Public Safety Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

One of the themes of a report from the Senate, the other place, talked about the difference in cultures. What this government decision has done is a switch in culture—and these are not my thoughts; I'm attributing them to their source.

As a police officer, as an OPP officer or a municipal police officer, you're an enforcement person 100% of the time, and there's a culture around that. Your sensitivities, your instincts, and your training are focused in that direction. Is that a fair statement?

[Chris D. Lewis]

It's a fair statement to varying degrees, depending on where you're actually policing and the type of area. It would be more so on the streets of Toronto than it potentially would be in rural Ontario. Certainly there is a culture that develops, and there's a mindset of being very cautious and being very observant. That is something that is a very self-preserving type of mindset, for obvious reasons.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

When we have armed border guards, they are obviously going to have to be in this enforcement culture all the time, yet right now a lot of their roles are not enforcement. They are enforcement in different manners, like revenue collection or immigration screening as a primary before sending over to secondary. They protect the border. They facilitate traveller flow and goods flow. A lot of it is commercial. There is enforcement of over seventy different pieces of legislation, but they're not all security-related. Do you understand what I'm asking you? You have a border agency right now that does many different tasks that are not enforcement culture tasks in the way that those of a person operating in a police force would be. Is that something you could agree with?

[Chris D. Lewis]

In part I could, without a doubt.

I just came back from the Dominican the night before last, and coming through Toronto airport, I dealt with CBSA folks who were in the building just looking at luggage in a very controlled environment, where people had gone through metal detectors, etc. Even though they're very observant, they're going to be very cautious from all kinds of perspectives, including personal safety, but probably less so than someone sitting at a booth in Cornwall, where people are coming across and are maybe carrying kilos of coke and have the potential of being armed, are trying to escape, etc.

There may be different mindsets, but I think all those who are sitting on a line at Windsor–Detroit, Cornwall, etc., must have that enforcement mindset and that caution mindset. They would have to be always very cautious of what the next person who comes to that line is up to.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

A lot of people think a customs officer spends their whole shift on the front line, in those little booths. That's not really true. There is a rotation around doing different functions, especially at a very busy border crossing point. That's a very contained space, especially in busy time periods with a backup of cars. That potentially is an extremely dangerous setting because of large numbers of people in close proximity.

In that scenario, what would the protocol be if it was a police officer in that booth, looking at a dangerous situation? What would be the primary objectives in a confrontation?

[Chris D. Lewis]

The primary objectives would be to protect members of the public, number one, and yourself and your fellow officers, number two. It would be just sitting there watching, being observant and looking for potential threats, looking for people who may be smuggling contraband. That's obviously their main role. At the same time, though, whether they're a police officer or a customs officer, they always have to be very vigilant as to potential threats and potential sources of harm for those people around them and for themselves. Their number one role would be to protect people around them if they're faced with a weapon or something of that nature.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

It wouldn't be an ideal setting to have to draw your gun, though.

[Chris D. Lewis]

Really, ma'am, if there are people around us, it's never an ideal setting, but largely, in any municipal or OPP jurisdiction, there are other people around when you have to do it. As Mr. MacKenzie said, situations are very seldom one on one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Lewis.

I'm not a security specialist. In fact, I'm replacing someone. However, the citizens and voters that I represent tell me about their concerns.

The regulations currently under study are a bit disturbing, in view of the fact that we're talking about arming border services officers. We obviously feel that they need to receive training.

Earlier, in response to questions by my colleague, you clearly described all the training that your police officers must undergo, not only with regard to the arming here in question, but also on the appropriate way to react when not using weapons.

The training that would be required for border services officers would be quite elaborate. These people are not hired for their skills as police officers or specialists in the field.

How do you think you'll train them adequately when they are simply border services officers? Are you considering a possible success rate, such as 50 percent of officers who meet requirements?

[Chris D. Lewis]

It's a very valid question, sir, but I'd only be guessing about the percentage of how many would or would not pass. Certainly our benefit in policing is that we give them that training at the front end and then continue it throughout their career, on a regular basis annually.

To take people who are 20- or 25-year border service security folks and train them would be a bit of a challenge at that front end. I would only assume—and it's a guess on my part—that more would be unsuccessful when compared to the younger officers we select and train to be police officers.

There may be issues from a labour perspective. If some of them don't pass, what do you do with these people? You can't give them guns if they don't successfully meet the criteria you establish. As was said earlier, maybe it would be the Canada Border Services Agency's decision on how to deal with that, but they obviously have other functions into which they could put people.

We have taken firearms away from our own officers at times because they have not passed the training, and we have assigned them to roles in which they did not need a firearm. They worked behind a desk in an office. And there are many different roles in policing as well in which you don't necessarily need a firearm, as is the case in CBSA work.

We train all of our people, because in the event that we have to deploy them somewhere, into a situation they normally might not be in, they can put their guns on and are properly trained. That's why we do it. But we certainly have some we won't give guns to, and we put them in desk jobs where they will never have to use a gun.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You also mentioned that the presence of a police officer had a deterrent effect or prevented the commission of an offence.

I wonder whether it should be obvious that officers are armed in order to do their job and trained for that purpose. People who didn't realize that might be taken by surprise. Would it be preferable to make it very clear that the officer is armed and can react? Do you think that should be clearly posted so that the public is informed of the fact?

[Chris D. Lewis]

I'd really have to give that some thought. I can see pros and cons to it.

Even in policing, we have many officers who are not carrying guns on the outside of their clothing. Their guns are hidden. Undercover officers carry guns, and if faced with a dangerous situation in which they have to show the gun and take action with the gun—whether they actually have to fire it or not—they very quickly identify themselves as police. They have set things they yell out, like, “Police, don't move”, etc. They're specific commands so that people will know they're dealing with police officers.

I'm assuming it would have to be similar. I don't think it would take very long for the world to know, when pulled up to the customs booth, that the person in there was carrying a gun. In some circumstances, visitors from foreign countries might not expect that, but I think that would be more surprising. But if the visitor took aggressive action, they'd know fairly quickly. I think that's what would dictate the ultimate end result: how an officer handled that at the time and whether they made the appropriate notifications and went through the proper progressive steps of the use of force before they actually fired the gun.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

In order to prevent unfortunate incidents stemming from the fact that people might not know that officers are armed, do you suggest that we post this information at the entrance to customs posts, that is to say that officers are armed and ready to react in any circumstance?

[Chris D. Lewis]

I'm a little confused by the potential for accidents. If a customs officer is ultimately going to pull the firearm, the other person has to have done something. A CBSA officer pulling out the gun for no reason is an issue you'd have to deal with through legislation or disciplinary procedures or whatever.

I don't know what the expense would be to post it. I don't really see the need, personally. If it's affordable, then I guess it's a potential good step. I don't know. I think there would have to be some thought to that. It's tough for me to answer that off the top of my head.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We'll go over to the government side now.

Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Deputy Commissioner.

I'm just going to fire off a bunch of quick questions.

At one point in my career I was a bean counter. I'm going to ask you some bean-counting questions, because the beans we're dealing with here are big numbers.

At the beginning you mentioned the average of about 49 hours to train a police officer in the proficient use of his or her firearm.

I note in the province of Ontario that we have other law enforcement agencies that carry firearms, such as the MNR. I also know that the Province of Ontario, in particular the OPP, does contract work for other municipalities. If I recall correctly, most of the models and training have a cost accounted to them. For example, we know how much it costs for block training, which I believe is still four days a year, part of which is firearms training.

Do you have any numbers to indicate the cost of the firearms officer's personnel safety component of the training module, whether that be in the beginning of an officer's career or the block training?

[Chris D. Lewis]

No, sir, I do not. Once again, I could acquire that for you.

If you counted person-days, I suppose you could do some quick math. With respect to the four days a year, I think only one day of that is firearms.

I think it's important to note as well that the 49 hours the OPP get isn't totally for the use of sidearms. It is also for long rifles and shotguns. It's 16 hours more than most municipal departments train their people. Many municipal departments only get the training at the Ontario Police College. The OPP bring them back for the additional 16 hours. They don't necessarily get that in other departments.

So what is the bare minimum you would have to give a CBSA officer? If they're only issued sidearms and they don't necessarily have to have those other hours, then I think it would be fairly easy to cost in terms of the number of rounds fired, hours spent, and how many instructors are involved.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Would it be fair to say that with the firearms training provided by the RCMP you'd be comfortable having the people under your command work side by side with RCMP officers?

[Chris D. Lewis]

Yes, I would be very comfortable.

There would have to be an agreed upon training standard, which would really become the guide for reaching the ultimate training goals. It would be something they could put together as a group and then go forward and deliver it.

The training and score they receive would become a part of that CBSA staff member's personal file. That becomes really legendary in terms of the rest of their career. That would always be on their file.

Although the OPP and RCMP firearms officers have different weapons, which results in different training, I imagine there are a lot of similarities. They certainly could agree upon what is best for CBSA, particularly the types of scenarios they might be faced with.

We don't do scenarios where someone who is policing in a booth is faced with a firearm. You would have to create scenarios in the training that are specific to the duties of the CBSA officers. That could be worked on very well with the expertise of both agencies.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

So what you're talking about is basically customized training to meet the individual needs of the parties requesting such training.

[Chris D. Lewis]

That's right.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Okay.

Since we're dealing with the OPP, this question is for the OPP and you personally. Would you agree with me that police agencies would be the first organizations or people to object to persons who are not properly trained--within accepted standards of the day--carrying firearms?

[Chris D. Lewis]

I would agree. They would have to be properly trained.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

If you were to attend this body, as you did today.... You did mention in your preamble or at the beginning that you felt that the arming of Canadian border services people would be an appropriate route to take, given today's realities. Would you predicate that upon proper training?