SINT Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE, TRADE DISPUTES AND INVESTMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOUS-COMITÉ DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL, DES DIFFÉRENDS COMMERCIAUX ET DES INVESTISSEMENTS INTERNATIONAUX DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 31, 2001

• 1532

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We are meeting and holding hearings on the Canada-U.S. border and it's our hope that sometime next week we will have a draft report that within about two weeks will be a formal report that will be taken to the House of Commons as a report of this committee in terms of what we will have heard from people like yourselves, representing distinguished national organizations that have a major interest in the Canada-U.S. border.

We will take many of your recommendations and much of your advice and we will incorporate much of it in our report. It is our hope that this report will not only help the House of Commons and the government in drafting a response to the crisis that exists at the border, but ultimately will be used as a good document to trigger a positive debate for the best interests of both the business community as well as the community as a whole on both sides of the border, for that matter.

This is the fourth and final meeting we are hosting, and I thought that rather than having it almost like a classroom where the student stands up and delivers his paper, we will have it like a team effort, in that it will be a dialogue among all of us collectively. When you have a report that has been prepared by your organization, you give it to us and it will show in the record as if you had read it, word-for-word. So that will form part of the minutes of the meeting. The meeting is recorded and we have our researchers who will be taking very diligent notes.

What we are interested in this afternoon, frankly, are specific and tangible recommendations you think the government can do. We want you to say what the government should do, and as a result we can take note of that and then it will form part of our recommendation to the House of Commons and ultimately to government.

I am not going to take any longer. Perhaps we can start. Each of you will introduce yourself and the organization you represent, give a very brief introduction, and then tell us what we should do as a government as well as a Parliament.

• 1535

With this, I will open it to our friends to give us their input, starting with this side of the room.

Mr. David Griffin (Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is David Griffin. I'm with the Canadian Police Association.

I do have a statement. It's not overly long. I would like to, if I could, review it quickly with the committee.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. David Griffin: By way of introduction, we don't normally appear before this committee. We are the national voice for 30,000 frontline police personnel in Canada.

The Canadian Police Association welcomes and appreciates the opportunity to appear before the committee this afternoon. Through our 13 affiliates, membership in the Canadian Police Association includes police personnel serving in 275 police services from Canada's smallest towns and villages, as well as those working in our large municipal police services. We have members from each province. There are CN and CP railway police, the RCMP members' associations, and first nations police associations, respectively.

Our association is committed to ensuring the welfare of Canadian police personnel by securing a safe and equitable working environment, promoting higher standards of professionalism within policing, and protecting police officer and public safety by advocating progressive justice reform.

We're proud of the relationships we have with parliamentarians from all political parties. Like you, our members want to make a difference in our communities.

The incredible and tragic events of September 11 have heightened the awareness of Canadians and our international allies of the threats associated with terrorist activities and our vulnerability as a free and democratic society. It is difficult to understand the level of hate and malice that would cause someone to conceive such acts and devise the means to cause so much pain and devastation.

While Canadians and Americans living in North America have traditionally been insulated from the reach of global terrorists, this state of innocence was forever lost on September 11. Now more than ever, Canadians are acutely concerned about the safety and security of our airlines, railways, transportation systems, ports, seaways, canals, pipelines, nuclear facilities, public institutions, and economic centres. Canadian police officers understand this concern and share in the view that more can and must be done to preserve our way of life.

The terrorists' greatest ally is complacency. Terrorists exploit the very freedoms and protections afforded by our democratic society to carry out their cowardly and inhumane acts of terror. Canada must apply a balanced approach that preserves fundamental freedoms for law-abiding Canadians, while ensuring that those who choose to live outside of our laws cannot use those same laws and freedoms to seek refuge from detection or prosecution or to undermine our democratic way of life.

Canadians expect and deserve meaningful efforts by our federal government to maintain the safety of Canadians through significant changes domestically and abroad. Our immigration and customs agencies lack the resources and technology to adequately inspect the large quantity of goods and people that enter and leave this country on a daily basis. We need to employ more modern technology to screen the entry of goods and people.

Customs and immigration officers need greater access to information, including the Canadian Police Information Centre, to do their jobs effectively. Significant cuts in their budgets over the past decade have resulted in reductions of up to 50% of departmental frontline staff. Despite the increases in the targets for immigration and the number of applications being processed by immigration officials, they are working with fewer staff and resources than a decade ago.

In its ninth report, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology observed, following its review of Bill C-11, that the majority of witnesses before the committee emphasized that an underlying and widespread problem is the lack of resources available to effectively implement Canada's immigration and refugee programs. Many witnesses stated that the bill is sufficient to address all security and border control concerns, even given post-September 11 terrorism-related issues, provided the resources available for its administration and enforcement are increased.

This is the committee report as well:

Events of the last several days in the United States further highlight the critical need for adequate training and resources, especially for all those involved in front-line security and processing.

From our perspective, those charged with the responsibility of maintaining the security of our borders have met with resistance in obtaining the required technological equipment, training, and resources to do their job.

• 1540

Our association has for several years adopted resolutions at each of our annual general meetings concerning immigration and deportation enforcement, protection of our borders, and the growing phenomenon of organized crime. Most recently, our association adopted a new resolution opposing the concept of an open border between Canada and the United States, and I have provided the clerk with a copy for the benefit of the committee.

Given our close proximity to the United States, Canada is particularly vulnerable as a stepping stone for international crime. International criminals recognize Canada as a point of access to the United States in the smuggling of illegal contraband, including people, drugs, child pornography, and firearms, and indeed to carry out terrorist activities. More importantly, Canada has gained a reputation internationally as a safe haven for criminals and fertile ground for organized crime.

The implication of an open border between Canada and the United States presents serious concerns for law enforcement, including the possible proliferation of crime in such areas as gun trafficking, drug trafficking, child abduction, and transport of illegal immigrants, as well as entry into Canada of violent criminals seeking safe haven or refuge from prosecution in the United States. Our association opposes the concept of an open border and calls for the strengthening of Canada's borders at all points of entry.

We recognize that there are economic concerns regarding the flow of goods and services across this border. Businesses and the transportation industries have to work with government to find solutions to balance economic interests with security concerns.

We advocate better, more efficient processes, including a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week approach to the flow of goods and services to reduce congestion at peak demand times; increased use of technology, including investment by the transportation industries in compliance-based technology systems; increased cooperation and diligence to deter and detect smuggling through legitimate businesses by suppliers, customers, and employees of those businesses; adequate staffing and equipment levels to ensure proper screening of traffic while reducing unnecessary and costly delays—and I think this is where the government has to make a concerted effort to improve the current state of affairs.

We advocate the creation of a national border protection service to provide strategic and coordinated protection and enforcement across Canada's borders and points of entry separate from the Department of National Revenue. This service should provide support to existing RCMP efforts. Greater priority, funding, and support must be given to protecting all of our borders, preventing the illegal entry of contraband and criminals, and eliminating the climate of safe refuge that is currently afforded to convicted criminals.

Canada requires a strategic, multi-disciplinary approach to national security that combines effective legislation and policies and sufficient human and technological resources and training with a comprehensive integrated enforcement strategy.

Thank you, and I would welcome any questions at the appropriate time.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bevan from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

Chief Vince Bevan (Vice-President, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I too have some remarks, but I would be happy to convey those to your clerk for inclusion in the minutes.

The Chair: Sure, that would be great.

Chief Vince Bevan: I have a point to raise that is somewhat parallel to that of my friend Mr. Griffin, who is representing the Canadian Police Association, but is distinct in one particular area, and it is about the perception held by many in the United States that Canada is a haven, that the border provides easy access to those they now perceive to be enemies. I have some suggestions about how to deal with that, and I would be pleased for an opportunity to speak to you about that this afternoon. And I appreciate the time this committee has given us to be heard today.

Subject to the other introductions, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Sure, great.

Mr. Jones.

Mr. Chris Jones (Director, Federal-Provincial Government Liaison, Railway Association of Canada): I'll pass it on to Mr. Burrows.

Mr. Bruce Burrows (Vice-President, Public Affairs and Government Relations, Railway Association of Canada): Good afternoon. I'm Bruce Burrows, vice-president of public affairs and government relations for the Railway Association of Canada. Joining me is Chris Jones, who is our director of federal-provincial government liaison.

We have left a fuller presentation deck, which I would expect you to take into consideration for your report. Perhaps what I can do is touch on a few critical issues that we'd like to have raised and draw your attention to them.

• 1545

One key rather important message I'd like to leave today—and it's a very simple one—is that security and trade facilitation go hand in hand. I suspect that will be a common message the committee will hear around the table today.

I'll say just a bit first about who we are as an organization. We are the Railway Association of Canada. We represent 56 railway companies across the country. Virtually all railways operating in Canada are members: the large-class ones, Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway; the short lines, of which there are about 40 new ones that have formed in the last five years; inter-city passenger—VIA Rail; commuter rail in the four major city centres, including Ottawa as of last week; and tourist rail. Together our members carry about four million carloads of traffic and about 51 million people per year.

Certainly, in terms of September 11, we all agree it was clearly a tragic day. Being a day so horrific, it's a day we can never forget, even if we wanted to. It's causing us to rethink at levels probably deeper than we are yet to fully appreciate. Certainly, there's a lot of rethinking going on at a very personal and family level, but in terms of today's discussion, there's a lot of rethinking at the level of our North American trading relationship and how we can continue to easily trade across the border.

In the short term, we have some concerns and we see some implications. In the rail industry we're seeing an economic slowdown being exacerbated—and we are serving just about every sector of the economy. That was predicted and anticipated before the eleventh, but it is being exacerbated.

In the long term, we have some concerns for the potential of tightening U.S. security at the border. Longer term that would have a clear negative implication for our economic performance, because our performance is closely tied to the U.S. border. About 43% of our GDP is export oriented, and roughly 87% of that goes to the U.S.—essentially a third of our economy is directly connected to U.S. flows. So there's a potential for a loss of investment in Canada. That's a bottom-line concern we would raise.

As well, over the past couple of years, we have seen a greater preponderance of border inspections by the U.S. customs service. This has operating concerns for us, and interestingly, it also has safety concerns for us. The rail industry is not set up to facilitate inspections at border points across the country.

In terms of other economic implications, we also have some concerns about our short-line members. They are particularly vulnerable to the economic slowdown in the months ahead, because they tend to have a high reliance on one or two commodities, given their limited geographic reach.

On the passenger side, interestingly enough, our passenger movers are pretty much at capacity. VIA business is up about 10% in the key intercity corridors. They have reached their ceiling in terms of both track and rail car capacity.

I would also point out that from a security perspective, we have been in regular contact with key government officials on both sides of the border—immigration, customs, Transport Canada.

We signed a memorandum of understanding three years ago with Transport Canada that deals with security concerns in times like this. That memorandum requires us to develop and file action plans to deal with situations such as the situation we're facing now. So a lot of security steps have been taken on a voluntary basis by the industry.

In terms of recommendations and considerations going forward, I'd like to leave you with a couple of key messages. One is that we have to ensure that any government measures adopted are collaborative between Canada and the U.S., and that they're reasoned and effective.

• 1550

The U.S. government is being very proactive, according to news reports just today, in terms of identifying funding to support new border and security measures. Introduced today was the Enhanced Border Security Act in Congress in the States, and from a financial perspective alone, in terms of the potential for new difficult security measures being put in place, it is an issue for us.

The Canadian government, I think, at the same time must take a lead on ensuring the flow of goods between the two countries is not compromised. Where the U.S. is perhaps taking a bit of a lead on the security side, we ought to take a lead on ensuring trade is flowing smoothly across the border. It's in the interests of both the U.S. and Canada to ensure that happens.

Moving forward with some specific recommendations, I think, as I indicated, we were quite proactive in facilitating security measures right after September 11. We have about two million shipments moving across the border a year. About 44% of the traffic moving on the ground between Canada and the U.S. moves by rail, from a volume perspective.

There has been a lot of energy focused on electronic commerce, and I think we've been modestly successful at mitigating the negative effects on service after September 11 because of a number of the initiatives we put in place to ensure data is flowing smoothly, that all of our CSAs are electronically communicated through EDI, electronic data interchange, to U.S. customs officials, and in the opposite direction as well. Over the last five or ten years we've invested significantly in other border best practices, in terms of infrastructure support, tunnel security, cameras at tunnels, secure rail yards, and those sorts of things.

In terms of other issues to consider, I would say there are probably four areas we ought to focus on. One is a better alignment of customs policies. To put it another way, seeking a greater convergence of practices on both sides of the border. The second issue would be prequalifying low-risk freight and law-abiding people to focus resources where needed.

My colleague Jim Phillips will probably speak to issues such as the NEXUS program, which needs to be kick-started again. These are all security programs focused on separating low risk from high risk. That will allow the remaining resources to be better channelled to the higher-risk activities at the border.

Thirdly, we would like to see customs inspections at destination or origin; in other words, move inspections away from the border. Again, as a collateral benefit, that would allow remaining resources to focus on the high-priority areas at the border. We would see single inspections done at ports, or key inland terminals such as Chicago. These would be single inspections that we would envisage to meet the standards of both countries, for both domestic and offshore shipments.

Finally, I think we need to see much greater movement toward creating a central database and a common computer system, for customs in particular. That would facilitate a lot of different issues, and we can explore that in conversation a little bit further. But that would be something that would have to be accessible by all the carriers, the brokers, and the importers and exporters. It would allow them to file their key pertinent information and it would then be accessible by both agencies on all sides of the border.

So those are, I think, the key points I'd like to highlight, and we can get into a fuller discussion. If we were able to move in those four directions in particular, I think we would go a long way to mitigating some of the risks we clearly see being present at the border today.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Phillips, maybe you could also share with us some specific recommendations. I know you have a very comprehensive report, and we are going to deem that this report has been read into the record.

If you would just give us the juice so we can enter into the dialogue, that would be great.

Mr. James Phillips (President, Canadian/American Border Trade Alliance): I'll do it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having me with you.

• 1555

The Can/Am Border Trade Alliance I represent is a transcontinental binational organization with the participation of 22 states and all the Canadian provinces in our network of 60,000 companies and organizations. We have an executive board that has six regions across the border with executive directors from B.C. to Seattle to the Maritimes. So we are truly transcontinental. We've been in the business for ten years, so this is not a new venue for us to be looking at.

You asked for specifics, and I'll summarize them. These are Canadian and U.S. grassroots recommendations. They're not coming from the top down, they're coming from a whole host of people whose livings are dependent on the border.

As Bruce said very candidly, 36% to 37% of the Canadian economy is directly dependent upon sales to the United States. Trade flow and the efficiency of the border are extremely critical, because in my humble opinion, the economic activity of a country is the source of its power. If the economic activity and the economic viability are disturbed or otherwise interrupted, we're both in very serious trouble.

I brought with me today about seven key specific recommendations. The 1995 Shared Border Accord, the 1997 Border Vision, CUSP in 1999, and the Open Skies agreement are all very critically important paradigm-moving initiatives that the U.S. and Canadian government have had active. The problem is that as we sat here on September 10, and as we sit here today on October 31, the current border situation has and still does impede the flow of legal trade and people.

The Canada-U.S. border is in fact the U.S.-Canada border. It's a shared border. It's of interest to both countries, and we have to stay in the trenches together. It is a matter of a joint, bilateral focus that we must work on.

I'm a little embarrassed about some of the things I'm going to talk about today, because some of them surfaced in 1995, and with all the talk we've had, we have not acted to make them a reality. David Anderson was then the minister, Pierre Gravelle the deputy minister, and Allan Cocksedge, the ADM. Those three were authors of the shared border accord of 1995. It was truly a paradigm-shifting, effective, practical approach. Unfortunately, the following things have not been implemented as we sit here six years later. I think that's very critical.

Aside from the accord, the first item is resources, which has been mentioned, so I won't hammer on it. At any given time today, 50% of the existing primary lanes between the U.S. and Canada from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean are closed due solely to one reason—the lack of resource staff, U.S. customs and INS. It's on that side.

I will tell you, the one thing September 11, in all its agony and terror, has done is raise the priority of and attention to the border, and funds are going to be forthcoming very shortly to take care of that. Canada also is under-resourced, particularly with CIC, but customs as well. So I would urge that you take a practical look at what we ought to do there.

I think it's very critical that we also point out when you add staff—the U.S. is adding staff—there's a lot of concern about more enforcement, that it's going to be tightening down. The reality is if you have 10 booths at a crossing, which we have, and three are open, I guarantee you if we now man six of them, you're going to double the facilitation. The individual enforcement as one goes through the booth doesn't change, but twice as many go through. So it is a facilitation improvement. Don't be afraid of additional resources—up to a point.

On my second point, “harmonize” is a bad word right now in Canada. The perception is it means Americanization. It's the furthest thing from the truth. Harmonization is simply two commonsense people trying to get together to make things as close as possible. That's been going on very successfully since 1995. The problem is it results in parallel systems. That's what we had—a harmonized parallel system. Canada does its thing in customs; the U.S. does its thing in customs, INS. What we need is an integrated, joint system, and in some cases cross-designation, where it makes sense for one to do the service of the other, cross-designation. I would suggest that we get away from paralleling and get into joint operations.

• 1600

Now, you talk about perimeter, exterior borders, and trade facilitation. Trade facilitation means that we have to reduce the duplication at the 49th parallel. The two biggest trade flows right now are through Halifax and Vancouver going to Chicago: external containers come to either of those two container ports, get put on a train, and are taken to Chicago. They're checked at the port of Halifax, and when they get to the border, U.S. agents look at everything again.

Conversely, there's the flow from the port of New York to Toronto. Those are the two big flows, Canadian ports to Chicago and U.S. ports to Toronto. The same thing happens: the U.S.A. checks at the port and Canada checks at the line.

What we need to do if we have data sharing.... The first point is that Canadian Customs has been unable to share data on regular commercial transactions with the U.S.A. over some privacy concerns. That's got to be seriously looked at. If you had data sharing between the U.S.A. and Canada, then when a container hit Halifax, Canada Customs would talk to U.S. Customs and ask, do you want us to look at this container? There are many things happening, such as T-shirts coming from a country, that may not be of interest to Canada but are to the U.S.A. They have to know what that container is, so they'll tell Canada what to look at. Canada Customs looks at it at Halifax, and as Bruce said, once it's inspected and deemed admissible, it goes to Chicago sealed and is okay. That's the key to what we call external or point of first arrival. It's hung up on data sharing. Canada must position itself to data share with the U.S.A.

Third, pre-boarding clearance at the airport legislation, which was passed after several years of talk and put in place recently, needs to be expanded by Parliament so we have have prior clearance at the land border. We need that legislation from Parliament. It is solely the responsibility and the jurisdiction of Parliament to enable prior clearance at the land borders. This will allow U.S. agents—and I won't get into the gun issue because I think that can be taken care of—to come to the other side of the crossing and allow Canadian officers go to the U.S. side. There is as we speak and has been since 1935 legislation in the U.S.A. that would allow Canadians customs officers to go there tomorrow if there were reciprocal legislation allowing U.S. officers to operate similarly.

You need to do this, because at the bridge and tunnel crossings, as examples today, you've got lineups across the bridges. If the next terrorist act is a fertilizer bomb in the middle of the bridge going to the U.S.A. or Canada.... The lines are there, and nobody has looked at them. Enough said.

It's imperative that we pass this legislation. The U.S. law is in place. That's something that's solely under the control of Parliament.

The fourth one is the implementation of a joint single low-risk traveller system. I don't want a misnomer here. With NEXUS and CANPASS, this is an area where Canadians have led beautifully; CANPASS is a wonderful system. NEXUS was a big compromise on the part of the U.S.A. The INS has always said that it needed to query every vehicle entering the United States, yet it agreed to this pilot program, which has been working wonderfully at the Blue Water Bridge.

I would urge that we continue in our efforts to get this implemented. I've been talking with elected officials here in Canada and in the U.S.A. to do this. I hope this will happen.

NEXUS identifies low risk. The key here is that it is really an enforcement system, a security system, that enforces the identification of low risk. Applicants undergo background checks in both Canada and the United States. They're interviewed, and they pass a heck of a screening. They get their documents, and we know they're low risk. Once we have identified them, you have greater security when they're using the system than otherwise.

I'd also point out that NEXUS—and this is new—ought to be expanded to commercial drivers because 20% of those trucks continuously crossing the border are empty. If a driver could have their truck declared empty, we could have a lane at the border where someone says, if you are a NEXUS driver, we know who you are, and once we check your truck out as empty, you can get out of the queue.

• 1605

The fifth one deals with immigration offshore. I was very pleased today to hear Minister Caplan announce something that's been in the works for a while. That is that CIC and the INS ought to interview people at Orly Airport in Paris, for instance, and not let them get on a plane if they're not admissible to land at Toronto or at Kennedy Airport in the U.S.A.

That's what we call offshore or at-the-source, and that's a critical element of what's called the perimeter. I don't want to get into semantics. I don't want to get hung up on terms, but when you are interdicting possible threats as far away from you as you can, that's a good thing. We are urging that and are very pleased.

As an aside, very quickly, I might mention that another perception we're all familiar with is that this means we have to adopt the American system. There's nothing further from the truth. I look at this as the U.S.A. and Canada working together in immigration using one book with different pages, and my example is Cuba. Cuba is very different from the U.S.A. and Canada. If I'm a CIC person at Orly Airport and a person wants to come in from Cuba, I say, you're welcome to come to Toronto. A U.S. agent has to say, sorry, you can't come to the U.S.A. It's that kind of thing. It can be different, but it can be the same book, and that's what we have to work toward. Let's find the 80% of things we can agree on between the two countries and deal with them. Let the 5% or 10% of things that are going to hang us up all over the place be chapter 2, but let's get chapter 1 down.

Point six is physical reality, and I couldn't come here today without talking about this. Customs self-assessment for goods coming from Canada is a tremendous initiative on the good side to do with trucks and the rail systems. NCAP...an automotive system in the U.S.A. dealing with line release and pre-arrival processing approval—all those are systems where we can get instant clearance. Everything is EDI ahead of time.

Now, the driver, the conveyance, and the cargo are all approved, and the truck doesn't stop. But it gets to the actual crossing and waits 45 minutes just to get to the processing booth. Then it can go through almost wheels down, not having had to stop. He's held up because he's in queue with the slowest truck, whose driver hasn't done anything. He's from way down in the United States, has never crossed the border, perhaps doesn't have his immigration papers, doesn't know what a manifest is, hasn't paid his five-dollar fee to cross the border, takes five or six minutes at the border, and is backing up other trucks. The key here is the streaming of low-risk and high-risk trucks and cars and getting them access to the booths.

People talk about dedicated lanes. A dedicated lane is not the answer, and I'll give you an example. There may be three truck booths, but there are only two lanes going each way on a highway, bridge, or tunnel. You have 10 or 15 booths or whatever at a crossing, and usually for truck booths the most is three. The problem is that the right lane of the crossing and highways is for trucks and the left lane is for cars, and they're all in line. Even if you dedicate a booth up front, these trucks can't get to it because they're in line half a mile back. It's not the answer.

The answer is to move the cars out of there. Move the low-risk trucks from the other lane and get them access to the booths.

As to this idea of saving money, gas, and time with just-in-time inventory management, all the things you critically need to operate our business are all screwed up no matter what system we have if we can't manage the actual traffic at the physical border. That's a very critical issue.

Last but not least, I just wanted to tell you there's been a lot of work done. I've given the chairman a copy of the model called the “Border Analysis Management Model”. It was done at the Peace Bridge, and it models what would happen to actual traffic and arrival patterns and volumes if we did two things. First, move three customs booths, that is, three customs agents a shift, from the U.S. side to the Canadian side—just three people. You'd need legislation from Parliament to do that. Second, introduce NEXUS on the assumption that 20% of cars, just one in five, will join NEXUS—and that's very achievable.

If we did just those two things, you would eliminate 75% of the trucks waiting in queue. The transit time of trucks would be reduced from 44 minutes to 18 minutes, 105,000 gallons of diesel fuel would be saved, 93,000 hours a year of truck-driver time or truck cost saved, and the environmental discharge of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and hydrocarbons reduced over 50% on an annual basis for health and safety. If we put NEXUS in with an assumed use rate of 20%, 65% of cars backed up for a mile would be eliminated. The transit time to cross this busy crossing would be cut by 67%. We'd save 63,000 gallons of gas, we'd save 108,000 hours of people sitting in their car doing nothing, and environmental pollution would be reduced by 50%.

• 1610

That needs two actions: Canadian parliamentary legislation to approve land border prior clearance, and the introduction and implementation of NEXUS. Those two things will do that. I had U.S. Customs call me on September 18 to tell me that if these two things had been in place at the Peace Bridge on September 11, about 80% of the backup and problems would have been avoided.

Those are my five or six. You wanted specifics, I think, Mr. Chairman. I'll end there.

The Chair: Thank you very much for the specifics.

Mr. Poisson, we want your specifics too.

Mr. Yves Poisson (Consultant, Public Policy Forum): Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having invited us here.

I'm with the Public Policy Forum. The forum's board of directors decided nearly two years ago that the economic integration of North America, and particularly the impact of such integration on Canadian public policy, should be one of our four priorities for the period 2000-2003.

The main reason our private sector members made those suggestions arose from the fear that governments, and particularly the federal government, did not grasp the full scope of the phenomenon of this economic integration. Canadian governments are continuing to approach its implications without attempting to horizontally coordinate actions in an adequate manner.

I have a statement here I won't read, but with your permission I would just like to lift out a few points for you in almost a kind of bullet format.

The Public Policy Forum is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization aimed at improving the quality of government in Canada through better dialogue between the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. Given its nature, the forum does not have a formal position on the direction for policy choices arising from economic integration. However, we've interviewed people and we've organized round tables, conferences, and meetings. What I would like to do is very briefly report on some of the key points we've heard.

For business, the physical border between Canada and the United States is really a nuisance, and that's probably the best way to describe it. There was before September 11 an ideal, a hope that an open border could be achieved. Now the concern is that the realization of this ideal has been postponed indefinitely.

As others said earlier, the problems that exist at the border are not new. Sharply defined problems that had already existed for many years and were getting worse were thrown up at us by the September 11 events. For many years the American authorities had an approach largely based on monitoring and inspection, while the Canadian authorities had adopted an approach designed more to facilitate the movement of goods. When you understand that premise, it's not surprising that there were problems and some difficulties in harmonizing or moving forward with some of the ideas that were proposed earlier.

We organized a round table in April. Some of the conclusions are worth mentioning. The first one is that there is an absolute need to address both trade facilitation and enforcement and security issues in order to solve this problem in any way. The border must facilitate trade, of course, and the movement of low-risk travellers and goods. It must also address common security concerns. Read: mostly American concerns.

• 1615

How do we make the border more efficient? Jim Phillips mentioned a number of suggestions. I would summarize as number one to move inspections away from the border, both for goods and people. Secondly, harmonize, simplify, streamline, and coordinate.

From that perspective, I'd like to draw your attention to President Bush's presidential directive issued two days ago, on October 29. It actually orders the Secretary of State and Treasury and the Attorney General to increase the sharing of customs and immigration information with Canada and Mexico, and to work with our neighbours to develop a shared immigration and customs control database. I would urge your committee to look at this proposal. I hope the government would actually move on this opportunity and opening from the U.S. administration.

A third point would be to adopt a risk management approach and keep a broad vision for the border. I think this was described earlier. The Canada-United States partnership is clearly a step in the right direction. In fact, many consider the plan adopted in 1999 is still largely valid, and contains measures that should be implemented with renewed vigour and appropriate political and financial support. It's not that the cost was not good; there was no real political backing and resources in order to put it together.

More, however, should be done. The policies, admission of individuals, and security in a broad way are really key to the resolution and improvement of the flow of goods at the border and the fluidity of the movement of goods.

In this regard, some people here have mentioned that Canadian exports to the United States represent 30% of our GDP. I would like to quote one number. Canadian exports to the United States are only 2.4% of their GDP. I'm talking about the same number, looking from either the American or Canadian perspective.

The relationship is quite unbalanced. It puts a lot of pressure on Canada to very seriously look at and address American concerns. Trade is more important for us than it is for them, even if we're talking about their huge numbers and the large number of firms involved.

I have a few words on the admission of people. There have been people saying Canada is a haven for terrorists, and that kind of thing. I'd like to quote a sentence from a newspaper:

The system for screening and tracking foreign visitors is antiquated, cumbersome, and overwhelmed. As a result, the immigration system provides no reliable means of finding potential terrorists who have violated the terms of their visas.

Maybe you think this came from a Canadian newspaper. It doesn't. It comes from an American newspaper in Portland. It's an article that I find very interesting. It analysed the American refugee and immigration system. I can make it available to you, if you want.

• 1620

It's not that our system is perfect. We should not think the American system is really much better than ours. That's not to say there is not work to do, but I think things should be put in perspective.

The events of September 11 have put the debate on the border, trade, and so on front and centre. The forum thinks there should be debate on those issues and on the balance between security and trade efficiency. In that regard, we're organizing a major conference in Toronto at the end of November. I can provide you with more information on it.

The forum continues to take an interest in border-related issues and other aspects of economic integration. Actually, a group of senior provincial and federal officials will be going to Brussels and Berlin this Friday. They will look at European policies on the management of shared borders in the context of the Shawinigan accord, and the challenges such policies now pose to the security of the European partners. I would be pleased to provide you with more information on what Canada can learn from the European experience with respect to border security at a later date.

Finally, the forum will continue to take an interest in Canada's place in the North American economic sphere. It's true, at this point in time, the border with the United States is really the focus of attention. Solutions are looked at in a bilateral manner, particularly by the business people. It's true the problems that exist between Mexico and the United States are very different. At this time, the bilateral approach is probably the best one.

We should not forget we share the same geographical space in North America with the United States and Mexico. The debate should be expanded as soon as possible to include third partners. The third partner, Mexico, is both an ally and in some sense a competitor to Canada.

There is one suggestion I would like to make. There are currently groups of American and Canadian parliamentarians that are meeting. There is another group of Mexican and American parliamentarians that is meeting. We would like to suggest the two groups meet together to discuss and have a useful exchange of opinions. It could also help dissipate certain myths about Canada's security policy on border management and admission of travellers. In the longer term, it could also lead to some interesting solutions to address this issue.

Thank you. I'll be happy to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Khun.

Mr. George Khun (Executive Director, Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Much has already been said, and I don't want to be repetitive. You asked initially, Mr. Chairman, what the government can do. We believe a key in this whole issue we are confronted with is Bill C-11. We have seen great initiatives taken by the government on Bill C-36. It all is negated by Bill C-11. It is not being addressed.

Namely, we are talking about the immigration and specifically the refugee claimant policy and application thereof. We believe if we can put a more secure system into place, where refugee claimants are not automatically released, but are thoroughly and properly screened prior to release, much of the whole issue of the cross-border problems we are confronted with can be put away.

Recently, a day or two ago, I read with rather high alarm about discussions held in Washington on introducing registrations and checks of each individual crossing the border. If that were to take place, and the registration thereof, etc., I'm truly worried about what it will mean, in terms of delays and all that.

• 1625

Other than that, you have received our brief, so I don't need to go into that. But I would like to underline before closing that much of the work, as so eloquently demonstrated by Jim Phillips, has already been done. The CUSP forum report is an excellent piece, so much of the work has already been done. All we need to do is really try to consolidate that and put it all under one umbrella.

So between closing the loophole in Bill C-11 and putting emphasis on the CUSP forum report, I think we can find excellent solutions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Everson.

Mr. Warren Everson (Vice-President, Policy and Strategic Planning, Air Transport Association of Canada): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I don't want to leave members of Parliament sitting listening any longer than absolutely necessary. I was going to waive my statement, but let me make my comments in five sentences.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, PC/DR): Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear his name, I'm sorry.

The Chair: Mr. Warren Everson. He's with the Air Transport Association of Canada, representing the airlines.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Warren Everson: Not at all.

September 11 has not caused us as much disruption and delay on the border as you might expect, because our traffic collapsed so rapidly. It's not a nice problem to have. We've taken more than 20% of the aircraft out of that market. So despite much increased security, things are still moving fairly expeditiously on the border. However, that's a fluke, and we know perfectly well that as traffic starts to rise again, with the additional delays of the security enhancements, we'll be in the soup in a big way.

We weren't okay before September 11, as I think other speakers have alluded to. While traffic across the border and air traffic increased exponentially through the 1990s, largely as a result of the open skies agreement that the government negotiated, customs resources on both sides of the border rose not at all, essentially, and in fact fell through several of those years. So we're not going to be able to thrive in the economy we will see when our traffic returns.

We need an innovative relationship. Some of the innovative approaches that have already been alluded to are critical to the airline industry, but I also want to stress that Canada needs a special relationship. We cannot live with what the rest of the world gets from the United States in the aviation industry, for reasons I'll be delighted to talk to when we get into our discussion.

We need to be handled in a different way because of the unique nature of our geographic proximity. We need it for economic reasons. We also need that special relationship and a secure border for our own security. Like some of the other speakers, when I'm in the United States I constantly hear that Canada is a weak sister on security. I'm often moved to point out that we're a net taker of criminals in Canada. More people are arrested coming across the border into our country than are arrested on their way into the United States. We have had our share of lethal homicidal terrorists entering Canada from the United States, as well.

We need a better border and better resources on the border, for reasons of our own security, as well as economics. So rather than feeling put upon by concepts of perimeter security and so forth, we should be moving ahead aggressively to define them in terms we can live with. The Europeans, as everyone knows, are miles ahead in respect to this.

There is one particular suggestion I would like to put on your record, because I'm dealing with it every day now. Canada and the United States, and also Britain, are moving to systems that require airlines to produce passenger data in advance, so they can screen the flights and the passengers, identify the high-risk individuals, and thereby facilitate everyone else's transit. It's an extremely admirable idea, but at present both Canada Customs and Citizenship and Immigration are requiring different sets of data, or are moving to require different sets of data. They are talking about different data sets than the United States Customs and Immigration.

It hardly needs to be said that's not a tolerable circumstance. We've been urging the countries to sit down together and get all the agencies, who of course fight like cats and dogs all the time, in the same room and go for a single data take from all the air carriers. This would be a tremendous step ahead. It's also the only way that system is going to work. So that's a particular suggestion.

I'll stop my remarks and look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

• 1630

With that, we will open it for questions and answers, starting with Mr. Rick Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all very much. Your presentations have been very educational. Obviously a lot of work has been done before September 11 and recommendations were coming forward.

The border crossing of Coutts is in the riding I represent in southern Alberta. It's quite an active crossing. They've been working on trying to build a new port there for many years. The logistics and the coordination is absolutely unbelievable to get all the levels of government on both sides and all the agencies. It came down to where the U.S. agents couldn't come onto our side because they were carrying guns—and you mentioned the gun issue. I think we just need to be more open-minded and work towards better coordination.

I have a question for you, Mr. Griffin. You indicated that customs officials needed access to CPIC. Is that enough? It looks like coordination and data-sharing is something that's really critical for all of you in all aspects. Do we need to create another specific database for this type of issue?

Mr. David Griffin: I think your question is a good one. I should clarify that CPIC is the Canadian Police Information Centre. I get calls from time to time from customs officers to complain that they can't get access to that information. They're the ones on the front lines doing the checks, and they have to go through two sets of supervisors to get access to information. I don't think that means that's the only problem; it's just an example of this issue of data-sharing.

I thought an excellent point was made in terms of this whole issue of freedom of information and access to information and privacy concerns. All it does is cause more people to deal with their information set in a silo because they don't want to get into disclosure problems by passing that on to another agency. I think we have to reconcile that, because police are interested in information that immigration officials or customs officers may have, and conversely, they're interested in information we have. So I would agree with the comments that were made in terms of getting everybody's information together.

The Chair: Maybe Mr. Bevan has a comment on that.

Chief Vince Bevan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Indeed I do. I missed my opportunity earlier. I thought we were going to make some introductions and very short comments. But Mr. Casson's question is right on point for where I wanted to go.

Hearing some of the other members speak, particularly Mr. Poisson and Mr. Everson, talking about perception in the United States, just this past week I had the opportunity to be at the International Association of Chiefs of Police meeting in Toronto, and I heard from my colleagues in the United States a clear message, that perception is a problem.

There are some solutions out there. An integrated approach, which is something we've heard from another speaker today, is one of those things that is going to facilitate the information sharing, facilitate the coordination of efforts on both sides of the border with a multidisciplinary approach involving CCRA, involving customs, making sure that immigration and INS from both sides of the border are at the table, and as well, that policing concerns are covered off.

There does exist the perception, as has been said earlier, that Canada has become a haven. What the Americans perceive to be a lax screening has let people into this country who have become a threat to their country. My worry, after speaking to my colleagues from the United States, is that the U.S. authorities are going to take unilateral action to deal with the border that is going to limit trade, limit access to their country, and they're going to do that out of a lack of information, I think, and out of fear, because fear is pervading what is happening.

It started before September 11. It started when Mr. Ressam entered the country from British Columbia, and at that point it brought Canada into the sights of some in the United States who have been worried for some time about the possibility of terrorists sneaking into their country.

Today there is news out there that 11 souls were intercepted going on the train from Windsor into Detroit. That is another thing that I think is going to add fuel to the fire of the debate about what to do with the U.S.-Canada border.

• 1635

There are calls for stricter security monitoring along the U.S. border. Recently—last Friday, I understand—the United States enacted legislation to triple the number of border agents along the Canadian border, what my colleagues this week referred to rather gently as their northern border. It used to be a friendly border. The message they are bringing is that it is considered by many of the people that they're dealing with now to be a problem.

I think this committee certainly has the opportunity to make a difference. The perception held by many may become a reality if we, as a country, aren't seen to do something demonstrable that eases the fears they have. I agree that it is in both countries' interests to make sure that trade flows as freely as possible across the border.

I would submit to you that Canada has the opportunity right now to work with the United States in what the United States is planning to do, that there be some integrated multi-disciplinary approach to deal with the issues along our common border, and secondly, that Canada be able to demonstrate that we are taking seriously our national responsibility to screen thoroughly and properly people who are coming into this country. I think that message is a very important one, and our neighbours to the south are looking for us to take some leadership in that role.

The Chair: Terrific. Thank you very much.

Mr. Casson, do have any other questions?

Mr. Rick Casson: I have a couple more.

Your comments are well taken. I guess we're getting into this perimeter security, and do we take what we're doing at the border, the 49th parallel, and move it to the coasts and check people coming in and make sure we're harmonized with the Americans on that? From what you say, maybe they're not doing such a fantastic job either.

I have a couple of specific questions. Can you explain exactly what “dedicated corridors” means? Does that mean there's pre-clearance, that they fly right through the border and all of that? What does that entail?

The Chair: Is that for Mr. Phillips or Mr. Burrows?

Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Burrows had mentioned it, but I think Mr. Phillips did also.

Mr. James Phillips: Maybe Mr. Burrows could answer, since he's the one who brought it up.

Mr. Rick Casson: Sure.

Mr. Bruce Burrows: That's a good idea.

What I mean by that is that it's dedicated, first off, in the sense that we have rail track that's laid in a given corridor so that traffic moving by rail doesn't steer off the corridor. So it's dedicated to begin with, in that sense.

But from an inspection clearance perspective, if, for example, picking up on Mr. Phillips' point, we were to have an inspection process looking at the examples of offshore container traffic moving in through Vancouver and Halifax—and in fact Montreal is perhaps the largest corridor—that traffic would be inspected on an advance basis jointly to cover off interests of both Canada and the U.S., and then that traffic would be sealed and would be cleared through that dedicated corridor. So I'm just using that as a term to identify a rail corridor, which is obviously confined to a certain space.

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay.

Mr. James Phillips: Could I speak for one second?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Phillips.

Mr. James Phillips: Alberta is a very big participant in Can/Am, and I work with Premier Klein on that. There are very effective people out there.

I share your anger and frustration with Coutts-Sweetgrass. Mr. Casson has been kind enough not to talk about the fact that the zoning regulations in Canada and the United States are different. We can't pour a common slab of concrete on one side or the other that can flow in this common form because, without the legislation from the Canadian Parliament, we can't move the building anywhere but where the yellow line goes down the middle of the building. The building is in the wrong place. It shouldn't be built there, but that's aside. But I share that.

But on the dedicated approach, if I could oversimplify, to me, perimeter, or whatever you want to call it, means interception of people at the point of origin to determine anyone who is inadmissible by whatever rules you decide are the rules for the U.S. or Canada, together or selectively, that they don't leave their point of origin unless they're admissible to the United States.

• 1640

So they can't go to Toronto and end up in Niagara Falls motels—a way to try to get into the United States—or they can't go to Kennedy and end up in Niagara Falls, New York, trying to wait to get into Canada. If we have the offshore interdiction of inadmissible people, then the point of first arrival essentially means there are a very few seaports and airports where the majority—in fact all—of the international travel entry into Canada occurs. It doesn't occur on the U.S. land border; it occurs either at the major international airports or the seaports.

That's where we put the focus of customs and immigration—particularly immigration—so that people are screened at their point of first arrival and then cleared to move inland. Essentially, the focus would be at the point of first arrival for goods and people and at the point of origin for inadmissible people.

If you think that way, then the question is.... There are three things that the perimeter isn't. It doesn't do away with the 49th parallel. It eliminates duplication at the 49th, but it does not do away with it. It does not create a customs union; that's the second thing that's been a misnomer. Thirdly, it does not require total harmonization of the U.S. and Canada so that everybody does it one way or the other. We can still operate as two sovereign nations under one policy.

I would just leave you with that.

The Chair: Briefly, Mr. Burrows.

Mr. Bruce Burrows: Just to elaborate for a moment, a proviso of that clearance process from a rail perspective would be that those goods, for example, that would be subject to that inspection at first port of entry would be restricted to movement in the dedicated corridor only until they reach their final destination across the border inland in the States.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and many thanks to all of you for being here.

This is an extremely important issue, and, actually, according to what I heard from all of you, we are facing two kinds of problems. There is the fact that, until September 11, the increasing flow of trade was already causing some congestion anyway. We had already almost reached the limits of our capacities. That was before September 11.

But since then, there was September 11, so that now, on top of that bottleneck problem, we find ourselves with a security dimension, which means, obviously, more screening. Regarding the volume of trade, I heard you propose some interesting solutions which would of course require investments, but which could at least be implemented without having Quebec or Canada sell their souls. I think that, actually, we could have joint inspection clearance made in Canada or in the United States. It would be feasible, but what I am wondering is whether the Americans would consider that it's enough for them.

I know there is an obvious psychological factor in the attitude of Americans who try and find fault with Canadians, because we could pass them the buck and tell them that they don't even know where to find those 500 000 foreign students who are in their country with visas. Thus, one can think that there are students who like to make long studies, but their visas are expired, they ought to report, but they don't.

• 1645

But if confidence is a problem... There is such a problem, obviously. I guess it will have to be dealt with at the political level, but at the technical level as well, so that the United States can become aware of what we do, and know that we can create a certain degree of confidence. It might take a certain time, though.

I have a question for Mr. Everson. Do you think that, if we were to come back to the volume of traffic we had before September 11 in the air transport industry, we would be faced with a major bottleneck? What should we do in order to avoid such a situation?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Everson.

Mr. Warren Everson: I think there will be that bottleneck, because security processes are going to be much more extensive, and there will be more searches, and that's also an issue of resources. You can only go through the bags of so many people at a time, and the more inspectors you have the faster you can do it.

How do we get around it in the near term? I'm not sure how we do, but we know in the airline industry we're very much at risk, because the passengers will solve the problem for us: they'll stop coming to the airport.

Last week in San Francisco a lineup developed at the security clearance that was a mile and a half long. I think a lot of people in that lineup will not be there again any time soon if they can avoid it. The border is harder, because it's hard to get away from it. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and go through the border. People will do everything they can to avoid it, but that's not in our best interest.

We have a long practice in the airline industry of cooperation on security—especially immigration security—and I think it's wise to remember nobody has a fixed definition of what these perimeter security structures are going to be. You can define it any way the parties can agree.

In Bangkok we have six different countries cooperating to provide a documents expert all the time for all the airlines that deal with Bangkok, because it's a source of very sophisticated counterfeiting. At any one time, the Canadian air carriers can go to a British or an Australian or a Dutch inspector and ask for assistance to scrutinize a document. There's no definition of sovereignty. It's cooperation among six different countries that are all at risk for people-smuggling.

Those are the kinds of initiatives we have to do more of.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have another question, madam?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes. Wait a minute, I'm not finished. I have lots of them.

Mr. Yves Poisson: I would like to make a comment about the confidence issue. I think it's a very important aspect.

Actually, as you mentioned earlier, several of those problems were already there before September 11, and they will remain if no measures are taken, if, for example, no new infrastructures, nor more resources, nor different processes are put in place. Lots of ideas are being put forward in that sense. I think the moment has come to show some political will to act on those issues.

It is one thing to keep goods flowing, but I think the terrorists are not cardboard boxes; they are people. Consequently, we are not going to address the American concerns unless we really engage ourselves into discussions with them about policies regarding immigration, refugees, admission of aliens, admission of foreign students, business travellers, who represent an increasing volume which is obviously affected right now.

The other dimension relates to the need to increase information sharing, and the opening-up shown by President Bush earlier this week is, I think, interesting in that sense. At least, I think that we should see it that way and that we should consider very seriously the possibility of have meetings between officials in order to establish how we could share information, which information we could share to meet security requirements, and also in order to reconcile, so to speak, some different policies. Our policies are not that different, anyway. Honestly, they are not completely different.

• 1650

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Where there are differences, it does not mean that Canadian policies are loose while the American ones are strict—

Mr. Yves Poisson: No.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: —because, by and large, 50 p. 100 of immigration cases that are brought to my attention, as a member of Parliament, are cases of foreigners who may have an American visa but are not able to get a Canadian one.

Mr. Yves Poisson: Yes.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Then, I don't know if that is a known fact, but it's actually something that... Those issues could come up just as well on the Canadian side as on the American side, or conversely. So, discussions and explanations will certainly be needed, but I happen to think that harmonization does not have to force individual countries to give up immigration policies of their own. On that point, it would be very interesting that you report to us about the study you are going to carry out in Europe, because the Europeans had to agree on a number of policy alignments in order to put in place the Schengen accords. But individual countries still maintained their own immigration policies, except that, I think, they had to agree on visas.

Mr. Yves Poisson: They have been working on that issue for 15 or 18 years. So, those are things which take time. I feel that, right now, there are many people in Canada who think that we somewhat have a pistol to our heads.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: That is a little dangerous.

Mr. Yves Poisson: Yes. Indeed.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I think we should not get too nervous about that.

It's going to be very important, Mr. Chairman, that we establish the connection between the problems we already had before September 11 and those which resulted from September 11, because we cannot lump everything together. It would be an error. We must be able to identify the good questions.

The Chair: That's a good idea.

Mr. Jones and Mr. Westwick want to add some comments in line with your question, madam Lalonde.

[English]

Mr. Chris Jones: Just to pick up on the reference to Europe, which both my colleague from ATAC and Madame Lalonde have made, I think a lot of the concerns expressed by people around this table are indicative of the fact that in the wake of NAFTA we didn't establish the institutional architecture to regulate these kinds of issues, disputes, disagreements. By contrast, if you look at Europe in 1958 and the establishment of the common market, they also set up the institutional architecture in Brussels to regulate and adjudicate the disputes that occur between their members.

I don't want to necessarily call for any particular form of institution, but it's clear that we're trying to resolve these issues now on a one-off basis—increasingly through the use of litigation, as with softwood lumber. We lack the institutional mechanisms at the centre that wouldn't necessarily imply a loss of sovereignty but would at least allow a sort of organized approach to these issues. I think that's a major deficiency in our trading and security relationship with the U.S.

The Chair: Mr. Westwik.

Mr. Vincent Westwik (General Counsel, Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service; Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): I don't want to contribute to a complex problem by putting forward an oversimplification in terms of solutions, but many of the problems you face in terms of perception are problems we face in policing: that the community doesn't feel the police are responding; or that there is a particular problem with this or that type of crime.

It strikes me that whatever substantive programs or responses you wish to put in place, you're going to have to devote resources to what I'm going to term—perhaps incorrectly—marketing. Certainly, the police community, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in particular, would be prepared to assist in that. It might help when you're marketing these kinds of concerns that you think about the police and the law enforcement community, in both Canada and the United States, as an audience together with the broader audience in the community.

Dealing with confidence and lack of confidence is an interesting problem, but I think you're going to have to see that as an objective in and of itself.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I was given a paper in French from the Canadian Police Association. It comes from Mr. Griffin, I think.

An hon. member: Yes.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Your first resolution says that the Association actively opposes the concept of an open border. In your mind, would what we call the perimeter mean the opening of our border? You also recommend that the security be enhanced at all Canadian borders. Would you explain us what you mean by that?

• 1655

Mr. David Griffin: I'm sorry, but it would be somewhat easier for me to talk about that in English.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You may speak English, if you want. I'm used to it. We are in Ottawa here. One to zero, isn't it?

[English]

Mr. David Griffin: Our association sees strengthening the perimeter as important, but we don't see as a consequence of it that we would loosen security between Canada and the U.S. We see, certainly, a number of good suggestions and a lot of common concerns in terms of how we manage the border between Canada and the United States and focus on the areas that present the highest risk. But we still believe there are security concerns for Canada concerning goods and people coming into our country.

I would say for Americans there are concerns—and in addition to simply the movement of people. In Canada we're becoming quickly the largest exporter of cannabis, marijuana, into the United States—certainly in British Columbia and southern Ontario. We're also becoming a major producer of methamphetamine drugs that are being smuggled into the United States.

So it's not simply a question of people. Certainly that, on today's data, is one of the big concerns. But we believe that, from our end, things such as illegal firearms are big concerns. There are differences between our laws. God forbid that in our country we come to a point where we start to legalize certain drugs, but I think that would certainly heighten awareness in the United States about the flow of goods across our border as well.

Certainly we think we should be working between business and government and law enforcement to ensure we're targeting the right people.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have any other questions, madam?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, I do. For the liberals, can I?

The Chair: Okay. We are going to give you the opportunity to ask all the questions you have and we will then finish with Mr. Eyking.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

My other question is about what, for me, is the most contentious point in all what you said, that is the issue of privacy. It's a concern I used to work on; it was my responsibility when I was the Bloc's critic for Industry.

In spite of all the pressures we hear of, it seems to me that we all have to be very careful before starting to build records on everyone, before keeping that kind of data and sharing them. In any case, it is certainly not consistent with the current law, and it would require some legislative amendments. Even if you are a police officer, as a result of a quick investigation, you might be deemed to be another David Griffin who was born in the same town on the same day as you, and you could get into problems for some time because of that. The first time, you might be able to convince the agents or the customs officers that you are not that terrible person, but should the wrong information appear somewhere in the records, how would you manage to have it removed?

I believe this is an extremely important issue, and the sooner we are going to address it, the better it will be. I think we much approach it frankly. If that issue were not mentioned in the report, I would be very frustrated. Much have been said about values since September 11. It seems to me that privacy is one of those values. Privacy does not mean only secret. It also means that everything possible is done to ensure that everyone is treated in all fairness, because the potential for making mistakes is quite real, particularly in a period where—

I look at everyone of us here, and I cannot see many facies that would be considered as being at risk, but at risk faces may belong to people whose ancestors set up in our country centuries ago. And even if they had been here for only four years, they might be honest citizens.

It is a very, very complicated matter. It is a dangerous one. As a member of Parliament, I know, I feel that that is the case, and I do my best in order that such things never happen. I'm sure that could not happen in Quebec, in Ontario or in the West, but there is still latent racism, and it could take only a couple events like those we have witnessed on September 11, would they be less terrible, for racism to show further.

• 1700

It seems to me that we ought to be very cautious, because we do not want to protect ourselves against a particular evil through rushing headlong into another... I would like to hear you on that.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I was happy to read the first part of Mr. Poisson's report. Indeed, while he seemed at first to forget about NAFTA by saying that, above all, we ought to address the Quebec-Canada issues, he ultimately made up for it by saying that, on the short term, quite hastily, we should think in terms of NAFTA, that is include Mexico. In any case, whether we want it or not, the problems which affect the United States can, to a large extent, affect us as well. Mexican people travel too, and they can come to our country.

The Chair: Mr. Bevan, or maybe our friend from the Canadian Police Association, is probably the person who can best answer your question on profiling.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes.

Mr. Vince Bevan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a very complex question, but, as for me, I think that, in terms of racism generally, the situation has changed after September 11, 2001. Perceptions and problems in communities in general, and their views about the problems which must be addressed within our society are changing along with the American perspective.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: What do you mean? Do you mean that people from here are becoming less concerned about their privacy? It that what you mean? I would like to understand.

Mr. Vince Bevan: What I wanted to say is that the perception people have about the government's mandate regarding the protection of people and goods...

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, but Gary, could you just stay here for one moment. I know we're going to lose quorum. Would you—

Mr. Gary Lunn: I don't know anything about that. They're calling me in the House.

The Chair: We just have two more minutes with this answer and Mr. Eyking will ask his final question. Then we'll move on right away, because we have some very important items I want to discuss in camera after the last question.

Mr. Gary Lunn: The House will have to wait.

The Chair: Not more than ten minutes.

Mr. Bevan, maybe you can sum up your answer.

Chief Vince Bevan: I think it's very important that we find some kind of balance, some équilibre, because people look at their freedoms differently now. There is a price to be paid for the freedoms we have all enjoyed in this country and in the United States. I think they are looking to the government for leadership in making some of those tough decisions about where that balance needs to be.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Nevertheless, what I said is true, and I still think that we must be cautious on that matter. I wish the public will be ready to accept further limitations, but we should not jeter le bébé avec l'eau du bain, as we say in French.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Eyking, very briefly, because I don't want to lose quorum...

Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): I just need quick answers.

The time it takes for tractor trailers going both ways... Say you have a load of cars going to Detroit or a load of cars going to Windsor—is there much difference in how long the trucker has to wait...comparing both borders?

Mr. James Phillips: I think it's more the particular crossing you're dealing with. There are longer waits at various crossings. I think the majority of the trucks cross at maybe 10 crossings out of the 128. So if you're talking about the Ambassador Bridge or the Peace Bridge or Lewiston-Queenston Bridge or you're talking about out in B.C.—

Mr. Mark Eyking: Just the one bridge.

Mr. James Phillips: Essentially for one bridge or the other, generally speaking, Canada has better resources than the U.S., pound for pound across the border.

Mr. Mark Eyking: So we process their trucks more quickly coming this way?

Mr. James Phillips: There are more lines open more often in terms of passengers.

• 1705

In terms of trucks, both countries are trying to keep their commercial lines open. At most, there are only three commercial lines that I know of at any major crossings—three truck lines they can process together. Everybody is trying to keep the truck lines open.

Mr. Mark Eyking: Yes. I was thinking, as a trucker, is it quicker to go that way or this way?

Mr. James Phillips: I don't think there's a trend—

Mr. Mark Eyking: There's not much difference.

Mr. James Phillips: —that says one way or the other is always better. The answer is no.

Mr. Mark Eyking: My second question is with the railroad. I was reading a report—there is quite a bit of stuff that goes by railroad in the States. Does that have a major impact with this whole border crossing? A train going over the border has to be stopped, does it?

Mr. Bruce Burrows: Just to add a point first on a previous question before I answer that question... Our experience in rail on the commercial side isn't too dissimilar. Generally speaking, the procedures are more facilitative of trade, if I could put it that way, on a northbound basis than they are on a southbound basis. For example, when it comes to customs inspections, Canada Customs is well set up to entertain inspections at the first point of major entry. In other words, once the rail shipments come across the border and have to be processed through major rail yards, that is the point at which Canada Customs is set up to do their inspections. It's that type of process that we're trying to put in place for southbound movement into the States. That would make our lives much easier.

Mr. Mark Eyking: What do they do now, stop you at the border?

Mr. Bruce Burrows: On the southbound basis, if U.S. Customs wants to inspect particular cars, they require that the train be stopped physically right at the border. That's very difficult.

Mr. Mark Eyking: When they come here, we just check them in the yard.

Mr. Bruce Burrows: Canada Customs will do it where they're set up to do it.

Mr. Mark Eyking: I think they have a little way to go to catch up to us.

Mr. Bruce Burrows: In that respect, yes.

The Chair: On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank you very much. You were very candid. You were efficient. You gave us what we are really interested in, and that is basically your recommendations. All of the reports you have tabled, as well as the comments you have made, will help us formulate our report to the House of Commons, which is going to be made available, I would say, within the next two weeks, no later than three weeks.

On behalf of my colleagues from all of the political parties in the House of Commons, I want to thank you greatly, and I appreciate your presence.

Unfortunately, because we are going to move into an in camera session, everyone will have to leave the room very quickly before we lose quorum. I want to say thank you.

We will adjourn for hopefully one minute.

[Proceedings continue in camera]