Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as a witness as part of your study on potential impacts of the ArriveCAN app on certain Canadian sectors.
My name is Mark Weber. I'm the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, which represents personnel working for the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency.
Regarding the matter at hand, I'll be direct. If we look at the impacts of the ArriveCAN application in terms of efficiency of operation and facilitation of cross-border travel, then there is little doubt: From the perspective of border operations, as far as border officers are concerned, the last few months have shown that ArriveCAN neither facilitates cross-border travel nor improves operational efficiency. In fact, it does exactly the opposite.
Every border officer working on the front line will tell you that the implementation of the ArriveCAN application has seen processing times skyrocket. Where a port of entry processed 60 cars per hour previously, we're now looking at about 30 cars an hour, if not less. At land borders, as far as traveller operations go, this means cars waiting for hours and sometimes even being redirected to other ports further away. At airports this means travellers piling up inside and outside of the customs area. In all locations, really, it translates into a frustrating experience for all involved.
In these scenarios, ArriveCAN is not always the only culprit, but it always does play a role in making the process more complex, especially for the traveller. While ArriveCAN was introduced to collect public health data, the tool itself was more often than not the problem.
Even more troubling is the fact that the implementation of ArriveCAN by the CBSA follows the same pattern of overreliance on automated technologies that we have seen before with the primary inspection kiosk, or the PIK machines, that you see in airports. Not only do these technologies have the effect of making the border noticeably less efficient by lengthening processing times; they also contribute to a decrease in border security, weakening the integrity and safety of our borders.
Ultimately, if the government and its agencies wish to facilitate cross-border travel along with the flow of commercial goods, then ArriveCAN is really a step in the wrong direction. Technology absolutely has its place, but it should be used to help travellers and assist officers, not hinder them. By that metric, ArriveCAN simply has not worked and does not work.
It's my hope that the union's input will assist this committee in its important work.
I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.