Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 16 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 19, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-18, to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, met this day at 10:50 to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, our witnesses today are representatives of the Customs Excise Union.
Please proceed.
Ms Karen Dwyer, Acting National President, Customs Excise Union: Good morning, senators. I will refer to the Customs Excise Union as CEUDA throughout our brief.
CEUDA represents some 10,000 employees of Revenue Canada, 2,500 of whom are uniform Customs inspectors who will be affected by Bill C-18, as the bill will extend Criminal Code powers of detention and arrest to them.
I wish to express our gratitude to the members of the Senate committee for agreeing to hear testimony from the Customs Excise Union. We are pleased to be here today and hope you will find our testimony informative and of benefit.
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 the border and the time a police officer can arrive at the port of entry to intervene is long overdue. To paraphrase a spokesman for Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, it is ludicrous that drunk drivers can cross border points now without being detained or arrested by Customs inspectors. Decades ago, Parliament should have given 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.
One of our most serious concerns related to Bill C-18 is the fact that Customs inspectors will essentially be detaining and arresting subject offenders of the Criminal Code tomorrow, and they need extensive training now.
All Customs inspectors need to be trained on what constitutes a reasonable ground to believe, as it pertains to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All Customs inspectors need to be trained on personal protection and 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 to enforce. All Customs inspectors need to be trained on the issue of the liability of Customs inspectors once this bill is passed. All Customs inspectors need to be trained on how to administer the roadside screening test.
Customs inspectors do not only need training. They must also be provided with the proper tools and equipment to do this job, and they must be provided with this today. Customs inspectors will require bullet-proof vests. The vests must be a standard issue as part of the Customs inspector uniform. Revenue Canada must do away with the requirement for Customs inspectors to ask for bullet-proof vests.
In addition, all Customs inspectors require batons and pepper spray, and they need them now.
We have talked about these concerns with Revenue Canada officials for years in our joint union-management safety and health committee. However, we hope the department agrees that the bill will bring a new sense of urgency to resolve these concerns now.
The question of whether Customs inspectors should be armed seems to have raised controversy. Contrary to what was said in the House of Commons, our government has not recently studied the issue of arming Customs inspectors. The most recent study was conducted in the early 1980s. Further justifications offered by our government as to why Customs inspectors should not be armed are rather weak. That is why we are calling upon this committee to urge the government to immediately establish a working group to study the matter of arming Customs inspectors.
Times have changed since the last study, and Customs inspectors will be expected to deal with the new clientele once the bill becomes law. Given the government's intention to ask Customs inspectors to detain and arrest suspect offenders of the Criminal Code, the government had better take the responsible approach of properly preparing Customs inspectors with the right training and the right equipment. We need to ensure that Customs inspectors and the general public are protected and are safe.
On another note, it is rather ironic that this government is introducing this legislation while proceeding with alternate service delivery. In many areas throughout Canada, through automation of Customs ports, alternate service delivery is geared to replace Customs inspectors with cameras. Alternate service delivery conflicts with and contradicts the role Customs inspectors will be expected to undertake following the passage of this bill.
Before closing, I would request that the committee agree to append this brief to the minutes of this meeting.
The Chairman: It is not the custom of this committee to append briefs to the minutes of the meeting because of the enormous amounts of paper with which we deal. However, we can table it as an exhibit.
Ms Dwyer: That would be appreciated.
The Chairman: We will do that.
Senator Gigantès: We were told you were going to be trained. We asked some questions and were given the impression yesterday by management that you would receive thorough and adequate training. Am I to understand from what you are saying today that there is a disagreement between you and management on what constitutes adequate training?
Ms Dwyer: The department has an implementation strategy in place at this time. An approximately two-week training process will occur. We wish to ensure that this training does take place and that all Customs inspectors receive the training before the implementation of this bill. We are concerned that there will be delays in training or that the training will not be in place once the bill is implemented.
Senator Gigantès: The bill talks of designated Customs inspectors. Will there be Customs inspectors who are not designated and who might be in the line of fire, so to speak? Is that one of your concerns?
Ms Dwyer: The position of this union is that all indeterminate Customs inspectors must be designated. We are requesting that because we believe that if certain inspectors are excluded from being designated, there would be a health and safety risk to the non-designated as well as the designated officers.
Senator Lewis: What do you mean by the word "indeterminate"?
Ms Dwyer: Indeterminate employees are those who are employed full time or part time as permanent staff within the government, as opposed to term employees or students.
Senator Gigantès: They are not hired for a determinate period?
Ms Dwyer: They are not hired for, say, a six-month term. They could be full time or part time.
Senator Gigantès: You then talked of proper tools. Apart from bullet-proof vests, what other proper tools are there? I will come to arms later.
Ms Dwyer: In our national safety and health committee meetings, we have been discussing the need for the department to look at the issue of providing batons and pepper spray to Customs inspectors. Batons and pepper spray can be used in the offensive mode and also in the defensive mode. There has been ongoing dialogue with the department regarding this for about five years. We want to ensure that once the Customs inspectors have these powers, they will have the proper tools to implement them.
Senator Gigantès: What is the road test? We were told about a red, green and white box or something. What is this about?
Mr. Fred Easton, President, Ottawa District Branch, Customs Excise Union: That is the roadside A.L.E.R.T. test that the OPP uses. It advises whether the person has consumed more alcohol than is legally allowed so that they could be taken off the road.
Senator Gigantès: It is not a breathalyzer?
Mr. Easton: It precedes the breathalyzer. They will sometimes use the roadside A.L.E.R.T. test. If a person blows beyond the warning level, they will arrest the person and put him or her through the actual breathalyzer test.
Senator Gigantès: Are you saying that you make them walk to see if they are staggering?
Mr. Easton: No. It is a machine the person blows into which analyses the alveolar blood alcohol in their deep lung air and compares it with a scale. Once the alveolar blood, which is an exact percentage of the amount of alcohol in your system, reaches 100 milligrams per cent, or a percentage between, say, 50 and 100, you would lose your license for a day -- a 24-hour suspension. If you go beyond that level, you are taken for an actual breathalyzer test.
Senator Gigantès: I have a question regarding weapons. I have fought in wars, so I am not scared by the idea of guns. However, I am reluctant to see more of our public servants armed. I do not like the idea. Maybe it goes back to my father, a much-decorated military man, who never had a gun at home. I remember, as a little boy, asking him why. He said, "There is nothing here worth killing a thief for."
So what if a smuggler gets by and you do not kill him?
Mr. Easton: The argument for weapons goes along with the new powers. At the present time, we can withdraw. We can let the person proceed up the road. We do not necessarily have to handcuff him. That is the way the department presently operates. We can withdraw our services under health and safety if it becomes too dangerous for us to operate.
With the new powers, we will be required to make an arrest. Under the Police Act, under which we basically fall, we are required to end the process. If we start to arrest someone, we have to go through with it. Presently, we can let people proceed up the road. However, we will be confronting people who have weapons. I have been involved, with immigration, in several arrests. I have testified in court about impaired drivers from the port, but strictly under the Customs Act, assisting the OPP. When we become peace officers, the purpose of the weapon will be strictly for defence; it is not for offensive purposes. It is for protection of the officer and the public.
It would be exactly the same circumstances under which the police are entitled to use their weapons. Once you draw a weapon, you are responsible for that.
Senator Gigantès: I recall two cases that occurred in Ontario. In the first, a police patrol, seeing someone walking in the middle of the night, told him to stop. He put his hand inside his pocket and the police shot him dead. They found in his hand a card that said, "I am a deaf mute." This has traumatized me ever since. Some years later, a kid stole a candy bar in Yorkville, in Toronto, and a policeman told him to stop. He did not and the policeman shot and killed this 12-year-old.
These are the sorts of thing that make me a little allergic to more peace officers having guns.
Mr. Wayne Mercer, National Vice-President, Atlantic and Quebec, Customs Excise Union: Senator, we share those concerns with you. When we talk about arming officers, we are talking about arming officers if need be in certain locations. If you are at the Toronto International Airport, the Halifax International Airport or the Vancouver International Airport, you will probably not require a gun because people have already undergone a screening process before getting on a plane and arriving at the port of entry in Canada.
We may require a gun if we are doing surveillance work with the RCMP on the coast of Nova Scotia, where RCMP officers and other police enforcement offers are carrying guns. In those cases, our members are now considered dead weight. Our members are working hand-in-hand with these people, but the police officer has the double responsibility of protecting himself as well as the Canada Customs officer, because that officer, in today's environment, has not been properly trained to handle that situation and nor does he have the proper equipment.
However, we are not asking for wholesale arming. In certain cases, when we deal with those types of issues, there will be requirements. It may be at a Customs port on a land border crossing at the American border. We do not know. However, it will not be a wholesale arming situation.
Senator Gigantès: Madam chairman, we need more detail.
The Chairman: Ms Dwyer wanted to add something.
Ms Dwyer: Thank you. I just want to give some clarification to the committee. All this union is asking for is that a study be conducted by a working group into the issue of arming Customs inspectors. We are not saying they should or should not be armed. However, a study has not been conducted since 1980 and we think it is time for the Government of Canada to look into that issue. That is our position, as you will see in our brief. We are suggesting that the Government of Canada form a working group to look into that.
Senator Gigantès: The bill does not foresee arming you, does it?
Ms Dwyer: As it stands, the bill does not foresee that.
Senator Gigantès: Should we suggest that this study be carried out, Madam Chair? Could we ask the government witnesses to tell us about that study?
The Chairman: It is certainty worthwhile, if they are dealing with dated information from 1980.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: You approve of the new bill, but you do have some concerns and reservations. Yesterday, witnesses informed us that there was good cooperation between police forces and customs officers, that you would receive six months of training and that a sizable budget would be set aside for all of this. When I listened to you this morning, I got a totally different impression. You indicated that you would receive only two weeks of training, if I understood you correctly. You are asking to be allowed to carry pepper spray, and in some cases, a weapon.
If we compare your current work with the new duties that you will have under the new legislation, the feeling is that the new legislation will make your job easier. The level of cooperation between police officers and customs officers appears to work well at the present time. You can detain someone, put him in a cell and call in a police officer who will take over from there. There appears to be some reservations about this bill. Were you involved in the drafting of it? Did you work with your future police officer colleagues? Did you hold discussions to ascertain the nature of your problems? Which problems were identified? Do you think this new approach will work? I feel somewhat differently about this today.
[English]
Ms Dwyer: In terms of arming our inspectors, we are asking for a study to be conducted into the feasibility of arming Customs inspectors, one that would be more recent than 1980.
The issues of training and the facilitation of batons and pepper spray have been on the agendas of our national health and safety committee meetings for many years. We meet with senior Revenue Canada officials in this forum and discuss these issues.
We are concerned that training will not be in place by the time the bill is implemented. We want to ensure that the government does have this training in place for the people who will be facilitating this bill once it becomes law. We will work with the department to ensure that these endeavours are carried out. However, there must be some urgency on the part of the department to ensure that this is carried out.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: You mentioned Revenue Canada officials. Earlier on, I referred to police officers. You will be given powers similar to those enjoyed by police officers. Have you discussed the nature of your work with them? Do you have any reservations about this, because we have been assured that the new legislation will make your job easier. You will be able to carry out arrests, whereas in the past, you had to let offenders go and let the police catch up with them later. Have you discussed the level of cooperation between police officers and customs officers?
[English]
Ms Dwyer: The Customs Excise Union has not had discussions with the police officers. The department has had discussions with the RCMP and other police officers throughout Canada, but the union itself has not.
Mr. Mercer: We have had lots of collaboration. We deal with the Canadian Police Association. We have had discussions with them on issues that deal with their association. Their president actually worked at a Customs border post for a few days to see what we do so that they would understand our concerns.
We currently deal with jurisdictions under the control of the RCMP. We are assistants, and that is the issue. We work well with them; however, we do have a safety concern. If I am in the Port of Halifax working with a Halifax police officer, I do have not the same protection as does he. That is my concern.
Senator Pépin: Because you are not armed.
Mr. Mercer: I do not have the equipment he has at his disposal. I am putting two lives at jeopardy at that point -- mine and his. That is our concern. He has to cover for me because I do not have the proper equipment. I have the expertise and the skills to do a search on a ship to find the contraband; he has the expertise to detain the criminal element that we may confront. We want to ensure that our officers are properly equipped and properly trained to effectively do the job they are being asked to do.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: You are not convinced that they will receive enough training?
Mr. Mercer: No, I am not. You have to understand that we are the first people to come into contact with the offender. A specialized team needs to have the proper equipment and training today, not tomorrow. All of our customs officers need to be trained.
For example, a customs officer in Halifax may work at the port today and at the airport tomorrow, and perhaps only at the office in the days after that. A customs officer cannot be assigned solely to the Port of Halifax. Tomorrow, if an officer is unavailable, they are going to use someone who has not received the training and who does not know how to use the equipment.
Senator Pépin: How long do you think it will take to train everyone before the legislation comes into force and people feel safe enough to carry out their duties?
[English]
Ms Dwyer: We have approximately 2,500 Customs inspectors. In addition to that, probably another 1,000 people would be in the superintendent range. You must understand that before one becomes a Customs inspector, there is a 14-week program at Rigaud College. The additional training to get people up to speed on this would be approximately two weeks. We can calculate how long it would take to train the 2,500 Customs inspectors. I believe the proposed implementation date is 1999. If we start working on this with the department today, it is probable that everyone can be trained.
Senator Pépin: They may be able to do it in six months. We will look into it.
Senator Moore: I want to follow up on Senator Pépin's questions on the numbers. We received a fact sheet from Revenue Canada which stated that this new authority for first-response capability would be limited to officers who deal with individuals seeking entry into Canada and that the numbers involved are between 2,000 and 2,500 of a work force of 3,200. Student Customs officers are not included.
What is the number; is it 2,000 or 2,500? You just referred to 2,500 inspectors.
Ms Dwyer: I gave you an approximate figure of our membership of 2,500 Customs inspectors. I cannot explain what the department is referencing there because we do have Customs inspectors who work in postal units who have no contact with the general public. Customs inspectors who work in postal units work on different cycles. Without going into a lot of detail, they have a rotational system whereby they can work at a point of entry at some point over an annual time frame.
Senator Moore: Let us say the number is 2,500. How many of those are intended to become qualified as designated officers under this legislation?
Ms Dwyer: Our position on the issue of designation is that all indeterminate Customs inspectors should be designated -- all 2,500.
Senator Moore: You mentioned that there are also 1,000 at the superintendent level.
Ms Dwyer: My understanding is that the department will train those as well.
Senator Moore: So 3,500 people will be trained. Will they all receive the necessary equipment that you are discussing; the pepper spray and the batons? Will all 3,500 receive a similar level training?
Ms Dwyer: We would like to see all 2,500 members have full training on the powers. If they work in an area that requires batons and pepper spray, they should have that, yes.
Senator Moore: From our discussion yesterday, I thought there were some Customs officers who would be in key ports of entry or in ports where past experience has shown that people are breaking our laws, and that some of those staff would require this training and equipment, including a weapon. I did not think it was "all."
The Chairman: I believe we were told yesterday that of 3,500 Customs inspectors -- two-thirds of them, about 2,500 -- would be designated. These would be the ones on the front line, rather than the ones who serve at inland areas.
Senator Moore: You are using this word "indeterminate". Do you mean every employee; part time, full time, and permanent part time?
Mr. Mercer: The word "indeterminate" means employment with Revenue Canada. "Determinate" is a government term for contract workers; those whose employment periods expire and must be renewed. We are not talking about those. We are talking about permanent employees of Revenue Canada. We have indeterminate seasonal employees, such as in your region, in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. They come onstream on April 15 and complete their tasks on October 15, but they are indeterminate employees. They have their jobs for the rest of their lives as long as they want to work for Revenue Canada and they meet all the qualifications.
Senator Moore: You mentioned the example of the airport in Halifax where armed RCMP officers are working. Are you suggesting that it is necessary to have Customs officers at the airport to be similarly trained and armed?
Mr. Mercer: We acknowledge that there are areas where officers may not require the full range of equipment. We recognize that there are areas where they require more equipment. We want a study to identify and designate those areas. I use the example of an airport because any person who gets on an airplane almost anywhere in the world goes through quite a bit of security clearance before they board -- metal testing and everything else. Their luggage is scanned.
The airport is an example where full equipment may not be required. However, if you are at a border port with a major U.S. city with a high crime rate, full equipment may be required. Designation is a scary point because it does not allow opportunities for Customs enforcement officers to do their jobs if only certain officers can do this and only certain officers can do that.
All officers work under the same rules and the same legislation. They must have the same training to do their job properly.
Senator Moore: There has been no study in this area since 1980?
The Chairman: That is what we are told.
Senator Moore: It almost seems like the cart is before the horse here. Should that not have been done so that we have more up-to-date information on which to consider the requests of both management and the union?
The Chairman: That is a reasonable premise.
Senator Gigantès: Sometimes management does not believe in arming Customs officers.
Ms Dwyer: Again, all we are asking for is a study to look at the feasibility of arming Customs inspectors. We are looking at data collected in the early 1980s. We are now going into the year 2000. Data collected 20 years ago is sometimes not valid. We are recommending that this committee ask the government to form a working group to study the feasibility of arming Customs inspectors.
Senator Moore: How big was the work force 20 years ago?
Mr. Mercer: It was far smaller than it is today.
Senator Moore: How many inspectors were there then?
Ms Dwyer: I do not have that data at my fingertips. I could get it for you.
Senator Moore: Is there any training taking place now?
Ms Dwyer: Every indeterminate Customs inspector must be trained for a 14-week period before they can become an indeterminate Customs inspector.
Senator Moore: I meant is any training taking place as envisaged under the authority of this bill? Is any groundwork, any preliminary training, taking place whatsoever of the 2,500 people?
The Chairman: Is there health and safety type training?
Ms Dwyer: Plans are being developed by the department, in consultation with the union, to provide two weeks of training to all Customs inspectors in the field. That is in process and is not fully developed at this time.
Senator Moore: The answer is no, there is no training taking place now. You are just putting the program together?
Ms Dwyer: At this time the training for this program is being developed, yes. You are correct.
Senator Moore: It is not taking place now.
Ms Dwyer: That is correct.
Senator Berntson: I am curious about how many, if any, Customs officers have been wounded or killed in the line of duty in the last decade.
Mr. Mercer: We have lost three Customs inspectors in the line of duty; two of them in a flooding accident in the province of New Brunswick and one in a car accident in northern British Columbia.
I cannot say how many have been injured on the job at a border point. I do not have that statistic in front of me, but we can do some research and provide that to the committee.
Senator Berntson: That may be useful to the committee in reviewing the necessity of firearms for Customs officers.
How does the abolition of the harbour or the port police impact on Customs officers?
Mr. Mercer: That is a political question, senator, and I will answer that outside the room.
Senator Berntson: I take that to be a negative. Thank you.
Senator Watt: You mentioned that this bill provides for only two weeks of training. You are also worried that this bill will become law before the training has begun. I understand, to a certain extent, your concern about the requirement for training and the requirement for Customs officers to have the necessary equipment to protect themselves and the public.
My son was trained to be a police officer in the Arctic and had an experience similar to what you are describing. He was given the power of arrest and the requirement to do all the necessary work, but he was not equipped. People do not last very long in a situation like that. Safety eventually takes priority, and that is very important.
I see our system moving toward furnishing the necessary equipment for safety purposes, because many criminals cross our border. You have said that this must be feasible before it is enacted. With regard to costs, do you see a trend toward combining Customs officers and police officers?
Ms Dwyer: At this point in time, the role of a Customs inspector is different than that of a police officer, therefore I do not see that happening. Bill C-18 enables the Customs inspector to close the gap for a minimal period of time when a police officer is not present at the point of entry.
Senator Watt: I am aware of that, but they will not receive sufficient training to act as a police officer. Only two weeks of training is provided for. Much more than that is needed. In order to act as a police officer, you must be properly trained. If we are going to do a feasibility study, I think we should go a step further than this bill provides for.
Ms Dwyer: Your point is well taken. We are asking that a study be carried out in the area of arming Customs inspectors. In that study, you would be looking at costing and all the duties of the Customs inspectors. The last such study was carried out in 1980 and there is probably a need to carry out a new study today, given the new roles given to Customs inspectors over the last 20 years.
Senator Watt: What we heard yesterday was not quite correct in the sense that Customs officers will not be able to exercise the power given to them under this bill until a waiting period has expired. On one hand, Customs officers will be required to act as police officers. Yet, on the other hand, they will have to wait for the police to take over the situation. I think it is your right to be fully equipped and trained, but I think you must be trained as a full-fledged policeman. I do not think we should take chances arming people who are not fully trained.
Madam Chairman, I think there is a need to look seriously at an extension of the training. I, for one, do not think I could trust people who have only received two weeks of training.
The Chairman: I believe that the intent of the bill is that the Customs officers not be set up as another police force, that they not be armed. The people before us are asking that a new study be done on the feasibility of training as well as equipment. However, the point of this bill is not to arm Customs officers.
Senator Watt: I am worried that if we pass this bill we may later find ourselves out on a limb. We must be able to trust people who are armed. This bill will not give them arms, but that is what these people are asking for. I think that we must go a step further to ensure that they receive the same amount of training as is given to police officers. This is a very serious matter.
The Chairman: It is within the power of this committee to recommend training and feasibility studies. However, arming our Customs officers is not within the scope of this bill. That is a further matter.
Senator Lewis: When I first saw this bill, I looked through it very quickly and thought that its purpose was to give powers to designated officers so that they could act as peace officers. However, I notice that on page 16 of your brief you say:
The fact remains, Customs Inspectors will have the dubious responsibility of placing potentially violent offenders into custody.
In the bill, it says that the designated officers will have the powers and obligations of a peace officer. In other words, not only will they have the power, they will also have the obligation to act as peace officers. This is in line with what you have been saying. You believe that perhaps they should be armed and that there certainly should be more training. Is that fair?
Ms Dwyer: We are looking for a study on the feasibility of arming Customs inspectors, but we think that tools such as batons and pepper sprays could be given to Customs inspectors. People must be trained to carry out the duties of any career. We stress that people must be trained and they must be trained today. We cannot wait until a year from now to give the training. The training should be ongoing now.
The department has a document on an officer powers implementation strategy. Perhaps the committee would like to ask Revenue Canada for that document.
Senator Lewis: You spoke about the study. I gather from what you have said that the union has made representations, through your minister or department, I suppose, for that study. However, such a study would be in the future -- the indeterminate future. Do you support the bill in its current form?
Ms Dwyer: CEUDA does support the bill because we believe there is a need for Customs inspectors to detain and arrest people who are driving drunk. We believe that Customs inspectors should have the power to detain and arrest people at the point of entry in abduction cases. At this time, there is no one to do that; there is no link.
Mr. Easton can explain what Customs officers can currently do under the Customs Act with regard drunk drivers.
Mr. Easton: At the present time, under the Customs Act, we cannot detain under the Charter of Rights. Basically, it is a person's right to proceed if there is no reason for us to detain them under, for example, a seizure.
It is sometimes possible to delay them by the processes which we follow. If we suspect that a person is impaired, we phone the appropriate police force and maintain surveillance on the person in the building. At no time is that person held. That person is free to leave. If they decide they do not want to hang around, they can go.
We maintain surveillance because when you go to court with an impaired driver you must have continuity. All we do is provide continuity from the time the person leaves the vehicle until the time the police arrive.
If they leave the building, we will tell them that we will phone the appropriate police force. That force will attend as quickly as possible or try to intercept the person on the highway if they leave the property.
In Manitoba, an officer confronted some motor cyclists. He followed the procedure I just described and the cyclists decided they would not stay. A mile up the road, one of them fell off his bike and was killed.
I was a police officer for 13 years. I was trained by both the RCMP and the City of Winnipeg. I know the difference between what we do in Customs and what a police officer does. It is hard to walk the line. Most police agencies think we are already police officers. When they arrive, they expect us to have the suspect arrested, charged, cautioned, et cetera. When they find out that the person remained on the premises of their own volition, or because of the threat that we would phone the police, they will not charge them if continuity has not been maintained. They will do nothing other than perhaps drive them home or give them a roadside A.L.E.R.T. test and suspend their licence for a day. As well, there is no guarantee that such a person will remain at home, having been driven there. These people are regulars.
One of the senators mentioned that certain ports have a larger number of officers. We have learned that offenders are not stupid. If they find out that a particular port has officers trained to deal with them, they will go to another, or they will cross at an unmanned port. It does not take them very long to learn that.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: My primary concern is the training of the officers. Judging from what I know of police officer training, candidates undergo a very rigorous assessment process. They must have certain physical characteristics and undergo psychological testing. Finally, a full series of evaluations is done before a candidate is selected to train as a police officer.
This is a different situation in that a number of customs officers will be chosen to undergo police officer training.
In some respects, they are going to be playing catch-up. We are going to give these customs officers some police training. They are going to be assessed. Some people make excellent customs officers, but not necessarily good police officers, based on the academy's evaluation criteria. That is my first question.
My second question relates to Senator Watts' comments. Based on my general knowledge of the public service, duties are evaluated and classified at a certain level, with a corresponding salary range attached. In this particular instance, customs officers will be taking on new responsibilities as peace officers.
Logically, if officers are asked to assume new responsibilities, this should normally be reflected in their salary scale or in the compensation they receive. After all, they are being asked to perform additional professional duties.
As our witness indicated earlier, if they are now acting as peace officers, and if someone shows up at the border under the influence of alcohol or drugs, to use the same example that was used earlier, then as a peace officer, that person will have very specific responsibilities. Customs officers will be performing additional professional duties and this should be reflected in their pay. I presume that that would be the case.
I would like our witnesses to tell me if my assumption is correct or if I am mistaken about this. What impact will this have on pay scales? Further to the questions we raised yesterday about your American colleagues, do you have any idea of the kind of police officer training these customs officers initially receive? Are all customs officers hired in the United States also viewed as peace officers, or, as I understand it, do some of them only serve as customs officers, while others perform a dual function? How will candidates be selected from now on? I note that many new customs officers are being hired.
At the border crossing that I use, I am always seeing new recruits. Clearly, the legislation will affect hiring practices. What impact will this have on the recruitment and training of new candidates, as compared to your US counterparts?
[English]
Ms Dwyer: You have asked three questions. I will answer the second question on the issue of classification and remuneration.
Certainly a new job description would have to be written for Customs inspectors. There will be a change in their duties. I was here yesterday as an observer when representatives from the department gave their presentation. They said that there would be no change in the classification level. I do not know if there will be a change in classification. We will certainly be looking to ensure that the job description contains the new duties of the Customs inspector. That would have to go before a classification board.
We could not tell you whether there would be a change in salary level for these people, but there must be a change in their job description.
Senator Joyal: Can you not evaluate whether there would be financial implications and what amount of money that would represent?
Ms Dwyer: I would not be able to do that. There is a whole process and many different committees which would deal with that before it is finalized, and that has not happened yet.
The Chairman: That is not our problem, anyway.
Senator Joyal: No, but I would like to know. If we vote to pass this bill, we should know if there are financial implications. Someone will foot the bill at some time. Taxpayers would like to know that, too. As a taxpayer, I should like to know about it.
Mr. Easton: I will respond to your question with regard to U.S. versus Canadian Customs. I do not know too much about their training. I do know that, in the summer, the majority of them are school teachers working summer jobs. Many of them purchase their own weapons. There is a range of weapons that they are allowed to have and they seem to purchase whichever of them they like. That is about all I can tell you with regard to that.
Mr. Mercer: On the first question with regard to designations, those will need to be determined by classification.
We agree that our inspectors must have the proper psychological profile. He or she must be properly trained and be physically fit to do the job. There is no question about that. That is why we want these studies done.
We also wish to ensure that our officers have the proper equipment. You seem to have focused on guns. We are focusing on proper equipment. We are not stating that we want every officer in Canada Customs border services to carry a gun. We have never asked for that. We have asked that proper equipment be given to officers to do the job they are requested to do at any given time.
We have a wonderful training facility on marine expertise in Halifax and we have proper equipment for officers to use when boarding boats in search of contraband. We provide proper equipment and extensive training to officers from across Canada. These officers do their jobs very well.
U.S. Customs inspectors take our course. We are asking only that we be given the same opportunity. Give us proper equipment and proper training and we will do our job effectively. We ask for nothing more.
We are not asking for the type of huge guns that U.S. Customs officers use in the State of New Hampshire. We are asking for the proper equipment, and that equipment can range from a set of handcuffs to a gun. It is as simple as that.
The Chairman: In reply to a question asked yesterday with regard to the implications of job classifications of employees, Mr. Girard said that that has been thoroughly examined and that there is no implication. He also stated that this is an augmentation, addition to, or enhancement of an existing power. He went on to say that the difference in terms of the federal government's classification point system is minimal and will have no effect on the classification or pay of the officers.
Perhaps you would like to respond to those comments.
Ms Dwyer: A job description would have to be developed to encompass the new duties. That has not yet been done. Before doing a classification, you need the new job description. We do not know whether it would be classified at a higher level. The new job description has not been developed yet.
Senator Gigantès: Has there not been a movement by Treasury Board to loosen classification barriers?
Ms Dwyer: This is a separate issue. However, Treasury Board is in the process of developing a universal classification standard which moves away from the standard to which public employees are now subject. That is not yet complete.
Senator Gigantès: Do you know whether British Customs officers have guns?
Ms Dwyer: I do not know.
Senator Gigantès: Could you find out whether they have guns, pepper spray, Kevlar vests, batons?
Ms Dwyer: We can certainly find out for you.
Senator Lewis: They are probably available.
Senator Gigantès: You talk of indeterminate employees. What about term employees? Are we to understand that a term employee will not be designated for such duties? A term employee, for colleagues who do not know about the public service, is someone who is hired for a specific term, such as one year.
Ms Dwyer: At this point in time, term employees would not be designated. They are not permanent employees of Revenue Canada.
Senator Gigantès: Thank you.
Madam Chairman, perhaps we should ask the RCMP, who have knowledge of what happens at the borders as between them and Customs officers, what they think about this.
The Chairman: I believe that on the suggested list of witnesses upon which the steering committee agreed the other day is a group of border police who are accustomed to dealing with border incidents. We can ask them those questions.
Ms Dwyer: On the subject of term employees, it is always the union's position that all term employees should be indeterminate employees.
Senator Moore: I want to follow up on the questions of Senator Watt with respect to the training and the training period. Perhaps, Mr. Easton, you are the fellow to answer this question.
Ms Dwyer mentioned a 14-week training period. Is that training period, or any portion of it, police-like such that it would be a good foundation for the training that might be required if this bill is implemented and your wishes are granted? You say you have been through the RCMP training and the Winnipeg police force training. How does this stack up? Do the 14 weeks stand you in good stead, or is there more to be done?
Mr. Easton: The training that I received at Rigaud, Quebec teaches how to do the actual Customs functions in the office mode; dealing with importers and exporters and that type of thing. It would not be difficult to incorporate the police functions into that training.
Winnipeg city police training is not much longer than that. It includes a class of ground combat a couple times a week, firearms training a couple times a week, and vehicle driving. You could incorporate that at Rigaud with no problem.
The RCMP training is more extensive. It lasts for six months and you make or break there. Winnipeg is the same way, but the training there includes a lot of paperwork -- as it does at Rigaud -- because of the municipal by-laws and other such small technical matters with which a city must deal. The training in Winnipeg was not much more than 14 weeks.
I believe that the facilities at Rigaud could be modified quickly to incorporate such training.
Senator Moore: The current training program could be altered or adapted to include this. Would an extra two weeks be sufficient for someone brand new? Do you believe that an existing employee would require another two weeks of training?
Mr. Easton: All that would have to be added would be the Criminal Code aspects; reasonable and probable ground rather than suspicion, powers of arrest, excessive use of force and that type of thing, and that could be incorporated in the two-week training that they are opting for. Over the 14-week period, you could have two one-hour classes of actual ground combat; things such as police holds, et cetera.
Senator Moore: Who gives the training?
Mr. Easton: The RCMP and the city of Winnipeg had their own trainers.
Senator Moore: Who would train the designated officers?
Mr. Easton: I do not know.
Ms Dwyer: We are still looking into the issue of who would provide the training to the Customs inspectors. It is our position that it would have to be someone certified to give that training.
Senator Moore: Are you talking about people who train police officers? The trainers would have to know what your job entails in order to tailor the training.
Ms Dwyer: The training on personal protection was developed in conjunction with a police officer and Customs officials to ensure that the Customs needs and the enforcement and personal protection needs were brought together. It comprises one week of the two-week training period on the new powers.
Senator Moore: Is it the position of your union that all designated officers should receive the same training?
Ms Dwyer: Yes, that is our position.
Senator Moore: I envisage increased exposure to risk. Has anyone looked into the insurance coverage that would be required and the possible increased cost of that?
Ms Dwyer: That is a question for the department. I am certain that they would have looked into that. From our point of view, we want to ensure that our inspectors are trained in liability aspects as a result of the implementation of this bill.
The Chairman: In your brief you say that what are presently one-person ports should be staffed by at least two persons during all shifts. We were told yesterday that the biggest offenders generally cross the border through the larger ports. I should like an expansion on your concern about the smaller ports.
Mr. Easton: It is possible that many offenders do come through larger ports because of anonymity due to the large volumes of people. The chances of being scrutinized in a big port are considerably less, I would imagine. I work in a medium-sized port. I have never been at a port the size of Windsor, for example. The problem in the smaller ports under the expanded enforcement powers will be health and safety. When making an arrest, the danger is increased exponentially by the distance you are from help. Our concern is health and safety to ensure that no one is injured or killed as a result of this.
The Chairman: You claim that the department has not agreed to make bullet-proof vests part of the uniform, nor is it prepared to provide vests to all Customs inspectors. Do you think there is a reason for that? What do you believe is the problem?
Mr. Easton: I believe that the problem is the cost. Vests cost about $900 each.
A bullet-proof vest is not effective only against a bullet; it is effective against a blow or a knife. When I was a police officer, I was stabbed with a beer bottle and I did not even get cut. The vest broke the beer bottle. To think of it as protection strictly against a firearm is limiting the value of the vest. Crushing injuries can be reduced by vests as well.
Senator Joyal: Do American Customs officers have the benefit of bullet-proof vests?
Mr. Easton: I cannot say whether they are issued by the employer, but some officers wear them.
Senator Joyal: How many designated Customs officers would there be if this legislation passes as it currently stands?
The Chairman: The department has told us that of a total of about 3,500 Customs agents, two-thirds would be designated, or about 2,500. These witnesses agree with that figure.
There being no further questions, I wish to thank the witnesses for their presentation. We will certainly take your submissions into consideration.
The committee adjourned.