Yes, thank you.
A long series of things has been touched upon here. First of all, I just want to clarify that it has never been.... In reviewing the testimony from last week, I was fascinated. It's really a leap to go from a sidearm as a tool to protect oneself, to an area where we would suggest that these officers should be shooting at cars as they're running the port.
We're the first to acknowledge that in a lot of cases, the U.S. side will do, for example, what they call an export check, which is a verification upon exit. A lot of individuals—usually older folks—tend to think they've cleared Canada Customs once they've gone through this check, and they will drive right by the Canadian office. Surely you're not suggesting we should open fire on individuals like that.
We've been accused repeatedly of trying to use the arming issue as a back door to try to get raises for our members. In other words, we've always been questioned about whether we really want to do this for the safety of the officers. Instead, it's been put that we're really just looking for a back door for raises. That really puts the whole issue in perspective in terms of where I suspect the opposition is coming from.
Mainly the motivation seems to be—and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong—that on the one hand, we shouldn't be arming the border because we're getting into what is essentially a labour demand that has been very public, and governments should never cave in to that. So we'll subtract ourselves from the reality that we don't live in Mister Rogers' neighbourhood or in Disneyland and that these situations of danger are not going on, in spite of six reports that now say they are going on. We'll subtract ourselves from that, and for the image, we'll also not consider arming, as you've pointed out, for the money.
I really find it unsettling that the safety of the officers is a very distant fourth place on your list of top reasons why we should arm the border. The issue has always been about whether the officers....
It's important to note that we've been provided with bullet-proof vests for the past twelve or fifteen years, so there has been an acknowledgement that there is certainly the potential for us to get shot at. But the only goal has always been about the officers being exposed to that level of violence. In other words, if, for example, somebody opens fire on them, they will at least have a chance of making it back home to their families at the end of that particular shift.
And in terms of suggesting that it won't protect Canadians, the policy now is that we're to let known armed and dangerous individuals into Canada and for police to hopefully intercept and deal with them. The suggestion is to not intercept them at the points of entry when we know who they are, what they're capable of, and what they've done. When we know that the person should be apprehended, to suggest that not intercepting them right then and there is not in the best interests of Canadians.... I'm at a loss to try to make sense of that particular analysis as well.