Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, November 1, 2010.

Today we're studying changes to the services offered by the Canada Border Services Agency. In our first hour we will have as witnesses the Canada Border Services Agency, with Stephen Rigby, president; Cathy Munroe, vice-president of the programs branch; and Sylvain St-Laurent, the vice-president of the comptrollership branch. We welcome you here. We're very pleased you're able to come and give us a briefing on this issue.

I understand that Mr. Rigby has an opening statement. We would invite him to do that. I'm not certain if he's appeared before this committee before. Then following the statements we'll allow members to have a couple of rounds of questions.

[Stephen Rigby, President, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have indeed appeared before this committee.

My thanks to you and to the members of the committee for the invitation this afternoon. As always, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the Canada Border Services Agency and the delivery of its mandate in this tight fiscal period.

As you well know, the CBSA provides integrated border services across the functions of customs; enforcement of immigration and refugee policy; and food, plant, and animal inspection. Simply stated, our responsibility is to guarantee the optimum facilitation of legitimate travellers and trade while providing security across the border in its entirety.

Last year we processed over 85 million travellers and 26 million commercial shipments. We seized some $2.36 billion worth of illegal drugs and removed over 14,000 persons who were inadmissible to Canada. We collected over $13.5 billion in duties and $16 billion in value-added taxes.

The CBSA is very much a people-based organization, which means our expenditure is largely salary-based. As such, any budget change will have an effect on staff, and we are acutely aware of this as we allocate funds.

Additionally, like other public and private sector organizations, we are faced with the reality of tighter budgets and the requirement to align scarce resources in a responsible and cost-effective way. I believe we are meeting this requirement through tight fiscal management and the pursuit of a sound strategic agenda.

In this context, I appreciate that parliamentarians are interested in the conscientious management of tax dollars. During difficult economic times, Canadians expect government agencies to be even more watchful, and to ensure that every tax dollar is producing results.

I want to assure members of the Committee that we share this view. The CBSA is committed to cost-effective delivery of border services based on a close and continuous assessment of our programs and operations.

In 2009 the CBSA was the subject of a strategic review, as required by the Government of Canada. Through this process we identified ways to better meet our mandate and ensure full alignment of our priorities with those of the government. In compliance with the terms and conditions of strategic review, we carefully and comprehensively looked at all our programs, and this led to cost savings of some $58.4 million, which were accepted by the government. These reductions covered lower-priority items across the full range of our programs. We also took particular care to minimize unnecessary impact on our front-line operations.

That said, there were expenditures on the front lines that we concluded were reasonable candidates for reallocation. These particular recommendations put forward as a result of the review were also sensitive to both the realities in our field operations and the demand to exercise a national mandate for border services.

Still, making these sorts of choices is never easy, but I can assure this committee that these decisions were taken according to the principles of sound fiscal management and with the expectation that they will result in improved service to all Canadians across the country.

As a result of these cost-saving measures, certain ports of entry will have their hours reduced, while nine low-volume inland customs offices will have their commercial operations consolidated to another nearby service point.

Obviously, particular discussion and attention is attached to the three planned port closures at Jamieson's Line and Franklin Centre, both located in Quebec, and Big Beaver in Saskatchewan.

In this case, the intersection of considered factors, particularly cost, traffic volumes, the proximity of other available service locations and risk profiles, resulted in these expenditures being assigned a relatively low priority within the range of program expenditures made by the CBSA. While these decisions were difficult, the Agency's overall service and enforcement priorities in those areas will not be diminished. The security risks and threats associated with these ports of entry and service points are considered low, while the costs of maintaining operations at current levels are, in proportional terms, high.

I can also say that the actual closure of these ports will be done in consultation with community interests. We will also proceed in consultation with our counterparts in the United States. In these discussions we will pay particular attention to the installation of arrangements for the passage of emergency vehicles as a key factor in serving Canadians.

Mr. Chair and committee members, by way of conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the CBSA is an agency that undertakes its responsibilities seriously and with a view to serving the nation as a whole. As a responsible agency, we have to deal with the reality before us, and that reality means making difficult decisions and hard choices. The decisions we take as an agency are granted with a steadfast and unwavering commitment to provide the highest-quality border services, which protect our country and facilitate trade in a fiscally responsible and principled manner.

I look forward to your questions, and thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Rigby.

We'll move into the first round of questions. It's a seven-minute round.

We'll start with Mr. Kania.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Rigby, looking at your presentation, the first thing I note is that you make reference to the strategic review required by the Government of Canada in 2009, and on page 4 you say, “[i]n compliance with the terms and conditions of Strategic Review”.

Do you have something you could provide to us to set out exactly what the terms and conditions of this strategic review were?

[Stephen Rigby]

The terms and conditions, quite simply put, sir, require every department and agency to identify 5% of their low-priority programs as part of a consideration, every fourth year, the government makes. There are other rules about the actual conduct of these reviews. They are governed and provided by the Treasury Board of Canada.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Is there something in writing you could provide to us in terms of exactly what is set out in the terms and conditions for each review?

[Stephen Rigby]

The best source for the terms and conditions of the strategic review would be the Treasury Board Secretariat, but I can certainly undertake to work with them to provide the committee with something, yes.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

In terms of reviewing this, were you told by the government to cut a certain percentage of your expenditures?

[Stephen Rigby]

What happens under strategic review, Mr. Kania, is that all departments and agencies are asked to identify their lowest 5% of priorities and to present those for consideration to the Treasury Board.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

So that we're clear and Canadians understand, in essence, then, the government tells you to find 5% to cut.

[Stephen Rigby]

No, that's not my understanding. The government asks us to identify our lowest 5% of priorities. The Treasury Board and the ministers of cabinet make decisions on whether they would like to take those proposals or take some other decisions surrounding them.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

So in this particular case, you were required to identify 5% that could be cut.

[Stephen Rigby]

It would be 5% that could potentially be reallocated within government expenditures.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

In this case, you identified, based on your report, certain border crossings that would be closed and other certain ones that would have hours reduced.

[Stephen Rigby]

What we did, Mr. Kania, was look at all of our programs. The requirement of program review means a comprehensive review of all the programs of the department or agency undergoing the review. Obviously, when we look at all of our programs, that will mean, of necessity, looking both at headquarters and at the front line and at the different aspects of border administration we pursue.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Based on what you just indicated, it's the government, and in particular the Treasury Board, that made the decision to cut these particular border crossings and to reduce the hours. It wasn't your decision. It was their decision. Is that accurate?

[Stephen Rigby]

What's accurate to say is that I'm required to propose 5% of my lowest-priority programs, as is every other department that undergoes a strategic review each year.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Right, but you don't make that final decision. It's the government that makes the final decision, correct?

[Stephen Rigby]

The government takes a position on what it wants to accept or reject in terms of the propositions or the recommendations put forward by departments and agencies.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

So in essence, it's not your decision to do it. They have to approve your recommendations, correct?

[Stephen Rigby]

The Treasury Board looks at the recommendations and decides what they want to accept or not accept.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I can take that as a yes. They make the decision, correct?

[Stephen Rigby]

Yes.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

On page 4, at the bottom, you say that “it will result in improved service to all Canadians, across the country”.

I'd like you to describe how closing these border posts and reducing the hours will result in improved service to all Canadians across the country, as indicated in your report.

[Stephen Rigby]

It's a question, sir, of looking at the cost-effectiveness of all of the locations where we have either service delivery or representatives. It's my belief that, looking forward, giving the opportunity to the government to reallocate resources from locations where there's simply cost-ineffectiveness, in terms of the number of vehicles and the number of cars or trucks that may be going through on a given day relative to the expenditures that are being made, gives us the ability to focus our programmatic activities on areas where the risk is perhaps higher and the volumes are higher.