# Commissionaires



## Stoker

I know the Commisionaires was started as a place where ex military personnel could get employment after their service and to that end they did very well.  It seems that more and more often that the level of professionalism they display is dropping off. For instance in Halifax at the gates the level of professionalism is pretty bad and i'v been vocal to them at this.  I know that they are not military anymore and more often enough their military ties are questionable however I think they need to display themselves better especially at the gates.
I would love to see a more professional force take over the gates at bases, perhaps even MP's. 
Do anybody notice this or am I out on a limb?





_edited to correct the wrong spelling of the title_


----------



## Sythen

I recently got hired as a Commissionaire. Complain to the manager on duty, not the person messing up.



> their military ties are questionable however



In order to maintain certain perks, they must have 65% of their workforce being veterans.


----------



## Stoker

Sythen said:
			
		

> I recently got hired as a Commissionaire. Complain to the manager on duty, not the person messing up.
> 
> In order to maintain certain perks, they must have 65% of their workforce being veterans.



I have complained and the same kind of stuff is still happening, perhaps its time to bring in a more squared away company to look after gate guard duties and so forth. I'm not convinced the commisionaires are completely up to the task. I know some are but alot are not.


----------



## CountDC

follow it up the chain.  They have one the same as we do.  You could also submit your concerns to the base chief (although he may want to inspect you first  ;D)


----------



## jollyjacktar

CountDC said:
			
		

> follow it up the chain.  They have one the same as we do.  You could also submit your concerns to the base chief (although he may want to inspect you first  ;D)



They work for the Naval Provost Marshall here in Hfx, or the Base Security Officer at other locations.  If you have a problem, let the MP's know and they will see it sorted out.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.


----------



## NSDreamer

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.



 /Thread derail

 Do you think that security at the dockyards/Stadacona will increase in future years as they begin building the new ships?


----------



## Stoker

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.



I agree. In the US, a lot of the navy and coast guard bases have uniformed armed security forces that handle gate duties. I personally think Canadian bases should have something more than the commissionaires.


----------



## aesop081

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> something more than the commissionaires.



Beyond a clipboard and a sharp pencil, what more do we need ?

 ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> /Thread derail
> 
> Do you think that security at the dockyards/Stadacona will increase in future years as they begin building the new ships?



Where did they go? Or were they cut back with the Reserve cutbacks?


----------



## garb811

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I have complained and the same kind of stuff is still happening, perhaps its time to bring in a more squared away company to look after gate guard duties and so forth. I'm not convinced the commisionaires are completely up to the task. I know some are but alot are not.


The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up. Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it.  Some places I have been at, it has been horrendous.  One place the Corps did not have enough personnel to fill all the contracts so rather than let the position go to another security company, they had their pers take "leave" from established positions in order to have them work the temporary post they didn't want to admit they couldn't fill.

One other point.  The Commissionaires do not "work" for anyone in the military chain, including MPs. They are contractors who are contracted to provide a service.  It is up to them to provide the service within the terms of the contract they are hired via.  The best we can do, even when someone is obviously unsuited to the job, is to file a complaint with the site manager and request they member be removed from post.  While this normally happens, it is not unheard of for that individual to reappear doing another job several months on...


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Where did they go? Or were they cut back with the Reserve cutbacks?



The gate guard went sometime ago due to funding. There is still force protection water born though.


----------



## Stoker

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Beyond a clipboard and a sharp pencil, what more do we need ?
> 
> ;D



Perhaps a sharp wit?


----------



## observor 69

garb811 said:
			
		

> The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up. Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it.  Some places I have been at, it has been horrendous.  One place the Corps did not have enough personnel to fill all the contracts so rather than let the position go to another security company, they had their pers take "leave" from established positions in order to have them work the temporary post they didn't want to admit they couldn't fill.
> 
> One other point.  The Commissionaires do not "work" for anyone in the military chain, including MPs. They are contractors who are contracted to provide a service.  It is up to them to provide the service within the terms of the contract they are hired via.  The best we can do, even when someone is obviously unsuited to the job, is to file a complaint with the site manager and request they member be removed from post.  While this normally happens, it is not unheard of for that individual to reappear doing another job several months on...



Not an expert on this but my story applies to Pearson Int. airport. My understanding is the reason the Commissionaires do not work inside the airport is they were underbid by a private security firm. Hence they are outside doing traffic control.
Ialso recall a hospital where again the Commissionaires were underbid by a private firm.


----------



## Stoker

garb811 said:
			
		

> The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up. Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it.  Some places I have been at, it has been horrendous.  One place the Corps did not have enough personnel to fill all the contracts so rather than let the position go to another security company, they had their pers take "leave" from established positions in order to have them work the temporary post they didn't want to admit they couldn't fill.
> 
> One other point.  The Commissionaires do not "work" for anyone in the military chain, including MPs. They are contractors who are contracted to provide a service.  It is up to them to provide the service within the terms of the contract they are hired via.  The best we can do, even when someone is obviously unsuited to the job, is to file a complaint with the site manager and request they member be removed from post.  While this normally happens, it is not unheard of for that individual to reappear doing another job several months on...



That's very interesting not too shabby having a monopoly. I personally seen Commissionaires asleep in their shacks as well. That also explains how just about anyone can now work for them as well.


----------



## aesop081

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Perhaps a sharp wit?



Would be better than the shitty attitude at many locations.


----------



## Nemo888

I think most only make 27k a year. You won't get much for that.  Put a layer of real security covertly behind them. Too much visible security attracts attention.


----------



## Occam

garb811 said:
			
		

> Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it.



I think I've met him, actually.....   ;D



> The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up.



As someone very new to the procurement world, I take this to mean that the Commissionaires have a Standing Offer for security services.  If there are other security services who have provided Standing Offers, wouldn't a right of first refusal constitute sole sourcing?


----------



## aesop081

Occam said:
			
		

> I take this to mean that the Commissionaires have a Standing Offer for security services.



http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/biens-property/sngp-npms/bi-rp/tech/scrt-eng.html



> Under the National Master Standing Offer (NMSO) for Commissionaire Services, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires has the right of first refusal for security guard contracts with the federal government. The responsibility of contracting with the Corps falls to PWGSC, which is recognized by the Treasury Board as the contracting authority for commissionaire services required by federal departments and agencies. If the Corps declines a call-up against the NMSO, PWGSC may initiate a call-up against standing offer from a private security agency.


----------



## Remius

Funny story.  But made me angry at the time.  In our armouries I came in and needed keys to a room.  The commissionaire on duty was not the regular one.  So I was asked for I.D.  She looked at it and it all checked out.  except she didn't check to see if I was on the access list (I was).  I called her on that saying that my ID alone shouldn't get me access, she should look at the frikking list.  So once that was done, I need key A.  So I signed for key A and went to unlock the room only to find out she had given me key B.  So I go back to her and say ui was given the wrong key.  No problem she says.  Just sign back in key B to get key A.  I told her I hadn't signed for key B and we could just swap keys.  Nope.  I had to sign back in key B which I hadn't signed out.  Until I did, no key A would be given to me.  This time I was getting somewhat annoyed.  I explained that she could just give me key A because I had actually signed that one out and could just take key B back.  Nope.  Dosen't work that way she said.  I realised that logic wasn't going to work.  So I put it to her like this.  Had someone signed for key A?  Yes.  Me.  is that key in the press?  Yes it was.  So i said I would sign key A back in thus accounting for that key.  No problem right?  Good.  Then i asked her if someone had signed out key B.  No one had.  I asked her if it was in the press.  She said no.  I pointed out i could just leave now without her having any record of me having key B or even giving me key B since key A was what I signed for and apparently returned.  At this point the hamster started spinning the wheel in her head and suggested we just swap keys...sigh.  Felt like a "who's on first" routine.


----------



## jasonf6

Crantor said:
			
		

> Funny story.  But made me angry at the time.  In our armouries I came in and needed keys to a room.  The commissionaire on duty was not the regular one.  So I was asked for I.D.  She looked at it and it all checked out.  except she didn't check to see if I was on the access list (I was).  I called her on that saying that my ID alone shouldn't get me access, she should look at the frikking list.  So once that was done, I need key A.  So I signed for key A and went to unlock the room only to find out she had given me key B.  So I go back to her and say ui was given the wrong key.  No problem she says.  Just sign back in key B to get key A.  I told her I hadn't signed for key B and we could just swap keys.  Nope.  I had to sign back in key B which I hadn't signed out.  Until I did, no key A would be given to me.  This time I was getting somewhat annoyed.  I explained that she could just give me key A because I had actually signed that one out and could just take key B back.  Nope.  Dosen't work that way she said.  I realised that logic wasn't going to work.  So I put it to her like this.  Had someone signed for key A?  Yes.  Me.  is that key in the press?  Yes it was.  So i said I would sign key A back in thus accounting for that key.  No problem right?  Good.  Then i asked her if someone had signed out key B.  No one had.  I asked her if it was in the press.  She said no.  I pointed out i could just leave now without her having any record of me having key B or even giving me key B since key A was what I signed for and apparently returned.  At this point the hamster started spinning the wheel in her head and suggested we just swap keys...sigh.  Felt like a "who's on first" routine.


Ouch man, that would definitely try my patience.  Bravo for not losing your cool.


----------



## Pusser

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.



Really?  In Esquimalt anyway, they scrambled to find people to put there as fast as they could after 9/11.  When I saw one guy on the gate, my first thought was, "who gave the band guns?"  Shortly after that I was on a C7 Refresher course with someone who hadn't the first clue which end was which on the rifle (somebody had to dismantle it for her) and who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (she failed to qualify).  She also seemed to be very nervous with the weapon, almost afraid of it.  I saw her on the gate two days later, weapon in hand.


----------



## Stoker

Pusser said:
			
		

> Really?  In Esquimalt anyway, they scrambled to find people to put there as fast as they could after 9/11.  When I saw one guy on the gate, my first thought was, "who gave the band guns?"  Shortly after that I was on a C7 Refresher course with someone who hadn't the first clue which end was which on the rifle (somebody had to dismantle it for her) and who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (she failed to qualify).  She also seemed to be very nervous with the weapon, almost afraid of it.  I saw her on the gate two days later, weapon in hand.



That explains the amount of negligent discharge charges on both coasts. Out here the gates were staffed by personnel were kicked off the ship for various reasons.


----------



## Tank Troll

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> /Thread derail
> 
> Do you think that security at the dockyards/Stadacona will increase in future years as they begin building the new ships?



Ummmm .... The new Ships are going to be built at the Irving dockyard (civi) Not the Navy dockyard or in Stadacona


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> Really?  In Esquimalt anyway, they scrambled to find people to put there as fast as they could after 9/11.  When I saw one guy on the gate, my first thought was, "who gave the band guns?"  Shortly after that I was on a C7 Refresher course with someone who hadn't the first clue which end was which on the rifle (somebody had to dismantle it for her) and who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (she failed to qualify).  She also seemed to be very nervous with the weapon, almost afraid of it.  I saw her on the gate two days later, weapon in hand.



Another reason why I think weapons proficiency and handling should carry as much weight on a PER as the PT test.


----------



## Tank Troll

:goodpost:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Commissionaires at CFB Borden impressed me.

Driving rain 9pm at night, quite cold and they were standing out in rain suits with a flashlight checking ID to get on the base.


----------



## jasonf6

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Another reason why I think weapons proficiency and handling should carry as much weight on a PER as the PT test.


 :goodpost:


----------



## PMedMoe

Yeah, because the PT test carries _so_ much weight on the PER.   :  You're better off being bilingual.

Did it ever occur to you that some people don't handle weapons all the time, or hardly ever?  We were lucky if we got to fire once a year, even in a Bde.  I'm not ashamed to admit, I suck with the 9mm.  I can count on (less than) both hands how many times I've fired it over 22 years and on less than one hand, how many times I've actually been tested on it.

Should she have been on the front gate with a loaded weapon?  No.  Should she be ridiculed for something that may have not been in her control?  No.

Esquimalt.  A Navy Base.  What trade was she?  I'm going to guess Clerk or Supply or something like that.

But I digress......


----------



## Halifax Tar

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yeah, because the PT test carries _so_ much weight on the PER.   :  You're better off being bilingual.



You cant be promoted if you dont pass a PT test. Linguistic ability is good but a lack of it wont hold you back.

The ability for all CF personel to employ, with safety, the service rifle is just as important as being able to run 10K. 

I come from a Navy base (originally) and I am a Sup Tech and I managed to qualify yearly on the C7 every year.


----------



## PMedMoe

Hey I agree with you.  I just saying that it doesn't always happen that way.


----------



## jasonf6

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> You cant be promoted if you dont pass a PT test. Linguistic ability is good but a lack of it wont hold you back.
> 
> The ability for all CF personel to employ, with safety, the service rifle is just as important as being able to run 10K.
> 
> I come from a Navy base (originally) and I am a Sup Tech and I managed to qualify yearly on the C7 every year.


Gotta agree with Halifax on this one PMedMoe.  Regardless of trade you should be required to pass the PWT every year.  It's not really her failing as much as it is the systems.  And in today's military I'd be sad if every person didn't at least hit the ranges 2-3 times per year.


----------



## PMedMoe

jasonf6 said:
			
		

> It's not really her failing as much as it is the systems.



That's exactly my point.



			
				jasonf6 said:
			
		

> And in today's military I'd be sad if every person didn't at least hit the ranges 2-3 times per year.



Well, you'd be sad then.  Some people just don't get that luxury.


----------



## Tank Troll

jasonf6 said:
			
		

> And in today's military I'd be sad if every person didn't at least hit the ranges 2-3 times per year.



 :rofl:

We are lucky,*lucky* to hit the range once year. let alone 2-3. 

How ever there is no excuse for not having time for weapons handling.


----------



## krustyrl

I'm Air Force and it's been almost 4 yrs since I last C7 qualified and even when I did that I was one of tw0 who 's last range qual was ....ahem ....FNC1A1.!  C7 qual was driven only due to the fact I was on WASF.

YUP.!!


 :jet:


----------



## startbutton

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Commissionaires at CFB Borden impressed me.
> 
> Driving rain 9pm at night, quite cold and they were standing out in rain suits with a flashlight checking ID to get on the base.



Not anymore. They only check on commerical vehicles entering the base and civi vehs from 2300 to 0600. They haven't been doing it for awhile and I think word got out to the locals because it seems traffic has been growing on the base


----------



## PMedMoe

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> How ever there is no excuse for not having time for weapons handling.



How about lack of weapons?  Like krustyrl, I remember the FNC1.  I was on an air force base when I first joined the CF and I only qualified on weapons once in my three year posting there.  And only because I was on the Base Defence Force.


----------



## jollyjacktar

It all depends upon which unit you are with as well.  I was posted to FMFCS for a time.  They don't require it due to the nature of their work and it's being a non-operational unit to keep your qualifications current.  Once I returned to the fleet, I re-qualified.  Simple as that.


----------



## aesop081

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> How ever there is no excuse for not having time for weapons handling.



There may be "no excuse", as you say, but i can think of several "reasons".


----------



## Maxadia

An "excuse" may very well be a good "reason", especially if you, yourself, are not aware of all the factors involved.


----------



## mariomike

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I think most only make 27k a year. You won't get much for that.



Out of curiosity, I compared a couple of job calls online. Their pay does not seem competitive with corporate security.


----------



## Kokanee

IMHO the CF needs to cut the commissionaires loose. They provide only the illusion of security, are not accountable in any way to the military CoC where they work, and are an expense we can't afford ATM with the austerity measures we need to conform to WRT budget concerns.

I wouldn't mind pulling a duty @ the front desk of my Unit every two months or so if it meant we could toss them out, heck for once Unit security SOPs and positive control of access to bldgs/restricted areas might actually be enforced.


----------



## Nemo888

But the Commissionaires provide work to Vets who often do not have other options. Many soldiers leave the Army too beat up to do most jobs. Bad knees, shoulders, PTSD, etc. We should look after our own.


----------



## aesop081

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> But the Commissionaires provide work to Vets who often do not have other options. Many soldiers leave the Army too beat up to do most jobs. Bad knees, shoulders, PTSD, etc. We should look after our own.



That doesn't mean that the Commissionaires should be employed guarding the gate at CF installations. If you are "too beat up to do most jobs", you are too beat up to secure military installations.


----------



## garb811

Kokanee said:
			
		

> ...are an expense we can't afford ATM with the austerity measures we need to conform to WRT budget concerns.


The reason there are so many Cmre is because they *are* the cheapest option out of any available.  There's a reason that when budgets needed to be cut at certain bases who had Reservists manning gates in conjunction with the Cmre that the Cmre stayed and the Reservists went home.



> I wouldn't mind pulling a duty @ the front desk of my Unit every two months or so if it meant we could toss them out, heck for once Unit security SOPs and positive control of access to bldgs/restricted areas might actually be enforced.


That might be easy for you to say if you only have 1 x Cmre post at your Duty Centre but the picture isn't as simple as that for everyone.  How do you propose to man all of the positions at a place such as Halifax?  If I recall correctly, there are well over 150 Cmre working posts in that location, most of which do not belong to a "unit" but which support MARLANT and it's lodger units as a whole (ie. gates to the Dockyard).  Where do those positions come from?  I'm sure the Fleet, which is already short sailors, would be more than happy to be told they need to pony up personnel to fill those positions.  How much more effective do you think a Bos'n is going to be while escorting a builidng repair contractor into the Dockyard than a Cmre when he has absolutely no vested interest in the task and is simply filling it because he got "shafted" to do it at 1530 hrs on a Friday of a long weekend?


----------



## Stoker

garb811 said:
			
		

> The reason there are so many Cmre is because they *are* the cheapest option out of any available.  There's a reason that when budgets needed to be cut at certain bases who had Reservists manning gates in conjunction with the Cmre that the Cmre stayed and the Reservists went home.
> That might be easy for you to say if you only have 1 x Cmre post at your Duty Centre but the picture isn't as simple as that for everyone.  How do you propose to man all of the positions at a place such as Halifax?  If I recall correctly, there are well over 150 Cmre working posts in that location, most of which do not belong to a "unit" but which support MARLANT and it's lodger units as a whole (ie. gates to the Dockyard).  Where do those positions come from?  I'm sure the Fleet, which is already short sailors, would be more than happy to be told they need to pony up personnel to fill those positions.  How much more effective do you think a Bos'n is going to be while escorting a builidng repair contractor into the Dockyard than a Cmre when he has absolutely no vested interest in the task and is simply filling it because he got "shafted" to do it at 1530 hrs on a Friday of a long weekend?



The reservists who were manning the gates were being paid class C because they were armed and was cut back because it was too expensive. The problem is with who the commissionaires hire and who they employ guarding our military bases. Apparently anyone with a heartbeat is hired and they are suppose to be our first line of defence at our bases. I don't know how many times 5 in the morning going through the gate at Shearwater seeing our first line of defense fast asleep in the guard shack.
If we have to employ them fine, however not at the frigging gates and not because they are cheap.


----------



## garb811

Chief:

Not an argument from my point of view and I, and my bosses, keep making the argument to put dedicated FP pers into the critical roles such as manning ACPs, but we are security advisers only, it is up to the Base Comd to implement or ignore that advice.  BASF/WASF/FASF or rotating duty NCOs is/are not the solution as nobody is willing to dedicate the time to allow their "critical" personnel to meet the training requirements to fill the requirement any better than the Cmre currently do.  Infanteer, I and a few others discussed some options here:  MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles but all of those cost much more than the current solution of relying on the contracted personnel from the Corps.  

As posted earlier, we (the CF and Gov't as a whole) have no option as to who we turn to first for these types of roles, it is enshrined at the National level for "security" tasks, until that changes, and it won't in the short to mid-term due to the recently publicly reinforced perception that the Corps is a dignified and viable solution to the employment needs of ex-CF members (Commissionaires and DND Join Forces to Support Injured Veterans).  You can bet that any move by the Gov't to strip the Corps of its favoured status would be met with a well coordinated publicity campaign highlighting yet another move by the Gov't to abandon the veterans.  Accordingly, the only solution to the problems presented by the Corps' personnel is to find the internal resources to fill the task and time after time, the decision makers vote with their budget and "accept the risk" as opposed to doing what is right.

Point to note:  If you go by the Guardshack at 5am and the Cmre is sleeping, don't just shrug and do a FIDO; file a complaint via the MP so that action can be taken to replace the individual, I have it done all the time.  Not saying that the incoming person is going to be much better, but the message will hopefully get out that sleeping is going to cost them their $10.50 an hour.


----------



## Stoker

garb811 said:
			
		

> Chief:
> 
> Not an argument from my point of view and I, and my bosses, keep making the argument to put dedicated FP pers into the critical roles such as manning ACPs, but we are security advisers only, it is up to the Base Comd to implement or ignore that advice.  BASF/WASF/FASF or rotating duty NCOs is/are not the solution as nobody is willing to dedicate the time to allow their "critical" personnel to meet the training requirements to fill the requirement any better than the Cmre currently do.  Infanteer, I and a few others discussed some options here:  MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles but all of those cost much more than the current solution of relying on the contracted personnel from the Corps.
> 
> As posted earlier, we (the CF and Gov't as a whole) have no option as to who we turn to first for these types of roles, it is enshrined at the National level for "security" tasks, until that changes, and it won't in the short to mid-term due to the recently publicly reinforced perception that the Corps is a dignified and viable solution to the employment needs of ex-CF members (Commissionaires and DND Join Forces to Support Injured Veterans).  You can bet that any move by the Gov't to strip the Corps of its favoured status would be met with a well coordinated publicity campaign highlighting yet another move by the Gov't to abandon the veterans.  Accordingly, the only solution to the problems presented by the Corps' personnel is to find the internal resources to fill the task and time after time, the decision makers vote with their budget and "accept the risk" as opposed to doing what is right.
> 
> Point to note:  If you go by the Guardshack at 5am and the Cmre is sleeping, don't just shrug and do a FIDO; file a complaint via the MP so that action can be taken to replace the individual, I have it done all the time.  Not saying that the incoming person is going to be much better, but the message will hopefully get out that sleeping is going to cost them their $10.50 an hour.



I have complained but never followed it up unfortunately. In the future I will be contacting the MP's in that regards. 
I'm not advocating abandoning the veterans, however it seems to me that the corp of commissionaires as mentioned in this thread use this enshrined status to their advantage even if it means sacrificing security at our bases. I would like to see them taken to task and be more accountable especially in placing infirm personnel not up to the task in sensitive positions.
I hope to hell nothing occurs that a 60 year old commissionaire with bad legs has to handle. Lets hope the response time of the MP's is good that day.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Linguistic ability is good but a lack of it wont hold you back.


It will at army.ca   



I think we need to stop considering commissionaires as some of defense against anything. Or anyone who isn'r armed for that matter.  Most bases's I've seen have zero security. You could drive a big ol van pretty much anywhere you want on base and park it next to some expensive equipment or lots of people -if you know what I mean.
On the flip side of the coin, Petawawa for example, would riot if the CF started stopping everyone at the 2 gates in and out to check ID. Getting on and off base at peak time is insane enough already. 
Heightened security means longer wait times, more frustrations, longer commutes.


Commissionaires seem to have some training issues.  I showed up at my armory on a holiday in civies to check email. The guy let me in and opened up the company office for me. I (politely) suggested he check my military id, write my info down and check to see if I was on the list of people authorized keys.
He was pretty thankful, he told me he had zero 'hand over' or info passed on and when he started to ask questions he said he was told not to worry about it, it's a holiday and people probably wouldn't show up.  Not exaggerating.

As for weapons training.
Commissionaires should not teach it, period.
All soldiers should be highly trained and skilled, but that doesn't always happen.
On our FTX before deploying a navy clerk asked me how to use the C7 during a patrol with blank ammo, enemy force in the village we were approaching. 
She hadn't touched a C7 in 7 years.
My platoon left the wire every day overseas, half of us didn't have zeroed weapons for the first 2 months.


----------



## aesop081

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Heightened security means longer wait times, more frustrations, longer commutes.



No it does not. I have been to many US bases in the last decade and have never waited long to get in, despite armed guards, 100% ID checks and random vehicle searches.

The trouble with places like Petawawa is the design of the gates themselves. Properly built, you could have 100% checks and not delay anyone.


----------



## garb811

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No it does not. I have been to many US bases in the last decade and have never waited long to get in, despite armed guards, 100% ID checks and random vehicle searches.
> 
> The trouble with places like Petawawa every base in Canada is the design of the gates themselves. Properly built, you could have 100% checks and not delay anyone.


Fixed that for ya.


----------



## Jarnhamar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No it does not. I have been to many US bases in the last decade and have never waited long to get in, despite armed guards, 100% ID checks and random vehicle searches.
> 
> The trouble with places like Petawawa is the design of the gates themselves. Properly built, you could have 100% checks and not delay anyone.



Exactly my friend.  It works in the states, they've been doing it what the last 10 years?  How much money did they throw at that problem.

Implementing that in Canada would be a mess. Manpower, budget, things rebuilt (new range control building...),  politics. The CF takes a very long time for anything to be done. We would need to send out requests to make bids, there would be arguments over which company got picked and favoritism.  People would protest that we are becoming "too american" with the silly notion of guarding our military bases.
Sadly it'll take a terrorist attack with some loss of life before anyone takes a serious look at security.


----------



## aesop081

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> How much money did they throw at that problem.



Very little i expect.


----------



## Kokanee

There seems to be a systemic problem in the Army with trusting soldiers with live ammo when tasked with base defence/checkpoints in garrison..... ie:

I asked about throwing my hat in the ring for BASF training, but when I read their SOP's and talked to some of the fellows on it during an event they were activated for, I decided against it. The security situation was deemed to be elevated enough to deploy the BASF with weapons and magazines, but not ammo. At that point I realised it was a giant waste of time and didn't bother following up on it. 

After reading this thread though it seems the Navy has no qualms about giving pers (some with questionable quals?) live ammo to defend ports etc.  Not a knock on the Navy, just pointing out the difference.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I agree. In the US, a lot of the navy and coast guard bases have uniformed armed security forces that handle gate duties.
> Then again, this is Canada.



On the west coast it flip flops back and forth with people complaining about how lax the commissionaires are to how strict they are and make people late for appointments, etc. Either way it seems like there's no winning solution.


----------



## jasonf6

Kokanee said:
			
		

> The security situation was deemed to be elevated enough to deploy the BASF with weapons and magazines, but not ammo. At that point I realised it was a giant waste of time and didn't bother following up on it.



I never understood this either.  They expect ALL trades to be able to dig a trench, fire a weapon accurately and all that jazz covered by the Universality of Service yet they don't give out live ammo for BASF.  I understand the safety thing but if you're expected to deploy and carry weapons you should be relied on to use them in a safe manner.  If you can't carry a weapon and not shoot yourself in the foot then you shouldn't be in the military at all.  It may sound harsh but it's the MILITARY, not boy/girl scouts.  It's an armed force.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Magazines without ammo for base security  ;D


----------



## Nemo888

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Exactly my friend.  It works in the states, they've been doing it what the last 10 years?  How much money did they throw at that problem.



Aren't they broke now after borrowing a few trillion to pay a bloated military budget for the last ten years?  Better gate guards for the place filled with guns and tough as nails soldiers who would love to shoot a tango may not be money well spent in most civvies minds.  I'd much rather have a quick access plan to loaded ready to go firearms if security became a problem. I can shoot them myself for what I'm being paid now  >


----------



## Jarnhamar

Most civilians who worked in high rise buildings probably didn't care much about homeland security and metal detectors at airports back in August 2001 either


----------



## Tank Troll

We could could go back to the Germany solution and have Armed Dependants guarding the gates.


----------



## mariomike

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Apparently anyone with a heartbeat is hired and they are suppose to be our first line of defence at our bases.



For comparison, 

Commissionaires:
http://www.commissionaires.ca/national/en/careers-available-positions/en-80339-security-patrol/
( Pay rates and job calls vary. )

A corporate security job call ( for an entry level position ):
http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/hr/jobs.nsf/b95d1630385b57cd8525668200523188/c0befdf408af29b8852573e20058b683?OpenDocument
( The pay rate is from 23 March, 2009. Although non-union, as city employees I would guess they have received a similar pay raise since then. )

Not to say one service provides better security than the other. But, there looks to be a significant difference in responsibilities, qualifications and pay between the two.


----------



## garb811

You're comparing apples and oranges.  Commissionaires =/= municipal/provincial or federal civil service security positions.

A better comparison is with a private security company in the same geographic locations:



> Job Number: 6134295
> 
> Title: Security guard (NOC: 6651)
> 
> Terms of Employment: Permanent, Part Time leading Full Time, Day
> 
> Salary: $12.00 to $14.50 Hourly for 40 hours per week
> 
> Anticipated Start Date: As soon as possible
> 
> Location: South Surrey, British Columbia (1 vacancy)
> Skill Requirements:
> 
> Education: Not applicable, Not required
> 
> Credentials (certificates, licences, memberships, courses, etc.): Security Guard basic (pre-assignment ) training program certificate, Security Guard Licence, Provincial/territorial security officer certificate
> 
> Experience: Will train
> 
> Languages: Speak English, Read English, Write English
> 
> Work Setting: Private security agency, Factory or plant
> 
> Type of Assignments: Foot patrol, Patrol post, Roving patrol
> 
> Specific Skills: Enforce regulations of establishments, Maintain order, Use telecommunications (i.e. two-way radio, cell phone, pager), Follow radio and emergency telephone procedures, Monitor security television, Ensure safety and emergency procedures are followed, Control vehicular and pedestrian traffic, Respond to alarms, bomb threats and other emergencies, Detect or prevent thefts and vandalism, Write reports
> 
> Security and Safety: Bondable, Basic security clearance, Criminal record check, Credit check
> 
> Work Conditions and Physical Capabilities: Attention to detail, Combination of sitting, standing, walking, Walking
> 
> Work Site Environment: Noisy
> 
> Transportation/Travel Information: Own transportation
> 
> Essential Skills: Reading text, Document use, Numeracy, Writing, Oral communication, Working with others, Problem solving, Decision making, Critical thinking, Job task planning and organizing, Significant use of memory, Finding information, Computer use, Continuous learning
> 
> Employer: Investigation Services Ltd.
> How to Apply:
> 
> Please apply for this job only in the manner specified by the employer. Failure to do so may result in your application not being properly considered for the position.
> 
> Contact Name: Deo Raj
> By E-mail: deo.raj@investigation-services.ca
> 
> Advertised until: 2011/11/29
> 
> This job advertisement has been provided by an external employer. Service Canada is not responsible for the accuracy, authenticity or reliability of the content.


----------



## zClassified

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I agree. In the US, a lot of the navy and coast guard bases have uniformed armed security forces that handle gate duties. I personally think Canadian bases should have something more than the commissionaires.



I work for commissionaires on base petawawa. I am a college educated person with a security management diploma and police foundations as well. So with that in mind commissionaires does not hire any bum off the street they hire most CF vets (65% hired are from the CF). it is unfortunate that everyone here either A has had a bad experience with a Comissionaire or B wants some other form of security protection. IMO some of the people on the forum who are in the CF may work for them at some point in their life (you never know). It is nearly impossible for myself to get a fulltime job on the base as a commissionaire and i am a educated person in this field... 

Also do you really think the canadian government can afford a higher  security force to man a gate? Why do you think they hire commissionaires...to save money and to hire ex CF memebers.  :nod:


----------



## brihard

zClassified said:
			
		

> I work for commissionaires on base petawawa. I am a college educated person with a security management diploma and police foundations as well. So with that in mind commissionaires does not hire any bum off the street they hire most CF vets (65% hired are from the CF). it is unfortunate that everyone here either A has had a bad experience with a Comissionaire or B wants some other form of security protection. IMO some of the people on the forum who are in the CF may work for them at some point in their life (you never know). It is nearly impossible for myself to get a fulltime job on the base as a commissionaire and i am a educated person in this field...
> 
> Also do you really think the canadian government can afford a higher  security force to man a gate? Why do you think they hire commissionaires...to save money and to hire ex CF memebers.  :nod:



You're mistaking a tight job market for the organization being particularly special. If you're in Pet and not in the CF, there's not a massive labour market by any means. Commissionaire's pay is a bit better than pulling retail or something, but not by much.

I was recruited into the Commissionaires through to the point of completing training, and fortunately was offered full time work at my unit before my security guard license showed up in the mail, obviating the need to work with them. I went through training in Ottawa. I'd say a quarter to a third of us were current/ex CF. Many were most definitely just joe schmoe off the street. A couple had no business being there, and a few were 'upgrading' from crappier rent-a-cop jobs. 

I would contend that we can't afford *not* to pay for real gate security. An organization that has an explicit policy of not using force doesn't cut it. Sure, there are places where Commissionaires make sense (e.g., a building reception desk inside an actual security perimeter), but not as the actual permanently manned and staff perimeter security. The fact that anyone can just drive on to Pet, Gagetown, or what have you is appalling. Take thirty seconds and 'red team' this one and you'll get what I mean.


----------



## aesop081

zClassified said:
			
		

> I work for commissionaires on base petawawa. I am a college educated person with a security management diploma and police foundations as well.



And when you get tasked to monitor the gate with more than a pencil, clipboard and funny look, i might be impressed. When your job doesn't stop at checking ID at the entrance of restricted areas...........let me know.

You want to see what real base security looks like, go visit a USN base.

Nothing personal, you're a smart and educated guy, i get it.


----------



## Tank Troll

This is all true how ever the sad part is a few years ago (10 actually) a Sgt in Wainwright was particularly distraught and took a 9mm service revolver from work and started shooting up the MP shack on base. The MPS just huddled in the building hidden in their offices and such, the Commissionaire crawled over under fire and locked the door so the Sgt couldn't get in.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

jasonf6 said:
			
		

> I never understood this either.  They expect ALL trades to be able to dig a trench, fire a weapon accurately and all that jazz covered by the Universality of Service yet they don't give out live ammo for BASF.  I understand the safety thing but if you're expected to deploy and carry weapons you should be relied on to use them in a safe manner.  If you can't carry a weapon and not shoot yourself in the foot then you shouldn't be in the military at all.  It may sound harsh but it's the MILITARY, not boy/girl scouts.  It's an armed force.


    <------ THIS!

I have been in Jamaica for the past 4 months and if you know anything about Jamaica you will know they have a serious crime and drug problem with some pretty powerful criminal organizations to boot..... guess who guards all the bases?  The Soldiers! Oh and are they all carrying weapons?  You bet they are!  Do they have Ammo?  Of course!  I don't see the issue with this, especially on bases such as Petawawa, Gagetown, Val Cartier, Edmonton etc... these are operational bases after all and I don't believe any old tom, dick or harry should be able to waltz on without some sort of purpose.  I know everyone is concerned about terrorism; however, that is not even my biggest concern I would be more concerned with general theft or potentially something like this happening....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TIun536HFo

Or we could even think of some more sinister things happening.  Sweden had a big problem in the 90's as they had large quantities of weapons and ammunition that were unguarded in depots in the countryside.  Guess who broke into them?  Organized criminal groups and next thing you know the Hells Angels etc... were carrying out assassinations with anti-tank weapons, military grade sniper-rifles, grenades, assault rifles etc...  with the lack of security in some of our reserve units and bases its not hard to imagine with some professional help and a little bit of willpower a scenario like this playing out.

It would be fairly easy to do.  Just CFTPO people all the time have a 6 month tasking to act as security detail for the base, put them through a training course initially and voila your already infinitely better off then the present situation.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Stymiest said:
			
		

> Or we could even think of some more sinister things happening.  Sweden had a big problem in the 90's as they had large quantities of weapons and ammunition that were unguarded in depots in the countryside.  Guess who broke into them?  Organized criminal groups and next thing you know the Hells Angels etc... were carrying out assassinations with anti-tank weapons, military grade sniper-rifles, grenades, assault rifles etc...  with the lack of security in some of our reserve units and bases its not hard to imagine with some professional help and a little bit of willpower a scenario like this playing out.



It has happened in Canada with military weapons ending up in criminal hands. In '74, a colleague was showing pictures of his brother (a Toronto police officer) and one was of confiscated weapons which included a couple of SMG's and a FN C2. The worst case was about 10-12 years ago when someone broke into some armory in Montreal; when the Commissionaire responded to the alarm he was murdered. If I remember correctly a couple dozen rifles were stolen and no has ever been charged with the crime.


----------



## zClassified

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And when you get tasked to monitor the gate with more than a pencil, clipboard and funny look, i might be impressed. When your job doesn't stop at checking ID at the entrance of restricted areas...........let me know.
> 
> You want to see what real base security looks like, go visit a USN base.
> 
> Nothing personal, you're a smart and educated guy, i get it.



I understand that your saying that a pencil and clipboard doesnt offer much protection, however you and I both know proper "armed proctection" is not in DND's budget. And to be honest who would be dumb enough to attack one of the largest canadian army bases? lol


----------



## Brasidas

zClassified said:
			
		

> I understand that your saying that a pencil and clipboard doesnt offer much protection, however you and I both know proper "armed proctection" is not in DND's budget. And to be honest who would be dumb enough to attack one of the largest canadian army bases? lol



In between MP shift changes?


----------



## aesop081

zClassified said:
			
		

> And to be honest who would be dumb enough to attack one of the largest canadian army bases? lol



That is exactly why it makes it a target, because of thinking like that. Who is stupid enough to attack a large base full of soldiers ? Someone who wants to kill alot of soldiers. Its not like thousands of soldiers walk around base armed with guns and ammunition at all times.

It's not just the big bases. Some of the bases with the most expensive or sensitive equipment are the smaller ones.


----------



## AmmoTech90

zClassified said:
			
		

> I understand that your saying that a pencil and clipboard doesnt offer much protection, however you and I both know proper "armed proctection" is not in DND's budget. And to be honest who would be dumb enough to attack one of the largest canadian army bases? lol



Really?  If as you say there is no "proper armed protection", then anyone who has decided the benefits of stealing X, Y, or Z outweighs the cost of getting caught would not be dumb.  If they have guns and the protection does not, then who wins?  If they have more guns than the protection, then who wins?

If you think that anyone who is interested in acquiring military kit via illegal means is dumb then you might be looking in the mirror.


----------



## brihard

zClassified said:
			
		

> I understand that your saying that a pencil and clipboard doesnt offer much protection, however you and I both know proper "armed proctection" is not in DND's budget. And to be honest who would be dumb enough to attack one of the largest canadian army bases? lol



Are you kidding?

Have you ever taken the two minutes necessary to 'red team' this? Anyone who didn't care about their own life - and we have ample enemies of that description - could easily pull a Ft. Hood or equivalent on any Canadian base. And that's just an individual- never mind if there were 5 or 6 of them.


----------



## aesop081

zClassified said:
			
		

> I understand that your saying that a pencil and clipboard doesnt offer much protection, however you and I both know proper "armed proctection" is not in DND's budget. And to be honest who would be dumb enough to attack one of the largest canadian army bases? lol



You might want to get your money back from wherever you got that security management training........... :


----------



## Stoker

zClassified said:
			
		

> I understand that your saying that a pencil and clipboard doesnt offer much protection, however you and I both know proper "armed proctection" is not in DND's budget. And to be honest who would be dumb enough to attack one of the largest canadian army bases? lol



So what are commissionaires making per hour anyways, isn't it based on the contract they have? The problem is that they have a monopoly on security jobs for the military and they'll hire anyone with a heartbeat military or non military.


----------



## brihard

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So what are commissionaires making per hour anyways, isn't it based on the contract they have? The problem is that they have a monopoly on security jobs for the military and they'll hire anyone with a heartbeat military or non military.



Commissionairess at a decent post pull in $13-$14 an hour. Marginally higher than your average rent-a-cop, but they're competing for the same labour supply (besides the retired vets- about a third of the team). Police foundations grads who can't get hired, and those who've moved up form rock bottom jobs with Iron Horse Security or what have you.


----------



## Stoker

In Halifax we have a commissionaire hired to carry out the duties of the quartermaster on a extended readiness ship, answer phones, make pipes etc. So they are branching out it seems.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

In Windsor, one of the jobs they do is Parking Enforcement for the city.


----------



## dogger1936

Brihard said:
			
		

> Are you kidding?
> 
> Have you ever taken the two minutes necessary to 'red team' this? Anyone who didn't care about their own life - and we have ample enemies of that description - could easily pull a Ft. Hood or equivalent on any Canadian base. And that's just an individual- never mind if there were 5 or 6 of them.



 :nod:

Let's not forget about this little incident a short while ago....seems the media went quiet on it.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2011/01/21/16986351.html


----------



## brihard

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Let's not forget about this little incident a short while ago....seems the media went quiet on it.
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2011/01/21/16986351.html



Nah, I remember that... Not what I had in mind though. I think it would not be prudent for me to elaborate further.


----------



## aesop081

Brihard said:
			
		

> Ft. Hood



Most populous US base anywhere in the world.

November 5th, 2009. He killed 13 and wounded 29 that day.

He wasn't stopped by commissionaires with clipboards.

No one is dumb enough to attack large military bases eh,  zClassified  ?


----------



## Nemo888

You know who would always screw around with his pass. Sometimes swiping on the outside of the gate in Startop, using a temp pass when he had his own ID. Russel Williams. Turn the screws on access control.  Don't take any bull because they have some bars.


----------



## zClassified

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Really?  If as you say there is no "proper armed protection", then anyone who has decided the benefits of stealing X, Y, or Z outweighs the cost of getting caught would not be dumb.  If they have guns and the protection does not, then who wins?  If they have more guns than the protection, then who wins?
> 
> If you think that anyone who is interested in acquiring military kit via illegal means is dumb then you might be looking in the mirror.



I think youre blowing what I stated out of proportion, I was saying that comparing to a guy with a clip board and pencil to maybe a mp arming the gate instead of a commissionaire. And a FYI the most common portion of theft is from internal employees. Hence the new policies on tool control passed long ago lol.


----------



## Nemo888

I remember a million years ago some bank robbers tried to steal a payroll from Rockliffe. They were surrounded and took hostages.The story goes from one of the participants that the Army Officer in charge said he would count to ten.

All the bank robbers and some of the patrons were shot. A real bloodbath. After they threw all the robbers guns into a pile and no one ever really figured out what happened. A bit much over some payroll. Soldiers are not well suited for policing tasks.


----------



## zClassified

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Most populous US base anywhere in the world.
> 
> November 5th, 2009. He killed 13 and wounded 29 that day.
> 
> He wasn't stopped by commissionaires with clipboards.
> 
> No one is dumb enough to attack large military bases eh,  zClassified  ?



I remember that as well, i believe he was a US soldier if I rememer correctly. By any means that was a hystorical statement, I am not slow in this field of work. You have to be prepared for any scenerio regardless if it is a miniscule chance of happening. If not, you're not doing your job correctly.


----------



## aesop081

zClassified said:
			
		

> I remember that as well, i believe he was a US soldier if I rememer correctly.



He was. He was stopped by armed DoD police ( Not military policemen).




> I am not slow in this field of work. You have to be prepared for any scenerio regardless if it is a miniscule chance of happening. If not, you're not doing your job correctly.



I don't care how prepared you *think* you are. Commissionaires are not adequate security.


----------



## brihard

zClassified said:
			
		

> I remember that as well, i believe he was a US soldier if I rememer correctly. By any means that was a hystorical statement, I am not slow in this field of work. You have to be prepared for any scenerio regardless if it is a miniscule chance of happening. If not, you're not doing your job correctly.



Cool story bro.

I'll be blunt. I am not comfortable as a Canadian soldier knowing that our bases are at best secured in the first line by you guys. You have no ability to defend against an armed threat, and one of our bases WILL get hit eventually. I've got no problem with commissionaires working as the desk dudes at access control and so on- you guys are just fine at that. But you are not 'security' in a sense that I would consider sufficient for a military installation. You are not armed, have not received appropriate tactical training, and not only are not capable of responding to a physical threat, but in fact have an explicit corporate policy against use of force- I did the commissionaire's course too.

I recognize that you are proud of your job, and good on you for that. But don't pretend to be what you're not.


----------



## zClassified

Pretty crazy, I cant remember correctly off the top of my head. It was either he had postpartum stress or had some sort of east indian decent to say it politically correct.


----------



## aesop081

zClassified said:
			
		

> Pretty crazy, I cant remember correctly off the top of my head. It was either he had postpartum stress or had some sort of east indian decent to say it politically correct.



Irrelevant.


----------



## zClassified

Brihard said:
			
		

> Cool story bro.
> 
> I'll be blunt. I am not comfortable as a Canadian soldier knowing that our bases are at best secured in the first line by you guys. You have no ability to defend against an armed threat, and one of our bases WILL get hit eventually. I've got no problem with commissionaires working as the desk dudes at access control and so on- you guys are just fine at that. But you are not 'security' in a sense that I would consider sufficient for a military installation. You are not armed, have not received appropriate tactical training, and not only are not capable of responding to a physical threat, but in fact have an explicit corporate policy against use of force- I did the commissionaire's course too.
> 
> I recognize that you are proud of your job, and good on you for that. But don't pretend to be what you're not.



I agree with you 100%, one day something will happen to a SQN or RCR (where ever the CMRE is posted) and the fingers will be pointed at some one. Any Tom Dick or Harry can drive on the base without questioning. The only time that you couldnt 9/11 occured. Which proves it takes a unfortunate situation to happen before some one says "hey maybe we should secure the base properly."


----------



## zClassified

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Irrelevant.



The guy went bananas either way.


----------



## aesop081

zClassified said:
			
		

> The guy went bananas either way.



It doesn't matter. It shows that yes, someone will target large military bases full of soldiers. 

If Ft. Hood did not have actual, armed, security, it would have been worse.


----------



## dogger1936

I personally enjoyed German base security. It was provided by Siemens with armed uniform guards at all gates. Total gate coverage around the base and roaming security with dogs. We had a few lads jump the fence on the way back from town. The dogs tracked them to the shacks. Luckly the guard and dog didn't see them coming over or it would have been worse.

Base security on many posts are hurting from more than unarmed guys. Regardless what the guy at the front gate is armed with...you can still just walk 10 feet to the right or left of the gate. I found it stupid in Petawawa at the front gate with no mag or bullets (but weapon) for 12 hr shifts when half the base you can walk and drive across anyway.

Infrastructure needs to be addressed prior to a few c-7's being added.


----------



## brihard

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Infrastructure needs to be addressed prior to a few c-7's being added.



I don't disagree that a long term solution requires infrastructure- but the quickest, most immediate 'target hardening' - the deterrent that will make the opportunist go for another target - will be the visible presence of weapons in the hands of those who clearly know how they're used. You can fix that in hours, whereas putting buildings up would take quite a considerable period of time.


----------



## dogger1936

Brihard said:
			
		

> I don't disagree that a long term solution requires infrastructure- but the quickest, most immediate 'target hardening' - the deterrent that will make the opportunist go for another target - will be the visible presence of weapons in the hands of those who clearly know how they're used. You can fix that in hours, whereas putting buildings up would take quite a considerable period of time.



We have base full of engineers; I'm certain a wire fence could be erected. No point of armed people who sit at the front gate while people walk across the south side with impunity. 

A fence would be a good start point. I.E Gagetown, Petawawa.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> We have base full of engineers; I'm certain a wire fence could be erected. No point of armed people who sit at the front gate while people walk across the south side with impunity.
> 
> A fence would be a good start point. I.E Gagetown, Petawawa.



Uppark Camp in Kingston, Jamaica is surrounded by a big fence with concertina wire on top.  As well, MPs patrol the perimeter as well as man all access points.  They will also stop and question people and check id's of people on base who look like they shouldn't be there.  It would be quite easy to erect a nice wire fence around the base and a task like this could be easily accomplished by engineers.  Nothing fancy is needed, just some simple razor wire.


----------



## Sythen

Stymiest said:
			
		

> Uppark Camp in Kingston, Jamaica is surrounded by a big fence with concertina wire on top.  As well, MPs patrol the perimeter as well as man all access points.  They will also stop and question people and check id's of people on base who look like they shouldn't be there.  It would be quite easy to erect a nice wire fence around the base and a task like this could be easily accomplished by engineers.  Nothing fancy is needed, just some simple razor wire.



You know how big Petawawa is, right? Unless they didn't bother fencing off the training area, and just built it around the "garrison" parts..


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Yes, I am kind of posted to Pet, I am talking about fencing off the garrisoned parts, realistically their is no way they could fence off the actual training area.


----------



## jeffb

The reality is that short of eliminating some access points onto the base in Pet, and less access is precisely what Pet doesn't need, securing the base would actually be quite tough. The base has become a blending of civilian and military over the years. Consider the side towards the river with the Golf Course, marina and campground. Running concertina wire across the top of the hill would ruin on the best views on a base in Canada (the Normandy Officers Mess). Wire is only a deterrent and security can only be provided with patrols and over watch. Without these things wire is defeated by a guy yanking back and forth until it gives way. Even if the securing of the Garrison in Pet was your only concern, the provision of 24 hour gate and roving picket security would require a far greater force then is realistically available. 

I think a more realistic security system would see MP's acting as a QRF to any incident and expanded surveillance. Random spot checks, not during rush hour of course, on the gate would help as well. 

Funnily enough, much of the training area has more fencing then the garrison. There is a fence running the entire length of Hwy 17 largely so people don't wander into the impact area and has very little to do with security.


----------



## Sythen

jeffb, definitely agree with you to some extent. I think it goes back to what guys were saying earlier about infrastructure. Expanding the main entry to 4 lanes would be a good start... At least as far as the turn off at McDonald's, as that's where a sizable amount of the traffic is... In my ~4 years in Pet, I never once saw someone in the little gate.. In the larger building on the side some old guy sleeping, but never in the hut checking ID..


----------



## jeffb

My personal pipe dream to fix the traffic situation in Pet would involve converting the old rail line into a single lane road that connects to Doran. Have it be one way onto the base from 0500 - 1200 and one way off the base from 1230 - 2000 that evening. The real bottleneck here in Pet has nothing to do with the access points and everything to do with crossing points over the River. 

Just a little off topic...


----------



## zClassified

Brihard said:
			
		

> Commissionairess at a decent post pull in $13-$14 an hour. Marginally higher than your average rent-a-cop, but they're competing for the same labour supply (besides the retired vets- about a third of the team). Police foundations grads who can't get hired, and those who've moved up form rock bottom jobs with Iron Horse Security or what have you.



It is more then that..


----------



## zClassified

I don't care how prepared you *think* you are. Commissionaires are not adequate security.
[/quote]

I meant security in general, but thanks.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

I will weigh in on this coversation with the following example:

From 2002-2007 I was posted to a small Royal Engineer base north of Cambridge, UK, which was home to an Engineer Regiment, a Brigade HQ, a TA Regional HQ, and a Specialist Team Royal Engineers. Despite this low amount of manpower, it still had, 24/7, a guard shift of 20-24 soldiers, commanded by a Cpl, supervised by a Provost Sergeant. 2 Soldiers were armed at all times, with 20rd mags, on the front gate, checking ID's and performing searches when required. The remainder either performed roving patrols, security checks on buildings, and 6 of them were Patrol Dog handlers performing roving patrols with their land sharks (patrol dogs are the ones you don't go and pet).

Why on earth this can't be done in Pet, which occupies maybe 50% more real estate than the camp I described, yet has about 200% more manpower, is beyond me. As others have stated it will take a Ft Hood/Beirut barracks type situation to enforce change.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Why on earth this can't be done in Pet, which occupies maybe 50% more real estate than the camp I described, yet has about 200% more manpower, is beyond me. As others have stated it will take a Ft Hood/Beirut barracks type situation to enforce change.



Man power would probably be an issue. Many units already have duty staff on 24/7.   Plus base duties.  On top of that there is a culture of 1001 medical, dental and other appointments going on.

Add to that units deploying a month here and a month there.
Base security would be a great tasking for a platoon or even companuy?) of  reservist soldiers on contract. Force protection.  A company might be too much but even a platoon would be able to really beef up security.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Man power would probably be an issue. Many units already have duty staff on 24/7.   Plus base duties.  On top of that there is a culture of 1001 medical, dental and other appointments going on.
> 
> Add to that units deploying a month here and a month there.
> Base security would be a great tasking for a platoon or even companuy?) of  reservist soldiers on contract. Force protection.  A company might be too much but even a platoon would be able to really beef up security.



True, but as stated, it was done on a base with c. 1500 soldiers total, and a far busier deployment schedule than Pet has. It can be rolling task, ie a sub-unit of 1 RCR has it one week, 3 RCR the next, 2 CER the following, or each unit stumps up say 5 cpl-ptes for a 2 week stint, plus 2 MCpl's, 2 Sgts from someone to provide some adult supervision for each shift (Day/Night shifts) and 2 ASG provides the requisite weapons. Or as you say a rolling task for a Pl of reservists augmented by regs (now THAT is turning the world upside down!_)

Anyways, there will be porcine flight before we see it, I'm just saying it's pretty sad that one of the biggest bases in Canada has no physical security in place 99% of the time, when the example I gave was of a much, much smaller establishment still able to guard itself in a credible manner.


----------



## Greymatters

Brihard said:
			
		

> Commissionairess at a decent post pull in $13-$14 an hour. Marginally higher than your average rent-a-cop, but they're competing for the same labour supply (besides the retired vets- about a third of the team). Police foundations grads who can't get hired, and those who've moved up form rock bottom jobs with Iron Horse Security or what have you.



Speaking from inside the private security industry, of the many security companies out there, the Commissionaires have a fairly good reputation, and are better than average.  But they are still static/mobile uniformed positions, which means they are regarded as almost the bottom of the totem pole in the security world.  They are cheap (aka competitive) to hire which means you get what you pay for, but the quality of guard is still better than most private security companies.  If they are sleeping, as one poster mentioned, it's not the standard seen across the country, and should be reported for corrective action.


----------



## brihard

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Speaking from inside the private security industry, of the many security companies out there, the Commissionaires have a fairly good reputation, and are better than average.  But they are still static/mobile uniformed positions, which means they are regarded as almost the bottom of the totem pole in the security world.  They are cheap (aka competitive) to hire which means you get what you pay for, but the quality of guard is still better than most private security companies.  If they are sleeping, as one poster mentioned, it's not the standard seen across the country, and should be reported for corrective action.



At the same time, one would no more hire rent-a-cops from Iron Horse, or Garda, or Capital Security and consider *that* to be effective base security either.


----------



## Greymatters

Brihard said:
			
		

> At the same time, one would no more hire rent-a-cops from Iron Horse, or Garda, or Capital Security and consider *that* to be effective base security either.



At the same time, what you or I might conceive as effective base security is not what the contracting authourity conceives as effective security; which is why they use Commissionaires instead of soldiers...

As a second point, do you really think reg or res force soldiers would do a better job?  CF soldiers are better individuals and more professional than your average security guard, and are great for security at bases outside of Canada, but the very skills needed for a good soldier would make most of them poor security guards for static positions at bases in Canada.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I will weigh in on this coversation with the following example:
> 
> From 2002-2007 I was posted to a small Royal Engineer base north of Cambridge, UK, which was home to an Engineer Regiment, a Brigade HQ, a TA Regional HQ, and a Specialist Team Royal Engineers. Despite this low amount of manpower, it still had, 24/7, a guard shift of 20-24 soldiers, commanded by a Cpl, supervised by a Provost Sergeant. 2 Soldiers were armed at all times, with 20rd mags, on the front gate, checking ID's and performing searches when required. The remainder either performed roving patrols, security checks on buildings, and 6 of them were Patrol Dog handlers performing roving patrols with their land sharks (patrol dogs are the ones you don't go and pet).
> 
> Why on earth this can't be done in Pet, which occupies maybe 50% more real estate than the camp I described, yet has about 200% more manpower, is beyond me. As others have stated it will take a Ft Hood/Beirut barracks type situation to enforce change.


It's the $$$$.  We had following 9/11, until recent cutbacks, force protection people on the gates in the Dkyd.  With the cut backs to the Reserves, something had to give and they were "gone".  It's a shame as they both provided more "teeth" to the gates and gave some decent employment to those who wanted to go this route.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> True, but as stated, it was done on a base with c. 1500 soldiers total, and a far busier deployment schedule than Pet has. It can be rolling task, ie a sub-unit of 1 RCR has it one week, 3 RCR the next, 2 CER the following, or each unit stumps up say 5 cpl-ptes for a 2 week stint, plus 2 MCpl's, 2 Sgts from someone to provide some adult supervision for each shift (Day/Night shifts) and 2 ASG provides the requisite weapons. Or as you say a rolling task for a Pl of reservists augmented by regs (now THAT is turning the world upside down!_)
> 
> Anyways, there will be porcine flight before we see it, I'm just saying it's pretty sad that one of the biggest bases in Canada has no physical security in place 99% of the time, when the example I gave was of a much, much smaller establishment still able to guard itself in a credible manner.



It is sad I agree.  And when something bad does happen there is going to be a lot of finger pointing.   I still stand by my belief that we would have a very hard time pulling it off due to the culture we have in the CF.  I doubt the Brits have the same problems we have surrounding fitness and the BFT dilemma. I'd imagine many of them would scratch their heads and say WTF? if they knew.

The subunits could possibly pull it off but with the number of people already on sick chits, appointments, physio...well it would be interesting to read more on how the Brits managed it that's for sure.

I think a 3 month class C or B contract for a platoon of reservists would be ideal. 
2009 had some reservists in pet spending the summer cleaning the portable washrooms for the (reserve) PLQ course running. Make the students clean the washrooms themselves at night and have the other guys doing base security even if it's augmenting range control.

Just realized I'm off topic.
I'd like to see commissionaires take over for regimental 24 hour duty but not base security.  We really need to take it  (base security) seriously even if troops suffer some lost xbox time.


----------



## dogger1936

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No kidding.  This culture can be seen in the attitudes displayed in The Chinese are coming! .  Posters there, many of them rather senior members of the site, serving and former members, have replied to my posts as if I had two heads.  It goes to demonstrate the complacency that the majority of Canadians, including CF members, have towards these issues.



What are you going to do to address the problem then?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> True, but as stated, it was done on a base with c. 1500 soldiers total, and a far busier deployment schedule than Pet has. It can be rolling task, ie a sub-unit of 1 RCR has it one week, 3 RCR the next, 2 CER the following, or each unit stumps up say 5 cpl-ptes for a 2 week stint, plus 2 MCpl's, 2 Sgts from someone to provide some adult supervision for each shift (Day/Night shifts) and 2 ASG provides the requisite weapons. Or as you say a rolling task for a Pl of reservists augmented by regs (now THAT is turning the world upside down!_)
> 
> Anyways, there will be porcine flight before we see it, I'm just saying it's pretty sad that one of the biggest bases in Canada has no physical security in place 99% of the time, when the example I gave was of a much, much smaller establishment still able to guard itself in a credible manner.



I mentioned this exact solution in an earlier post and everyone seemed to just blow it off.  I saw the exact same sort of security at a military camp in Jamaica and I have no idea why this does not happen at our bases or why nobody trusts soldiers to provide security for their own house.  We already have unit DO's and Duty Staff, why not task a platoon to provide security at the garrison on a weekly rotation.

I have proposed this to some of my colleagues and their attitudes are generally less than receptive with common grips being family care plans, appointments and every other excuse under the sun.


----------



## aesop081

Stymiest said:
			
		

> I have proposed this to some of my colleagues and their attitudes are generally less than receptive with common grips being family care plans, appointments and every other excuse under the sun.



They could learn a few things from units that run on shift-work, 24/7/365.


----------



## fraserdw

Stymiest said:
			
		

> I mentioned this exact solution in an earlier post and everyone seemed to just blow it off.  I saw the exact same sort of security at a military camp in Jamaica and I have no idea why this does not happen at our bases or why nobody trusts soldiers to provide security for their own house.  We already have unit DO's and Duty Staff, why not task a platoon to provide security at the garrison on a weekly rotation.
> 
> I have proposed this to some of my colleagues and their attitudes are generally less than receptive with common grips being family care plans, appointments and every other excuse under the sun.



A platoon is a bit much a rifle section with a proper ROE commanded by the Duty Sgt with Ammunition under the key of the DO.  They would man all the control points on 8 hour shifts of 2 men.  That leaves a quick reaction force 3 men.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Or....

...and this just occured to me as I read replies to my post:

- At other bases in the UK, generally the bigger ones or training establishments with large transient populations, there was what was called the Military Provost Guard Service, which were in the same vein as Commissionaires yet wore DPM uniforms with distinctive headress and cap badges, and were armed when necessary. It only hired former soldiers with 3+ years of service and a good conduct sheet, and were essentially a 4th branch/service of the  Ministry of Defence (a sort of hybrid between MOD Police and serving soldiers). Their terms of service were like that of a serving soldier yet without the liability to serve overseas, and from what I remember they fulfilled the role well. They also had to undertake a variation of the brit IBTS, ie ROE's, wpn handling, PWT's, NBC, but no fitness test or anything else that serving soldiers had to do annually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Provost_Guard_Service

Perhaps this could be an answer, in particular when you consider it an option for those who still wish to serve yet wish to remain in the local area, or for those who want to get out but are struggling to line up civvy employment, or those undergoing CT/OT's, or even those looking at med discharges (provided they are physically and medically able to). 


That being said a quick glance at the wikipedia suggests it may be for the chopping block due to cutbacks. Again, I will see pigs fly before I see something like this here, I guess I'm just brainstorming. But it would be nice to see some sort of thought put towards our own physical security at home.


----------



## fraserdw

Nah, someone in Ottawa would take the position numbers and establish another much needed HQ to coord some much needed coord'ing. :sarcasm:


----------



## wildman0101

I was a Commisioner.  
good bunch of lad's
Are we getting off track here.


----------



## aesop081

wildman0101 said:
			
		

> Are we getting off track here.



No.


----------



## fraserdw

No, we are discussing whether to replace commissionaires with soldiers or super ninja commissionaires  a la UK.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

fraserdw said:
			
		

> A platoon is a bit much a rifle section with a proper ROE commanded by the Duty Sgt with Ammunition under the key of the DO.  They would man all the control points on 8 hour shifts of 2 men.  That leaves a quick reaction force 3 men.



Yes but you could give the task to a pl and then the Pl Comd could task the 2IC to come up with a shift schedule.  If it was a week long task that would mean each sect would get 8 hours on 16 hours off.  This would allow for so-called pers admin to be conducted, as well as facilitate for a family care plan.  A Pl from each unit would be tasked as security for one week at a time on a rotational basis.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Nah, someone in Ottawa would take the position numbers and establish another much needed HQ to coord some much needed coord'ing. :sarcasm:



Dear me you're right, just the justification they would need to resurrect Canada Command.

Common sense says that apart from a different capbadge/beret and TOS, they are administered, commanded and managed by the Base comd which they guard. There is no career manager since there are no postings, promotions are down to seniority/time served or previous CF qualifications.


----------



## Jarnhamar

For security at static positions like standing around a front gate I think commissionaires would take the  job much more seriously than Cpl so and so who's unlucky enough to get picked or doing an extra.  Non broken soldiers are needed for training.

For the tactical side of base security ie taking a quad and checking the perimeter or something soldiers would be better.

Checking ID at the front gate of, say, Petawawa is great security but would be like kicking a wasp nest in terms of pissing everyone off considering how long it takes to get into and out of work at peek times, at the best of times.
Heard that they are  shutting the front gate down while bridge repairs are being done and only opening it 3 times a day  :


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Stymiest said:
			
		

> Yes but you could give the task to a pl and then the Pl Comd could task the 2IC to come up with a shift schedule.  If it was a week long task that would mean each sect would get 8 hours on 16 hours off.  This would allow for so-called pers admin to be conducted, as well as facilitate for a family care plan.  A Pl from each unit would be tasked as security for one week at a time on a rotational basis.



That is basically how we did it at the base in my first example. 

We had 3 field squadrons in the regiment. Each squadron tasked a Cpl (Gd Comd), LCpl (Gd 2IC), +8 sappers for the detail, then they worked a 3 week schedule of a week of 8 hour days, a week of 14 hour nights, and then a week off.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

It happens at at least 3 bases that I can think of (generally by commissionaires now) Esquimalt and Halifax had rifleman at the gates and Winnipeg still checks ID at the gate


----------



## wildman0101

I was a comissionare. so are you saying after our release from the military we becone brain dead.
My Sec/C was secret. My specialization": intelligence- Combat intel Op. Intel/you dont need to know.
So tell me why an X-military cant handle the job assinged. When he was trained to do so...???


----------



## George Wallace

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> For security at static positions like standing around a front gate I think commissionaires would take the  job much more seriously than Cpl so and so who's unlucky enough to get picked or doing an extra.  Non broken soldiers are needed for training.
> 
> For the tactical side of base security ie taking a quad and checking the perimeter or something soldiers would be better.
> 
> Checking ID at the front gate of, say, Petawawa is great security but would be like kicking a wasp nest in terms of pissing everyone off considering how long it takes to get into and out of work at peek times, at the best of times.
> Heard that they are  shutting the front gate down while bridge repairs are being done and only opening it 3 times a day  :



American military bases with troop populations that total the whole of the CF and more, have no problems with these measures.   I don't hear of them having any large delays in personnel accessing their bases for work.  

The modern Cpl you just described would be shocked to know that Cpls and Ptes once did these duties, and did check IDs at the gate.  

On another note, if we look at the Americans, they have MP Bns, where we have only MP Platoons.  Would Base Security not be more in line with a beefed up MP ......let's say Coy, to cover such duties.  That would then no longer necessitate Bde and Lodger units providing duty staff.


----------



## fraserdw

When I was in 2 VP, in the 80s, we had a duty rifle company, one week each.  We did fun jobs during the day (toast in the WO and officers messes, pots in the kitchen) and fire picket at night rotating through platoons and sections.  Everyone joined the fun including the living outs.  The officers did DO, the Sgt D Sgt and MCpls duty Cpl.  The OC was the Duty Field Grade Officer (which consisted of going home at 1630 every day and little else).  Fire picket consisted of touring the whole of Kapyoung Barracks, we could have easily be armed or used as security.  It was good fun lots of male bonding!  We have forgotten how to stand duty in the army, there used to be duties for everyone!  We had 1 commissionare for the whole base and he stayed at the main gate.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> That is basically how we did it at the base in my first example.
> 
> We had 3 field squadrons in the regiment. Each squadron tasked a Cpl (Gd Comd), LCpl (Gd 2IC), +8 sappers for the detail, then they worked a 3 week schedule of a week of 8 hour days, a week of 14 hour nights, and then a week off.



This was the case in Jamaica as well.  In Up Park Camp they had a coy of MP's to provide security; however, in Moneague it was the resident Bn that provided the security.  They always had a sect on duty providing roving patrols, as well as static gate security.  Not only that, they managed to do this at times while having one coy tasked with counter narcotics operations and another coy on QRF for the Bn conducting Internal Security Ops in Kingston.


----------



## aesop081

wildman0101 said:
			
		

> so are you saying after our release from the military we becone brain dead.



Nope, that is not what people said.



> My Sec/C was secret.



Is that all ? What do you do with a clearance like that, read the newspaper ?

Your security clear has jack***t to do with the subject.



> Intel/you dont need to know.



I'm not convinced you know.



> So tell me why an X-military cant handle the job assinged. When he was trained to do so...???



They can handle the job assigned. The job assigned is inadequate and they are not trained to do the job that is needed.


----------



## dogger1936

Stymiest said:
			
		

> This was the case in Jamaica as well.  In Up Park Camp they had a coy of MP's to provide security; however, in Moneague it was the resident Bn that provided the security.  They always had a sect on duty providing roving patrols, as well as static gate security.  Not only that, they managed to do this at times while having one coy tasked with counter narcotics operations and another coy on QRF for the Bn conducting Internal Security Ops in Kingston.



Don't we have a MP Coy in Petawawa who are not doing beat cop around base? Wouldn't that be a perfect policing task for these folk?


----------



## brihard

"Target hardening", and "crime prevention through environmental design".

Some whackjob who wants to waste a bunch of people he sees as representative of his ideological enemy will go for the best balance of feasibility, versus impact. If a base is wide open, he just might drive a panel van with a few hundred pounds of ANFO into a deployment departure ceremony, or a brigade change of command parade. If the base is not wide open, he may elect to hit something else- a government building, a police station, whatever.

Are skilled, motivated combat soldiers best employed as gate security of CFB Petawawa? Perhaps not. Perhaps they'll be bored. Perhaps they'll get complacent. But that's a leadership issue, and I have full faith in general in our sub unit leadership. I'm confident that the job of base security could be effectively done. I would contend that we should also be looking to the navy for some input on this, as armed security is, so far as I understand, something that they conduct, and they take seriously. Anecdotally I was speaking to some folks this week with some experience in Halifax, and apparrenty infantry reservists are increasingly being employed in such a role.

Nobody here is arguing that commissionaires are incapable of doing the jobs *they are hired for*. However I also know from my completion of their nine day course after a close brush with unemployment that it is formal policy within the corps of commissionaires that they are strictly a hands-off security company whose 'actions on' are to summon authorities. And, as we all know, when seconds count the police are only minutes away. I've got no problem using commissionaires to check IDs. And I have no problem having my ID checked every time I enter a base; it seems to work at Stadacona or Dockyards, though I've admittedly not been there during the morning rush. I can also think of the permanent ECPs I've been through on some US bases, where armed soldiers- wearing PPE no less - were on security duty.

Our base security is a joke. Will it take a mass shooting by some Jihadi before we realize that? Our bases lack even a single line of *defense* under normal circumstances. Given the ease with which many dozens or hundreds of us could be killed and injured in an attack if someone were suitably motivated, and given that our field force is the very asset our nation will depend on in a security crisis, I don't consider this acceptable.


----------



## George Wallace

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Don't we have a MP Coy in Petawawa who are not doing beat cop around base? Wouldn't that be a perfect policing task for these folk?



They are actually not much more than a Platoon.


----------



## dogger1936

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They are actually not much more than a Platoon.



 Roger that. Don't know too much more about them than their sign I would jog past on base.


----------



## Cui

Couldn't the DND hire uniformed special constables as DND Police, to augment the MPs on base? Like how in the States they have DoD Police... Just a thought. I know that cost might be an issue, but has this ever been looked into?

The DND hires civilian fire fighters, so could potentially having uniformed police officers resolve some of the problems with commissionaires.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Cui said:
			
		

> Couldn't the DND hire uniformed special constables as DND Police, to augment the MPs on base? Like how in the States they have DoD Police... Just a thought. I know that cost might be an issue, but has this ever been looked into?
> 
> The DND hires civilian fire fighters, so could potentially having uniformed police officers resolve some of the problems with commissionaires.



The MPs and these guys would but heads all the time. The CF is ridiculously territorial.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Well then, re-define the MP role to purely operational/field policing, and leave the garrison stuff to the DND Police? 

Awaiting incoming from our red-capped brethren.........


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Well then, re-define the MP role to purely operational/field policing, and leave the garrison stuff to the DND Police?
> 
> Awaiting incoming from our red-capped brethren.........



I think we already beat that one to death here somewhere.


----------



## Remius

I have heard that teh Brits have soemthing similar to a "DoD" police force.  Basically, like reservists on contract providing armed security to military facilities and offices.  Not sure if it's true but the source was credible.  I mean, our nuclear facilities have armed security, why not some military facilities?


----------



## George Wallace

I think that for most Canadians, not exposed to the CF and military bases, the perception is that it being a military base, people (CF members) are walking around fully armed at all times.  "Why else would it be a military base?"  I think most are not aware that for the most part members of the CF go about their normal garrison duties unarmed.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Crantor said:
			
		

> I have heard that teh Brits have soemthing similar to a "DoD" police force.  Basically, like reservists on contract providing armed security to military facilities and offices.  Not sure if it's true but the source was credible.  I mean, our nuclear facilities have armed security, why not some military facilities?



http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/aboutdefence/whatwedo/securityandintelligence/mdpga/ministryofdefencepolice.htm


Yes. In fact, looking at it now, the brits have a pretty bewildering array of security organisations, be it MOD Police (Armed and un-armed constables with powers of police), Ministry of Defence Guard Service (like commissionaires, unarmed watchkeepers and id checkers), Military Provost Guard Service, RMP/RAFP/RNP (military police) plus whatever security force the lodger unit provides (ie Guard shifts). Some places (Brize Norton) actually have all of them resident conducting different tasks. 

I'm not thinking we should go this route and have 15 different uniforms guarding our bases, but I think we can all agree that we've been pretty fortunate thus far, 11 years into the war on terror, to not have had a major incident at one of our establishments. And perhaps we need something to prevent it in the future.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think that for most Canadians, not exposed to the CF and military bases, the perception is that it being a military base, people (CF members) are walking around fully armed at all times.  "Why else would it be a military base?"  I think most are not aware that for the most part members of the CF go about their normal garrison duties unarmed.



This is exactly what the perception is, even to family of military personnel.  My father came to visit me a year ago and I took him on a tour of Petawawa.  His perception before I brought him to the base was that civilians were not allowed on the base unless they worked there.  When I told him that was not the case and anybody could drive on to the base he was shocked.

I don't believe we need to look at hiring a private security company or creating a new organization to look after security of the base.  All we need to do is task units with the security role on a rotating basis and for a very minimal cost the security of our garrisons would be increased.


----------



## Greymatters

Brihard said:
			
		

> Are skilled, motivated combat soldiers best employed as gate security of CFB Petawawa?
> 
> Our bases lack even a single line of *defense* under normal circumstances.



I think you've mentioned the two biggest issues with using soldiers instead of hired security.  

Young soldiers are good gate guards for short durations, but after too much time become bored and disullissioned with manning a gate where there is no 'action'.  No amount of leadership or attempts at morale boosting is going to keep a young soldier motivated after doing gate duty for six months with no incidents.  They will not be armed, they will not have authority to 'act', only to report, and have limited training in arresting anyone so won't be allowed to.  They also lack experience in resolving situations at the lowest levels when flare-ups do occur.  It is also difficult for them to perform their jobs when higher ranking persons use their rank to order young gate guards to not perform their duties properly.  Use of third party secuirty services negates a lot of these issues. 

For your second point, numerous people here perceive that every base in Canada in under imminent threat of an attack by criminal elements, terrorists or other ne'er-do-wells.  If this were true then we would be manning our bases like the US and UK who have legitmate and proven historical threats.  Unfortunately here in Canada the powers that be do not appear to believe that there is an imminent deadly threat to every base or its members that would require an immediate armed response.  Thus the policy makers and providers of funding identify that the security can be handled by less skilled persons, hence the use of third party security vendors.  

The third issue not mentioned is, can the CF afford to have a significant percentage of its military members assigned to permanent base security duties?  Last year, no.  This year, yes.  Next year, who knows what new conflict will require all available bodies?  It would be counter-productive to train thousands of soldiers across Canada for gate guard duties, and then have another major conflict require all available bodies, and we are forced to hire third party security providers again to cover the loss of manpower. 

Just an opinion, but I think I have provided some valid points...


----------



## wildman0101

CDN AVIATOR,,
You'd be surprised. Scoty B OUT.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

That's right wildman0101, don't tell him or you may have to kill him. 



But back on track, in reply to Greymatter, agreed on all points, but seriously, what would your response be should Johnny-Terrorists detonates a VBIED at a large parade/family day/ etc etc? I think the point we are all agreed on is that threat or no, our physical infrastructure (RCN/Trenton flightline notwithstanding) is a big fat unprotected target.

Look at the number of AQ/Terrorist attacks there's been on US bases in the CONUS. Darn few. Have they dialed down their FP in view of this? No.


----------



## Sythen

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Young soldiers are good gate guards for short durations, but after too much time become bored and disullissioned with manning a gate where there is no 'action'.  No amount of leadership or attempts at morale boosting is going to keep a young soldier motivated after doing gate duty for six months with no incidents.



Why does it have to be a 6 month rotation? And even if it was, this reminds me of a previous discussion I had here with someone who was outraged soldiers had to do 3 hour tower shifts without supervision. If your soldiers lack the discipline and professionalism to man a post, regardless of how long, then that is a leadership failure. 100%. 



> They will not be armed, they will not have authority to 'act', only to report, and have limited training in arresting anyone so won't be allowed to.  They also lack experience in resolving situations at the lowest levels when flare-ups do occur.  It is also difficult for them to perform their jobs when higher ranking persons use their rank to order young gate guards to not perform their duties properly.  Use of third party secuirty services negates a lot of these issues.



Why would they not be armed? Having a loaded, but not readied weapon slung over your shoulder would send the right kind of message, I think. Its not like when something odd happens they are gonna pour out of their gatehouse or whatever, head up gun up yelling at the person. 

And their "act" could be simply holding someone in place (not necessarily physically restraining them just telling them to sit tight) until the MP's could arrive. As for resolving things at the lowest level, that is why you'd have a Sgt or MCpl there, so the Pte/Cpl present is not making the big decisions. I think you grossly overestimate the type of situations they will encounter, or grossly underestimate the common sense the individuals will have.



> For your second point, numerous people here perceive that every base in Canada in under imminent threat of an attack by criminal elements, terrorists or other ne'er-do-wells.  If this were true then we would be manning our bases like the US and UK who have legitmate and proven historical threats.  Unfortunately here in Canada the powers that be do not appear to believe that there is an imminent deadly threat to every base or its members that would require an immediate armed response.  Thus the policy makers and providers of funding identify that the security can be handled by less skilled persons, hence the use of third party security vendors.



So how many dead soldiers will there be when a lone wolf, maybe one reading this very thread for ideas, decides that those damn infidels/capitalist supporters/baby killers/I hate the colour green so to hell with these soldiers! need to die to prove a point? Ask the victims of 9/11 if the "powers that be" thought there was an imminent threat? Since soldiers are paid 24/7 and I can't see many rounds actually being fired, the only cost would be slightly more CLP.. 



> The third issue not mentioned is, can the CF afford to have a significant percentage of its military members assigned to permanent base security duties?  Last year, no.  This year, yes.  Next year, who knows what new conflict will require all available bodies?  It would be counter-productive to train thousands of soldiers across Canada for gate guard duties, and then have another major conflict require all available bodies, and we are forced to hire third party security providers again to cover the loss of manpower.



How much training do you think this will require? Have a book there with standing orders, and require that each person read it and sign that they understand it. If they have questions, have a radio/phone present with the number/call sign of MP dispatch. A proper hand over should occur and from there, eventually you need to trust your soldiers with a weapon. If you can't, then again its a leadership failure.


----------



## brihard

Sythen nailed pretty much most of what I wanted to respond with. Excellently put.


----------



## blacktriangle

I would also agree with Sythen, especially that "eventually you need to trust your soliders with a weapon". I've noticed far too many individuals that are not confident with their weapons handling. I think it would be good to get the various support trades in on guard duty as well, as it gives them more exposure then they would otherwise get through the course of their duties.  Not every base has an abundance of combat arms types to take the lead, either.


----------



## GAP

Don't they already do that with WAPSO (spelling?) on air bases?


----------



## Towards_the_gap

To expand upon Sythen's excellent post:

In the UK it did not require any training at all to mount a guard shift. Not having had the pleasure of attending BMQ, I trust that duties of a sentry is still taught to ALL members of the CF? In which case all you need to pull a week or 2 on stag is TOET's, a check that you are in date for your PWT 3 (in fact this might prod units to actually go out and do small arms training/ranges), an ROE brief from the local JAG/MP, and a daily briefing from the guard commander. Down time when on guard could, during daylight hours, provide more time for PD training (ie conduct of search, VCP's etc), roving patrols, snap VCP's and building security checks. Those signs still hang there stating that all vehicles are subject to search upon entry. 

Also, in the UK we were issued and had to carry, at all times when armed, a small, pocket sized 'Card A' which detailed, in crystal clear instructions, what you should do if faced with a threat which may require the use of force, be it everything from verbal challenges to opening fire. 

Again, I fail to see why we can't do this here in Canada. I think it might actually wake some people up to the fact that not everyone wears a red t-shirt on Fridays, and that due to our profession we are ALWAYS targets for certain undesirables. On an un-related point, when I first joined the British Army we were not allowed out of camp in uniform, and received training on how to make yourself a hard target when at home on leave (always go to the pub in pairs, never take the same route, check under your car if it's been left unattended, no military decals/markings on your vehicle). This was in 2001, post-Good Friday Agreement. Something to ponder.


----------



## Infanteer

Two questions before the good idea fairy gets out of control:

1.  What is the nature of the threat warranting the requirement to stick a platoon of infantry soldiers on gate guard with loaded weapons?  When was the last time a base was attacked in Canada?  When was the last time there was an incursion that overwhelmed the abilities of the military police on duty at the garrison?  I'm not saying these events aren't possible, but you need to weigh probability and risk along with the fact that you think it'd look cool to have armed soldiers at the commissionaire's gate when you drive to the mess for a beer.

2.  Who here understands the regulations surrounding a defence establishment and what sort of actions can be taken on one?  Having dealt with JAGs on this issue, there is more to this concept then simply arming some random troopie to repel invaders.  CFBs in Canada are not fortresses.


----------



## Sythen

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Two questions before the good idea fairy gets out of control:
> 
> 1.  What is the nature of the threat warranting the requirement to stick a platoon of infantry soldiers on gate guard with loaded weapons?  When was the last time a base was attacked in Canada?  When was the last time there was an incursion that overwhelmed the abilities of the military police on duty at the garrison?  I'm not saying these events aren't possible, but you need to weigh probability and risk along with the fact that you think it'd look cool to have armed soldiers at the commissionaire's gate when you drive to the mess for a beer.



They do not have to be, and in fact should NOT be exclusively Infantry soldiers. All units should need to pony up a section worth of troops. On a base like Petawawa, how hard really would it be for each unit, on a roving basis, to offer 8-10 soldiers for 2 weeks? Say 3 sections of 10 guys for security? 12 hour shifts, so 60 soldiers total. How many units are there on Pet? So it would be like once every couple months to grab some guys with extras and send them to do it. Larger units like 1RCR and 3RCR who have guys sitting around counting lockers might have the entire 'security platoon' to man for their rotation. Just my first thought.. There are people paid much more than I am to figure out these things.

It has nothing to do with LCF when we "drive to the mess for a beer". It has to do with preventitive security and being proactive. Heck, how many people here supported the invasion of Iraq based on they *might* have WMD's? Heck, Iran has never nuked us or our allies before, so we may as well just let them have the bomb, right? Right?



> 2.  Who here understands the regulations surrounding a defence establishment and what sort of actions can be taken on one?  Having dealt with JAGs on this issue, there is more to this concept then simply arming some random troopie to repel invaders.  CFBs in Canada are not fortresses.



They are not meant to be fortresses, nor do I foresee 2-4 guys at the gatehouse repeling anything. I would see these guys more like a scare crow. Right now, nothing stops me from filling up a uhaul with whatever I want, driving it on base and ramming a building/morning run/whatever and blowing it.. If there is active security at the gate, however, this is a huge deterent to "lone wolf" types and would mean you would need to actually plan it out rather than just driving in. 

In the end nothing will stop a determined fanatic from trying carry out an attack if he really wants to. There is no need for us to make it easy to do though. Because right now, I have no idea why it hasn't happened yet. I think the public's erroneous belief that we have actual security is the only thing preventing something, to be honest.


----------



## Infanteer

Sythen said:
			
		

> There are people paid much more than I am to figure out these things.



Maybe they did, and realized we don't need armed soldiers at gates.


----------



## Sythen

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Maybe they did, and realized we don't need armed soldiers at gates.



Wonder if they have the same job as those who were comfortable and dumb on Sept 10, 2001?


----------



## Towards_the_gap

And those same higher ups never get it wrong?

Ok, so the situation remains that we will not see, in the near future, and barring any sudden terrorist attacks, an armed security force in place at all CF establishments. 

However, what if.....What if someone does drive a truck bomb into Normany Court at 1200 on a Tuesday..What is the response, base wide? What is the SOP for a mortar attack (and please don't try and tell me it will never happen, terrorism is pretty cyclical)? What alarm system is in place that is tested regularly? Loudspeakers/PA?  I know, I know, OPSEC, but is it making you think that 'hmm, I have no idea where I would go if a suspect package was found'. Sure, the garrison duty staff know. But that is 2, maybe 3 dudes, at any one time, on a base of 5,000. 

We don't even do fire drills for goodness sakes. I can just imagine the absolute chaos that would reign if something happened. And I say this from experience, having been the RDS when a false alarm went up. 

Again, relating to my british experience, another thing the guard shift did, almost weekly, was practice various scenarios. This even went up to establishing cordons and ICP's on suspect packages (a cardboard box with BOMB written on it) left at various places around camp. Then conducting secondary searches. When does this happen at CF bases?

We are terribly complacent, and to think that it can't happen here is pretty wishful. Have a look at these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park_and_Regent%27s_Park_bombings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Aldershot_Bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting


----------



## Infanteer

Sythen said:
			
		

> Wonder if they have the same job as those who were comfortable and dumb on Sept 10, 2001?



Yes, but lets return to probability and risk.  The signs were there that the WTC would be hit; probably the biggest one was that AQ hit it and failed in 1993.  Are you telling me that somewhere in some camp, a nefarious scheme to blow up the all-ranks kitchen in CFB Wainwright is being cooked up?

Again, we need to weigh probability and risk with tasking soldiers to sit around with weapons during the night and look at nothing.  We pay the MPs to do that already.



			
				Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> We don't even do fire drills for goodness sakes. I can just imagine the absolute chaos that would reign if something happened. And I say this from experience, having been the RDS when a false alarm went up.



Now, emergency response drills are a good proposition.  Those are good questions to ask and probably represent a real problem that can be remedied through some simple rehearsals.


----------



## Robert0288

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yes, but lets return to probability and risk.  The signs were there that the WTC would be hit; probably the biggest one was that AQ hit it and failed in 1993.  Are you telling me that somewhere in some camp, a nefarious scheme to blow up the all-ranks kitchen in CFB Wainwright is being cooked up?



No, but can you say with absolute certainty there isn't?  Take a look at all the Canadian home grown  guys that have been arrested, or are currently being looked for around the world.  The warning signs are out there and have been displayed, for example the group of 18 that was arrested in Toronto in 2006.  I agree with what Sythen is saying.  These troops to help harden the target, not to hold the line against overwhelming force.  The harder you make the target appear, the less likely someone is to hit it.





> Again, we need to weigh probability and risk with tasking soldiers to sit around with weapons during the night and look at nothing.  We pay the MPs to do that already.



If you can't trust them with a rifle on a single shift from midnight to 0600.  How can you trust them in the field without having slept for 6 days?  As for the MPs; we could hire a couple hundred more MPs, or the shifts can be split by everyone on base.  8-16 pers a week out of a garrison of a couple thousand isn't all that much, or as Brihard said earlier,  employ a section of reservists.


----------



## Sythen

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Are you telling me that somewhere in some camp, a nefarious scheme to blow up the all-ranks kitchen in CFB Wainwright is being cooked up?



Maybe. Or maybe some guy in his mosque. Or some student protester in his dorm. Or some failed recruit in his mom's basement. Or some _______ in his ______. There are many people out there who would do our men and women in uniform harm, given the chance. And we give them that chance every day when we don't inspect vehicles coming on our bases. I'm not saying stop every car that doesn't have a military ID, I am saying use some common sense and secure our bases.



> Again, we need to weigh probability and risk with tasking soldiers to sit around with weapons during the night and look at nothing.  We pay the MPs to do that already.



I do not see any risk in arming trained soldiers. If we're afraid of giving our trained soldiers loaded weapons without extreme supervision, then that is a massive failure of our training system. As for the MP's being paid to do that.. Do they have the manpower to accomplish what their current duties are, as well as man the gate? If not, the rest of the CF should step up. Or be stepped up. 



> Now, emergency response drills are a good proposition.  Those are good questions to ask and probably represent a real problem that can be remedied through some simple rehearsals.



I completely agree with this statement. At least once a month they should be done. I spent 4 of my 5 years in the CF with 1RCR. Never once did we have a fire drill. The only time anything was ever mentioned about it was the CO doing rounds of the Company Lines, and asked a random troop where we would go in case of a fire.


----------



## Infanteer

I'm not talking about risk of having armed soldiers at the gate, I'm talking about the risk to the base.  You guys are creating strawman theories about extremists or protesters, but there needs to be a real risk assessment as to how high a profile our (relatively small) bases for our (relatively small) military present to a would-be attacker.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Changed my mind


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Infanteer said:
			
		

> how high a profile our (relatively small) bases for our (relatively small) military present to a would-be attacker.



To this I will respond.. any time we deploy the news is over it like a rash, from the departure ceremonies, to who is next on the ramp to go, to welcome home ceremonies. The CF PR machine is great at getting the info out but it is a two sided coin, we tell Joe Public what we are really doing and put human faces to concepts, and yet we also tell Johnny Terrorist which base has troops whacking his brothers in the sandbox right now.

I think that if you give a terrorist of the current ilk a truck bomb, he is more likely to ram it into Canada's Wonderland/Pearson Airport/Storybook Gardens than CFB Petawawa, however that does not eliminate us as a target. In fact any terrorist group wishing to gain credence and acceptance amongst the population would be better served by attacking the organs of the state and not the citizens, but I may be veering off into a very vague philosophical tangent.

So if the need for an armed security force is not there, why not a QRF at least? 15 dudes, with weapons and PPE, commanded by a Sgt &MCpl answering to the Duty O, sat in a room watching TV 24/7, perhaps co-located with the MP's or the Firehall. The situation I mentioned that I witnessed happening as RDS severely taxed the MP shift for manpower, no doubt creating a vaccum elsewhere on the base. This QRF could be used as troops for a cordon, CCO, to lock down the base in case of a threat until more manpower is wizarded up by the units, or, and I hate myself for suggesting this, providing a wee guard to slam their feet around and present arms when the Hon Joe Politico, MP for Lake Moosedroppings, shows up on a whirlwind visit.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yes, but lets return to probability and risk.  The signs were there that the WTC would be hit; probably the biggest one was that AQ hit it and failed in 1993.  Are you telling me that somewhere in some camp, a nefarious scheme to blow up the all-ranks kitchen in CFB Wainwright is being cooked up?
> 
> Again, we need to weigh probability and risk with tasking soldiers to sit around with weapons during the night and look at nothing.  We pay the MPs to do that already.
> 
> Now, emergency response drills are a good proposition.  Those are good questions to ask and probably represent a real problem that can be remedied through some simple rehearsals.



The Toronto 18 were not fiction in their aims and goals even if their performance was of numpty standards.  Who's to say there's not more idiots out there amongst our fellow residents?  Hopefully there's not.


----------



## Journeyman

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> To this I will respond..
> In fact any terrorist group wishing to gain credence and acceptance amongst the population would be better served by attacking the organs of the state and not the citizens, but I may be veering off into a very vague philosophical tangent.


And to this, I will respond.

It's not a "very vague philosophical tangent" at all; rainforests have been decimated writing on virtually every aspect of terrorism, including targetting. Specifically to Canada, I'd recommend Steward Bell's _Cold Terror_ -- it's a pretty simple read, and the absence of any terrorist targetting of CF pers/infrastructure is apparent. 

For those who feel qualified to plan and conduct ops "with absolute certainty," good luck with that.  :  It will _always_ be a matter of risk cost-benefit analysis.
   - Should CF bases be "open bases" or do we diminish "connect with Canadians"? Debatable.
   - Is there a need to beef up MPs? Possibly. 
   - Could there be heightened security if changing threat conditions warrant? Certainly.
   - Is there justification for having troops standing by the main gate..._just in case_? I can't see it.

I fully accept that there are people out there with the potential to take their hostile intent beyond terrorist masturbatory fantasies. I also understand quite well that their OPSEC, materiel/planning capability, and the likelihood of a CF base being a target is an extremely low risk. 

For those unaware, the CF assumes risk on a daily basis -- it's what we do.


.....unless of course, discussion here highlighting the 'clear and present danger' to the Normandy Court Mess Hall is actively supporting nefarious terrorists' plotting!   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Journeyman said:
			
		

> .....unless of course, discussion here highlighting the 'clear and present danger' to the Normandy Court Mess Hall is actively supporting nefarious terrorists' plotting!   :Tin-Foil-Hat:




It could be argued that Normandy Court aids terrorists already.....


----------



## Greymatters

Infanteer seems to have been batting the balls out of the park since I was last here, so I'll just address these points here:

The skill sets required for a gate guard:  The guys who think there is an imminent ongoing threat to every base in Canada cant seem to get their requirements straight.  If soldiers are there for show, why bother giving them weapons?  If they don't need training and are only there for show what good are they against an imminent attack by VBIEDs?  If they only pick up a phone to call for a senior NCO to make a decision, then how are they better than the current gate guards?  Seriously, pick your scenario and then realize that it cant be solved by sticking a few soldiers with weapons at the front gate.  

Edit - Troop rotation every two weeks as you described: Doesnt work effectively for the results you are trying to achieve.


----------



## Sythen

Greymatters said:
			
		

> The skill sets required for a gate guard:  The guys who think there is an imminent ongoing threat to every base in Canada cant seem to get their requirements straight.  If soldiers are there for show, why bother giving them weapons?  If they don't need training and are only there for show what good are they against an imminent attack by VBIEDs?  If they only pick up a phone to call for a senior NCO to make a decision, then how are they better than the current gate guards?  Seriously, pick your scenario and then realize that it cant be solved by sticking a few soldiers with weapons at the front gate.



Just wow.. Where to begin? ok, skill sets for someone guarding the gate: The ability to tell the difference between government plates and non-government plates on larger vehicles, and the ability to see when looking inside when you flag them off to the side for a quick inspection. 99.9999% of the vehicles they look in to will be obvious that there is nothing wrong with. That extremely small percent that might have something that looks odd to the troop at the gate, he would call out the NCO who would then check and if he doesn't like what he sees, call down the MP's to 100% verify. Very simple. I don't know what you imagine when you picture these gate guards, but its way off of what reality would be.

Secondly, they are there as scare crows, yes. Arm them as there is no reason not to. As for VBIED's, it sucks to say but if someone is to bomb a base, I'd rather it be the 4 guys at the gatehouse rather than 100 at the mess. As for how are they better than the current gate guards. Well, some 90 y/o Commissionaire sitting in the gatehouse does nothing. Having a couple guys watching the vehicles as they drive by does something.



> Edit - Troop rotation every two weeks as you described: Doesnt work effectively for the results you are trying to achieve.



Explain to me how it does not work effectively, please.

EDIT: Forgot to reply to Infanteer.



> I'm not talking about risk of having armed soldiers at the gate, I'm talking about the risk to the base.



My mistake, I blame it on working over nights and being illiterate 



> You guys are creating strawman theories about extremists or protesters, but there needs to be a real risk assessment as to how high a profile our (relatively small) bases for our (relatively small) military present to a would-be attacker.



Wonder what the real risk assessment on having someone attack a midnight showing of Batman was? Or the risk assessment of 18 individuals wanting to attack Parliament and behead the Prime Minister? It costs the CF next to nothing, and is a very good preventative measure. And though I realize that nothing I say here on army.ca will cause the changes I would like to see, I really hope that at some point in the near future we are not posting in another thread about how we should have known that it was only a matter of time, and beefed up security..


----------



## Greymatters

Okay, you don't seem to get where Im going, so I'll spell it out more clearly.

You believe that a VBIED attack (or similar scenario) is probable, or has so great of an impact that even a small possibility of occurance should be guarded against.  

Now to actually guard against this possibility is more than grabbing four guys off the back of a truck and telling them to stand guard until they are replaced.  In the military even the simplist of tasks become a leviathan of process and SOPs within a short time frame.

Let's roll with your scenario.  You seem fixated by 'the front gate'.  Unfortunately for your scenario every base has more than one entrance, so why bother having a set of gate guards at one single point if the VBIED can be driven to a  secondary entrance.  Or they could use a set of bolt cutters to cut any locked gate.  I've seen bases with a minimum of three entrances and some with more than twenty gates/entrances.  So your manning is not '4 guys'.  At a minimum it's 12 soldiers of varying rank, plus a senior NCO, plus an officer, plus at least one spare soldier, for a total of 15.  But wait, there's more.  Two soldiers arent enough to check every vehicle that comes through your gate during peak entrance or exit hours, nor are two soldiers enough to do a proper vehicle check and search of vehicles while observing the growing lineup of cars.  if you've been to US bases, you'll see as many as 10 or 12 soldiers on a single shift, but we'll cap it at 4/day + 2/night, so now its actually 6 per gate for a total of 18 troops + officer + NCO + spare.  Now you also need a vehicle to transport the troops around and for the officer and NCO to travel between gates.  You also need an office with a secure lockup close to at least one of the gates.  Your going to be doing this for a while so a modular tent isnt secure enough for storing weapons and classified paperwork.   

Now you have to get the troops.  Is this going to be a 'more duty/more honor' type of work that everyone buys into and sees as important, or will it get viewed as a shit job for dumping offending soldiers for punishment.  You really don't want this to get regarded as a dumping ground for sloppy soldiers who earn extra duties.  In this case we'll take the high road and say that the CO and Ops staff see this as highly critical to base security and give it full support.  That means it is not dribs and drabs from different units, you get a whole platoon who will do the duty, ensuring a high level of teamwork and professionalism among the troops.  For how long?  Let's call it two weeks.  Hell its so important, lets make it a month.  Great, everyone in the Batallion gets a turn.  But wait - who gets screwed over during block leave and Christmas?  Sorry troops, no leave for you, someone has to man the gate.  Sorry mate, no machine gun course for you, it's your platoon's turn to guard the gates during training season.  Sorry chum, no field exercise for you it's your turn to man the gate next month.  But it's all good, everyone is happy to be doing such an important job.    

Now you have to train the troops.  The Training Section just became your best friend.  In addition to all the other 
annual qualifications that are planned out on an annual basis we now add 'Gate Guard Training'.  Which has become quite complicated over the last few years.  What does a soldier on gate guard do if someone films him and puts it on youtube?  What does a soldier on gate guard do if a protester stands off of DND property and yells abuse or blocks vehicles?  How do you stop someone from grabbing your rifle from you? What does a VBIED look like?  What forms do we fill out?  What information is required?  How do we rotate troops so that they all have time to eat but still keep maximum manning?  What are my rights as a soldier if I get sued by someone I pulled out of a truck during a vehicle search?  At what point do I call the MPs?  These are not questions for the NCO or officer, these are questions that a professional soldier on gate guard duty should know before he starts his first shift, or else he's just a numpty with a rifle and an incident waiting to happen.  This training needs to be done annually, so you just added 12 training courses to the Training Section list.     

So, I'll stop there.  I had some fun writing this out, with the point being its not as simple as you think it is to just start up a guard duty.  This is an example of the issues to consider and plan for.  My advice would be that if you still believe that strongly that an attack is imminent and that your idea would save lives, then I dont understand why you're talking to us here.  You should be writing up your proposal and asking for an interview with the CO or RSM and present it to them.  But I can't say either way whether you'll get a recommendation for promotion or an ass-chewing...


----------



## GAP

And....that was just one gate.....


----------



## Journeyman

Greymatters said:
			
		

> ...I can't say either way whether you'll get a recommendation for promotion or an ass-chewing...


Neither; check the profile. 

As with most visits from the good-idea fairy, the suggestions tend not to come from those who'd have to do the actual work.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Does anyone have Base Defence Forces anymore?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

recceguy said:
			
		

> Does anyone have Base Defence Forces anymore?



I can't speak for other bases but Halifax still uses a BDF but it has a different name.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

You can't be serious if you think professional, trained soldiers require annual training, from a dedicated training section, on how to be a sentry. This is something that can be done in a day prior to assuming the responsibility for the guard force. I'll answer your examples in turn:


What does a soldier on gate guard do if someone films him and puts it on youtube?  He doesn't pick his nose or stick his middle finger up, he informs the guard commander who can then either inform the MP's or dispatch 2 pers to politely and professionally question the aspiring videographer. So what if it gets on youtube, I was on the front page of the G&M and my house didn't burn down...


What does a soldier on gate guard do if a protester stands off of DND property and yells abuse or blocks vehicles? A protester standing off DND property is just that, NOT ON DND PROPERTY. The guard commander can inform local police.

How do you stop someone from grabbing your rifle from you?

Please tell me your joking. Seriously.

How do we rotate troops so that they all have time to eat but still keep maximum manning?

[sarcasm ] Oh good point, good thing the taliban respected meal times overseas, otherwise I have no idea how a professional army maintains security 24/7. [/sarcasm  ] Again, seriously. Any JNCO worth his 2 chevrons can manage a duty roster to include meals.


What does a VBIED look like?
So after 10years of fighting in Afghanistan and watching our allies fight in Iraq, and before in Northern Ireland, knowledge of the combat indicators of a VBIED HAS NOT BEEN institutionalised? If it hasn't, then again, it's like a 30min lecture from the ETHAR package.


What forms do we fill out?  What information is required?  

A daily occurance logbook. Perhaps certain forms (ie record of search etc) if deemed required by the JAG.


What are my rights as a soldier if I get sued by someone I pulled out of a truck during a vehicle search?

Your rights as a soldier are protected under whichever act governs entry onto CF/DND Property. 


I respect all the points you brought up, and I fully accept and realise that the CF will not take installation security seriously without something happening. But either you have a much worse opinion of the capability of our soldiers than I do or I have an inflated sense, seeing as how we disagree on how technically demanding MOUNTING A GUARD is. If you are right, and all of the above requires such an onerous amount of training that the risk of a major incident is acceptable, than we really need to look at how this army operates 24/7, not just when a battlegroup is deployed (after a year and a half of training). Basically I'm more arguing the point that we should be capable of doing this AT ANY TIME, not just after a month of annual training.


----------



## Sythen

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Okay, you don't seem to get where Im going, so I'll spell it out more clearly.
> 
> You believe that a VBIED attack (or similar scenario) is probable, or has so great of an impact that even a small possibility of occurance should be guarded against.



As I said, I hope we're not talking in another thread in the near or even distant future about how we should have had a better handle on our security. Hope is not a strategy and wishful thinking is not a plan. We can sit here and hope nothing happens, and wistfully believe that if something does, everyone will immediately know what to do to minimize damage and casualties.. Or we could run a professional army that cares at least a little bit about security. 



> Now to actually guard against this possibility is more than grabbing four guys off the back of a truck and telling them to stand guard until they are replaced.  In the military even the simplist of tasks become a leviathan of process and SOPs within a short time frame.
> 
> Let's roll with your scenario.  [...]



Actually its very simple. Everything you listed that is required to train soldiers SHOULD already be known. Literally everything you described I was taught on BMQ. If your soldiers do not have these skills, then its another LEADERSHIP or TRAINING failure. Training of this type can and SHOULD happen in a classroom on a semi regular basis. I can't even tell you how many times I sat in a classroom listening to different types of patrols, and how to properly do VCP's, etc.. As for a vehicle transporting them around? If they are on gate duty, they can get themselves there in the same way they would report to their "normal" job. In response to you saying I was fixated on the front gate, I used it for simplicity sake.. If you want to discuss the exact SOP's and ideas for specific guard duties and rotations, we can start another thread. Here we are talking in generalities.



> So, I'll stop there.  I had some fun writing this out, with the point being its not as simple as you think it is to just start up a guard duty.  This is an example of the issues to consider and plan for.  My advice would be that if you still believe that strongly that an attack is imminent and that your idea would save lives, then I dont understand why you're talking to us here.  You should be writing up your proposal and asking for an interview with the CO or RSM and present it to them.  But I can't say either way whether you'll get a recommendation for promotion or an ***-chewing...



It is as simple as I think it is. You are making it needlessly complicated, and in my opinion insulting the talented people and skill sets we have in the CF. As I already said, I don't believe our discussions here will affect any change at any level. And as I am no longer in the CF, asking for a meeting with the CO might come across the wrong way.

EDIT: Towards_the_gap said what I meant much better than I, and he is pretty much bang on.


----------



## Greymatters

Towards the gap - I hate to bust your chops but guard duty at an overseas base and guard duty at a base in Canada are two completely different things.  Use of force overseas and in Canada are two different things.  So are liability issues, and the government and the Solicitor General are going to want to make sure you will know what you are doing prior to you being handed a weapon and conducting direct searches of civilian vehicles and persons on a permenent basis. 

Regarding your BMQ training, what your instructor told you in training 3-4 years ago has nothing to do with what your CO and the Solicitor General have to tell you now today about your duties and what you can or cannot do. 

And I dont mean to insult the many professional soldiers who formerly served or currently serve, but there is and always will be a small percentage of soldiers who managed to join and met the minimum standrads, but are not as professional, experienced or compentent as you are or believe everyone to be.   And just because you know the answers to some of these easy and stupid questions (which are only examples of how inane the process gets) doesnt mean a young inexperienced soldier does, and thats who will be doing most of the guard duty.      

Finally, screwing up on guard duty overseas and in Canada are also two different things.  Overseas, it means doing the hatless dance, fines and extras, and usually going back to work in a few days unless you really screwed up.  In Canada the same incident can lead to arrest by the RCMP, criminal charges, and widespread newspaper coverage that negatively affects the CF and the government.  That is the main reason why the process is more complicated than it needs to be.


----------



## Infanteer

I'll ask the question again, but does anyone here have experience with the legalities of defence establishments and enforcement on them?  I have dealt with this before, and after some stick play with the legad, I can say it isn't pretty (as Greymatter alludes to).  There are numerous legal aspects which exist that people here clearly have no knowledge about; this is a good idea fairy that is running out of time....


----------



## Journeyman

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ... that people here clearly have no knowledge about...


     :nod:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'll ask the question again, but does anyone here have experience with the legalities of defence establishments and enforcement on them?  I have dealt with this before, and after some stick play with the legad, I can say it isn't pretty (as Greymatter alludes to).  There are numerous legal aspects which exist that people here clearly have no knowledge about; this is a good idea fairy that is running out of time....



I have a pretty fair idea of how it works ( given where I currently work) and this issue is nowhere near as simple as some would make it out to be.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Ok, as previously stated, I accept that giving Pte Bloggins of 132 Mess Tin Repair Coy a C7 with 20rds, showing him a picture of a VBIED and sticking him on the front gate for 2 hours on, 1 hour off, of checking ID's and vehicle passes, will not happen.

What then, should we keep the status quo and carry on normal marching? And hope that the 60yr old commissionaire sat in the box at the front gate is switched on enough should something happen?


----------



## Sythen

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Ok, as previously stated, I accept that giving Pte Bloggins of 132 Mess Tin Repair Coy a C7 with 20rds, showing him a picture of a VBIED and sticking him on the front gate for 2 hours on, 1 hour off, of checking ID's and vehicle passes, will not happen.
> 
> What then, should we keep the status quo and carry on normal marching? And hope that the 60yr old commissionaire sat in the box at the front gate is switched on enough should something happen?



Its always been done that way, so it has to be right!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

This has become circular.

Make a new point or let it die.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Remius

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Ok, as previously stated, I accept that giving Pte Bloggins of 132 Mess Tin Repair Coy a C7 with 20rds, showing him a picture of a VBIED and sticking him on the front gate for 2 hours on, 1 hour off, of checking ID's and vehicle passes, will not happen.
> 
> What then, should we keep the status quo and carry on normal marching? And hope that the 60yr old commissionaire sat in the box at the front gate is switched on enough should something happen?



Maybe it boils down to each and every CF member to be vigilant.  On the bus, where they get coffee, at the gate when they get on base etc etc.  We have 90 0000 eyes and ears in the CF.  When you see something odd and out of place, report it or tell someone.  Maybe bases don't need armed security but parts of it might.  Ammo compounds, vaults etc.  But really at the end of the day a determined attacker will find a way through.  I think it's also about how we react to such incidents.  How many lives can be saved if people know exactly what to do in whatever situation.  Take a plane.  Have a look at the passengers next time they give the inflight safety brief.  We had an earthquake a few years ago. Most people didn't have a clue what to do.

What I'm getting at is that with good intelligence and education you can save more lives than having an armed guard at a door. because someone will figure out how to overcome that.  How many more lives could have been saved if people knew exactly what to do when the twin towers came down or when hans brevick slaughtered those kids.  We have school shootings in north america at a far more frequent rate than I like.  Is the solution having armed guards at every school?  Or do we teach our kids what to do when and if it might happen?  Same with a base.  Do we train up a gate guard super squad or do we train everyone how to react when something happens and let the professionals handle the situation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

crantor, well said.

Far more can be accomplished by every member of the CF and DND being security conscious and vigilant, then would be accomplished by putting a token armed gate guard at every base.


----------



## BDTyre

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> crantor, well said.
> 
> Far more can be accomplished by every member of the CF and DND being security conscious and vigilant, then would be accomplished by putting a token armed gate guard at every base.



I have a friend who is living proof that sometimes an armed guard can do more harm than good...


----------



## Jarnhamar

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> I have a friend who is living proof that sometimes an armed guard can do more harm than good...



Not exactly a good comparison.


----------



## Greymatters

Crantor said:
			
		

> Maybe it boils down to each and every CF member to be vigilant.



Well said!


----------



## George Wallace

Changes may be in the wind, with the Government re-examining its "Right-of-First Refusal" policy given to the Corps of Commissionaires.  It may deal yet another blow to the opportunities offered to former members of the CAF and RCMP to employment after Release.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

LINK



> The Globe and Mail
> 
> *Ottawa rethinking policy of giving veterans security-guard jobs *
> 
> BILL CURRY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> Published Friday, Mar. 21 2014, 6:00 AM EDT
> Last updated Friday, Mar. 21 2014, 6:15 AM EDT
> 
> The Conservative government is evaluating the relevancy of a decades-long policy meant to help veterans find work as security guards at government buildings.
> 
> Since the end of the Second World War, Ottawa has directed billions of dollars in federal guard contracts to the Commissionaires, a private, non-profit organization that was created to help employ the thousands of veterans returning from war.
> 
> Ottawa gives the Commissionaires the right of first refusal on all government guard contracts, an arrangement worth about $1.35-billion over five years when it was last renewed. But that deal is nearing its end. Federal briefing notes provided to Treasury Board President Tony Clement reveal the department’s Internal Audit and Evaluation Bureau is reviewing the program to “examine the relevance and performance” of the arrangement.
> 
> “This is a potentially sensitive subject as the [Right-of-First Refusal]’s purpose is to support veterans employment,” states the memo, obtained by The Globe and Mail in an Access to Information Request. The undated memo is from briefing notes provided to the minister in the summer of 2013.
> 
> The Commissionaires insist they provide a high-quality service at a good price for taxpayers. They view the review as a routine matter and expect the arrangement to be renewed when it expires in 2015-16. But private sector guard companies are pushing for a change, and Mr. Clement’s office is non-committal about renewing the deal.
> 
> The potential sensitivity is clear. The Conservative government has been under fire in the House of Commons for closing offices that serve veterans. Meanwhile, Mr. Clement is looking for ways to save money through greater privatization. The leading private sector competitor to the Commissionaires estimates Ottawa could save at least $100-million a year by opening the guard contracts to competition. Stephan Cretier, president of Montreal-based Garda World Security Corporation, said Ottawa could improve quality, reduce costs and still require private contractors to employ a set percentage of veterans.
> 
> Mr. Cretier said Ottawa’s arrangement with the Commissionaires has been amended so many times the non-profit is now allowed to employ thousands of workers with no connection to Canadian military. The Commissionaires work force on federal contracts must be 60 per cent veterans – which can include former RCMP members – but it also provides guards to the private sector, which has no such requirement. Mr. Cretier estimates that, as a result, the number of veterans among Commissionaires employees is well below half.
> 
> “It’s ridiculous,” he said in an interview. “Canada is the only country in the world where a non-profit organization is the largest security provider, so it’s just a question mark in terms of having a government that is free-market driven and you see a non-profit organization being the largest security provider.”
> 
> John Dewar, CEO of the Commissionaires for Victoria, the Islands and Yukon, answered questions from The Globe on behalf of the national organization. He said taxpayers are getting a deal because of the not-for-profit nature of the organization.
> 
> “This is one way of supporting veterans that doesn’t cost the government anything because we do all of the work under this right of first refusal at cost for the government,” he said in an interview, playing down Ottawa’s review as a “routine assessment.”
> 
> Before the federal government makes its decision, the Senate sub-committee on Veterans Affairs will weigh in. The sub-committee is wrapping up a study on services for veterans, including a review of Ottawa’s relationship with the Commissionaires.
> 
> Conservative Senator David Wells, the sub-committee vice-chair, said he expects the committee’s report will comment on the matter but that no decisions have been made on recommendations.
> 
> “Obviously, I’m a supporter of free enterprise, and any benefits that the government gives to individual companies should be looked at very carefully. That said, there’s also that balance of doing as much as we can for veterans, and that’s important,” he said. “So I guess, as the government moves forward, that will be part of the deliberation and we’ll hear from all sides on it and then, of course, we’ll consider it internally ourselves.”



Given the track record of some of these Private Security Firms; allowing an individual with an explosive device to board an aircraft in Alberta and other breaches at airports and other locations, seems to be a non-brainer to me.  Add the fact that continuity of security enforcement would be lost when tenders are offered to provide security services and one firm underbids a current provider; not to mention the "Lowest Bidder Syndrome" and the expected services thus provided.  

I am not saying that Commissionaires provide the ideal security, but at least they have a bit more training and experience than "a teenager hired as a Mall Cop" and for the most part have a vested interest in National Security having prior Service.   

Penny pinching will give you the security you deserve, and it will be lacking.


----------



## Edward Campbell

We need to be a bit careful with this. "Veterans' preferences" "job preferment for vets" - or whatever one wants to call it - is workable as long as the "vets" in question are Canadians. Other interested parties ~ private security companies, civil service unions, etc ~ will, with some justification, scream load and long if the Commissionaires, for example, are seen to be hiring the "general public," as they do, instead of, mainly, Canadian veterans.


----------



## dapaterson

The number of former military / former RCMP within the Commissionaires has been steadily decreasing over time.  Is there still a valid public policy reason to provide them with preferential hiring?  Or could the same effet be delivered by inserting similar requirements into open tenders for government security services?

Monopolies breed complacency, and have little to no incentive to innovate and find more affordable solutions.  If the commissionaires are so good, then they should be able to compete on an even footing.

Or do we only apply that logic to the CBC, and want to protect our own pet causes from the evils of competition?


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We need to be a bit careful with this. "Veterans' preferences" "job preferment for vets" - or whatever one wants to call it - is workable as long as the "vets" in question are Canadians. Other interested parties ~ private security companies, civil service unions, etc ~ will, with some justification, scream load and long if the Commissionaires, for example, are seen to be hiring the "general public," as they do, instead of, mainly, Canadian veterans.



Perhaps their problem may be that they are following the example set by the Legion and have not been looking at Veterans in their hiring.  Was this a trend in the last decade or two?


----------



## Stoker

Over the years I have seen instances where not the best people have been hired and they our first line of defence at our military bases. Problem is with the Commissionaires on the first right of refusal is that they will take any contract and staff it with pers with barely a heartbeat rather than let it go to someone else. I think its healthy to open it up to other security companies, perhaps it will allow the Commissionaires to clean up their act and get rid of the deadwood.


----------



## Monsoon

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Over the years I have seen instances where not the best people have been hired and they our first line of defence at our military bases. Problem is with the Commissionaires on the first right of refusal is that they will take any contract and staff it with pers with barely a heartbeat rather than let it go to someone else. I think its healthy to open it up to other security companies, perhaps it will allow the Commissionaires to clean up their act and get rid of the deadwood.


Strong agree. And aside from the low standard of the service provided and the fact that in the cases of most new hires Commissionaires are not retired CAF members: quite frankly unskilled, just-above-minimum-wage security guard jobs are not the careers the government should be steering retired members towards. That may have cut it in the 40s and 50s, but the world (and the quality of veteran we produce) has changed.


----------



## The_Falcon

Part of the reason Commissionaire's have resorted to hiring non-vets is, many former members just plain aren't interested in it, especially if they are punching out in their 30-40's.  Their recruiting still predominantly targets former members though.   There are just few people in the forces than back in the 40s-50s.  And while the forces career transition programs can use work, they do help members get jobs that pay well above what the Commissionaires pay. 

That said if people think there are issues now....getting a company like Garda, which pays minimum wage and has even lower hiring standards  (look at the bang up job they do of security screening at Canada's airports).


----------



## Loachman

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> getting a company like Garda, which pays minimum wage and has even lower hiring standards



What do you mean? Look at the celebrity employees that they manage to attract...


----------



## garb811

My personal opinion is that the Corps deserves to be treated as any other Security Company given their decision(s) over the last decade or so which have resulted in them beginning to act as just another Security company.  I find it interesting that they are considered "non-profit" as they certainly do not behave like one.  They are now a multifaceted business which I have seen engage in activities as far ranging as providing traditional security guards, providing finger-printing and other identification services in store front business locations, acting as agents for people looking to obtain pardons, providing first aid and safety training, acting in all manner of positions in police services, parking enforcement, commissioners of oaths and the list goes on. 

One great thing that would hopefully happen is people would actually need to start paying attention to the details of their bids on contracts and realizing we are getting taken to the cleaners twice.  First by the fact that the rate they charge DND per position is well above what is being paid to the guy filling the post is making (is it a competitive mark-up, better than market value because apparently the Corps doesn't turn a profit...?  Who knows...there's no competing bids to compare it to).  Secondly, far too often I have seen Cmre personnel being treated as an extension of the CAF and given buckshee time off, sent on training paid for by DND when the Corps is supposed to provide personnel already qualified to do the job they are contracted to do and Bases providing them resources to do their job that we would not provide any other Contractor and which the National Standing Offer explicitly states will be provided by the Corps.  The other great habit they have is when someone does something to get removed from post, they simply shuffle them around within the organization rather than outright firing them for incompetence because they don't have enough personnel to fill all of positions they have committed to fill many times.

Competition is never a bad thing.  Sometimes the Corps wins contracts they bid on outside the Federal Government, sometimes they don't.  If they are the best bang for the buck, like they contend, they should have no problem maintaining the contract.


----------



## xo31@711ret

I presently work part time for security for a major mining corporation at a port where another large government corporation operates that require large vessels to ship in their product. We provide security when 'the ships are in'. We provide security for our ships, the government agency has a contract with a private security contractor when they have a vessel in. We're paid a half decent wage, theirs is maybe 25 to a buck over minimum wage, depending on the individual's postiion (guard vs supervisor). I've been there going on 4 years at the mining company. The government agency is into their third or fourth contracted security company. The one presently having the government contract being an international company. Sometimes we are asked to fill in one of their 2 positions because they sometimes cannot fill theboth  security positions when one of the government ships are in. Nice folks to work with (most), but some of them, their training (or lack off), dress and deportment, sticking to the letter of their contract ('that's not my job' for example if I ask to to keep an eye out if while I need to go for a 30 second piss for crissakes). As for the Commissionaires; well here where I now presently live, postings I've had, ( London Ont, Halifax,  Gagetown, etc), most (though not all) were military, professional,  had common dog sense....which, personally,  I would deal with any  time over most 'professional national & international security companies'....can't remember offhand, but wasn't Garda given the contract for the London Olympics? Didn't the British military have to provide some security because the contracted security company wasn't able to provide full security coverage?


----------



## Stoker

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> I presently work part time for security for a major mining corporation at a port where another large government corporation operates that require large vessels to ship in their product. We provide security when 'the ships are in'. We provide security for our ships, the government agency has a contract with a private security contractor when they have a vessel in. We're paid a half decent wage, theirs is maybe 25 to a buck over minimum wage, depending on the individual's postiion (guard vs supervisor). I've been there going on 4 years at the mining company. The government agency is into their third or fourth contracted security company. The one presently having the government contract being an international company. Sometimes we are asked to fill in one of their 2 positions because they sometimes cannot fill theboth  security positions when one of the government ships are in. Nice folks to work with (most), but some of them, their training (or lack off), dress and deportment, sticking to the letter of their contract ('that's not my job' for example if I ask to to keep an eye out if while I need to go for a 30 second piss for crissakes). As for the Commissionaires; well here where I now presently live, postings I've had, ( London Ont, Halifax,  Gagetown, etc), most (though not all) were military, professional,  had common dog sense....which, personally,  I would deal with any  time over most 'professional national & international security companies'....can't remember offhand, but wasn't Garda given the contract for the London Olympics? Didn't the British military have to provide some security because the contracted security company wasn't able to provide full security coverage?



There are a lot of good commissionaires and I have friends that work with them.  On the other hand there are a lot of dead wood that should be let go but they keep them employed so they don't lose the contract. Anyone from CFB Halifax can attest to the type of Commissionaires working at the parking pass office and ID section, they should been gotten rid of a long time ago, some of them still think they're still in the military.


----------



## George Wallace

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> There are a lot of good commissionaires and I have friends that work with them.  On the other hand there are a lot of dead wood that should be let go but they keep them employed so they don't lose the contract. Anyone from CFB Halifax can attest to the type of Commissionaires working at the parking pass office and ID section, they should been gotten rid of a long time ago, some of them still think they're still in the military.



Don't even get us in the NCR started, who have had to deal with Pass Control.


----------



## Stoker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't even get us in the NCR started, who have had to deal with Pass Control.



Ha, just like the day I went in get a permanent ID renewal and was told by the Commissionaire since I was a reserve I wasn't entitled to one. Had that straightened out pretty fast, was making up is own policy.


----------



## Churchill55

Yes, i say get rid of all the useless SOB's. Make them take a double-dip job like most of the rest of the Reg force personnel. (take release on Fri & walk back into the same job as a Civvy on Mon, with a pension) That would be a much better use of tax payers $$$ !!!


----------



## brihard

I came within a hairsbreadth of becoming a commissionaire, to the point of completing their eight or nine day training course. Fortunately my unit was able to land me gainful employment while I waited for my Ontario security Guard license to show up in the mail. So much the better; my photo on my license makes me look fat. Anyway, when talking with one of the hiring guys, he said that they're sitting about 30% CF/RCMP vets these days. My interview was basically a formality- when I walked in and handed them a resume that said 'CF' I was for all intents and purposes hired. Luck, as it would have it, saw me land a Cl B as ops/training NCO at my unit instead.


----------



## The_Falcon

Brihard said:
			
		

> I came within a hairsbreadth of becoming a commissionaire, to the point of completing their eight or nine day training course. Fortunately my unit was able to land me gainful employment while I waited for my Ontario security Guard license to show up in the mail. So much the better; my photo on my license makes me look fat. Anyway, when talking with one of the hiring guys, he said that they're sitting about 30% CF/RCMP vets these days. My interview was basically a formality- when I walked in and handed them a resume that said 'CF' I was for all intents and purposes hired. Luck, as it would have it, saw me land a Cl B as ops/training NCO at my unit instead.



Pretty much same thing with me, only I did end up working for like 4 weeks at the Keele Street Half-Way house, before I landed Class B at CFRC.


----------



## dapaterson

Brihard said:
			
		

> So much the better; my photo on my license makes me look fat.



You make career choices based on whether or not your photo makes you look fat?

 >


----------



## mariomike

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Pretty much same thing with me, only I did end up working for like 4 weeks at the Keele Street Half-Way house, before I landed Class B at CFRC.



Pride of the Junction for 30 years ( if it's still there? ). Now that the area has gone from dry to wet, I wonder if they will close it?


----------



## Davionn

mariomike said:
			
		

> Pride of the Junction for 30 years ( if it's still there? ). Now that the area has gone from dry to wet, I wonder if they will close it?



Oh, it's still there!  No sign of it closing, either (despite the wet status of the area).
 :nod:


----------



## McG

I am not sure younger vets would be particularly interested in greater access to being a commissionaire.  Guys getting out young seem to do so either jaded or with specific aspirations on civi street.  I could see maybe as a second career for medical releases, but that does not seem to be the focus of discussion.



> *Feds ask whether commissionaire jobs should go to low-income vets*
> Bureaucrats review whether Corps of Commissionaires program should be revised to help poorer vets
> Dean Beeby
> CBC News
> 18 Dec 2014
> 
> The security guards known as commissionaires, usually Canadian Forces veterans, who protect the lobbies of federal buildings are better paid than other guards in the private sector – but those good wages may not be going to the right people.
> 
> That’s one of the conclusions from an internal study that suggests the commissionaires program could be revised to ensure younger, lower-income veterans get first crack at the jobs.
> 
> The finding is part of a recent review by Ottawa of its contracts with the commissionaires, a non-profit group founded in 1925, and favoured by the federal government since 1945 to help discharged soldiers find employment as they transition to Civvy Street.
> 
> Ottawa spends more than $200 million annually for guard services from the Corps of Commissionaires, which currently employs about 8,000 veterans.
> 
> The government’s current standing offer expires by 2016, and the Treasury Board Secretariat – the agency responsible – examined whether it’s getting good value for taxpayers’ money.
> 
> The evaluation, finished in August and recently made public, estimates the Corps of Commissionaires charges about six per cent more than private-sector competitors for the same work, with most of that extra cash going to boost the wages and benefits of the guards.
> 
> The review found that most federal departments are happy with the arrangement, and that the program does not seem to be hurting the private sector.
> 
> But the authors noted that most of the veterans benefiting from the program are older and better off, suggesting the work could be spread to where it’s needed most, that is, to younger, poorer vets.
> 
> “Low income was found to be more prevalent among veterans released at young ages, yet the majority of veterans who obtained employment with the Corps as security guards were former non-commissioned officers over the age of 50,” says the report.
> 
> “Privacy limitations prevented the evaluators from examining why low-income veterans were not employed in higher numbers with the Corps.”
> 
> The report recommends that the government consider transferring the program to a department other than Treasury Board “to ensure that employment support for veterans is managed within the broader context of federal support to veterans.”
> 
> The authors do not indicate which department might provide a better home, but the obvious candidates are Veterans Affairs or Employment and Social Development Canada, both of which have social-service mandates.
> 
> A spokeswoman said the Treasury Board agrees with the recommendation.
> 
> “We are in the preliminary stages of consulting with other government stakeholders on the options,” Fiona MacLeod said in an email. “We are targeting to complete the consultation by March 2015.”
> 
> A spokesman for the Corps of Commissionaires said the organization is not convinced any transfer is needed.
> 
> “The policy is obviously working well,” John Dewar, chair of the national business management committee, said from Victoria.
> 
> “Why change it? … It’s clearly delivering what it was intended to do. … We see no really compelling reason to fix it.”
> 
> Dewar challenged the claim that the corps provides jobs to primarily higher-income vets, noting that 70 per cent of all veterans have no pensions.
> 
> Since 2006, federal policy has required the Corps of Commissionaires to give a minimum of 60 per cent of contracted work hours to veterans, which as of that year also includes ex-RCMP officers honourably discharged.
> 
> The organization needs some flexibility to hire non-vets because there can be shortages of bilingual guards in locations such as Ottawa or Montreal, and shortages for staffing federal buildings in locations where few vets live.
> 
> The corps says it hires about 1,000 veterans a year, full- and part-time, and currently employs about 20,000 people altogether, 42 per cent of them veterans.
> 
> A 2011 study showed that veterans experience a 10 per cent drop in income, on average, in the three years after their release from the military, though the drop is triple that among women and medically discharged personnel.
> 
> “A unique issue that veterans continue to face is the lack of recognition of the CAF [Canadian Armed Forces] work experience by potential employers,” said the Treasury Board evaluation.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/feds-ask-whether-commissionaire-jobs-should-go-to-low-income-vets-1.2878185


----------



## Stoker

Might be a option for some.  I'm not sure how the older commissionaires are going to take this if it happens, the Corps is very cliquish and I would love to see a younger generation of veterans guarding our bases.


----------



## stokerwes

I think its mostly older vets is because with their pension and the salary of the corps they can get by.
A younger vet with no pension could not live on the pay from the corps alone.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Might be a option for some.  I'm not sure how the older commissionaires are going to take this if it happens, the Corps is very cliquish and I would love to see a younger generation of veterans guarding our bases.


Where to begin...  I do work with them on the side and have for the past 5 years.  I was initially badgered at my long term plans and would I be leaving the CF anytime soon to go with them full time.  There are many issues with the Corps that make them not as attractive as they could be.  They're just another security company out there amongst many, the pay is not necessarily any better than the others and in quite a few cases are well below the competition.  They don't have benefits.  No pension plan.  Like any other security company there's no real job security as your contracts are at the whim of the clients.  DND, at least here locally have laid off many of their CNS staff to meet with the new budget realities of the past few years.  There is no way in hades that I'd consider leaving the CF to go with them full time unless I had no other option.  They don't leave me with that comfort factor that I would want with a long term employer.  There are younger people who are with them in the various sites and they don't have any problems in being accepted by the pack, age is not an issue, nor is a lack of military background as this also has changed greatly over the passing years as well.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Where to begin...  I do work with them on the side and have for the past 5 years.  I was initially badgered at my long term plans and would I be leaving the CF anytime soon to go with them full time.  There are many issues with the Corps that make them not as attractive as they could be.  They're just another security company out there amongst many, the pay is not necessarily any better than the others and in quite a few cases are well below the competition.  They don't have benefits.  No pension plan.  Like any other security company there's no real job security as your contracts are at the whim of the clients.  DND, at least here locally have laid off many of their CNS staff to meet with the new budget realities of the past few years.  There is no way in hades that I'd consider leaving the CF to go with them full time unless I had no other option.  They don't leave me with that comfort factor that I would want with a long term employer.  There are younger people who are with them in the various sites and they don't have any problems in being accepted by the pack, age is not an issue, nor is a lack of military background as this also has changed greatly over the passing years as well.



That's good info to know. I'm glad you have had a positive experience working there. Personally I have had many problems with the staff at the gates, the parking office or the ID section over the years. I think we were lucky that something serious didn't happen with the slack attitude some of the commissionaires display at times. Perhaps bringing in some younger blood with a military background would be a positive thing over time.


----------



## Tibbson

I had a long chat with one of the provincial personnel managers for the Corps last year and I learned that the Corps is trying to rebrand itself (my word for it, not his) in order to survive.  Apparently the "protections" they enjoy by being the security service of choice for DND is set to be reevaluated in a couple of years and the Corps itself expects the contracting process to be blown wide open for bids from other companies.  They anticipate they will still retain many positions in and around DND but I was also told that we can expect Brinks, Paladin, Group 4 and other security firms working our gates, front desks and other security positions by virtue of putting in cheaper bids for the contract positions.  As a result the Corps is looking to diversify into corporate security, disaster planning, transportation security....and other fields in order to remain competitive.  Add that to the elimination years ago of the prior military service requirements (the Cmre working my front desk right now is from Zaire and has never served a day in uniform in his life).  I wish them luck but none of what I heard made them an attractive option for future employment.


----------



## McG

If Comissionaires are to be the government security provider of choice and a Veterans' second career support mechanism, would a crown corporation not make more sense than a private corporation (even if it is not for profit)?


----------



## Tibbson

MCG said:
			
		

> If Comissionaires are to be the government security provider of choice and a Veterans' second career support mechanism, would a crown corporation not make more sense than a private corporation (even if it is not for profit)?



They may be the security provider of choice now but the point I was making is that its expected to change.  Private security companies have complained for years about how they were shut out of government contracts for security within DND and while the Commissionaires have been protected in the past I'd expect that to change based upon what I heard.  

Some have said that the Cmres will still retain the bulk of the contracts because of the need, in some cases, for Cmre to have security clearances but I don't see that being much of a stumbling block.  Cmre's who want to keep working will just quit and get hired on with the new company.  They'll take their security clearances with them and the remainder of the staff will get theirs through the system.


----------



## McG

Security clearances don't follow when one releases.  Unless something has changed recently, even going CF to PS requires the security clearance be redone.  I cannot see this as an advantage for Commisionaires.  

In any case, I was not attempting to provide a counter point to your post.  Rather, I note government desire to impose increased use of veterans on a private company to meet a government obligation to support transition.  If the government's goal is to use infrastructure security as a means to enable veteran transition, then does a crown corporation not make more sense?


----------



## Brasidas

It's a place for marking time, be it as a broken ex-cpl or a retiree cushioning their income. Why would I stay there beyond the short-term? To pursue my dream of becoming a photo radar operator?

Long hours, less-than-awesome pay, and a variable schedule. No real prospects in the long term. Some posts work for students, with few responsibilities between patrols besides consciousness, but they're working to do something else, not advance in the Corps.

I'm fine with their preferred status, but it has little attraction to me and my friends as a place to stay.


----------



## George Wallace

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> ........  Cmre's who want to keep working will just quit and get hired on with the new company.  They'll take their security clearances with them and the remainder of the staff will get theirs through the system.



That is a questionable statement, especially when one takes a look at the ages of most Cmre's.  I highly doubt that other Security Companies will look at hiring people who in some cases may be over CRA in some sectors.


----------



## Alberta Bound

I think that in 1925 forming the Commissionaires as a way to provide permanent or temporary employment for veterans was quite a forward looking idea. In the days before many other social safety nets, some people felt it important to give veterans some opportunities.  I agree. Today we are struggling to find other appropriate programs to do the same thing for a newer generation of veterans. Many seemingly not as successful as we would hope. 

Now the C of C has not evolved as much as it could have in the last 90 years. Therefore the types of opportunities they offer don't necessarily meet what today's veteran is looking for. Most CF or RCMP members I know that are looking for post service careers (not just retirement employment or a flexible job during schooling) are not looking for what the C of C is offering. Most want secure, well paying careers that interest them. 

Having said that. The C of C is providing employment for some ex members of the CF and RCMP. Would it be nice if that service could be expanded in such a fashion that more ex CF members have opportunities that interest them. Sure. Not sure how the Govt could do that. Don't have much hope they can. 

Now the Govt of Canada is never going to transition the duties the C of C or many other contractors into real PS positions. That would tie them to higher pay, benefits, dramatically less flexibility, longer hiring timelines, and many other issues that they avoid by contracting out. 

Well there is my two cents.


----------



## The_Falcon

MCG said:
			
		

> Security clearances don't follow when one releases.  Unless something has changed recently, even going CF to PS requires the security clearance be redone.  I cannot see this as an advantage for Commisionaires.



Actually that's not entirely correct, there is a CANFORGEN (between 07-11 somewhere in that range), that discusses how one can take their CAF security clearance with them upon release.


----------



## TCM621

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.


No it did not. They couldn't hold a rifle properly half the time. I lost count of the times I walk past some one with their rifle just flopping around on their patrol sling. 

However,  I get your point.  We should a armed military member at the gates of places like the Dockyard or the aerodromes at airports bases. Just give them a (loaded!) browning in a holster not a C7. Even the most dedicated troop fees lazy if he is standing around all day carrying a rifle and it gets in the way. If they really felt a C7 is needed, then keep it in a rack in the guard shack. 

Commissionaires do a fine job for a lot of the other things they do but having a man to old to be in the military guarding a military base is just wrong. As for things like deportment and professionalism , I know one of the guys who runs the Commissionaires (he is a family friend) and they are working to address it.  However they are a huge organization with a bureaucracy to match. Most of us just ***** about it but if their is a real problem make sure it gets documented.


Edit: just realized I answered a 3 year old post. Oops. Oh well, points still stand.


----------

