Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for joining us. I have a number of questions about peace officers. This is a fairly broad occupation. For instance, parole officers and corrections officers are also considered to be peace officers. Yet, they do not carry weapons, except when posted in security towers in certain maximum security facilities where a police squad is required or when responding to a riot. Otherwise, they are not armed.
I worked as a parole officer for nearly seven years, both in the community and in penitentiaries. The main reason given for not arming these officers was that weapons increased the risk of violence. Criminologists have long been debating the pros and cons of arming peace officers.
Consider, for example, the case of an unarmed border guard. As a general rule, in a dangerous situation, it's better for that guard to back off because removing himself from danger's path minimizes his risk of being attacked. In the case of an unlawful home entry, the first thing people are told is not to resist to avoid being harmed. People are told that even if they have a hunting rifle, they shouldn't use it because they face a greater risk of being attacked when they are armed. What are your views on the subject?
Also,we met last week with the Director of the Canada Border Services Agency. A woman was also present, but unfortunately, I've forgotten her name. I asked her how many agency employees had been killed or seriously injured and she replied that in fifteen years, no deaths or injuries had been reported.