Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2010

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

In terms of the locations that are being closed, and the locations that are having their hours reduced, can you be very specific and go through them and tell us how it will result in improved service to Canadians who live in those areas?

[Stephen Rigby]

Certainly in terms of Canadians who live in those areas, there's probably a perspective, an appropriate perspective, that in those very precise small towns and areas, their service will be reduced. But I think overall my obligation as the head of the border agency is to look at the total amount of expenditures I make and to ensure that across the range of points of service I run and the range of ports of entry, money is being invested in the ones that are cost efficient, that have high volumes, that have an appropriate risk, that don't have ports of entry that are reasonably close by, etc.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

But you did not make these recommendations independently of the strategic review. You made these recommendations because you were required to provide recommendations for 5% of your budget. Correct?

[Stephen Rigby]

Obviously, I made these recommendations in the context of the strategic review that the departments and agencies are required to present every fourth year. That said, we are constantly looking at opportunities to ensure that our resources are allocated to the highest return, the highest risk, the highest points of volume throughputs across the border, in airports, at the land border, and marine ports.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Ms. Mendes has a question.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On page 6 of your brief, you say that you will be consulting your counterparts in the United States. I would like to know whether those consultations have already begun, what they will consist of, what is being reported to you by U.S. authorities and whether they believe these closures—incidently, two of the three closures are in Quebec—will compromise security at the border?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Mendes.

Mr. Rigby.

[Stephen Rigby]

We are currently holding discussions with our U.S. counterparts. There is certainly a level of

sensitivity around these discussions, so you'll forgive me if I'm a little bit circumspect.

I think, obviously, as we are looking at where we might take port closures in discussions with our American friends, we are always going to look for opportunities where we can balance federal presence from the American side with our side. But that said, there are a number of locations across the 49th parallel where either our hours are not in perfect balance or where our points of service are not in perfect balance.

So as we go forward, we're going to discuss longer-term plans whereby the presence on both sides of the border can be kept in the best alignment appropriate to each individual location. We also discuss the range of things in terms of alternate points of service and whether in the long run it might be appropriate to recommend to both governments whether or not there are ways that we can use technology better in some of these locations or whether or not we can look at joint facilities or other questions like these. These are purely at the discussion stage at this point, and we're not in a position to make any recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Rigby.

Madame Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank you for being here today. I intend to pursue the same line of questioning, Mr. Rigby. You say that you are consulting your U.S. counterparts. But I have letters from U.S. municipalities saying that they want to keep these service locations open and that they do not seem to have been consulted.

For example, a petition was filed today with more than 5,000 signatures on it with respect to the Franklin border crossing, for example, and it states that neither local communities nor communities on the U.S. side were consulted about this. Furthermore, I have letters here, including one from the New York State Assembly, stating that it is essential that the Franklin Centre and Jamieson's Line ports of entry remain open.

There is something here that I don't understand. If you did consult people, it would appear that they are not happy with the decision.

[Stephen Rigby]

Just to clarify, we are currently in discussions with our government counterparts.

I'm in discussions with my counterparts in CBP, customs and border protection. I did not mean to imply in my previous answer that I'm in discussions with other levels of government or necessarily, at this moment, in discussions with local, municipal entities. My discussion is to see the way in which we are going to approach this and the way in which the federal presence on the American side and the Canadian side can be balanced in the long term.

I recognize that there are concerns. I recognize that there are quite reasonable and predictable and expected concerns by local residents on both sides of the border. I didn't mean to suggest that I am right at this very moment in discussions with local authorities.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

As I understand it, these ports of entry will be shut down in April of 2011. Is that what is going to happen, or is it possible the decision will be changed?

[Stephen Rigby]

At this time, we have no expectation that the decision will change. Certainly, we will have considerable discussions about the manner in which these closures will take place. There will be discussions with local authorities on both sides of the border and with our American counterparts.

As I said in my remarks, one area of real concern to us is to make sure that the roads on which these ports of entry exist today remain open to emergency vehicles and that the closures are handled in a sensible and sensitive way from that perspective.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I have to admit that I'm having trouble understanding this. Earlier, you were saying that you analyzed the risks and the threats, which were deemed to be low with respect to security. You also said that the cost would be high.

So, perhaps you could explain why, on the American side, they are currently investing millions of dollars in infrastructure along the border, such as at Franklin Centre and Jamieson's Line. Why do they consider security to be critical, when you are telling me that threat is minimal? The Americans are constantly telling us that the Canadian border is a sieve, and yet you are saying that we should shut down ports of entry and that this will have no impact on security?

So, in your opinion, will the drug, gun and human traffickers be going through ports of entry that are serviced, or will they prefer the border crossings which are not staffed?

[Stephen Rigby]

First of all, I cannot answer questions with respect to the decisions made by my U.S. counterparts.

I can't tell you, and they have not shared with me the rationale or the reasoning why they are choosing to make certain capital investments. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that.

From a security point of view, I can say this. We conduct security threat risk assessments across the border at all ports of entry. For these particular ports, in relative terms, the threat and risk profile is relatively low. If a port of entry is closed, any suspicious or threatening traffic that might have gone through it will go to the adjacent ports.

They're not going to start travelling, I don't think, overland through farmers' fields and what have you. They're going to go to the next port of entry 15 or 20 kilometres down the road. We believe we have the capacity there to enhance and adjust our enforcement activities to handle any of the threats that might have been going through the ports that we are about to close.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

In any case, Mr. Rigby, I'm afraid that I very much doubt that. In my opinion, even with the measures that are currently in place, Canada's border is still somewhat of a sieve. You know perfectly well that 80% of the guns in this country come from the United States and cross the border freely, just as the drugs do. You are perfectly aware of that.

You also referred to border crossings where the service hours would be cut back, such as Morse's Line, which will be open from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Am I mistaken about that? No, I'm not.

If the border crossings are going to be open from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., do you think that traffickers will be crossing the border between those times? Do you think that's appropriate? In terms of our security, is it logical for a border to be shut down overnight? Does that seem logical to you?

[Stephen Rigby]

Well, what I find logical, Madam Mourani, is that all the crossings that we run are open relative to the traffic flows that come across them. So where we see traffic flows that are perhaps lower in the evening, yes, I think it's a reasonable decision.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Rigby, you are saying that they will remain open based on traffic flows, and not for security reasons. That is right, is it not? They will remain open based on the number of people going through, but not for security reasons. No consideration is being given to the fact that there is a security issue. You just want to know whether there are cars going through or not, and how many cars are going through, correct? That's right, isn't it?

[Stephen Rigby]

I can assure you that quite the contrary is true. The security of Canadians is always foremost in our minds, but it is a weighted balance, and it is not the only factor that we look at in terms of balancing the security and facilitative aspects of our mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Rigby.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

To all the witnesses, thanks for coming.

Mr. Rigby, did the CBSA review include all of the border and customs offices in Canada or only some of them?

[Stephen Rigby]

We looked at all of our programs, Mr. Davies, not just the front-line offices, but 100% of our program expenditures.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay. And I think you've touched on this a bit, but I will make sure I am following it. In terms of the selection criteria that you may have used to close or reduce hours in border offices, would you have looked at the number of crossings a day--I guess commercial and personal--and the overall security importance?

[Stephen Rigby]

We would look at a combination of factors. I think it's fair to say the primary factors that we would have looked at are flows, as you say, personal and security. We would look at the costs of sustaining the port. We would look at the risk profile. We would look at the relative proximity of other ports and the infrastructure for handling the diversion of traffic from a port closure to another location.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Our analyst put together some material for us. I don't know if you have this or have looked at it.

I'm not an expert in this, so I'm just going by these numbers. The three land border offices for closure--Jamieson, Franklin, and Big Beaver--have an average of 12 travellers, 56 travellers, and, in Big Beaver, an average of five travellers. Those are for shutdown. One of the border offices that you've determined to stay open but just reduce the hours is Kenora. That has the lowest amount. It has an average of four travellers who pass through each day. Now it doesn't say anything about the commercial traffic, so I'm not sure if that's a factor.

To someone who is looking at this, you would think, why are we keeping open something with four travellers passing through a day and closing others that have, by my bad math, three and twelve times the amount of travellers going through?