Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thanks to all the witnesses.
Mr. Brown, I don't agree with your proposition that we live in a world where we do have to arm our borders. I think this is a very expensive proposition. In fact, we heard the other day that the $781 million does not include reclassification of the border officers. I think you can get to $1 billion very easily. I like to call it the “billion-dollar bordergate”, because it's a total waste of taxpayers' money for very limited or no results.
If you look at what we've heard so far, we suspect that the deterrent effect will be minimal. Can you imagine criminals in the United States who are planning to run guns or run drugs—which I agree are serious matters—saying that they better not try it because the border guards are armed in Canada? I don't imagine that will happen. They're not looking for a confrontation, I suspect.
In fact, we heard from Mr. Jolicoeur, quite rightly, that the customs officers will be told not to engage, because these are heavily populated areas and we have innocent bystanders there. So we have guns that won't act as a deterrent, and they're not going to be used, quite rightly. So I don't see the benefit of it.
Mr. Moran, I'm sure you have an interest in Canada's public safety, but you're also the president of a union. Is it not the case that, notwithstanding what Mr. Jolicoeur said, they're going to have a new classification system? People who carry sidearms will be reclassified upwards, because they're going to be arguing that they should be classified as police officers. Certainly, as the president of a union, I'm sure you'll be fighting for that.
Whatever it bottoms out at, there is going to be an increased cost. In fact, the numbers that I've seen could mean that the treasury could be impacted by $70 million to $100 million a year from this reclassification, which could be $15,000 per year. Maybe you could comment on that if you have different numbers, but that's a huge cost to the treasury.
It's a matter of negotiation, but I think there is a reality that these officers will be reclassified upwards. Frankly, I think that's another part of your agenda. Given that you're a union leader, I would be surprised if it were not.
I wonder if you could also comment—and I'll leave it here, although I could go on—on the numbers that you quoted in terms of the number of officers who do not want to be trained to carry a firearm. We heard testimony the other day that somewhere in the vicinity of 30% of the officers do not want sidearms or to be trained. We heard today that it's something more like 13%. Those numbers are clearly in conflict, so maybe you could clarify that.
Regardless of the number, what are you going to do or what is the CBSA going to do with those people? They can't all be sent off to airports.
I'll leave it at that, and maybe someone could comment, perhaps beginning with Mr. Moran.