# CBSA officers suspended for helping RCMP?



## The Bread Guy (19 Aug 2014)

This from The Canadian Press:


> The union representing Canada’s border guards says three of its Manitoba members have been suspended without pay after leaving their posts at the request of the RCMP to help arrest a suspect.
> 
> Jean-Pierre Fortin, president of the Customs and Immigration Union, says the guards were asked a few months ago to provide backup for the RCMP less than a kilometre away from the Canada-U.S. border in Emerson. The guards left their posts to help the Mounties, who were staking out a hotel and bar where they had tracked a suspect believed to be involved in the kidnapping of a child.
> 
> ...


----------



## RedcapCrusader (19 Aug 2014)

CBSA *Officers* are federally appointed peace officers. Tis should be a non issue.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Aug 2014)

Some RDG has said head up ass. Imagine this headline: "CBSA refusal to help RCMP allows Child kidnapper to escape with little girl, whereabouts and condition of the girl is unknown at this time."

Their primary task was covered

The need was immediate and the threat to an innocent child was at stake

Some things are better meant for forgiveness than approval and really we do pay Managers to make decisions and one of them did, all the power to them

I bet those CBSA  officers and Manager sleep well at night regardless and would do the same thing again.

The senior management blew this, theer was ways to ensure that callouts don't happen for routine calls, but senior management is all risk adverse these days


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ................. senior management is all risk adverse these days



That there is the only fact that counts in this discussion.   For many years now, the Governments senior bureaucrats have become so risk adverse, that they are hamstringing the PS.  Incompetence spreads and is encouraged by these moronic risk adverse types.   Then they wonder why the general public has no respect for them.


----------



## medicineman (19 Aug 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That there is the only fact that counts in this discussion.   For many years now, the Governments senior bureaucrats have become so risk adverse, that they are hamstringing the PS.  Incompetence spreads and is encouraged by these moronic risk adverse types.   Then they wonder why the general public has no respect for them, not to mention their subordinates.



There, FTFY.

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Aug 2014)

You should have seen the glazed look when I suggested at a meet and greet staff meeting with the ADM that they should empower frontline managers and encourage "good failure" That being taking a risk with a known chance of failure and good reward if successful.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Aug 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You should have seen the glazed look when I suggested at a meet and greet staff meeting with the ADM that they should empower frontline managers and encourage "good failure" That being taking a risk with a known chance of failure and good reward if successful.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Aug 2014)

Pretty much the response to anyone who is not a "Team player"


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Aug 2015)

Bumped with the latest ....


> A year and a half after their union says they were disciplined for helping the RCMP, three Canadian Border Service Agency (CBSA) officers are still fighting their punishment and a fourth has left his job.
> 
> In February 2014, a CBSA superintendent in Emerson, Manitoba received a call from the RCMP asking for help.
> 
> ...


Said policy attached.


----------



## GK .Dundas (19 Aug 2015)

Having been at the mercy  of CBSA for daring to leave the country and having the temerity to return  I long ago came to the conclusion that the upper management of that august agency really needed adult supervision themselves .Strangely I never had any complaints about the staff on the ground


----------



## Lumber (19 Aug 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I bet those CBSA  officers and Manager sleep well at night...



And in the morning on their 25 days off.


----------



## Remius (19 Aug 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You should have seen the glazed look when I suggested at a meet and greet staff meeting with the ADM that they should empower frontline managers and encourage "good failure" That being taking a risk with a known chance of failure and good reward if successful.



We're suffering the same thing where I'm at.  The culture of risk aversion and making any decision is actually hindering our operations.  It's like the director doesn't want to make a decision until it's too late and does the oh well shrug.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Aug 2015)

Question for the LEOs...

Is there a legal requirement to render assistance to Police if asked?

If the answer to the above is yes, wouldn't that requirement then trump CBSA policy?


----------



## Robert0288 (20 Aug 2015)

I would say the basis of the argument in the memo is the gaps in authorities and protections.  However 25(4) of the Criminal Code should more than cover any gaps in legislation.




> _(4) A peace officer, and every person lawfully assisting the peace officer, is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested, ..... _


----------



## Haggis (20 Aug 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Question for the LEOs...
> 
> Is there a legal requirement to render assistance to Police if asked?



CCC S 129 reads:

"Offences relating to public or peace officer

129. Every one who

(a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer,

(b) *omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so,* or

(c) resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,

is guilty of

(d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(e) an offence punishable on summary conviction."


----------



## brihard (20 Aug 2015)

Personally I don't know if I could have the heart to lay a charge on the CBSA officers in that position. But I would certainly consult with crown about a S.129(a) charge against their supervisor for wilfully obstructing those other officers from lawfully helping me. That would not be dependent upon the peace officer status of the CBSA officers, but rather on the supervisor obstructing them from helping me lawfully under the auspices of mine.

I hope any CBSA or other peace officers know that in a situation like this, the police officers they help will always do their best to have their back.


----------



## Haggis (20 Aug 2015)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Personally I don't know if I could have the heart to lay a charge on the CBSA officers in that position. But I would certainly consult with crown about a S.129(a) charge against their supervisor for wilfully obstructing those other officers from lawfully helping me. That would not be dependent upon the peace officer status of the CBSA officers, but rather on the supervisor obstructing them from helping me lawfully under the auspices of mine.



My point was that s. 129(b) _could_ (as suggested) trump agency policy prohibiting rendering assistance to other LEOs outside their mandate.  In that the disciplinary action followed the assistance (but did not obstruct or prevent it), a s. 129(b) appeal could be made against the suspensions.  Maybe this was already done.  The article doesn't say what actions, if any, the union or members took to appeal this.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> I hope any CBSA or other peace officers know that in a situation like this, the police officers they help will always do their best to have their back.



Even though they were congratulated by the RCMP, the Mounties did not go to bat for them and neither did the Minister.  They were still disciplined.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Even though they were congratulated by the RCMP, the Mounties did not go to bat for them and neither did the Minister.  They were still disciplined.



Do we actually know that the RCMP and the Minister knew and didn't act, before this became news?


----------



## Haggis (20 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do we actually know that the RCMP and the Minister knew and didn't act, before this became news?



Good point, George, and my supposition was based solely on what the article says.


----------



## Robert0288 (20 Aug 2015)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Personally I don't know if I could have the heart to lay a charge on the CBSA officers in that position. But I would certainly consult with crown about a S.129(a) charge against their supervisor for wilfully obstructing those other officers from lawfully helping me. That would not be dependent upon the peace officer status of the CBSA officers, but rather on the supervisor obstructing them from helping me lawfully under the auspices of mine.
> 
> I hope any CBSA or other peace officers know that in a situation like this, the police officers they help will always do their best to have their back.



The sup took the call, authorized them to go, and then went with them to the scene.  There doesn't seem to be any issue at the local level.  Here's another article that has a little more information: http://globalnews.ca/news/2172040/border-officers-disciplined-for-helping-rcmp-demand-ottawa-intervene/


----------

