Public Accounts Committee on May 26th, 2009

[Guylaine Dansereau]

Yes, we could do that.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

What has the impact been of the delay in 472,995 cases, in the month of April 2009, on the administration of justice, hiring in the public service and in the private sector, granting citizenship, etc.? There seem to be several problems.

As members of Parliament, we often have many citizens coming to speak to us about this issue. This also disturbs the hiring process and the functioning of the legal system.

Have you done an impact analysis in terms of the daily lives of people or businesses, or even the public service?

[Guylaine Dansereau]

We haven't done an impact analysis. The RCMP is not responsible for security issues, that falls under the department. We're only responsible for verifying criminal records.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I understand that you wouldn't be aware of the impact on the whole of the process, but perhaps Privy Council could give us an analysis of the situation?

[Marie-Lucie Morin]

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to answer that question either, Ms. Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I am rather severe aren't I? I have another question about the Canada Border Services Agency, whose officials are absent today. There's a recommendation from the Auditor General in point 1.82 that involves improvements.

In light of the progress you have made in your exchanges with the agency, what is the current situation with respect the reliability of intelligence that this agency has?

[Marie-Lucie Morin]

Once again, I cannot answer that question. We could ask the agency to provide you with a written answer, Ms. Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. Before we go to the next witness, there were some issues.... They were going to get back to you on the vacancy rate within two weeks. Is that fine, Madame? Okay.

Mr. Christopherson, you have seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for your attendance today. It's much appreciated.

I have to confess to being a little confused, only because of the number of times memoranda and information-sharing were mentioned.

I will get to that, but I want to ask one straight-up question. It stems from a question asked by one of my colleagues. The Auditor General has noted that Transport Canada does not see its role as preventing criminal organizations from infiltrating airports. There were a lot of problems with information-sharing.

My question is this. If someone gets through and ultimately gets a security clearance to work in an airport, and it's found that they shouldn't have gotten the clearance, for whatever reason, who is responsible? Is it the RCMP or is it Transport Canada?

[Louis Ranger]

It is Transport Canada. If the information was provided to Transport, we act immediately. If the RCMP has new information, they will provide it to us and we will yank the person out immediately. That's how it works.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, but if there was a mistake--we're all human--that mistake is yours, technically, but the RCMP, on analysis....

[Louis Ranger]

We're on the front line. We deliver the clearance. We seek information from the RCMP, CSIS, and Citizenship and Immigration. But we are responsible for issuing the clearance based on the information we have. If we have more information, if a mistake was made, we will act accordingly. We will notify the individual that new information has become available that has forced us to withdraw the clearance.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That means that this statement is no longer accurate. You now accept your role as having that responsibility.

[Louis Ranger]

I'm not sure what statement you are referring to.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It is the one in the Auditor General's report we just heard 20 minutes ago, on page 3, paragraph....

[Marc Grégoire, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport]

If I may, I think it's important to note here that your question is very good in that every system has some gaps and some inherent risks. This is why we have a multi-layered approach to security. We have other systems in place.

For instance, we screen non-passengers or workers when they go to work. The government just gave additional money, in its latest budget, to do more screening of workers. We're going to create new areas around the apron to do further screening. We have established the restricted area identification card, which is a further security enhancement. The cards contain biometric information of all the workers in the restricted areas. All these together comprise the security net. We can't rely on any one of those systems, but all of them together form the security net.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate that, but my question was a simple one. The statement was made by the Auditor General based on the information she had at the time. Now I'm hearing you taking responsibility. I'm just trying to determine whether you have now changed your position.

I see that the Auditor General is trying to get in, so I'll offer her the floor.

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, if I could, when we did the audit, Transport officials referred to their authority with respect to unlawful interference with civil aviation, and that has been interpreted to mean physical threat to aircraft and passengers, not criminal activity within an airport. It is a physical threat to aircraft. I note that the deputy uses the same terminology in his statement in talking about unlawful interference with civil aviation.

I think this is a very important point for the committee to clarify: the interpretation of the legal authorities that have been given to Transport Canada in this regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Ranger.

[Louis Ranger]

I understand your question better. We're not involved in the control of narcotics or that kind of thing. Our mandate is quite clearly defined in the Aeronautics Act. It relates to making regulations respecting prevention of unlawful interference with civil aviation. We're always ready and more than happy to help other processes deal with the broader issues, but we deal strictly with unlawful interference with civil aviation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Again, I was mentioning the different pieces. On page 2 of the audit, it reads, “In addition, the memorandum of understanding between the RCMP and Transport Canada regarding information sharing was terminated by the RCMP....”

Is that the same issue, same document? Because I also note, looking at page 11, paragraph 1.21, that it says, “These national security units were not always functioning well. For example, not all relevant agencies were contributing staff to INSAC, and a memorandum of understanding between the RCMP and CSIS to share information had expired.” That's why I'm talking about multiple agreements and sharing.

Can you help me understand this? Is that taken care of? Do you now have an agreement with CSIS?

[Louis Ranger]

I can clarify my part. I have a mandate under the Aeronautics Act. In delivering that mandate, we work with the RCMP. To make it clear, we have an MOU that defines our relationship.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right. So I guess my question would be to the RCMP representatives, because it's their memorandum of understanding that expired.

Where are we on that one, sir?

[D/Commr Tim Killam]

You're talking about two MOUs. The one with CSIS was with regard to conducting national security investigations.

I want to make it very clear that the RCMP does not do intelligence investigations. It does criminal investigations. We get all our intelligence from CSIS. CSIS is the front end, and we would be passed over. The memorandum of understanding is in how we interact at that point of passing over.