# "Security on military bases to be reviewed by all-party Commons committee"



## The Bread Guy (7 Apr 2016)

This from The Canadian Press:


> The House of Commons defence committee will hold closed-door hearings on the state of security at Canadian military bases, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> Conservative MP James Bezan, the party's defence critic, proposed the idea, which was recently accepted by the all-party committee, although a date for the investigation has yet to be scheduled.
> 
> ...


From the minutes of the 22 Mar 2016 NDDN meeting (highlights mine):


> ... On motion of James Bezan, it was agreed, — That *the Committee undertake a study on the force protection measures and procedures that have been adopted by the Canadian Armed Forces since October 2014*; that, in relation to the study, the Committee invite the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, and/or his representatives and any other person the Committee deems appropriate to appear as witnesses; that the Committee hold no less than two (2) meetings to conduct the study; that these meetings be held in camera to protect the operational security of the Canadian Armed Forces; and that the Committee report its findings to the House of Commons.
> 
> On motion of Mark Gerretsen, it was agreed ...


----------



## Lightguns (8 Apr 2016)

Ohhh boy!  A committee.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Apr 2016)

Perhaps this is the start of the end of base gates being left wide open for anyone to come in?


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Apr 2016)

Security of our bases and armouries was abandoned due to everyone going gaga over the "peace dividend" when the USSR broke up. 
Security was exchanged for "fiscal prudence " meaning they didn't want to pay Commissionaires at the front gates and in the armouries.

In my mind this was a message to the troops - the security of our bases don't matter and neither do you.

Mile wide, inch deep.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Apr 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Security of our bases and armouries was abandoned due to everyone going gaga over the "peace dividend" when the USSR broke up.
> Security was exchanged for "fiscal prudence " meaning they didn't want to pay Commissionaires at the front gates and in the armouries.
> 
> In my mind this was a message to the troops - the security of our bases don't matter and neither do you.
> ...



Give me $300 million to recruit and train some more MP's, and upgrade facilities problem solved


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Apr 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Give me $300 million to recruit and train some more MP's, and upgrade facilities problem solved



Why do you need more MPs to do base security? We just spent 10 years manning VCPs with all manner of Combat Arms troops.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why do you need more MPs to do base security? We just spent 10 years manning VCPs with all manner of Combat Arms troops.



I agree. I do think the issue will be the matter of PYs, training, op tempo among other things. Therefore we will probably see - Commissiionaires.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Apr 2016)

Committee reports that security measures need improvement.  

That costs money.  Money is no worry; campaigned on "improving infrastructure."

Local contractors benefit from Liberal largesse. 

Liberals express shock that the military is ungrateful for the love and care being showered upon it.

 :boring:


----------



## dapaterson (8 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why do you need more MPs to do base security? We just spent 10 years manning VCPs with all manner of Combat Arms troops.



Somewhat different threat levels, and different RoEs.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Apr 2016)

The reason they scaled down the gates was as a cost savings measure.   The almighty dollar rules all.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Apr 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Security of our bases and armouries was abandoned due to everyone going gaga over the "peace dividend" when the USSR broke up.
> Security was exchanged for "fiscal prudence " meaning they didn't want to pay Commissionaires at the front gates and in the armouries.
> 
> In my mind this was a message to the troops - the security of our bases don't matter and neither do you.
> ...



Don't forget the cries of some in the Public, who convinced their Members of Parliament, that seeing as they paid taxes, they wanted to see how their tax dollars were being spent on the military.


Now we have to rebuild the Front Gates on many of the Bases that demolished them and then go with the program that the Gate Guards had in Germany......Arm the Commissionaires.   >


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why do you need more MPs to do base security? We just spent 10 years manning VCPs with all manner of Combat Arms troops.


Because I believe we should handle our own security, not contract it out.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Apr 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Somewhat different threat levels, and different RoEs.



So regular CAF members are incapable of standing unarmed at a gate checking IDs? Gotcha.


----------



## Scoobs (8 Apr 2016)

I believe that we should have armed personnel, be it Combat Arms pers, MPs, BASF, etc.  at all of our installations.  Let's face it people, we are ALL a target.  As well, don't tell me that our troops can't be armed because some tree hugger is afraid to drive up.  My response would be, "then don't drive up".  After all, it is a military base we are talking about, not a day camp for kiddies.  I'm currently OUTCAN in the States and regularly go to NYC, which is terrorist target #1.  During major events the National Guard deploys to airports, train stations, etc and they are armed (personal side arms and service rifle) and loaded.  They are very visible on purpose and nobody bats an eye about it.

Security on Canadian facilities are a joke.  It needs fixed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Apr 2016)

Halifax had a lot of Cl B or Cl C reservists on Force Protection not that many years ago; all armed and all with the appropriate ROE.  That cost $...

I think it is absurd and irresponsible to have military installations 'open for anyone to drive on', whether it be the ops or admin side of the house.   :2c:


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Apr 2016)

And the reason the stood down the force protection class B call outs.  They needed to seriously cut back on operating expenses and also halved the Commissionaires too.  That was all pushed down onto the duty watch to try and cover.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So regular CAF members are incapable of standing unarmed at a gate checking IDs? Gotcha.


As with this situation, it's not that CAF members _can't_ do it, but whether that's the _best_ way to do it.  (What "best" means will vary, admittedly...)



			
				Scoobs said:
			
		

> I'm currently OUTCAN in the States and regularly go to NYC, which is terrorist target #1.  During major events the National Guard deploys to airports, train stations, etc and they are armed (personal side arms and service rifle) and loaded.  They are very visible on purpose and nobody bats an eye about it.


We're not the U.S., so it still makes sense to ask the question.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Apr 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Because I believe we should handle our own security, not contract it out.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



He said VCPs manned by Cmbt arm types. No contracting there


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Apr 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> He said VCPs manned by Cmbt arm types. No contracting there


I was simply using MPs since A) they are a law enforcement entity, and B) most MP shacks are at the base entrance any way

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Apr 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I was simply using MPs since A) they are a law enforcement entity, and B) most MP shacks are at the base entrance any way
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


Been to Pet? Not anywhere close.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now we have to rebuild the Front Gates on many of the Bases that demolished them and then go with the program that the Gate Guards had in Germany......Arm the Commissionaires.   >



Since Commissionaires may not necessarily be the spouses of serving members and thus less likely to socialize with each others' families there may be less chance of the final incident that was the tipping point for "disarming" the Gate Guards in CFE - two of the guards in the main gate shack at the airfield with pistols drawn after getting in an argument about one of them shagging the other's husband.


----------



## kratz (8 Apr 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I was simply using MPs since A) they are a law enforcement entity, and B) most MP shacks are at the base entrance any way



Spread your wings. Of the 7 bases I have been to over the past 6 years, only an average of 35% of the major entry points have MP shacks located nearby.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Apr 2016)

Whats the legal ramifications  when a commissionaire at a gate tries to tell a CF member they aren't allowed to go on base because there is a lock-down and the member says whatever and drives around him?


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Apr 2016)

Takes us back to what should be stunningly obvious:

There is a cost attached to everything. The cost may not be purely monetary, but it's certainly still there.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Apr 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I was simply using MPs since A) they are a law enforcement entity, and B) most MP shacks are at the base entrance any way
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Been to Pet? Not anywhere close.



Same with Gagetown....mind you it's down the road and around the corner though...


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Apr 2016)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Same with Gagetown....mind you it's down the road and around the corner though...



Kingston's is within a rifle shot, but gate sentries were told armed support was over 10 minutes away. So much for armed support.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2016)

Security does need to be addressed in so many ways. After 9/11 and again after Oct 2014 there was a 100% gate ID check, but I noticed that there wasn't a list compiled of people coming in or a comparison of the list to who was going out again. The ID check was simply more to signal that something was being done rather than an actual security measure.

I'm afraid that the recommendations of this committee will probably end up being far more "show" than "go", much like the ID checks at the gate. Lots of time and resources expended for little return.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Apr 2016)

Were I work now we need a swipe card to enter parking lot (when it works), swipe to enter building, swipe to enter elevator banks, swipe to enter unit lines....but still have to show ID to commissionaires upon entering building...


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Apr 2016)

Swipe card is fine but if your card is stolen, whoever has your card has access to where you are.  I think a visual ID at the gate(ID card scanned and picture that comes up checked against you), manned on a rotational basis by units on base, to get onto the base as well as swipe cards + access codes to buildings and secure areas of buildings, tailored to your need to access individual locations.  Obviously supplemented by each and every member reporting unusual activity.

With that, we could get rid of the restricted area gates.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Apr 2016)

But what about the public security zones guys!!!!!!

Blasphemy.


----------



## Swingline1984 (8 Apr 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> manned on a rotational basis by units on base...



Manned with what people? I don't have enough personnel to accomplish my mandate, let alone fill all the CFTPO's that come from Div. If you have extra soldiers, sailors, airmen (I don't care what colour the DEU) send them my way and I'll employ them.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Apr 2016)

The guys that do 2x2 hour blocks of PT a day can do it.


----------



## Swingline1984 (8 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The guys that do 2x2 hour blocks of PT a day can do it.



I don't think CANSOF will give those guys up


----------



## George Wallace (8 Apr 2016)

1984 said:
			
		

> Manned with what people? I don't have enough personnel to accomplish my mandate, let alone fill all the CFTPO's that come from Div. If you have extra soldiers, sailors, airmen (I don't care what colour the DEU) send them my way and I'll employ them.



See what happens over time when units on Bde Bases slowly give up doing all their Duty Rosters.  Somehow they are all short pers.

Gone are the days where there was a Duty NCO/O in every wet Mess, a Duty NCO in every shack, Duty NCO in the Mess Hall, Duty staff in Regt'l Duty Center doing security checks throughout the night of unit Lines, and Duty at front Gate as well as Base Security Patrols.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> But what about the public security zones guys!!!!!!
> 
> Blasphemy.



Doesn't PSP cover that?   >


----------



## sandyson (8 Apr 2016)

I visited Gagetown a couple of years ago as a retiree.  I was surprised the gated entry was gone, but thought it logical.  If someone wants to cause havoc on a military base they can go through the woods, dress in a uniform or go for too soft targets just outside.  What I did notice was cameras were everywhere.  Those--if monitored--can provide a basis for mobile patrols to intercept anyone suspicious anywhere, such as that old geezer bicycling around and looking in strange places.  If bases need more security, surveillance and a quick response will be more effective.  The gate check is cosmetic but not effective security.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Apr 2016)

sandyson said:
			
		

> I visited Gagetown a couple of years ago as a retiree.  I was surprised the gated entry was gone, but thought it logical.  If someone wants to cause havoc on a military base they can go through the woods, dress in a uniform or go for too soft targets just outside.  What I did notice was cameras were everywhere.  Those--if monitored--can provide a basis for mobile patrols to intercept anyone suspicious anywhere, such as that old geezer bicycling around and looking in strange places.  If bases need more security, surveillance and a quick response will be more effective.  The gate check is cosmetic but not effective security.



AFAIK those cameras are for show only....


----------



## Quirky (9 Apr 2016)

1984 said:
			
		

> Manned with what people?



Tones of layed off high school drop outs from the oil field just kicking around in their parents basements. Cut off their IE and stick them on guard duty.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Apr 2016)

Oh sweet, disgruntled dudes that don't give a fuck. That's who we want at the gate.


----------



## Quirky (9 Apr 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Oh sweet, disgruntled dudes that don't give a frig. That's who we want at the gate.



There are lots of desperate people out there with the crappy economy. Finding suitable candidates shouldn't be an issue, finding money to take security seriously at our bases is the tough part


----------



## MilEME09 (9 Apr 2016)

When the Economy goes down, recruiting goes up, seeing the biggest intake i've ever seen this year in Calgary. The issue is, the things we have talked about to increase security costs a lot, and the question is, is the government, and by extension the Canadian people willing to pay for increased security on military facilities?


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2016)

sandyson said:
			
		

> I visited Gagetown a couple of years ago as a retiree.  I was surprised the gated entry was gone, but thought it logical.  If someone wants to cause havoc on a military base they can go through the woods, dress in a uniform or go for too soft targets just outside.  What I did notice was cameras were everywhere.  Those--if monitored--can provide a basis for mobile patrols to intercept anyone suspicious anywhere, such as that old geezer bicycling around and looking in strange places.  If bases need more security, surveillance and a quick response will be more effective.  The gate check is cosmetic but not effective security.



 [

I see two things wrong here:  

First, the majority of people do not bother with the woods to access the Base, but the main roads.  Only the lightly armed, serious threats, likely in small numbers, would contemplate the woods.  A large car bomb or other large contingent would likely enter through the Main Gate in vehicles.

Security cameras may sound good, but think of the persons monitoring them in a nice warm, dry environment and they tendency not to want to leave that nice warm, dry environment until the end of their shift; not to mention the length of their response time should they respond to an event on the other side of the Base.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Apr 2016)

1984 said:
			
		

> Manned with what people? I don't have enough personnel to accomplish my mandate, let alone fill all the CFTPO's that come from Div. If you have extra soldiers, sailors, airmen (I don't care what colour the DEU) send them my way and I'll employ them.



You need 2 people per gate there at all times.  With a 12 hour rotation, that's 4 people per gate per day.  Don't tell me you can't find 4 to 10 pers a day on a base.  Supplement with patrol MPs during the morning rush.

Another option is to use PAT.  Instead of having them wait at Borden or Gagetown, attach post them to a base until their course starts to do guard duties at various installations.

Give them solid ROEs and you are set.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Apr 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You need 2 people per gate there at all times.  With a 12 hour rotation, that's 4 people per gate per day.  Don't tell me you can't find 4 to 10 pers a day on a base.  Supplement with patrol MPs during the morning rush.



I would say no.  Units, at least mine, have a hell of a time at times finding 2 people to man the duty desk 24 hours a day often enough. Lots of last minute changes as members are tasked away or go on course or weren't told they're on duty.  We already send NCOs and NCMs to base duty detail every day on top of working our own duty desk.

Biggest point of contention for me is that for actual security we need trained members who are current and confident with the job and not grabbing Sgt whoever from 1 dental unit to throw her on base security because the MCpl slated had an appointment and the last time she worked security was 7 months ago. 



> Another option is to use PAT.  Instead of having them wait at Borden or Gagetown, attach post them to a base until their course starts to do guard duties at various installations.



I would go with this. Put a PAT platoon or two's worth of soldiers on base security. It's gainfully employing them a hell of a lot more than having them play XBox or candy crush all day.  We could also put our _Warrior _platoon members on security. 


And honestly at the end of the day putting people on security doesn't matter if someone can walk 100 feet to the right and walk right on to base. I've seen people drive on the grass to circumvent closed, unmanned "gates".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Apr 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've seen people drive on the grass to circumvent closed, unmanned "gates".



I don't know which base or station that would be Jarnhamar. But clearly, putting a gated road without a fence going all round the base or station is pretty stupid. However, just make sure that it was not because there was going to be phased in construction.

My wife works at the Space Agency. It used to be a building in the middle of a huge open field in St-Hubert, near the airport. The only security was a front desk manned by commissionaires. After the attack on parliament hill, when the conservatives decided to increase security at all government buildings, they first installed big cement blocks to create chicanes in front of the main door to stop car or truck crashing attacks, and to put a gate and guard house at the main road entrance. That left the whole field all around fully open to drive on. But that was only because of budgets: the gate came first and this summer, the fence is going up.


----------



## Swingline1984 (9 Apr 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You need 2 people per gate there at all times.  With a 12 hour rotation, that's 4 people per gate per day.  Don't tell me you can't find 4 to 10 pers a day on a base.  Supplement with patrol MPs during the morning rush.
> 
> Another option is to use PAT.  Instead of having them wait at Borden or Gagetown, attach post them to a base until their course starts to do guard duties at various installations.
> 
> Give them solid ROEs and you are set.



(***deleted unnecessary rant - shouldn't post before coffee kicks in)

I say keep the Commissionaires...half those old buggers could out run my troops.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Apr 2016)

Yes, security _can_  be expensive.  But (returning to my personal bête noire), look at all the money we're mindlessly pissing away on badges and uniforms; more than enough money could be made available.

The problem with security is it's inconvenient.  People would have to remember ID, leave for work earlier, think before posting various security weaknesses on internet fora, actively maintain situational awareness.....

Lazy will eventually trump security, until the next inevitable crisis.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Apr 2016)

Man-power 101 in the CAF: 

 In order for a position (whether it be a desk, gate, etc) to be manned 100%, 24/7 - you require 5 pers for every position.  This does not take into account sickness, leave, courses, medical appointments etc.  An extra 1 or 2 members is required as backfill.  If you want to put 2 pers at each gate and man it 100% you would need 10 bodies per gate(minimum).  That's the math folks, approved by the CF leave manual and the chain of command.

Commissionaires work for Base Ops - they follow policy dictated to them - they do not power of arrest, detention or anything.  They have power of telephone calls.  A credible BASF/WASF in support of the BSF/WSF (aka MPs) is a surge capability only - a capability that will hamstring another section of the base when exercised.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (9 Apr 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Man-power 101 in the CAF:
> 
> In order for a position (whether it be a desk, gate, etc) to be manned 100%, 24/7 - you require 5 pers for every position.  This does not take into account sickness, leave, courses, medical appointments etc.  An extra 1 or 2 members is required as backfill.  If you want to put 2 pers at each gate and man it 100% you would need 10 bodies per gate(minimum).  That's the math folks, approved by the CF leave manual and the chain of command.
> 
> Commissionaires work for Base Ops - they follow policy dictated to them - they do not power of arrest, detention or anything.  They have power of telephone calls.  A credible BASF/WASF in support of the BSF/WSF (aka MPs) is a surge capability only - a capability that will hamstring another section of the base when exercised.



I know budgets are tight, however there's a number of Res MP Platoons with members itching for a tasking, even if it is just to get paid (especially in AB right now). We have enough law and Use of Force Training that we won't pop the first guy that acts sketchy, with our primary duty being Field MPU/Force Protection; we also have the aggression and now-how to engage a threat.

There are ways to do it, but as everyone has already stated, it all comes down to money.

Without money, nothing happens.

Hopefully this review will have a good outcome, with enough pressure, there could be some funds relocated from useless waste into the Security Fund.


----------



## QV (9 Apr 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Commissionaires work for Base Ops - they follow policy dictated to them - they do not power of arrest, detention or anything.  They have power of telephone calls.  A credible BASF/WASF in support of the BSF/WSF (aka MPs) is a surge capability only - a capability that will hamstring another section of the base when exercised.



DCAAR grant pretty reasonable powers for guards assigned to the base.  The biggest problem, in my experience, is the general attitude about security by CAF members.  Journeyman's comment about lazy and inconvenience is bang on.  If we could just get everyone to diligently follow the NDSODs rather than constantly look for loop holes to get around security requirements we would be much further ahead at zero cost.


----------

