Public Safety Committee on March 12th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting ten. We are continuing our study of border security.

We would like to again welcome the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Inspector Mike Furey, Assistant Commissioner Bob Paulson, and Deputy Commissioner Raf Souccar.

From the Canada Border Services Agency we have Mr. Stephen Rigby, president; Kimber Johnston, vice-president; and Mike Jordan, director general.

We'd like to welcome you all to our committee. We look forward to the testimony you will give us.

The usual practice is to allow you an opening statement of approximately ten minutes.

Who would like to go first, the Border Services Agency or the RCMP?

[Stephen Rigby, President, Canada Border Services Agency]

I'm happy to go first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, Mr. Rigby. Go ahead, sir.

[Stephen Rigby]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm very pleased to be here today.

I always appreciate the opportunity to talk about the role of the Canada Border Services Agency, especially with regard to our common security and trade goals with the United States.

Simply put, the CBSA manages border access of people and goods to defend Canada's sovereignty, security, health, and prosperity. We are a 14,000-person, $1.5 billion agency, and every year we process approximately 95 million border crossings by individuals, over 10 million commercial shipments, and about 30 million courier packages.

One of our challenges is that while the majority of our business is conducted through some 20 major highway gateways, 14 international airports, three postal plants, and three major ocean container terminals, we also provide service at 1,200 points across Canada, including 119 border locations and hundreds more inland terminals, small airports, and marine reporting stations.

Perhaps the aspect of our business least familiar to many of our stakeholders is our immigration enforcement role. We handle many tens of thousands of refugee applications. Annually we detain almost 14,000 persons who have been deemed dangerous, are considered flight risks, or whose identities are unknown. We manage about 12,000 removals from Canada every year, some 1,500 of which are typically for criminality. We are also responsible for security certificate cases--an essential tool to protect Canada from terrorist threats--and for monitoring the terms and conditions of the release of these people.

There are increasing pressures surrounding our responsibilities for intellectual property and for export control on strategic goods or products subject to international control, such as environmental hazards or embargos on certain countries. Of course we must balance all of these enforcement concerns with the need to facilitate the border clearance of legitimate travellers, businesses, and their goods.

Canada is a trading nation, and our ability to sustain and enhance international trade is key to our continued prosperity. Especially in today's recessionary environment, the freedom and security of cross-border commerce provides an essential foundation for our economy. All of this contributes to a complicated and rather diffuse business.

Of course, a considerable amount of attention is directed to U.S. border policy, such as the western hemisphere travel initiative, in order to keep border traffic moving and maintain trade access to the U.S. market. The reality is that the border posture of both countries impacts the other's national security. Just to provide one example, out of approximately 1.7 million containers arriving at Canadian seaports annually, over half move in transit to major U.S. cities, and a significant number of containers destined for Canada first arrive at U.S. ports, such as Newark or Seattle-Tacoma. So we devote a significant amount of attention to marine security and work together with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ensure that risky shipments are targeted and examined as early as possible overseas, but at least at the first point of arrival in North America.

All that to say that the border can play a twofold facilitation and security role: supporting immigration, trade and legitimate travel, while blocking access to the country to criminal, firearms and other dangerous elements.

Finding the right balance between law enforcement at the border and facilitation in a dynamic and changing global environment remains a constant challenge.

Therefore, our focus must be on intelligence-based risk management and leveraging resources with key partners such as the RCMP, Citizenship and Immigration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other international partners.

An example of how we can better leverage these partnerships is in the area of weapon and drug smuggling. All law enforcement agencies are concerned about these issues, and we need to focus first and foremost on a better understanding of the problem, followed by increasing cooperation among our partners and maximizing the use of intelligence and targeting to increase our enforcement capabilities.

Significant investments are being made in support of balancing our security and facilitation functions. We are arming 4,800 officers at the border and those engaged in specialized enforcement activities within Canada. Eliminating work-alone situations and deploying surveillance technology to enhance safety and security at remote border crossings are also priorities.

We have implemented the joint Canada-U.S. NEXUS trusted traveler program at all major Canadian airports and harmonized it across the air, land, and marine modes. NEXUS continues to be a great example of what can be achieved working with the U.S. to process low-risk travellers more efficiently, which allows us to focus on higher-risk and unknown-risk people.

We are developing an e-manifest system that will provide advanced electronic data on rail and cargo to complement existing systems in the air and sea modes. We are continuing to work with federal partners, provinces, and the U.S. to ensure the western hemisphere travel initiative is implemented as smoothly as possible with minimal impacts on border traffic.

Legislation has been introduced in the Senate recently to modify the Customs Act to support some key border security programs, most notably to give our officers more effective powers in customs-controlled areas such as airport tarmacs, marine docks, warehouses, cruise ship terminals, and rail yards.

We also recognize that the cost of complying with border requirements is currently a concern for businesses; reducing red tape and simplifying interactions between businesses and CBSA are major objectives for the agency.

We spent a lot of time last year working with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business trying to hit our 20% target for paper burden reduction. We have done that, 21% and climbing, and we are working closely through our consultative bodies to ensure that new systems such as e-manifests properly balance our need for data intelligence with the associated business costs and the need for a level playing field with the U.S.

We recognize that in today's economic environment, access to funding cannot be taken for granted. Given budgetary pressures, we will need to be creative in working with our partners and ensuring that optimal allocation of border resource priorities is achieved. The border is traditionally our first opportunity to interdict many threats, but we increasingly focus on our enforcement resources at the continental perimeter and overseas, for example, using migration integrity officers for immigration enforcement at 45 overseas locations.

We have signed agreements with South Africa and Japan that allow our resources to be on site in those countries and enable the facilitation of container security on cargo destined for Canada, and we are scheduled to sign a similar arrangement with Panama this week.

We also need to keep pace with and exploit the newest technologies. For two decades, our customs component has been viewed as a world leader in the introduction of electronic commerce systems, a tradition being continued in NEXUS and e-manifest, but our application of technology extends beyond electronic commerce. It includes detection technologies, examples of which are the radiation detection systems deployed at major seaports to screen virtually all marine containers and identification technologies such as biometrics.

In the context of global economic and social challenges, and of constant requests for new border services, this type of innovation is necessary to enable CBSA to carry out its twofold mandate.

Our success rests on something I refer to as “border integrity”, which entails innovative risk management and partnerships, optimal resource allocation, and renewed orientation to public service.

Getting the border right is fundamental to Canada's security and economy. It is also fundamental to the health of the Canada-U.S. relationship. In my remarks I've tried to give you a broad overview of how we approach our responsibilities to manage the border so we can get it right.

Thank you very much for your attention. I will be pleased to answer all your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rigby.

We'll now move over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. Souccar, please.

[Deputy Commissioner Raf Souccar, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning everyone.

I'm very pleased to be appearing before you today. To try to do our best to be as effective as we possibly can in answering your questions, I have with me Assistant Commissioner Bob Paulson, who's in charge of national security criminal Investigations, and Inspector Mike Furey, who's in our border integrity branch.

I'll start, Mr. Chairman, by saying that a secure and efficient border is essential for the protection and safety of Canadians as well as Canada's economic prosperity and security. In pursuing this objective, the protection of Canadian sovereignty and maintaining the integrity of its borders are imperative.

In pursuing this objective, the protection of Canadian sovereignty and maintaining the integrity of its borders are imperative. No single agency has the sole mandate or capacity to fully secure our shared border. The two primary enforcement agencies responsible for the border are the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP. At the ports of entry CBSA is mandated to administer the Customs Act and border-related legislation, including some parts of the Criminal Code. The RCMP is responsible for the carriage of major investigations at the points of entry and for the enforcement of the Customs Act, Criminal Code, and other federal legislation between the ports of entry.

This type of criminal activity that we're seeing today and the modern tools employed in carrying out elicit activities pose major challenges for law enforcement. Globalization and the Internet have fueled the ability for criminals to operate transnationally. Geopolitical boundaries, legal and regulatory impediments, and concerns over sovereignty are just some of the issues that law enforcement must overcome. These same challenges do not impact organized crime networks. We are mitigating those challenges by building meaningful partnerships through joint threat assessments and by developing innovative ideas and solutions.

Protecting the Canada-U.S. border is an enormous undertaking and one that we take very seriously. Given the diversity of the terrain, infrastructure, and population density, no single solution will address all threats. Our border security solutions must be uniquely tailored to address specific gaps and vulnerabilities along our diverse border and flexible enough to rapidly respond to the displacement of criminality.

The RCMP recognizes that a smart and secure border requires a balanced, multifaceted, intelligence-led approach. Effective security requires a clear understanding of the threats and risks of the border; efficient utilization of intelligence, technology, and personnel; enhanced utilization of mobile assets and resources; and partnering with domestic and international stakeholders.

The joint Canada-U.S. threat and risk assessments are completed on a regular basis. They provide an analysis of the degree to which illegal activity is occurring, its severity, and its impact on national security and public safety. These assessments are developed jointly by Canadian and U.S. partners. This cooperation is vital, in that the risks, threats, and vulnerabilities along our shared border are identified, analyzed, and assessed on an international basis rather than a national or localized basis.

These joint threat assessments, which identified organized crime as the most prevalent threat along the Canada-U.S. border, require the participation of both border and inland investigative teams. The threat assessments have also indicated that organized crime groups are extremely adaptable to heightened enforcement activities, thus emphasizing the need for a comprehensive border strategy with flexible solutions to address the displacement of criminal activity from one geographic area to another. Completing the joint threat assessment is the border integrity national technology strategy. This strategy ensures that the RCMP is equipped with advanced technology necessary to deliver effective border integrity. As an example, a Canada-U.S. radio interoperability pilot project is under way in Montana and Alberta. Although progress was slow coming, we recently saw significant progress being made.

In March 2007 the United States Congress directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to redirect $20 million of the border security, fencing, infrastructure, and technology appropriation to begin addressing needs and vulnerabilities along the U.S. northern border. As a result of this directive, CBP is developing a secure border initiative network prototype that will inform and demonstrate the technology issues associated with the integration of air, land, and maritime assets along the Canada-U.S. border into a common operating picture.

The U.S. Border Patrol formally invited the RCMP to be represented at the SBI-net design table. In April 2008, the RCMP deployed an officer to Washington for a period of two years to work on the SBI-net design team. This secondment provides Canada with the opportunity to:

It will influence the design and rollout so as to address any Canadian concerns; incorporate, as appropriate, the integrated border enforcement teams into a secure border initiative implementation; and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, interoperability between U.S. and Canadian technologies.

As the border is more often than not a transit point for organized crime rather than a base of operations, law enforcement efforts must be coordinated both at the border and at inland communities. Intelligence gathered in one domain often leads to the identification of illegal activities in others. The RCMP strategy relies upon a fluid exchange of timely intelligence between our inland investigative units and border enforcement units, such as the integrated border enforcement teams.

Finally, as this committee heard on Tuesday, the integrated border enforcement team program encompasses many of the components required for a broad and effective border strategy. This is accomplished through enhanced law enforcement relationships at our shared border by identifying, investigating, and interdicting persons and organizations that pose a threat to national security or engage in other criminal activity.

Our border security solutions must continue to be uniquely tailored to address specific gaps and vulnerabilities along our diverse border and flexible enough to respond to the displacement of criminality. New initiatives in responses to counter cross-border criminality need to be a component of a comprehensive, integrated, multi-layered approach to cross-border threats. Law enforcement must address both the border and inland communities in order to effectively target organized crime groups as well as to address the domestic organized crime terrorist threats.

In August 2008 representatives from the CBSA and RCMP met with their United States counterparts from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Coast Guard to discuss ways to enhance the border security efforts of Canada and the United States. This meeting led to a draft statement of principles document that recognizes that a smart and secure border builds upon a balanced, multifaceted, intelligence-based approach that is manifested through improved integration. It is important that integrated security models be created that will address the illicit cross-border activity as well as the displacement of such criminality.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you we are always seeking opportunities for improvement and we are constantly examining new and innovative initiatives to counter the ever-evolving threats. We can never be satisfied or become complacent with respect to border security. We must remain ever vigilant to work with domestic and international law enforcement partners to identify solutions to overcome barriers to effective cross-border law enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting us here today, and we would be pleased to take your questions when you're ready.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much. We appreciate those opening remarks.

We'll move immediately to the Liberal Party, the official opposition.

Mr. Holland, would you like to begin?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing before the committee today.

Certainly I would say that security is important, and I appreciate the work that's being done on that. I think it's also fair to say that when it comes to security, continental security is paramount. Our greatest threats don't come from within North America, they come from outside North America. In fact, the argument I continually make to congressmen is that they have as much to fear from Cleveland as they do from Toronto. That's a message I think we have to get through. Yet we see a thickening of the border in many different ways that is concerning, that has a major detrimental impact on trade.

In this regard, I'm thinking particularly of the western hemisphere travel initiative and the requirement for passports in June. A lot of the casual travel that we see between our countries is going to be impeded. Only 20% of Americans have a passport; a little over half of Canadians have a passport. We're going to be in a situation where there are a lot of people who are turned away, who just have spontaneous casual travel in mind.

In that regard, my first concern is with respect to the Olympics. There are going to be two billion eyes watching the Olympics. That border point is going to be a huge pressure point. There are going to be a large number of Americans coming to that border with an expectation of being able to come across, only to find that they require a passport.

In talking with many congressmen and congresswomen, this is not something they've given any thought to, and they would agree that it makes sense to push that date for implementation from June until after the Olympics, at a minimum, so we at least don't have to deal with this through the period of the Olympics. It gives a little more time for the enhanced drivers licences to get out into the hands of the population.

I'm wondering with respect to that if you could just talk about the Olympics. What's being done to deal with those concerns on the border? Have you had any conversations with your counterparts in the U.S. about trying to encourage this date to be pushed off until after we're done with the Olympic Games?

[Stephen Rigby]

Thanks, Mr. Holland.

First of all, in the broadest context we have been working for over a year now on our Olympics plan and preparation for the kinds of things that the CBSA is going to have to do in the run-up to and around the Olympic Games. We anticipate that a significant amount of the traffic we're going to see come into the country for the games will come through our major airports, and we've made fairly substantial provisions to ensure that we have the right number of staff, the right amount of overflow capacity, the right degree of technology deployed in the airports to deal with it.

At the land border, for traffic northbound, particularly through the southern B.C. corridor, the first thing to remember is that Canada's documentary requirements are not changing with the advent of WHTI. Our focus has been on ensuring that at our southern British Columbia border points we have good plans in place to deal with a range of potential volume propositions through all of those border points. We have worst-case scenarios, and beyond-worst-case scenarios, and we've done testing and modelling to see how those border points are going to hold up under these various scenarios. I feel fairly confident today that the kinds of contingencies we're putting in place and the sorts of resources we'll deploy, at both airports and marine and land borders, will be equal to the task.

Concerning the U.S. date, I have constant discussions with my U.S. counterparts on their preparation for implementation in June. I have no knowledge about any intention on their part to deviate from the current date and I can't shed any further light on that, other than to say—and I'm sure you're aware of this—that Secretary Clinton and Secretary Napolitano have recently certified their readiness, from a documentary and an infrastructure point of view, to go ahead with the June date.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I understand that. My point is, shouldn't we be advocating this to try to push it off? The reality is that while our requirements won't change, theirs will. There's an expectation that an American citizen is going to have a passport to get back in. Surely we're not going to allow people in and not remind them that if they don't have a passport they're going to have a lot of trouble getting home. That requirement is going to have real implications.

But maybe I'll come back to this, because I don't have a lot of time.

The other thing, which continues that theme, is that some jurisdictions have been very progressive in trying to find alternatives to this in order to keep the casual travel going, because it's so important to both of our economies. I had an opportunity to talk with Governor Gregoire about what Washington State is doing in conjunction with Premier Campbell respecting enhanced drivers licences. Given that there's been very small pickup of NEXUS—and let's be honest, a NEXUS pass is not something the person who wants to go to a Buffalo Bills game is going to get, and not the thing that somebody who wants to go to a Stratford Festival play on a whim is going to have applied for months in advance—what type of work are you doing to ensure that we can find solutions for these casual travellers, most of whom don't have passports, most of whom aren't going to get a NEXUS pass? Do you support the enhanced driver's licence, and what efforts are being made to ensure that we can keep those casual travellers moving?

[Stephen Rigby]

We absolutely support the enhanced drivers licences. We've been working with the provinces for more than two years in an attempt to get these alternate documents established and to see agreements put in place with as many provinces as possible. You're aware of and you've referred to the B.C. pilot, which we have a lot of optimism about moving into full production in the near future. We've also had extensive discussions with Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec and we've had discussions with the Atlantic provinces too, who are a little further behind but have also expressed an interest. I think in most jurisdictions there is a fairly significant interest in bringing EDLs on line.

I take your point about NEXUS, but if I may add one comment to it, we have seen pretty good growth in NEXUS over the last year. It has been growing at the rate of about 4% per month. In fact, we've seen membership increase by 100,000 in the last 12 months.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I don't disagree, but let me take the example Congresswoman Slaughter gave when I had an opportunity to speak with her. She was talking about the tremendous impact it's going to have in Buffalo, because there's a huge number of people who go across the border on a whim. Given the fact that only 20% of people have a passport, even if you got to the point at which 20% of people had NEXUS, they are just not the people we're concerned about: those are people who are travelling spontaneously. Her suggestion was to try to find some kind of day pass or two-day pass for a person who just wants to come across the border for a short period of time.

Has there been any thinking about that, and can you tell me how it might work? I was intrigued by the idea. Is there a possibility that we could ask additional questions or have some pieces of identification such that, if somebody shows up without a passport, they could get a pass for a couple of days? Is that a possibility?

How do we deal with those kinds of people, who are very casual and otherwise would be lost, with a really major impact upon the economies on both sides of the border?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

There is time for a brief response. Go ahead, sir.

[Stephen Rigby]

Thank you.

I would say once again that it's important to make a distinction between the U.S. requirements and the Canadian requirements. I think it is the U.S. position that the alternate documents are the passport or the NEXUS card as their passport card. They've been working very hard to encourage people to get it. The reason they're doing so is that it contains an RFID chip, which gives people the ability to get into the so-called fast lanes to move more expeditiously through the border.

But I'm not aware of any formal discussions around Congresswoman Slaughter's idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

If someone has a NEXUS card, they also need a passport, don't they?

[Stephen Rigby]

They do not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

They do not?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

You need a passport to get a NEXUS card, though.

[Stephen Rigby]

You need to establish, through a vetting in both countries, your identity and your bona fides to make sure you have no criminal background. But you do not need a passport at the time you cross the border.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

In other words, if they have a NEXUS card, they wouldn't need a passport. I just want to make sure.

[Stephen Rigby]

That's correct. It's considered to be a WHTI-compliant document.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Good. Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard, please.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Rigby, thank you for being here with us.

Is this the first time you've come before the committee?

[Stephen Rigby]

It is the first time, certainly, on my own.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

All right.

I'd like to have some explanation from you. Why not treat the Mont-Tremblant de Rivière-Rouge International Airport like other airports in Canada of similar size? In those other airports, you provide free service to tourists, who are spending enough money here for us to be able to pay for services through the taxes we collect. After achieving major success with private jets, Mont-Tremblant Airport... I understand that it's the owners who pay customs duties. One airline is ready to make regular flights. Obviously we're talking about a much less rich clientele, but one that nevertheless spends money here.

Why can't you adjust to the airlines' schedules and offer those tourists who come and spend their money here the same service as you offer in the Whistler region, on the other side of Canada, and in certain other Canadian regions where you have virtually the same problem?