Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 8th, 2017

[Nancy Cheng]

Sorry for the long answer.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

That's fine. I look forward to a more detailed response at another point.

I want to quickly turn to Mr. McGovern. You had a lot of comfort with the previous administration in the Canada-U.S. relationship. However, as of January 20, there is a new administration. Do you have any idea if there are ongoing discussions happening with the new administration that would give you that same level of comfort?

[David McGovern]

I think our relationship with the U.S. is evolving and growing every day. One of the by-products of beyond the border in the AG's report is that we have 16 departments and agencies in Canada that were involved in this initiative. That was matched by a dozen agencies and departments south of the border. They clear out the top layers of the senior management, but many of the contacts we have engaged with over the past three or four years on this initiative are still in place. We're talking to people on a daily basis on general matters. We're sharing information on a daily basis.

I think that beyond the border in the AG's report looked at an initiative that started in 2011. It was intended to wrap up in 2014. Some of the big showstopper initiatives, like entry-exit and pre-clearance, required more time. I'm interested in the retrospective. On going forward, you could probably ask people in question period and get a better answer.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Hardly, but thank you.

Mr. Pagan, is the cost associated with this new detailed action plan significant? Could you ballpark it for us?

[Brian Pagan]

You mean the cost associated with the delivery of the plan? Is that your question?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Yes.

[Brian Pagan]

The approvals are currently in place, if I recall correctly. It's a five-year program with a funding envelope of approximately $1.1 billion. That is based on the end-to-end business process, where there was a process of consultation identifying the needs and gaps and what incremental resources would be required to help fill those.

What we have provided to departments is the reporting mechanism by which they can report back to Parliament in a joined-up way on how that money is allocated and utilized over a five-year period.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Pagan.

Ms. Shanahan, you're next.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to come back to Mr. McGovern because I found your presentation very interesting. You kind of walked us through what was going on during those years in what we have learned is probably the biggest single horizontal initiative that our government has undertaken in conjunction with the American government. I did derive some comfort in your presentation.

I will come back to the paragraph when you say, “By the time the election was called in 2015, a large majority of the initiatives had either been completed or were on track.” Then you go on to talk about the two that were outstanding and how movement was being made subsequent to 2015, and that there is outstanding legislation.

We understand that. What we're talking about here.... I mean, it sounds like there's a level of satisfaction with how the security initiatives were completed. What is your take on the performance indicators that we're concerned about? I'm not sensing that we have a concern about how the money was spent or that the money was wasted, or any kind of impropriety there. Mostly, how do we measure security, and frankly, of most interest to me, the improvements to traveller and trade times?

We're all for security, but we also have to keep on with our daily affairs. What's your take on the performance indicators? What were you looking for?

[David McGovern]

There are a couple of things. I think it should be apparent from the testimony from Monday and today that we're in violent agreement with the Auditor General's recommendations. In many instances, the fact that we didn't have adequate performance indicators actually diminishes the progress that, frankly, I think we showed over the course of this initiative.

Let me give you an example. On NEXUS, the AG's report was very clear. They looked at the initiatives and they looked at NEXUS. From a national security perspective, with NEXUS, an individual voluntarily fills out an extensive application form, provides information on where they lived over the past five years and their jobs, and it's submitted to both Canadian and U.S. authorities. They vet it, give you a green light, and you go into an office where there's a CBSA employee and a U.S. border patrol individual. They take your picture and your biometric information. The U.S. takes your fingerprints, and then Canada takes an iris scan. There are now probably 1.5 million people in North America who have a NEXUS card, 80% of whom are Canadian, so when you go to a border, CBSA officers don't have to pay attention to somebody such as me who has a NEXUS card. They can focus their attention on higher risk travellers. That's a huge benefit to us. How do you measure that? I don't know.

Mr. Christopherson was starting to identify a better performance measure than the ones we used to talk about with NEXUS. Brian talked about the fact that if you compare, with NEXUS you show up in front of a CBSA officer, you show him your card and you clear customs, and you do it in a certain period of time. If you do it conventionally, it takes you 20 to 30 seconds longer.

Do you ever use your NEXUS card at Pearson airport on a Friday night? Do you use your NEXUS card in Ottawa when you're trying to go home on a Thursday night? When you can use your card, you can bypass the general line because CATSA sets up a line that allows NEXUS holders to clear through.

I don't know what performance indicator you would get talking to people at Pearson airport on a Friday night, but if you look at the numbers of NEXUS people, 20,000 new applicants a month want NEXUS. From a national security perspective, I like the fact that we're looking at trusted travellers and allowing our border officials to really focus on medium and higher risk travellers. That's a significant benefit.

One of the other things is hard to really understand when you look at the AG's report. The AG is very clear that they didn't look at national security issues. They talked to the U.S., but they didn't reflect U.S. views on this, and they didn't really talk about the Canada-U.S. relationship. However, when you start to look at what NEXUS does for you, when you look at the electronic travel authorization, which now means passengers from non-visa exempt countries have to submit an ETA before they board a flight, it means in Canada we can actually give the airlines information to tell them to board or not to board an individual. That's really important to us. We'd much rather do that abroad than in Canada.

We have another initiative, called IAPI. I've been working on this file for three years. For the life of me, I don't know what IAPI means, but it gives us information that the airlines provide us before an individual boards a flight. Our security agencies can look at IAPI and they can use their algorithms, their analytics, to better target people so that when they arrive in Canada they can get the scrutiny they require. This is all a package of things that we talked about in beyond the border.

Another thing is CPIC, a tool used by the RCMP. CPIC is a good one. When CBSA officers have someone come up to them at the point of entry, they look at their passport. On CPIC, they can see if someone has an outstanding warrant or if they have a criminal record. Since CBSA has started using CPIC, they have now achieved thousands of apprehensions and they're actually using this tool to protect our borders to a much greater extent.

Sadly, I can't tell you exactly how many people have been apprehended by CPIC. Hopefully, when we put the performance measures in place, we'll be able to do that.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much.

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

I'm sorry, Brenda. It's way over time.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

It was very interesting, though.

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

Yes, it was, which is why I didn't want to interrupt.

Mr. McColeman, it's your turn.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I would like to talk about the measurables for Transport Canada in terms of wait times.

I really appreciate the comments that were just made on NEXUS. I'm curious to know when NEXUS was started. What year did it begin? Does anyone have any idea?

I have gone through two renewals. I was an early adopter because I travel across the border many times in a year. I think it existed long before beyond the borders began. Just as a point of interest, not that beyond the borders didn't amp it up to become a more important issue, but NEXUS was something that was happening long before beyond the borders, in my opinion. That's from my own sense of when my renewals happened on my NEXUS card.

Beyond the borders might have had a part to play. With regard to the last renewal, it was very much upgraded in terms of having to go back, being scrutinized one more time, updating all the information, including fingerprints, irises, and all that.

I'm reading from the Auditor General's report. If you would like to refer to it, it's on page 18, paragraph 1.74. It says:

Transport Canada and the Agency developed five performance indicators focused on deliverables, such as the number of installations completed and the number of websites and roadside signs posting real-time information. However, we found that Transport Canada had not measured the benefits of existing border wait-time technology even though these installations have been operating for over five years. We also noted that there was no business case to support the need for more installations. Also, although the Agency's website has been posting wait times generated by wait-time measurement technology at five crossings since 2014, the Agency has not assessed whether having this wait-time information available has made a difference to travellers or helped the Agency to better manage its operation or resources.

I'll end it there.

To the representatives from Transport Canada, specifically Madam Higgens, I read that Auditor General's observation, and I looked at your presentation today. On the second page near the end, you say that you were pleased to inform us that you established a working group in December 2016 to address these issues. That was five years in the making.

Is there any reason for the delay, and why would you have the Auditor General need to even point out that you should be measuring the improvements, what the public is receiving, and that these technologies improve, instead of just spending more money on another sign indicating what the wait times are?

[Catherine Higgens]

It's a good question. I think I would start by saying that we fully agree with and appreciate the recommendation of the Auditor General with respect to developing the outcome and the ultimate outcome benefits for Canadians from the projects. It will in fact inform the path forward on any future investments.

You're quite right to point out that the indicators in the early stages of the plan were that the projects were in place, that they were available, that they were in fact working as outlined in the project. They were availability and deliverables under the plan. That was tracked very closely, and that was really the nature of the indicators.

Typically in projects, you need a certain amount of time before you can start to measure the longer-term outcomes and the changes that they will reap. I think the work we're doing now will benefit from some of the discussions we've had with partners over the period of the plan, to address some of the challenges we were facing in moving to the next border crossings, beyond the initial six or seven that were in place.

One of the realities was the evolution of technology, which rapidly accelerated during this time period, particularly mobile devices, and the capacity that mobile devices have to inform wait times. There was a great deal of discussion with partners, with the U.S. and with provinces, on the right technology solutions, the right approaches.

This information will be very useful in defining those indicators and in using that analysis to do the assessment of what the benefits in fact were of those projects. That will inform us going forward.

We fully agree that the utility of setting out those indicators earlier in the process is a good recommendation, and we agree with it.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'm glad you agree with it. It took you only four years to figure it out, and the Auditor General had to tell you.

This reinforces what a lot of Canadians think. They see actions taken by government and big money spent on installations, and I see it because I travel by road very often across border crossings. You wonder what this is doing to benefit you as a Canadian. Is it speeding up your ability to cross?

As I come to a fork in the road, in my case, I can go across at Niagara Falls, at Fort Erie, or at Queenston. I can go across at any one of those three and you're not measuring it. To me, it reinforces some of the thoughts that Canadians have around whether the government effectively knows what it's doing when it comes to spending their tax dollars.

I just had to say that as an observation. I'll end it there.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Arya, go ahead, please

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. McGovern, you said that the responsibility rests with the Prime Minister and the President. That's number one. Then you had a small team in the PCO, an executive steering committee, a deputy ministers' borders committee, and an assistant deputy ministers' steering committee. With all these committees, was it difficult to coordinate?

[David McGovern]

To be honest, with the Canadian participants it wasn't. People saw the value of working horizontally, so many of the files crossed different departments. It is not just one department that has responsibility.

One of the benefits the United States articulated, which is not found in the AG's report.... Literally in the dying days of the Obama administration, they issued a fact sheet on beyond the border. They were very positive and they talked about the fact that they built a framework for inter-agency consultation within the United States, and that inter-agency framework interacted with us. It was very beneficial.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Were these committees managed and tied to the 34 initiatives, or only specific to cross-border law enforcement?

[David McGovern]

I was the senior adviser responsible for beyond the border action plan implementation. I brought in many of my colleagues sitting at the table and many of the people you saw on Monday. We went through all the initiatives in the beyond the border plan, but when I started to get involved, our focus was on the big showstoppers: entry-exit and pre-clearance.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

I apologize. I have limited time, so I have to go forward.

You also mentioned that it was chaired by the border implementation team's assistant secretary, so was there a single-point of responsibility?

[David McGovern]

The structure was me, an assistant secretary who reported to me, and a small team that fluctuated between five and seven analysts whom we seconded from other departments.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Pagan, you mentioned that horizontal approaches have challenges, specifically that they take resources, time, and learning to work with different management structures and processes. Were these problems and challenges not foreseen when this idea was conceptualized five or six years back?