Public Safety Committee on Nov. 1st, 2010

[Garry Douglas]

It certainly violates the spirit of it. Somewhere along the line, where this totally divergent approach to that particular crossing came, it certainly shows that we're not coordinating investments or decisions about border crossings.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

How would the closing of this particular crossing, under the circumstances where the Americans are investing $6.8 million in the same corresponding crossing, increase the security of Canadians or Americans?

[Garry Douglas]

I don't see that it does. In fact, I think there's a concern here that I would have on a policy matter. There's about to be a very new Congress in Washington, and I don't think Canada wants to create precedents where it's saying that it's okay to make unilateral decisions. Be careful of what may come over the next couple of years in counter-unilateral decisions about border crossings.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I have some questions for the other gentlemen.

I don't want to be too hard on Stephen Rigby, who is the head of the Canada Border Services Agency, because as you were sitting in the audience and you were listening, what he essentially said is he was forced to provide recommendations to cut 5% of the budget by the Conservative government, and the government made a political decision in terms of what to close. So that's not Mr. Rigby's fault.

But he did indicate here in his presentation that these closings “will result in improved service to all Canadians across the country”.

So starting with Mr. Orr, can you tell us how in your area the closing will actually improve services to Canadians, including your company, who live in that area? How is it going to help you?

[Barry Orr]

It's definitely not going to help; in fact, it's going to hinder us.

It's going to be a big, big cost. As I mentioned in my speech, it's going to cost us a lot more money to divert to other ports. I don't have any figures because I'm only speaking for Leahy Orchards Inc., but I'm sure it's going to affect tourism in the Haut St-Laurent area. Many, many other companies are very, very concerned. Smaller companies, smaller orchards, producers, the UPA, maple syrup producers, and other growers who have local seasonal stands, are all very, very worried about this border crossing.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

So it's going to hurt.

[Barry Orr]

It's going to hurt the whole economy of Franklin and all the surrounding areas, definitely.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Moran, the same question. I'm going to ask all of you the same question.

Once again the quote is “will result in improved service to all Canadians”. Can you tell us individually...and I assume your answers will be that it's not going to help, that it's going to hurt all of you.

I don't understand why the government is doing this, to be blunt. Can you please describe exactly how you're going to be hurt by this, not helped?

[Ron Moran]

Before I do that, please allow me to apologize for not having introduced my colleague, whose name is Jean-Pierre Fortin. He is the first national vice-president of our organization.

I think I also neglected to introduce myself. I'm Ron Moran, and I'm the national president. We represent all front-line as well as inland customs and immigration investigators, intelligence-gathering, immigration inland removals, as well as hearings officers and the support staff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Moran, you have about 20 seconds.

[Ron Moran]

Oh, I'm sorry, sir.

If anything, it is not unreasonable to presume that reducing an already extremely thin presence of law enforcement on the border will only exacerbate an already reportedly important problem. It will basically download the problems that come with an increase in clandestine entries and smuggling into the country to other law enforcement agencies.

Having said that, we have very good access to the government. It became obvious in our lobbying with them that although this had been highlighted to them as...I'm still floored by the fact that it's categorized as the lowest priority. The impact on these municipalities and their way of life has been categorized as the lowest priority of the CBSA.

The government had obviously not been properly briefed on the historic consequences of having tried to close some of these municipalities. On the eve of an election, it's just mind-boggling that the CBSA would provide that type of advice to this government, or that any government might have created that itself.

It's certainly not our role to come to the defence of politicians. We underscore good moves; we underscore what we call bad moves. In fairness, in this case, it became obvious that the current government had not been properly briefed by the CBSA on the historic backlash of trying to close these types of ports. It's been tried numerous times, always with disastrous political results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Moran.

Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Douglas, I have a question for you. When you and your elected colleagues in the United States found out that Canada would be closing certain ports of entry, did you communicate by letter, e-mail or telephone with the government to make it aware that you disagree with that decision? If so, did you receive an answer?

[Garry Douglas]

I didn't personally. I work through our member of Congress, Mr. Owens, whom I've mentioned. I know he has directed correspondence to the minister for public security, and he has also communicated through the Canadian embassy.

Again, as far as I know, as of a couple of days ago, there had been no formal response to his efforts.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

There was no answer; thank you.

Is it your opinion that taking this attitude and closing small border crossings will mean that the United States and Canada enjoy greater security? Do you really believe, as Mr. Rigby seemed to suggest, that the security threat associated with these ports of entry is low and that we don't need them?

[Garry Douglas]

I will articulate something our Congressman, Bill Owens, a member of the homeland security committee and somebody who is very attuned to these matters, has stated publicly and I believe in some of his correspondence, which is that there is a diminution of security when you close any border crossing. You are increasing the distance between locations with personnel, and not just personnel but the communications equipment and the other technologies that go with those facilities. That is why he is so intent on seeing construction continue on the new U.S. facilities at the Franklin Centre crossing. He sees that in addition to the other impacts, there is an enhancement of security value to having a newer facility and newer technology at that location.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Douglas.

Mr. Dupont, what is your estimate of the duties collected at the Drummond office? You referred to 11,000 customs declarations. How many millions of dollars does that actually represent?

[Martin Dupont]

It represents between $500,000 and $700,000 a month.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

So, that means that closing an office in order to save $230,000 a year will result in a loss of between $500,000 and $700,000 a month.

[Martin Dupont]

Yes, between $500,000 and $700,000 a month.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Dupont.

As you can see, this government is really good at number-crunching!

Mr. Pelletier, I very much enjoyed your testimony, because it talked about what people will be facing on a daily basis, in terms of the human and family dimensions, and also as regards young people's activities, firefighting and tourism.

Perhaps you could give me just one or two specific examples to show this government exactly what it will mean, in terms of people's everyday lives, if this small border crossing shuts down?

[Réal Pelletier]

One example would be the farmers. We know that the farm economy is already weak. Profits are very low. If that port of entry closes, the only place they will be able to cross, depending on what is left open, will be the Saint-Armand/Philipsburg port. The problem is that machinery is not allowed on a highway. No tractor has the right to drive on a highway. Therefore, farmers will not be able to use it either. They will have to go through Philipsburg with farm machinery, which is absolutely unthinkable. We are talking about a one-hour detour by car. On a tractor, that same detour would take three hours. It would cause the cost of silage or hay to rise to such an extent that they would be better off simply throwing it away. Farmers would no longer be able to sell it because they would not be cost-competitive as a result of such a long detour.

That is an example that affects the local farm economy. Farming represents 85% of economic activity in our region.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Let us just suppose that the border crossing shuts down on April 11, 2011. What will the farmers do? Will they also shut down?

[Réal Pelletier]

They will have to dispose of their goods, give them away or do whatever they can. They will no longer have access.

It's important to understand that we have a customs administration and, given our circumstances, we do not want it to be a wall. Thus far, it has been a means of trade and exchange, a benefit—because we have two cultures and two economies.

But now we will be creating a dead end in my community. And that is just one example.

The second example relates to tourism. As you know, people get involved in all kinds of little activities. There are bed & breakfast inns, vineyards, major interpretation centres, a small general store and all kinds of small businesses of that nature. If a large business here in Ottawa sees its sales drop by $5,000, it will still have sales of $150,000. But in our area, if a business normally has sales of $30,000, and that amount drops by $5,000, that means the owner will either have to sell his business or look for work outside the region in order to survive. That's the kind of impact this will have on our small communities. People do all kinds of things in order to make a living.

Most of the people in my community earn about $12 or $15 an hour. Many are also earning minimum wage. That is the lifestyle they have chosen and they accept what goes along with that. On the other hand, it's not right to take even more away from them. We have to keep everything we have now, because we need it.

When I saw that number—$300,000—I said to myself that we would lose jobs, that businesses would shut down and that we'd have to turn around and ask for government subsidies in order to save our farmers and our small businesses. But we don't need government subsidies; we can manage on our own. It isn't easy. We work 60 or 70 hours a week for peanuts, but we earn that money ourselves and we're proud of it. Even though I'm appearing today as a politician, I'm a wage earner.

Why rob Peter to pay Paul? That's what I don't understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Pelletier.

Mr. Bachand, you have thirty seconds.