Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 6th, 2017

[John Ossowski]

As I said earlier, along with our partners in the United States, our initial focus has been just to get the projects going and get them lined up. Obviously there are big differences in terms of our legislative procedures and our whole legislative frameworks. Getting that lined up is quite different.

A good case in point, for example, is pre-clearance. Just before Christmas, they unanimously passed their pre-clearance legislation. Ours is before the House. It's a bit of a stepwise approach as we move forward on these larger framework issues, but not necessarily at the very detailed performance indicator level.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Have there been any updates? I believe the Auditor General made reference to a memorandum of understanding between us and the U.S., and also one with the European Union. Do we have any recent update on where we are with that? I understand that financially there doesn't appear to be a holdup. There appears to be a significant amount of money put towards this program that still hasn't been used. However, it appears that it's the memorandum of understanding that is holding the U.S. back from continuing to implement the program. Is there any progress on that?

[John Ossowski]

Are you referring to pre-clearance or entry/exit?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Yes.

[John Ossowski]

In terms of pre-clearance, we started with some pilots that we did just to test some assumptions in terms of how this would work out operationally at a more detailed level. Now we're waiting for the broader legislative framework to be established because, as you're aware, it's a reciprocal agreement in terms of officer powers, and that has to be constitutionally correct in both countries. That's why we need the legislative framework in terms of full implementation.

I'm not sure if you'd like to add to that, Martin.

[Malcolm Brown]

I think your point about agreements with the EU is on interactive passenger PNR, which is a different initiative. Our colleagues can lay out the status of those negotiations.

[Martin Bolduc]

We have negotiated a new PNR agreement with the European Union. This has been brought before the courts by some of the members. We're still awaiting the decision of the courts as to whether it meets the privacy legislation in the EU.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I believe I have 10 seconds, Chair. I'll forfeit them.

[The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Yes. Thank you so much.

We now have Mr. Chen for five minutes. Thank you.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you very much.

First, I would like to thank the departments and agencies, as well as the Auditor General, for being here today at our committee, and in particular for the work they do on behalf of Canadians, to serve Canadians and to ensure that our country's borders are well protected.

The big win that I see coming out of the beyond the border initiative is what I heard underscored by one of the speakers today, that we are really working towards building and strengthening the co-operation between Canada and the U.S. It's incredibly important for us to continue to strengthen that co-operation, to build on the work that our two countries do, and to ensure that open communication is always there, that we are breaking down the walls through dialogue and through working together for our shared interest, be it mutual security or the economic benefit of working closely together.

In the Auditor General's report, we've talked about a number of areas that need improvement, and in light of what we've talked about today, I want to really underscore how I read the comments that were made by the Auditor General today. He said very clearly that we could not show how security has improved. That is not to say that security has not improved. The Auditor General said that there are no reliable performance indicators. That is not to say that there aren't some that are working and indicating performance.

I want to continue on what my colleague Ms. Shanahan referred to in terms of the cross-co-operation between the departments and agencies. I feel that there are consultative processes that are occurring and performance indicators that are being developed, and my big worry is that what is missing is a big-picture overall strategy. To me, those performance indicators are built upon the strategic goals of improving the way our businesses are able to work across borders, improving the flow of travellers across the 49th parallel.

My question is for the departments and agencies. Do you feel that you are left working in silos? Do you feel there is a better way? I know we are meeting with Treasury Board Secretariat folks in the coming weeks. Can you comment on the challenges you face with respect to that connectedness that needs to happen in order for all of us to ensure that those goals are met? I leave it open to anyone.

[Malcolm Brown]

I'll take a stab at it. I think you're asking a pretty fundamental question. We work in a Westminster model, where ministers are accountable to the House, appropriately, and accounting officers to parliamentarians, for the operation of their individual departments. Cutting across that is this horizontal initiative, and how you pull those two together. I think it is a very complicated question. I do think that if you were to ask any of the people at this table, they would say we are all getting better at working horizontally. There is now almost no issue that doesn't have at least some degree of.... You're bumping up against somebody, and the days of ignoring them are over. You actually have to find a way to work collaboratively.

For the purposes of things like the work of the Auditor General and informing Canadians about these things, I do think these are big challenges, and this report demonstrates where some of the gaps are. I don't think it's a lack of will. It's developing the muscles and the tools to be able to do it effectively, and you're seeing the sausage being made, if I could put it that way. It isn't always pretty.

[The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

You have 10 seconds left.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Hoback, you have five minutes. Thank you.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Chen, I think you pointed out correctly that if you don't have the indicators, you can't see whether it was effective or not. You really just don't know; you don't have the answers. That leads to my first question.

What were you using for decision-making indicators in that scenario? If you didn't have the appropriate models in place, how did you know a management decision should be undertaken or not? What would you utilize?

[Malcolm Brown]

I can take a stab at that.

If you're really asking why these initiatives were selected, it was a product of a negotiation between Canada and the United States at the time, led by the highest levels of both governments. Frankly, listening to stakeholders, a lot of consultation done at the time in terms of hearing from stakeholders and the private sector, in terms of the kinds of things we would be interested in seeing—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So these stakeholders are happy with what they're seeing so far? They're involved in the process then of implementing some of—

[Malcolm Brown]

I think a good example is what John has given you, a single window. It's a good idea in concept, something they were looking for. The implementation of it has been done. The take-up hasn't. Why? I think our friends at CBSA have described it.

I think in other instances, the system is working, and the challenge is demonstrating how it's working more effectively. Certainly, I think in the interactions we've had with most stakeholders, they are generally pleased that the beyond the border action plan was agreed to, and it has been, and it's being implemented.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It's fair to say then that the stakeholders are appreciating the general direction you're going in. The Auditor General is signalling some value issues here for sure. I look at it, and one of my concerns right off the bat is that I see an estimate of $1.1 billion to be spent, and only $585 million being spent. Is that because there's more time to implement the program or because you really didn't have an idea of how much you were going to require and you just didn't know where to pull that number from in the air to put it into place?

[Malcolm Brown]

Generally, it was the time to implementation. These are well-costed and go through the process of Treasury Board, etc. You can ask colleagues—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

But it is the first time you've broken down the silo, so I can understand if there is discrepancy. I wouldn't expect it to be bang on the dollar, but—

[Malcolm Brown]

It's pretty close. The delay in the implementation of things that are outside the scope of a particular department, or even the initiative across the board because of questions like... My colleague was talking about pre-clearance. There's been a delay there in part because of complicated issues around allowing officers to work in both countries, for example, and the requirement for legislation.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Legislation holds you back, and then once that's in place, you can move forward.

Is it fair to say the U.S. outcomes on this project are equal to the Canadian outcomes and what we want to see at the end of the day?

[Malcolm Brown]

I wouldn't want to hazard a guess on their behalf.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

When you start looking at these models now and you're putting them in place to look at the effectiveness of the programs you're now offering, are you doing this in such a way that you can make those management decisions? Are we doing it in such a way that it just allows the Auditor General to feel comfortable with what you're doing? Can it be the same, or are they different?

[Malcolm Brown]

I'll speak for myself.

We make management decisions all the time. Any additional information that you can bring to the conversation that gives you a better-informed decision, you're making a better—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

But if you're spending a pile of money to create a model that's only satisfying one group, and you don't necessarily use that data for anything else, is that cost effective?