Finance Committee on May 17th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I want to clarify a couple of points. First, I want to know about the relationship of CBSA to the framework. My understanding is they're not involved in the framework agreement. Can one or both of you clarify the relationship with CBSA?

[Stephen Bolton]

CBSA is not involved in this. They're not involved in the framework agreement, nor in the Shiprider framework agreement. CBSA's mandate is primarily at the ports of entry. Given the nature of the waterways, it's more between the ports of entry. So the mandate falls more to the RCMP and to provincial police forces.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Oliver?

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

I would just add that the framework agreement specifies from a Canadian perspective that members of the RCMP and our police officers are empowered under provincial legislation. There is no other federal law enforcement. As a consequence, CBSA would not fall under the framework agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Is there any consideration being given to the land component—adding a land component, or working on a land component agreement? Is there any need to do so in this area?

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

Perhaps I could speak to that.

I think what we've done with the Shiprider framework agreement.... It was one of the first times we tried this innovative law enforcement practice along the Canada-U.S. border, so we were mindful of concerns that may have been raised around sovereignty and so forth. To mitigate that, and to test the concept, the first deployment of this was in the maritime environment, which is a very clearly defined boundary. We limited it to the U.S. Coast Guard and the RCMP in order to....

We're talking about the integration of operational cultures, operational standard procedures, training and so forth. It was tested, it was evaluated, it was improved, and then it was tested and evaluated to the point that both governments saw value in this as an innovative law enforcement practice that would increase the crime-fighting capability of both Canadian and U.S. law enforcement entities.

Now, based on the lessons learned from Shiprider, there is a commitment in the beyond the border action plan to follow how Shiprider evolved and bring it to the land environment and test it there as well. In the Beyond the Border action plan a commitment is made by the governments of Canada and the U.S. in terms of testing this concept in the land environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think that answers a previous question with respect to in general the relationship with the budget. You mentioned the Beyond the Border action plan, but the action plan on perimeter security and economic competitiveness.... I mean, this is very much related. It's very much under the umbrella of that whole action plan. Or that's my understanding. Is that correct?

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

Precisely.

The action plan, under the elements of cross-border law enforcement, includes two very key components. One is the regularization of Shiprider. One of the commitments the governments of Canada and the U.S. have made is with regard to ratifying Shiprider and deploying these operations. The second element is building on the lessons learned from Shiprider and the integrated border enforcement teams to test this concept in the land environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Those are all the questions I have.

Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome.

We visited Windsor, as a committee, and we had discussions with Canada Border Services Agency about chases, at times, that occur across the bridge.

Just so I understand clearly, the things that are being considered in the future would be a joint force that would have the capacity to go past the gates of the bridge, for instance, into Canada if they were in pursuit?

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

I don't think the concept is that clean.

I think what we have to look at, particularly with respect to Shiprider.... We know what it does; we've deployed it and we know how it works.

In Shiprider, it's a planned operation, in most cases, where officers from both countries are cross-designated and they are co-crewed. A key element of the Shiprider framework agreement in the legislation itself is that this has to be an integrated maritime law enforcement operation on a jointly crewed vessel, with cross-designated officers who have received special training. It is very much built on the fact that sovereignty still applies.

When in Canada, Canadian laws still apply; it's just that the U.S. officers are now acting in Canada under the direction of Canadian officers, and they're essentially backup to the Canadian officers. If there's a situation where Canadian officers are in U.S. territory, they're actually acting as U.S. officers, supporting the U.S. lead law enforcement agency.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I would suspect that where it's pre-planned, if they came to the shoreline, there would already be other police force personnel there from the host country.

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

Correct. And that is why, if you look at the legislation, it confines us to the maritime environment. The framework agreement specifies that there are only rare instances when a pursuit can be continued on land.

That might be a situation where surveillance commenced in the United States, the vessel was followed into Canadian waters, it hit the shore, and the suspect fled. Then the Shiprider officers would have the authority, in those very rare instances, to continue the pursuit on land, but they must coordinate with the on-land or Canadian resources.

Now, based on the construct that we have, where you have three RCMP officers and one U.S. Coast Guard officer, the decision may be made by the lead Canadian officer that the U.S. Coast Guard officer stays with the vessel and the RCMP officers, who have full authority in Canada, would continue with the foot chase.

Those are things that are being worked out in the important part, which is the training, where these scenarios are actually practised time and time again for these officers so that it becomes ingrained in how they do business when they work together.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

You spoke about surveillance of a suspect. Quite often that is aerial surveillance. At least from my understanding, the U.S. side of the border has a lot more sophisticated equipment available, both manned and unmanned. Some people have some concerns about privacy rights here in Canada relative to that.

What would you expect the implications of the proposed provisions of this act to be for the use of aerial support?

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

The framework agreement provides for the opportunity for air officers or air observers to be cross-designated. I think the important element to understand about this aerial support—and it is only support, since they are not involved in direct law enforcement—is that they essentially become the eye in the sky for the vessels that are on the water.

If you look at certain areas along the border, there are a number of small islands where suspects could easily hide and fall out of the line of sight of a vessel working on the water. Having aerial support would provide the opportunity for the air observer to direct officers to wherever the suspect has fled.

Another important element is that any operation conducted in Canada must be under the direction of a Canadian officer and consistent with a constitutional framework in Canada as well as with the legal requirements in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have thirty seconds.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

A natural follow-up question for me would be whether you could envision a case in which a drone was used to fly over Canadian land.

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

At this point we know that customs and border protection has a drone along the Canada-U.S. border. At this point we haven't worked that type of equipment or technology into our concept of operations. However, for the future, we are always looking to leverage technology, as we are on the Canadian side exploiting technology in order to enhance the ability of our finite resources to achieve the best outcome possible. I think we still have to study what the future might bring, but at this point that type of concept is not worked into our concept of operations.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'd be a little concerned about considering sovereignty issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Mai, go ahead, please.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Oliver, you mentioned that there's a lot of contraband and commerce in marijuana from Canada going to the U.S. Is that mostly through water crossings? If you look at the proportion of water versus land or air, do you have an idea?

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

I don't think we've broken it down into those very fine extremes. What I can say is that smugglers are very quick to respond to operational or law enforcement posture. Sometimes because of our processes and procedures we're not so quick to respond, so it's easy for smugglers to modify. They may smuggle by land today and they may smuggle by water tomorrow. They are even using aircraft—general aviation or smaller aircraft.

I think the benefit of a tool like Shiprider is that it gives us that flexibility that removes the border as a barrier and allows us to have greater operational flexibility in terms of how we deliver law enforcement services along the Canada-U.S. border.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Coming back to marijuana, do you have an idea of the quantity or the amount of smuggling being done?

[C/Supt Joe Oliver]

That is very difficult to estimate, because unfortunately organized crime doesn't file annual returns as to what they've smuggled. We do keep statistics on our interceptions and on the increase and decrease of seizures. I don't have a number for overall volumes, but when you compare to the overall seizures that are directed towards the United States, the proportion of marijuana being smuggled into the United States is a fraction of what is produced domestically in the U.S. or smuggled across their southern border.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Do you have any idea of what fraction that is?