Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 5th, 2008

[Alain Jolicoeur]

Yes. There is a question of our legal ability to use intelligence when we make such decisions. I'll let Mr. Rigby respond.

[Stephen Rigby, Executive Vice-President, Canada Border Services Agency]

When the program was originally developed, we looked at the whole question of what information we would look at in terms of establishing the risk assessment. We did take legal advice that intelligence information would be difficult for us to use in denying applications that were put forward.

That said, however, we have, in the last little while, tried to enhance our monitoring processes so that if we do see something from an intelligence point of view, and I think our colleagues from the Auditor General's office have pointed this out in the chapter, we try to ensure that when these people are looked at in a subsequent year—so-called re-risking, as we do it—they continue to be a low risk in all other categories.

The other point I might make is that we're in the process of looking at the NEXUS program with our colleagues in the United States, and we're going to revisit the whole question from a legal point of view as to whether we can or cannot use intelligence information in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Lake, and thank you, Mr. Rigby.

Monsieur Lussier, vous avez quatre minutes.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jolicoeur, we discussed the budget and the number of employees. What is the revenue of the agency?

[Alain Jolicoeur]

The agency brings in approximately $27 billion per year.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

How do you react to the union's comments that customs officers are tax collectors and not people responsible for the security of the country?

[Alain Jolicoeur]

In addition to the balance we have to strike between the security and prosperity of Canada, we have three basic responsibilities: security, facilitating trade and collecting revenue, which is a significant responsibility. Twenty-seven billion dollars represents the amount of money it takes to fund post-secondary education in Canada. This is not a responsibility that we can abandon overnight.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

All right. Of the 9,000 drug seizures made at the border, could you break down the percentage made by canine detection, by the customs officers and by electronic detection?

[Alain Jolicoeur]

I could provide you with this information later on. I do not know the figures off by heart. Perhaps my colleagues know them.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I am particularly interested in finding out whether or not we need to improve canine detection. We have a very limited number of dogs. I would also like to know how much it costs to make 3,000 seizures using canine detection, for example? How much does it cost to run the canine detection program? Has your department done any efficiency studies of this type?

[Alain Jolicoeur]

Yes, last year we did a complete assessment of our canine detection program. The results are available on our website, but I would be pleased to share these results with you. From the standpoint of a return on investment, this is a very beneficial program. The results speak for themselves.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Do you intend to broaden the passenger list requirements to include buses, trains and cruise ships crossing our borders, as is the case for planes?

[Alain Jolicoeur]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Do you have the required organization to manage such lists? I am familiar with your registry system which keeps track of the expenditures of travellers who cross the border. It was not easy to find an individual who had travelled six months earlier, etc. Have you improved your computer system?

[Alain Jolicoeur]

Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Lussier said earlier, our risk analysis system, which will be fed by these new information sources, does not give a great deal of priority to purchases made in the United States compared to issues pertaining to drugs, weapons and terrorism. As far as that is concerned, this is not a system that will help us a great deal.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci beaucoup, monsieur Lussier.

Just to finalize that line of questioning, there was an undertaking given there by you, Mr. Jolicoeur, regarding the breakdown of drug seizures. Can you file that information with the clerk of the committee? The clerk will distribute it to all members.

[Alain Jolicoeur]

We'll do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We'd like it in two weeks. Is that sufficient time for you? Yes? Thank you very much.

Mr. Lake, you have four minutes.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'm going to continue my line of questioning from last time with Mr. Rigby, if I may.

I want to get some clarification on this pre-approval process. Someone applies for pre-approval. We identify that they're a risk through the process, but because of legal concerns we approve them anyway. That then entitles them to less monitoring when they come across the border in the future.

Is that accurate?

[Stephen Rigby]

No. The way the process works is that they essentially have to apply to both countries. Both countries pursue their own individual risk assessments. Ours is based on individual information that we seek from their applications; we establish their risk based on that.

The point has been made, I think, that the Americans will on occasion use intelligence information that is available, and they may or may not use it as part of the establishment of their risk.

In our case, the position we take, on the basis of legal advice, is that to deny something on the basis of intelligence information would not be legally defensible. That said, we have recognized that it's probably time to take another look at this, and we are going to do that.

We do, however, as a matter of course now—it's something we've implemented recently—make a note that there may have been something brought to our attention as a result of intelligence information, and when we do subsequent risk assessments, we will continue to check whether or not anything untoward has happened with regard to that member, whether or not they represent low risk in all other aspects of their membership.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

But once they have the pre-approval....

First of all, how long does the pre-approval last for?

[Stephen Rigby]

Basically, when you get a NEXUS membership, it lasts five years.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay, for five years. How much less monitoring is there, coming across the border, when you have a NEXUS membership?

[Stephen Rigby]

We re-examine the risk for each member every year.