Evidence of meeting #29 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cbsa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I'm sorry, but you've gone well over the time limit.
We actually have time for only two more questioners.
For the government side, Mr. Norlock, would you like to comment?
Do you have something to add, Mr. Fortin?
12:50 p.m.
First National Vice-President, Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise
I'd like to answer the member's question.
I know that you've looked into the problem of street gangs and involved the media in this on several occasions.
As you know, the majority of these individuals believe that we are armed. Clearly there has been a great deal of publicity, particularly on the US side, and reports from international travellers entering the country. In a number of countries, customs officers are armed. Our officers have a number of tools at their disposal. They carry expandable batons, cayenne pepper and so forth. All that's missing in their arsenal is a gun.
Recently, a number of individuals arrived at a border post in Quebec at 2 a.m. They had a cache of automatic weapons. The female customs officer was the only person on duty. How would you have liked her to respond? The individuals were armed to the teeth. You might say to me that had she had a gun, she would at least have been able to protect herself. However, there would also have been an increased risk of a violent confrontation.
Often, these individuals proceed right through the border post, with the shipment following close behind them. The same situation occurs at the other 107 unguarded posts that have abandoned by the RCMP, as Mr. Juneau-Katsuya pointed out. That is the situation that we are facing today.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
12:50 p.m.
First National Vice-President, Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise
Had she been armed, the customs officer would at least been able to protect herself.
Mr. Cullen shared his concerns with us. RCMP experts hired by border services told us that we had the ideal infrastructure in place to protect travellers and officers. We serve as a natural road block and we can control the situation. That's what RCMP experts told us.
I visited some of the US border posts, as well as the Sûreté du Québec facilities in Nicolet and RCMP facilities. We are closely involved in the development of these facilities. We are in a position to form an opinion, even though border services hold different views.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
Our time is slipping away on us rapidly, but I think we're getting useful information, so I'm letting it go.
Mr. Norlock.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much for coming this afternoon--now that it's the afternoon.
To Mr. Moran, senior management has indicated to this committee that border officers do not have the legal authority to pursue port runners. Do you agree with that statement?
12:55 p.m.
National President, Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise
No, the legal authority for pursuit exists under the act, under subsection 99.1(1).
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
So would that then therefore be a policy as opposed to a legal...?
12:55 p.m.
National President, Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise
Absolutely. It is strictly based on policy. And that is what should occur.
There's confusion going on--which is not productive--between port running and the ability to protect oneself. The port running solution is and should be the ability to pursue. That's what we are talking about, and certainly what we're proposing in terms of a solution to port running.
So this would require no change in legislation, because the authority exists.
12:55 p.m.
Publisher, Blue Line Magazine
I think it's important to understand this issue. I was a police officer for 25 years in Toronto, and I had to deal with military police officers who continually brought drunk drivers in for me to do breathalyzer tests on. Their policy was for me to carry the investigation. I would turn around and hand them the reports and say, start filling out your own reports, because I'm not going to babysit you; you're police officers, so you can do your own work.
It's basically the same situation. Why are we sapping away resources from, say, Windsor police department and the Niagara regional police department to do something that the CBSA has every authority to do but are not given the tools to do it properly? If somebody wants to run that border, why doesn't CBSA have a pursuit car fully fired up and ready to go to chase that car down, and communicate with the local police that we need some assistance but we're behind the runner?
I just do not understand that. I am completely at a loss to understand why a municipal police service should have to budget to help out the CBSA with anything.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
The next question has to do with training, Mr. Moran.
Some of the last witnesses, in particular the RCMP, indicated that the training course that they would be giving the Canada Border Services Agency would be equivalent to their own training, but customized to meet the needs of CBSA. Have you had any conversation or have you done any research into what kind of training you would expect should be provided to your members?
12:55 p.m.
National President, Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise
The understanding I have is that the average, specific to sidearm training for police officers, equates to roughly 40 hours, or two weeks. The CBSA is contemplating three weeks in order to add this customized element to it. Now, I don't pretend to be an expert by any definition, but this has most, if not all, of the experts to whom I brought this up raising their eyebrows as to how you get into a dimension where you justify an additional week for these officers.
If you ask me, from what I have gathered from the experts, it should be two weeks. The CBSA is hard set on making it a three-week course, and they are in the process of developing that. I have difficulty understanding...because you have to keep in mind that as part of the same decision of the government, they are also going to arm inland investigators, inland regional intelligence officers, as well as inland immigration enforcement officers.
The immigration people are the ones who go and knock on doors to tell people that they're coming to take them away and bring them back to their country. They work under very dangerous situations. They get into even more than the people at the border, exactly the same situations as a police officer. Why you would have to modify the course, knowing people like that are also going to be taking the same course, is also something that I'm still not able to understand.
12:55 p.m.
Firearms Editor, Blue Line Magazine
It's my understanding that the RCMP is going to be training the CBSA trainers, and then the trainers are going to go on to train the individual officers ultimately. The question I have then is this. The RCMP is doing a model of training that is not used by any other police agency in Canada. For most of the agencies in Canada, when they acquired their firearms, their trainers were trained by the manufacturers. For example, companies like Glock, Smith & Wesson, SiGARMS all run fairly significant training academies. They are well respected.
If I were going to buy 5,000 handguns from a company, why would I not want my trainers trained at their academy? I don't understand why we are using the relatively rare resources of the RCMP when there are better models for training and certainly much cheaper models for training.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Could I have one or two minutes, Mr. Chair? You were so generous with your time for the other side.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Number one, I have 30 years of police experience, so I somewhat disagree with you, Mr. Brown, that it's actually...“train the trainer” is a common practice in policing.
To answer one of Ms. Barnes' questions with regard to taking a firearm home, for one of the largest police forces in Ontario, unless there's a specific reason why you need to take your gun home, it's left at the office, as it is, as far as I understand, with most smaller police forces in the province of Ontario. They're actually kept at the office.
Thank you very much for that extra time, Mr. Chair.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay.
We really are out of time, but I promised you one minute. Do you have a quick question?
1 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I have a very quick one. I had some others, but I won't ask them.
With regard to a question I'd put earlier, we heard testimony from Mr. Jolicoeur and others that 25% to 30% of the officers do not want to be trained to carry a sidearm. I heard numbers today of 13% to 15%.
Those numbers are at variance. Can you explain what's going on here?
1 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Northgate Group
In our study, out of 383 people who were directly interviewed, we had exactly 86% who said they wanted to be armed; 12% who said they needed to be armed, but they didn't feel qualified to carry arms; and 2% who said no, they should not have arms.
So the flat no was at 2%. If you add the 12% who said yes, they should be armed, but they didn't feel comfortable carrying a weapon, you could go up to 14%, but not above that.
1 p.m.
Conservative
