Public Safety Committee on March 1st, 2007

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

There have been a number. I can give the committee the exact number. In a six-month period in 2006, officers decided to leave their positions on 30 occasions, I believe. The effect on the economy was very great. In addition...

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

Was there a union dispute movement behind those 30 stoppages? That's why I'd like to have a better idea of the situation over a longer period of time, if you can give it to me. I suspect that was part of union demands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Your time is up.

You may have a brief response.

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

I can't give you the exact number, because that also happened before we formed the government. That's a good question. I'll ensure the exact number is provided to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Comartin, please.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here.

As you know, my party supports this initiative to provide security to the border guards right across the country who are at the frontiers. But I have to say I share Mr. Ménard's concerns about the training. Let me make a statement.

I have a real sense that there are two things going on here. One is that there's an institutional arrogance on the part of the agency in feeling they are the only ones who can do this, which, quite frankly, flies in the face of all the other expertise we have, both in the RCMP and in the provincial and even a number of our large city police forces, who would be operating in a standard that would make the quality of training at least equal to what the Border Services Agency can do.

I think the other thing you're faced with, and I'm going to put this on the record, is that you have an institutional opposition to this at the upper levels of the agency.

So having made those two statements, I want to go back to the training, because I've done an analysis of this to some degree. When the OPP were here, for instance, they certainly indicated that they felt they had the ability to provide this training. The curriculum, of course, would have to be worked out, and obviously the Border Services Agency would be a key player in developing that curriculum, but so would international standards. Probably even more important would be looking at international standards and qualities, rather than just within the agency.

So I'm going to ask you--and then urge you, because I don't think your agency has pursued this well enough--whether you're going to look at that more closely. I urge you to do that.

One of the points I want to make about this is the cost. I know the figures that came out in those articles earlier this week are substantially inflated, but I have concerns over our spending the kind of capital that is being proposed to be spent at Rigaud when we have any number of facilities across the country that would allow for that training.

I think of the armouries that I have in my own riding--actually, it's the riding next to me, but it's only a few blocks from the bridge where most of these people are going to be operating after they're trained. That's shared with the Windsor Police Service. They do all their training there, both the military and the police. They have classrooms there. The facility is completely adequate for what's needed in the way of physical training.

You can repeat that with the Sûreté du Québec, with the OPP, and with a number of the municipal police forces across the country. The OPP indicated they would certainly be interested in having the opportunity to do this training. They felt they could do it.

The other point I want to make is about the ongoing cost. If we go in at Chilliwack, we will be moving our staff people across the country repeatedly every year to get that upgrade.

Again, I think of the physical stuff we have in Windsor, and I'm thinking they only have to go a few blocks to sleep in their own beds. They're away from work for much less time. The replacement worker costs are going to be substantially less. And that can be repeated across the country.

Having said all that, I guess I'd just like your comments.

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

Well, those are good observations.

You opened by talking about how you felt a certain institutional arrogance. I spend a lot of time with CBSA officials at the senior levels and in the front ranks, literally right out in the booths while cars and trucks are going through, and I try to get a sense of the operation. By and large, I'm very encouraged by the quality of people there and their commitment. I know you're not questioning that.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm not referring to the lower levels here--the line people--it's the upper levels.

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

I know you're not being unduly critical, and I appreciate the spirit in which you made that remark. I think there's definitely a pride of profession and a pride of service throughout the organization. But there's also a very strong focus on liability--the inherent risks with this type of training and operation--which they're taking very seriously.

If something were to go sideways--we hope it never does, but if it does--they would be the ones, especially management and those doing the training, who would be held responsible. I think being very parochial, in a proper way, about their own service is more how I would characterize it.

There's also no question that some in the senior ranks have indicated some reticence about this in the past.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That's being diplomatic.

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

Thank you for your observation on my language.

I would say that is gone. They are fully committed to this task, at all levels.

On the question, you mentioned other possibilities. You mentioned your own area. As I said, in April of this year there will be requests for other types of proposals. It's very important when they start at the base of this, with the first trainers and 300 or so officers, that they get the model right. They learn from any mistakes so that others who may step forward with a proposal that is more efficient, with less travel, as you indicated, are able to see the standards in place and see them at work. We would definitely be open to other types of possibilities.

I know one thing: the environmental demands on the firing ranges these days are quite rightly very, very strict. Some of the present firing ranges have been grandfathered, but they're not allowing new uptake of activity there.

Having said that, if you have groups in your area that feel they can deliver on the accommodation or the training side, we'd be very interested in seeing those proposals.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I've already made some overtures, so you will be getting one from our area, I expect.

I want to go to the standards that are being looked at. As much as I appreciate your diplomatic comments, I'm still concerned. Quite frankly, the agency hasn't done this before. You can't convince me the expertise lies within it, because it just isn't there. It hasn't been there historically.

In terms of what we're going to do at the border and the best practices, I think to some degree we have to look internationally, obviously to the United States, but the European Union would be the other area. Are we doing that?

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

Yes, we are looking broadly for best practices and standards. There are national and international standards, and those are being incorporated.

I would ask you to keep in mind that the unique training process that border officers have gone through up to this point include not only arrests but, for instance--and again it's very limited--if you have to use force of some kind, if you have to use pepper spray, if you have to use a baton. So that continuum is being taught. This is one more, albeit serious, extension of that. It has to be consistent with the standards they're already operating under.

But they do cast widely in terms of other jurisdictions and how it's done. We want to make sure our border officers are recognized as the best in the world, as in some ways they are now. In fact there's interest in places like Afghanistan, where there are border issues and how you can have increased expertise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll now go to the government side. Mr. Merrifield, for seven minutes.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I actually liked the way you started your presentation, because it laid out the relationship between the two countries, which is unique in the world. There are no two countries that even come close to the kind of trade we have and how integrated we are as two countries. I think you have to see and understand that before you can get a sense of how best to apply the law at the border.

I've had the opportunity as a co-chair of the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group to spend most of my summer in the United States. If there's one thing they have told me loud and clear, it's that they're absolutely concerned about security. I don't think we quite catch how 9/11 has changed the paradigm down there. For them, anything they see we are not doing to protect that border and have security at that border becomes a very strong irritant. I believe that's what the passport issue and their insistence on everyone having a passport or equivalent document is all about.

When you have $1.9 billion in trade a day, it's a significant amount of money that is in jeopardy if we get this wrong. I think we're at a crossroads. If we get it right, then trade will flow even freer. If we get it wrong, millions and billions of dollars are at risk. So when it comes to arming the border, I concur that this is where we should go. We should have gone there earlier even.

Nonetheless, they have now moved to electronic surveillance, putting helicopters in the air sometimes for surveillance and so on. I want to know what the relationship is between our side and their side with regard to that kind of surveillance. It's an extension of the gun thing, but it's relevant.

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

The U.S., just because of the size of their treasury, has the capacity to have more enhanced technological capabilities, in some ways. But I argue with them that if you look, per capita, at what is happening at our borders, certainly in this last year we have increased our border security and the prosperity measures more than the U.S. has, if you look at it that way.

Having said that, they are going very extensively with increased surveillance capability. We've talked about helicopters and manned aircraft, but there are surveillance cameras along remote sites, and they're looking at unmanned air vehicles. They're really moving that up. Now, they're moving it up mainly on their southern border, for obvious reasons, but on their northern border, which is our border, there will be increased surveillance and increased capability.

We've talked with them about that, and they will not be hesitant at all to share information if they should observe something, whether it's on the flights or with their long-range surveillance cameras at the border. They will pass that information on to us. I don't like it to look like we'll necessarily be piggybacking on what they're doing, but in fact we will be.

That won't diminish our determination to make sure that we are as technologically advanced as possible, but I see that as an assist. There's good information sharing, on both sides of the border, between our various officers and the posts. And them having increased technological capability to survey those fairly large expanses of uncovered border will benefit both sides.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I know that the other thing they are absolutely phobic about, when it comes to security, is drugs. We talk about the methamphetamine problems we have in western Canada and right across the country. But when you talk about methamphetamine problems with some of the congressmen, I've seen them almost vibrate in their chairs, that's how excited they are, because it impacts their ridings so intensely. And when they see the potential of crystal meth coming in from Mexico or from the north down, and even our marijuana, it becomes a very serious issue for them.

In moving from where we are now to moving ahead to make that border as fluid as possible, what do you see as far as cooperation and the next stage of the relationship in dealing with that?

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

There are a number of things that make us nervous, on both sides of the border. I met with their so-called drug czar last week when he was in Canada, and he spoke at a number of public venues, also. He talked about their concerns about high-potency marijuana that comes across from the Canadian side to the American side. I talked about high-potency firearms that come from the U.S. to the Canadian side and the smuggling end. We have shared concerns.

You mentioned the whole issue of crystal meth and the labs that are involved. There were some provisions that were put in place. I'll give some credit to the former government in terms of precursors: how they have to be identified; when manufacturers are purchasing those precursors, how they have to register those amounts; and where they are allowed to manufacture them. There have been considerable steps taken.

Here's what it's done. It's reduced the potential for large-scale manufacturing in these laboratories. Both on the U.S. side and on the Canadian side, it has forced the manufacturers of that product to go to considerably smaller venues. That's good in terms of mass production, but it's limited. It makes it a little more difficult, then, on the detection side, because people are literally making this stuff in their basements or in rooms in their homes, at very high risk, because we're talking about highly incendiary and explosive elements. But there has been progress on that, and we share the concern.

I can tell you that they very much appreciated the fact that the new government of Canada did not pursue the wholesale decriminalization of marijuana. And we did that for Canadian interests, though, obviously, there were concerns in the United States. Intercepting at the border is very important to dissuade people from getting into that business at all. We can talk about the devastating effects of very low-cost, highly addictive crystal meth, but the marijuana that's manufactured or grown today--as I look around the table, there would be a few of us who would recall our friends in those days--is not like what was a different business altogether. It was nowhere near the potency, nowhere near the addictive quality, nowhere near the physiologically destructive nature of the high-potency marijuana that's grown today.

So we are aggressively concerned about our citizens. They are about theirs. We put Canada's interests first. That also helps our neighbours, because we want to go after them, whether it's crystal meth labs or grow operations. And we've recently committed increased resources and special teams dedicated just to the grow operations in Canada itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Make it very brief.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Actually, Mr. Miller had one quick question. Would it be all right if I split the time with him?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

It's too late to split the time. We'll come back to you. I think there may be a chance yet.

Mr. Lee, go ahead, please.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Minister, no matter how you cut the pie here, it looks like the cost of this exercise is in excess of $100,000 per gun. If you're at $400 million for training, and you have acquisition and other administrative adjustments, are we not over $100,000 per gun? I know that wasn't envisaged when your party made your commitments on this, but we're looking at a lot of toast to allow our people to pack heat at the border.

I have a technical question with respect to jurisdiction. As I understand it now, your CBSA has officials who are from the Department of Immigration, from the Food Inspection Agency, and from CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency. I believe those people still report to those ministers. This is a little technical, but are we not here talking about arming individuals in agencies reporting to ministers other than you? We're actually going to be arming immigration officials, Canadian Food Inspection Agency officials, and Canada Revenue Agency officials, the guys who collect the income tax. Are we not arming those people in their work here, and is there a jurisdictional thing? Have you settled that, in terms of the laws, as to which minister is responsible for these individuals in terms of their acquisition and use of these firearms?

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

We are not arming individuals from other departments. These are CBSA officers duly constituted. There's overlap at a border site, for instance, or an inspection site in terms of jurisdictional capabilities and agricultural officers. The number of interceptions of plants, animals, and soil that take place, for instance, is in the thousands per day. We are talking about CBSA officers, some 4,800 that are being armed. They will certainly be working with other officers in other jurisdictions, but we're talking about CBSA officers here.

I'm sorry, I just had to address this issue. Your first question....

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

That was the $100,000 plus.

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

You picked one piece of equipment--the firearm. You could do exactly same thing and say a pair of boots cost $100,000. That's an inappropriate way of addressing it. The overall cost of equipping somebody.... As I said, these costs include the hiring of 400 more officers. These costs include a lot of elements of the training. There are three weeks of training. That includes enhanced first aid training, for obvious reasons, which will hopefully never have to be used.