Public Safety Committee on Oct. 21st, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number seven of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on September 18, the committee is meeting to continue its study on the management of the Canada-United States border. As usual, this meeting is being held in a hybrid format, which is permitted under the Standing Orders. To ensure that the meeting runs smoothly, I invite the witnesses and members to follow the established guidelines.

I now want to welcome the witnesses who will join us for the first hour. We want to thank both these important witnesses in advance for their important contribution to the work of our committee.

Our first witness is Mr. Thomas Boyle, executive director of the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority. The second witness appearing by video conference, is Mr. Kenneth Bieger, executive director of the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Bieger, you have five minutes for your presentation.

[Kenneth Bieger, Chief Executive Officer, Niagara Falls Bridge Commission]

Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to testify as part of your study on the management of the U.S.-Canada border.

The organization I represent is the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, which is a binational, not-for-profit organization that is charged with the authority to construct, acquire and operate international bridges traversing the Niagara River at or near Niagara Falls, Canada. We operate three bridges: the Rainbow Bridge; the Whirlpool Bridge, which is our Nexus-only bridge for autos; and the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge, which accommodates both commercial and non-commercial vehicles.

In preparing for this testimony, I listened to a previous witness from the first session on border management, who said something that resonated with me. Laura Dawson from the Future Borders Coalition stated that “Border security and border efficiency are not mutually exclusive.” This is a very powerful statement and should be the backbone of this study. Both are critical to the success of Canada and the United States and should be viewed concurrently. Border security has received a lot of political attention recently and is critically important for the safety of Canadian citizens. Border efficiency is equally important: It fuels economic growth and trade, streamlines supply chains, enhances the travel experience, reduces environmental impact and strengthens bilateral relations.

The Niagara Falls Bridge Commission's primary goal is to facilitate the movement of people and goods, and CBSA's primary goal centres on security. Though our objectives differ, they are deeply interconnected. It's essential that we partner on both border security and border efficiency. These two priorities are not in competition; they're complementary. By working together, we can strengthen security while streamlining the movement of people and goods.

There are clear opportunities to improve cross-border efficiency in ways that also enhance security. The hiring of the additional 1,000 CBSA officers is a massive step in the right direction to improve security and efficiency. Staffing has been an issue on both sides of the border for years. We have been fortunate for the last couple of years on the Canadian side to have additional officer trainees from the Gordie Howe bridge training program at our ports in southern Ontario to assist with the peak travel seasons.

The Nexus trusted traveller program presents opportunities for improvement that can benefit both border security and efficiency. Continuing to reduce the enrolment processing times, improving program awareness and modernizing technology could streamline low-risk travel while reinforcing security protocols. Strengthening these program supports are shared goals, facilitating trusted movement and safeguarding the border.

CBSA technology upgrades represent a critical area of improvement. The recent IT outage really underscored the vulnerability of the current systems, causing significant disruption to the trucking industry and hardships for local U.S. border communities.

Modernizing infrastructure, enhancing system resilience and improving cross-border data coordination are essential steps towards ensuring both security and efficiency.

Acceleration in both procurement and implementation processes are essential to unlock the full potential of the CBSA advancement strategy.

Any method of obtaining advanced information for CBSA before a vehicle reaches the primary inspection lane can significantly expedite processing and enhance border security. Early access to data allows for risk-based screening, reduces congestion and supports a more efficient allocation of resources.

These improvements benefit both trade flow and enforcement outcomes and should be explored. While we support modernization of the ports and enhanced security as laid out in both Bill C-2 and Bill C-12, we do not support the proposed changes to section 6 of the Canadian Customs Act, which would put the financial burden solely on the owner-operators for any and all infrastructure upgrades, particularly the security enhancement. Section 6 of the Customs Act follows the user-pay principle, which is a model emphasizing a more privatized, commercialized, user-funded infrastructure model. This is different than the U.S. and Europe, which rely heavily on centralized government funding.

It is important to note three points.

Number one is that every secure crossing point strengthens Canada's overall safety, economic resilience and international credibility. Border security stretches far beyond the individual user. It's a national responsibility.

Number two is that the current version of the Customs Act was introduced in 1986, well before the events of 9/11, which fundamentally reshaped border security requirements and infrastructure expectations. When the 1986 version of the Customs Act was released, no one could have possibly had a vision of what was to come.

While the owner-operators provide physical infrastructure to support border operations, enhanced border security is a federal mandate with nationwide implications. it protects all Canadians, not just those who use the crossing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Bieger, you have another 10 seconds.

[Kenneth Bieger]

Okay.

My third and final point is that long-term planning is essential to our organization. The bridge commission maintains a five-year capital project budget, which is reviewed and approved annually by our board. Given the scale of our capital improvements, we must plan years in advance to responsibly fund projects through operational revenues and toll rate adjustments. We are concerned that the proposed bills, specifically the current language in section 6, may create conflicts with our long-term planning framework.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Bieger.

Mr. Boyle, you have five minutes.

[Thomas Boyle, Chief Executive Officer, Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority]

Good morning.

Thank you, honourable Chair Duclos, for the opportunity to appear before you and your committee today.

The Peace Bridge is a binational public authority, owning and operating the international crossing at Fort Erie, Ontario and Buffalo, New York. Half of the 10-member board is appointed by the Canadian federal government, the other half by the State of New York. We also own the customs plazas on both sides of the Niagara River. The Canada Border Services Agency and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection are our tenants.

At an international crossing, there is always an inherent conflict of balancing national security with the facilitation and expedited movement of goods and people. At the Peace Bridge, this entails efficiently moving $50 billion in trade annually and supporting a vibrant binational tourism economy. It also means that we are required to respond to legislative security requirements imposed by both countries.

In 2021, the United States passed the Securing America’s Ports Act, which requires the 100% X-ray scanning of vehicles and cargo entering the United States, with a target implementation date of mid-2026. At the Peace Bridge, a small and constrained U.S. plaza would make it impossible to meet that scanning mandate. Even if we could, it would result in vehicles having to wait at the primary inspection booths as the scans are adjudicated, leading to lengthy and costly border delays. A much better solution is to put the scanning equipment in our Canadian plaza, thereby allowing U.S. customs to adjudicate the scan while the truck is moving across the bridge. It simultaneously meets both the security and facilitation goals. Let me explain how.

Every truck, without stopping, moves through a multi-energy portal at a speed of eight to 14 kilometres per hour. The truck cab is safely scanned at low energy, and then the trailer is scanned at the full energy dose. At the same time, the truck licence plate is read and the eManifest is verified, allowing U.S. customs to adjudicate the complete data package during the two to three minutes it takes for the vehicle to cross the bridge and before the truck arrives at the customs inspection booth.

Locating the facility in our Canadian plaza takes advantage of the time and space afforded by the bridge, reducing or even eliminating commercial border delays, facilitating Canadian exports, reducing idling and greenhouse gas emissions, assisting truck drivers in meeting their hours of service compliance, freeing up the bridge for tourism and commuter traffic and also meeting the U.S. government’s security requirements, including fentanyl and other illegal smuggling-related interdictions.

Both the Canadian and U.S. governments agreed with our innovative approach. Canada, through the national trade corridors fund, contributed $5 million, matching the Peace Bridge’s $5-million investment for all the civil works that will house and support the non-intrusive scanning technology. The U.S government is supplying all the scanning equipment at a cost of approximately $30 million U.S.

In December 2024, we completed all the required civil works. We are currently awaiting the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's permits, which we hope to receive by the end of the year so that the facility may be operational in early 2026. It is an excellent example of the two governments funding and collaborating on enhancing border security.

We believe this is a much better and far more efficient solution than the Canadian federal government requiring international crossings to provide outbound inspection facilities, as envisioned by Bill C-12, which would be layered on top of existing inbound obligations already unfairly placed on some border operators, including the Peace Bridge. In fact, many of the costs of Bill C-12's implementation will be legislated to be borne by operators like the Peace Bridge, through revisions to section 6 of the Customs Act, which historically has not been administered fairly or equally among all border operators.

We understand and appreciate that Bill C-12 is focused on strengthening border security and fighting transnational crime and fentanyl trafficking. In fact, we applaud it. However, without the accompanying fiscal support from the government, border operators and, ultimately, the travelling public will bear the responsibility of cost.

I hope my testimony was informative. I look forward to responding to any of your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

It has indeed been informative. Thank you, Mr. Boyle.

We will now turn to MP Davies for six minutes.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Boyle and Mr. Bieger. It's nice to see you.

Mr. Boyle is in my riding. The Peace Bridge is part of the Niagara South constituency.

You were both rather polite in your presentation of some of the issues that are facing our two border crossings, but I want to dig a little deeper into section 6, Mr. Boyle.

The big problem is the double standard of administration. I wonder if you can dive a little bit deeper into the section 6 problems by comparing the Peace Bridge and Niagara Falls and perhaps even other bridges, and describe what this means to you on a financial basis and what it could mean for the consumer.

[Thomas Boyle]

As landlords with the unique perspective of operating on both sides of the border, we can comment on how we interact differently with each government.

On the U.S. side of the border, we provide facilities and services to the U.S. government, and the government, in turn, pays us rent through a lease that we have with the General Services Administration. Also, as a public service corporation, we are tax-free in the United States, meaning we don't pay property taxes on those facilities that we provide.

Conversely, in Canada, we also provide facilities and services to the Canadian government. However, these are provided by us free of charge, due to section 6 of the Customs Act. Furthermore, we are required to pay property taxes on those facilities that we provide for free.

This disparity can create tensions in a binational organization like ours and like the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, as it appears that the U.S. subsidizes Canadian operations.

As this committee is likely aware, section 6 of the Customs Act is meant to be enforced at any international bridge or tunnel where a toll or other charge is payable. To that point, several border crossings operate in direct contravention of section 6. At the soon-to-be-opened Gordie Howe bridge in Windsor, Ontario, the Canadian government is paying a public-private partnership concession to build and maintain CBSA facilities.

At the Ogdensburg bridge, another toll facility over the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Canadian government supplies and maintains CBSA facilities.

At other bridges, such as the Seaway International Bridge, the Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge, the Blue Water Bridge and the Thousand Islands International Bridge, when revenue shortfalls occur, the Canadian government has subsidized the operations and capital expenses of these bridges to the tune of millions of dollars.

Organizations like the Peace Bridge, as well as the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, cannot avail themselves of such government funding and must instead raise tolls, which impacts commuters, tourists and the commerce that crosses our bridges.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Boyle, but let me just clarify this.

In essence, section 6 provides an unfair administrative and financial structure, because in your case, when the asset is not publicly owned, the only source of revenue for you is through tolls and the consumer, as opposed to other federally owned bridges, which by their very nature would have to have capital contributions for any required expansion under section 6. It's possible for section 6 to impose an obligation on you to spend millions of dollars on the possible expansion of assets without a single dollar being contributed to that cost, which then would be passed on to the consumer. Is that correct?

[Thomas Boyle]

That is correct.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Okay. In your view, what is the solution?

[Thomas Boyle]

Our solution—again, I think Mr. Bieger touched upon it in his opening statement—is that from our perspective, we see two separate models.

The U.S. has centralized funding, and so the U.S. government will fund their own security initiatives. The Canadian government, again based upon the 1986 changes to section 6, really relies on a user-pay funding principle. Prior to 2004, when I believe CBSA was called the Canada customs and revenue agency, that made sense, because your primary focus was on the collection of duties and tariffs. However, 9/11 in 2001 really changed the scene and the world's focus. The focus became more on border security as well as national security, and we feel that the Canadian government's focus at that time should have also then shifted towards funding for those types of initiatives.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

I'm sorry, Mr. Bieger, but I have to stick with Mr. Boyle on this. I have only a few seconds left.

The PARE project, which is the Peace Bridge pre-arrival readiness evaluation program, is the scanning equipment that both you and Mr. Bieger referred to. It is critical stuff, and it's the first time that this technology has been deployed on Canadian soil, I believe.

Can you give me some commentary or insight into how you think this technology could be applied in other ports in Canada and what it would mean on, for example, the export of stolen vehicles?

[Thomas Boyle]

I can, absolutely.

Again, referring back to previous testimony at one of your other meetings, Dr. Laura Dawson of the Future Borders Coalition pointed out that technology doesn't necessarily mean the loss of jobs. Security and facilitation are not mutually exclusive. Often the concern when new technology, new regulations or new procedures are introduced is the fear that they will compound or add to the burden or congestion at the bridge.

Current inspection procedures are actually only on a small percentage of conveyances. You would think that scanning 100% of commercial vehicles entering the United States would increase those types of burdens. The opposite, actually, is likely true. You could focus more on targeted inspections, secondary inspections, and also on the time that things are taken across the bridge. The time that it takes to cross the bridge actually allows for quicker adjudication at the primary inspection lanes—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

I'm sorry, Mr. Boyle. That's my fault. I should have warned you that the time was almost up prior to your answer.

Ms. Dandurand for six minutes.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you.

It was very interesting to hear you talking about those scanners. I know there was a lot of work done by MP Davies' predecessor, MP Badawey.

Can you talk a bit about the process and what was invested in front of Canada and where we are with this scanner technology?

[Thomas Boyle]

I can, absolutely. That's a great question, and I think it's one to be applauded.

With the passage of the Securing America's Ports Act in 2021, there was a mandate that 100% of commercial conveyances heading into the United States needed to be scanned. There was no possibility whatsoever for us at the Peace Bridge, with a very small pause in the United States, to be able to implement that mandate on our U.S. pauses.

The Peace Bridge approached the U.S. government and requested the possibility of this equipment being installed on the Canadian side of the border. We had very good reasons for doing that. One was that we didn't have any room on the U.S. side, but we also saw the innovative approach of being able to begin some sort of adjudication process prior to crossing our bridge, which would allow for the time and the ability for customs agents, remotely, to view and scan with this equipment.

The U.S. CBP thought this was a great idea as well. Their model, typically, is that they pay for everything and fully fund all of their security initiatives. We approached U.S. customs with the idea that we ourselves would invest so that they could change their operating model by putting it on the Canadian side. We volunteered to pay for the civil works.

When that was done, we approached Transport Canada through their national trade corridors fund for increasing the fluidity of Canada's supply chain. We realized that the expedited travel would cut down on greenhouse gases and cut down on idling. It would also be able to facilitate truckers to be able to drive quickly and not waste time in queues. It would also get Canadian goods out into the U.S. market at a faster rate.

We met all those goals of the national trade corridors fund, and, for their part, Transport Canada matched our funds of $5 million in order to facilitate the development of the civil works.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

From my understanding, there's only one step missing, and it's going to be installed if everything is okay. It could be installed as early as January or early next year.

[Thomas Boyle]

Hopefully, it will be sometime early in 2026. Right now, the process is going through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. To their credit, the CNSC has done a great job in focusing on our application and the U.S. government's application.

It's interesting, because although we finished last year, in December 2024, one of the reasons the facility is still not operational is that the application process and the regulations in the Canadian government right now really don't cater to this type of application. In fact, the class II nuclear facility application applies to three different applications. One is medical, the second is industrial and the third is for research activities, none of which really cater to scanning a commercial vehicle crossing a bridge, so we are the proverbial square peg in a round hole.

Hopefully, we are the trailblazers in this. We know that CBSA is interested as well in utilizing this type of technology, and hopefully this type of model as well.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I'd like to congratulate you on your resiliency on that and the hard work you did. It could set an example as well for other borders and make a huge difference, as you were stating in your opening remarks. Thank you for doing that and for pushing that very interesting project.

I'm from a rural area. We don't have bridges. I'd like to hear from both of you about particular challenges we face in smaller border crossings with regard to security and safety, and how we can improve with the new bills and the new staff we're bringing in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

That is an unfair question, because we have one more minute for the two of you, but there will be more time afterwards.

[Thomas Boyle]

To be honest, it's very difficult. We operate a bridge, so for me to opine on the other aspects between bridges is very difficult.

I will say, however, that the co-operation between the United States and Canada has been exemplary. We have thousands of kilometres of a border that is an invisible line. It's not thousands of kilometres of barbed wire, so co-operation between the United States and Canada is paramount in order to maintain security between both the countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. Bieger, would you like to take 15 seconds? We may come back to you in the next round.

[Kenneth Bieger]

I just want to mention that all of the borders are different. Every plaza across the U.S.-Canadian border is different, and they have different requirements.

I did want to mention that the project at the Peace Bridge is an excellent pilot program. Kudos go to the Peace Bridge for pushing this forward.

This committee is looking for ways to improve things. One thing I want to mention is that this has been going on since 2021. The co-operation between CBSA and CBP has improved greatly in the nine years since I've been in my position, but you can see the holdup as the government is interacting and coming up with ways to get this to move with CBP and CBSA. It's a great project, and it should be moved along faster than it currently is.

If the committee is looking at ways to improve, there's great communication back and forth, but somebody has to get in the middle to push these projects through.