Evidence of meeting #9 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ibet.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Barry MacKillop  Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Public Safety Canada, Canada-United States Cross Border Crime Forum
Mike Cabana  Assistant Commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Border Integrity Section, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Joe Oliver  Co-Chair, Border Enforcement Group, Canada-United States Cross Border Crime Forum

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

I'd like to bring this meeting to order.

This is the ninth meeting of this session of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are today studying border security.

We would like to welcome our witnesses. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police we have Mike Cabana, assistant commissioner, and Warren Coons, director. Also, from the Canada-United States Cross Border Crime Forum we have Barry MacKillop, director general, and Joe Oliver, co-chair of the border enforcement group.

We look forward to the information you will supply us with today on a very important issue.

The usual practice at this committee is to allow opening statements of approximately ten minutes, and then we usually open it up for questions and comments, beginning with the official opposition and moving around the table.

Without any further ado, I think we will begin. Who would like to start?

Mr. MacKillop, go ahead, sir.

9:05 a.m.

Barry MacKillop Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Public Safety Canada, Canada-United States Cross Border Crime Forum

Thank you.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak on the Canada-United States Cross-Border Crime Forum.

With your indulgence, I will take a few minutes to provide an overview of the Canada-United States Cross-Border Crime Forum, or CBCF, its mandate and evolution to date. I will also discuss briefly an overview of its past and current work.

The CBCF, which was created in 1997, serves to advance bilateral cooperation in the areas of law enforcement, criminal justice and intelligence issues. Strengthening the ties between our two countries on these issues is extremely important, not only in terms of enhancing domestic public safety, but also regional and international security.

Through the CBCF, we have built strong partnerships and increased awareness of Canadian and U.S. justice and law enforcement systems across the border. In short, the CBCF helps advance Canada-U.S. cooperation on the entire spectrum of cross-border crime issues and encourages effective coordination between law enforcement and justice communities across the border. It facilitates the resolution of impediments to effective law enforcement and prosecution of cross-border crimes. As part of this work, a number of CBCF subgroups study national and binational issues that help advance the fight against cross-border criminality.

In order to further cross-border law enforcement cooperation, the CBCF Ministerial Forum brings together over 120 senior law enforcement and justice officials from participating organizations in Canada and the U.S. The Minister of Public Safety co-chairs the CBCF, along with the Canadian Minister of Justice and the U.S. Attorney General. CBCF subgroups meet continually and work on an ongoing basis throughout the year leading up to what is delivered and presented at the Ministerial Forum.

The mandate for the CBCF, the Cross-Border Crime Forum, is to serve as a forum in which Canadian and United States law enforcement and justice officials from the federal, state, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments can identify major issues and national policy priorities related to transnational crime and terrorism.

With respect to the evolution of the CBCF, the first forum held in Ottawa, in 1997, was organized to discuss the issues of cigarette smuggling, which was a concern on the Canadian side of the border at the time, and mass marketing fraud, which was a particular concern on the U.S. side of the border. At this early stage, the forum was essentially an exchange of names and phone numbers so that officials would know who to talk to in the other country.

After September 11, 2001, however, the Canada-U.S. Smart Border Declaration renewed our countries' joint commitment to enhancing cooperation on border management. As a result, the Cross-Border Crime Forum benefited from a high level of activity and increased attention on both sides of the border.

Since its inception, the forum has expanded to address broader law enforcement and national security issues, including illicit drugs, counter-terrorism, identity theft, firearms trafficking, mass marketing fraud, human trafficking, and transnational organized crime, to name a few.

The forum, despite its broader scope, continues to focus on developing best practices and concrete tools to resolve operational, policy, and legal challenges that may hinder the ability of law enforcement and justice officials to reduce cross-border crime.

Ongoing collaboration has helped us to forge countless working relationships across the border and to strengthen the relationships between organizations in both countries. It's important to note that the CBCF also provides an opportunity for the Canadian ministers of public safety and justice and the U.S. Attorney General to offer direction and guidance for future efforts of the working groups. In this sense, the annual ministerial meeting is the culmination of the Cross-Border Crime Forum's ongoing activities throughout the year.

The agenda for each ministerial forum is developed jointly by Canada and the U.S., and is designed to address ongoing initiatives and emerging challenges in cross-border criminality.

The forum has served as a useful vehicle to undertake several intelligence-based initiatives, such as joint threat assessments on drugs, firearms trafficking, migrant smuggling, organized crime groups, and joint action plans to address shared concerns. Some of the more notable discussions that have taken place within the CBCF relate to operations of integrated border enforcement teams, which you will hear about from my colleagues in a few minutes.

Last March, Canada hosted the tenth CBCF in Quebec City. Some of the main deliverables coming out of that CBCF included “United States-Canada Border Drug Threat Assessment 2007”, “Canada-United States IBET Threat Assessment 2007”, and a five-year Canada-U.S. report on mass marketing fraud, as well as a public advisory on counterfeit cheques.

Turning to our current work plan, the next CBCF is scheduled for the fall of 2009 in the U.S., with a date and location yet to be determined. We're at the very early planning stages for that next meeting.

The CBCF, as mentioned, is driven by the work plans of several subgroups, including the border enforcement subgroup, which is currently working on establishing new radio interoperability pilot projects, and finalizing the integrated maritime cross-border law enforcement operations framework agreement, commonly known as “Shiprider”.

The counter-terrorism subgroup is exploring personnel exchanges and other means of enhancing cooperation between the RCMP and FBI, as well as joint investigations on terrorism financing.

The drugs and organized crime working group is exploring RCMP participation in the U.S.-led joint inter-agency task force in Asia west, and is considering developing a threat assessment model that utilizes current threat assessments from the RCMP, DEA, and FBI to more effectively address operational needs and ensure efficiencies between agencies, as well as analyzing emerging technologies and challenges to law enforcement.

The firearms trafficking group is working on implementing the real-time exchange of forensic ballistic data and updating the 2006 cross-border firearms trafficking overview.

The mass marketing fraud working group continues to work on the joint targeting of top echelon criminal organizations, based on recent threat assessments, and identifying new areas for future public advisories.

Finally, the prosecution subgroup is working on developing guides to assist and facilitate extradition requests, MLATs, and access to information required for prosecutions related to cross-border crime.

In conclusion, the CBCF is a testament to the continued strong and collaborative relationship that augments the safety and security of our citizens. As new and innovative cross-border law enforcement and justice initiatives advance through the CBCF, they help combat transnational crime along our shared border.

While the CBCF does not replace bilateral mechanisms that are in place, it does provide a meaningful forum in which a broad spectrum of issues can be brought to the forefront.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to appear before you today. Of course, I will be happy to stay and answer your questions.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cabana, do you have some opening remarks as well?

9:15 a.m.

C/Supt Mike Cabana Assistant Commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Border Integrity Section, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Honourable Members. I am very honoured to be appearing before you today.

The RCMP's Federal and International Operations Directorate, or FIO, works to ensure the safety and security of Canadians and their institutions, both domestically and globally. This is achieved through intelligence-based prevention, detection, investigation, and law enforcement measures aimed at terrorists, organized criminals, and other criminal elements.

Border integrity falls under FIO and encompasses branches with expertise in investigating cross-border criminality and identifying threats to Canada's national security along the shared land border, and at major air and marine entry points.

The integrated border enforcement teams, or IBETs, are an important component of the RCMP's border integrity strategy. I welcome this opportunity to talk to you about their concept and some of their successes.

Fifteen IBET regions have been created since the signing of the smart border declaration, with integrated units implemented in 24 locations along the shared border between Canada and the United States. The five core IBET agencies are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Border Services Agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection/Border Patrol, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as the U.S. Coast Guard.

The IBET concept is based on intelligence-led policing, coordinated information sharing and identification, investigation and interdiction of persons or organizations posing a threat to national security or engaged in other organized criminal activity. It encourages the involvement of municipal, provincial, state, federal and First Nations law enforcement agencies, other stakeholder agencies and related government departments.

I would like, if I may, to spend a few minutes explaining why the IBET is crucial to border security, the benefits of this arrangement, and the way forward.

Sophisticated criminal organizations exploit vulnerabilities in border demographics, geography, and enforcement patterns to smuggle people and commodities—such as narcotics, currency, firearms, and contraband tobacco—between Canada and the United States. Such criminality is adaptive and ever-expanding, compromising the integrity of our border and posing a real threat to the security of both nations.

On many occasions we have seen the innovation and flexibility of organized crime groups. They respond rapidly to enhanced enforcement pressures, resorting to smuggling by air or even building tunnels when faced with difficulties crossing the land borders. This puts a tremendous amount of stress on our resources as we try to anticipate their next move and respond accordingly. It emphasizes the need for law enforcement and public safety agencies to also find new ways of doing business. Simply patrolling the border hoping for a chance encounter with criminal activity is not an effective use of government's finite resources.

Several years ago the RCMP patrolled specific parts of the border. Over time it became clear that criminal organizations knew exactly how to avoid detection by such patrols and their effectiveness became questionable. As a result, we have become more intelligence-led, developed solid partnerships at home and abroad, and found better ways to share information.

The strong relationship between Canada and the U.S. makes the issues at our shared border unique. One of the greatest challenges we face is how to increase security without impeding trade. This reality directs the need for a layered approach to law enforcement efforts, as the border is much more than a line in the sand; it is a continuum.

Success in maintaining Canada's border integrity requires a multi-faceted approach to border enforcement—international, in transit, port points of entry, and inland. Border security must employ a seamless, integrated, multi-layered, and balanced approach to best protect our citizens and target the real threats.

When I say a balanced approach, I mean in addition to border enforcers we also need law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border partnering and working very closely together on the same goal, disruption of criminal activity.

The IBET model brings to bear the resources and authorities of a binational, multidisciplinary team with a full range of police, customs, immigration, and regulatory powers to support public safety and national security, not just customs and immigration authorities. Of course front-line law enforcement officers have been working together on joint operations for decades. IBET, however, is a formal relationship endorsed by both the Canadian and American governments.

The core IBET agencies are dedicated to building and maintaining strong relationships, sharing information, meeting to discuss problems, and sharing best practices and threat assessments. IBET has succeeded in opening the lines of communication among law enforcement agencies in our two countries.

All five core agencies have jointly developed and agreed to an IBET charter, a foundation document that provides authority from all signatories to ensure cooperation and deliver the mandate of the smart border declaration, to improve information sharing and cross-border enforcement for border security.

IBET is a functional, totally integrated program, with an appropriate governance structure in place to reflect the partnerships. This structure consists of an international joint management team, IJMT; international coordination team, ICT; and joint management teams, JMTs. I apologize for all the acronyms.

The IJMT consists of one official from each of the core partner agencies to represent their organization by providing general direction to the IBET program. The IJMT identifies common concerns, issues, challenges, and best practices within IBET regions and provides guidance and direction to the joint management teams. The IJMT ensures that particular attention is focused on the coordination and development of communication, standardized reporting, training, intelligence, and border awareness.

The ICT, or international coordination team, is co-located at RCMP headquarters here in Ottawa. It consists of one official from each of the core agencies, who provide day-to-day advice and assistance to IBET and joint management teams on behalf of the international joint management team.

At the local level, joint management teams have been established in each IBET region, consisting of at least one official from each of the core partner agencies and any local law enforcement agency with an interest in the integrity of the Canada-U.S. border. The joint management teams hold regular meetings to identify investigative priorities and ensure the development of both internal communication mechanisms and annual threat assessments. Regular intelligence reports are shared and joint investigations are directed.

Now, organized crime is not static at the border. Conspiracies occur in and between major Canadian and U.S. cities. The joint management teams are critical to effective border enforcement, as they facilitate the required dialogue with inland enforcement entities and coordinate appropriate responses.

Another very important component of the IBET model involves the co-location of intelligence resources in the field to facilitate the exchange of law enforcement information on criminal activities observed or interdicted at the shared border. These co-located intelligence teams jointly develop the intelligence products that are so important in implementing focused enforcement operations on the criminal organizations that are taking advantage of gaps in the security of the border between the ports of entry.

The IBET threat assessment working group jointly prepares an annual Canada-United States IBET threat assessment. This provides law enforcement with an overview of the various land and marine threats that IBET units have encountered along the border between the ports of entry.

Since their inception, IBET units have identified national security cases, disrupted smuggling rings, confiscated drugs, weapons, tobacco, and intercepted criminal networks attempting to smuggle illegal migrants. They are disrupting larger and more sophisticated criminal operations. An example is Operation Julien/Aorte. An organized crime group operating out of Montreal was overseeing smuggling operations occurring across the Maine/New Brunswick border, approximately 600 kilometres from Montreal.

Several IBET partners, including the DEA and the Quebec Provincial Police, have been involved in intelligence gathering. There have been 29 arrests. Seized contraband included: 26,500 marijuana plants, 880 lbs of marijuana, 3 kg of cocaine, 25,000 methamphetamine pills, 1,168 cartons of contraband cigarettes, 29 handguns, cash in the amounts of $186,000 US, $266,000 CDN, and an estimated $3 million in assets. It should also be made clear that IBET does not work alone. IBET units work closely with local and provincial law enforcement, with RCMP resources and the resources of our partner IBET agencies.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that maintaining public safety, safeguarding Canada's international borders, and combatting organized crime are inextricably linked. Our border security solution must be both tailored to address specific vulnerabilities along a diverse border and flexible enough to respond to the ever-evolving criminality. The IBET initiative is a critical component of that solution, and has been internationally recognized as a best practice.

Over the past several years, the Government of Canada has reiterated its commitment to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians and to working with the United States to protect the safety and integrity of our shared border. This commitment has been declared in speeches from the throne and in international policy statements.

The IBET initiative has made remarkable progress in strengthening our binational partnerships. We've seen significant improvement in our ability to share information, coordinate investigations, and enforce the laws in support of our shared mandate to enhance border security.

The IBET partners are all keenly aware that we must improve on the existing foundation to ensure the sustainability of this important bilateral initiative. We continue to examine opportunities for improvements. These include advancing and investing in interoperable border technology; increasing the number of IBET partners and resources on both sides of the line; working together to improve border integrity; creating an intelligence-led, uniformed presence between the ports of entry; eliminating barriers to effective border enforcement; and ensuring the timely exchange of border-related information with all inland enforcement partners.

I'd like to thank you for inviting us here today. We would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

Thank you very much for your presentations.

Without any delay, I think we'll immediately go to questions and comments.

Mr. Holland, you indicated you have a question.

9:25 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for the work they're doing.

I just wanted to start questioning with an issue that is probably the most pressing right now, with respect to trade. One of the concerns we have--and obviously we want to maintain security to the greatest degree possible--relates to how we still allow people to move back and forth. I'm very concerned with the condition in June that Canadian citizens will have to have a passport and U.S. citizens will have to have a passport. We've really not taken a lead on this. Certain jurisdictions have. Governor Gregoire and B.C. Premier Campbell have been very aggressive in developing an enhanced driver's licence to take the place of a passport. Even there, the reality is that most people won't have that document in time for the Olympics. As the world's two billion eyes train on that corner of the planet, you're going to have a requirement for a passport that a lot of Americans aren't going to be aware of and they're going to try to get up to Canada. We could have a real mess on the border. It's one of the reasons that I think it's so important that it be at least put off until the other side of the Vancouver Olympics, and we have to make overtures to the Americans in every way possible to do that.

I just wanted to get your comments on this. Let's take constituents in a riding like mine, who want to go down to Buffalo and maybe watch a Buffalo Bills game, or maybe take in a bit of shopping, making sure they declare everything when they come back. How do we make sure we maintain that casual travel? How do you view this enhanced driver's licence?

What other things should we be looking at to make sure that those people who want to legitimately move back and forth and are just casual travellers who aren't going to go and get a passport can do that? Let's be realistic. Particularly in the United States, only 20% of Americans have passports. We don't want to get hammered by this when it comes forward. Already we've seen that we've lost a lot of trade.

9:30 a.m.

A/Commr Mike Cabana

Mr. Holland, your question is directed at whom?

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

I'd be interested in both of your comments, or if any one of you wants to volunteer on how effective you feel an enhanced driver's licence as a tool would be and on how realistic it would be to roll it out.

Secondly, perhaps you have some other ideas of how we can ensure that casual traffic moves back and forth between our two countries.

9:30 a.m.

A/Commr Mike Cabana

Thank you very much for your question.

I can say that we share the concern that you've expressed in terms of implementation of any new requirements to cross the border. We also share a concern with what's been termed as a thickening of the border. This is partly one of the reasons we are promoting the IBET model, which is actually looking at a balanced, layered approach.

In terms of enhanced or additional travel documents, the risk always exists that if the passports can be counterfeited, it's reasonable to think that any other kind of document has that potential as well.

In terms of our views specifically on what happens at the port of entry and what Canadian citizens are going to be required to produce, this is a question, I believe, that would be better directed to CBSA. Unfortunately, in Canada there are two agencies that are responsible for securing the border.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

I understand that.

9:30 a.m.

A/Commr Mike Cabana

The RCMP is between the ports.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

I was wondering, from a security perspective, about your viewpoint, about how you feel in your conversations regularly with American security officials. How do we satisfy their need? Obviously we would prefer not to have a passport as a document at all for people to cross. They can use two pieces of government ID.

From a security perspective, how do you think we can satisfy them on whether or not an enhanced driver's licence would be there? What about an idea of something like a day pass or a two-day pass? Congresswoman Slaughter has recognized this for the person who shows up at the border.

My concern here is that, look, we have almost no time between now and June, and there's not a lot of talk being put into this. When I talk to congressmen and congresswomen and governors on this, I find they haven't put a lot of thought into it. We're going to hit this date in June. People are going to show up at that border and they're going to be turned away. You only have 20% of Americans who even have a passport, so this is going to have a hugely detrimental impact upon trade, and it's not greatly improving security. It's something we all have to be thinking about here.

9:30 a.m.

A/Commr Mike Cabana

I'm not disputing what you're saying. I agree with you. From an enforcement standpoint, the concern would be that the more documents that exist to allow the cross-border travel of individuals, the more risk there is.

If I remember correctly, as this goes back several years--I believe this is based on discussions with our American counterparts--right now there is something in excess of 1,200 different kinds of documents being used to cross the border. As for the likelihood of any border enforcement official being able to recognize whether the document being produced is a true document or a counterfeit, with that number of documents, it's pretty challenging.

I agree with restricting the number of documents that are being used to allow this travel. In terms of specifics for the day pass, I have not been privy to any of those discussions so I would have to go back and check. I can undertake to come back to the committee here with a more formal response.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

I appreciate that.

In April of 2004, for the first time, there was a national security strategy that was implemented by the Government of Canada. A year later, we had an annual report, with an expectation we would have one every year thereafter. There has been no annual report since then. There has been no renewing of a national security strategy.

This is something that comes up in the discussions I've had with American officials, with them saying that we're not reporting annually and we don't have an updated national security strategy. Can you talk to me about what you're hearing about that and how that is impacting our discussions with the Americans?

9:35 a.m.

Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Public Safety Canada, Canada-United States Cross Border Crime Forum

Barry MacKillop

Thank you.

I haven't heard that it's had any negative impacts on our discussions. Certainly it's not something that's focused on as a problematic area at the CBCF, for instance.

I understand there is work under way right now on updating the national security statement or the national security policy, but I'm not exactly sure of the state of that work at this point in time. I understand there is work and a commitment to move forward on that.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ménard.

9:35 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

I see from your respective presentations that you attach a great deal of importance to relations between law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border. You talked about joint operations and in particular about information sharing. I think this is what enables you to make timely arrests or to use enforcement measures. As one of the people behind the Carcajou Squad, I can appreciate that tremendous progress can be made through cooperation.

You've talked to us about two types of measures. We hear a great deal about these agreements, information sharing and joint operations, but very little about traditional, linear measures at the border aimed at stopping people from entering the country, measures that occasionally result in someone being intercepted.

Regarding these two types of operations, in your opinion, what percentage of these are cross-border criminal information and intelligence operations, versus measures taken at the border itself. I realize that this is not a simple question, but I do think it's an important one, given that it could help those who are planning for the future and help determine if funding should target one type of operation as opposed to another.

9:35 a.m.

Assistant Commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Border Integrity Section, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

C/Supt Mike Cabana

Thank you for your question, Mr. Ménard.

I agree with you that there is no simple answer to that question. Unfortunately, I can't give you a percentage. However, I can confirm that border security operations flow from a partnership arrangement. As you said, certain operations focus on activities at the border and these are carried out in conjunction with ongoing investigations in larger centres. Some of the investigations and interceptions occurring at the border even provide the information needed to develop long-term investigations involving law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border.

Unfortunately, we do not focus on establishing a percentage. One has to understand that IBET units are based on the partnership concept. Each core IBET agency brings to the table the knowledge and skills set of its members with a view to ensuring border security. Some of the agencies, like the RCMP which operates in certain locations across the country, or the U.S. Border Patrol, focus their attention especially on what is taking place along the border itself.

9:40 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

I see. We have so little time to talk. I would like to continue our discussion of this subject, but I have to wrap it up.

Many Canadian travellers make the same observation when they go to Europe, where there are no borders and people move about freely. Europe is not immune to terrorism, money laundering and drug trafficking. Nevertheless, people can travel from Poland to Spain, from Italy to France, from Luxembourg to other locations and move sums of money from one country to another.

Given all of the efforts made to maintain our border, one of the longest in the world, do you feel that we are safer than Europeans are from the threat of terrorism, money laundering or drug trafficking?

9:40 a.m.

Assistant Commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Border Integrity Section, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

C/Supt Mike Cabana

Mr. Ménard, I will answer that question by giving you my personal opinion.

I do believe that the attention paid to maintaining the Canada-U.S. border does strengthen our security. For example, activities that our banned or detected at the border enable us very often to identify individuals in major centres in the United States or Canada who are involved in organized crime. Some of the biggest investigations conducted in Canada and the U.S. came about as a result of an interception at the border. The border is also a vulnerable point for criminal organizations.

9:40 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

I understand.

Do I have any time left?

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

You have another minute and a half.

9:40 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

I'm interested in getting Mr. MacKillop's opinion. Perhaps you can respond as a civilian representing another agency.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what strikes me is that under pressure from the Americans, who have become absolutely paranoid about wanting a tightly sealed border, we have been forced to establish new procedures. For example, Canada, and Quebec in particular, is home to a number of border towns in which homes are built right on the border. People have lived this way for many years. We have the impression that the Americans are the ones who have forced us to devote this level of energy and these resources to border security. As a result, there is less energy and fewer resources devoted to intelligence gathering and to increased surveillance of criminal organizations.

9:40 a.m.

Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Public Safety Canada, Canada-United States Cross Border Crime Forum

Barry MacKillop

I don't think the problem originates solely with the United States. Both sides are responsible for it. It is in Canada's interest to pay special attention to the border. As Mr. Cabana said, ensuring the security of our border is in Canada's interest. Efforts are also being made to enhance resources at the border and abroad, to facilitate the arrival of people into the country.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

Thank you.

Mr. Harris, please, for seven minutes.