Public Safety committee  We did look at performance indicators. Eight performance indicators concerned those activities, in the main. We noted that out of those eight indicators, there were three about which the agency could report. We deemed the indicators to be reliable. We noted that the agency was in a position to prepare its own departmental report to submit to Treasury Board and Parliament.

Public Safety committee  When it comes to all the initiatives, the challenge is to collect information and be able to make a report afterwards. If there are delays, it is more difficult for the department to make a report. In the context of the entry/exit initiative, I believe that departments and agencies have already reported on the indicators I mentioned.

Public Safety committee  In our audit, we did not look at whether there was a challenge mechanism. We limited ourselves to performance measurement and the reaching of objectives by the beyond the border initiative. So I cannot give you my opinion on that.

Public Safety committee  As we mentioned, we examined the performance metrics, and we noted that the main obstacle to pursuing the work on this initiative was the possibility that it could be extended to other departments. We also noted that the Privacy Commissioner had taken part in the discussion and had shared his concerns in that regard.

Public Safety committee  We did not necessarily examine the human resources aspect in detail, nor the agency's capacity to implement this initiative. In our report, we mentioned that the agency had a budget of 121 million dollars for the period from 2011 to 2014. Initially, the initiative was supposed to end in June 2014.

Public Safety committee  In the context of the Entry/Exit Initiative, there were specific deliverables regarding the development of a system to collect information and communicate it subsequently. I can say that most of those deliverables were attained. As I mentioned earlier, there were delays pertaining to phases III and IV which prevented activities from continuing.

Public Safety committee  For instance, in the case of the Entry/Exit Initiative, we meant the legal authority to pursue phase III, the land phase, and phase IV, which concerns air carriers. Remember that the Beyond the Border Action Plan is a partnership with the United States. And so it requires a lot of collaboration and discussions with our partners.

Public Safety committee  What we wanted to point out is that the performance measures were not in place to demonstrate that results were achieved. That said, that does not necessarily mean that the agency is not aware of the security parameters that exist. We really focused on these particular initiatives.

Public Safety committee  Thirty-two performance indicators are indeed going to be put in place after the complete implementation of the initiative.

Public Safety committee  Afterwards, the agency will be able to gather the information and report on the results.

Public Safety committee  The purpose of the audit was not to examine the current state of security, nor to compare the before and after. As Mr. Ferguson said, our goal was to see how the departments and agencies implement performance measurements to show that they have achieved the objectives of the Beyond the Border Action Plan.

Public Accounts committee  Logic models were designed by each organization—not to say that nothing existed, but they were not monitored specifically. As indicated, they were more output driven. Indicators are supposed to be intermediate or long-term. That was what we saw. In some cases some of these indicators were not well designed to show the benefits achieved by these initiatives.

Public Accounts committee  Not really. We didn't recommend any specific indicators to put in place, but for them to review existing indicators they had or to revisit some of them. In the report we do mention that at the outset 126 indicators were designed and 57 of those were modified throughout the process.