwise, and we began to work on that.
Mr. Lefebvre worked very actively on Bill S-23, which modernized our regime for managing commercial and people shipments and gave us some important new security tools with which to manage our border. The reaction from September 11 was that we should accelerate the implementation of these new tools as quickly as possible.
With regard to your opening comments, Mr. Chairman, there were a couple of very important strategic oversight issues on this important security issue. First, the budget that followed the September 11 incident provided the major source of funding for a broad range of security initiatives under a coordinated umbrella. That included some very important enhancements to our resource base, to ensure that we could accelerate these new security and modern border practices. Second, a week after the budget, the conference between Governor Ridge and now Deputy Prime Minister Manley led to the 30-point action plan. We are very much affected by the action plan. We are involved in about 15 of the initiatives and leading on eight of them.
In fact, on Wednesday, Mr. Lefebvre and I will be travelling to the United States to meet with colleagues in U.S. immigration and customs. This will be my ninth meeting with Commissioner Bonner of U.S. customs in the last six months. We are working very actively together at modernizing our approach and collaborating on making a more secure economy and environment for the citizens of both countries.
We are working on six or seven particular initiatives, but they can be broken down into three areas: to enhance security yet expedite traffic amongst people movement, to modernize our commercial clearance processes, and to collaborate in the international fora to strengthen the overall international environment on container security in particular, but also on other issues.
I can summarize those three issues quickly. On the security of people, we are looking at moving as quickly as possible to expand a pilot project on a smart card process to identify low-risk travellers. Over 100 million people cross the U.S.-Canada border each year. We want to identify the very low-risk traveller who can be security screened in both countries. Those people would get a smart card to permit travel in both directions. We have been piloting the CANPASS program for travel into Canada for some years. The U.S. had their own program called INSPASS.
As well, last year in Sarnia-Port Huron, we piloted a program called NEXUS. With that program, there is one card and one registration process. Low-risk travellers can apply, be screened by three different sets of data and security agencies on both sides of the border, and get a card. Both countries have been looking at that program and both countries are very pleased with what they see. Therefore, Minister Manley and Minister Caplan announced a few weeks ago that we are looking at expanding NEXUS as soon as possible into British Columbia and in Southern Ontario.
The best way to find high-risk travellers is to stream the low-risk folks and focus on the unknown, which is what we are doing. This week, we will be meeting with our colleagues in the U.S. on this.
We are looking at a smart card approach for low-risk air travel. There are eight air preclearance centres in Canada for travel to the U.S. I believe that 80 per cent of the travellers from Dorval are cross-border.
Mr. Denis Lefebvre, Assistant Commissioner, Customs Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency: At Dorval, 10 million trans-border passengers arrive by air from the U.S. each year.
Mr. Wright: If we can use a biometric card to identify low-risk people and expedite them, we can focus on the unknown. Therefore, on people movement we are making good progress with the U.S. Our interest is the same, that is, to identify the low risk and focus on the unknown.
On the commercial side, we announced some very important changes last year and in December started implementing a program called the Customs Self-Assessment Program. Bear in mind that we have had free trade in Canada for over 10 years and that the top 100 companies account for over 40 per cent of the imports into Canada. The top 1,000 companies account for over 70 per cent of the trade. As you may know, the CCRA is a little bit into the audit business, and we have more confidence in a post-entry audit process for commercial clearance than trying to manage each of the 11 million commercial transactions a year.
We offered to go on a post-entry audit process for larger or more secure companies that are willing to ante up to become partners in security. The business community was very interested in this and was ready to make the investments we required. The U.S. has also been also interested in following this. We have been working very hard with U.S. customs, and Minister Caplan has expressed a strong interest in getting one program that can have the same conditions going both ways. We are trying to work with our U.S. colleagues on a harmonized process that will build up the very best of our interest in expediting trade while identifying the unknown so that we can focus on it. We are trying to secure some meaningful partnerships from private-sector colleagues in the business community that are ready to ante up for security so that we can enhance the security of their trade.
We also have a very long list of cooperation agreements with the U.S. on security, on commercial fraud and on sharing information on high-risk travellers. We are looking at expanding that as well.
Finally, the U.S. and Canada are both members in high regard, I would say, within the World Customs Association. Mr. Lefebvre is vice-president for the Americas in that organization. We are looking to cooperate in that forum to deal with international issues.
You focused on containers and shipping in an earlier report. Many of the answers we want in terms of enhancing the overall security of that trade require international approaches that require more information in advance, striking protocols with the major ports of the world to see what we can learn about shipments before they leave the port, and that help focus on areas of particular concern even before they leave.
We have a very broad and important agenda for cooperation with the U.S. I can discuss any aspect of that agenda you wish to pursue. I wish to reiterate how pleased we are that you are making a trip to the field to see what our people on the front line are doing. Every day on the front line we see the spirit of cooperation that we try to take to our meetings with Commission Bonner and the most senior people in the U.S. customs.
Senator Atkins: As you know, we have Bill C-55 in the House of Commons. How does that assist you in your responsibilities?
Mr. Wright: There are issues relating to sharing information.
Mr. Lefebvre: Bill C-55 is about other powers needed by other ministries. To my knowledge, nothing in there enables us. A two-line, small provision enables us to do what we were authorized to do under Bill S-23, but it is not an empowering clause. It is simply to remove an anomaly in the legislation. Otherwise, Bill C-55 does not have an impact on the work of the agency.
Senator Atkins: Does it give you access to manifests under the law?
Mr. Lefebvre: In Bill S-23, which amended the Customs Act, we are authorized to obtain information from airlines early on, even before they leave, or electronically, so we have that power as a result. From any public conveyances, we have the right to ask ships for the crew's manifest ahead of time. We call that advance passenger information, or name record information.
Senator Atkins: Do you have the manpower to deal with manifests when they are provided to you, for example, if an airline leaves Boston and lands in Halifax?
Mr. Lefebvre: We would not manually have the manpower to do it, if we had to do it manually. We now have electronic tools that will search the manifest for people we are interested in and will highlight anyone in our data bank we should look at from information we have received from other law enforcement agencies or immigration. It will be information technology that will assist our teams of officers to analyze the data.
Senator Atkins: On the manpower question, when we were in Halifax, we heard some concern about the limited amount of training some of the personnel in customs and immigration receive. There was a strong appeal to us to make the case that there should be more training, and, of course, more personnel. Do you wish to comment on that?
Mr. Wright: Just on your previous comment, the CCRA has the equivalent IT investments of the third largest bank. We are very much looking forward to using these tools to make the most out of advance passenger manifest.
In terms of overall levels of resourcing, we were pleased with the substantial additional resources received in the last budget, $400 million over the fiscal period, to let us do a number of things. We have purchased advanced technology applying principally to airports and seaports. We have a proud training record in CCRA. We devote approximately 6 per cent of our payroll to annual training and learning. A new customs officer gets eight weeks in-house training at our college in Rigaud, Quebec.
There is always scope to do more, and since September, we have been looking at having an ongoing regular training program. Although there is scope to do more, we are well resourced. We can make our business cases. On our land border, we have between 25 and 30 per cent more resources in manpower. It is a question of how we can better use those resources. Training is absolutely it. We want to invest in our front line people. We are sensitive to that, senator, but I would say the glass is more than half full on that one.
Senator Atkins: What about the temporary employees?
Mr. Wright: Are you talking about students?
Senator Atkins: Yes.
Mr. Wright: We have less than 300 students during the year, and our front line customs officers rank about 4,000. It is quite small during the year. It goes up over 1,000 in the summertime. Our students are all university students and a great source of future employees. We want to maintain that program for that reason alone. They do a great job. They are trained for three weeks.
My first job in government was as a student customs officer. It is a good job; it exposes an individual to a professional environment. Our front line officers are not left alone in the job. They are part of the overall team. They take guidance from superintendents and also from other officers. They are a great source of future customs officers, and many go beyond the customs program. We see that as important, but they are in no way a replacement for professional full-time officers.
Senator Atkins: Another thing we heard is that just one officer might be at these less active ports of entry, when there was a strong representation that pairs should be in some of these, and maybe more cooperation with the American side.
Mr. Wright: We absolutely do work on expanding our cooperation with the U.S. sides. In fact, we co-locate. We built common facilities at border points, and would like to do more of that. We have a protocol so that we have a buddy system on both sides, and the U.S. has a strong interest in that as well. We have protocol with all of the local police. It is a vital part of our partnership. I know Commissioner Zaccardelli is pursuing Integrated Border Enforcement Teams on the border. He is creating 14 teams. We are part of it as well as U.S-Canadian immigration, CSIS and local police with their counterparts from the U.S.
We have 70 single-person ports. There are still some single-person ports. In a period of heightened security, we will do a number of things. We did double up those ports for some period of time. We have stopped doing that. We also look at having some of our flexible response teams pay more frequent visits to support our people, but there are approximately 40 or 50 single-person ports, and if you double up there, given our shift work and everything else, you are talking about the equivalent of over 200 people. We have discussed with our employees and unions whether that is the best use of resources, and it is not. There are alternative uses of those resources and alternative ways to buttress the security. It is an area we monitor regularly, and it is on the agenda for discussions with the U.S. this week.
Senator Atkins: One of my pet peeves is seeing Americans in the National Guard on borders with weapons. I find that offensive, quite frankly, and, I suspect, unnecessary. What is your view of weapons?
Mr. Wright: I do not have a view on the American side.
Senator Atkins: I am talking about our side.
Mr. Wright: We have provided our employees with personal protection training. They have expanded authority to arrest impaired drivers. We receive professional advice that they need additional tools for that sort of activity. We provide them with batons and pepper spray once they have been fully trained. They are executing those authorities very well. We do not believe there is any case for arming Canadian officers, even though our union has a different view and it is lobbying for arming. That is not something we believe there is a case for.
It is a judgment, and like all judgments, we are monitoring it on a regular basis, but we have never seen a case, even where there are serious incidents. We get over 100 million travellers to Canada from the U.S., and some of them are not pleasant people. We have to train our people to deal with that. As far as arming 4,000 customs officers, you cannot just give people handguns. You have to provide the officers with the full training and authority to use those guns. We do not see any public case for doing that, although we continue to work at looking at the full scenarios. We feel our officers are trained, and we have not seen a case for arming them.
Senator Atkins: When we were in Washington, we met with some of the staff in Governor Ridge's organization. We were very impressed. I got the impression that they were determined to work with Canadians. What do you think about a homeland security agency? Do you think that is a good idea?
Mr. Wright: I think they are doing a great job in terms of coordinating a response.
Senator Atkins: They are, but do you think we need one?
Mr. Wright: I think we were doing a great job in coordinating a Canadian response. The Deputy Prime Minister has a team in the Privy Council Office that is coordinating efforts and is fully engaged in issues with Governor Ridge in ways that keep our agenda moving. Canada has stepped up to the plate in a very coordinated way in making the most of this new relationship.
Senator Atkins: We just heard from Mr. Fantino, Chief of the Toronto Police Service, that he thinks that the municipalities are not included.
Mr. Wright: It is not for me to say who should ensure that a municipality that important should be briefed and kept up to speed.
When it comes to regular border protection, Commissioner Zaccardelli is very much in favour of an integrated initiative. On our teams under the Solicitor General's initiative, local enforcement is vital. In Ontario and Quebec, it is local police that must look at a secondary response. That is extremely important. Last night, there was a security incident in northwestern Ontario. The OPP provided the necessary back up to deal with the issue. It is very much an integrated approach. If we can build on that, that is one thing, but that is there.
Senator Atkins: Finally, what did you think of this committee's recommendation of having an inquiry of the ports in Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver?
Mr. Wright: The committee's report was very important, and will help us to focus on an important area. I am not convinced an inquiry is what we need to do. We should not wait for it. We should get on with it and do what we can. That is what we are doing with the U.S. I was candidly not persuaded that that additional effort is needed right now. Provided there is an important impetus, we are developing an agenda of how to respond and use the resources we receive. We have some exciting new technology. We want to equip. We want to work with our U.S. colleagues in providing more advance requirement for more advance information, more sophisticated targeting and a capacity to work with our colleagues in government to make progress right away. That is what we want to focus on.
Senator Atkins: Some people think we were soft on our recommendation and our analysis.
Mr. Wright: Who would they be? This is an important area. In our work with the United States over the last five years, but particularly in the last year or two, we have done a significant amount of benchmarking of our processes. It is not a contest, but you benchmark to compare and see if you have something to contribute. I would say the Canadian processes compared very well with U.S. programs. However, in both cases we want to increase our game. There is an area there to improve. We think we can and we will get on with it and improve. We have benchmarked our processes at airports and we are now in the process of doing that at marine ports. We compare favourably. However, in the case of the U.S. and in the case of Canada, we want to improve our systems. Your overall report will give us additional impetus to do that.
Senator Wiebe: I am sure that other members of the committee or other senators will have questions of you about port security. I will leave that to them. However, when it comes to comparing ourselves to the Americans, I think the American port security is terrible. If we are at the same level, that means we are terrible, too. We have a tremendously long way to go in this country to bring the security of the ports up to the point where I would feel comfortable in telling the people in Saskatchewan that we do have adequate security at our ports. That is not the questioning that I was going to address today and does not really relate to defence and security.
Mr. Wright: I think ``terrible'' is too strong a word. Certainly I would not call the U.S. port security terrible. There is scope for us all to improve. Certainly, the Canadian ports have a good program. We have a very good customs program. There is scope to improve and we will improve. Again, this last budget gave us substantial additional resources. We have already procured some important and fast maturing new technology that will give us further security. I do not want to let it stand that you are saying that our security of Canadian ports in the customs program is terrible. It is not. It can be improved. It should and must be improved since September 11. However, it is starting, internationally, from a very strong base.
Senator Wiebe: I said that the American ports were terrible and by comparing us to them puts us in the same category. However, I will leave that be. I know there are others who wish to comment on that.
I have travelled internationally in the last couple of years. Given that experience, I have noticed quite a difference since September 11 and concur with you in the tremendous job that our customs officials are doing.
Mr. Wright: Thank you, sir.
Senator Wiebe: It was surprising and refreshing on the last three occasions — and it was not the same customs official, because it was three different airports — to hear the words ``Welcome home.''
Mr. Wright: That is fantastic.
Senator Wiebe: I do not know whether you are instructing your people to do that, but the impact is tremendous. If you are not, please do.
Our customs officials at airports are probably subject to more abuse than any of the other customs officials. I say that they are dealing with people who have been flying for hours, who, often, have had to walk a fair distance to get to customs, et cetera. There is no place to freshen up, no washrooms, nowhere to sit down and relax, and nowhere to smoke, for the traveller who still smokes. In addition, the lineup at customs can be horrific, especially if two planes have come in at the same time.
I understand that the customs facilities are rented from the airport authority. The walls are institution-like, white, black or grey. What a wonderful place to advertise our country. Why not paint murals on those walls that tell a story about our heritage or post signs that read ``Welcome to Canada''? There are things that can be done to the customs area to make it interesting to the tourist. We have a lot to be proud of in this country. Why not brag about it? Can you, in your capacity, do something to improve the first impression that people have when they come to Canada?
Mr. Wright: I certainly want to come back to this committee on many occasions to take questions like that. I am proud of our work, and I certainly appreciate your comments on our front-line staff, senator. They are encouraged to welcome new visitors and returning Canadians.
The welcome at Vancouver airport is magnificent. This is the airport authority's welcome, but the reflection of Canada is important.
We are always looking at new ways to do that. In Toronto, there are flags waving and a ``Welcome to Canada'' sign. Perhaps it is not as big and bold as we could have, but we can look at that.
I would say, again, that Canada has one of the best customs administrations in the world. That is a basic fact. The other basic fact is that that is not good enough. I am really proud to be in an organization that is one of the best. The thing that really turns us up is knowing that our team wants to improve. Probably the majority of time, even in Toronto, you get through customs before your bags are ready. We would not make you that much happier if you got to wait for your bags for 10 minutes instead of five.
There are things that we can do. A smart card for frequent travellers would expedite many folks and free us up to focus on the unknown. It would reduce the level of agitation that does appear for smokers and non-smokers alike, senator.
Senator Banks: When our report came out, which I suspect you may have read, it was highly critical of the situation in some of Canada's ports. It seemed to nonplus many people. It seemed to surprise and shock many people.
Did it surprise you? Did it shock you?
I refer specifically to this committee's comments on ports in Canada and the crime in operation in those ports. Was it a surprise?
Mr. Wright: I was not shocked. There were some major issues with ports and customs as well as security issues for many years. This is an issue that has been around for some time.
I was not shocked by it because I was shocked by September 11. I am sure everyone looked at your report constructively to see what we should build on. Enhancing the security of our ports is unassailably what we should be doing. There are some ideas for that that we can build on. I saw it as a constructive report. I know there are issues with which we must deal. They are not easy issues.
As does the U.S. and many other customs administrations, we use some sophisticated targeting of the unknown and shipments. Our resources are scarce. We have to focus on the higher-risk areas.
We feel it is time for us to be seeking more consistent advance information on every container coming to Canada. Our U.S. colleagues feel the same way. We have put forward a proposal, and we will be putting forward a proposal together with the U.S. at the next World Customs Organization meeting.
Senator Banks: Can you tell us more on that? Is it about identifying and sealing containers in ports before they are shipped to North America and making them identifiable by some GPS means?
Mr. Wright: There is no magic step. We want to know what is in each container. Freight forwarders have this information. It should be supplied electronically, and we can use it electronically very effectively.
We have spoken to our colleagues in the G-8. At the conference Canada is hosting, we would like to talk about some of the existing requirements of the trading community, saying that we want information in advance so we can identify a regular and secure importer. We want to focus on cases where the importer is not known to be secure. The U.S. is interested in working with us on this.
Minister Caplan and Commissioner Bonner announced a reciprocal arrangement a few weeks ago, to exchange staff in major ports to look at containers in transit from the U.S. to Canada or Canada to the U.S, so that we can look at them once. The U.S. is positive on this approach, and they want to try to expand that agreement with other major port nations.
There are a whole set of issues. We have a series of protocols with the Port of Vancouver, for example. We are a partner in Partners in Protection, which is a subset of a World Customs Organization initiative. The U.S. has just announced a major initiative called CTPAT.
Mr. Lefebvre: Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism.
Mr. Wright: That is the one. We are saying that we should establish a protocol of initiatives that we expect in a partnership and how to make the most of it.
Senator Banks: Precisely. We have referred to that in our report. Some part of the examination of containers will involve projecting the beginning part of our security examination of containers to the places from which they are shipped to North America, is that correct?
Mr. Wright: I think we can see getting there, yes.
Senator Banks: The obstreperous part of my question is that you have a great deal to do with ports. You mentioned a few moments ago in your opening remarks that you were embarking on ways to make things better in the ports.
This is a semi-rude question: Did none of the things have to do with the suggestions that we had made? Was the crime and criminal activity at some serious level that causes concern in some of Canada's ports known to you before? If so, were the efforts that you are now talking about to make things better started some time ago? Have they been started more recently?
Mr. Wright: Again, there are two things. First, your report might have inspired some additional scrutiny. However, 9/11 also did.
For example, we introduced a new commercial program on the land border of customs self-assessment last December. For that program to get up and running, we required pre-screening and pre-approval of drivers for the first time on a Canada-U.S. border to have drivers that have met the standard of admissibility and no criminal record. Before September 11, there were very strong concerns about that. Since September 11, we feel that the trading community is ready to be real partners in meaningful change.
It is not that we were sitting on our hands before September 11 or before your report; however, we feel that there is an environment for us to be moving forward in very meaningful ways. There is a confluence between those reports and the spirit of cooperation with the business community on which we want to capitalize.
Senator Banks: Do you agree with the contention that, if our ports do not become part of security in every sense of that word — which is some considerable amount enhanced from the present circumstances on the one hand — and the United States ports make a great leap forward in terms of security in their ports, ours will be at a very considerable international disadvantage? Therefore, we must move in that direction.
Mr. Wright: Unquestionably. Even if there were not an economic disadvantage, I would not feel comfortable executing my authorities if we had high-risk shippers wanting to come through Canada. This is not what Canadians want. We must be looking at picking up our gains.
As Senator Wiebe was saying, we are not behind the U.S. ports. We are not. However, that is not good enough. We must look at improving it, and we are. We will improve them substantially.
Many containers are shipped to Canada from the U.S. About 50 per cent of the containers that land in Montreal are trans-shipped to the United States. Thirty per cent from Halifax are trans-shipped to the United States, and 20 per cent from Vancouver are trans-shipped to the U.S. That is an important component for the port authorities and the railroads, and improves the overall effectiveness of our transportation systems. We do not want to put that at risk. Our railroads and shippers do not want to put it at risk. We must pick our game there.
Senator Banks: The Americans are very concerned about that, too.
Mr. Wright: They are very appreciative. We are strong partners with them. They very much want to work with us, and they are ready to acknowledge that as well.
Senator Banks: You said that 90 per cent of your people are indeterminate employees.
Mr. Lefebvre: What sort of percentage?
Senator Banks: I think you said 90 per cent.
Mr. Wright: I did not say 90 per cent. I said that we have some students on our customs program, about 300 during the year, and it goes up to 1,200 at summertime. I did not say a percentage.
Senator Banks: I will pose it as a question: What percentage of your full-time staff — I am not talking about the summer students now — are indeterminate employees and what percentage, commensurately, are term employees?
Mr. Wright: For the customs program?
Senator Banks: Customs officers.
Mr. Wright: I would say maybe it is 90 per cent.
Senator Banks: Front line guys.
Mr. Wright: Most in the customs program are indeterminate. There are students, but most in the customs program are indeterminate. There may be a few term positions.
On the tax side, we have a much more important term component, for our seasonal tax processing. Most of our term employees are on the tax side.
Senator Banks: I am talking about people on the border and at ports. The reason I ask the question is that we heard from your union, if I recall correctly, but certainly from some members of your staff who are customs officers at land, sea and airports, that what they thought was a significant percentage of their colleagues were term employees. We also heard that, to them, a disturbingly small number of people have actually done the eight weeks at Rigaud that you were talking about.
Mr. Lefebvre: Perhaps I may add a comment. Most of our people are full-time, permanent employees. We have some term employees. For a while, their number was inordinately high. That does not mean that it is that high, but perhaps it went above 10 per cent because we had a backlog for our training of customs officers. As a result, our term officers were employed somewhat longer than normal, not just a few months but some were over a year as term officers before we could get some positions. Now we have triple our intake at Rigaud. The backlog is coming down to nothing. There will not be a large number of term employees.
Senator Banks: You are saying that a significant majority of the people on the front line have done eight weeks.
Mr. Lefebvre: That is correct.
The Chairman: Before we go to our next questioner, would it be possible to provide us with some figures, with some historical background on this? The committee has heard conflicting evidence on this subject. If you could provide us with what the figures are running back, say, five years.
Mr. Wright: We will do that.
The Chairman: Would that be an imposition?
Mr. Wright: Not at all, sir. It is important. Most of the controversy with our union related to the use of students and whether in some ports they did not make up just about everyone on duty at any one particular time.
We hire our students so that people can take leave in the summer. We try to keep it balanced so that there are enough professional full-time customs officers to help balance the workload. In fact, Mr. Lefebvre had worked on a protocol in terms of understanding the right balance on an ongoing basis. We will give you the data so you may form your own opinion.
Senator Cordy: I should like to reiterate what you stated and what several senators have stated, and that is that the customs officials that we met as we travelled in Halifax and Vancouver are doing a tremendous job. There are times when it would be a somewhat stressful job, I am sure. I should like to congratulate them and have you pass that along.
I should like to talk for a few minutes about the ships' manifests or the manifests of the containers that are included with the containers that go into various ports. The inspectors in Canada inspect 3 per cent of the containers, a higher percentage than is inspected in the United States. Of course, there are some random inspections done, but by and large you would tend to look at cargo that you would feel would be high-risk. Nevertheless, we heard that many times the manifests are fairly vague.
Mr. Wright: They are.
Senator Cordy: So you really do not have a good sense of what is in the container.
Second, there may be a country on the manifest that is not necessarily the original country. It may be one of the countries that the cargo has passed through, but not necessarily the country from which the cargo has originated. Is there any way to make a law or to have manifests that would allow our customs officials to have a better indication of what is contained in the material arriving at the ports?
Mr. Wright: That is a very good question. Our examination rate is about 3 per cent, which is more than most other countries. We do not like random checks. We prefer to target. We have a targeting centre in Halifax and at every one of our major ports. They do a great job. They use some important tools that we provide, and most of those tools are based on information. Some of the manifest information is now very general.
There are three things we can do. We already agreed, in the World Customs Organization, to work toward a common set of data elements that are not overwhelming for our trading community but are consistent among countries. It may take some time to get there, but there should be an essence of commonality.
The second thing is to say that we want this information as soon as possible. We know that currently people in the trade, freight forwarders, in particular, get this information. We want them to be able to provide it. We want to require them to provide it to us early on in the session.
Canada will not stand up in front of the world and say, ``You are not coming to our port without this information.'' However, we are ready to do that with many of our colleagues in the World Customs Organization. Again, the technology exists. It is not onerous for the trading community. Now is the time to start taking that initiative. We are looking at how to work with our colleagues in the U.S.A.
Finally, we need the tools to be able to make informed judgments about where the 2 or 3 per cent are that we look at. We need tools that are less burdensome for our trading companies, such as the big cobalt scanning machines that can check your cavities as well as for contraband. It is technology that works very well. The Port of Vancouver entered into a protocol agreement with the maker of this to give us some really good ideas. We have acquired some of those. Those elements would help us to improve, but information is key.
Mr. Lefebvre: I will just add that in the Customs Action Plan that we launched in April 2000 there an initiative called Carrier Re-engineering. Now we call it Advanced Commercial Information. With respect to the carriers that are not low-risk, pre-approved, we want a common set of information well in advance, conveyed to us electronically, whether it is by air, sea containers or trucks.
Senator Cordy: It is interesting that you say Canada cannot do this on its own. I did not know there was a World Customs Organization. Tell me about that.
Mr. Wright: It is customs officials from around the world. The U.S. Commissioner of Customs, Robert Bonner, and I are scheduled to make a presentation at the June meeting of the World Customs Organization on sets of initiatives for expanded international cooperation.
Senator Atkins: Is not one of the problems with the manifest that you do not know a container's point of original departure?
Mr. Wright: Yes.
Senator Atkins: How do you address that?
Mr. Wright: If you have a common set of data elements, it would include the country of origin for that container.
Senator Atkins: The manifest does not now have that.
Mr. Wright: What we require now may not, but what we are looking at getting through the World Customs Organization as a common element would be that country of origin.
Senator Atkins: That would be helpful.
Mr. Wright: Yes, it would.
Senator Cordy: My next question has to do with information provided to primary line inspectors. You mentioned today that there is certainly more up-to-date information that is available for usage with passenger manifests. The Auditor General mentioned that the information — I do not want to say ``currently'' because I am hoping it is not current — provided to primary line inspectors was sometimes dated information. Have you been working on that? Is there more up-to-date information, as there currently is, as you stated, regarding passenger manifest information?
Mr. Wright: It may be, senator, that the observation you are referring to was the ability of our front-line officers to integrate the information technology tools they had. Again, in the last budget, we received resources to ensure that all of our front-line offices have integrated information technology tools to do a better job.
Senator Cordy: That is wise usage of money. We heard in the fall that that was a concern to people working in the field.
I wonder about the Smart Border Declaration that Governor Ridge and Minister Manley have put together. Are any points in that action plan being implemented currently?
Mr. Wright: There is progress on many of them. Minister Caplan announced with Commissioner Bonner the in- transit container initiative. She also announced the expansion of the NEXUS pilot to British Columbia. We are working toward, in May or June, an overall sum-up of where we are in that program and what other initiatives we should be working on together. There is a lot of progress, as I mentioned.
I must say I am really encouraged to have had nine meetings with a colleague within six months. It defines a sense of purpose. My other colleagues are similarly making good progress and reporting to our minister. She is very pleased and stays in touch regularly, as well as contacting Commissioner Bonner and Commissioner Zigler as well from Immigration. We are making good progress. We are not there yet, but we leave it to our Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to make public pronouncements on where we are.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you, gentlemen. I am a little surprised at the level of good health that you are in.
Mr. Wright: Tax season is over.
Senator Forrestall: It is a bloody mess, and you know it, and I know it, and everyone who is affected by it knows it. That is not the point. It has been a mess for years, riddled with corruption, and there is no other word. I am pleased that we are trying to do something about it.
I am concerned about the container. I am concerned not about where it was stuffed so much as who stuffed it. What parcels in that container were packaged by Robert Wright? What packages were contained? Who are they consigned to? What ports do they go through from the time that container is partially loaded? It frequently happens in Malaysia and other countries. Can we go back, not to the port where the container was filled and finally sealed, but to the seller? Is that possible? Someone must sell this to someone here in Canada or in the United States, the producer or the manufacturer.
Mr. Wright: There are ways to go back. We are striving for an information trail to do the targeting. Again, to find the needle in the haystack, you should start by shrinking the haystack. Start by identifying major traders that you have confidence in, and stream that activity. That leaves a set of unknowns that you can focus on.
Again, information is a valuable tool, so we know what is in a container, regardless of how many people are acquiring it. You can combine that with some of the technology we have at the border here. However, we are all interested in going a little further. If we can have a protocol for security screening for the highest-risk issues, so that any port of lading en route has a protocol for light partners in protection so there is some screening abroad, that is good. Some people talk more dramatically about the possibilities of having a transponder that is active for every container en route. There are 50 million containers. You get dizzy thinking about that level. It is certainly pragmatic to think about a secure shipping line, and we have a transponder for that line. We can focus on the higher risks or unknown issues.
The most important early payoff is on information in targeting and looking at other technology solutions, including smart seals. We should focus on the early harvest first. Information is key.
Senator Forrestall: Is there any way you can use the ports of Singapore and Rotterdam as a check? It might be much easier than the tracking devices.
Mr. Wright: Easier than what, sir?
Senator Forrestall: Easier than the monitoring.
Mr. Wright: I think exactly that. We have an excellent relationship with the Dutch authorities. Rotterdam is a modern and efficient port. If we had a common security protocol in terms of major ports, they would want to be there. If we have a concern based on information we get while a product is still in Rotterdam, we could ask our Dutch colleagues to have a security screen before the cargo left.
There is much potential for expanded cooperation that we will be pursuing this June and beyond with our colleagues in the major ports. I think Singapore would also be ready to look at accelerating our progress toward a partner-in- protection approach for a security protocol around ports.
Senator Forrestall: I am glad to hear that.
You have people on the ground in Halifax. How is that working out? Could you walk us through a day?
Mr. Wright: It is still early days. It has only been two months. In terms of U.S. targeters, are you asking?
Senator Forrestall: Yes.
Mr. Wright: There are two in Halifax, two in Montreal and three in Vancouver. We have people on the other side as well. It is working out well. Again, we see a kind of benchmarking of techniques for our targeting strategies. It has energized both teams. We are watching it carefully, but it has worked well.
Senator Forrestall: They are working well here in Canada. Is it working equally as well in the United States?
Mr. Wright: Yes, sir.
Senator Forrestall: Are we at the point whereby people sent down there are able to take their families, or is it too early for that?
Mr. Lefebvre: For the initial assignment, we had to recruit people rather quickly. Currently, it is not a long-term assignment.
Senator Forrestall: Therefore, there are no families.
Mr. Wright: That is correct, not yet.
Senator Forrestall: Keep at it because, God knows, it is a vexing problem.
The Chairman: Could you tell the committee what percentage of containers is inspected when leaving Canadian ports as opposed to entering Canadian ports?
Mr. Lefebvre: Very few are inspected. Inspection is based purely on targeting and information we may have about containers with stolen goods, technology, information or equipment that should not be exported or items that should have a permit but do not. We have a targeting program for exports, but we do not have a random, systematic review of export containers like we have for import containers. Basically, this is the current practice throughout the world.
The Chairman: Mr. Wright's proposal is precisely what I am asking about; correct?
Mr. Lefebvre: Mr. Wright is suggesting that if we improved information exchange ahead of time with other countries, then our colleagues — and, conversely, they could ask us on the same basis — could share information that would cause us to inspect more containers that are to be exported.
Senator Meighen: Did we receive a figure that corroborated or changed the figure that we received earlier?
The Chairman: We suggested a figure of 3 per cent, and the commissioner suggested 2 per cent to 3 per cent. I am not sure which is correct.
Mr. Lefebvre: The numbers vary slightly by port from year to year.
Senator Meighen: What is the figure for Halifax, for example?
Mr. Lefebvre: Halifax was between 2 per cent and 3 per cent last year.
Senator Meighen: Do you have a level to which you aspire?
Mr. Lefebvre: Yes, before the beginning of the year, our intelligence department, if you wish, will do an overall risk assessment. By mode, we will ask our field offices to devote their resources to the modes that are deemed to be at highest risk. Last year, Halifax had between 2 per cent and 3 per cent inspection because, at the beginning of the year, they had committed to inspect that many containers.
Senator Atkins: If you inspect a container that is being exported, how do you know whether, say, a car on that container has been stolen or whether it is an appropriate export?
Mr. Wright: The expanded exchange of information and protocols of cooperation on exports and imports have a lot going for them.
Senator Day: Mr. Lefebvre, I did not fully understand your comment that before the year begins, the 2 per cent to 3 per cent is based on statistical analysis of risk. Is there any resource factor built into that? Does the risk increase and decrease by 1 per cent? Is there a total of how many will be inspected based on the risk analysis?
Mr. Lefebvre: We have a compliance improvement plan. At the beginning of the year, we bring all the departments together — post-audit, intelligence, service — and look at the compliance. We establish priorities and then consult with other departments that we are working for and ask them to establish their priorities. We want to focus resources as much as possible where the risk is highest — where the impact on Canadian society or the economy is highest. Then, we work with the field to ensure that we spend our resources appropriately.
Senator Day: I interpret your answer to mean that the 2 per cent to 3 per cent is determined in part by resources available to make the inspection. Is that correct?
Mr. Lefebvre: We roll out the resources based on the estimation of the risk. If we believed there was an extreme risk, we could have 6 per cent of the containers examined. Yes, it would impact the number of other examinations done elsewhere. However, that is the nature of our business. We evaluate the current risk. With the additional resources we have received that will be used mostly for ports and airports, we believe that, on the basis of the risk, we are resourced to do a good job of ensuring the security of Canadians.
Senator Day: Are you able to share with us your risk analysis that comes up with the 2 per cent or 3 per cent figure? This is the chairman's favourite question, but I am asking it instead. We keep getting fuzzy answers, with all due respect. It would be helpful to determine whether this is resource-based or based on actual statistics.
Mr. Lefebvre: There is no perfect formula. This is the world of intelligence and risk management. However, we will consult with the food inspection agencies, for instance, at the beginning of the year. We want to focus our attention on the areas where there is greater concern. We will devote more attention to commodities that rank as a higher risk. We will look at our experience over the last five years; and we have intelligence and officers in the various regions and in various ports.
Our risk analysis will tell us that, because of certain commodities and certain players in some areas, the risks are higher for those items in some ports than other ports in Canada. A combination of factors guides us on where we should put our efforts.
Senator Day: Do you have anything in writing that will provide us with your methodology?
Mr. Lefebvre: It is operational information that we cannot share freely because its purpose is to target higher risk. We audit and do what I have just told you — there is no magic formula.
Senator Day: Is that the manner in which you come up with a percentage of how many you are to check?
Mr. Lefebvre: Yes.
Senator Forrestall: Are you suggesting that is the reason for claims that the Port of Halifax was a target of preferred opportunity for the safe movement of drugs? Did that not change the number of containers that you might want to or wish to have looked at? Did you change the number? Do you recall the kicking we got from our dear friends south of the border? Some people, and not they alone, said we were a preferred port for such activities.
Mr. Lefebvre: Comments are made. I will add one comment to answer the question.
Senator Forrestall: I would appreciate your answering his question, but I really wish you would answer mine as well. I come from Halifax, and it is not very comfortable walking around with that kind of charge hanging over your shoulders.
Mr. Lefebvre: We examined 2 per cent to 3 per cent of containers last year.
Senator Forrestall: I asked you a question about the specific charge about the Port of Halifax. Did that cause you to change the percentage you were going to look at?
Mr. Lefebvre: Our percentages do not change based on the reports made, unless they are substantiated; however, yes, if we have substantiated information we will adjust our way of operation and our resources.
Senator Forrestall: Do you dismiss that charge? I hope that is what you are doing because I welcome that.
Mr. Wright: It is an important point in terms of where you are going on the targeting side. We have a fixed overall budget, and we roll that out with accountability contracts for results. There is an expected target of inspections within that framework. We do not have everyone across the board doing 2 per cent to 3 per cent. We do re-allocate resources and activity toward where the higher risks are, not based on what someone says but when we have reason to substantiate a concern in that area. That is a process that Mr. Lefebvre's team manages on an annual basis.
We will be able to manage it better. We have exciting new tools, machines that permit us to do a higher inspection, and we can move machines to where there is a concern. We will be more agile. However, we are a large organization; when we set the objectives for each port, we set them at the start of the year and measure results against those standards at the end of year.
Senator Day: If nothing changed in terms of risk analysis from one year to the next in the Port of St. John, for example, and in the first year you checked 3 per cent and only found one container in all those you tested, would you test the same percentage the next year?
Mr. Wright: You would delegate resources to a higher-risk area, but I do not know.
Mr. Lefebvre: That is basically it.
Mr. Wright: We do not only look at efforts; we look at results.
Senator Meighen: Leave resources aside for a moment. Has there been any statistical work done, or do you have any evidence in that area to suggest that — if you take Senator Day's example — if you did 3 per cent and caught one container, if you did 6 per cent would you expect to catch two
Mr. Lefebvre: May I try another way to explain this. This is guided by the principle of diminishing return. Every day, when the shipments arrive, we establish our targets based on criteria that we have agreed to ahead of time that are indicative of some potential risk. Two per cent or 3 per cent is on the basis of knowing through experience that if you examine 12 per cent you will find nothing past the first few high-risk containers.
We are guided. If there were constant hits on containers, we would increase the resources. That is not the case. When we say 2 per cent or 3 per cent, it is because the level of hits on that 2 per cent or 3 per cent is very small.
Senator Day: What percentage?
Mr. Lefebvre: I do not have it for Halifax, but in general it varies. It varies at airports, on people, in containers. The number of hits is not approaching a high percentage of the containers we examine; it is a low percentage.
Mr. Wright: That is why, senators, the most vital ingredient is not to do random checks but to make informed choices about what to look at. That is why the advance information is important. We can be more sophisticated in using the 3 per cent to pay substantially more dividends. That is what we are striving to do, and that is where we see the biggest payoff. Beyond that, there are areas where you should be increasing your overall level of inspection, but it is more appropriate to invest in the up-front thinking of what is best to look at.
Senator Day: It is subjective. There is no objective methodology here, as I understand it. You have some experience, but nothing in writing or objective standards?
Mr. Wright: I would say that our targeting is more sophisticated than that. We have confidence in our targeting, which is why we would like to do more.
Senator Day: I asked if you could produce something to help us have confidence, and it can be in abstract form. Are you able to give us something in writing?
Mr. Lefebvre: I can assure you that we examine every container or person where we have reason to believe there is any significant risk. We will do 100 per cent examination of those.
Then there is the margin. When you work at the margin, you will go to diminishing returns because the indications are getting pretty weak. There is a point where you still do random checks, but you have to devote your resources elsewhere; it does not justify spending the resources. We do inspect all containers where the criteria indicate there is any significant risk.
The Chairman: There is a concern amount of discomfort in the committee on this issue, as you are noticing. We understand the focus on intelligence-based checking; if you have information, you will check it.
What we do not understand is the random checking, and in our inquiries earlier we were led to believe that the agency had not done any sensitivity testing to determine what the payoffs were. The committee would like to have some comfort in terms of the process that you are using and the fact that there has been some sensitivity testing demonstrating that as you increase the number of examinations the cost goes up and the results go down. If that is the case, then the committee probably will feel more comfortable.
Mr. Wright: Thank you for that clarification. We will undertake to provide you with something that will give you comfort, and know that we benchmark our processes and targeting with other customs organizations that have confidence in us.
Senator Day: Are you satisfied that your customs officers have adequate police support? I heard you say you do not believe in firearms for your customs officers. Are you satisfied they have adequate police support when needed, that it is there and readily accessible at airports, ports and border crossings?
Mr. Wright: Yes, sir. We have protocols at every operational centre with police to ensure we get appropriate backup. We expanded those protocols when we expanded the authorities to interdict impaired drivers because that was seen as high risk. We are engaged in providing a level of protection for Canada, and we support our officers with proper guidelines, training, tools and connections to a broader network of support.
Senator Day: Has that protocol been working well when a customs officer calls for support? Does it work well in different areas?
Mr. Wright: I think it works well; however, there are areas we wish to improve on.
Mr. Lefebvre: It is working well. It is not instantaneous everywhere, but we have good working relationships and whenever anything breaks down in communications we work on it.
Senator Day: We are going to a crossing tomorrow. Is there anything with respect to the 30-point smart borders you want us to focus on down there?
Mr. Wright: There are several things. There is nothing in place yet — and what we are looking to do in some ways is easier to see at more congested crossings like British Columbia or southern Ontario. What we have in mind is streaming low-risk travellers and low-risk trucks that are in a protocol for enhanced security; the next phase will be to look at what we can do to dedicate lanes for that low-risk stream so we can focus on the unknown. They cannot pass an operation at Lansdowne or NEXUS. Sarnia has NEXUS in operation. NEXUS is a smart card that lets you stream the low-risk traveller and low-risk trucks. Once we have reached consensus with the U.S. on common programs to stream the low risk, we can integrate that with the infrastructure. In terms of congestion, you can envisage the improvement if we had dedicated a lane to low-risk travellers. However, we are some time off before you can do more than envisage that.
Senator Meighen: I have one question, and stop me if it has been asked and answered. In terms of training of customs officers, I must confess that I was somewhat surprised that a full-time customs officer gets a nine-week course at Rigaud. First, is that correct? More important, what additional training is provided to customs officers throughout their career, in the course of a year, for example, or in the course of five years?
Mr. Lefebvre: The basic training course at Rigaud has just been revamped. It used to be 14 weeks and was book- based learning. It has now been revamped with experts in the field and senior customs people to better assess the abilities of a customs officer.
The basic core training is eight weeks. It is then supplemented by mode. When the officer goes to traffic, air or marine, he or she receives one, two or three weeks of additional training, specific to the mode. If a customs officer changes mode at anytime, we will train the officer in that mode.
In addition, we provide two weeks of training for personal protection and officer powers. The purpose of that is to give officers verbal and physical training, to ensure that they are equipped to defend themselves and do their job, to use their baton and pepper spray. Also, customs officers are now arresting drunken drivers and impaired drivers. They are provided with two weeks of training in respect of that.
We have all kinds of specialty training. All customs officers are also trained on how to handle a firearm, because they have to do that. They get a half a day or a day's training in respect of that. They will have, again, specialty training in all areas where they work. We are now using long distance training to upgrade them on the new developments, something about which they must be made aware. As the commissioner mentioned, as others in the agency, we are spending a good 6 per cent of our budget to keep them abreast of developments.
Senator Meighen: Have you made any changes to the student training?
Mr. Lefebvre: The student training was slightly uneven until recently. We have reviewed with the management team in the field what should be the proper training. We ensure that it is consistent across the country. The training is now three weeks for students.
The Chairman: Mr. Wright and Mr. Lefebvre, on behalf of the committee, I thank you both very much for appearing before us. We found your presentation to be most instructive and useful. We look forward to our field trip tomorrow — however, it will not be the only post that we will visit in the course of our study. Thank you very much for your assistance today and for your offer to provide us with further information in writing.
The committee continued in camera.