JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, December 3, 1997

• 1640

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order, please.

We're now working on Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code. We have appearing before us Karen Dwyer, Ronny Moran, and Wayne Mercer from the customs union.

It's nice to see you again, Mr. Moran. Mr. Moran and I travelled to Windsor, Ontario, together to announce this bill just before the last election. It's nice to see you back.

My apologies to your brothers and sisters in Windsor, who I know wanted to appear before the committee, but we had to balance time and we wanted to get this finished so we could get it to the Senate and get it over with. Had we waited to call other witnesses, we would have had to go into the next term of Parliament. I thought this was better. I think you would be happier if we could just get this thing passed.

Thanks for coming. I know you have a presentation, so I'll ask you to go ahead. We will then have questions for you.

Mr. Ronny Moran (National President, Canadian Customs Excise Union Douanes et Accise): Thank you very much. Good afternoon, members. My name is Ronny Moran. I am national president of CEUDA, the Customs Excise Union Douanes et Accise.

With me is Sister Karen Dwyer, who is the first national vice-president of CEUDA. Karen works out of Calgary. Also with me is Brother Wayne Mercer, who is the second national vice-president of CEUDA. Wayne works out of Halifax.

[Translation]

Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for having invited our organization to speak to you today about the concerns of our members on Bill C-18.

[English]

CEUDA represents some 10,000 employees of Revenue Canada, 3,500 of whom are uniformed customs inspectors who will be affected by Bill C-18, which will extend to them Criminal Code powers of detention and arrest.

Members, I again want to express our gratitude for your agreeing to hear testimony from CEUDA on Bill C-18. We are pleased to be here today and hope you will find our testimony informative and of benefit. A copy of our brief was provided to the clerk of this committee yesterday morning. I hope you had an opportunity to review it. I will take a few moments to highlight our concerns before we answer questions that you obviously have.

First and foremost, CEUDA supports this bill. In fact CEUDA and its members have lobbied for this legislation for more than 10 years. Bridging the gap in law enforcement between the time a Criminal Code offence is noticed by a customs inspector at a port of entry and the time a police officer can arrive at the port to intervene is long overdue. To paraphrase Mr. Bates of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, it is ludicrous that drunk drivers can cross border points now without being detained or arrested by customs inspectors.

It is therefore our opinion that this legislation is long overdue. Decades ago, Parliament should have given customs inspectors the power to detain and arrest drunk drivers, child abductors, persons in possession of stolen property, and persons subject to arrest warrants who try to cross our border.

Quite frankly, one of our most serious concerns related to Bill C-18 is the fact that customs inspectors will essentially be detaining and arresting suspect offenders of the Criminal Code tomorrow, and they need extensive training now. All customs inspectors need to be trained on what constitutes reasonable grounds to believe as it pertains to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All customs inspectors need to be trained on personal protection, or on how to use force to protect themselves and to enforce the law. All customs inspectors need to be trained on aspects of the Criminal Code that they will be responsible for enforcing.

But customs inspectors don't only need training; they also need to be provided with the proper tools and equipment, and without any delay. Customs inspectors will require bulletproof vests. The vests must become standard issue as part of the customs inspector uniform. Revenue Canada should do away with requiring customs inspectors to ask—almost beg—for bulletproof vests. In addition, all customs inspectors need batons and pepper spray, and they need them now.

• 1645

Members, we have talked about these concerns with Revenue Canada officials for years in our joint union-management committee on safety and health. However, we hope the department will agree this bill gives a new sense of urgency to the need to resolve these concerns now.

The question of whether or not customs inspectors should be armed seems to have again raised controversy. Contrary to what has been said in the House, our government has not recently studied the issue of arming customs inspectors. The most recent study was conducted in the early 1980s.

First, further justifications offered by our government as to why customs inspectors should not be armed are rather weak. That is why we are calling on this committee to recommend this government immediately establish a working group to study the matter of arming customs inspectors. Times have changed since the last study. Customs inspectors will be expected to deal with a new clientele once this bill becomes law.

Given the government's intention to ask customs inspectors to detain and arrest suspect offenders of the Criminal Code, it had better take the responsible measures of properly preparing customs inspectors with the right training and the right equipment. We need to make sure customs inspectors and the general public are protected and safe.

On another note, it is rather ironic that this government is introducing this legislation while proceeding with alternate service delivery, which will replace customs inspectors with cameras. Alternate service delivery conflicts with and contradicts the role customs inspectors will be expected to play following implementation of this bill.

Before closing, I would like to request, for the record, if the chair would be agreeable to having our brief appended to the minutes of this meeting.

I would now like to invite members of the committee to ask questions, which we will endeavour to answer to the best of our ability.

[Translation]

I will be pleased to answer any questions in French.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Moran, is your brief in both official languages?

Mr. Ronny Moran: Yes, it is.

The Chair: Fine, then we'll accept it. If it weren't, we would have accepted it anyway, but we wouldn't have been able to table it until it was translated.

Mr. Ronny Moran: I understand.

The Chair: We're happy to append it to the minutes of this meeting.

Mr. Ronny Moran: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth, do you have any questions? Why don't you take seven minutes.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Thank you.

Thank you for coming. It looks like you have a clear concern about at some point wanting firearms, which brings up the whole issue of the adequacy of training. You specifically mentioned batons, spray, vests, and so forth.

Based on your past experience, and looking at the scope of the bill that's presented before us today, do you have a reasonable assurance that the commensurate training that is supposed to come in support of this bill is in fact going to be delivered? I would ask you to comment on that.

I made a comment to the minister, I believe it was yesterday, that I was somewhat concerned about the designation of peace officer—that those additional powers are being given on a designated basis but on a limited list of matters, rather than just declaring that the officers will be peace officers per se. It's kind of trying to limit.

I was suggesting to the ministry that at some point in the future we may be back here again after several years of experience, finding that the designation needs to be broadened, so why not broaden it now? Perhaps you could comment on that issue.

The third issue I'd like you to comment upon is that whenever we have new duties and responsibilities requiring extra training, that reflects a changing classification concerning pay. Are the existing pay classifications appropriate to accommodate the new level of responsibility and training that go with it?

• 1650

Can you answer those things for me?

Mr. Ronny Moran: Thank you very much. What I'll do is answer your second and third questions, as they may tie into each other, and I will let the first vice-president of the union, who is also chair of our national safety and health committee, answer the first one.

On the issue of designation, we noted from the testimony of the minister yesterday that he mentioned they would not be designated because some are students. That was his explanation.

On this issue, there are 3,500 uniformed customs inspectors who do not include students. That means that some 1,000 or 1,500 customs inspectors who are not students will not be designated. Also, students are not customs inspectors. That should be clear in the mind of every member of this committee. There are 3,500 of them, and 1,000 to 1,500 won't be designated. We're talking about real customs inspectors.

Our fear is that the government is trying to cut down its cost should this influence the classification, which I guess is your third concern. Should there be a reclassification, then only those that they would have chosen to designate.... It's our position that all CIs—customs inspectors—should be designated, given the fact that most, if not all, of them work on rotation throughout the different units of the customs operation.

One of the things that was brought up when we went to Windsor is this. The minister was asked the question—it was Jane Stewart at the time—and her reply was that it was a given that the students would not get the designation, but that we also have people who work in postal units, for example, who do not need the power to arrest, of course. Our concern is that these people work on rotation, and it would make it extremely difficult, further isolating or limiting the scope of how you want to develop a customs officer, if they are not designated.

On the specific question of classification, the only thing this union always endeavours to make sure is that people are properly classified and that they are properly remunerated for the work they do. We are hoping that the department will collaborate. The department has already indicated that it will review the job descriptions, and that of course is the tool used to classify.

I will let my sister answer on the issue of the training—the roll-out of the training.

Ms. Karen Dwyer (First National Vice-President; Canadian Customs Excise Union Douanes et Accise): Thank you, Ronny.

In terms of the training, we have been working with the department in the joint safety and health committee in terms of personal protection training. There is a package out there now on personal protection. It's a one-week training course.

But certainly we feel that this training will not be in place for the passage of this bill. We would like to put pressure on the department to provide training to ensure that our officers who will be carrying out the legislation on behalf of the Canadian society will be trained and will be protected once legislation is in place.

In terms again of tools—and I know you didn't bring up the issue of tools—we certainly would like to see the bulletproof vest be a standard issue of the uniform. At this point in time it is not a standard issue. A customs inspector must request the vest. The department then looks into the issue of the vest to see if there is a need for it, and makes a determination at that point if the customs inspector would receive the vest. Certainly we feel it should be a standard part of the uniform.

Perhaps you could just repeat any other questions that you had on training.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I just wanted to expand a bit on the question that I originally asked. It's to do with the scope of the designation of peace officer itself. The bill talks about being a peace officer, but then it circumscribes and limits where that will be operational. It only cites particular sections of the Criminal Code instead of just saying in plain language that customs officers are peace officers under the law. -*-*-*-*DISK$HOC$DATA01:[FIN_EDIT]JURI20005301.TSE

• 1650

I suggested to the minister that in two or three years we will likely come back to this same issue and find that this kind of designation isn't all that workable. Why not designate customs officers as peace officers, period? Any limiting should be not done in law but by administrative convention internally within the department.

So that is my concern. Have you addressed that concern? Is it an issue for you?

Mr. Ronny Moran: As we mentioned in our brief, there was a two-tier system. After four or five years of pressure from this union, we were able to do away with having senior customs inspectors and regular customs inspectors on the same worksites basically doing the same job. One of our fears is that if in a port of entry, and therefore on the same worksite, you have people who are designated and people who are not designated, and the designations affect the classification and therefore the remuneration of the people there, that will bring us back to the problem we just managed to fix. It had a big impact on morale and on productivity when people worked side by side doing the same job but were not paid the same.

So our position is clear, I think, that they should all be designated with these powers, given that they work on rotation, so that even the people who work in a commercial operation today will be called upon to work at a port of entry tomorrow.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Mercer.

Mr. Wayne Mercer (Second National Vice-President, Canadian Customs Excise Union Douanes et Accise): I understand your question. I believe you're saying that today we're going to go to this step, but three years down the line we believe we won't have enough powers. I think we also have to be fair to our customs inspectors and to the department in terms of exploring exactly what authorities and powers we need. It probably is only the first step and later on we will identify more.

It has taken 10 years of arguing, debating and lobbying to get to the point where we have the ability to stop people who shouldn't come into this country, or who shouldn't be on the roads of this country because they're intoxicated or have abused other substances. So this is a first step. Maybe three years down the road we will be back asking for further authorities, but I don't think the department or we as a union can say that we must have them all now. Realistically, we wouldn't be able to get it up and running quickly enough to meet that with the full expanded powers you're talking about.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin, you have seven minutes.

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): First of all, Mr. Moran, I would like to get a clarification. In his speech, the Minister gave the impression that customs officers would not be armed, whereas I seemed to hear you say that they would be. Which is it?

Mr. Ronny Moran: Mr. Laurin, we challenge the reasons used by the government not to give firearms to our officers.

Mr. René Laurin: Very well.

Mr. Ronny Moran: We want the government to set up a process by which police officers as well as customs officers would be able to get the necessary expertise to make that decision. We do not believe that we have this expertise at this time and, unless I am mistaken, I think the Department relies on a study carried out at the beginning of the Eighties to claim that giving firearms to our officers is not necessary. This does not even take into account the new responsibilities created by the Bill, and the government is not even considering changing its mind on this.

• 1700

Mr. René Laurin: In other words, you're telling me that you do not know if customs officers should carry firearms and you want this matter to be studied.

Mr. Ronny Moran: Exactly. We want the Department and the government to study the type of equipment we need, firearms included.

Mr. René Laurin: The Bill refers to using force to detain criminals.

Mr. Ronny Moran: Yes.

Mr. René Laurin: You are already facing this type of situation. Do you believe that it will be very different when you have to arrest people suspected of drunk driving and that you will need to use force to detain them?

Mr. Ronny Moran: Exactly. Everybody knows that the mixture of rage, adrenalin and alcohol can make it necessary to call on four or five people to control some individuals who decide to resist. We have all heard of such cases. In the past, we did not have to face those individuals; we would let them go and call the police in the hope that somewhere in the country police officers would be able to arrest them.

Mr. René Laurin: There is one thing that I find surprising. You stated that you agree with the Bill even though its clauses will lead to an increased workload for customs officers. Indeed, they will have to do things that they have not had to do so far. Am I to understand that you will accept this increased workload even though it would not lead to an increased salary or to better working conditions? You will do all this voluntarily? This is a bit surprising because unions are not in the habit of accepting new tasks without asking for salary increases. Could you explain to me what leads you to accept that?

Mr. Ronny Moran: In our brief, we ask the Department and the government to make a firm commitment on reviewing job descriptions, which will have an effect on classification. The classification levels are directly linked to job descriptions and we want all the new tasks derived from the Bill to be reflected in the job descriptions. This is our answer to your question on salary increases. In other words, we want our members to be paid for the work they do.

As far as the required resources are concerned, we are already of the opinion that there are not enough resources to do the customs work. Our members will indeed have an increased workload, if only because they will have to appear more often in the courts as witnesses. This is why, as we state very clearly in our brief, we want the Department to review the deployment of resources as soon as the Bill is passed. We will not accept voluntarily any increased workload.

Mr. René Laurin: Very well. Do you believe that the new tasks will require new staff?

Mr. Ronny Moran: Absolutely. This is what I mean when I talk about the deployment of resources.

Mr. René Laurin: Do you have any figures?

Mr. Ronny Moran: No, we want the Department to determine that with us.

Mr. René Laurin: Very well. When you have to deal with a drunk individual, I suppose you do not have any time to do anything else. Since those individuals are usually very slow to understand, there is a risk of having very long queue lines at the points of entry, which will create serious problems. I believe that the Minister is not quite right when he states that there will not be any major cost increases.

Mr. Ronny Moran: Absolutely. We raised this matter in our brief but we may not have been clear enough. We are seriously challenging the statement that this Bill will not lead to major cost increases. When one of our officers goes on training, he has to be replaced and all the remaining staff has to work overtime because a minimum number of officers is required to provide services at the ports of entry.

• 1705

Mr. René Laurin: The Minister mentioned about $5.5 million for new equipment. Does that seem realistic to you?

Mr. Ronny Moran: Not at all. It is much too low.

Mr. René Laurin: What would be the correct figure?

Mr. Ronny Moran: As I said, it would be difficult for me to give you some figures today. However, we know that this amount of $5 million is much too low. We have talked about it and, as I mentioned, it might already cost that much just to provide the required training.

Mr. René Laurin: I would now like to deal with another matter. You stated that there are about 3,500 customs officers, whereas the Minister said that from 2,000 to 2,500 of them would be designated. This would mean that about 1,000 would not be, not taking into account the number of students. If I remember correctly, there is no provision in the Bill for deciding who would be designated. Do you think this should be provided for in the Bill or through your collective agreement? As a matter of fact, is this matter already provided for in your existing collective agreements?

Mr. Ronny Moran: When we raised this matter, we were told that the Deputy Minister would make the designations. It would be indicated in the file of each employee so designated. And only people working in the ports of entry would be designated. This seems logical since, as I mentioned earlier, some of our employees work in postal stations where they do not need any police powers. However, they might be required to work in other units because of the rotation system. Therefore, it would be beneficial to the Department to make sure that all the officers get the required abilities, if only to preserve their knowledge of all the aspects of customs work, automated systems included, because their work changes from week to week.

Mr. René Laurin: You want all the officers to get the required training but, since they would not all be required to carry out these new functions in the near future, would there not be a risk that they might forget what they would have learned? Indeed, they might not be called upon to use that training for a year or two.

Mr. Ronny Moran: Mr. Laurin, I believe that people are intelligent enough. Of course, in the beginning they would provide training where it is most required and, later on, where it is less urgent. At a minimum, all the officers working in the points of entry who might be called on making arrests on day one should have been properly trained. Anything else would be unthinkable.

Mr. René Laurin: Which means that you would agree with the fact that not all the customs officers would get the required training immediately?

Mr. Ronny Moran: Absolutely, as long as all those who work in a point of entry get it.

Mr. René Laurin: Those who work on rotation could get their training later on, when their assignment is about to change.

Mr. Ronny Moran: Absolutely, as long as the Department does not expect them to make any arrests until they have received that training.

Mr. René Laurin: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your statement and your brief.

[English]

That's as far as my French will take me tonight.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter Mancini: I do have some questions. I should be able to bank my time, because I didn't ask many questions.

The Chair: Time's up.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter Mancini: To follow on with some of the questions from my colleague, in terms of the employees who are currently working, is there a concern on the part of some of them—I noticed you talked about seniority—that people who have been in the job for some 20 or 25 years are now being asked to take on new duties? Is there a concern or a feeling among some of the membership in the union about that? Are there some officers who don't want to take on this duty? Is there a feeling there?

Mr. Ronny Moran: Something my mother taught me when I was very young is that you have to be careful what you wish for because sometimes you get it, and I think this is a very good example of that.

I always say we can't make any omelettes without breaking eggs, and we are conscious of the fact that some of our members are going to be reluctant to now have to deal with intoxicated drivers, for example. Some are close to retirement, and so on.

On that note, I have to acknowledge that the department has already expressed that they will, whenever possible, try to accommodate those people and try to move them away from the ports of entry. There are other units and other aspects of the customs inspector work that doesn't involve dealing with the travelling public.

• 1710

Mr. Peter Mancini: The other point I want to raise is something I asked the minister about. It has to do with proposed subsection 163.5(3) and the detaining of individuals by customs officers.

I note in paragraph 24 of your presentation, when you speak about the detaining suspects, that you quote somebody from the minister's office. You say your point is that customs inspectors could not hold code offenders at all. On the argument that a customs inspector could detain a suspect offender by undertaking a customs-related search, you go on to say that you think there may be real problems in the courts with that. Is this based on a particular legal opinion?

Mr. Ronny Moran: The reality is we don't have any grounds at all, as we speak, to detain them at the border. When we do detain them at the border because they're intoxicated, at the present time we basically abuse the Customs Act. We're only supposed to detain people when we suspect them of smuggling or of contradicting the actual act as it stands now.

I know of instances where some of our members have told me that as much as they don't like to do it, when you have somebody pull up to your booth who is obviously loaded and he or she has children travelling with him or her, that, guess what, you've just suspected this person of smuggling. This person has been referred to secondary, and before the person hits secondary, the authorities have been called in to come and intercept this person right there at the port. That is an abuse of the actual act.

Mr. Peter Mancini: That's at the present time, but my question is whether or not you have concerns about this proposed subsection that permits you to detain the person until the person can be placed in the custody of a peace officer.

The minister gave me an answer that I'm satisfied with, unless you have something else to offer. My concern with it is that there's no time limitation there. The customs inspector is being told that you can hold this person until you can contact somebody else and get somebody else there. Is that a concern for the workers in terms of the time it takes the police officers to get there?

Mr. Ronny Moran: We mentioned in our brief that most facilities are equipped to properly detain people, as we speak. We are hoping the department will take a blanket look at all their facilities and make sure these facilities are equipped. As every other organization that exists, police forces often get flooded. If you get them on a bad night when they can't come in before a certain number of hours, then certainly you have to be prepared and equipped to detain this person.

To answer your question, our concerns are only to the extent that if we don't have the right facilities to detain them, then we would have great concern with that.

Karen would like to add something to that.

Ms. Karen Dwyer: Just reading the notes from the speakers from the House of Commons, the minister does state that basically there has to be some co-operation from the RCMP or the local police within that area. Our position is that the department must ensure that there is co-operation from those various forces. Otherwise, we would certainly look at probably having some problems. So certainly the department has to take a more consultative role with those forces.

Mr. Peter Mancini: To carry that further, in your brief you say that this co-operation has not necessarily been there to date. Are there particular reasons for that? I think you say this in your brief.

Ms. Karen Dwyer: If you look at the points of entry from across Canada, sometimes a point of entry may be some distance from an RCMP station or from a local police force. Sometimes the police are not at that facility or sometimes it can take hours to get there. So from a union point of view, we certainly do believe there has to be a lot of speaking going on between the department and those other forces to ensure that this co-operation is in place.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay, those are my questions. Thank you very much.

• 1715

The Chair: Mr. Muise, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to start by thanking our guests.

A couple of questions come to mind. First, are there any amendments you would like to see in this legislation before it goes through?

Mr. Ronny Moran: At the present time, no. This bridges the gap that we have been lobbying to do away with, so we're happy with it.

Mr. Mark Muise: The bill appears to provide the Minister of National Revenue with sweeping powers to designate agents with powers of arrest. Are there any balances to check this apparently unchallenged level of authority given to the minister? Have you given any thought to that at all?

Mr. Ronny Moran: I'm not sure I understand your question. In terms of the powers the minister will have, do we have a problem with that? Is that your question?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

Mr. Ronny Moran: I guess we do have a problem to the extent that we think all CIs should have the designation, for the reasons we stated in response to other questions. If it were unilaterally decided that all customs inspectors should have these designations, then there would be no need for the minister or his or her deputy to make those designations.

Mr. Mark Muise: Section 77 outlined one of my fears about this bill, namely, that the resources for customs agents will be spread too thinly. That was brought up. Do you still feel that is a major concern?

Mr. Ronny Moran: Yes.

Mr. Wayne Mercer: Mr. Muise, we feel it's a major concern. Let's talk about West Nova for a second. West Nova has only one customs port and that's in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Mark Muise: Right.

Mr. Wayne Mercer: You have one of the longest and most successful coastlines in all of Canada. Shelburne is a good deep-water port. Nothing is stopping anybody from going in there. We don't have customs inspectors in Shelburne, Liverpool or Chester any more. Chester is a very visible port and is a high traffic area. Those are the areas we have concerns about—areas that have been closed down.

When we go to Cape Breton or to Port Hawkesbury, we have a part-time customs inspector. We have three inspectors in Sydney, Nova Scotia, but all the rest of the inspectors are located in Halifax. Those are the concerns that we have.

Mr. Mark Muise: I asked the minister that question yesterday, but he did not seem too concerned. His comments were something to the effect that they're going to be doing what they're doing now, but with the increased powers, it seems to me there will be more work to be done. Is it me who does not see it properly?

Mr. Wayne Mercer: Increased powers means increased work. It means our officers will be able to do further duties. As Mr. Laurin explained earlier, if they're tied up doing those further duties, that causes demands on other inspectors, and if we don't have other inspectors, it causes delays in processing good-quality people who want to come into this country.

So those are our concerns too.

Mr. Mark Muise: Another concern that comes to mind is that it's fine to be protected, but if you run into a situation where force is needed, or something along those lines.... I'd like you to talk a little bit more about the firearms thing. For example, I was quite shocked in West Nova a couple of years ago when I noticed a fisheries officer walking around with this huge piece of machinery on his belt. I thought it was a special event that was going on, but he explained that they wear that all the time.

Most of the time those people are not in situations where they would need that. But if you're dealing with some of the criminal elements who come through the borders, who are taking contraband or smuggling drugs or what have you, there's potential there for having to defend yourself. I'm not advocating the use of firearms, but what are your thoughts are on that? I see that as a concern.

• 1720

Mr. Ronny Moran: The minister, in his comments to this committee yesterday, stated that the common sense approach would be for customs inspectors facing potentially dangerous situations to withdraw and call the police. That almost totally contradicts the purpose of this bill, in our opinion. Those of us from the field know that is rarely an available option. The common sense approach is to provide the training so that our officers can safely carry out the new mandate that will be expected of them.

I can give you my personal point of view, but what we're asking the department to do is to carry out a study. I know of situations where, for example, our officers are on surveillance of a controlled delivery of goods that they know is heroin or cocaine. They're surveying it and they're hoping somebody will pick it up. They do those in collaboration with police forces, but they are the only people carrying out those operations who are not armed. In the field they're referred to as dead weight, which means that, should shooting occur, the people who are armed will not only have to look after themselves, they will also have to look after these other people who are there. So they don't take as active a role in the operation as they would like to, and it certainly puts them in danger in my opinion.

Mr. Mark Muise: I guess it was my question to the minister yesterday that you were reading the answer to. I'm certainly not saying that customs officers should have guns, but I tend to agree that there should be—

Mr. Ronny Moran: That there are situations where—

Mr. Mark Muise: Right. Given these extra powers, we need to make sure you have the tools necessary to protect yourselves and the public.

Mr. Ronny Moran: I would agree with that.

Ms. Karen Dwyer: That's what we're advocating in our brief. A study was done in the early 1980s, but times have changed and situations have changed since that time. The enhanced powers certainly bring changes to the role of the customs inspector, so what we stated in the brief is that the Government of Canada should take a responsible role, once these powers are handed to the customs inspector, and look at doing another study on the appropriate use of, or whether there is a need for, firearms by customs inspectors.

Our concern, from a union point of view, is that our customs inspectors are protected, that they work in a safe environment and that nobody is subject to any type of activity that would injure them in any way. When the minister states that the common sense approach is to move out of that situation, we're fully aware that is not always the case. Sometimes the customs inspector cannot move away from that situation, so our position is that the common sense approach is to study the risks, look into this issue and see if there is a requirement to issue arms to customs inspectors.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Maloney, from a border riding.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): What number of your complement are in positions that you referred to as postal stations?

Mr. Ronny Moran: A small number. I think it's smaller than the numbers the department intends not to designate. The department would be the ones to ask to get precise numbers. If I gave you the numbers it would be my personal best guess estimate, but I think it's substantially lower than the number of people the department intends not to designate.

Mr. John Maloney: You do a rotation, so if I'm in the postal area, am I there for a year, a month or a week?

Mr. Wayne Mercer: I work out of Halifax, Nova Scotia, and our customs operations there work a rotation. We have a container examination team, a marine division, a Halifax airport division and a commercial division. Depending on the officers, the circumstances and the demands, the rotation is anywhere from 6 to 18 months. We also have these flexible response teams that go out to assist, and you also rotate into those.

Every inspector must be able to do the full range of duties. Today that means the inspector must be able to climb aboard a cargo ship, climb down a hold of a cargo ship, report tomorrow morning to Halifax International Airport and clear a plane, work in the long room, which is basically an office environment—you know they're uniformed officers—processing commercial documentation, and conduct a container examination. Team work is very specialized in looking for contraband in containers that have been targeted by our special teams of intelligence and interdiction. They work in a very enclosed, very safe environment away from the public view, but they rotate on a regular basis, anywhere between 6 months and 18 months.

• 1725

Mr. John Maloney: In your opinion, would any or all of those positions require a bulletproof vest to carry out the job safely?

Mr. Wayne Mercer: Again, it depends on the environment. I like to think our environment is a lot safer than an environment close to a major centre, such as Windsor, Ontario. That is close to Detroit, which has a much higher rate of traffic and a more undesirable element.

The Chair: Nevertheless, it is a fine city.

Mr. Ronny Moran: I agree.

Mr. Wayne Mercer: I've visited Windsor. I was there for three days at the customs port, and I enjoyed it.

The Chair: It's much nicer than Fort Erie, don't you think?

Mr. Wayne Mercer: We talked about standardized equipment and uniforms. If you walk down the streets of Ottawa, you'll see that every police officer wears a bulletproof vest. One day while I was getting a cellular phone fixed and a police officer was getting his radio fixed, I asked why he was wearing a vest. He had been told it was mandatory and was for insurance purposes. If he didn't have it on, that was it.

Our inspectors, working the lines, be it at Pacific Highway in Vancouver, Windsor, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, Lacolle, or Stanstead, also work in that type of environment and should have that protection. It shouldn't be that I have to present a business case on why they should have it. It should be standard equipment, such as safety shoes, which are issued to people who work on the container shifts.

Mr. John Maloney: Has the department indicated what would be the criteria for issuing or not issuing a vest?

Mr. Wayne Mercer: The criteria are health and safety.

Ms. Karen Dwyer: At this time, if an officer feels he is in danger, he can request a bulletproof vest. The department will look at that request and determine if they will issue the vest. You have to understand that a bulletproof vest is not something you can ask for today and get tomorrow, even if the department is willing to give it. A bulletproof vest is something that must be moulded to the body shape. It has to be specifically designed for the individual. Does that answer your question?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes—and if my shape changes during the period, I'm in trouble.

On the firearms aspect, do you feel that certain designated people should receive the proper equipment, even up to firearms? Who would be these designated people? How would you pick these designated people?

Ms. Karen Dwyer: As we have stated many times as we've gone around, we certainly believe all customs inspectors should be designated. As we explained, the department is saying that only certain people will be designated, but customs inspectors, as Wayne has just said, go through rotational systems. Even if today they're not working face to face with the travelling public, they can be tomorrow. We therefore certainly believe they should have the training, they should have the equipment, and they should be designated.

Mr. John Maloney: Police recruits go through a training process, through a process of scrutiny to see whether they have the right psyche, if I may use that term, the right personality, to bear arms. If they don't, perhaps they're not accepted into the force.

You're asking us to arm all your inspectors. What are we going to do with those who perhaps don't meet the proper psyche? What do you do with those who perhaps don't want to bear arms?

• 1730

Mr. Ronny Moran: We've given that very extensive consideration. This is another example of having to be careful what you wish for because sometimes you get it. We realize that should a determination be made that you have to be armed, some of our members would not be authorized to bear arms for some of the reasons you have laid out.

However, we want to be very clear that we are not asking that everybody be armed. We are asking that an in-depth study be carried out to determine that. We are not pretending we have the expertise to make the recommendation that they should be armed, just as we are alleging that the government has not developed the expertise to say they should not be armed. Our concern at this time is that the reason not to arm them is based on a feeling they should not be armed, is based on cost, and is based on image.

Mr. John Maloney: Do you have any concerns about the image? Do you think it's a good image that they're currently not armed?

Mr. Ronny Moran: Most people think we are armed already.

Mr. John Maloney: Then why—

Mr. Ronny Moran: I don't see that as a consideration.

Mr. John Maloney: This is my last question. How many one-person ports do you have across the country?

Mr. Ronny Moran: We have far too many.

Do you know how many you have in the prairies?

Ms. Karen Dwyer: Offhand, I'd say we have 50 or 60 in the prairies. It's probably close to 300 across Canada, but I don't have the exact number.

Mr. John Maloney: You have 300 one-person ports?

Ms. Karen Dwyer: Oh, one-person ports. I'm sorry, I thought you said ports in general.

Mr. Ronny Moran: What is your estimate for one-person ports? Some are two and go to one on different shifts, so it's hard for us to gauge that, but most remote ports are one-person ports.

Mr. Wayne Mercer: It's not just the one-person port you have to deal with. We often send customs inspectors alone to a location at which we don't have a permanent site. You have to take that into account. One officer may go out to, for example, Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia, to clear a lumber ship. So it's not just the one-person port. There are times we send inspectors out by themselves.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Muise, I'm going to give you the last word.

Mr. Mark Muise: Oh, thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: It's a great honour.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, I feel very honoured, thank you.

You made reference to the fact that training has to be in place. If the legislation starts tomorrow, will training already have taken place?

A witness: No.

Mr. Mark Muise: I know the answer to that, but what I want to know is whether the department has given any lead times so you can be trained the day the legislation comes into effect, so you can really do the duties you're expected to do properly and safely.

Mr. Ronny Moran: I think we've been very straightforward about this union adamantly opposing our people starting to carry out this new mandate without having been properly trained. I truly believe the department has the same concerns.

A personal protection package was developed jointly between this union and the department. We're happy with the package, but our concern at this time has to do with the roll-out. The roll-out, as it stands now, is not acceptable, so we're saying we would adamantly oppose our people being expected to carry out this mandate without having received this training.

Mr. Mark Muise: It's like asking for a bulletproof vest when you're in danger, but it might take four weeks for the vest to come in.

Mr. Ronny Moran: You expose yourself to this danger in the meantime, and that's not acceptable.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Muise.

Thank you very much for appearing. We appreciate your comments, and we will take them to heart.

Mr. Ronny Moran: Thank you very much, and thank you, members of the committee.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.