Report of the National President to the

National Board of Directors Meeting of

April 2010

 

Preamble

 

As always it gives me great pleasure to welcome the members of the National Board of Directors to Ottawa for this, the April 2010 meeting of the CIU National Board of Directors. As is always the case, this report endeavours to report on activities and issues that have retained the Union’s attention since we last met in October of last year.

 

We have witnessed a virtually unprecedented amount of activity in the months following the CIU October 2008 Triennial Convention which included a federal election, a devastating economic downturn, and the moving of the Cornwall Border crossing. Of further particular interest to our organization was of course the fact that the work aimed at achieving new collective agreements for CBSA workers belonging to every bargaining unit was completed achieving significant gains in spite of the economic circumstances.

 

The other substantial issues keeping us busy include the fact that CBSA continues to move forward in a somewhat meaningful way on the doubling-up and arming initiatives; these initiatives continue to generate many issues requiring the Union’s attention, not the least of which is the fact that CBSA is now giving indication it is re-evaluating Intelligence Officer arming. We continue to lobby aggressively on the issues stemming from the arming initiative given some of our fundamental training and implementation concerns haven’t been addressed to the full satisfaction of the affected members, and given the fact a commitment to arm all airport Officers still hasn’t been achieved though considerable movement continues to be attained on this particular aspect. Defending Officer rights against CBSA’s proposed approach to accommodations in relation to arming and Use-of-Force continues to be a major priority given many of the fundamental legal challenges we have raised and which have been confirmed by the Federal Court remain outstanding in spite of the participation of a Third Party Reviewer. As you know, setting up a national list of qualified lawyers for Officers to use in the event of having to use their side-arm remains a major priority.

 

Collectively, we continue to lobby very aggressively for a CBSA led Border Patrol as well as for a better Frontline Lookout System. During this Board meeting, we will once again be attempting to share as much information as possible with each other on the above-mentioned subjects as well as on many other subjects retaining the Union’s attention.

 

 

Meetings and Field Visits

 

A list of the meetings and field visits I have undertaken since our last meeting is attached to this report under Appendix “A”.

 

Meeting with Tom Jarmyn, Counsellor to Minister Toew’s

 

Collective Bargaining

 

In my almost thirty (30) years of Union involvement, I have never witnessed a level of overall membership satisfaction such as it currently is. Members continue to provide us with the input we are seeking from them on how we will continue the work aimed at improving working conditions, pay, and benefits. As well, many specific groups continue to have outstanding issues. That said, the appreciation for the work undertaken thus far by the union is omnipresent and I find my meetings with members in the field have accordingly been overall very positive in this regard.

 

What was surprising to all of us is the fact that the gains obtained during the last round of bargaining were attained without any form of strike or formal labour dispute. The reality is that the high-end majority of CBSA’s current workforce wouldn’t remember this ever happening to them in the past.

 

While it didn’t represent all of what we had hoped for, those of us belonging to the FB Bargaining Unit nonetheless saw what can only be described as an appreciable and unprecedented wage adjustment. When the Union was successful at obtaining a separate FB bargaining certificate from the Public Service Labour Relations Board, most had no appreciation for what this really meant. The announcement of this victory came at the same time the Union was also announcing it had successfully lobbied the government into arming and doubling-up the country’s front-lines; understandably, arming and doubling-up overshadowed the FB Certificate announcement at the time.

 

To the average member, the fact that the Union had been successful at establishing a separate bargaining unit for those CBSA workers who perform law-enforcement duties didn’t mean much; that is, until the FB tentative agreement was reached. The first FB collective agreement makes it crystal clear what can be achieved when negotiating at a separate table. And the advancements weren’t only noticeable in the area of wages, but also in contractual language improvements which include seniority rights, arming implementation job security rights, and the ability to negotiate alternate work arrangements. What is now also clear in everyone’s mind is that negotiating at a distinct table is certain to continue generating dividends in future rounds of collective bargaining for generations of workers to come.

 

Essential Service Agreements

Unlike the designations process where a ratified settlement ended the process of identifying positions to be ‘designated’ in the event of a strike, the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) now obligates the parties to reach Essential Services Agreements (ESA’s) once notice of essential services has been filed. In other words the process is now blind to the status of current bargaining. Therefore, PSAC and the various employers governed by the PSLRA will continue negotiating ESA’s until signed agreements are reached.

 

FB - The employer had filed approximately 9,000 proposals for essential positions in the FB Bargaining Unit (you read right, more positions proposed essential than there are actual incumbents). The vast majority of these were for the Border Services Officer (BSO) positions; the employer was seeking 100% of the BSO’s be deemed essential. The Union had filed an Unfair Labour Practice Complaint with the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) arguing that under the legislation the employer (or the Board itself in the event the parties cannot agree) can "bundle" essential services duties, and therefore have fewer members doing a higher percentage of essential services during a strike.

 

The union also argued that BSO’s perform many non-essential duties like the collection of duties, taxes, fees and fines. The new provision in the new legislation had not yet been litigated. As such, the Union was requesting an interpretation of the legislation from the Board on this fundamentally important matter which affects all ongoing essential service negotiations in all bargaining units. The board agreed with the Union’s interpretation in a February 2010 ruling and the parties must now continue negotiating ESA’s accordingly.

 

PA - The employer had proposed deeming more than 20,000 positions in 40 different departments essential. Between informal discussions with Treasury Board and with the help of the PSLRB, the Union has been successful at getting many proposals withdrawn and has tentatively agreed to proposals covering 75% of the Departments.

 

SV - The employer had wanted about 5000 positions in 22 different Departments declared essential. The union has successfully challenged many of these proposals and has reached tentative agreements on ESA’s in most Departments.

 

Next Round of Bargaining

As difficult as it may be to believe, the Union is already hard at work setting up the next round of bargaining; bargaining conference dates and locations are in fact already set. I am extremely pleased to confirm that PSAC Negotiator, Brother Morgan Gay, has been reassigned the role of leading the FB Negotiating Team. In spite of the collective agreements expiring in June of 2011, Brother Gay and I have already begun making worksite visits in preparation of the next round. If anything, the messages we hear from the government are clear in that all bargaining units need to be prepared for an extremely difficult round of collective bargaining.

 

Bargaining Conferences:

 

National Office Operations

 

Specific information relating to National Office Operations including finances and staffing will be provided to you through the report of the National Vice-President responsible for the National Office Operations portfolio, Brother Jean-Pierre Fortin.

 

The members of the National Executive are extremely pleased to report that on March 9th, 2010, CIU and Alliance Employee Union (AEU) representatives signed a new collective agreement for CIU National Office staff. One of the outcomes of these negotiations is that CIU employee pay grids are now harmonized with those of PSAC Centre employees; this was one of CIU’s objectives during this round given our legal ‘pay-equity’ obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code. This explains the lower yearly percentage increases and higher signing bonus.

 

Here are some of the highlights of the new agreement:

The contract is a four (4) year deal with yearly wage increases of: 2.5%, 2.5%, 1.5%, 1% and a 5000$ signing bonus.

 

Grievance Backlog – New National Office tracking System

The work aimed at better tracking the Union’s National Office grievance inventory and status of files has taken great strides since we last met. I will be making a brief presentation to you on the many possibilities of the new tracking system during this meeting and will be providing you with individual Branch Grievance Reports. As you know, we have been working with CBSA Labour Relations towards finalizing a definite list of opened 4th level and PSLRB referred grievances and this work is now virtually complete. We ask that you not be daunted by the initial figures given we are still dealing with the elimination of grievances that should no longer be (or should have never been) on either the employer’s and or Union’s inventory for varying reasons (grievance was settled, withdrawn, abandoned, etc.).

 

This new CIU Tracking System was fully developed in-house by our own Erik Lupien. Aware of Erik’s computer skills, we placed a seemingly overambitious order with him containing an endless list of wishes, and with only general guidance on our part, he developed a tracking system that exceeds our expectations and that will greatly assist us all in better administering the National Office grievance workload, thus allowing optimized efficiency. I know you all join me in extending profound thanks and appreciation to Brother Lupien for his hard work and dedication on this project

 

Staff and AEU Meetings

Brother Fortin and I continue to meet regularly with Alliance Employees Union (AEU) representatives as well as with all National Office staff. We do so in the spirit of better planning our workload, working proactively to address issues that arise in National Office operations, and in an effort to maintain transparent lines of communication and good working relations with our staff and their Union.

 

 

Predominating Issues

 

As reported last October, of particular concern is the fact that CBSA has chosen to reduce its Front-Line Officer recruitment intake by more than three quarters compared to the 08/09 fiscal year. I now know that the CBSA, at least in a couple of Regions, is proceeding with hiring former students as Seasonal Employees. While this approach is, generally speaking, quite welcomed, it nonetheless raises a series of fundamental concerns not the least of which is to obtain relating arming commitments from CBSA. During the 08/09 intake period, 1,155 recruits were invited to the College (with 923 making it through); While the 10/11 hiring plans remain a moving target, we know that CBSA’s plan for the 09/10 fiscal year was to only invite 284 recruits to the College. When you subtract the 107 recruits which came in through dedicated doubling-up initiative funding, this left only 177 recruits for all other categories. CBSA’s explanation for this dreadfully colossal reduction was the requested government cuts expected from all Departments, the economic slow-down which has affected the Agency’s business volumes, and the fact that they are counting on Officers now sticking around longer to improve their pensions in light of the recent pay raises. In our view, this phenomenal intake reduction is a train wreck in the making given the economy is prudently yet steadily on its way up and given the reduction is taking place simultaneous to the elimination of the student program at land-border crossings. If the CBSA was the vibrant proactive law-enforcement organization that it should be, the expectation that many Officers would actually want to keep working for sustained periods of time once eligible for full pension would be realistic; but given current reality….. The upcoming summer period is promising to be challenging and may well require significant mobilization on our part.  

 

Since we last met, I have also continued to be involved in making a series of Agriculture and Immigration specific issues move forward including the outstanding Immigration classification files and the Agriculture Inspection shortfalls which I continue to work on with the Agriculture Union.

 

Clarkson Decision – Day-is-a-Day re: Designated Paid Holiday

CIU and CBSA have agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Clarkson decision; this came subsequent to CIU being informed that the CBSA, in consultation with the Treasury Board, will not be pursuing their application for Judicial Review (have withdrawn their appeal) of the Clarkson decision. The CBSA is also taking the position that the new definition of a day found in the FB Collective Agreement applies to Designated Paid Holidays (DPH’s). The CBSA thereby continues to insist that employees must make up the scheduled hours of work in excess of 7.5 hours when H’ed.

 

The CIU position is that the definition of a day resides in the Leave section of the Collective Agreement, and thereby only serves to define leave, which has nothing to do with DPH’s. The language in the applicable Articles of the Collective Agreement that was in place at the time of the Clarkson grievance has not changed in any way, shape or form. We cannot compel the CBSA to agree with our point of view; the only thing we can do in such circumstances is enter into a process that will expedite the grievance which is what we have done. These are the main points that make up the MOU to which we agreed on December 18, 2009:   

 

Joint Learning Program Anti-Harassment Training Workshops

It gives me great pleasure to inform you the colossal work aimed at making the aforementioned workshops happen has finally come to fruition. CIU, CBSA and the JLP have now reached a formal agreement that will see the roll-out and delivery of these JLP workshops begin across CBSA by the fall of this year. A joint formal announcement will be made in the near future inviting interested employees and managers to become facilitators for these workshops.

 

The JLP principle is that all modules are delivered by an equal number of management and employee representatives. While PIPSC is not a part of the JLP initiative, its members will nonetheless be invited to these CIU/CBSA/JLP workshops.

 

R. v. Mc Neil, 2009 SCC3

As you are all aware, the aforementioned Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision appears as though it will permanently change the landscape in the area of disclosing previous disciplinary for all of the law-enforcement community. Here is the background of this case:

prepare prosecution packages and disclose  officer misconduct material.

 

CIU has requested a legal opinion on the matter, the result of which will of course be shared with the members of the NBOD. CBSA is taking the position that affected Officers must now disclose to the Crown all findings of serious misconduct described as including but not being limited to dishonesty such as theft, embezzlement, fraud, as well as other violation(s) of legislation enforced by CBSA. It also extends to violations to legislation to which CBSA must adhere to such as the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Privacy Act. CBSA further suggests Serious misconduct also includes situations where the behaviour could have resulted in criminal charges being laid under any statute, but was dealt with by disciplinary action instead.

 

I have asked that the legal opinion also focus on Section 17.05 of the Border Services (FB) Collective Agreement which provides that discipline records cannot be used by the employer for employment or personnel purposes after two (2) discipline-free years. The CBSA is taking the position that this contractual right applies only between the employer and employee, that this contract cannot bind the courts, suggesting that findings of serious misconduct must be disclosed to the Crown no matter when they occurred, and the Crown will determine whether in the particular circumstances those incidents are no longer relevant due to the passage of time. These even include matters for which a pardon may have been granted. Unless we receive contrary legal guidance, members should in the interim be advised to comply with this new requirement.

 

TB/CBSA Parking Policy

As some of you are likely aware, Treasury Board (TB) is at the eve of rigidly applying its policy regarding subsidized parking. The CBSA is setting up to declare (via T-4’s) the value of parking as a taxable benefit claiming they must do this to fall in line with TB Policy and the Income Tax Act. We have been informed that, historically, CBSA’s provision for parking has been inconsistent with TB Policy since 1996. TB Policy stipulates that employees are expected to pay

their commuting costs. PWGSC and Departments are not responsible for acquiring parking for employees’ personal vehicles, except for shift workers. The position now being taken by the employer is that in many instances employees are being subsidized where PWGSC and/or Departments provide them parking for free or at less than market value and that this constitutes a taxable benefit.

 

Background: CBSA’s parking needs are provided by PWGSC in either leased or Crown Owned buildings; by the CBSA itself where CBSA occupies a custodial real property (ex. at land-border crossings); or by a third party at legislated facilities and by Canada Post at postal facilities. In 1996 TB rescinded its then TB Parking Policy and transferred responsibility to custodian departments and agencies; in 1997 TB Secretariat issued its guidelines stating: 1) employees are expected to pay their commuting costs (which includes parking), 2) Departments are to provide parking only in circumstances of “minimum operational requirements” (which includes shift-work) and; 3) custodians are to either set fees or issue T-4’s at Market value for parking personal vehicles. The expectation now is that all TB Departments and Agencies will adhere to the TB Parking Policy. (Note: Market Value is defined as what a “willing buyer” would pay for a good or service).

 

Officer Access to Lawyers in the Event of Having to Use Their Side-arm

As the work aimed at setting up a national list of qualified field lawyers accessible 24/7 continues as part of the aforementioned fundamentally important initiative, I wish to take the time to thank all of you who have already undertaken the work within your respective Branch and provided the National Office with one or more suggested names from your area. We remind those that haven’t already done so that one or more lawyers must be identified ASAP so that we may complete our national list. Branches are also reminded that should such an event arise, they should immediately try to contact myself or alternatively another member of the National Executive and should, whether they have already reached us or not, immediately contact a lawyer from their area to assist the member(s) prior any statements being made by this (these) Officer(s). All associated costs will be covered by the Union’s National Office. We hope to have a member of the Ontario Police Association and/or the Canadian Police Association with whom we have been working to come in and address the Board with regards to this initiative.

 

CBSA Duty to Accommodate vs. Use-of-Force & Arming

During the 2nd week of March 2010, CIU/PSAC provided feedback on the draft of 3rd Party Reviewer Richard Grounds which Mr. Grounds had made available to the parties on January 21, 2010. At the time of writing this report Mr. Ground’s finalized report was not yet available though the expectation is that it will be by the time we meet as a Board. What follows is an overview of the input/comments we presented which, hopefully, will have at least in part if not in their entirety been addressed in the report’s final version. It is important to remind ourselves that Mr. Ground’s report is being produced pursuant to an agreement between the Canada Border Services Agency and the Public Service of Alliance Canada on October 8, 2008 as partial resolution of the human rights complaints of Marie-Claire Coupal and Biba Milinkovich.

 

The Union commented to Mr. Grounds that some clarification was required in the report:  the work of the independent third party does not arise out of or in connection with a grievance that is being heard by the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) though it is true that ultimate recourse about whether proposed accommodations constitute undue hardship will

reside with the PSLRB. Rather the settlement of the human rights complaints provided for a third party review of CBSA’s list of alternatives to mandatory training in Use-of-Force and arming for all Investigators, Intelligence Officers, Inland Enforcement Officers and Border Services Officers (BSO) at representative workplaces.  

 

Some background to the mandate of the reviewer is in order:  the human rights complaints were filed by an existing employee of CBSA and a job applicant for a BSO position who argued that CBSA had not considered alternatives to the policy that required a universal physical fitness standard in the form of Control and Defensive Tactics (CDT) training.  As additional weaponry in the form of a side-arm has since been approved to be implemented into the existing array of defensive tools, an additional physical fitness standard to be able to carry a side-arm has now been added to the requirements of the job. Ms. Coupal and Ms. Milinkovich argued in their complaints that CBSA had not been duly diligent to ensure that the workplace objective had been accomplished by the least intrusive means possible. As resolution of these two (2) complaints, CBSA agreed to internally review on a mode by mode basis: a) whether CDT or arming proficiency is rationally connected to the job duties; b) for duties where CDT and arming proficiency are required the internal review was to explicitly consider job re-bundling, teamwork, non-site specific duties, physical workplace restructuring and the ‘doubling-up’ initiative; c) an analysis of all costs associated with the alternatives was to be included as part of the internal review.

 

In a) it is important to distinguish between job duties and the position itself.  In fact, in response to the complaints, CBSA originally indicated that accommodation of the position was unworkable without any examination of the tasks or duties that comprise the position; this broad-brush consideration and rejection of alternatives was critiqued by the Federal Court in the Coupal decision.  For this reason, the settlement required CBSA to not couch the exercise in the generalities of the position, but to explicitly identify and review the associated duties. This then was the work that the third party reviewer was meant, on an objective basis, to assess. 

 

The integrity of the third party review hinges on a comprehensive internal review.  The agreement explicitly called for both site visits and consultation with the bargaining agent component, CIU.  These, the reviewer notes, have not been done.  By not adhering to these terms of the settlement that CBSA signed, it has irremediably compromised the work of the third party reviewer. Given both the statement of work of the third party reviewer and the dicta of the Federal Court in Coupal that bald assertions that alternatives are unworkable are not to be accepted without scrutiny, a clear distinction is required in the report between positions that CBSA Officers occupy and the duties that comprise those positions such as in the case of BSO’s working primary, secondary, or cash. This clarity is important because the task of the third party reviewer is to identify not positions but tasks or duties associated with the positions and to evaluate the extent to which those duties can be accommodated through such modifications as job re-bundling, modified duties, modification to the physical work-site structure, working in pairs, etc.

 

We further commented that CIU was expecting that this third party report would contain a list of such duties and an evaluation of the extent to which the reviewer thought CDT and arming was necessary for each task.  In this way, the conclusions would be clearly stated and then the next step of alternatives such as modified duties, team work, job re-bundling, doubling-up and modifications to the workplace could be considered. Finally, CIU expected that a costing of

these alternatives should have been set forth as CBSA is required by law to justify any position that alternatives would be too costly. CIU’s expectations are that the reviewer must consider which CBSA Officer duties require Officers to be proficient in CDT and in the use of the firearm, and then consider the aforementioned alternatives and evaluate their merits and associated costs. All three of these elements of the exercise were missing in the draft report: a comprehensive list of duties was nowhere to be found, nor the alternatives, nor the costs.  It was noted that the CBSA list of duties set forward in the draft report was, for its part, not comprehensive.

 

The context for this settlement – that it arises as a resolution of human rights complaints and not grievances – is not academic.  While the report cites jurisprudence on health and safety, the leading case – Martin and PSAC v. Parks Canada - arises in the context of a complaint made pursuant to Section 124 of the Canada Labour Code that the law-enforcement duties of park wardens constituted a ‘danger’ as defined in the Code.  This is a different standard than what has been articulated in the consideration of undue hardship. Under human rights law, three criteria are operative under relevant law, Section 15(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to assessing the limits of undue hardship:  health, safety and cost. Significantly, health, safety and cost are only considered after an employer has established that the rule is rationally connected to the job duties (not the position) and that the standard or rule has been adopted for a legitimate work related purpose.  In the context of human rights legislation, the leading case establishing the health and safety standard required for an employer to claim undue hardship is set forth in the case of British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human  Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868 released in tandem with the Meiorin decision. The report does not contain an analysis in the sequence set forth by the Supreme Court in the Meiorin decision and explicitly referred to in the agreement between CBSA and PSAC.  Instead, the reviewer appears to follow a different analysis and a different standard – that which is set forth in the Martin decision – than what is required here.

 

Customs Controlled Areas

The CBSA will soon be designating Customs Controlled Areas in major airports and some marine ports across the country and has been consulting with us on the subject. Customs Controlled Areas will allow the commingling of certain un-cleared passengers and their goods with domestic origin travelers departing Canada and domestic employees working in these areas. Commingling is the mixing of arriving, departing and in-transit passengers and goods within a restricted departure area at point-of-entry (i.e. an airport) with those persons (i.e. workers and employees) who have not been physically screened in Canada for such things as border or aviation security purposes. Commingling can also occur in other border contexts such as at marine ports.

 

The CBSA currently has areas that are under its control under the Customs Act, such as customs offices or the building, accommodations or facilities for the purposes of processing imported goods or persons (i.e. for the proper detention and examination of imported goods or for the proper search of persons by CBSA Officers.) A Customs Controlled Area may include these existing customs offices, buildings or other facilities and those additional zones where domestic workers and departing domestic travelers may come into contact with international travelers and goods not yet processed by the CBSA. The creation of CCA’s is intended to address potential problems resulting from internal conspiracies where staff may misuse their positions to engage in criminal activity when in contact with un-cleared international travelers and/or goods.

 

Under the former provisions of the Customs Act, CCA’s could not be effectively implemented. In particular, CBSA officers had the authority to examine goods and question and search people only as they left the CCA. Implementation of CCA’s was delayed due to the absence of regulations as well as the need for the recent additional legislative amendments contained in Bill S-2. The recent legislative amendments now allow CBSA officers to carry out these activities within CCA’s, as well as at exit points. They will permit BSO’s to focus their efforts on higher risk persons, thus enabling other workers to continue performing their duties without disruption. Therefore, these expanded authorities give the CBSA the flexibility it needs to practically and effectively monitor and control these areas. The legal authority to question, examine and search people and goods, both within CCA’s and at exit points. Officers will be able to question people on their need/purpose to be present in the area and to conduct non-intrusive examinations (such as x-rays) of goods in their possession. This includes those workers within a CCA who would otherwise not have to present themselves to the CBSA. While Border Services Officers would need to have reasonable grounds to carry out further examination of goods or searches

of persons, the new legislation also provides this authority.

 

C-11: AN ACT TO AMEND IRPA

Background -  The CIU has maintained an ongoing interest in the issues relating to refugee determination and removals as a result of its membership’s duties relating to refugees. Part of this most recently has included third party discussions with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding improving the process of refugee determination and safely expediting the removal of failed refugee claimants from Canada. As a result the CIU was aware that these kinds of changes were being contemplated and that further improvements consistent with Officer and public safety (and our Lookout System recommendations) regarding Immigration screening and enforcement may be forthcoming so the Bill in no way came as a surprise to us.

 

What Bill C-11 proposes to do is expedite the refugee determination process by creating professionally (public servant) staffed refugee determination and appeal bodies that are to be aided by:

It is specifically recognized that C-11 will create the need for new Immigration Inland Enforcement Officers currently estimated by CBSA at 100.  There is also an intended reduction in the numbers of failed/abandoned refugee claimants who have disappeared which has been calculated to be in the 38,000 range by the Government. This will create additional investigative and case preparation work for CIU members. Additionally, given the anticipated shorter decision and appeal process, it is recognized that this may mean more detentions in custody or, as CIU has previously recommended, enhanced supervision and Officer safety measures such as using electronic monitoring on select deportees as they await removal. 

 

These proposals are supportive of enhanced screening mechanisms at Points-of-Entry to prevent the return of inadmissible or fraudulent (false identity) refugee claimants. This also supports other CIU initiatives relating to an enhanced Lookout System available at Points-of-Entry. Expedited decision making and removals for failed refugee claimants is also supportive of a broader policy reform to expedite the removal of persons who are inadmissible on criminality or security grounds. If successful, C-11 should produce significant cost savings in the immediate and long term which will then permit funding for other desired measures as noted by CIU. It is reported that C-11 will be accompanied by $540M over five years with $85M of that to cover faster decisions and removals.

 

CIU will complete a full analysis of the Bill to identify any issues of concern or which merit public support. Should C-11 be enacted, we will monitor the success or lack thereof with respect to removals. We will also track the expenditure results of the Bill if enacted and will closely monitor CBSA’s implementation of C-11 as their initial presentation incorrectly defines refugee inadmissibility by not referencing serious criminality and criminality.

 

CIU Lobbying

 

Cornwall

I wish to thank all of you who continue to lobby aggressively on behalf of the organization for the Cornwall Border Crossing to remain exactly where it is currently set up, away from native land, which has been the Union’s position for well over two (2) decades. We have ramped-up our concerted lobby efforts with organizations such as the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco. In partnership with the Coalition, I have personally met Cornwall Conservative MP Guy Lauzon, as well as with the Mayor of Cornwall, Bob Kilger. The appalling underlying reality which has now become evident is the fact that that Cornwall’s business community, led by its Chamber of Commerce no less, clearly seem to see Cornwall’s illegal tobacco trade as a victimless crime which provides a positive and welcome boost to the region’s local economy. Even Mayor Kilger was quoted in a Toronto Star article making a comment underscoring this underlying notion; though he did later suggest he had been “misquoted”.

 

All of the tensions which have erupted over the past decades between the Service and the Mohawk community have stemmed from the fact that the facility was located in the heart of the Akwesasne Reserve. Further, reality is that the intimidation tactics used against the Cornwall Officers by some members of the of this Native community during the weeks and particularly the days which led to the government closing the island office were such that the differences between the Akwesasne community and these Officers are now well beyond being irreconcilable. The intimidation tactics included members of this community gathering around the facility with some walking through the office for no other purpose than to stare-down the Officers. Their tactics also included making public statements through the Warriors that they would swarm the office and disarm the Officers themselves should arming occur. The intimidation escalation culminated on May 31st with four(4) fires being lit around the facility and with between 150 and 200 members of the Native community gathered around it, many in camouflage clothing and scarves hiding their faces; a bulldozer was also present and ready to roll. By closing the Cornwall Island facility the Canadian Government has confirmed that, in their minds, the Akwesasne community is ungovernable, meaning any form of safety assurances are now impossible to provide to the men and women who used to staff this office.

 

The rest of us are left trying to imagine what it must have been like for these Officers having to work under such extremely stressful conditions. Reality also is that the developments have a majority of them being told by their respective doctors that, medically, they will never be able to work at that particular facility again. Simply put, the bottom line is that even if CBSA were to try re-opening the Cornwall Island facility, with or without side-arms, they would not have a sufficient complement of Officers to run it.

 

We have been in contact or contacted by a countless number of stakeholders, MP’s (including the Minister), and media reporters regarding this issue and have used every one of these opportunities to galvanize the moving of the facility off-island.

 

Arming Airports

In a recent Toronto Star editorial article, the newspaper’s Editor made some very negative and uninformed comments regarding CBSA arming, focusing on airport arming. I wish to thank all of you who ensured I was aware of the article which allowed me to write the following letter to the editor:

 

       This letter is a response to an editorial published in the Toronto Star edition of March 24, 2010 entitled “Border guards and guns”. Firstly, we would like to thank you for the accurate portrait of Canada’s Front-Line Officers as “a hardworking group dedicated to the protection of Canadian citizens against terrorism, drugs smuggling, illegal firearm trade, and illegal Immigration entry into Canada”.

 

On the other hand, as the National Union representing the men and women who work as Customs and Immigration Officers across the country, you force us to write in complete disagreement with your views on the side-arm initiative. As noted in the 2006 Northgate Report, A view from the front lines, the law-enforcement powers and authorities now granted to Front-Line and Inland Customs and Immigration Officers under the Customs and Immigration Acts are much broader than those granted to Police Officers. These include: questioning individuals; warrant-less search of persons & conveyances; entering homes for removals; executing search and arrest warrants; the seizure and detention of goods (sometimes worth tens of millions of dollars to organized crime); arrests (including the full range of criminal arrests); detention and transportation of detained individuals; and the list goes on. The CEO of Northgate best summarized when he said “just ask any Police Officer whether he or she would accept to walk up to a car to ask the occupants questions not knowing who was inside, and to do so without the protection of a side-arm”.

 

The above noted authorities are of course intended to protect Canadians and keep a high standard of national security, but the price associated with such responsibilities simply cannot come at the expense of compromising neither the safety of the Officers themselves nor the appropriate execution of their duties. Among many other things, it was uncovered through the Northgate Report that a series of side-arm related government-commissioned studies, the most recent and noteworthy having been undertaken by the Moduspec Group, had also recommended arming the Border. Evidence was uncovered that the arming recommendation had capriciously been stricken from the final version of the Moduspec report; this deletion was also confirmed by the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. It’s one thing to burry ones head in the sand and pretend we still live in a world where we don’t need to arm our borders, but it’s quite different to burry evidence just because it doesn’t agree with this ideology. The Northgate Report is available in its entirety online at: http://www.ciu-sdi.ca/wp-content/uploads/documents/Northgate.pdf

 

As for you questioning the arming of Front-Line Customs and Immigration Officers at airports, your example of using use-of-force techniques towards a “grumpy traveller with a tube of hair gel” is unfortunately a farce, and not a good one at that given you seem to confuse the role of airport screeners with that of Front-Line Customs & Immigration Officers. The realities faced by Front-Line Officers are far from the all too common representation of a uniformed employee in a booth stamping passports as circulated by the media. It is well known that organized crime and international terrorism are present in airports, mainly in cargo areas. These Officers must be able to protect themselves and others when guarding these grounds against contraband and illegal activities when encountering criminality; this is why we are fighting to have these Officers armed as well. For a better perspective of the Officers’ realities at airports, we would again refer you to the Northgate Report, which describes that:

 

“[...] all Officers at airports, including remote airports, are responsible for clearing passengers and cargo on private aircraft, which is not pre-screened in the country of departure. These private aircraft are cleared at off-site facilities, often kilometres away from the main terminal and the police response. Moreover, the layout of the luggage carousels allows passengers being referred for a secondary inspection to have access to their weapons (usually hunters) and ammunition prior to reporting to the secondary area.”

 

And to quote the International Association of Airport and Seaport Police (IAAS) from an article in the November 2005 edition of Blue Line Magazine where the renowned association admits:

 

“The IAASP is disturbed about the presence of organized crime in Canadian ports and the widespread attention it has attracted in recent years. There are now also indicators of terrorist links and we have voiced our concerns about this to the government and media.”

 

We simply cannot count the number of examples that illustrates the necessity of arming all Front-Line and Inland Officers. The duties undertaken by these Officers are far from the days where a Custom Officer was a Revenue Canada representative; the media has a responsibility not to remain ignorant to this fact, as amusing as it may seem to keep the old image alive only to be able to poke at it once in a while. The men and women who undertake this work are now publicly and internationally recognized as the Peace Officers that they are; this comes with the jurisdictions, responsibilities, dedication and the risks faced by all Law-Enforcement Officer, which systematically implies the right to the same level of protection.

Membership

The total CIU membership for the month of December 2009 (the most recent available check-off at the time of this report) was 11,387, which included 10,765 signed members and 622 Rands. Since July 2009, membership has increased by a total of 53 deductees. Following are the membership figures chart broken down by Branch; these are again based on the December 2009 Check-Off.

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT BRANCH / SUCCURSALE

 

 

MEMBERS/

MEMBRES

 

 

RANDS

TOTAL

DEDUCTEES /

TOTAL DES

COTISANT-E-S

%

RANDS

90001

 Newfoundland & Labrador / Terre-Neuve et du Labrador

69

6

75

8.0%

 80002

 Nova Scotia / Nouvelle-Écosse

237

7

244

2.9%

60004

New Brunswick / Nouveau-Brunswick

333

22

353

6.2%

 10007

 Montreal / Montréal

1,159

16

1,175

1.4%

 10008

 Eastern Townships / Cantons de l’Est

276

5

281

1.8%

 10010

 Quebec / Québec

125

5

130

3.8%

 10011

 Lacolle

248

15

263

5.7%

 00016

 Niagara Falls

371

7

378

1.9%

 00017

 London/Kitchener 

79

1

80

1.3%

 00018

 Windsor

545

23

568

4.0%

 00019

 Sarnia

183

0

183

0.0%

 00020

 Hamilton

139

6

145

4.1%

 00023

 Fort Erie / Fort Érié

271

1

272

0.4%

 00024

 Toronto

1,700

166

1,866

8.9%

 00026

 Northern Ontario / Nord de l’Ontario

154

4

158

2.5%

 70027

 Eastern Ontario

421

26

447

5.8%

 50030

 Manitoba

363

14

377

3.7%

 40031

 Saskatchewan

133

14

147

9.5%

 30036

 Alberta & District / Alberta et du district

454

4

458

0.9%

 20040

 Vancouver & District / Vancouver et du district

1,064

40

1,104

3.6%

 20042

 Victoria & Island / Victoria et de l’Île

84

7

91

7.7%

 20045

 B.C. Southern / Sud de la C.-B.

363

47

411

11.4%

 70066

 Headquarters / Administration centrale

1,994

169

2,163

7.8%

xxxx

Unallotted

 

15

15

100%

 

TOTAL

 

 

10,765

 

622

 

11,387

 

5.5%

 

 

 

Branch Presidents are asked to please remind your Membership Chair to send all signed membership cards, requests for replacement cards, and information updates to the attention of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Membership Administration, 233 Gilmour Street, Ottawa, ON K2P-9Z9 to avoid undue delays. If you have any questions concerning membership, please contact Sister Chantal Ladouceur at the CIU National office at 613‑723-8008 ext. 314 or by e-mail at membership@ciu-sdi.ca. 

Communications

 

The New CIU Website

We are proud to report that CIU’s new website was launched with great success. In the weeks that followed our last Board meeting, we have received many good comments as well as a few suggestions, many of which we have or are in the process of implementing.  A lot more work remains ahead of us however, overall, the site is now much easier to upload and thus updated on an almost instant basis whenever a new publication or memo is ready for publication. The website has given us the opportunity to revamp the image of our Union to the extent that many other unions have been inspired by our branding and website, and are using the same layout for their own promotion; which we take as a compliment. We must nonetheless reiterate that to keep our website live, dynamic and up-to-date, it needs to be populated with the latest information of what goes on not only at the national level, but in all parts of the country. In that regard, it is extremely important that everyone participate and keep the National Office informed of the latest news from the field, the Branches, and from committees. The Union website, just like the magazine, is created for us, by us.

 

A few sections of the website have been added, at their request, for the AWA, the VSSA and PHSC Committees. We encourage all of the other committees to use the website as a publication tool for their minutes and publicly available documents. Please contact our Communication Officer if you need more details on how to proceed.

 

CIU Magazine

As for the magazine, a new issue was published just before Christmas. This Winter 2010 edition was the first in a long period where the economical recession caused a huge advertising slow-down which had prevented us from releasing earlier editions of the magazine. This issue, illustrating among many other things a new page of history for the Union and the Pride movement, was received with great enthusiasm and a tremendous amount of positive feedback. Like the webpage, this magazine is nothing without your contributions and we would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the members who contributed towards the success of this latest edition by submitting texts, pictures and suggestions. We encourage you all to take ownership and participate by sending us whatever would be pertinent for the next edition planned for June 2010.

 

Membership Survey

Following-up on this colossal initiative, the creation of a new Member’s Survey is now complete and translated. Since this new survey is divided into different work areas such as land, air, marine, Immigration, RIO, and Investigations, it is considerably longer than the previous survey and unfortunately took a lot more time than expected to create, proof-read, edit, and translate. At the time of writing this report the Survey was in its final production stage, at the eve of being ready for distribution. We ask your full collaboration to diligently send the contact information needed for the Survey to the CIU Communications Officer, Brother Jonathan Choquette.

 

AWA Committee – Tele-work Campaign

The Alternate Work Arrangement campaign initiated by the AWA Committee was something new with the in-house creation of postcards distributed to all of Trade members addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. The postcard and flyer were a very cost-effective and efficient mobilizing tool to effectively lobby for this cause. The expectation is that we will get a response from the Minister in a timely fashion.

 

New media

As mentioned earlier, we still want to put emphasis on the creation and the evolution of both the Union’s magazine and website. With the implementation of a CIU Youth - Jeunesse SDI campaign for young activists, CIU is planning on using new medias to establish our presence on the different social and mobile networks such as Facebook and Twitter. We would like to take advantage of the different technological trends to be more visible on the Canadian Union scene and create a greater social participation and sense of belonging for new members. By doing so, we also intend to acquire a better knowledge of the new generation’s priorities toward their Union all the while confirming the expectations of our current membership.

 

 

Safety & Health

 

While I continue to fully monitor and even maintain direct involvement in some of the work generated by the current health and safety issues, as you know I have stepped down as a full member of the Policy Health & Safety Committee (PHSC), thus allowing the involvement of another member of the NBOD Occupational Safety & Health Committee to take part in the Policy Health & Safety Committee.

 

 

PSAC NBOD Duties

 

As a member of the PSAC National Board of Directors, I attend the three (3) yearly meetings of the Board, the latest of which was held in February of this year. As a committee member, I also participate in meetings of the PSAC NBOD Health & Safety and Collective Bargaining Committees. I further continue representing the employer side of all PSAC Components on the Joint Pension Advisory Committee which is the committee that governs the union employee’s pension fund.

 

PSAC Memership-wide issues

The PSAC continues to encourage members to visit the Centre’s web site or better yet to sign-up for automatic e-mail updates. There are no developments to report in the Union’s pension litigation case so stay tuned to the web site for that one. Considerable work continues to be undertaken through the public service classification reform initiative and I will be discussing some of these developments with you during this meeting. Likewise, progress has been made in the Drug-Card initiative however at the time of writing this report I was receiving and finding conflicting related information; I will therefore be providing you with this update at the time of our meeting at which time I hope to have solid information.

 

 

New TBS Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Policy Draft

 

The employer had solicited our input on this draft; on January 18th, I provided the CBSA with the following input/comments on behalf of the Union:

 

Union comments & input regarding the new TBS Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Policy draft:

 

 

Conclusion

 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the Union’s activists for their sustained involvement and participation in Union representation and training at all levels; without all of you, there would simply be no Union.

 

I also want to thank the members of the CIU National Office staff for all of their sustained hard work; we are fortunate to have such a qualified and dedicated team working for us and I know you all join me in expressing thanks and appreciation towards them.

 

This report of course can only cover a fragment of the issues we have been involved in during the last six (6) months, and I will be happy to answer questions on these or any matter CIU is or has been involved with.

 

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

 

 

 

 

Ron Moran

CIU National President