Public Safety Committee on March 1st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We usually allow at least ten minutes for an opening statement.

Go ahead, Mr. Minister.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you for that usual allowance, Mr. Chairman, because you cannot look at this in isolation. You have to look at it in the broad context.

As I was saying, 18,000 trucks a day are crossing that border. In a year, some 21 million cars are looked into by border officers, literally as they come to the border.

Before the day is over some two dozen drug seizures will have taken place by border officers. Five situations will arise where weapons will have to be taken from somebody crossing the border, illegal weapons, and one of those will be a firearm.

More than once a week, a missing child who has been put up on the missing child index is apprehended at the border.

All that trade, all the incidents that take place, everything that goes on at the border narrows down to something like 3,600 people, the border officers themselves. They are highly trained. They are capable and trained to do arrests and seizures. For a number of years, they have requested the ability to be properly equipped in every way, including the ability to be armed.

We know that though crime stats in some areas have gone down, many areas of serious crime, organized crime, aggravated assault--the tendency we see is for people committing grievous crimes in the United States to try to get into Canada.

Some disturbing stats show these crime rates increasing. When it is brought to the attention of our border officers, some of whom are serving in work alone situations, that there is the possibility of a dangerous or armed person approaching the border--and if you flip this around and it's someone from Canada, a dangerous person approaching the U.S. border and the notice is given, their border officers are armed and they are prepared to take care of a situation should it arise. Our border officers are not.

In those moments, as you know, there are too often cases where border officers will leave their post, because they deem the situation to be unsafe and they are not armed. They will first close the post and then they will leave it until sufficient assistance comes, either from police of a local jurisdiction or the RCMP themselves.

This causes huge economic problems. As you know, with just-in-time manufacturing these days, a border, especially a large border, only has to be shut down for two to three hours and immediately you can see manufacturing lines and assembly lines starting to close down on the other side of the border.

The costs of this, quite rightly, are a concern of this committee. All kinds of numbers have been thrown around because looking at it from a first instance a lot of variables came into play.

The training and the arming costs of this many border officers--we're talking about 4,800, 3,600 at the border and another 1,200 at other places--is about $400 million and almost half of that is in the retraining and the recertification that has to happen each year as border officers are retrained.

Other figures get added into that whole picture, giving a larger global amount. One hundred million dollars is the estimate right now for what will be required for the training facilities to be enhanced, not just for the training of border officers, but there are integrity and structural realities. There has been an ongoing need to rebuild at Rigaud, about $100 million there alone.

Then there is the cost of hiring 400 more individuals to fill in approximately 95 sites at some time during the day across the country where people are working alone.

Added to what we see as pressure on bringing the overall global prices down is the fact that CBSA is now committed to--along with the initial training that is going to be happening in Ottawa and at the RCMP base in Chilliwack, once the trainers have all been trained and once the training process starts--inviting proposals as early as this April for alternate sites, people who can provide the accommodation at alternate sites and not only speed up the process, but keep the price down, not the training itself. That will be done by CBSA, in terms of provision of the sites.

Mr. Chairman, that gives a ballpark figure of what we're looking at. I'd be more than happy to entertain questions, suggestions, and advice from committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for the outline of that situation.

The usual practice at this committee is to begin with the official opposition for seven minutes of questions.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you for appearing before us today. I hope you'll be able to give us some information about some of our concerns and some of the policies that will have to be developed if this government moves forward, as it seems to be doing, with arming of the border security agents.

I should note there's been no definitive evidence that demonstrates that carrying a firearm enhances the officer protection, and we have heard that the initiative would increase the likelihood of firearm accidents or liability arising from the use of firearms. I know you're familiar with that.

One of the things I would like to hear from you, to start, is this. Say you had the discharge of a firearm. What system, what type of review, what protocol will you put in place, and will it be something the public can see as accountable to the public, or will you be leaning to internal investigations? Has that decision been made?

Then I need to have some time to talk to you about student replacements and the cost of infrastructure and about whether you have made the decision to keep the weaponry on site, in secure locations, and what that's going to cost on infrastructure.

I'll give you some opportunity, and then we'll go from there.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

On the question of protocols, that's one of the reasons the training itself is as extensive as it has to be. As you know, it's far more than the simple handling of a firearm. Protocols that would go around that--the whole question of the cascading use of increased force, from original interception to possible incident--this is very extensive training.

In terms of should something take place, and of course we hope it never does, but should something take place, the recommendations that have come from the O'Connor report talk about the ability for an agency like CBSA to be reviewed in a more extensive way and at more arm's length than agencies presently are.

As you know, we're working through the O'Connor report right now in terms of review. It will be a process that will be very open and it will be subject to the principles of the O'Connor report.

In terms of the firearms themselves, you're quite right, in terms of infrastructure, there has to be the building of a safe storage capability for the firearms, because firearm officers will not be taking their firearms home. They will be safely stored on site.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Okay. We know in the past there have been many, many summer students employed at borders. Have you costed out in your department what it will take to now have full-time officers at the border points? I understand your decision was made to still utilize the students at inland ports and airports. Is that correct?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

That's correct. We still want to have the capability for students to gain experience in this type of occupation. I don't know if CBSA has a final, down-to-the-cent cost in terms of paying full-time officers vis-à-vis students, but I will ask for that and I will get that exact dollar amount. There's no question it will be more expensive to have a full-time officer at a border site than a student for a given period of time. Students will be deployed to areas where a firearm will not be required.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Have you thought of the difference between a customs officer, a customs border security agent who is not required to utilize the weapon because of the decision made by your government, versus those on the front lines at the border points? What will this mean for future bargaining, not only in this situation, but there's also another part to this? As you've heard, I'm sure, the potential for other law enforcement officers, including 6,800 correction officers, 450 park wardens, and 1,700 parole officers.... What could be the consequences--a potential domino effect on that--in your future guard? To my knowledge, none of this costing is in the current nearly $1 billion that we have.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

The figure is not $1 billion.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

It's just below that.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

It's well below that. That is not an accurate figure at all in any way, shape, or form. I can say that with confidence. That figure really is more fictitious than factual.

I've said, and I'll repeat, that the actual training costs are going to be about $400 million, and a significant portion, almost half of that, is the re-certification process.

There will be provision for officers in certain regional and administrative positions that they will not be required to have a firearm. And in terms of pay scales and shift differentials, those are collective agreement items, which I properly don't get involved in.

You mentioned others who may want firearms. I have never heard, for instance--and I meet with parole officers regularly--of them requesting firearms. Although it is not an entirely unsafe occupation, I have never had a request either individually or corporately for that.

Of course, there are already some 865 wildlife conservation officers around the country who carry sidearms. I guess a person might reflect that if 865 conservation officers quite rightly protecting fish and fowl and our furry friends.... It underlines in my view the added importance that border officers should be equally equipped.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

The Northgate Group appeared before us and they told us that they interviewed approximately 400 people. My information is that those 400 people self-identified. There was no scientific way of doing this. It was just a case of if you want to talk to us, you can come forward and talk. Is that your understanding also?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

It was 380, and not requiring identification was done on purpose to allow for those.... When workers know that the vast majority of their brothers and sisters want firearms, they may be reluctant to come forward and put forward another position. So anonymity was very important to get a clear picture of people who would not want to have firearms. The Northgate study identified that just over 86% of those said definitely they do want the firearms. Some 12% said that they didn't feel that they were equipped or trained properly, and they indicated that. That 12% didn't say they didn't want a firearm. There was about another 2% who were clear that they did not want a firearm.

That was right on parallel with the union study itself. The union study of some 2,400 indicated that about 88% said they wanted firearms. Between 10% and 11% said they felt they weren't equipped. They didn't say no, they didn't want them. Again, somewhere around 2% said that personally they did not want firearms. Those two studies done independently seem to reflect closely the intent of the workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Minister, thank you for coming to answer our questions. I see that you have a firm grasp on your file. You don't need notes. I assume you'll nevertheless be able to give us some clear answers.

Can we consider that, for a certain number of positions, weapons will not have to be carried? What percentage do those positions represent?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

In the majority of cases, a weapon will have to be carried. However, we have identified some where that will not be necessary. I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but I can say that the goal is to offer a training program to approximately 4,800 Border Services Agency officers.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

What is the total strength?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

It is 13,200 persons.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

So a weapon will have to be carried in approximately one-third of the positions. Is that correct?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Yes, we can say one-third, but it is important to acknowledge that most of the border officers will have to carry a weapon.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I imagine that the other third includes people who occupy administrative positions and therefore don't need a firearm. However, in the airports where the police are present, do you think it will be necessary for officers to carry weapons?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

The officers have to follow a rotation system. For example, they have to occupy a position in an airport for two or three years, then a border position for two, three or four years or in a group responsible for people who come to Canada but are not admissible.

It is important to maintain this rotation. That's why we've requested that the training be offered to all of them. It is possible that this may not be necessary in the case of certain positions in the airports. The people who manage the process with the union will be able to designate those positions.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We've been told how long the training necessary to be eligible to carry a firearm will take. It's quite considerable. The RCMP commissioner told us that the RCMP couldn't provide that training, that is to say that it would have to train customs officers as trainers and that they would in turn train other people.

As for providing that training, I know that Canadian police academies have made offers. Why don't you use those academies rather than offer this training second-hand, if I may put it that way, that is so it is offered by trainers who have been recently trained? I believe that at least three of those academies already provide this kind of training. We're talking about experienced people here.

I see that you're aware of the fact that it's not just handling, but also the progressive use of force. I understand your concern and I share it. However, the legal liability incurred when you use a firearm is a little more complicated.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

That's a good question. I have had occasion to ask it. I can tell you that we haven't closed the door to the possibility of using another group of trainers.

However, it's absolutely necessary to start with the members of the agency. As you can imagine, the training isn't exactly the same as at the RCMP or Sûreté du Québec. You have to learn other things. That's why we determined that, for the moment, the most efficient method was to call on the people within the same system.

Once the first group has received its training, we can evaluate the situation. If other means or other people can then help us in a manner that's at least as efficient as initially, then that will be something to consider.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You spoke quite eloquently about the traffic at the border between the United States and Canada. It's apparently the most frequently crossed border in the world. You mentioned the incidents that can occur there.

You no doubt know how many work stoppages over the past five years have been attributable to customs officers who felt that their situation was too dangerous at the border. Give us an approximate figure.