Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 8th, 2017

[The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès (Brossard—Saint-Lambert, Lib.)), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the 43rd meeting of the public accounts committee.

We are meeting today to discuss the Auditor General's fall 2016 report on the Beyond the Border Action Plan.

We have with us from the Office of the Auditor General, Nancy Cheng, assistant auditor general, and Martin Dompierre, who was the principal in charge of the study. We have from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Gina Wilson, associate deputy minister. We have from the Treasury Board Secretariat, Brian Pagan, assistant secretary, expenditure management. From Privy Council Office, we have David McGovern, deputy national security adviser to the Prime Minister, and from the Department of Transport, we have Laureen Kinney, assistant deputy minister, safety and security, and Catherine Higgens, assistant deputy minister, programs.

Welcome to all. Thank you very much for your presence.

I would invite Mr. Pagan to start us off with his briefing notes. We are waiting for the briefing notes from Mr. McGovern to be distributed to everybody, but they're being photocopied at the moment.

The floor is yours, Mr. Pagan. Thank you.

[Brian Pagan, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee today.

I will very briefly outline how we, at the Treasury Board Secretariat, are addressing the Auditor General's recommendation regarding the Beyond the Border Action Plan, and briefly discuss our approach to managing horizontal initiatives.

Horizontal initiatives allow the government to leverage the attention, the efforts, and the resources of multiple departments and stakeholders to achieve shared outcomes. Each horizontal initiative has a lead department responsible for coordination and reporting. In addition, an interdepartmental governing committee is generally established to ensure the initiative is well managed.

While horizontal initiatives can have value, they also come with certain challenges. First, it can be difficult to ensure coordination, consistency, and validation of data collection analysis and reporting across many departments. This effort takes resources, time, and learning to work across different management structures and organizational cultures of the lead and partner departments.

Second, there can also be challenges in developing appropriate performance indicators that measure real outcomes rather than simply inputs and outputs.

Third, horizontal initiatives are often complements to existing programs and it can therefore be difficult at times to separate the results achieved with the top-up or incremental funding from that of the program's ongoing funding.

Over the years, the Treasury Board Secretariat has worked to address these challenges, and improve management and reporting on horizontal initiatives. In addition to requiring lead departments to report on progress in their performance reports to Parliament, we have set up a horizontal initiative database and, more recently, issued a guide on the management and reporting of horizontal initiatives.

In its fall 2016 report the Auditor General found that there was room for improvement in this guidance. In particular, the Auditor General recommended that TBS clarify reporting roles and responsibilities, clarify guidance for lead and partner departments with respect to reporting a consolidated view of progress, and clarify the requirements of a financial costing framework for horizontal initiatives.

We fully support these recommendations.

As an initial step in responding to the recommendation of the Auditor General, we have implemented a requirement for the 2017-18 departmental plans that requires departments to report on the total spending of each horizontal initiative. This will help to provide a consolidated view of the progress made.

We are also leveraging the new Treasury Board policy on results that came into effect in summer 2016 to clarify results expectations of programs and improve the quality of program outcomes and performance indicators.

This will allow the secretariat to improve its monitoring function to better track performance and costing information of horizontal initiatives. This approach will also allow us to integrate the horizontal initiatives database with the TBS information base tool, and if you don't know that tool, I commend it to you.

In this way, we expect to present information in a clearer, easier to navigate format that would have the dual effect of increasing accessibility to horizontal information and improving reporting on progress results and costs to Canadians and parliamentarians.

Finally, the Treasury Board Secretariat is reviewing the guide on the management and reporting of horizontal initiatives that was promulgated in 2014 and we are working with departments and agencies to identify critical areas that require improved instruments and guidance. We plan on completing modifications to this guidance this calendar year.

This concludes my brief overview of our progress in managing and reporting on horizontal initiatives, and the steps we are putting in place to improve the quality and transparency of information in response to the Auditor General's recommendation.

Following additional introductory remarks from my colleagues, I'd be happy to address any questions you have on TBS's role in horizontal initiatives.

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

Thank you, Mr. Pagan.

Now we go to Mr. McGovern from the Privy Council.

[David McGovern, Deputy National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Office of the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Privy Council Office]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.

My name is David McGovern. I am the deputy national security adviser to the Prime Minister. However, I am here today in my previous role as senior adviser to the Privy Council Office responsible for the border action plan implementation from May 2014 until January 2015, when I was named the deputy national security adviser.

After my appointment, I continued to work on the Beyond the Border initiative while we were transitioning toward the current government.

In the Beyond the Border Action Plan of 2011, over 30 commitments were made to improve security and expedite legitimate movement of people, goods and services across the border.

Canada and the United States have a long-standing history of co-operation along our shared border, recognizing that we are each other's closest ally and most important security and economic partner. Included in this plan were two specific commitments that I wish to draw to your attention to, related to implementation and oversight. Responsibility for ensuring inter-agency coordination rested with the Prime Minister and the President, and their respective officials.

In Canada, this responsibility was led by the special adviser and a specially created small team in the Privy Council Office. This approach was mirrored in the United States, where it was led by a senior official in the National Security Council in the White House. The joint leads established an inter-agency “beyond the border” working group called the executive steering committee, comprising executive heads or associates from relevant departments and agencies that were implicated in the action plan.

The executive steering committee was also tasked with reporting on implementation of the action plan through the publication of an annual joint Canada-U.S. implementation report. Four such joint implementation reports were released. These documents describe progress in meeting the action plan commitments. Like all key beyond the border documents, they are housed on Canadian and U.S. government websites.

The Executive Steering Committee met five times, the last time being in October 2016.

In Canada, the Committee of Deputy Ministers on Borders was established to complement the work of the Executive Steering committee. The committee of deputy ministers was chaired by the special advisor and made up of deputy ministers or associate deputy ministers from Global Affairs Canada, Public Safety Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, Transport Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Industry Canada, and other departments and agencies as needed.

The committee of deputy ministers was established to discuss implementation issues, report on progress, identify stakeholder concerns, solve problems and, at a later stage, consider issues related to planning for the 2015 transition.

The deputy ministers' borders committee was also supported by a shadow assistant deputy minister steering committee, which was chaired by the border implementation team's assistant secretary. PCO received temporary funding in 2012 through the beyond the border initiative to support a small secretariat. This secretariat has since been wound down throughout 2016.

By the time the election was called in 2015, a large majority of the initiatives had either been completed or were on track. Of the issues that were not yet completed or were experiencing challenges, two were considered key from both a Canadian and a U.S. perspective, namely entry-exit and pre-clearance.

In March 2016, several key deliverables were announced at the Prime Minister Trudeau and President Obama's summit, including co-operation on issues that affect our shared border. The two leaders reinforced their intentions to bring into force the Canada-U.S. agreement on land, rail, marine, and air transport pre-clearance.

Building on more than 60 years of pre-clearance co-operation, the new agreement will further enhance both countries' mutual security and facilitate low-risk cross-border movement in all modes of travel. The two countries also agreed to explore the conditions necessary for cargo pre-clearance and to identify opportunities to pilot this approach. Both countries also committed to fully implement a system to exchange basic biographic entry information at the land border. This builds on the process already in place for third-country nationals, and will allow Canada and the U.S. to enhance border security in an effective and responsible way.

This will be done in a manner that respects our respective constitutional and legal frameworks, and protects our citizens' right to privacy.

The legislative provisions related to entry and exit, in this case Bill C-21, were tabled in the House of Commons on June 15, 2016, and are currently awaiting second reading.

The legislative provisions related to preclearance, in this case Bill C-23, were tabled on June 17, 2016. They are also awaiting second reading. President Obama signed the necessary U.S. legislative provisions for the entry into force of the Pre-clearance Agreement on December 16, 2016.

Canada and the U.S. intend to continue our robust relationship. Prime Minister Trudeau has committed the Canadian government to improving relations with the U.S., and to work to make substantial progress on reducing impediments to trade and commerce between our two countries, including by improving border infrastructure and security, streamlining cargo inspection, and facilitating the movement of people.

Thank you very much. I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.

From the Department of Transport, we'll start with Ms. Kinney, and then we'll go to Ms. Higgens.

Thank you very much.

[Laureen Kinney, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today.

My name is Laureen Kinney, and I am the assistant deputy minister for safety and security at Transport Canada.

Today on the beyond the border action plan, I will be speaking specifically to initiative six, which was the passenger baggage screening initiative of the mutual recognition of outbound checked baggage.

As part of the beyond the border action plan, Canada has deployed new baggage screening technology, certified by the United States, at Canada's eight airports with pre-clearance services. This has enabled the U.S. to gradually lift the requirement to rescreen baggage from these airports prior to departure on a connecting flight from a U.S. airport. The new technology has been installed and is operational at all eight airports. At this time, the United States has lifted its rescreening requirement at six out of the eight airports, and the technology at the remaining two airports is in the final stages of being approved.

In regard to the benefits of this initiative, the elimination of the rescreening requirement is directly in line with the beyond the border action plan principle of screen once, accept twice. It increases security harmonization between Canada and the United States, and results in cost savings, simpler operations, and a better traveller experience. Airlines have already reported a reduction in complaints from mishandled bags and less complexity in arrival procedures. The reduction in the amount of checked baggage that must be rescreened has also led to savings, both for airlines operating in the United States and the Transportation Security Administration. The modernization of screening technology has also enhanced security at Canadian airports by upgrading previously operational screening equipment that was nearing the end of its life cycle.

In response to the Auditor General's recommendations in the fall 2016 report, Transport Canada and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority have developed new performance indicators on the security benefits of the initiative and are thus better able to track these benefits, as of December 2016.

In conclusion, ultimately we continue to seek better security screening by leveraging new technologies and new methods that enable shorter connection times and a more efficient experience for the traveller at the same time.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

Now, Ms. Higgens, the floor is yours.

[Catherine Higgens, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs, Department of Transport]

Madam Chair and committee members, good afternoon.

I am pleased to be here today to speak about the Beyond the Border Action Plan and what we are doing at Transport Canada to address concerns raised in the Auditor General's report.

In 2011, Canada and the United States issued the Beyond the Border Action Plan, which included 34 initiatives aimed at making the Canada-U.S. border more efficient, safe, and secure.

My focus today is on one of these initiatives, namely deploying wait-time technology at the border. Under the beyond the border action plan, Canada and the United States committed to install border wait-time measurement solutions at top, high-priority land border crossings. The goal was to provide real-time information to drivers on border wait times. This information allows travellers and commercial drivers to make informed decisions about when and where to cross the border.

Border wait-time technology has been installed and is operational on both sides of the border at seven crossings. There are four between British Columbia and Washington State, two between Ontario and New York State, and one between Ontario and Michigan.

The audit report recommended that Transport Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency work together to assess the benefits of the existing border wait-time technology and to develop performance indicators to measure benefits of completed and ongoing border technology installations. Both departments agreed with the recommendations and committed to working together to address them. We recognize the importance of accurate and reliable border wait-time data at border crossings.

Transport Canada developed a management action plan in consultation with the Canada Border Services Agency that included establishing a working group to address the recommendations to develop performance indicators and to assess the benefits of the border wait-time technology.

I'm pleased to inform you that we have established the working group. It was formed in December 2016 and is made up of staff from Transport Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency. The working group met in January and analysis work is under way to develop the performance indicators. These indicators are a set of measurable values that demonstrate how effectively the border wait-time technologies are performing.

We intend to have performance indicators developed by March of this year, which would allow us to then assess the benefits of the existing border wait-time technology by July of 2017.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you again for hearing us today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have on the deployment of border wait-time technology.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Higgens.

It's now time to give the floor to my colleagues.

Mr. Lefebvre, you have seven minutes.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Last Monday, we heard from other officials from your department, and today we have a new group. The issues are the same: the safety of our border and trade with our neighbours, the United States.

I find it commendable that all these efforts have been made, in Canada and by our colleagues in the United States, to focus on these very important issues. Having said that, as the Auditor General's report indicates, there is still work to be done to improve the way we evaluate all the actions plans you have implemented.

I have a few questions for each group. I will start with the officials from Transport Canada.

I would like to draw your attention to the recommendation at point 1.40 of the Auditor General's report. I have the English version in front of me.

Public Safety Canada, CBSA, RCMP, and Transport Canada should “develop performance indicators that clearly measure the security benefits of the initiatives that they are responsible for, and measure and report accurate and reliable results against baselines and targets to be able to assess the security benefits achieved.”

You said you that you agreed with this and that Transport Canada would work with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to develop a performance indicator that measures the security benefits of the passengers' checked baggage screening initiative, including the establishment of a baseline for measuring and reporting of results, and this action would be completed no later than January 31, 2017.

Am I wrong in saying that what you just presented to us is about the working group of December 2016, which you formed, and the performance indicators developed for March 2017 on border wait-time technology? This is the same thing; it has just been extended by a few months, right? Basically, you responded to the Auditor General that you would be providing this by January, so right now you don't have this. Am I correct?

[Laureen Kinney]

In terms of the checked baggage and mutual recognition, the date was January 31 to complete the recommendations. They are fully complete. We have established two measurement indicators and we have established baselines, and they are fully complete.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Can we have a copy of those?

[Laureen Kinney]

Can I follow up with the department on that?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Oh yes, for sure, please.

What measures did you put in place to achieve these results?

[Laureen Kinney]

The two measures that we looked at were focused on the security, because the original measures had been focused on facilitation, as was noted in the Auditor General's report. By definition the equipment is more secure because it does a better job of detection. The first measure selected was the number of bags or the percentage of bags that were screened with the new technology, out of the bags at those airports that were going to the U.S.

The second measurement was the reliability of the technology, which is clearly important in demonstrating the security value.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

That's interesting. Who decides on the technology? Obviously within the Department of Transport you try it out and you test it, I'm assuming. How do you make that decision?

[Laureen Kinney]

Transport Canada has a regulatory role in setting the expectations for technology like this and other technology used at airports and in the aviation system. We work with our international colleagues to set standards and to recognize different types of equipment that meet those standards so that various parties can purchase equipment that meets the standards.

In this particular case the equipment was selected to meet both the U.S. standards and acceptable standards in Canada so that mutual recognition could be achieved.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

All right. That's interesting.

I would assume, then, that the U.S. would have the same technology, the same equipment, that we have?

[Laureen Kinney]

That was what it was based on at the time. I don't know 100% what their current technology complement is.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

All right. Thank you for that.

With respect to the Treasury Board, we've talked a lot about data and collecting data and making sure that consistent data is being collected across all departments and all agencies within the government. I commend you on your efforts in this horizontal initiative.

What other horizontal initiatives have been taking place in other departments and agencies? Have you done this in all departments, or has it been piecemeal, one by one, and you've gone through each one to verify with Treasury Board that you're implementing it?

[Brian Pagan]

The concept of horizontal initiatives and managing in a more horizontal way is not a new phenomenon for us here in the government. In many respects, all programming in one form or another requires the leveraging of efforts and expertise across the public service.

The challenge for us is that resources are allocated vertically. They're allocated to ministers, ministers are accountable to Parliament, and departments are responsible for implementing programs.

In 2003 the Auditor General helped shed some light on the need to develop a more fulsome view of the way in which we work horizontally by identifying for the first time in departmental performance reports the need to distinguish between a vertical program in a department and something that is happening formally across the public service. Since that time, we have been on a continuous journey of improvement in terms of identifying the governance structures, the reporting mechanisms, and the ways in which to allocate resources and report on results.

At this time there are 29 initiatives across the government that are designated as formal horizontal initiatives.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I have only a minute left, but that's what I wanted to hear. I thank you for that, because I'm assuming that may be a theme we will be seeing here at the public accounts committee with the Treasury Board with regard to other departments and how they are following this horizontal model.

My last point, Madam Chair, is about Public Safety. I raised this on Monday, and I'll do it again.

On Monday, Mr. Ferguson, the Auditor General, said, at paragraph 12, that they had examined how progress of the action plan was reported and whether this reporting was complete and accurate, stating, “Overall, we found that in the 2014-15 Report on the Beyond the Border Action Plan Horizontal Initiative...Public Safety Canada provided an incomplete and inaccurate picture of progress and costs.”

He goes on to say:

As an example, for the initiative on deploying border wait-time technology, the report stated that seven crossings had been completed. The report did not mention that six crossings had been completed years before the Action Plan was released. For the Shiprider initiative, the report did not mention that the second main commitment to expand pilot projects on land had not been started, or that there were no plans to pursue them. For the initiative on enhancing benefits to the trusted trader programs, the report stated that there were 83 new members in the 2014-15 fiscal year, but it did not mention that the long-term goal was to attract 1,700 new members.

In light of the discrepancies between what was in the report and what should have been in the report, can you explain to us why these inaccuracies were there?

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

As quickly as possible, please, Ms. Wilson.

[Gina Wilson, Associate Deputy Minister, Public Safety Canada, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Those specific discrepancies...?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Are these just certain examples, or is this a theme that recurs and goes under the radar?