AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 20, 2001

• 1533

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), I call to order this briefing session on measures taken to ensure that the movement of agriculture and agrifood products crossing the border has not been disrupted following the events of September 11.

We'd like to welcome Mr. Lefebvre, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Turner. We have a submission here from Mr. Lefebvre and we'll open the floor with that.

Welcome to the committee. I know you've probably been before this committee on other occasions, but in any case you have an opportunity first to take the floor and make your presentation—and thank you for it. Following that, of course, we'll have questions from our members.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Lefebvre (Deputy Commissioner, Customs Branch, Customs and Revenue Agency Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I have brought with me an ample presentation that is with the clerk in both languages. Members are free to take it at any time.

I'm here with Mr. Craig Turner and Mr. Brian Jones, who will help me answer questions, but first I will make a very brief presentation. It is an overview of what we have done in the recent past and where we are heading at the present time.

• 1535

I'm going to group what I have to say under three rubrics to help you to follow me.

First I want to mention the perception out there in the communities where we have border points and elsewhere that the lineups are worse now than they were prior to September 11, and that those lineups are the cause of a decrease in the volume of trade and travellers. This perception is still out there.

In reality, there were some very long, prohibitive lineups in the first few days after September 11, but fairly quickly we deployed more resources—to the point where, for some time now, lineups have been about the same as they were prior to September 11. There are some exceptions, but by and large this is where we are.

Going to the U.S., lineups are quite long, probably longer than before September 11 at a number of ports. It's not all the time, but there are some peak times that are very long. The volume, on average...trade is almost back where it was. There may be 5% to 7% fewer trucks than at this time last year, but the volume is much lower for travellers than it was last year, and it varies by port.

Prior to September 11, we had a five-year customs plan we were working on. It was announced in April 2000 and has a broad array of initiatives to re-engineer the way we work at the border. The principal feature of our plan is to do more work away from the border and inform the front-line officers through technology about which people are low-risk.

For travellers, we have developed pilot projects like NEXUS. We have piloted this system through CANPASS for some time now. These are systems in which travellers who are identified as low-risk are approved ahead of time, after having been given some way of identifying themselves. Then when they arrive at the border we have a dedicated lane for them and they have an easier passage.

CANPASS is only for both American and Canadian citizens coming into Canada, whereas NEXUS is a pilot project with the U.S. Under it you would submit one application and receive one card allowing you to go both ways in a dedicated lane, only by identifying yourself with your card. You wouldn't have to answer questions unless you were referred at random for further questioning or examination.

Our proposed plan for goods is similar in concept. We call it CSA, customs self-assessment. The importer of goods under this regime would be pre-approved away from the border. The carrier would be pre-approved. We have confidence in their systems, in their books and records. The driver would be pre-approved in a way similar to that for a CANPASS or NEXUS traveller. Again, hopefully we will have dedicated lanes to get them through the border faster and at less cost.

• 1540

We also have some initiatives. Following September 11, we have looked at our plans and our initiatives and basically concluded that they do provide an adequate level of protection and increased facilitation in a post-September 11 environment. In other words, there is no contradiction between protection and facilitation; they are complementary. If we identify those who are low-risk and provide them with proper identification at the border, we give ourselves more time to spend with the people whose risk level is unknown or high. It's the same thing for NEXUS. We know the people who are low-risk. We have a good way to identify them at the border, and this gives us more time to identify travellers who could be higher-risk.

I will also mention that following September 11, we of course went on high alert—and we are still on high alert. Prior to September 11, our plan called for working with our U.S. counterparts, with Canadian Immigration and Citizenship, and U.S. Immigration and Customs—working together to jointly manage the border. We also hoped to do some benchmarking at our external borders—the distinction between our shared border and the external borders.

Since September 11 we have accelerated those discussions, and I'm very happy to report that, at every level, our U.S. counterparts have the same vision we have. They have the same determination to keep the border open for business and for travellers, but of course we are both very preoccupied with the need to ensure the security of Canadians and Americans. We are working.

We have had numerous meetings where we accelerated the work initiated prior to September 11 and we are making good progress. There is again a meeting of the minds, a willingness on both sides to work together. In a nutshell, we are hoping to confirm NEXUS as the way to assist in easy movement of people at the border while protecting both countries, to do this jointly, and to expand NEXUS at all ports of entry where there is heavy traffic.

We are also exploring a similar NEXUS-style program for air travellers. We want to explore this together to harmonize the system for the benefit of both business and our respective administration, to increase protection and facilitation, and to do the same thing for importers going both ways on the shared border. This is supplemented by work we are doing with our colleagues in the U.S. on benchmarking at our external borders.

In customs parlance, external borders are basically our airports and seaports. This is where goods and people come from overseas. We are working based on the proposition that how we work with our U.S. counterparts here—to develop a mutual recognition of our respective practices at airports and seaports for people who are coming to either Canada or the U.S.—has a direct impact on the way we manage the shared border. It makes it possible for us to manage the shared border in a way that is not an obstacle to the movement of people and goods.

• 1545

To support those efforts, Minister Cauchon has met with Ambassador Cellucci twice. He has travelled to Washington to meet with the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and with customs officials, the Customs Commissioner. Commissioner Wright has travelled to Washington to meet with U.S. Customs Commissioner Bonner, and there have been numerous other meetings at the official level to develop a work plan on a number of initiatives we could aggressively pursue together.

[Translation]

I believe I have covered most items of our action plan. Since I am appearing today before the Agriculture Committee, I would like to say as well that in the past 18 months, probably, we have worked and have cooperated extremely closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in order to protect Canada against foot and mouth disease. We have had many meetings with representatives from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and, throughout the period when that disaster struck Europe, we have, at all levels, regional, local and national, tightened our links with the Food Inspection Agency. I believe that we have a very effective relationship in order to protect Canadians against that scourge. Obviously, we fully intend, in case of any further threat against our cattle or Canadian's health, to work in full cooperation with a number of departments that need our services at the border to implement their programs.

So that is what I had to say, Mr. Chairman. Once again, a more complete version of my presentation is available from the clerk.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre.

[English]

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, gentlemen.

It's my understanding that our exports to the United States are in the neighbourhood of $13 billion a year in agriculture. You've mentioned that trade generally has returned to normal. Are there delays at the border for our agriculture exports?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: The flow at the border is about the same as it had been for some time prior to September 11, so certainly coming into Canada it's flowing well. Going into the U.S. it's for the most part flowing well too, but there are some peaks on the U.S. side that in my view, based on the facts I have, are worse than what we have at certain ports. I would say, unless my colleagues want to say differently, that agriculture movement is the same as for other products.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It would seem that we're not getting a lot of calls from agriculture exporters who are saying, “We have problems”, or “We can't through to the U.S., it's time-consuming, and we're losing quality”—whatever.

With that situation, then, let's talk about the part of this issue after September 11 and the war on terrorism we're involved in—still a threat to North America. You mentioned foot-and-mouth disease in Europe. Has your branch of the CCRA been involved in a scenario or an exercise...? We're not talking now about the accidental introduction of, let's say, foot-and-mouth disease into Canada, an accidental situation where somebody brings in, as in 1952, a sausage sort of thing and it gets spread around. Let's talk about bioterrorism and somebody intentionally wanting to cause mass disease in Canada. Have you participated in formulating a scenario like that with other agencies of the Canadian and/or foreign governments?

• 1150

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: As a customs department, we are mostly involved in detection and prevention. So yes, we are in intensive discussions with all departments, whether Health Canada, the inspection agencies, or other departments that may have substantive jurisdiction over nuclear, chemical, or biological threats. However, our participation is mostly at the prevention and detection level. As to a scenario for something that might take place in Canada, we are a marginal player, if you will, with respect to developing a contingency plan to manage crises.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We'd like to prevent the act of terrorism at the border. Let's say someone were bringing the foot-and-mouth contamination into the country. What specific instructions are your customs agents getting, whether at the entry ports along the U.S.-Canada border, at the airports, or at the seaports, as to what to look for in order, hopefully, to seize contaminants and stop the mass introduction of a disease?

Have they been told, for instance, about quantity? Would it be in liquid form? Would it be in powder form? What are you telling your customs agents on the front lines?

Mr. Brian Jones (Director, Import Process Division, Operational Policy and Coordination Directorate, Customs Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): Effectively, the method for importation might vary. In fact, all those are at least theoretical possibilities, namely the various forms, liquid, powder, and solid.

What we're really instructing and expecting officials to do is to look for what we call anomalous transactions, ones where the elements of data that are available to them respecting the shipper, the importer, the nature of the goods—anything—strike them as anomalous. We're talking about anything that's out of the norm, anything that breaks traditional patterns they're perhaps used to with importations. They're to consult databases available to them, obviously, about the history of this importer and any risks associated with that particular type of commodity. Where there's any doubt in their mind that this is a legitimate transaction, they're to refer it to experts for further advice and determination.

This is really a first filter. They're to really play their intuition and, with the data that's available, look for anomalous transactions. Then they get expert advice if they sense there's something that is out of the ordinary with that transaction.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: In the past there has been a well-known turf dispute between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Customs. It was certainly in place pre-CCRA, and I suspect it's still there now.

What is the relationship between Canada Customs and the RCMP now as to the exchange of information? I believe all of you gentlemen have been in the service long enough to know of the turf war of which I speak, between Canada Customs and the RCMP arguing over jurisdiction.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: “Excellent” is the word for the relationship, and I would say that over the last few years it has improved and that it continues to improve. The RCMP's and our mandates are pretty clear. The RCMP is responsible for the border between ports and we are responsible for the ports of entry.

In terms of sharing information so we can detect people who might be a threat to Canada or to goods, I would say that the exchange of information amongst all law enforcement agencies—not only the RCMP, though the RCMP is a leader in that matter—is forever increasing. I think Canada Customs is seen now more as a full partner in detection and prevention than maybe was the case in the more distant past.

• 1555

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'll end very quickly.

Is there currently a need for a detailed bilateral border management plan with the United States? If there's a need for one, is it going to be developed, or do you feel you already have one?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: There is a lot of cooperation. There is cooperation between us and U.S. Customs, there is cooperation on a bilateral basis between immigration services and between the RCMP and some sister agencies in the U.S., and we have some fora like the shared border accord. There the two immigration services and the two customs agencies work together on harmonizing procedures, exchanging information, and improving the flow of information. You have the crime border forum, where RCMP and other law enforcement agencies on both sides meet to develop plans, follow work plans, maintain working groups, and so on to pursue harmonization of procedures and exchange of information. There is a lot of coordination of our efforts, though there's always room for improvement.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre.

[Translation]

Marcel, please.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This information package is quite extensive. It is rather difficult to find any question to ask. In light of September 11's events, do you consider that you have enough personnel at the border? Can it be said that you're short of personnel, as we have heard, which would explain why there were such long delays at the border, especially at the beginning? Is it because of a lack of personnel or simply because you were caught by surprise, so that you were not sure how to go about it in your attempt to better secure our borders?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: In the hours and perhaps in the first two days following the events, we really did not know exactly what would hit us in the next hour. So we have taken extreme precautionary measures on both sides of the border, which unduly delayed traffic. But very quickly, our officers volunteered to go back to work, even those who were in holidays. We redeployed officers who were working in other fields that did not have the same priority, in order to provide the service.

So I believe that very quickly after September 11, we have put enough personnel at the border to almost bring the situation back to normal.

There was a lot of overtime and you cannot ask people to work very long hours indefinitely.

To this day, I must say that we do have the required resources. We are following the situation closely and if the need to maintain a very high level of protection continues, we believe that the initiatives that I have mentioned to you today will help us to ensure both the protection and the facilitation I am talking about. Up to now, we have been able to adequately protect Canadians with the resources that we had.

The government announced three or four weeks ago the hiring of 130 people and an additional investment of $12 million in order to allow us to have the best detection equipment. Almost all of these 130 persons will be assigned to the points of entry, to our external borders, because we can see that the terrorist threats are a more acute in airports and seaports. So we will deploy 130 additional persons immediately in these areas and we will continue to work together with our other partners within government in order to continue to ensure an adequate protection.

• 1600

I can assure you that there is a very strong will not to allow the waiting lines at the border to be so long that it would cause substantial harm to trade. We will find the means to continue to ensure that both goods and people move along.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: A number of business people, about forty of them, would like to come together and suggest inspection procedures that, if I understood correctly, would not necessarily be at the border, precisely to reduce the workload at the border. What is your view about that?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I am not sure that I know the specific proposal you are referring to, but suggestions have been made that we should explore means to do it. For our part, we believe that what we are doing, that is the preclearance of importers and truckers so that they only have to identify themselves when they come to the border, is exactly along these lines.

Other solutions could be explored, but I believe that they probably are more in the long term, because there are major complexities regarding jurisdiction, sovereignty, infrastructure.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: When you hear it said that the border between Canada and United States is porous, what is your feeling about that? Do you reject these allegations?

We have seen in the past, for example, not necessarily at the level of trade but for people who manage to go through borders, that it seemed pretty easy for them to do so. What is your answer to that?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: The border is very long and building walls has been tried elsewhere and it never worked. I do not believe, whatever the number of people that we want to add along the border, unless customs officers are holding hands from one end of the country to the other, that it is possible to have a permanent strength.

There are quite concrete measures that we want to take. At our entry points, we have good inspection services, professional customs officers, good detection material. We are exploring adding other detection devices to do an even better job. For the remote ports, I want to stress that the RCMP announced a few weeks ago that they would add resources in order to establish integrated teams that will work along the border, and on both sides of the border.

We have people in British Columbia and in Cornwall-the model is in British Columbia—people from Canadian Immigration, American Immigration, American Customs, Canadian Customs, the RCMP, the National Border Patrol and other security agencies that are all working together. That is in British Columbia. The proposal that has been made a few weeks ago by the RCMP was to add such integrated teams wherever there are remote ports, in the Prairies, in Quebec and perhaps in the Maritimes. So we believe that will solve the unprotected port syndrome. We will take other measures as well, but I believe that this will help enormously in ensuring a better protection in these remote areas.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Marcel.

Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question relates to your presentation, Mr. Lefebvre, where you stated you wanted to do more work away from the border, given the limited space you have, to say the least. Are you suggesting that U.S. inspectors would perhaps come into Canada and Canadian inspectors would go into American areas? Could you expand on what you meant by that.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: The essence of all the initiatives we are putting forward is to do our work away from the border. We want to take importers, sit down with them at their corporate place of business, and ask them to have books and records that are enough for us to have the information at the end of the month. For well-established, trustworthy importers, we are moving away from doing all the work that is now done at the border on a transactional basis, asking, what's in the truck? Basically, we want to do it at the corporate level and at the post-audit level, so when the truck goes through the border, it's simply a question of identifying the importer; they say they are importer pre-approved.

• 1605

So all that work is done away from the border. It's the same thing with individuals.

Right now, a member of NEXUS goes every two years and submits their information. We verify the information to make sure they are low-risk people. For the next two years, even if they wish to cross the border every day, they merely stop at the border. We may occasionally do some random examinations. So for all low-risk people and goods, we want to do the work away from the border.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Would the Americans be checking Canadians?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: No.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: They would take our word. It would work in conjunction with both sides.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: We would like a member of NEXUS, for instance, to go to a registration centre. They would give their tombstone data, and in the future we'll probably ask them for their fingerprints. On both sides, law enforcement agencies would verify whether that person was low-risk. If both sides found that person to be low-risk, we would give them a loaded card and they would go in a dedicated lane for people who were pre-approved.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Right. You indicated you're working with four or five different departments to achieve what you want to achieve at the border. Is it proving to be a little difficult to get everyone to the same table to discuss the certain causes that relate to your department? Is it a bit of a hindrance to have so many people involved?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I think we have excellent cooperation. The main parties at the border on the Canadian side are Customs, Immigration, RCMP, and CSIS, and I must say the cooperation is excellent.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Is the people power in technology basically equal on both sides?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Are you talking about the American side and the Canadian side?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Exactly.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Traditionally, certainly until the 11th, the U.S. tended to send their resources to the southern border, where they probably had 16,000 people. They had fewer customs people, and they were spread between Immigration and Customs, but in total they had fewer resources at the northern border than we did. Prior to the 11th, it was generally a bit faster coming into Canada than going into the U.S. The main reason was that we had more PILs open than on the U.S. side. That's a fact at most very busy border points.

I understand legislation has almost been approved in the U.S. to send more resources to the northern border, and we'll have to see what comes out of that.

In terms of technology, we are certainly not behind. In many respects we are probably ahead in what's available at the front line in technology, but it's different. They have different systems, so I won't venture too far there.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Which port do you find most difficult to monitor, whether it's road, air or sea? Where is it most challenging?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: They each have their own challenges. We try to adapt our monitoring to the circumstances of each port or airport. I would say the challenges or risks, even between or among airports, can be different in different parts of the country. Experience shows that drugs are found more often on clientele in some airports than in others, and so on.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: You indicated in your briefing that you had a strong working relationship with CFIA. That's good to hear, of course, but I have some real concerns.

CFIA is a really good inspection unit here in Canada, and our agriculture people abide by the rules and regulations. But do you feel, in your capacity working with CFIA, that there are sufficient inspectors there to inspect foods coming into Canada? Do you think there are enough programs available to ensure the safe quality of food coming into Canada as well?

• 1610

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: My understanding is not that detailed. When foot-and-mouth disease, for instance, became a real threat, we needed to have more inspectors available to refer people to. This happened very quickly and we had the support.

As the first line of contact for people who arrive, when we detect a risk we have to know what to do with that risk. We need the support of the Food Inspection Agency to take over, if you wish, as a secondary....

Do you want to add to that, Brian?

Mr. Brian Jones: I don't know if there's....

Craig.

Mr. Craig Turner (Director, Admissibility Programs, Trade Policy and Interpretation Directorate, Customs Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): I think we were quite pleased with the relationship with CFIA. They very quickly added 50 inspectors to support the work we were doing for our referrals to them. The relationship worked out very positively over the period of foot-and-mouth disease.

That's pretty well under control and behind us now, but we're still cooperating with them, even though it's not exactly yesterday's news, but the worst is behind us.

The Chair: Thank you, Rose-Marie.

Ms. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

The Chair: Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks very much, and thanks for your presentation.

I probably missed it, but what does NEXUS stand for? Is it an acronym that means something, or is it a software program?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I'm pretty proud of that word. I thought of it in the car, coming back from Montreal in a snowstorm with my family.

We had four agencies and we had to find a name. I didn't want the Americans to be caught with something with two names, but for Canadians I wanted it to be bilingual.

NEXUS means a knot or a junction. It's a link. It's a word found in both French and English, although it's not very often used in either language. That's what it means. I think it probably comes from Latin.

Mr. Dick Proctor: As long as it doesn't mean “annex us”.

You said in your report that you were interested in having a smarter border. When you look around the world, can you draw examples from other countries that interact with one another? I would assume, for example, in my naiveté that the European Union would have some lessons that might be helpful for Canada-U.S. relationships. But I'm asking whether that's true or not.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I think what we're doing is just a novelty; it's just pioneer work. In the European Union they have something beautiful, but it's different; it's not what we do. They don't have people at borders. We have a border to manage, and we have 70 laws to administer at that border. It gives life to those laws.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Just to follow up on the question you answered from Ms. Ur, you're predicting we'll have more American officers on their northern border in the not-too-distant future. I assume that would probably not speed up the process, but what is your take on that? Is that likely to cause some problems?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I welcome that. Traditionally we had more officers, which meant more PILs, or primary inspection lines—one booth, one lane. So in most busy ports at peak times we had more officers, more lines open, more lanes open, and therefore we could process traffic more rapidly on the Canadian side.

But the reality is that truckers go both ways. It's a fallacy to think that doing it faster one way will help their exports, and vice versa, that our exports will be hindered. Truckers go both ways, so anything you can do to accelerate will accelerate the overall movement.

• 1615

Mr. Dick Proctor: Right. You're cautiously optimistic this will speed up the process, not slow it down?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Yes. I think it's a welcome move. They will want to continue to work at a heightened level of protection. To do so, they need more bodies to keep the traffic moving.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I did have a last question. What was it? I'll pass. I may come back.

The Chair: You may come back.

Murray, and then I'll come back to Dick.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): You have three programs here, the acronyms are PARS, FIRST, and EDI. From what I can see with them right now, you're trying to achieve a seamless approach to frequent trucks going back and forth over the border.

How is it working? Obviously, it's in place right now. Do you see any improvements that you're going to be making to the systems?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: The plan is to implement CSA on December 3. The minister mentioned to the press yesterday, I believe, that he was thinking about that date. He was wondering how we can engage the Americans in having harmonized commercial procedures and start our CSA on December 3. The plan is still to engage on December 3, unless the Americans were to tell us they can rapidly join us. I believe it's more complicated. It will take some time.

Brian, do you want to mention how this might affect the system?

Mr. Brian Jones: Certainly. CSA, of course, requires the importer, carrier, and truck driver to go through a pre-approval process. It may be a program that's not of interest to the entire trading community.

Programs such as PARS and FIRST are related programs. They're predicated on the notion of pre-approving or pre-screening a portion of the transaction. To the extent that traders and inspection agencies share information electronically, of course, the cost and the speed of the processes both benefit.

With EDI, we're encouraged that actually as much as 45% of the transactions now coming into Canada use electronic data interchange between the trader and CCRA. We're expecting more and more traders will take EDI as their preferred option for exchanging data with us. There are advantages to the trade community as well.

We mentioned the notion of the smart board, or pre-approving or pre-screening as much traffic as possible, so the actual processing time, and what we have to accomplish when they're physically at the border, is constrained. It's really the admissibility of the driver, with a quick decision as to whether we want to look at the cargo in more detail. The more we can do in advance in terms of pre-screening, or the more transactions, for instance, of duty or GST collection we can defer until after the truck has moved up the road, the better off we are.

PARS and FIRST are options that are available for people where there is a good subscription already. EDI is becoming more and more the normal mode of transacting between the agency and trading community.

Mr. Murray Calder: With pre-screening, would the truck be sealed so the border guard can see it has been pre-screened and can let it through?

Mr. Brian Jones: It's a possibility.

Right now, the trader sends us the data electronically or in paper format. We review the data. We formulate our decision. Would we release it or allow it to go? Of course, we don't disclose the decision until the truck is physically present at the border crossing. The officer processing it always has the option to override the decision that was made in advance, based on the information available to the office on the spot.

In theory, we've formulated our intention. If everything appears normal when the truck arrives, we will release it without further processing. The inspector has the option to override the decision, based on observation of the truck at the moment it enters the border crossing.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you.

• 1620

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: At the present time, we can tell you, at 9:10 and 30 seconds this morning, a truck with so many hubcaps crossed the border. Ten seconds later, another truck with bumpers crossed the border. We know when it comes in, transaction by transaction.

The health of the country does not really depend on knowing how many hubcaps came in at 9:10 in the morning. For the mostly large—but it could be small—importers, we want to know how many hubcaps they have imported at the end of the month. As with any corporation that reports tax, income tax, GST, and all those things, we want to make sure the books and records of the company are going to accurately report how many hubcaps they imported during the month.

Therefore, some of the systems and communications now used to send our front line the number of hubcaps that will be in the truck are no longer required. The only thing we want to know at the end of the month is how many hubcaps they imported.

We have a protocol with the company saying they're not going to import live animals. They are going to import widgets. They say “These are our widgets; we want to import them”. Every time the truck passes through, they say they're with importer ABC. We know the importer. We have a protocol.

Basically, they declare to us what they will import at the beginning of the process. They will tell us what they have imported at the end of the month. It's very much like reporting what any business owes on GST: we sold so many Cokes during the month; we owe you 7¢ per Coke at the end of the month. They send you the money. It will basically be identical.

The Chair: Thank you.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Lefebvre. I'd like to echo a comment.

I come from an agricultural community with two major border crossings, Boissevain and Emerson. I have talked to a number of my exporters. I can honestly say, other than September 11...they've seen it come back to normal. It happened fairly quickly. I do congratulate CCRA for doing a good job. Then again, they're small border crossings that aren't impacted quite as much as the larger crossings.

In your presentation, you mentioned commercial truck traffic is closer to normal. Then you go on to say there's about a 7.25% reduction compared to last year. Well, 7.25% of large volumes is not necessarily normal.

Can you expand on it? Are you saying this may simply be an economic slowdown? Is it directly related to the September 11 incident?

Secondly, in that part of the question, what border crossings cause the majority of the issues? Is it Windsor, Detroit, or Sarnia? I know Emerson is not a big issue for you. Can you give me a better handle as to the major issues?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: A major land border crossing is the Pacific Highway in B.C. It's basically the main drag from Vancouver to Seattle. Then we have Sarnia, and the two in Windsor, the bridge and tunnel.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It hasn't come back to normal, has it?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: There are also Peace and Queenston. Lacolle is a large crossing. These would be the large crossings we keep an eye on.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The 7.25% seems like a large amount.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: If I talk to my regional directors, some days it's more than 100% and other days it's 95%. It can be 92%. Over the last few weeks, we've monitored it very closely. For the last three weeks, I would say it's between 5% and 7%, perhaps closer to 5%.

I think most of it can be explained by the fact that last year the economy was booming, and then it started to slow down a bit. The U.S. is slowing down. We are slowing down.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have two other questions.

You talked about a relationship with other agencies. You mentioned Customs, RCMP, Immigration, and CSIS. There has been some suggestion that perhaps there should be a ministry developed to coordinate these functions within one ministry.

• 1625

I don't want this as a political answer, please. From an operational perspective, can you see this perhaps being an advantage to better movements across the border?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Anything I say will be political, so I will be saying something—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't want it to be. I'm talking operationally, here—please.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Listen, our respective mandates, in my view, and I think it's accepted by our sister agencies, are clear. We have excellent relationships that we are nurturing. I cannot say there is an obvious lack of coordination in the overall management of the board.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: In saying that, I have to go back to the 2000 report of the Auditor General, where in fact Customs, the CCRA—and I quote—“needs to improve communication with other governmental departments and with other enforcement agencies”.

So I ask the question whether it would be better operationally to develop this kind of working relationship. The Auditor General, in his report, said you don't have it; yet you say you have an excellent relationship with those agencies. I'm a bit confused.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: That was 2000.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This is 2001.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Even, I would say, in the last 18 months we have substantially improved our communications with Immigration and with the RCMP. It's ever improving. I would say it's going very well.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a last question, please.

There was a movement afoot with Customs with respect to automated border crossings. I'm not saying that's bad or good. In fact, I think there are probably some real advantages to automated border crossings—although a lot of my constituents may disagree with the comment I just made.

This seems to be put on the back burner. Is it still something you are anticipating or looking at for the future? We talk about NEXUS; we talk about smart lanes. What about automated border crossings?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: For the last two years the President and the Prime Minister have met and at one of their every-two-years meetings agreed we would put some technology into identifying people who cross during closed hours—just do some surveillance.

I think there's a lot of merit in that, because the technology is fairly good. You take pictures of the plates and the car and the people who cross in outside hours. We installed this technology at approximately 22 ports. In other places there are cards that allow people to cross as a convenience during off hours.

I think it's still part of the future, but I must say right now we are in a period where there is some hesitation as to what the role of technology will be. Initially, during the height of the crisis, officers were sent to all ports 24 hours a day. Then we came back to two officers in many ports for 24 hours a day. This is extremely onerous. And there is nothing to do.

For a few weeks we had 200 additional people working. They were not doing anything additional; they were just 200 additional people.

In the long term, we are trying to find some other ways to secure those remote ports without resorting to adding employees who are not making a positive contribution. Technology would be part of the mix.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Rick. Now we'll turn to Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Right, if you're ready for me.

Earlier on after September 11, when there were the long lineups at the border and some truckers were carrying agricultural or food products, I can't recall what happened at the end. Some were complaining their loads were lost—or perhaps lost. What did the revenue agency or CFIA do in regard to those complaints?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Very often a truck is in a lineup, and there's little you can do, whether there are perishables in it or not.

In some places, to manage this.... The Government of Ontario, I think, had a race-track, for instance, at some place, where the trucks would park so as to clear the roads a bit.

In certain circumstances—maybe it was exceptional—a preference was given allowing trucks with perishables to jump the queue to save the goods.

Do you want to expand on this?

Mr. Brian Jones: That's right; there was a bit of a triage done. It is quite correct that it is on an exceptional basis.

• 1630

Normally we process shipments on a first come, first served basis. In normal circumstances that tends to meet the needs of the importing trading community very well, because the service is usually quite rapid. But in these instances, there was that triage and the acceleration of live-animal shipments or perishable shipments to accommodate them. I don't know if we accommodated everyone in that process or if there were in fact shipments that might have been in peril. I'm not familiar with specifics.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Mr. Turner, I was reading that you're the director of admissibility programs. Could you expand on what that actually means?

Mr. Craig Turner: Yes. I have to admit, as a title it doesn't really say very much by itself. I'm responsible for a group in Customs that works with other government departments. We negotiate agreements with them to undertake work on their behalf that has to be done at the border. The CFIA is one of our biggest clients in that respect. We've been occupied with them on the foot-and-mouth disease, for example—to assist them. We also have programs at the border for the Department of the Environment, Transport, and a variety of other departments—Natural Resources, for example. They're collected in my area.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Rose-Marie.

David.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands (Canadian Alliance)): Thank you.

I just want to talk a little bit about isolated border posts and crossings. I'm from southwestern Saskatchewan, so we have a few of them in the area. From talking to people on the ground there, I find they really feel they're stuck with some minimal equipment, especially with regard to technology and those kinds of things. They're concerned about a lack of protection and are restricted in a lot of ways, excluded from some of the training programs offered at the bigger border crossings.

Also, commercial traffic is limited to certain crossings for the most part. I was thinking, as you were talking about the electronic systems you're suggesting you're going to be bringing on line, it seems to me that would allow you to open up many more of these crossings to commercial traffic, particularly if you have a pre-arranged set-up so that people can get across the border. I'm just wondering, do you have a plan for your isolated crossings that will bring them up to speed, as far as technology goes, and also allow them to participate in this—I notice you called it an “exponential growth in trade” with the U.S.—at those crossings?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: With technology we are forever improving the tools, putting electronic information technology at the fingertips of our customs officers, because we believe intelligence and risk management are the key to doing our job. We have to work on risk management, but in order to be effective in it you have to equip the people on the front line with the tools to know what is high-risk and what is low-risk and to communicate with those who have done the targeting. We are forever improving the technology in the hands of people, even in small ports.

Concerning CSA, there is nothing that prevents it from being operational in small ports.

Mr. Brian Jones: That's correct.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I think it will be possible to have it in small ports.

Mr. David Anderson: I just thought that if it's going to be run mainly technologically it is possible to run those vehicles through the smaller ports as well as the big ones, if it's done ahead of time.

I have a second question. In the early nineties farmers got fairly desperate about their economic situation. They began moving their grain south across the border. The Minister of the Wheat Board and the Wheat Board itself basically recruited Canada Customs and the RCMP to do their dirty work for them. These guys were being arrested and charged, and as it turned out, the judge ruled it was illegal to do that to them.

Farmers are again going to be coming into those desperate straits, particularly grain farmers, because we're going to be looking at another ten years before any changes occur through the trade negotiations. Do you have any willingness, or are you willing, to make the changes necessary to assist farmers? Or will the ones who are trying to do that kind of thing continue to be intimidated and charged under the Customs Act? They were never charged under the Wheat Board Act. They used the Customs Act to stop it.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Our mandate is to apply the law on imports and exports at the border, and we liaise very closely with almost every department to apply over 70 laws at the border. That's our mandate, and we will execute our mandate to the best of our ability.

Mr. David Anderson: I have a question in another direction. You talk here twice about a matter, on page 5 and on page 11, where you say: “We must acknowledge and remember the exponential growth in trade that's been taking place”. Then later on you talk about the meeting on Friday with U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill that has reinforced your joint commitment to fast-track various measures.

• 1635

In both of those places, and I think in your presentation, you mentioned the idea of a perimeter security system for North America. If we're going to have the free flow of trade across the borders, we also need to be able to tell who and what people are inside our borders. I'm wondering if you can comment on the importance of a perimeter security system in order to establish and maintain that solid trade we have going across the border.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: As I mentioned, we do believe that if we strengthen the protection at airports and seaports, which for us is the window on overseas destinations or points of origin, it has a direct impact on the management of our shared border with the U.S. So, yes, we do intend to reinforce, and indeed we have already reinforced, our ability to screen people and goods at airports and seaports. We are in the process of reinforcing this through more technology and more people. We also want to benchmark and share what we do with the Americans, and vice versa, so that we have reciprocal confidence that the people we allow into our country are not a threat to the other country that has to be protected through erecting some barrier at our shared border.

Mr. David Anderson: What are your concerns, as a customs agency, with regard to our lax immigration policies affecting the ability to trade and to deal with the customs issues?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre. At the border we apply the laws we have.

Mr. David Anderson: That makes it difficult if we have sloppy immigration coming in on that perimeter for you to be able to maintain the trade across the border.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Again, we apply the law, and if the immigration laws are changed, we will apply different laws.

The Chair: Marcel, again.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you. I think that the answer that was just given to my colleague's question partly answers my own question.

Last spring, during the mad cow crisis, there was criticism about the inspection in harbours. Among others, I recall seeing a television program where they showed the port of Sept-Îles, in Quebec, where there were few or no inspectors at the time, and they said that we were extremely vulnerable. At that time, the concerns were mainly focussed on health. We feared the mad cow disease bacteria would enter our country.

Now, ever since the terrorist incidents of September 11, can we say that there are still some points of entry that are rather loose, such as the one I talked about, or have we closed these loop-holes in the ports? In airports, I know that it has been done. But what about seaports?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Regarding seaports, in June of this year, the minister has announced an additional investment of some $10 million, if my memory serves me well, for both seaports and airports, and an other additional $21 million has just been announced. So in the past four or five months, more than $30 million of new money has been affected to this undertaking. That investment was almost entirely earmarked for ports and airports. It is a combination of technology and additional human resources to reinforce our capacity in this regard.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: You mentioned an experiment being made at the American border in Vancouver. If I understood correctly, instead of having two borders, that is instead of having people moving through both the Canadian customs and then the American customs, the people are working together. Did I understand correctly? No? That's not it?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: No.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: So I did not get you right.

You explained that you were conducting an experiment in British Columbia and that the people were working together. Would that be Americans and Canadians, or—?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Yes. I am sorry, I did not understand you correctly. You are quite right.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: So you are the one who did not understand correctly.

• 1640

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: You are absolutely right. The inspections are carried on as usual. Canadians who want to go to the United States go through the American customs and the Americans, or Canadians who are coming back, anyone coming in Canada has to go through Canadian customs.

However, we have an integrated team at the level of intelligence and at the level of enforcement as well, but it's starts at the intelligence level. All those responsible for intelligence on the American and Canadian sides, that is customs officers, immigration officers, the RCMP, the National Border Patrol and the CSIS are all working together. And it is not the RCMP that [Editor's Note: Inaudible] between the two ports and they are not manning the point of entry either. The Americans are on the other side; they are not talking to each other. So all these people who are responsible for ports of entry on either side and for the area between the two ports, and who are linked to other databanks within their respective countries, are meeting regularly, are really working together.

Enforcement is done by first line officers, on both sides. They are Canadians on this side and Americans on the other side. So it is mainly being done at the level of intelligence and of coordination between points of entry, at the level of information sharing.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Could it be possible eventually to go through only one border crossing where the work of both countries would be done at the same time, rather than going through two different crossings?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Presently, people are going through only one crossing, because we are not checking the outgoing and they are not either. So there is only one place, presently. That could change, but presently, you only go through once.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Any other questions?

Dick.

Mr. Dick Proctor: When it comes to agricultural or agrifood products going across the border, are the problems greater or fewer or about the same as when you look across all of the items that cross our border? Are there fewer problems with agricultural products? Or is it about the same as there are with any other products?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: We are guided, with respect to our referrals, by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It depends on their risk analysis. We will refer to them...whatever they tell us. They give us the risk factors, they give us, basically, their instruction on what they want to see, and we will do that, depending on the area of the country, the commodity, and the risk of the day.

Mr. Dick Proctor: The question I meant to ask before is this. Does your organization meet with agricultural organizations to talk about how we can improve getting materials and agricultural products across the border?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: We do.

Mr. Dick Proctor: On a regular basis, or how does it work? Could you elaborate a little?

Mr. Craig Turner: Our primary point of contact is with the CFIA. They are the experts we generally talk to. Particularly as a result of foot-and-mouth disease we've made a lot of contacts directly with the industry. We're in touch regularly, for example, with the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, which is one body that is trying to get some contingency planning going in different things. We're working with them and the Cattlemen's Association. It's not regular contact, but we're on their regular mailing lists and we're on the different groups they're trying to establish with the CFIA as well.

The Chair: Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's a great segue to what I want to talk to.

You say that CFIA are the ones who bring to you their requirements, and then you, through your organization, enforce those requirements. Can you walk us through the steps your department goes through in coordinating those efforts? Is it a regular thing? Do you have meetings every Tuesday morning with CFIA department staff? Do you have liaison officers who deal with this? Or do you simply wait for the phone to ring and CFIA to say, by the way, we have this issue and we want you to deal with it?

Please, tell me there's a better coordinated effort than simply waiting for a phone call.

Mr. Craig Turner: We have a memorandum of agreement that outlines the relationship between the two agencies that we adhere to. And we have a regular systems relationship with the CFIA as well. On any good imported into the country, we have data that we immediately transmit to the food inspection people, to their different service centres. They'll tell us whether or not we should release the goods, or whether they would like to inspect it or whether they would like us to inspect the goods. We put regular targets in our system on their behalf to catch specific things at the border.

• 1645

We don't have a regular meeting with them, because the system tends to function quite effectively.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do Americans work in the same fashion with their FDA or with their agricultural...?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: You would have to ask them.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So there's no crossover there. You don't see how they operate. Okay, thanks.

The Chair: I'll go to David next.

Mr. David Anderson: There is an article in the Ottawa Sun today about the new pre-clearance plan the minister announced yesterday. It affects primarily containers. Is that correct? Do you know what it's about?

It said:

The minister in charge said he is working on a plan in which Canada and the U.S. will jointly clear all goods arriving in either country. ... The current system requires goods to be inspected on both sides.... [It] will only apply to containers considered to be low risk.

I'm wondering how that would affect agrifood and agricultural products, and those kinds of things.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: The more immediate plan that is referred to there is that we have about a million containers landing in Canada every year that are destined for U.S. destinations. They go there by truck and by rail. Thus far, we can inspect the container, in theory. They come into Canada and we have to inspect for admissibility, that is, contraband, and then when they cross the border on train or on truck, again, they're subject to an inspection by the U.S. government.

We have had a pilot project under NAFTA in Halifax for some time, and the goal is once we clear a container in Canada; then it's cleared to go anywhere. To achieve that goal, we have to work with the Americans to satisfy them that we've looked at their targeting and we've applied it to that container. If it was going directly into the U.S., they would accept it as is or they would inspect it. If we inspect it, we have to tell them we've inspected it, and the results, so they don't have to do it. We are just trying to avoid duplication.

Mr. David Anderson: I have a question in a different direction. If a person is going to ship a container of peas, beans, or whatever out of Saskatchewan and that person wants to ship them to Thailand through the port of Seattle, is there an efficient way to do that?

We're having larger and larger problems with the rail transportation in our area.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: We have not started working on that one yet. I can see only one thing there. When the container goes into the U.S. the Americans want to clear it for customs, and then when it arrives in Thailand they would want to clear it for customs. We don't have a relationship with Thailand to prevent them from doing what they have to do.

To ask the U.S. not to examine the container when it gets to the border, or not to have that right...we don't have active discussions at the present time that I know of.

Do we?

Mr. Brian Jones: That's correct.

Mr. David Anderson: You're only inspecting the ones coming in. Perhaps the ones going out could also be inspected. It would be a little more efficient for people to move their product.

The Chair: Go ahead, Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: In regard to these containers, do you have an X-ray machine that a container would go through so you'd be able to actually X-ray a container?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Not yet, but we are looking very actively.... There are a number of options on the market that are getting to be fairly proven. You have mobile gamma ray machines that any vehicle or container can go through. It looks like a hydro truck with the pole having the gamma ray at the end, on the other side of the container.

You have a number of versions of that. You have, basically, the $2 million version, the $5 million version, the $15 million version, and the $40 million version. The difference between that equipment is the penetration and the throughput.

• 1650

We are very actively looking at this, mostly for our seaports. We could also contemplate using it at our land borders. It's very expensive. Maintenance is expensive. It takes some people to operate it. But it's an excellent tool that we're looking at very closely. The technology's coming of age, if you wish.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Well, I think it would be a good idea. The amount of money this government is collecting on the GST would take care of a few of those machines anyway. I think we need to have them.

I have one more short question.

Is there any special treatment for trucks that line up with perishable goods, like tomatoes or whatever, going across the border? Is there any special treatment for them to get through more quickly?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I would say our service, except very exceptionally, is quite good, and it's not a factor. It's probably no more a factor than the 401 in Toronto or other traffic snarls.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The last question I have concerns the enthusiasm with which your department is going after this terrorism issue.

In the west, during the times we were trying to take our wheat across the border and were running afoul of Canada Customs, the Wheat Board, and the RCMP, it was with tremendous enthusiasm departmental employees went after those farmers for trying to get their own wheat sold. I'd like your assurance that you are having your employees use the same enthusiasm for going after terrorists.

If a farmer were to take wheat across without the required permits right now, would you divert resources away from terrorism to put toward the issue of farmers exporting their own wheat?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Our mandate is to apply the law at the border. We have excellent customs officers who do an excellent job, and we will apply the law to the best of our ability.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Howard.

Are there other questions you might have?

Just to reiterate—I think I heard what I heard—in terms of the movement back and forth across the border, it's your opinion that in spite of September 11 and the aftermath, we've almost returned to normal, to what we had a year or two ago in terms of the time for our trucks to get back and forth.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Yes.

The Chair: Certainly that's very reassuring, because many of us have heard horror stories about truckers waiting two and three hours to get across the border. It's not just our own customs, it's the American side we are thinking about. But there has been good cooperation from the Americans, and that's what your report, Mr. Lefebvre, is to the committee.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: I will add that before September 11, there was only anecdotal evidence about the time it took to cross the border either way at any one port. On the 11th, the industry—truckers, trucking companies, carriers—didn't have any information, and there were some anecdotal reports that the lineups were excessive at a number of ports. So I believe it was on September 13, September 14 at the latest, that we installed on our website the state of each large port where there could be lineups.

Ever since September 14, we've kept a tab on the volume of cars and trucks, and the wait times going both ways at all the major crossings. We monitor this from week to week. We didn't have this prior to September 11. So to compare to prior to the 11th, I have to rely on what my regional directors, whom I have spoken to personally, tell me, and there is a unanimous view there that we are at the pre-September 11 levels for wait times coming to Canada, and in most cases to go to the U.S. But for entering the U.S., I have charts that show there are some frequent peaks that are fairly long.

In Canada, there are peaks because you never know on any highway or bridge when all of a sudden you have too many trucks or cars to process. We have had about 8,000 hits a day on our website because people wanted to be informed on whether to cross at a certain time, or if they should change their itinerary a bit. We know, quite precisely...it's observation from people in the field.

• 1655

Following our starting the website, the Government of Ontario and U.S. Customs started their own websites. We have cross-checked the information on the three websites, which all comes from local information, and I think the information is fairly accurate.

We can say with confidence that traffic is moving well coming into Canada most of the time, except for the occasional peak at all ports of entry. Going to the States it's fairly good too, but there are more frequent peaks at some ports.

The Chair: If this guy, Bud the Spud, we'll say, is bringing his Cavendish load across the Ambassador Bridge, what will the timeframe be for him to get that load across? What would the waiting period be?

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: Most times there is no wait. That means the vast majority of the time. But at certain times of the week...people will tell you that for a couple of hours here and there during the week, for some reason that's when the trucks all come at the same time.

On the Canadian side, at the Ambassador Bridge, we have 20 lanes. When the traffic calls for it, we open the 20 lanes. We have standards, and our management in the field knows that the acceptable standard to wait is 20 minutes on the weekend and 10 minutes during the week. That's our standard. We ask management to react by adding personnel and opening more PILs when we exceed the posted wait times.

Mr. Brian Jones: I could add that for commercial traffic crossing the Ambassador Bridge, our studies indicate almost 60% of it has been actually pre-released or pre-approved, that we've done a screening prior to the physical arrival. We just confirm that last admissibility check. So basically the difficult work has been done in advance of the arrival of that truck. The formalities, when they actually land at the inspection booth, are then a matter of a minute or perhaps even less, because of the pre-approvals and the pre-screening that's been done. That's certainly the norm for close to 60% of the traffic at the Ambassador Bridge in the commercial world today.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of you for coming. It's certainly reassuring to hear the message you've offered.

I hope we can relieve some of those who have been talking about the terrible lineups we have. I'm not sure if all customs officials are as friendly as you are, but certainly you had some very good answers for us today.

Mr. Denis Lefebvre: We all attend a smiling course.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Thank you for coming.

With that, we'll suspend for a couple of minutes and then move in camera to look at future business.