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.