Public Safety Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting 28. We're dealing today with the arming of the Canada Border Services Agency officers.

We would like to welcome our witnesses this morning. We look forward to the testimony that you have for us.

I think we'll begin with the Canada Border Services Agency. Maybe you could introduce yourself, Mr. Jolicoeur, and take it from there. Perhaps you could give us any presentation you have.

Then we'll move, as we have in our agenda here, to the Department of Human Resources and Social Development and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

We have started a little late. With the committee's permission, I think we'll run a little over time.

Is everybody agreed? Okay.

Mr. Jolicoeur, you may begin.

[Alain Jolicoeur, President, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

Since I have already provided the committee with my opening remarks, I guess I'll just say a few words of introduction and allow more time for questions.

I am here today to discuss the arming of border services officers. It is a government policy and, clearly, a major initiative for our agency.

The CBSA is fully engaged at all levels to implement the arming initiative safely, professionally, transparently, and without undue delay.

I know that you have many questions. While we're still in the early planning stage of this initiative, we are here today to respond to your questions to the best of our ability and to provide the most comprehensive information possible.

I'm joined by the CBSA vice-president of operations, Madame Barbara Hébert, who is also responsible for overseeing the implementation of the arming initiative in CBSA.

We are eager to report on the progress that we have made to date and to talk about the work that will be done in the months and years ahead.

We'll be happy to take your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

From the Department of Human Resources and Social Development, Monsieur Fracassi.

[Fulvio Fracassi, Director General, National Labour Operations, Department of Human Resources and Social Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here with you all today.

I'm the director general of national labour operations at the labour program at HRSD. The labour program is responsible for the administration and enforcement of part II of the Canada Labour Code. The code applies to federal jurisdiction workplaces, including the federal public service and most federal crown corporations.

Part II of the Canada Labour Code deals with occupational health and safety and its purpose is to prevent accidents and injuries to health in the workplace.

I'd like to highlight at this point in time that the labour program does not concern itself with issues of national security. The labour program's concerns relative to the CBSA and other workplaces under federal jurisdiction pertain strictly to employee health and safety.

Prior to discussing specific issues that have arisen with respect to the CBSA, I think it may be helpful for the committee if I briefly provide an overview of part II of the Canada Labour Code. Part II of the code grants employees three fundamental rights when it comes to their health and safety: the right to know about workplace hazards; the right to participate in health and safety matters; and the right to refuse dangerous work.

In recognizing these rights, part II also takes care not to unduly infringe on the employer's right to manage the workplace.

The Code also establishes specific duties for employers as well as for employees and provides that workplace parties play an active role in health and safety through participation on workplace health and safety committees.

The Code is very much focused on prevention. The Internal Responsibility System provided for in the Code is aimed at having workplace parties play a key role in achieving and maintaining a high level of workplace health and safety.

This being said, the Code and the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations place the primary responsibility for health and safety on employers and require them to take measures to protect the health and safety of employees.

The recent addition of Part XIX of the Regulations dealing with Hazard Prevention Programs makes it explicit that employers must, in consultation with, and with the participation of the health and safety committees or representatives, develop, implement and monitor a program for the prevention of hazards in the workplace.

Should an employee have a concern relative to health or safety in the workplace, the Code provides for this to be dealt with through the Internal Complaint Resolution Process. The employee is required to bring health and safety concerns to the attention of his or her supervisor for resolution.

Any unresolved complaint may be referred to the health and safety committee or the health and safety representative, investigated and a solution implemented by the employer.

If the workplace parties can't resolve the issue, at that point in time one of our health and safety officers is notified, and the labour program becomes involved to investigate the situation.

Part II of the Canada Labour Code also grants employees the right to refuse to work if the employee “has reasonable cause to believe” that a condition exists in the workplace that constitutes a danger, unless the condition is a normal condition of employment or the refusal would put the life, health, and safety of another person in danger.

Part II of the code provides a specific process that must be followed when employees invoke this right. The employee must first report the situation to the employer without delay. The employer must then immediately investigate the matter in the presence of the employee and at least one member of the health and safety committee who does not exercise management functions, or a health and safety representative, and if neither of these are available, at least one person from the workplace who was selected by the employee.

If the employer agrees that a danger exists, the employer must take immediate action to protect the employee from danger and then must inform the workplace health and safety committee or the representative of the action that's been taken to resolve the matter.

If the employer disputes the matter reported by the employee, or if the employer takes steps to protect the employee but the employee believes a danger continues to exist, the employee can continue to refuse to work. At that point in time, the labour program is notified, and one of our health and safety officers investigates the matter.

A health and safety officer then investigates the refusal, as I've mentioned, and the employee continues to refuse to work after the established internal process has been followed. In cases where there's a finding of no danger, he so advises the workplace parties. The employee who initiated the refusal to work must then go back to his job.

On the other hand, if the HSO finds that the danger does exist, the HSO issues a direction to the employer to correct the hazard or condition or to alter the activity, basically to protect the person from the danger that was complained against. The employer or the employee may appeal the decision of the health and safety officer to the appeals office on occupational health and safety.

As director general, I'm aware that the employees of the CBSA have exercised the right to refuse, under part II of the Canada Labour Code, on a number of occasions. Since May 2005, our health and safety officers have been asked to investigate 44 refusals to work by customs inspectors of the CBSA at various ports of entry across the country.

Among the 44 refusals, 38 were group refusals and two were individual refusals. The vast majority of these refusals to work were initiated following the release of a CBSA lookout bulletin warning of possible armed and dangerous individuals who might attempt to cross into Canada.

In all but two of the refusals that I've referred to, the labour program has rendered a decision of no danger. In the two cases where danger was found, the CBSA had not correctly followed its established internal practice aimed at reducing the risks faced by the officers.

That's it for my presentation. I'd be happy to also answer any questions that the committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We'll now move over to Mr. Bourduas from the RCMP.

[D/Commr Pierre-Yves Bourduas, Deputy Commissioner, Federal Services and Central Region, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for inviting me here today. I am accompanied by Deputy Commissioner Barbara George, who is responsible for training at the RCMP. After a brief statement, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Meanwhile, I want to focus my opening remarks on the RCMP's commitment to work with the Canadian Border Services Agency in providing top-quality firearm training for maximum long-term benefit for the RCMP or, ultimately, for the Canada Border Services Agency.

Following the Government of Canada’s May 2006 federal budget, in which funding to arm CBSA officers was announced, CBSA requested RCMP assistance in the development and implementation of a national arming initiative.

The RCMP agreed to provide that service. Indeed, in response to the aggressive timelines, we are already working with our CBSA partners to move forward on the first stage of the training program, such as the selection and training of CBSA trainers, also known as the “train the trainer” program. I'll speak to that in a moment.

The training MOU we've signed with CBSA is a two-year commitment that will be re-evaluated on an ongoing basis.

Currently we have seconded two senior RCMP members to CBSA to assist on the training project. Also, we are working with CBSA to develop a national arming policy and the RCMP will provide additional secondments or temporary assignments of specialized members to CBSA for training purposes as resources and other circumstances permit. The salary and O and M relating to the secondment training delivery costs are being absorbed by CBSA.

As well, the RCMP and CBSA are in the early stages of developing a new training syllabus to incorporate the user-level firearm training, defensive tactics, and tactical intervention strategies into the CBSA cadet basic training.

As I've already mentioned, one of the key components of the firearm training is the concept of training the trainer. We are providing assistance in the selection of CBSA officers who will be trained in firearm proficiency and teaching techniques so that they will become the trainers themselves. These future CBSA trainers are being selected from a pool of candidates whose applications have been validated through a CBSA-authored process. This is intended to allow CBSA to develop and deliver its own training program for long-term self-sufficiency. Preparing CBSA in this way is essential for not only that organization but for the RCMP, which does not have the capacity to train all of CBSA's 4,800 officers.

Simply put, as more CBSA personnel are trained to carry a firearm, the demands on the agency will increase because of ongoing obligations such as requalification and re-certification. Faced with this situation, the RCMP would not be able to maintain the training project without the train-the-trainer concept.

Furthermore, it is critical that Canadian law enforcement officers, whether regular police officers or CBSA peace officers, receive a level of training that allows them to safely and proficiently handle their firearm. This is key for public safety and the safety of CBSA employees and officers from other agencies who often work together on the investigations and other situations.

As you might expect with the aggressive timelines, the target date for the RCMP to begin training CBSA trainers is March 2007. The intent is to conduct two train-the-trainer courses back to back, in order to have approximately 30 CBSA trainers trained by the end of June of this year.

By March 2008, less than a year later, it is expected that 300 CBSA officers will have received the three-week duty firearm training course from the CBSA instructors. Although the CBSA trainers will be responsible for rolling out the user-level firearm training, the RCMP will continue to monitor and assist the rollout over the next two years.

As noted, along with the ability to carry a firearm comes increased responsibility, and this is particularly true when it comes to potentially violent situations. One of the key ways the RCMP trains members on handling such situations is our incident management intervention model. This model teaches appropriate responses to levels of resistance based on individual perception. The preference is always weighted towards the least intrusive intervention to control the threat and to ensure the safety of the public and the police.

There is no question that the RCMP has earned an international reputation for policing excellence that results in a large number of requests from other law enforcement agencies and government departments for specific types of training. More specifically, we are a leading expert in training in the use of weapons. We provide basic firearm and instructor-level training, for example, to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and we welcome this latest opportunity to support our confreres from CBSA.

Although the RCMP has been providing training to CBSA in controlled defensive tactics for a number of years, we see the addition of the firearms training as simply adding another component to this partnership.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the RCMP and CBSA have a great working relationship which will continue through the firearm training program.

We are committed to our partnership with CBSA and other law enforcement agencies to secure the border and ensure its integrity. We and our partners are also interested in high standards of training to ensure both public and officer safety.

I would like to thank you for your time, and now I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you to our witnesses for those opening remarks.

The usual practice at this committee is to begin with the Liberal Party for approximately seven minutes of questions, and then move around to the Bloc, NDP, and finally the government side.

Mr. Cullen, you may begin.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank Mr. Jolicoeur, Ms. Hébert, Mr. Bourduas, Ms. George and Mr. Fracassi for their comments.

I have concerns about why we need to arm border guards. I think our Liberal government consistently argued against it. As agencies, your mission now is to implement the decision that was made politically by the new government, the Conservative government. But I think there are much less costly solutions and much safer solutions.

Let me ask a couple of more targeted questions.

First, Mr. Bourduas, as a public safety officer, do you think this is going to create more violence? It seems to me it has the potential to create more violence or greater risk of violence at our borders. I know that you're going to be training individuals and training the trainers to be prepared. If most, or 80% to 90%, of our trade and commerce and the passage of individuals goes through seven or eight of our border operations--borders like Detroit-Windsor, like Fort Erie-Buffalo, etc.--wouldn't another option be to provide 24/7 response by the RCMP, to call them in as required, rather than going through this billion-dollar border gate? That's the number I've heard. It's going to cost a billion dollars over 10 years to train and equip these people. Isn't there a less costly solution and one that would actually make our borders more safe?

[D/Commr Pierre-Yves Bourduas]

The former Commissioner Zaccardelli always maintained the position that it was ultimately a Government of Canada decision. We of course are committed to work with our CBSA partners on this particular initiative.

The crux of the problem is to provide firearms to protect the people who are committed to protect the public at the border points. That is the reason we're going to focus our attention on this training aspect with our CBSA partners, to ensure that if we get called to the border.... If there's an incident of running the ports, for instance, my suggestion to you is that the firearms will not prevent people from running the ports. I think we all agree with this.

The fact of the matter is that the RCMP is committed to providing support to CBSA in other forms, through the tactical deployment of people along the border, or, if need be, if there's a request for assistance from the local detachment of the RCMP or the local municipalities or provincial police. That will also be factored into this initiative.

The centre of the problem is that we've committed to the government and to CBSA to train these people, and we'll do so accordingly.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I agree with you that it's not going to really deter people who are trying to run guns or bring drugs through our borders, and we need to deal with that. But if there is an alert, surely the response would be to advise law enforcement people, people who have....

I have great confidence in the officers in the Canada Border Services Agency and that if, over time and at great expense, they are trained...but let's face it, training is one thing, experience is another. The RCMP and other law enforcement agencies have many years of experience in how to interdict at the proper time and to minimize the risk to innocent bystanders.

A border crossing is a place where there are many people. It seems to me the best place to interdict would be based on some reasonable and intelligent choices, which law enforcement people with great experience could make, in a place where innocent bystanders wouldn't be at risk.

To Mr. Fracassi, how can it be, sir, that in so many of the incidents, or in the vast majority of cases where there was an assessment done by your department when the union chose to leave their post, you concluded--in an objective way, I presume--that there really wasn't a risk to the officer's safety; whereas this study by Northgate, which was commissioned by the union...? If one were cynical, one could say that it lacked, perhaps, objectivity. But even taking away the cynicism, how can you explain how different groups could arrive at such different conclusions?

[Fulvio Fracassi]

When there's a work refusal and it hasn't been resolved by the workplace parties, then our health and safety officers are called in to investigate. They basically look at all the information that's available to them. They look at the facts of the particular case in question; they look at all the information that's available, including any hazard assessment that's been done by the employer and the procedures that have been put in place. If there are any other relevant studies that have been conducted by others, those are also looked at.

Ultimately, the health and safety officer has to make a determination based on the requirements of the law as the situation exists at the time. As I've indicated, in the vast majority of those situations, based on the facts as they existed at the time, based on the information available to the health and safety officer, there was a finding of no danger, except in two circumstances that I mentioned earlier on in my presentation.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Then would it be fair to say—and I'm not going to put words in your mouth—that you'd probably disagree with the Northgate results?

I'm not going to ask you to answer that specifically, but I'd like to come back to this. Is it not true that with the arming of these border officers they'll be reclassified as public safety officers—I forget the exact terminology--and there'll be more pay required?

I can understand why the union would advance this position.

But Mr. Jolicoeur, it's true that you're going to have to pick up the tab on this. What is the cost? I've just heard rumours in the press of $1 billion over 10 years. Is there any validity to that?

[Alain Jolicoeur]

Our cost evaluation for this initiative over 10 years, including the infrastructure required, the training, the administration required, and also the re-certification every year of all of our officers, plus the training of all of the new officers—because our turnover is fairly high in CBSA, about 12%—our estimated cost for all of that over 10 years is $781 million.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

And does that include, sir, the reclassification of the border officers to a new pay level?

[Alain Jolicoeur]

No, it has nothing to do with that. CBSA is changing its classification structure to have its own. It's going to be implemented in the next round of bargaining. There are no classification costs that are related to the arming initiative.

The discussion in terms of salary, of course, as in any bargaining round, will occur between the Treasury Board and the union representing our officers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Your time is up. It's way over. Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Ménard.

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

Thank you. We also need to ask Mr. Jolicoeur some questions.

Mr. Bourduas, I greatly appreciated the part of your presentation that dealt with the training provided to police officers. If I understand correctly, police officers in Canada receive training not only on the safe handling of a firearm, but also on the progressive use of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Monsieur Ménard, could you just hold on so we that can get the interpretation? I'm not sure what is happening here.

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

What I like about simultaneous interpretation is that when I make a joke, people laugh twice.

Generally speaking, police officers in Canada receive training not only on the safe and effective handling of a firearm, but also on the progressive use of force. Is that correct?

[Alain Jolicoeur]

That is correct.

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

Is that the same kind of training that you want to give customs officers when you train them?

[Alain Jolicoeur]

Precisely. That is what I was alluding to in my opening remarks.

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

Yes, I greatly appreciated that, Mr. Borduas. Moreover, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on the new responsibilities you have been given. I imagine that they are very heavy. Do you have any idea how many hours of training you will need to provide to your officers?

[D/Commr Pierre-Yves Bourduas]

The course will focus on firearm training, but also on the model that I mentioned: the progressive intervention and crisis management model. The course as such will be spread over a three-week period, and the use of force component is important. Bear in mind that our police officers are trained for this kind of intervention, which goes progressively from verbal support to the ultimate use of a weapon.

The training is provided in this context, taking, of course, into account what we call arcs of fire, in other words, during an intervention, we determine the arc to consider and what happens once the use of a firearm is initiated. All of these aspects must be considered.

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

The course lasts three weeks?