FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 3, 2001

• 1701

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting to order and welcome everyone here this afternoon.

The order today for the Standing Committee on Finance is Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts, and, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of issues related to border security. Of course the examination of this bill is extremely important, given the events of September 11.

Minister, we would like to welcome you. We give you the floor for your remarks, and also for the introduction of the officials you have brought with you.

Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

First I would like to introduce colleagues of mine who are here with me today. Mr. David Miller is the assistant commissioner, assessment and collections branch; Mr. Harvey Beaulac is assistant commissioner, appeals branch; and the assistant commissioner for customs branch is Mr. Denis Lefebvre.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for agreeing to study the bill quickly, and to thank you too, personally, the members and particularly someone who is part of our team, the Parliamentary Secretary to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Ms. Sophia Leung, for the work that has been done.

You are obviously aware of the importance of customs and of the reforms we wish to implement. Allow me now to take a few minutes to explain Bill S-23 to the committee.

The purpose of this legislation is to amend the Customs Act in order to modernize border administration. The legislation would simplify the movement across the border of persons whose documents are in order and of legitimate goods.

In fact, based on our consultations, I can tell you that this legislation responds to the concerns expressed by commercial businesses, but above all, Mr. Chairman, it provides for increased security for Canadians. The passage of Bill S-23 will provide the Agency with the legislative provisions it needs to fulfil its responsibilities much more effectively.

Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the terrible tragedies in New York and Washington, Canadians are now more than even concerned about their safety. The amendments in Bill S-23 will provide us with the legislative provisions we need, not only to respond to the economic concerns of Canadians, but also to reassure Canadians that no compromise is permitted when it comes to protecting Canadians against threats such as terrorism.

• 1705

Today, the main question we still have to answer is the following: How can we protect Canadians and our national security while simplifying the movement of persons whose documents are in order and of legitimate goods?

It is important to bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that Bill S- 23 is not a reaction to September 11, but rather the key ingredient of something we have been working on for some time now.

Bill S-23 will enable the Agency to implement its Customs Action Plan. This plan revolves around a comprehensive risk management system supported by state of the art technology, a system whose basic principles are self-assessment, pre-arrival provision of information and pre-approval.

[English]

Bill S-23 gives us the canvas upon which to sketch our plan for border modernization. Understanding the global context and parameters within which we work is the first step.

Over the last decade, the world has seen a massive expansion of international trade, investment, tourism, and information technology. In fact, international trade and tourism are truly considered the lifeblood of the Canadian economy.

Trade agreements with our neighbours to the south, such as NAFTA, open skies, and the Canada-United States accord on our shared border, have created a huge market of more than 380 million people. Canada's growth in trade has reached approximately $560 billion—more than $1.5 billion a day.

Canada has had an excellent working relationship with the United States for many years. As two nations build on the same values and principles, it is no surprise that we are each other's largest trading partner. In fact, more than 110 million travellers come into Canada each year, and 80% of them come from the U.S.

The final elimination of duties between Canada and the U.S. has further stimulated trade and enhanced the productive forces of both our economies. Minimizing any unnecessary interference with legitimate trade and travel is one of our priority objectives, in today's changing environment.

Indeed, activity at our borders is booming. All of this is great news for the Canadian economy. It means that customs has to find innovative ways of managing our borders through programs like CANPASS, customs self-assessment, and the expedited passenger processing system. These are innovative solutions to the challenges we face today. They ensure that our customs processes will not be an impediment to Canadian prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, industry needs this legislation passed. This government has a responsibility to ensure that a Canadian economy continues to enjoy the highest level of success.

At this time I would like to reassure committee members that the agency takes border security very seriously. We work closely with our federal and international partners by sharing intelligence and technology.

I would like to reiterate that prior to, and especially since, the tragic events in the United States, our main priority has been the safety of Canadians, the protection of the border, the integrity of major trade corridors, and the strengthening of the North American perimeter.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, border administration based on risk management as proposed in the Customs Action Plan will enable our government to better deal with its priorities. However, in taking the necessary steps to enhance Canadians' security and protect the border, we must not forget another of our priorities, which is just as important, that of ensuring the prosperity of the Canadian economy.

• 1710

Let's not forget that we are accountable to Canadians for making sure Canada remains prosperous. Simplifying legitimate trade and travel will not just better protect Canadians, it will also increase their international competitiveness.

The provisions of Bill S-23 put in place a new risk management approach, one of our top priorities. This risk management approach will be supported by an effective and fair sanctions system, with penalties based on the nature and seriousness of the offence.

Bill S-23 contains practical measures ranging from warnings to fines. The consequences of these measures should not go unnoticed by those who choose to break the rules. These are innovative solutions designed to meet the challenges currently before us. With these provisions, our customs processes will not be an obstacle to Canada's prosperity.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, amendments to the Customs Act proposed in Bill S-23 will allow for the introduction of advanced passenger information. With API, customs officers will receive certain prescribed information from commercial transportation companies on drivers, crew members, and passengers in advance of their arrival in Canada.

By receiving this information in advance, customs officers will be able to make enlightened decisions prior to the arrival of people. This makes it easier to identify high-risk travellers while facilitating the movement of legitimate travellers.

The agency will continue to be vigilant and will conduct random customs examinations. The instincts of our well-trained, experienced customs officers will continue to be our guiding force.

Mr. Chairman, certain new designs of airports involve the potential for mixing international and domestic travellers. Proposed amendments in Bill S-23 would allow us to position ourselves to respond to the business needs of the Canadian air industry and manage any inherent risk. For example, the amendments to Bill S-23 would allow customs to establish control areas in airports, and give customs officers the authority to question people and airport staff, and examine their belongings as they leave the control area. I'm sure the members of this committee will agree that in light of recent events, these are all important steps toward ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.

There is also a proposed amendment in Bill S-23 that would give customs the authority to examine export mail. This proposed amendment is necessary to ensure the postal stream does not become an illegal means of bypassing Canada's export controls.

[Translation]

The government's plans to promote trade and investment in Canada would not be truly successful were they not supported by the Customs Action Plan and the amendments in Bill S-23. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that Bill S-23 is a bold and innovative step in our plans to modernize Canada's border and related procedures. By working together with other government departments and agencies, the Agency will have all the necessary means to make the movement of passengers and goods as efficient as possible.

Mr. Chairman, with this bill, the Agency will also be in a better position to do the job that most Canadians consider absolutely essential, that of protecting our streets and communities by applying Canadian laws and ensuring Canadian sovereignty through border integrity.

Thank you very much.

[English]

Thank you very much to all members.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We'll now proceed to the question and answer session. It will be a ten-minute round. We'll begin with Mr. Jaffer.

• 1715

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your presentation. I would like to focus a little bit on the security side of what you mentioned today.

Obviously we have some problems at the border, especially in remote border crossings, where often there is only one customs agent on duty, often unarmed, and the closest RCMP detachment is anywhere from half an hour to an hour away. The instruction to these particular customs officers is that instead of stopping and detaining people suspected of being armed or dangerous, they should let them through the border and then call one of these RCMP detachments. Hopefully the detachment will chase these people down somewhere along the way.

How does Bill S-23 do anything to correct this ludicrous policy?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: You refer to the second part of our mandate. We all know at Canada Customs we have what we call a dual mandate. The safety of our population is of course a very important part, the other part being the question of trade between the two countries, and as a whole, protecting economic development.

As far as I'm concerned, when we have a look at the way customs officers are managing the border, I do believe at this point in time we offer Canadians good protection to our society. We have over 7,000 customs officers across the land working to fulfill that mandate. Of course, lately we implemented within Canada Customs what we call “officer power”. People have been well trained to stop people at the border, some people we don't want to see in our country. They receive very good training. I was in discussion over the weekend with some customs officers in regard to that training and to the tools they've been provided with to fulfill their duties, to fulfill their mission.

At this point in time, I sincerely believe we have a very good customs system. You can compare Canada Customs to any other country in the world. Of course, when one faces the question of security—to be more precise, the question of terrorism—we've said many times it is a very complex issue. In order to fight back terrorism, Mr. Chairman, we need cooperation among agencies and with other countries.

One must understand that the aim and goal of Bill S-23 is to do a good job on the security and safety side of our community. The question is simple. Let me add briefly, Mr. Chairman, and I've said it many times, look at the volume of trade we're facing on a yearly basis. Let's take some stats.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Minister, if I can interrupt you for a moment, the ultimate problem I see with this bill.... We're all in favour of everything you've said on the business side of this bill—trying to expedite business and trade at the border. That's something you will not get any confrontation on from our party. What we're concerned about now is if the security portion is not dealt with effectively today, it's going to cause further complications, we feel, in the future, especially dealing with U.S. Customs and getting our products going south of the border, not north.

Now I want to focus specifically on this aspect. You say the bill has a dual mandate: to deal with the business aspect and the security aspect. But it seems to me that we still have not dealt adequately enough at all, even through the consultation process of this bill, when it comes to security. Even when it came to the point when you and the department held consultations with various groups on this bill, leading up to it being introduced, the only group that was ever consulted on the security side, or could at least be talked about as dealing with security, were the customs unions or the customs officers. But outside of that, the tourism and trade groups were the only ones consulted.

So how can you tell us this bill has anything to do with security when your department focused on the accounting side, and didn't even bother with the security sector?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: I would like to invite the member to have a closer look at the philosophy and the vision behind Bill S-23.

To start with, the aim and goal of the States in regard to their customs is the safety of their community. We have in Canada Customs exactly the same aim and goal. We want to make sure Canada will remain a safe country. But let me tell you something. We're living in a global marketplace. Of course, if it's good for the Canadian economy, exports and imports, it means more volume for Canada Customs. On a daily basis, we are receiving here in Canada more than 40,000 commercial shipments. It's over 300 people coming over to Canada on a daily basis, so it means an enormous volume.

• 1720

We do believe that the vision of the future, in order to be able to fulfill our mandate on the safety side, is to have what we call a smart border, using technology, so that those people who don't represent a high risk can have access to the border without wasting their time, without answering any questions, without queuing. By doing this, we are going to be able to use our customs officers, who are by the way very competent, very dedicated, very well trained as well, where indeed there's a higher unknown risk, therefore doing a better job, of course on the trade side, but also on the safety side.

It's part, as well, of an overall strategy. I said we did proceed with what we call the officer power, which was a very important step. People are very well trained. Now we have a balanced approach, we put in place a smart border, and we're not doing it alone.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Let's focus, Mr. Minister, on that high-risk side that we speak about, because in the House today as well, when referring to Bill S-23, you talked about the balanced approach this bill is focusing on between the facilitation and security. Yet it seems to me it's out of step with the reality of the events of September 11. As I said, Bill S-23 is predominantly bookkeeping initiatives that expedite accounting procedures. Can the minister tell the committee today, especially when you look at the high-risk scenario you talk about, how many man-hours are going to be reallocated from low-risk assessment to high-risk assessment as a result of Bill S-23? Is that going to, in fact, affect the high-risk assessment, and how?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Bill S-23, as I have said on numerous occasions, is the vision that will offer Canadian society a balanced approach. Of course, since September 11, we have moved on what we call a high alert situation, high vigilance. It's true for Canada Customs, and it's true as well on the U.S. side. We've been using all our resources to make sure that we are indeed offering good protection to our society.

What I said in the House is that Bill S-23 is the balanced approach. That balanced approach is there in order to take into consideration the two parts of our mandate. I used to say that one of my priorities is the question of the safety of our community, and I do believe that the only way to succeed is to put in place Bill S-23. Of course, once Bill S-23 is enacted, we will be working in cooperation with the States. We have pilot projects on the land border. We'll try to see if we can put mattes across the border, so we can decrease the volume.

But at the same time, as I said, after September 11, I've asked the officials to see if we could speed up the implementation of the reform. That's why, Mr. Chairman, I've said many times we need Bill S-23. The business community wants Bill S-23. It's good for Canada, it's good for our protection. As soon as we have Bill S-23, we will speed up the implementation of our reforms, making sure we keep the border open for trade, but offer our Canadian society very good protection.

As for safety, I have used the example of a commercial aircraft coming over to Canada. With Bill S-23 we're going to be able to get the passenger list prior to the arrival here in Canada. Therefore, during the flight, customs officers will be able to go through the list, check with data banks, check with our information, and do a much better job on the security side, Mr. Chairperson. This is what we want to do when we talk about using technology. This is what we want to put in place. This is what Canadians want.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jaffer.

[Translation]

Mr. Perron.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Minister, and thank you for being here.

You know the Bloc Québécois's position. We are not against international trade and so on.

So we agree in principle with your Bill S-23, but we do have some reservations, some questions to ask. I thank you in advance for your willingness to answer them.

• 1725

Here is the first question that comes to mind. Can you tell us what are the assessment criteria for low, high or unknown risk? What is an unknown risk?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: That is a broad question that goes to the very root of customs. Customs officials work on what we call a risk-assessment basis. Risk assessment is something that is renewed daily based on events and needs.

Risk assessment requires a variety of data. Various databases and offences under the Immigration Act and Customs Act that may have been committed in the past are checked. Accordingly, a number of criteria must be taken into account.

It is also important to note that when we refer to risk assessment, we must have confidence in customs officers. Their experience counts for something. So it is important to rely on our customs officers, who in addition to using the various identification criteria and databases will draw on their experience and instincts in assessing risk. Risk assessment is thus based on a whole range of documents.

Obviously, when we discuss risk assessment, there is currently a high volume of goods and passengers arriving in Canada. In my opinion, in order to better assess risk, we have to be able to better target, which means, for example, that travellers who pose no risk should be offered a CANPASS so that my officers can do a better job in the grey areas.

Mr. Gilles Perron: Minister, you are straying off topic. Please stick to our questions.

We all know that in April 2001, the Auditor General did not go easy on CCRA. There is one thing I am very concerned about. Will Bill S-23 fix many of your problems? The auditor said he could not even get the data on low-risk persons. He also raised questions about means of communication among various departments. Our customs officers, as you know, deal with health, etc. We are concerned about that, Minister.

Mr. Martin Cauchon: One thing is for sure: Bill S-23 will indeed enable me to better assess risk. That is one of the main objectives of the bill. We are talking about assessment criteria. I was telling you earlier that this is reviewed daily based on events.

For example, let's go back to the time of mad cow disease. Canada customs certainly did respond to that reality. We targeted a number of loads from certain countries to ensure Canada would not be infected. So, risk assessment is done, is updated and modified, depending on events, depending on day-to-day realities, and also depending on the information that we receive from our partners.

Mr. Gilles Perron: I have another question, Mr. Cauchon. They may be false rumours, but I've heard that the money you saved by improving procedures for low-risk people and goods could be allocated to assessing high-risk people and goods and establishing new procedures. Can I really believe these statements from people who are very close to your area of activity? How can I be sure that the money saved will really be reinvested in the assessment of high-risk people and goods?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Basically, our mandate is a dual one, and is something that we take very seriously. As I said, customs officers take safety and security very seriously. I was allocated an additional $87 million for the reforms, and 13 million additional dollars are coming from the Agency's budget as well. So, we are talking about $100 million for these reforms.

• 1730

Obviously, we must carry out this dual mandate properly and seriously. This is fundamental to the integrity of our mandate. We've been talking about terrorism, but there are criminal activities going on that we have to watch out for. In terms of safety and security, with Bill S-23 I will be able to do a better risk assessment when people arrive at customs, and in the case of domestic conspiracies. Bill S-23 will give me the authority to examine and question people who work at airports.

Thanks to these important additional tools, we will be able to do a better job on security.

Mr. Gilles Perron: Mr. Cauchon, in April, the Auditor General tabled a report on people who cross the borders. Next December, he will be tabling his report on goods.

How can we come to some kind of opinion on Bill S-23 if we don't know what shortcomings are currently found in the customs system with regard to the transportation of goods?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: There is the issue of transporting goods across the border. We also have to look at the issue of goods that arrive at airports and ports. I suggest you read my June press release in which I announced additional initiatives at ports and airports. I also announced additional resources for customs officers and the purchase of additional equipment.

Obviously, Bill S-23 contains legislative principles that will allow me to go ahead with specific programs. But additional equipment will be purchased as well. I announced this in June, and we should be purchasing more equipment for ports and airports, not just for the border crossings.

Mr. Gilles Perron: You say that someone must have a good background in the import business and so on to be eligible for the CSA, the Customs Self-Assessment Program. You also say that someone who carries goods across the border must be of good character to be eligible. What's the difference between the two?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Actually, that's the expression we use for our risk assessment. When we carry out a risk assessment, some parts of it are logical, and are done according to formal criteria, and all of that is part of the regulations. In fact, the regulations are now available to members of Parliament and will be published. So, some of the criteria are logical and can be put down on paper. Another part of the work also concerns risk assessment; when the officer consults our data banks, and makes a decision on the spot, this sort of assessment has always been part of the customs officer's work. The purpose of CANPASS is to allow low-risk people to travel more freely. In my opinion, this objective is being met with the criteria that we are about to include in our regulations. But in the case of CANPASS or the customs self- assessment program, the criteria certainly can never be set in stone.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Perron.

We have five questioners, Pillitteri, Guarnieri, Barnes, McCallum, and Cullen—five minutes each.

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for making this presentation on this long-awaited bill.

Some people will say that I have a vested interest, in that I represent a riding in Niagara Falls, in which I have three bridges with the United States—Queenston, the Rainbow Bridge, and the Whirlpool. The latest of the three as of two years ago was designated a CANPASS. Since September 11 it has been closed. Of course, the Americans have not.... On this bridge, actually, we had security on this CANPASS.

• 1735

Through this CANPASS, hundreds of people every day cross over between Canada and the United States, people who work there. When you're on the border, a lot of people really don't see the difference between working in the United States and working here in Canada, which has worked quite well for us. Passes like that have never in any way lowered the number of customs officers. As a matter of fact, last October I was after you, Mr. Minister, to get more customs officers, and you quite rightly gave us a little more help there, some 70 new customs officers, so that it improved screening the people. Niagara Falls is almost a lifeline with the Americans through those bridges, with those individuals crossing over every day, into Canada specifically.

Since last September 11, I don't say it's a ghost town, but definitely there's a cancellation of Americans crossing over, and vice versa. Tourism is so much down. When do you see the opening of Whirpool again with the CANPASS and any more enhanced programs you may have, in order that we can expedite the crossing over? This is of interest, but certainly to anyone who is living on the border, it is a lifeline.

Also, Mr. Minister, if the Americans still this summer did not have enough personnel on the crossing, is this going to change? Have you actually talked to your counterpart in order to facilitate more of our goods moving faster south of the border?

The Chair: Just for the information of members, the five minutes include the question and answer.

Minister.

Mr. Martin Cauchon: So I have exactly 30 seconds. I'll do my very best, Mr. Chairman, to be brief, but committee members will understand that there were many questions asked by the honourable member.

First, the CANPASS has been suspended across Canada. It's through on our side, and there were pilot projects on the U.S. side that have been suspended as well as CANPASS. The reason is that we're working on a risk assessment basis. Of course, on a scale from one to ten, after September 11 we went to risk number ten, meaning we suspend everything. We moved to high alert, and they did it as well on the U.S. side.

When will CANPASS resume? It's a question of risk assessment. The high alert situation is still there on both sides of the border, and as soon as we are able to go back to CANPASS, we'll do it. But if you ask me for a timeframe today, I'm sorry, I can't provide you with one.

On the question now of the reform and that idea of the possibility of lowering the number of customs officers, I would like to be clear here. The customs action plan in Bill S-23 is not a downsizing exercise. By the way, I just would like to tell you as well that in the announcement I made last June with regard to the ports and airports, I said we've hired additional customs officers, and of course, if needed, we'll do more, because Bill S-23 is not a downsizing exercise.

The Chair: Ms. Guarnieri.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not excessively wordy, as you know.

• 1740

Welcome, Minister. As you're probably aware, today the United States Senate revealed that the weakest link at our border is a crossing that is not manned at night and is secured by a solitary rubber pylon. As you can appreciate, there are areas that are well manned and others that are not. In light of this, one is left to wonder whether or not the border serves as an impediment for honest citizens crossing, as we heard my colleague mention, and an impediment to trade at incredible cost to taxpayers.

Has your department done any study that would quantify economic benefits of a transition to an unsecured border, and have they determined which other bilateral agreements might be necessary to make such an arrangement acceptable to the United States?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: In my mind, the question of keeping the border open for trade is the will of both countries. If it's true for Canada, it's true as well for the States.

Of course, it is also true that back in 1995 we signed what we called the Canada-United States of America Accord on Our Shared Border. The aim and goal of that agreement is to make sure we keep the border open, and we will harmonize, as well, as much as we can. It was true prior to September 11, and it is still true today. So the United States and Canada are working to make sure we achieve that goal.

In regard to the question of the remote land border, of course the question of technology applies here, but as well, cooperation has to have a high profile in the sense that at some land borders there is maybe one officer on one side of the border because they are tiny land borders. As we proceed with a risk assessment, of course, where the volume is higher we have more persons. So when I referred to the fact that maybe the answer to that is through cooperation, that means maybe seeing if we can have better communication between the two land borders where indeed there is one customs officer. As well, in some places, we've looked, and that exists not only as a pilot project but is already established.

In some places, maybe we can have what we call a joint facility in order to have the two organizations working with their own mandate, working together, because the aim and goal of the two countries, basically, as regards the border, is exactly the same. I've referred to it as the dual part of our mandate.

As well, in between the remote parts is the mandate of the RCMP. Over the next few months, discussions will take place with the States to see how we can enhance the cooperation on the land border, and as well, learn to trust each other's procedures in terms of, for example, the question of airports and seaports. We don't need to harmonize everywhere. That's not the aim and goal of Bill S-23. But what we do need is to make sure that on both sides of the border what we're doing, we're doing right.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: I gathered from your answer that you will be applying consistent regulations across the border. But my question really is, do you sense any appetite amongst the Americans to trade a potential unsecured 3,000-mile-wide border for maybe tighter security controls at foreign airports, for instance?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: My belief, actually, is that they do care about trade. They do know we need a balanced approach to the question of customs, and in my mind, they do understand as well that we use technology. Taking all that into consideration, I believe the two of us are working in exactly the same direction.

As a proof of that, we have some joint pilot projects. NEXUS in Ontario is a joint pilot project using technology.

On the question of security, it's true at the land borders; it's true at airports and seaports. Very often people refer to the question of the perimeter. The perimeter for Canada Customs is essentially seaports and airports.

We have exactly the same aim and goal in Canada: the protection of our community. We'll put in place our own system. Bill S-23 will provide us with additional tools, as I said, and in cooperation with the States. We're going to have to trust each other's system. That way, we're going to be more effective, making sure we keep protecting our society, and of course keeping the border open for trade is very important.

• 1745

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Will there be a greater emphasis on airport security, for instance?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Of course, people are coming through the land border or they're using airports and seaports. Basically, when you look at airports, there are a lot of airports across Canada, but there are about six or eight that are seen as being international airports. There are major seaports as well.

We started to have a closer look at those seaports and airports last June. I went a step ahead in announcing additional resources and more equipment. Bill S-23 will give me more power.

So we'll focus very much on airports and seaports, but again, it's all a question of balance.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Thank you, Minister. I'm sure your deliberations will result in transforming our borders from speedbumps to speedways.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Guarnieri.

Ms. Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Whoever had the foresight to put this bill in the Senate last spring so we can deal with it now, I think it's going to be very useful as we try to put this legislation into play.

I want to talk to you about the security issue and the technology, and the level of technology that's going to be utilized. It's all well and good to clear people and say they're lower risk and give them a CANPASS, but I have some technical questions.

First, at our airports, what type of technology is going to be utilized to show identity, that I'm the person who has the CANPASS and I'm the one who's coming into Canada through the airport gates from another country? How does this technology compare to other countries around the world?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Maybe there are two questions here. The first is about people who are coming over to Canada.

As I said, we are going to have an advance passenger information system, with which we will work with the airline company. The airline company will send the information to the customs officer in advance, prior to their arrival, and he or she will have time to go through the list and check with the data bank. Of course, when people arrive here, we'll pay attention just to those who are of some concern.

The others will go through basically without any questioning. But we do have to check the passport and use the technology we already have in place—that is to say, the passport readers check the IDs.

So for passengers on their way in, I guess we're going to do a much better job, because with the passenger list in advance, we'll be able to focus more on different data banks we have and information and details as well.

For passengers who are travelling, who are frequent users or want to have access to what I used to call a CANPASS, what we have at the land border, we're going to have at the airports as well. But at the airports it's going to be different in the sense that we will use different technology. We haven't made up our minds yet, but it looks like it's going to be an iris scan.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Thank you very much.

I know some of these projects have been piloted over the last number of years. Can I have, for instance, maybe from Mr. Lefebvre, some of the details on the success on the trucks coming through some of the points using a transponder, or any of your prior information? How have the pilots gone, in your measurements?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: If I may—and he may add afterwards—you're referring to the customs self-assessment.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Yes.

Mr. Martin Cauchon: There's no real pilot project. We've tested customs self-assessment with some corporations, and of course they all want customs self-assessment because it's going to be easier for companies. They're going to have to be responsible in regard to obligations under the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, but the moment we have full enactment of Bill S-23, we will implement quite quickly what we call CSA, customs self-assessment.

We're already working with corporations across Canada to see exactly how it will work with them. Basically, the system is pretty much in place; we're just awaiting the additional power.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McCallum.

• 1750

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): I have just one question.

In terms of this idea of continental perimeter, I think we've heard some what I consider exaggerated definitions in the last week or so from the opposition and the media, this idea that we would have to have identical laws to the U.S., the U.S. would demand that we have the same laws at our borders, or even that we have U.S. customs agents or FBI agents in Canadian airports. From what I read in the media, I don't think the Americans are even demanding this, and from listening to you I get that same impression.

Since September 11, what's been the reaction of your American counterparts? Presumably you've had some discussions with them. Have they expressed serious concerns to you about our system or said that they would like us to move much closer to the U.S. system? Do you foresee substantial movements toward greater harmonization toward the U.S. system in the future?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Since September 11 the reaction of the United States has been sincerely very positive with regard to Canada customs. We moved quickly on September 11. We received as well all the airplanes that had been diverted to Canada. We worked in cooperation with the U.S. customs as well as with other agencies. What I hear from them is that they're very pleased with the work that has been done by our team on the Canadian border. It's not only Canada customs but the whole team.

Of course I've met with the U.S. ambassador, Mr. Cellucci. We've been talking about our vision of the management of the border today and in the future. My understanding is that more or less.... And as I said earlier, it doesn't mean that we're going to have to harmonize everywhere. I'm in front of this committee today on Bill S-23, which is our vision of managing the border in the future to offer good protection to our society. And it seems that we're moving in the direction.

We're facing the same challenge, the very same challenge not only in terms of respecting our dual mandate but as well in terms of managing the volume. Using technology is the way of the future, to put in place a smart border.

It is also true that they're moving in that direction. My understanding is that we've gotten involved in joint pilot projects such as NEXUS. We have in some places across Canada some joint facilities as well. It goes through better risk management using technology and good cooperation as well. In some places we will be able to harmonize and it will be suitable to harmonize. In some other places we're going to do our thing on our side and we'll be very efficient.

Mr. John McCallum: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for this piece of legislation, which I think is timely and important.

I have two questions if we have time. The chairman might cut me off. The first one is picking up on a theme that two of my colleagues were touching on. Maybe I'll be a little more specific.

If you look at the trucks that are lined up at the border, which we saw on the television even before September 11, a lot of those trucks are trying to get Canadian goods into the U.S. market and they're being held up presumably at U.S. customs.

If we move in this direction, I would hope, from all we hear from the U.S. government and the Prime Minister and yourself and others, that there's an importance attached to moving goods back and forth. Do you see the U.S. at some point moving towards a kind of self-assessment or pre-approval process on their side?

I know we met recently with some representatives, business people in Sarnia and Windsor, and they've embraced this concept. They call it “pre-clearance”. I don't know if there's a difference or if that's just a terminology issue. Presumably the big bang for Canadian business will be if the Americans move into pre-clearance or pre-authorization as well. Have you heard signals that they're prepared to move this way?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: I can't speak on their behalf, of course.

I went down to the United States to explain the reform some time ago. I met with some officials there. They've been very much interested in what we're doing. As well, I've met with people in the business community in the United States, and they're supporting the vision of Bill S-23. As I said, in my mind we're moving in the right direction, and they're moving as well in that direction since we have some private projects together using technology.

• 1755

Are they going to get there pretty soon? I don't know. It's part of their own strategy, their own reform, but I'm pretty sure that with the cooperation we've had in the past and the cooperation that we're going to have still ahead, we'll be able, together, to fulfill the two parts of our mandate and of course to keep the border open for trade, because it's the will of our country, as the Prime Minister has said many times, and it's the will as well on the U.S. side.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

I have a quick question. On the self-assessment and pre-approval, it's a system based on trust or managed risk, as you referred to it. In terms of non-compliance, it seems to me that sanctions are a critical piece. Let me give you an example and maybe you could comment. I don't know if it's been spelled out in the regulations or if you have a view on it at this point.

A truck is coming into Canada with a driver who's been through this self-assessment or pre-approval, and in terms of some of the post-audits or random checks—which there will be, I gather—you discover some illegal immigrants or some heavy-duty drugs. What kinds of sanctions would we put on a transaction like that?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: What we have now are draft regulations, but sanctions could go from penalties. And of course when we talk of customs we refer to customs self-assessment. We can revoke as well the customs self-assessment, because the question of CANPASS and customs self-assessment has to be seen as a privilege.

We're moving from a transaction by transaction based system to a self-assessment, so you're more responsible in regard to the obligations vested in the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act. So we have to find some incentive, and of course we're going to have what we call the AMPS, administrative monetary penalty system. We will apply that, and that could go as far as revoking the CSA, depending on the infraction.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Five minutes for Mr. Nystrom and five minutes for Mr. Brison.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Minister, welcome to the committee.

The present bill appears to be separating people coming to Canada into low risk, high risk, and unknown risk. I want you to be quite specific if you could. At the present time, what kinds of questions would a customs officer ask of a person entering the country who is a high-risk person or an unknown risk, and how would this change under Bill S-23? What kinds of questions would they ask the person who is classified as high risk or unknown risk? What are the questions now? What will the questions be in the future? What is the difference between the two?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: It depends what you're referring to. If you talk about CANPASS, it's one system. If you talk about, for example, the advance passenger system, it's another thing.

For example, if an aircraft is coming over to Canada and I didn't have any information prior to the arrival and there are 350 people coming over the border to the airport, the customs officers have to manage the volume, making sure that people are respecting plenty of legislation and making sure that it's the right person, checking the IDs, checking the passports, and asking questions.

So the system we will put in place with Bill S-23 will allow the customs officer to get all that information in advance, the passenger list, and he will be able to take more time to go through the list to check with our data bank, which we can't now do all the time, depending on the volume. But with the installation of the new system we're going to have the time to check all the data banks and check all the information, including the information received from other partners. So it's a way of getting into more detail in regard to the screening, and at the end of the day it's a way to fulfill in a more efficient way the question of protecting our society.

If we talk about the land border, today we're questioning people who don't have CANPASS. When people will have CANPASS they'll just have to show their CANPASS. There's a photo on the CANPASS, and the CANPASS is connected on the licence plate, so that person would be able to go across the border using the CANPASS in a much easier manner. That is to say that we're going to have more time to spend with the others, asking more questions and using data banks more as well.

• 1800

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Now, with these three categories—the high risk, the low risk, and the unknown risk—what are the specific criteria for defining who might fall into each of these different risk categories?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: As I said, that question has been asked. There's no specific answer. First of all, for example, people who have access to CANPASS are by definition low-risk travellers. You will find in the regulations some criteria in regard to who should have access to CANPASS. But there are other criteria as well that have to be taken into consideration. We're going to have to check the data banks.

The question is vast. As I said, what's a low risk and what's a high risk? Depending on the situation, that could change from one day to another. If we're talking about mad cow disease and mad cow disease is taking place in England, of course those passengers coming over to Canada from England will be scrutinized more closely than those passengers coming from the States.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: This is my last question.

Last Saturday I was in Kenora, Ontario. It's by Lake of the Woods, and there are about 14,000 islands in Lake of the Woods. People there told me that you can take a boat and go to the U.S.A. in many, many different ways. How do we improve security in these kinds of areas? How do we improve security at one-person border crossings? If they have some problem at the border—I've talked to some customs people about this—the closest police may be several miles and several minutes away. Is there anything in this bill that would improve security for those kinds of folks as well as address the situation of crossing the border in remote parts of the country?

I guess the last question I'm asking, which is part of this too, relates to the concern that some of the students who work part-time may not be adequately trained. Are they adequately trained, in your opinion? Is there going to be any change to that in the future?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Your first question, the question of the remote border—

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: In a country so big and so vast, there are a lot of areas like that.

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Yes. In some places technology is used and will be used more in the future. As I said, the RCMP are responsible for the remote borders. But we have as well—I didn't mention that—what we call flexible or quick-response teams, namely customs officers who go from one remote land border point to another. This is taking place across Canada. As well, as I said, in putting in place the reform of Canada Customs in discussions with the States, we will have to address that question.

Take, for example, remote border points where there's no big volume and there's one customs officer per office on both sides of the border. It's true here, and it's true on their side. Why don't we join the two facilities when feasible, to be more practical?

In regard to the question of students, the student program has existed within Canada Customs since 1960. It happens to be a very good program. It is very good job experience for college and university students. Afterwards, some of them become customs officers. They discover how proud they are as customs officers, what a good job they are doing, and how important the job is as well through that student program. The training they receive is appropriate in the sense that they receive three weeks' training. Some of them come back regularly every summer, so it means that those who come back are, through the experience they've received, even better trained.

I would like to tell you that those people work under supervision in places where appropriate. Of course I've met with the union on that. I've been quite explicit to the effect that I do believe it's a good program. It's part of our youth strategy, involving as it does college and university students. They are doing a very good job.

It doesn't mean that discussions won't take place between the union and the agency. If there is good commentary about that program, we can adjust things, but from what I've seen so far it's a very good and effective program and it provides students with very good work experience.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing before us today.

• 1805

This week I've met with several senior private sector economists, and I've asked the following question as to what they believe, in a post-September 11 environment, will be the biggest economic issues facing Canada. In every case, the response has been the question of access to the U.S. market and the continued relatively free flow of goods and services between the two countries. With $400 billion of trade between the countries per year, it's of utmost importance. In fact, it's more important to Canada as a percentage of our economy than it is to the U.S.A. So while you're right that there is a will on both sides to continue that relationship, it's more important to us economically in many ways than it is to the U.S.A.

Effectively, we have a choice of either being within a North American perimeter or being potentially excluded outside an American perimeter. The latter can happen if Americans and the American government are not comfortable with the level of security we're providing in Canada in terms of our entry policies.

Attorney General Ashcroft made a statement recently that referred to Canadian borders as being relatively porous and he mentioned some of the risks that might result. How would you address his concerns? Did you attempt to address those concerns? Did you communicate to him a response for that? Clearly, it's not in our interest for that perception or reality to be out there. What have you done in terms of seeking or developing a proposal to the U.S.A., one that may lead not to just the continuation of the relatively comfortable flow of goods and services across the border but actually to a greater level of cooperation in ensuring the integrity of our borders? Perhaps, with our being a small country with long borders and vast territories, a more cooperative effort with the U.S.A. would be in order so we could maintain and actually accelerate our level of economic integration.

Mr. Martin Cauchon: As you said on the question of trade, it's important for the two countries. Of course, there's a will on both sides of the border to keep the border open for trade. We all know that is true on the Canadian side and true on the U.S. side as well. What we've done since September 11 is to prepare to put in place S-23. I've met with the U.S. ambassador to see where they stand with regard to the reform that will take place. We've discussed as well pilot projects we have together. One of those pilot projects, NEXUS, is under analysis at this time to see if it works—and indeed, so far it works—and if some adjustment is needed. The next step will be to implement a project like NEXUS along the land border, because it works. We want to make sure that it works for trade, and in order to make sure that it works for trade while protecting our community, we have to be able to deal with the volume. Dealing with the volume, Mr. Chair, means the use of technology.

As to the question of a perimeter, I'd like to refer to the question of airports and seaports. There we don't need to harmonize in order to keep an open border with the States—which we have, and which will remain. We have to make sure that what we're doing on the Canadian side in the Canadian way is done in consultation and in cooperation with the States. As well, there may be a way we could work in order to make sure that it will diminish the workload of the customs officers on both sides. An example of that is where, for example, there's a big vessel coming over to the port of Halifax. It's full of containers, and those containers, Mr. Chair, are going to Chicago. If they are released by Canada Customs in Halifax, why would they have to go through U.S. customs?

I do believe that there's a way to better manage the border, to be more efficient for both business communities.

• 1810

Mr. Scott Brison: We agree on that point. You've provided an example of the benefit of a cooperative effort in terms of executing some level of security analysis in Halifax that wouldn't have to occur...it would be duplicative for it to occur further on.

The U.S. ambassador, a former governor of Massachusetts, has spoken positively about the notion of a North American perimeter. We've had now three premiers—Ontario, British Columbia, and New Brunswick—quoted today as being supportive of this. Our exporters and the exporters alliance have spoken positively of this. Why aren't we accelerating the development of a made-in-Canada proposal to provide to the Americans a way we can work cooperatively in improving the integrity of not just our borders, but North American borders, such that our trading relationship can be actually strengthened as a result, as opposed to just—

Mr. Martin Cauchon: The point is well received. Of course we have to pay attention to what you call the perimeter, and we have to keep the border open for trade. It's the will of the two countries.

When you're saying we have to develop, Mr. Chairperson, a Canadian-made solution, Bill S-23 is a Canadian-made solution. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a very good step in the right direction that will give the additional power, for example, to deal with the airports. I refer to a number of programs we will put in place to better deal with the airports. It's the same thing with seaports. Let me tell you, if we start customs self-assessment with the land border, then afterward it will apply to airports and seaports as well.

We discussed all that during the meeting I had with Ambassador Cellucci, and they're very much open-minded. Other meetings will take place in the future to make sure we are working together and we're going in the same direction.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brison.

As you probably know, Minister, I'm very much in favour of a perimeter concept. I think it speaks to the issue of understanding that our North American economy is very much integrated, perhaps much more so than we actually think.

When I hear you say “harmonization if necessary, but not necessarily harmonization”, there is an opening there—you're open to the concept of that particular style of security as it relates to airports and ports.

The strength of the perimeter argument is that by strengthening the outer destination, what you're going to do is alleviate some of the national security fears at the land border.

What I sense from you, Minister, is that you're introducing a lot of technology. I'm a real big supporter of your plan, and I hope we will find the resources to speed this plan up, quite frankly, because it's an excellent plan. But we're moving more and more toward a seamless border. You're trying to achieve the end result of letting transport trucks and people go through in an easier fashion between the two countries, and it makes perfect sense.

Why is there this reluctance in some quarters to engage in a very open debate about the issue of the perimeter? To me it's pretty self-evident. You have a more and more integrated North American economy. You have national security as a key issue for the Americans, to whom we export 87% of our goods, which represents 45% of our GDP. Why wouldn't we want to raise the national debate on this issue?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: I spoke about the question of the perimeter many times prior to September 11. In some of my speeches I referred to the notion of making sure we do pay more attention to airports and seaports.

We announced something last June with Bill S-23, measures we will put in place that will help us do a better job on that side. I agree, we have to focus on what you call “perimeter”—the airports and seaports. People are coming from outside through airports and seaports. The question of managing the land border and keeping it open to trade is also a challenge. It's there, and it will remain; it's the will of the two countries.

• 1815

Of course we need a balanced approach, and we also need to be realistic with regard to risk management. When we refer to the notion of risk management, there's the question of the perimeter. Is the risk different at the perimeter from what it is at the land border?

The Chair: That's an obvious thing: you need to assess the risk.

Now let me ask you something. If you're saying the Canadians and the Americans are walking more or less in the same direction, they want to meet the same objectives, and they want to address the concerns in the same way, why don't we begin to introduce a North American solution in our vocabulary?

I know that the made-in-Canada solution is extremely important, but why not a North American solution to the challenge? Quite frankly, as a nation it would benefit us in the sense that it would make it very clear to foreign investors that we were the gateway to the American market, and indeed to a greater integrated North American economic community.

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Obviously the aim and goal is to make sure the border remains open—we keep trade. You talked about a North American solution. I used to tell the members that as far as customs was concerned, where we were able to harmonize, we would do it. We started back in 1995. The Canada-United States accord on our shared border is all about harmonizing the customs system to be more open and facilitate trade. That started in 1995, and we've kept walking in the very same way.

As I used to say, it doesn't mean we have to harmonize everywhere either. In some places we're just not going to be able to harmonize. As long as we, on both sides of the border, trust the system we put in place, that's the key to the problem.

The Chair: Give me an example of where harmonization would work, and where harmonization would not work.

Mr. Martin Cauchon: On where harmonization will work, for example, there's the question of NEXUS. We're not sure yet. We have our CANPASS and they have exactly the same thing on their side. We are analysing the program at this time. It seems obvious to me we're going to be able to harmonize on that side and to proceed on both sides of the border with a joint NEXUS, using just one card.

In some places, for example, we'll be able to have joint facilities. It's feasible. In some others, we just won't be able to do it. For example, I was in Vancouver last weekend, and there's no way we can have a joint facility there because of the physical situation.

Are we going to be able to harmonize, for example, with regard to safety measures at the seaports? By far, we're not working the same way. We don't have exactly the same tools. We don't have the same legislation in place. The legislation we have here in Canada is quite different from what they have in the U.S.

So in some places we'll be able to harmonize, but other places we won't. As I used to say, it is important that on both sides of the border we pay attention to the security of both our communities. We both have exactly the same aim and goal. I guess if we can trust each other's system, we will keep the land border open, and open for trade.

The Chair: So you would say that the United States and Canada would like to meet the same objectives and results. Is that correct?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: We have exactly the same objectives and results. The mandate of U.S. Customs is exactly the same mandate as Canada Customs. As I said, as much as we're going to be able to harmonize we'll do it, but there's legislation in place in Canada that we have to respect and take into consideration. Maybe we won't be able to harmonize in some places, but as long as we respect the same aim and goal and can trust each other's system, that's the key to the problem.

• 1820

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Let me give seven minutes to Mr. Epp and four minutes to Madam Picard.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, I appreciate your being here.

I have some concerns with respect to identity. In the last couple of years I have had my identity stolen and misused twice. You're going to have this EPPS system—and I sort of like the acronym—but it means that you're going to have some sort of identification that will fast-track a person going through the border. How are you going to ensure that the person who presents it is the actual person and not somebody else? How are you going to prevent that identity from being stolen and misused?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Concerning the EPPS that we will put in place, of course everything has changed since September 11 with regard to airports and airline companies as well.

The airline companies would provide us with information. I guess at some point they are going to have to make sure on their side that a person taking his or her place in the aircraft is the right person.

When they get here to Canada, as I said, we will have time to screen the whole list to check the data. The fact that we're not questioning someone doesn't mean we don't go through the IDs. We will use the passport readers in order to make sure the person has the right passport and that it corresponds to the ID.

Having said that, the passport system we have in Canada is no worse than any other passport system in the world. If you are referring in that question to people who would like to change their IDs and are involved in terrorism, it is, as we've said many times, a very complex problem. When such a person comes over the border, there's no writing on his head saying “I'm a terrorist”.

It's complex. We're one part of the team, and many other people are involved, such as the RCMP. Immigration Canada is involved, and they have their own data bank. We are sharing those data banks. Within the mandate of Canada Customs, the procedures we want to put in place for travellers coming over are the right ones.

On the question of travellers coming out of countries that have access to CANPASS, we will use what we call the iris scan, of the eyes, and it's pretty tough to go around the iris scan.

The other question concerns the CANPASS at the land border. We are evaluating the NEXUS program at present, but the CANPASS at the land border has a photo and it matches your licence plate.

So I guess the procedure we have put in place is good in terms of speeding up the process and in terms of offering better protection to our Canadian community.

Mr. Ken Epp: Do you have plans to immediately introduce this technology into border crossings and entry points into Canada? Do you have plans to actually increase the workforce so that this job can be accomplished with efficiency and a high degree of reliability?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: As I have said many times, Mr. Chairman, as soon as I get Bill S-23, I want to speed up the process of reform. Second, Bill S-23 is not a downsizing exercise, and as proof of that, I announced more resources last June.

As for speeding up the process, on the CSA side, for example—the customs self-assessment—I would like to tell the committee that the moment we have the enactment, we'll proceed with customs self-assessment. We'll see as well—and the department is working on this—which initiatives we can proceed with in a good timeframe.

Mr. Ken Epp: But if you're going to use self-assessment, it goes without saying in today's climate that you have to greatly increase the random checks. You must, because otherwise it's going to continue to be a sieve.

That brings me to another question. Clearly, Bill S-23 was drafted before September 11. Since September 11, everything has changed in Canada, and in the United States more particularly. I'm just wondering whether the Americans approve of Bill S-23, as you said they did, now that this whole scene has changed so dramatically.

• 1825

Mr. Martin Cauchon: Prior to September 11.... I just would like to tell you, Mr. Chairperson, I'm especially proud of Canada Customs. We started all that reform some time ago, respecting the two sides of the mandate. As I said many times, it's a dual mandate. One side is the safety and security of our Canadian communities.

So Bill S-23 has been drafted in light of that mandate, making sure we do respect that mandate, and security is a prime concern to Canada Customs after September 11. As I said, I believe all the legal principles we have in Bill S-23 are still good. It's the way to manage the border in the future, to put in place a smart border. But the thing that has changed, Mr. Chairperson, is that we're going to have to speed up the enactment of that reform, and we're working on that. I need Bill S-23. We'll move ahead as soon as we can with different measures.

Having said that, you were referring to customs self-assessment and the question of random checks. You're right, and I would like to be precise on that, Mr. Chairperson. It doesn't mean that because people have access to CANPASS, have access to customs self-assessment, we're giving up our power. Those persons indeed may well be subject to random checks.

Mr. Ken Epp: They should be, and in increasing numbers.

Mr. Martin Cauchon: They will be.

Mr. Ken Epp: One of the things that concerns us, of course, is that it's a huge balancing act you have. If you want the goods and services to travel back and forth easily, you open up the borders and there's no check at all. On the other hand, if you want to make sure not a single terrorist or criminal gets through, you have to do a lot of checking on every shipment, every truck, boat, and vehicle, and that of course will slow down the movement. So you have a test, or a huge balancing act, here.

Now, my question is, do you have plans to use technology and an increased number of personnel spread out around the country away from the border to make sure that when that container unit is sealed, it is properly marked? You're talking a large manpower problem here.

You need the people, and then when you get to the border, somebody has to check that bar code to make sure the seal hasn't been broken, and it has to be immediately checked with the computer to make sure it's all proper. If it isn't, you take immediate action to prevent that shipment from going through. Are you ready for that?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: On the question of checking containers, we have a pilot project now in Vancouver using technology to better check containers. We're using a technology with gamma rays. We proceeded with a pilot project because the technology doesn't work quite well at this point in time here, because of the weather conditions in winter, and so on. But the technology is more accurate at this point in time, and in the future Canada Customs wants to buy some of those gamma ray machines to test containers. Of course, when we talk about the question of risk assessment and technology and tools that we would like to use, it's part of the arsenal we're looking for.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Picard.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Cauchon. I would like to ask you three very specific questions. I know that we're short on time. You stated that Bill S-23 responds to the expectations that were expressed by business. Can you tell us when those consultations were held and how many companies you reached? I would like to remind you that you had made a commitment to hold such consultations in my region.

I'll now move to my second question. You said a great deal about customs officers at the border crossings, but very little about the officers and employees who work in our regions. You realize that they are very worried about their job security. What will the impact of Bill S-23 be on the officers and the services in our regions, in Drummondville for example?

Moving on to my third question, let's talk about the current situation at the borders, at the border crossings, particularly for goods. Some truckers have told us that the line-up is seven kilometres long. Are you aware of the situation? What do you plan to do to solve it?

Mr. Martin Cauchon: In response to your first question, I would point out that the Customs Action Plan was established after a period of extensive consultation. The consultation began before I was appointed Minister of National Revenue. I had a few meetings, but most of the consultations were done before I arrived on the scene. In fact, brokers, importers, exporters, airports and airlines were all consulted. Everyone who has an interest in this sector was consulted. Several dozen companies were consulted.

• 1830

As for service employees, that's a good question, because not only do we have people working at the border crossings at the actual border, we also have people who work at different service points.

For example, the Quebec headquarters of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is at le Carré d'Youville in Montreal. There's a shopping centre there. In your region, we have an office. I know, because I previously had some discussions about that office, and I have already said that the purpose of Bill S-23 is not to reduce our human resources, far from it, quite the contrary. I'll say it again.

Furthermore, in June I announced that more staff would be hired for ports and airports. I also announced that the Drummondville office, which according to rumour was going to be closed, would not be closed. So, we're not talking about downsizing, quite the contrary.

I think that we can and we should use technology, but we also must continue to work with our customs officers, who have considerable expertise and experience. They are the ones who understand the realities of customs work. That will always remain the case, Ms. Picard.

As for the line-ups, I would like to say that immediately after September 11, we at the Customs and Revenue Agency set up an Internet site that people can consult to find out what the situation is at the various border crossings.

Obviously, a few days after September 11, the situation was difficult, but now, if you look at the Internet site, even though we are still on alert, you'll see that in terms of traffic, the situation is under control. It has almost returned to normal. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, traffic has dropped since September 11. We hope that everything will return to normal in the very near future.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madame Picard.

On behalf of the committee, Minister, I want to thank you very much. I think you have a lot of work ahead of you, but in my discussions with the committee, you can rest assured that we understand the sensitivity of this bill as it relates to time. We will do our very best to analyse it and to return it to the House of Commons as quickly as possible. Given the importance, particularly in regard to the events of September 11, I think this type of legislation in many ways addresses some of the key concerns Canadians have.

I could also say we probably would prefer that we move even faster than the plan 2000-2004, that we perhaps achieve some of these goals. I hope you will find that the committee will be very supportive of those measures.

Once again, on behalf of the committee members, I want to thank you and your officials.

The meeting is adjourned.