# CBSA arming



## Slim

*Border guards call for armed patrol*
By MICHAEL DEN TANDT 

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Updated at 1:10 AM EST

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050322.wborders22/BNStory/National/

Ottawa â â€ The union representing Canada's border guards is urging the federal government to establish an armed border patrol to fill what it says are egregious security gaps at hundreds of unguarded Canada-U.S. border crossings.

In a speech to be delivered before the Commons justice committee Tuesday, Ron Moran, head of the 10,500-member Customs Excise Union, chastises Public Security Minister Anne McLellan for understating the frequency with which vehicles drive through border crossings without first passing through customs.

Last month, Ms. McLellan told a Commons subcommittee that Quebec's Lacolle border crossing â â€ the largest in Quebec, with 15 full-time customs officers â â€ had seen only 18 drivers "blow through" the border in a single year, Mr. Moran notes.

"In reality," the union leader says in the prepared text for today's speech, "our members counted no less than 17 vehicles during a three-week period in the month of December alone."

Mr. Moran adds that such incidents are common at border posts across Canada. During the week of Feb. 7 in British Columbia, customs officers at five crossings registered 26 illegal crossings, he says in the speech.

And in Stanstead, Que., customs officers typically count 250 "unidentified vehicles" entering Canada each month using two unguarded roads nearby. "We're also aware that CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] has over 1,600 vehicles documented as entering Canada in 2004 and failing to report to customs."

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Moran said the statistics, particularly at well-staffed crossings such as Lacolle, speak to "flagrant disrespect for any form of authority that exists at the border."

Canadian customs officers are not armed. Nor are they allowed to pursue vehicles that "run" border posts. That duty falls to local police forces, many of whom are strapped for resources and unable to respond in time to catch border runners, Mr. Moran said.

The best way to plug the gaps, he said, would be to establish an armed border patrol, mandated to patrol "unofficial" border crossings, of which there are more than 200 across Canada. Existing customs offices at official ports of entry would serve as bases.

He estimated the job could be done by 250 officers. Assuming an average salary of $50,000, plus benefits, the additional officers would cost taxpayers about $15-million a year, plus the cost of vehicles and equipment.

A spokesman for Ms. McLellan immediately dismissed the idea, saying that, although Ottawa is plowing hundreds of millions of dollars into beefing up the border, "there's no plan to set up an armed Canadian border patrol."

Spokesman Alex Swann said that the government has sharply expanded the number of RCMP-led International Border Enforcement Teams, from four teams in 2001 to 15 currently. Four of these operate in Quebec, where border security is a particularly sensitive issue, both because of the large numbers of unguarded crossings and because nine of the province's RCMP border detachments were closed last year because of budget cuts.

The customs union, for its part, argues that the RCMP teams are primarily investigative in nature, and are no substitute for boots on the ground along the border.

The union has taken its campaign to opposition MPs, and is urging border communities, provinces and U.S. states that skirt the border to take up the issue with the federal government. The RCMP declined comment yesterday.


----------



## Infanteer

I never understood why our border guys, who are rightfully tagged as "Gate Guards", have never been armed.  They are, after all, a forward defence of Canadian sovereignty.


----------



## Slim

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I never understood why our border guys, who are rightfully tagged as "Gate Guards", have never been armed.   They are, after all, a forward defence of Canadian sovereignty.



Seems to me its some kind of "Canadian " thing...You know, *guns are bad * so, of course, we can't actually have people CARRYING them, now can we!?

That would completely go against all that our politicians and public have come to believe about our pleasant little frozen banana republic.

We're not actually allowed to STOP criminals (or anyone else) from entering this country now are we?!

(sorry, a bit bitter tonight :rage

Slim


----------



## dutchie

In reality Canada won't arm their Customs Officers, or 'Border Services Officers - Customs' as they're now known, until one or more are gunned down, blown up, run over, or beaten to a pulp. Our Government, and by extension the public, never seem to do anything until people are killed, never mind that EVERY Customs Officer I've seen from other countries has been armed, and usually quite well.


----------



## winchable

What strikes me as actually quite frightening is that there were what? 27 Blow throughs at one place and 250 unauthorized crossings a month!

And it's talked about like it's completely ordinary happenings.

Let's assume (possibly very incorrectly) that the majority of them are 20 year old kids freaking out about the doobie rolled in the glove compartment, that still probably leaves a sizable minority who are blowing by with God knows what stashed in their trunk (bodies, explosives, guns, mexican children, deserters, monkeys infected with the bubonic plague)

And To be truthful I always assumed we had armed border guards, it's only common sense!!!!



> until one or more are gunned down, blown up, run over, or beaten to a pulp.



Canada *is* extremely good at putting the buckets out _after_ the rain storm aren't we?


----------



## Torlyn

Che said:
			
		

> And To be truthful I always assumed we had armed border guards, it's only common sense!!!!



Seems kind of odd, doesn't it?  I guess they guard the border by shaking their fingers sternly as cars that go whizzing by.  The border guards wish they were armed like their American counterparts as well.  I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a public debate about this from the union, I know in Calgary every 2 years it seems, our transit cop union starts the media drive to arm the T-Cops.

I mean, how much faith can we possibly have in a system where those that are charged with protecting the security and sovereignty of our nation are less prepared than a Brinks truck driver?  Something's not right...  Way to go, Anne.  BRILLIANT work.   :

T


----------



## dutchie

Unarmed Customs Officers reminds me of Apu (sp?) in the Simpson's. 

Said with a heavy Indo-Canadian accent: "_I've kindly asked you to stop at my Border Crossing. You've left me no choice but to....kindly ask you again_."


----------



## badpup

Customs officers have for many years asked the Feds for the ability to carry and use weapons, much the same as game wardens have also asked for sidearms, the PC climate in this country wins out every time, and they are disallowed.
We won't learn until one dies


----------



## Cpl.Banks

I always though our border guards had sidearms at lest, or like the RCMP, having say a shotgun of a rifle in the trunk for "Special" ocasions. Would conservatives give our suys guns? Anyways its time for a change, although I do consider myself more liberal in certain area's (Health care...yeah thats pretty much it) we need a change, and hopefully another increse into our budget!! ;D
UBIQUE!!!


----------



## Gunner

> I never understood why our border guys, who are rightfully tagged as "Gate Guards", have never been armed.  They are, after all, a forward defence of Canadian sovereignty.



Customs agents?  What's next?  Commissionaires!  In all seriousness I have to agree with the general sentiment being made that our border agents (and wildlife officers) should be armed.


----------



## dutchie

Now that we agree that Customs Officers should be armed, I thought I'd bring up what I see as the biggest legitimate stumbling block to arming them. 

Customs Officers are Unionized, of course, and are part of the mega-Federal PSAC Union. When hired, the requirements of the job are put in a 'Statement of Qualifications' (duh), and each factor or sub-factor must be evaluated in the candidate prior to being hired. The willingness to carry and/or use firearms is not part of the Statement of Qual's, and so you have people that are Customs Officers who never intended to carry weapons. Worse still, the recruiters didn't consider their suitability for this either, so you have a lot of people who don't want to carry weapons, don't have the mental capacity to use them, and were never intended to carry them. 

What do you do? Fire or forcibly transfer all those that don't want to carry weapons? The Union would loose their mind and fight it, and IMHO would win. Do you start hiring people with the new requirement and only arm them? That would put those that are unarmed at huge risk (bad guys would assume they're all armed). 

I don't pretend to have the answers, but I feel that's the biggest problem.


----------



## Gunner

I think you may find that the union supports their members having weapons.  Certainly that is true of the wildlife officers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Caesar,
There normally is a "grandfather" clause brought in when a momentous change like that takes place. Just recently the Govt wanted everyone in Ont. corrections to be "escort"[no jokes] trained but had to "grandfather" those who were allready serving and did not want to be thus trained. Not to mention one part of the course is getting pepper sprayed, so that you can know the effects of what you are doing to someone, and not everyone is medically able to have this done to them.. However that can be made part of new hiring criteria.
Bruce


----------



## dutchie

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Caesar,
> There normally is a "grandfather" clause brought in when a momentous change like that takes place. Just recently the Govt wanted everyone in Ont. corrections to be "escort"[no jokes] trained but had to "grandfather" those who were allready serving and did not want to be thus trained. Not to mention one part of the course is getting pepper sprayed, so that you can know the effects of what you are doing to someone, and not everyone is medically able to have this done to them.. However that can be made part of new hiring criteria.
> Bruce



Right, but what do you get? Some Customs Officers who are armed, some who are not. I think that would create a very unsafe environment for the unarmed Officers. 

Obviously I support arming them, I'm just pointing out there are problems inherant in doing that.


----------



## SteveB

As someone who encounters Canadian customs on an almost daily basis, I have to vote against arming them.  These people are about as far from a tactical mindset as you can get.  They are much more tax collectors than law enforcement officers.  The porous nature of the border is a travesty but customs as they currently exist are not really able to take a truly pro-active approach to those who aren't already in the mood to comply.  Rather, I would like to see either 1. An increase in the RCMP teams mentioned. or 2. The creation of a separate armed group under the auspices of Customs or CSIS or the RCMP.

I'd hate to see yet another bureaucracy but customs officers as a group are absolutely unprepared for the responsibility and consequences of armed response.

Steve


----------



## Highland Lad

Hey Steve - Good to see ya here...

OK, I agree that many Canadian Border Security Agency types have a less than intimidating look about them, and some of them are definitely of the "customs, not security" attitude, but this is not true of all.

I think that having a team dedicated to armed patrols of our borders, esp along high-risk sections, like parts of Quebec or BC (rememberthe guys w/ 100 lb rucks of BC bud going over to US through the woods?) would be a good idea.

Arm every CBSA Inspector? No. Create a specialized team for specific locations or areas? YES. Our national security should not be the joke it seems to be (remember the deal with a border crossing in AB? One building for both nations' customs teams - but the bathroom was on the Cdn side - and legally, the US Customs dudes had to check their sidearms if they ever had to take a leak, as they are legally forbidden from carrying them into Canada).

My 2 ¢,
Sig.


----------



## Infanteer

Seems like a fairly reasonable option - take the "London Metro" approach.   It could be an "armed assignment" that some could volunteer for; give'm MP-5's and black tactical gear and watch recruiting rise for the Customs Agency.


----------



## Highland Lad

From Wed's Globe & Mail -

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050323/BORDER23/TPNational/TopStories

*Porous border causes concern*

By BILL CURRY 

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Page A9

 OTTAWA -- The president of the RCMP's unofficial union backed up allegations from customs workers yesterday of major gaps in Canada's border security, as a parliamentary committee was warned of a security "crisis" that allows hundreds of vehicles to illegally zip across the border without consequence.

The committee was told that the RCMP shutting down nine posts in Quebec will further compromise security, forcing U.S. agents to pick up the slack.

The warnings came from Ron Moran, president of the Customs Excise Union, and Staff Sergeant Gaetan Delisle, president of the RCMP members association, which operates as a union but is not legally recognized.

At issue is the closing of nine RCMP detachments along the Canada-U.S. border in Quebec and what the two groups describe as a lack of resources at the border. Faced with outcries from affected communities, the Commons justice committee studied the detachment closings and issued a report in December calling for them not to go ahead.

In spite of the report, Mr. Moran said, he was surprised to see the RCMP proceed with the closings, especially in light of pledges to improve border security after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S.

"We were quite stunned," he told MPs. "If anything, we should have expected the opening of RCMP offices along the border in many parts of the country, not closures."

Mr. Moran said his organization is aware the Canada Border Services Agency had documented 1,600 vehicles entering Canada in 2004 and failing to report to customs. 

His own organization recorded that 17 vehicles had "blown" the Lacolle border post, a major crossing in Quebec, over a three-week period in 2004.

Staff Sgt. Delisle offered similar criticism before the committee and told reporters after the meeting the RCMP is not able to respond to calls from customs.

"We don't have the numbers, but there's a lot of the criminal elements that are going across the border, specifically on the grow-ops. We know that for a fact," said Staff Sgt. Delisle, a staff relations officer in Montreal who expressed concern about reprisal for contradicting the Commissioner in public.

RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli dismissed all border- security concerns, defending the closings as part of a countrywide plan to create a more mobile team of officers protecting the border.

Commissioner Zaccardelli said it is impossible to check every vehicle crossing the border, adding the RCMP uses intelligence to focus its resources where there is higher risk.

He said the RCMP's budget has grown from $2-billion to $3-billion over the past six years and its new approach to border security is attracting positive international attention.

"The detachments that we're talking about, their work was not 100 per cent on the border," he told MPs. "We didn't have people located strategically throughout the country to respond. We now have that. . . . What I did is redeploy those positions in Quebec in more strategic locations. I've put them in bigger groups, I gave them more equipment and they're better able to respond in Quebec and also in the rest of the country."

Conservative MP Peter MacKay challenged Commissioner Zaccardelli to explain how fewer detachments will improve border security.

"We are abdicating our responsibility at the border," said Mr. MacKay, referring to the earlier testimony from the two employee groups. "All of this amounts to less ability for front-line officers to do their jobs to protect Canadian citizens. I'm just astounded as to how you can justify this and say security has actually improved."

Liberal MP Denis Paradis also questioned the closings, saying less RCMP visibility could encourage criminals to become more active.

"There are not a lot of people who understand what you are doing," he said. "If the police aren't there on the ground, if they're never seen, doesn't that just open the door wide to anyone who wants to commit a crime? If you never see the police on the highway, don't you think everybody might just speed a little bit?"

-----------

So, if the RCMP is closing these posts, who will do the job?


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Seems like a fairly reasonable option - take the "London Metro" approach.   It could be an "armed assignment" that some could volunteer for; give'm MP-5's and black tactical gear and watch recruiting rise for the Customs Agency.



You just twigged my interest.   ;D


----------



## Highland Lad

I'm writing the CIT2a (Customs Inspector Test) with the next block for the St Lawrence District...

Yes, I'd be interested in this kind of position... wouldn't most of you?


----------



## dutchie

BTW, Customs has only recently added a physical component to the Statement of Qualifications. That is, they only recently started requiring their candidates to pass a basic level of fitness. Recently (about a year ago?) they started training their recruits in take-downs and such. This is NEW.

Gives you an idea into the mentality of the average Customs Officer. There are exceptions of course (don't we have a Customs Officer here? 48th Highlander I believe?), but Customs Officers are civil servants and memebrs of PSAC.

I totally support creating a seperate wing of CBSA that is armed and more aggressive. It could help in chasing down border runners and providing security to the Customs Officers, amonsgt other more obvious duties. Same goes for the Marine Boarding Party Customs Officers. Arm those guys as well. You could arm them very well with smg's and assualt rifles, as they aren't doing the day-to-day Customs work.



			
				Highland Lad said:
			
		

> I'm writing the CIT2a (Customs Inspector Test) with the next block for the St Lawrence District...
> 
> Yes, I'd be interested in this kind of position... wouldn't most of you?


As am I (in BC), and yes, that would be nice. ;D


----------



## badpup

In response to above:
I (last year) looked at the requirements for working with Canada Customs, at that time part of the requirements/potential training required weapons, 2 months later, when I looked again at the program, the weapons had been removed. COME ON Canada!, these are our first line defence in a peace time situation!, how many more Terrorists do we have to allow to occupy "OUR SPACE"


----------



## The_Falcon

Portcullis Guy is a Customs Officer, I am sure he would be to clarify any questions regarding weapons training, requirements.  He has spoken about it before in the mess but I don't remember all the details.  You should probably direct your question to him.


----------



## J.J

For Immediate release		                                      January 10, 2006 – 10 a.m.

Independent Report Confirms Customs Officers Must be Armed and Recommends Independent Investigation of CBSA Conduct 

MONTREAL – The Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise (CEUDA) has provided copies of ‘A View from the Front Lines’ authored by The Northgate Group to the Leaders of all political parties as well as to the Minister of Public Security and the President of the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). Among other important recommendations, the Northgate Report has specifically recommended the issuance of side-arms for Border Services Officers, Customs Investigators and Regional Intelligence Officers engaged in inspection, interdiction and enforcement duties. The Report also recommends the creation of an armed, mobile Border Patrol. 
The Report was commissioned by CEUDA in July 2005 requesting that an extensive study be conducted to asses whether the risks inherent in the duties of Border Services Officers, Regional Intelligence Officers and Customs Investigators would justify the issuance of side-arms. The Northgate Study was centered on extensive interviews of Front Line Officers in all regions of the country, and included an exhaustive review of relevant documents and of third party materials.  
The Northgate Report was undertaken as the result of a continuing refusal by the federal government to provide side-arms to officers notwithstanding the dramatic enforcement-focused evolution of officer duties at this country’s points-of-entry as well as inland. This evolution was accentuated in July 2000 when Front-Line Customs Officers became empowered to enforce the Criminal Code which includes arresting dangerous and violent persons, drunk drivers and criminal fugitives many of whom are considered by police to be ‘Armed and Dangerous’. Unlike their police counterparts however, Customs Officers were denied side-arms. In 2002, subsequent to Officer pressure, the government contracted ModuSpec to carry out a limited risk analysis on occupational health and safety issues in Customs which resulted in a 70-page report that had a mere 2 pages dedicated to the complicated question of side-arms.  
After evidence was uncovered and later confirmed by a parliamentary committee that the ModuSpec Report had in fact been altered on the issue of side-arms (ModuSpec’s initial conclusions were that an armed presence was warranted at least at the 6 biggest border crossings) and a steadfast refusal by CBSA to conduct a proper study, CEUDA resolved to ensure Front Line Officers were heard and that everyone was provided with an objective and accurate analysis into this important subject. The Study took place over the last 6 months and CEUDA is pleased to make the report public guaranteeing it is unaltered.
The Northgate Report makes 31 recommendations, highlighted by recommendations to:  
	Arm Customs Officers 
	Arm Regional Customs Intelligence Officers
	Arm Customs Investigators
	Create an Armed Border Patrol
	End work alone circumstances  

During the course of the study, Northgate also uncovered evidence pertaining to the conduct of the CBSA, suggesting serious public safety and security deficiencies as well as actions that indicate a deliberate intent to mislead the public on many of these shortfalls as well as on the issue of the need for side-arms. 


Evidence uncovered and reported in the Northgate Report relating to Customs Service conduct includes:
	Further confirmation that the ModuSpec report had been altered by removing the recommendation for an armed presence at the border; 
	Suppression of three separate reports (2 from CCRA and 1 from Audit Canada) recommending the arming of Customs Officers; 
	Withholding relevant reports from HRSDC Labour Officers who were investigating work refusals by Customs Officers; 
	Providing inaccurate information to Parliamentarians in Committee; and
	Ordering the destruction of a report which compiled threats and harm to Customs Officers without authority or justification for doing so.
In response to this disturbing evidence and the public ramifications of it, the Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise has taken the extraordinary step of asking the Auditor General of Canada to conduct an institutional and operational audit of CBSA actions on these matters. 



The results of this Northgate study will be difficult for the_ Lieberals _ to suppress and alter, as they have done in the past.


----------



## Slim

More and more it is beginning to look as though they may not be around to suppress anything after this coming election.


----------



## J.J

We can only hope.....


----------



## AFireinside13

I am a Customs Officer, now my opinion doesn't represent everyone else's in the agency, but I feel arming Customs Officers at land borders is a good idea. 
The unfortunate thing is, i see no reason for the officers in the airport to be armed, only the land borders. I work in the airport and i feel it is one of the safest places to work. The reason is there are too many security checks to go through before you even get to us, there are always exceptions, but for the most part, i don't think we need firearms. 
Now, as for the land borders, arm them, and get rid of the idea of having 1 Officer in the Primary booth ( first point of contact).  We need at least 2 officers in the booth for safety reasons. In the airport, i can touch the Officer next to me, but on the land border, a dangerous situation could be developing and the next officer wouldn't have the slightest idea. 

With our union, if one officer gets special training, we all have the right to that training. So obviously, we all would have to have firearms if the land borders get that ability. I don't know, that is just my opinion, if VERY interested to see how they will handle this situation. Will we need psychological tests to prove the capacity to hold and use that weapon? Let's see how this pans out.


----------



## Lane

Just a little tidbit about Canadian border security, I did my BMQ and SQ in Chilliwack, several of the field areas are near the border.
During the SQ training portion for recce patrols, we came across a maginzine containing live rounds in them, and small shelter. None of this was likely to be military, as the mag looked like it was for a MP5. (I actually didn't get that good a look at them, as my Mcpl. took the mag back to the plt warrant.)


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I think Bruce Monkhouse has the right idea.  Make the firearm an optional item for existing officers and if they want one, submit them to the full battery of aptitude tests similar to the ones police are subject to.  For the grandma's that are only there to ding you for taxes on your American TV and for bringing in booze and smokes, don't make them carry a gun.  If nothing else, you wouldn't have a gun pointing at you when it was sticking out on a horizontal over their monster hips.  Ive seen it.  I can defend it.
Then make it mandatory for new hires and make sure everyone is up to speed.
Part of the problem is their heavy reliance on summer students to supplement their numbers during the peak seasons.  It would be cost prohibitive to get a bunch of temporary hires full use of force training courses just to punt them four months later.
Another part of the problem is that the CBSA is only recently transformed from an extention of Revenue Canada to an actual enforcement branch of the Fed.  No doubt that is where SteveB gets his fairly ignorant views from.  There are so many levels of bureaucracy and resistance within, you would be dismayed at how much border security is sacrificed for the sake of "not stepping on toes".  Pile that on with the fact that there would be a massive expense at arming all of them, as well as a pay increase to bring them closer to RCMP salary.  There would also have to be a shameful admission from the Fed that the border is actually dangerous, something they have resisted savagely.
Hows this for policy:  As it stands now, if the CBSA gets an alert from the US, warning that an armed and dangerous criminal is likely to be crossing the border, and they see that car coming through their line, they are *forbidden* from sending that car to the secondary area for inspection.  They are required to let it go and simply call the local police service to try to find it after it goes through.   Nice.  We really love that one, since we share the border at two crossing points with Detroit.
I believe there has been some rumblings about a Canadian Border Patrol for a while now, but I don't know where that is at this point.  No doubt crushed on the alter of the Big Red "L".

Hey WR, tell the story of how you were ordered to remove your personal defense weapons and bullet proof vests because the visiting Customs Minister thought they looked "scary".


----------



## J.J

A few years ago the Revenue Minister at the time Eleanor Caplan, visited Windsor. Every employee was ordered on the threat of dismissal and/or 30 day suspension to remove our personal protection tools (handcuffs, spray & extendable baton) from our belts, take our bulletproof vests off and the cruisers had to be hidden. Ms Caplan was afraid and intimidated of the "weapons". Her RCMP escort was armed...she must not have been that scared.  :
During this visit  I was part of an regional enforcement team and we were waiting for a patched member of the Hell's Angels to come back from Mexico on a charter flight, he had some of his fellow "motorcycle enthusiasts" waiting for him and we had no tools or restraint devices. We did bother intercepting him, he was allowed in without an examination.
That was the "old school" tax mentality at it's best. I can say it is improving slowly under the CBSA. :-\


----------



## HDE

Hi Guys

   I heard a couple of members of the CBSA union leadership giving evidence before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veteran's Affairs and it appeared the thinking is that Border Agents are defacto police officers.  I wonder if the claim they should have sidearms is an effort to upgrade the job in order to suggest that they should be seen as a police officer.  I'm not necessarily opposed to it but if we are going to give them sidearms and the authority to use them there should be considerable thought given.  Terms of employment?  Hiring standards? Training?  Union/Non-Union?  Should those who choose not to use a gun be allowed to opt out?  I can't see this happening in most police services.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

CBSA Inspectors are already peace officers as per the definition in the CCC.  It is only by company policy that they can't carry sidearms.  As for qualifications, that has been hashed out in other posts and threads.  As a police officer, though, I completely support and encourage their being armed.


----------



## J.J

Shootout closes Peace Arch border crossing
Last Updated Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:44:52 EST 
CBC News
A police chase at the Canada-U.S. border forced the closure of the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver on Tuesday. 

It also caused dozens of Canadian guards to walk off the job, fearing for their safety. 

The incident started when two men, both murder suspects, tried to get into Canada. Officials say the two men, 38-year-old Ishtiaq Hussain and 22-year-old Jose Antonio Barajas, are now in custody. They are wanted on murder charges in California. 

But the arrest didn't come easy. One of the suspects was wounded in a shootout with police. 

U.S. sheriffs say the pair managed to make it to the check point about a metre before Canadian soil. 

"They [drove] through the border and they almost struck two uniformed officers," said Bill Elf, of the Watch County Sheriff's Department. 

The suspects continued northbound and struck the Peace Arch itself at one point. 

Witness Bill Whittle didn't see the ensuing gunfight but he heard it. "I heard about seven or eight gunshots on the other side of the Peace Arch," he said. "One of [the suspects] was shot. [The police] got him out of the car." 

Officials credit a brave deputy sheriff for single-handedly stopping the pair, who were considered armed and dangerous. 

CBC News has learned that when unarmed Canadian border guards found out the murder suspects were coming their way they left their posts at four crossings along the B.C. border. Only two supervisors were left at each crossing to protect the Canadian side. 

A spokeswoman with Canada Border Services says the guards have the legal right to refuse to work if they believe they are in imminent danger


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Why not?  You have to wave them through anyway.  Might as well not be in the line of fire.


----------



## COBRA-6

Tories to fulfill promise to arm border guards
Updated Wed. Jan. 25 2006 11:31 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Conservative justice critic Vic Toews announced Wednesday that Canadian border guards will be armed as soon as possible.

The move will make good on a Tory campaign promise to beef up border security and respond to border guards' long standing plea for arms.

"It's simply a practical matter of how soon these officers can be trained and the firearms issued to them," Toews said.

"That's our commitment and I trust our (justice) minister will do exactly that."

Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper has not yet appointed his cabinet.

Toews quick announcement, made just two days after the party was elected into office, may have been speeded up by an incident Tuesday when two murder suspects in the U.S. made a run for the Canadian border.

The fugitives were stopped by a police shootout mere metres before the Canadian border. One of the suspects, Ishtiak Hussain, was shot in the neck and remains in hospital. He has not yet been charged.

The driver, Jose Barajas, was charged with eluding a police vehicle, and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for allegedly attempting to run down two guards, said Mac Setter, the U.S. prosecutor.

The suspects did not fire back at police.

Courts in Richmond, California have issued warrants for both men on murder charges in the death of a taxi driver last Saturday. 

Prosecutors are now deciding whether the suspects should face charges in Washington, or California.

Canadian guards at the Peace Arch border crossing, and at three others crossings, walked off the job in fear of their own safety when they heard the suspects were headed their way. 

They were unapologetic and warned it could happen again.

"If you're being told someone is armed and coming up to the border crossing the most we have as protection is body armour, bullet proof vests, etc, we have batons we have pepper spray, but someone comes up with semi automatic rifle… were not prepared to deal with that," George Scott, a spokesman for the border guards' union told CTV Vancouver.

Guards who feel their lives are in danger have the legal right to refuse to work, according to a spokesperson for the Canada Border Services Agency.

The border was closed for about seven hours as the result of the shootout and ensuing investigation.

B.C.'s Solicitor General John Les called on the new federal government to provide arms and training to border guards, following the incident. 

"I think they need to be armed," Les said, according to CP. "We sometimes have some not very nice people who want to try and get into our country."

Toews pledged that guards will be armed just as soon as they can be properly trained and equipped with the firearms.

He said he was disturbed that the guards abandoned their posts, but said he understands if they felt their lives were in danger.

The fleeing suspects, considered dangerous by police, had tried to outrun officers in a high-speed chase down Interstate 5 in Washington state. The pursuit reached speeds of 160 km/hr. 

The Conservatives were elected on a platform that pledged to bolster border security to stop the flow of illegal guns being smuggled in from the U.S. 

In addition to his promise to arm border guards, Harper said he would also restore port police service which has been disbanded by the Liberal government. Port security is now handled by local law enforcement officials. 

Canada's border services union threatened to strike in 2005 in an effort to force the government to provide them with guns in order to protect themselves. 

Currently, the RCMP is called on to deal with perceived threats.


Very nice to see them moving on this already, and the part about restoring the port police makes sense too, go Team Harper!


----------



## zipperhead_cop

We'll see. If the Lieberals get ahold of this one, they might have us in a vote sooner than later.


----------



## J.J

It will not require any action from Parliament (thank god)....just an order in council. The Liebrals will not have the opportunity to screw with this.


----------



## dutchie

I still contend that it is not as simple as arming all Customs Officers. When hired, they were not hired for their physical ability to take down an assailant. More importantly, they were not hired for their psychological predispostion to using deadly force in the execution of thier duties. A lot, but not all, are more in line with the clerical staff at any random Fed Gov office (like a Tax clerk), and don't possess the necessary 'jam' to be able to be safely armed. 

Now, some would say, then can the ones that can't hack it. Not so easy. When hired, they are hired against certain 'core competancies'. If you cannot justify that they are not fullfilling one of those by remaining unarmed, or that they are not fullfilling their job description, then you're out of luck. This is a PSAC union shop.

My solution: Hire a 'task force' for each border crossing. Staff it with those already on payroll with the makeup to be armed, and top it up with new applicants. Set a new standard for hiring so that all new recruits are 'armable'. Offer a transfer to another area of CBSA for those not 'armable' and set a deadline for them to bring themselves up to the new standard (say, 2 years). Once that 2 years is up, you either meet the new standard, or you are reassigned.


----------



## AFireinside13

Caesar said:
			
		

> My solution: Hire a 'task force' for each border crossing. Staff it with those already on payroll with the makeup to be armed, and top it up with new applicants. Set a new standard for hiring so that all new recruits are 'armable'. Offer a transfer to another area of CBSA for those not 'armable' and set a deadline for them to bring themselves up to the new standard (say, 2 years). Once that 2 years is up, you either meet the new standard, or you are reassigned.



Caesar, So far, that is the most proactive theory i have heard to date. I am an inspector, and there is so much confusion with this topic that most officers think that it is just not going to happen. I personally am interested in how this is going to be handled, because what you do to one inspector, you have to do to the others. And i agree, those necessary competencies just don't exist in some of us, as far as know they do in myself, but i know others don't feel the same way in themselves. Anyways,

cheers


----------



## zipperhead_cop

There would likely be a pre screening process for the existing Inspectors to assess their ability to be in an armed conflict.  Probably even a simple survey of "who wants a gun, who doesn't" will need to come in.  Then take the willing and able and run them through a use of force course.  
Nobody knows how they will react to a fire fight until they are in one.  You might think that you are completely switched on, then freeze at a critical time.  And vice versa.  Same in the Army.  You may have a recruit that is the ultimate soldier, but once in theatre they go to pieces.  None of us know until we are tested.  That is not a valid reason for not arming the border, though.  
I agree that anyone being hired from here on in should be required to have a side arm and then through attrition, they will all end up armed in the end. 



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> I still contend that it is not as simple as arming all Customs Officers. When hired, they were not hired for their physical ability to take down an assailant. More importantly, they were not hired for their psychological predisposition to using deadly force in the execution of thier duties. *A lot, but not all, are more in line with the clerical staff at any random Fed Gov office * (like a Tax clerk), and don't possess the necessary 'jam' to be able to be safely armed.



That will be enough of that.  Unless you are a mid level Customs recruiter and have personal knowledge of what the hiring criteria are, whether you mean to or not, you are being insulting.   There is nothing magical or heroic about using a tool to protect you or one of your comrades from a lethal threat.  It is a choice.  What needs to be assessed is how fast it will take an individual to make that choice.  I work with these guys and the few yentas that are still around that are there to grab taxes on the turkeys and cheese are on their way out.  From what I have seen at the three Customs facilities in Windsor, they are 95% switched on and highly motivated.  The other 5% probably (hopefully) won't be made to carry.


----------



## dutchie

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> There would likely be a pre screening process for the existing Inspectors to assess their ability to be in an armed conflict.



First off, they are called 'Border Services Officers' (the old Customs Officer'). 'Customs Inspector' is a higher level position.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> That will be enough of that.  Unless you are a mid level Customs recruiter and have personal knowledge of what the hiring criteria are, whether you mean to or not, you are being insulting.



Actually, I am employed in the Fed Gov Service, and as such, am very much aware of how it works. The process is the same for all public service commission postings. There is a statement of qualifications, and the applicant is evaluated against those through written tests, interviews, practical tests, and reference checks. If you pass through the hoops, you make the eligibility list. New hires are taken from that. There is NO requirement for use of deadly force currently in Customs, and as such, having that as part of the Statement of Quals couldn't and doesn't happen. Ability or even willingness to use deadly force is NOT ASSESSED.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Nobody knows how they will react to a fire fight until they are in one.



Well let's be clear, they will not be put in a fire fight to 'see how they react'. Were you put in one when you joined the CF?



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> There is nothing magical or heroic about using a tool to protect you or one of your comrades from a lethal threat.



No one suggested it was. However, few people have the 'jam' to react to 'effective enemy fire' as the natural instinct is to duck and run. Assessing whether someone has the jam is critical to arming them.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I agree that anyone being hired from here on in should be required to have a side arm and then through attrition, they will all end up armed in the end.



Bad idea. Arm all BSO's in the booths, or none at all. Once they are armed, they will be treated by the bad guys as such. If you leave a BSO unarmed sitting in their booth, you put them in serious danger as the bad guy will assume they are armed. Essentially, they will bring a gun to what they believe is a gun fight, not realizing it is a fist fight.




			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I work with these guys and the few yentas that are still around that are there to grab taxes on the turkeys and cheese are on their way out.



Well, good for you. A quick look around YVR, Pac Hwy Border crossing or Peace Arch will show you that the ones you know DO exist, but a good number are your run 'o the mill Civil Servant.


----------



## J.J

First off, they are called 'Border Services Officers' (the old Customs Officer'). 'Customs Inspector' is a higher level position.
You are wrong, there is technically no one called a Customs Inspector, all Officers are known as BSO's

Actually, I am employed in the Fed Gov Service, and as such, am very much aware of how it works. The process is the same for all public service commission postings. There is a statement of qualifications, and the applicant is evaluated against those through written tests, interviews, practical tests, and reference checks. If you pass through the hoops, you make the eligibility list. New hires are taken from that. There is NO requirement for use of deadly force currently in Customs, and as such, having that as part of the Statement of Quals couldn't and doesn't happen. Ability or even willingness to use deadly force is NOT ASSESSED

The actual process may be the same, but on statement of qualifications the use of force is addressed and it is indicated that the potential applicant may have to use force in the execution of their duties. The hiring process interview is much differant than a "tax clerk", the interview is to determine the suitability of a Law Enforcement Officer with vast powers and responsibilities.  All present Officer's will have to be assessed and a decision would be made on their suitability to be armed, the job itself will not change, just the tools. 

Bad idea. Arm all BSO's in the booths, or none at all. Once they are armed, they will be treated by the bad guys as such. If you leave a BSO unarmed sitting in their booth, you put them in serious danger as the bad guy will assume they are armed. Essentially, they will bring a gun to what they believe is a gun fight, not realizing it is a fist fight.
Presently there are several officer's who decided not to take use of force, officer's with medical conditions etc that do not have any defensive tools, they call for help from fellow officer's when the situation arises. Is it a perfect situation?? NO it is not, but what can you do with some officer's who have 20-30 yrs experience, fire them?? After July 2000 all officer's hired must pass the use of force training and maintain that ability.

Well, good for you. A quick look around YVR, Pac Hwy Border crossing or Peace Arch will show you that the ones you know DO exist, but a good number are your run 'o the mill Civil Servant[/quote]

You seem to have a "hate on" for BSO's...why is that? I have worked and trained with several BSO's from the Pacific region and almost to the person they have been educated, professional and good officer's. I work at the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel and there the " run 'o the mill Civil Servant" deals regularly with the worst the city of Detroit can offer. There the "run 'o the mill Civil Servant" deals with hardcore gang members, murderers, terrorists and every day deviants. Are there Officer's that should not be working there, yes there are more than one, but the majority are professionals. Ask Blackhorse 7 or Zipperheadcop or any other other cop if they work with someone who does not deserve the job and should not have a gun, they exist everywhere


----------



## Blackhorse7

WR said:
			
		

> Ask Blackhorse 7 or Zipperheadcop or any other other cop if they work with someone who does not deserve the job and should not have a gun, they exist everywhere



No argument there...


----------



## HDE

It strikes me that while the idea of arming BSOs is may be a good idea, in theory, there are considerable issues to be addressed before it could be done.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Caesar said:
			
		

> Actually, I am employed in the Fed Gov Service, and as such, am very much aware of how it works. The process is the same for all public service commission postings. There is a statement of qualifications, and the applicant is evaluated against those through written tests, interviews, practical tests, and reference checks. If you pass through the hoops, you make the eligibility list. New hires are taken from that. There is NO requirement for use of deadly force currently in Customs, and as such, having that as part of the Statement of Quals couldn't and doesn't happen. Ability or even willingness to use deadly force is NOT ASSESSED.



Okay, there Capt. Vague.  Are you talking about being a Reservist, or do you actually work for a branch of the Federal Government?  They kind of have a lot of branches, you know.  Being a quality inspector for bovine semen purity with the Ministry of Agriculture under the Animal Pedigree Act could be quite an adventure, but would hardly qualify one as a Customs expert.
Looks like from WR's post you actually don't know how it works.  If you look into the use of force continuum that we use, Deadly Force is just one zone at the end of it.  It is a force option, which you train for and simply make a decision to use when put in a particular circumstance.  Ability is just a training issue.  Willingness is another issue, and as said they don't force the older CBSA members to use PPT equipment if they are not comfortable with it.  



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> Well let's be clear, they will not be put in a fire fight to 'see how they react'. Were you put in one when you joined the CF?



Yeah, back then I think we called it "training" and we used these things they called "blanks".



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> No one suggested it was. However, few people have the 'jam' to react to 'effective enemy fire' as the natural instinct is to duck and run. Assessing whether someone has the jam is critical to arming them.



Police fire fights generally take place within 3 meters.  There isn't really time to get scared, just react.  We can only hope that we react quickly enough to stop the bad guy.  I don't think that is quite the same thing as someone in the middle of a sustained battle with arty and rounds zipping all around being told to go forward.  Then, you have a lot of time to think about getting waxed, and the soldiers that go when they are told to have bigger stones than most of us.  
I agree with WR that you seem to have a bit of a hard on against the CBSA.  Why is that?  What would you rather see, them with their asses in the wind getting shot at with no ability to return fire?  Maybe a bunch of them die when they send down a cold hit suspicious car and some desperado jumps out and starts shooting?  Of course there will be issues with training and aptitude.  They will deal with it.  
Would anyone say that the London Metropolitan Police (Britain) should not be allowed to carry guns because most of them don't right now? 
Things change, and our country is getting more dangerous by the hour.  Lets give them the tools they need to go home to their families at the end of their shifts, instead of just crossing our fingers and saying "it won't happen here".


----------



## HDE

Why does the London Metropolitan Police choose not to arm all of their constables?  Just curious!


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Maybe we need to special request Big Bad John pop in for that one.


----------



## big bad john

HDE said:
			
		

> Why does the London Metropolitan Police choose not to arm all of their constables?  Just curious!


We do not believe in the basic premise of arming all police.  It is a fundamental difference in philosophies.  That is why you can hear the police cry, " stop, Police!", and the criminal  usually runs faster.  But when the cry is "Stop, Armed Police!", they usually stop.  It is changing.  We still have the image of the unarmed Constable in our minds.


----------



## TCBF

You mean the cop has to actually say "Stop, ARMED police"?

What if he says that, and the puke stops, only then they both realize the cop is not in fact armed.  Does the cop have to let the puke walk?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## big bad john

TCBF said:
			
		

> You mean the cop has to actually say "Stop, ARMED police"?
> 
> What if he says that, and the puke stops, only then they both realize the cop is not in fact armed.  Does the cop have to let the puke walk?
> 
> ;D
> 
> Tom


The law is quite clear.  It would not be useful to cry wolf.  But they must identify themselves and the fact that they are armed.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Wow.  That is wild.  No one cares what I yell at them when they run, and I usually save my breath to try to motivate my semi-out-of-shape arse.  Damn you kids!  Get out of that Jello tree!


----------



## enfield

big bad john said:
			
		

> That is why you can hear the police cry, " stop, Police!", and the criminal  usually runs faster.  But when the cry is "Stop, Armed Police!", they usually stop.



Why? Is it legal to shoot a person for running?
I am actually curious - the idea a cop needs to identify if they are armed or not is quite outside the North American reference. 

I understood that while the patrol constables are not armed, there are a large number of 'tactical' or 'firearms' teams spread around London, on constant standby. So rather than every cop with a pistol, you have a few cops with a lot of guns. True? false? Hearsay? My own experience in the UK showed a lot more guys with MP5's, at various sensitive sites, then I've ever seen in North America.


----------



## dutchie

I applogize for the long post......



			
				WR said:
			
		

> You are wrong, there is technically no one called a Customs Inspector, all Officers are known as BSO's


You misunderstood what I said. Let me be more clear - there is no such thing as a Customs Officer, they are BSOs. 



			
				WR said:
			
		

> The actual process may be the same, but on statement of qualifications the use of force is addressed and it is indicated that the potential applicant may have to use force in the execution of their duties.



Here is a BSO Statement of Quals from May 05:
Classification: PM -03.
Selection Process number: 2005-BSF-CCID-PAC-0003
Position Title: Border Services Officer - Customs
Department / Agency: Canada Border Services Agency , Customs Division.
...
Experience: 
Experience in the enforcement of acts and regulations in terms of measuring compliance and imposing penalties or sanctions for violations OR 
Experience in gathering information in an investigative setting or pressure situation OR 
Experience in obtaining information through the use of interviewing and examination techniques OR 

Experience in processing and handling import or export documentation and/or travel documentation.


Abilities / Skills: Ability to Solve Problems Using Reasoning.
The Border Services Officer Test or BSOT (formerly Customs Inspector Test) version 2A will be used to assess. Candidates must achieve a score of 68 out of a possible 117 in order to be considered further in this competition. The BSOT Information Booklet is available online at: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/careers/cit-e.html or http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/careers/cit-f.html 

Personal suitability: 

Professionalism

Enforcement Orientation

Dependability
The three personal suitabilities above will be assessed locally. All other personal suitabilities listed below will be assessed in Rigaud, Quebec as detailed in the notes section below.
Analytical Thinking 
Decisiveness 
Inspection Techniques
Effective Interactive Communication 
Information Seeking Skills
Dealing with Difficult Situations
Self-Confidence
Client Service Orientation 
Supporting CBSA Values
Legislation, Policies and Procedures
CBSA Business Systems

Conditions of employment: 
Successful completion of the Border Services Officer Training and Assessment Program for new recruits at the Border Services Learning Centre in Rigaud, Quebec and additional mode specific training may be required. Details on training and assessment are in the notes section below.

Willingness to work various shifts, on rotation, on flexible hours, weekends as well as statutory holidays. 
Willingness to work overtime. 
Willingness to accept deployments or a series of work assignments within the District. 
Willingness to travel. 
Maintaining a valid driver’s license or personal mobility to a degree normally associated with the possession of a driver’s license. 
Willingness to operate a government vehicle. 
Willingness to wear and maintain a uniform and maintain related job equipment as per CBSA standards.  Obtaining and maintaining Standard First Aid Certification, (according to Canada Labour Code, OSH Regulations, Part II). 
Obtaining Canadian Firearms Safety Certification. Approved CBSA Medical/Physical Assessment.  
Obtaining and maintaining Reliability security clearance.
...
Note This process is being conducted to staff positions of various tenures. (Temporary, Permanent, Seasonal, Part-time or Full-time) Job offers will be based on staffing needs during the validity period of this eligibility list and may be in any of the locations stated above. The eligibility list resulting from this competition may be used to staff similar positions.
All qualifications are non-compensatory.

Assessment conducted locally may include written test, interview and reference checks.
...
The CBSA is considering the applicability of physical standards. Applicants should be aware of the possible need to have and to maintain a certain level of fitness in order to perform the duties of a Border Services Officer - Customs.

Training and Assessment for Border Services Officer – Customs 

There are significant changes to how CBSA conducts assessment and training for this position. These changes affect rate of pay, benefits and when an offer of employment is made. Applicants are strongly advised to review this poster thoroughly before applying. 

Stage One of Assessment – in Region

Assessment conducted in region may include written test, interview and reference checks. Candidates will be required to pay their own expenses for travel related to this competition in the Pacific Region. Candidates will also be required to pay their own expenses related to meeting other conditions of employment (such as certificates and driver’s license) that are not provided as part of the Rigaud training and assessment.

Stage Two of Assessment – in Rigaud, Quebec

Candidates who are successful in stage one assessment conducted in the Pacific Region will be sent to Rigaud, Quebec for stage two which consists of 13-week training and assessment. During this training and assessment phase the following conditions will apply:.....

I have deleted irrelevant info, noted with a '....'

You'll note that Use of Force is not listed, never mind deadly force. I did notice that an FAC is a requirement, probably in anticipation of arming BSOs. I understand that use of Force is now on the Statement of Quals, but it was not there as of May of last year. Of course, my point was that not all CURRENT BSOs have the ability to be armed, and that this ability was not evaluated on THEIR competition.



			
				WR said:
			
		

> Is it a perfect situation?? NO it is not, but what can you do with some officer's who have 20-30 yrs experience, fire them??



No, as I said, there should be a grace period to bring yourself up to standard WRT use of (deadly) force. Failure/unwillingness to comply would result in a transfer to another postion within CBSA/Fed Public Service.



			
				WR said:
			
		

> You seem to have a "hate on" for BSO's...why is that?



Not at all, I hope to be one some day, when my family situation permits.

I in no way intended to insult you, and regret doing so. However, my only contention was:

1-The vast majority of current BSOs were not evaluated for their ability/willingness to use deadly force, and as such,

2-It is unreasonable to expect that a majority possess that ability/willingness.

3-Many (I said most, which is incorrect) BSOs, due to the Statement of Quals they were hired against, are more in line with your average Civil Servant, and not say, Police Officers.

4-Arming ALL BSOs, regardless of ability is irresponsible.

5-Arming some, but not all, BSOs, would pose a great risk to unarmed BSOs as the 'bad guys' would assume they are armed, and treat any confrontation as such. IE-the bad guys would bring a gun to a fist fight.






			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Okay, there Capt. Vague.  Are you talking about being a Reservist, or do you actually work for a branch of the Federal Government?



No. I have a civvie job within the Federal Public Service. I like my anonymity, so I'll leave it there. As a member of the Fed Public Service, I have been through an open PSC competition (to obtain my job), and several closed/internal competitions. This gives me knowledge/experience of the process and general requirements of any PSC hired job in the Fed Gov. 




			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If you look into the use of force continuum that we use, Deadly Force is just one zone at the end of it.  It is a force option, which you train for and simply make a decision to use when put in a particular circumstance.  Ability is just a training issue.  Willingness is another issue, and as said they don't force the older CBSA members to use PPT equipment if they are not comfortable with it.



No argument here, but willingness to use deadly force is essential to being armed, no matter the procedures for the escalation of force. That willingness/ability was not assessed on most BSOs.


			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> What would you rather see, them with their asses in the wind getting shot at with no ability to return fire?


I think all BSOs should be armed, but I question the ability/willingness of many of them to be armed. I proposed a solution to that problem, but you chose not to address that. What are your thoughts on it?



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Would anyone say that the London Metropolitan Police (Britain) should not be allowed to carry guns because most of them don't right now?



Different country, different society, different job. 


			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Things change, and our country is getting more dangerous by the hour.  Lets give them the tools they need to go home to their families at the end of their shifts, instead of just crossing our fingers and saying "it won't happen here".



I agree. Assess their ability first before arming them.

editted for spelling


----------



## tomahawk6

Heard on the news that Harper supports arming customs officers. We have both armed border and customs agents, seem's like Canada can do the same. Failing that hire more RCMP constables for duty at border crossings. The news reported that Canadian customs officers abandoned their post on hearing that armed murders from California were headed north. It was on the radio and I havent seen a print story confirming that event.


----------



## HDE

Tomahawk

   I think you have the right idea; there are some situations which call for an armed officer and some that don't.  I don't see major issues in creating an armed section of BSO officers to support unarmed members.


----------



## TCBF

"I think you have the right idea; there are some situations which call for an armed officer and some that don't.  I don't see major issues in creating an armed section of BSO officers to support unarmed members."

- 'On call' is useless at a border post.  Either you have a gun while you work there, or the cop investigating your shooting death does.  I like plan 'A' myself.

Tom


----------



## tomahawk6

I think you have to have armed officers on site as well as on call as back up. Not everyone on site has to be armed but some should. Unarmed officers should be trained in self defense and equiped with a taser and or pepper spray.


----------



## TCBF

I think mixing armed and unarmed officers would cause a morale issue.  

Numbty: "Hey Tom, you have a gun, you talk to this car." 

Tom: " Screw you, get your own bloody gun and earn your keep."

Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Back when the CBSA was starting to change towards enforcement from tax collection, there was a proposal and they were equipped with expandable batons and pepper spray.  At the time there were nay sayers, but I can assure you the borders are not a wailing catastrophe of swinging metal bars and fountains of random OC.  These people are professionals.  It doesn't matter how they were hired.  You can assess someones ability in TRAINING.  I can assure you all that there was never a chummy little sit down at our training branch or at OPC where we all sat around and played "imagine killing a guy".  Then when someone wept, they were stoned and run out of the village.  

*THERE IS NOTHING MAGICAL OR COMPLICATED ABOUT SHOOTING SOMEONE!  * 

It is something you train for.  
Okay. 
Go with Caesars assumption that the border are a barely functioning bunch of Barney Fife hammerheads that only get by on God's grace and the magic wishing trolls they all are issued.  So then they get guns.  And one of the barely functioning members is armed and is confronted with an armed threat, fails to react and is shot.  If they didn't have a gun on, they would be no less shot would they?  If you don't HAVE a gun, you can't SHOOT a gun.  
Cripes, what do you think they are going to do, staple a zip lock bag with a holster, three mags, a gun and a box of bullets to their next pay stub and say "please read the enclosed instructions and warranty card"?

It seems like you are being selective in your Customs information, Cesar.  What you posted is a testing criterion to be considered for hiring, which creates a profile of the candidate.  You conveniently forgot the other parts of the site, such as:

*Who is responsible
Officers at border crossings and airports, and in Canada, carry out most arrests and detentions. After 48 hours, a member of the Immigration Division reviews detention decisions. The Immigration Division is part of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), which is independent of CBSA. Its members are trained in immigration law.*

AND

*Arrests: How and why
Officers can arrest foreign nationals and permanent residents who are suspected of breaching the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

While arrests can be made with or without a warrant, officers must have a warrant to arrest a permanent resident or a protected person.

All immigration warrants are posted on the Canada-wide Canadian Police Information Centre. CBSA operates its own Immigration Warrant Response Centre seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to assist its law enforcement partners.

Detentions: How and why
Following a person's arrest, officers can detain that person if:

they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person 
will not appear for immigration proceedings such as an examination or an admissibility hearing, or for removal from Canada; or 
poses a risk to the public because of past crimes, a history of physical violence, etc.; or 
they are not satisfied of the identity of a foreign national.*
Cruise the rest at your leisure at:
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/newsroom/factsheets/2004/0311ArrestsDetentions-e.html

If anyone is expected to arrest and detain people, they have to be equipped to deal with the hostile lawless elements that for some reason don't want to get pinched with a brick of coke and a TEC-9  and decide to go out "all Jesse James, yo".  The use of force training that they receive is IDENTICAL to ours, they just stop at the guns part now.  They know what is expected of them.  The people that hired them knew what they would be asking of them.  
And enough with the "gun to a fist fight" analogy.  The bad guys bring their guns regardless.  They just gamble that they won't get caught.  They are not thinking "hmmm, the Canadians don't have guns.  I guess I should leave my 9mm at home today, and bring the coke to the drug deal unarmed".  
As many officers as possible should be armed.  But if there is some old timer that has served the border for 25 odd years, if they want to hang themselves out and not get with the training, then that is their choice.  Again, not a valid reason to not arm everyone else. 


			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> Not at all, I hope to be one some day, when my family situation permits.
> 
> I have a civvie job within the Federal Public Service. I like my anonymity, so I'll leave it there.



Ahhh, this is a little closer to the mark.  You are a scorned Customs wanna be.  I don't blame you for wanting to be anonymous.  You are probably still holding a torch out to get on, but know that if it gets out what a disloyal disenter you are you would have no chance.  And why do I get the sense that if you did get in, you would be the first to push to the front of the line for firearms training?


----------



## HDE

I'd imagine that an officer, whether armed or unarmed, would be in serious trouble if the guy in the car had the gun ready to fire when he got to the booth.  I was thinking more along the lines of the incident in B.C. where the officers had prior warning that armed felons were approaching and had time to get out of the way.  In that case having armed members available to deal with the matter would be perfectly sensible.  As well there'd probably be some sort of financial incentive available to reward those who undertake the responsibility of being armed.  If we intend to arm all officers, irrespective of the need for them to be armed,  and, quite probably,  pay them a salary along the lines of what we pay a police officer why not simply increase the numbers of Mounties/Police Officers to provide backup?


----------



## Blackhorse7

HDE...

I apologize in advance if this comes off as condescending, that's not my intention.

It is not as simple as "simply increasing the numbers of Mounties/Police Officers to provide backup."  

There is a *MASSIVE* shortage of Policing in the RCMP, and I am sure in Municipal Police forces as well, and the future is not looking any brighter.  We (the RCMP) are looking at running huge shortages for the next several years until recruiting can catch up to the demand for Policing.  There is simply no way that there can be additional members added to be an armed back-up to the border officers.  We are having a hard enough time maintaining minimun staffing levels at Detachments.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

You just hit the golden nail with the golden hammer.  It's about the money.  If you give them guns, then they are pretty much on a parallel with the Horsemen, so you have to ramp up their pay.  The guns themselves and training are expensive, and increasing personnel is hugely expensive.  Remember, until recently, the main focus of government spending was to line the pockets of their friends.
Police are not allowed at the border for deployment.  It is a territory thing and the RCMP resist it.  The funny thing is, they generally don't want to attend the border locations here unless the seizure is something that will make national headlines.  Recently, a guy got pinned with 400 tabs of ecstasy, and the RCMP were not interested in continuing the arrest.  The guy got a large fine and was sent on his way.  Fines for drug traffickers.  That would be like telling a fuel tanker that as a penalty it had to gas up a car.  OOOO.  It stings!
Things are getting better.  Apparently there is talk about an actual Border Patrol, which is long overdue.  Let's all hold a torch out for Mr. Harper.


----------



## HDE

Blackhorse7

   No problem!  There's a piece in the latest MacLean's highlighting exactly the point you make.  Apparently there's a shortage of about 400 in the Municipal/Provincial Policing end and bodies are being pulled out of the Federal Policing end to compensate.  Forgive me if I get the names incorect; I'm using what was used in MacLeans's  ;D My point, I guess, is that I'm not sure that the resources wouldn't be better spent ramping up a specific group of officers,  sort of a Canadian Border Patrol,  to provide an armed presence, rather than spreading sidearms all across the spectrum.


----------



## dutchie

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> *THERE IS NOTHING MAGICAL OR COMPLICATED ABOUT SHOOTING SOMEONE!  *
> 
> It is something you train for.
> Okay.
> Go with Caesars assumption that the border are a barely functioning bunch of Barney Fife hammerheads that only get by on God's grace and the magic wishing trolls they all are issued.



Where did I state this? 


			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> It seems like you are being selective in your Customs information, Cesar.  What you posted is a testing criterion to be considered for hiring, which creates a profile of the candidate.  You conveniently forgot the other parts of the site, such as:



I posted the Statement of Quals - what an applicant is assessed on. My WHOLE point was that BSOs are not assessed for their ability/willingnes to use deadly force. The RCMP does this, muni police forces do this, and of course the CF does this. 

I will refer you to my last post:


			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> I in no way intended to insult you, and regret doing so. However, my only contention was:
> 
> 1-The vast majority of current BSOs were not evaluated for their ability/willingness to use deadly force, and as such,
> 
> 2-It is unreasonable to expect that a majority possess that ability/willingness.
> 
> 3-Many (I said most, which is incorrect) BSOs, due to the Statement of Quals they were hired against, are more in line with your average Civil Servant, and not say, Police Officers.
> 
> 4-Arming ALL BSOs, regardless of ability is irresponsible.
> 
> 5-Arming some, but not all, BSOs, would pose a great risk to unarmed BSOs as the 'bad guys' would assume they are armed, and treat any confrontation as such. IE-the bad guys would bring a gun to a fist fight.





			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If anyone is expected to arrest and detain people, they have to be equipped to deal with the hostile lawless elements



You are right. Did you not notice where I stated that BSOs should be armed? I'll remind you:





			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> I think all BSOs should be armed,





			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Ahhh, this is a little closer to the mark.  You are a scorned Customs wanna be.



Never applied, but nice try pal.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> CBC News has learned that when unarmed Canadian border guards found out the murder suspects were coming their way they left their posts at four crossings along the B.C. border. Only two supervisors were left at each crossing to protect the Canadian side.
> 
> A spokeswoman with Canada Border Services says the guards have the legal right to refuse to work if they believe they are in imminent danger



Is this the same reason why the customs officers walked off the job in cornwall?  A woman threated to call some local "warriors" who have a history with customs and it spooked them and they left?

Walking off the job shouldn't be an option, especially for customs agents.
Giving these guys pistols to defend themselves is common sense isn't it?   Why would someone make a big deal about this?

I think people try to say because it makes us look too much like americans, and they want to look Canadian. Which is bullshit childish and dangerous. Who cares if our american counter-parts have weapons.  Our guys *should* be armed. Who cares what we look like. This I don't wanna be am american game a lot of canadians are hung up on is out to lunch.
If it's a matter of giving them the silly FAC, PAL, POL course then just give it to them. It took me under an hour for the non-restricted and restricted and i aced them both.  (I'm not a smart guy!) 
Send them to a shooting range for a week-end and get them some hand gun training and presto.
If it's all about money, well, how much is protecting our borders and the loves of border officers worth?

This is right up with the brilliance of not giving our corrections officers body armor because it looks scarry and might intimidate the prisoners.

Where applicable, we should throw the reserves class B contracts to patrol the borders.

No additional money required to train people.  No additional money required for weapons AND it gives our reserves much needed training.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> ...Where applicable, we should throw the reserves class B contracts to patrol the borders.
> No additional money required to train people.  No additional money required for weapons AND it gives our reserves much needed training...



To be Honest, I like the idea... I can also see the lineup to apply being out the door, since there would be so many PRes guys wanting to do it...

the problem with that though, is do you limit the trades who can apply? 

and which trade would be more Qualified? I could see some problems arising out of that, only because some people might only join up the PRes so they could get Border Duty....

plus with PRes guys having skills some RegF guys in the same trade may not, it does go back to the question of limiting which trades could do it... 

ie who might be better qualified to handle this duty? 
a Nav-Comms guy with 3-4 years of security work, and a Degree in Justice Studies? 

an Armd Recce Guy who works Full Time in a machine shop?

I can see the power that be, (if this ever occured) setting up the tasking req. so that it may only be open to Cbt. Arm trades, since in past we WOG's have never really been thought of in any role other then support. 

anyways, just fireing off some random thoughts from the top of my head... bear with me, ive been up entirely far too long, and If im right off the mark on this then I do Apologize.

Cheers

    Josh


----------



## TCBF

Patrolling is an All Arms and Services Task.  Should be no problems making it open to all reservists who pass the fitness test and training.  The ones who need some exercise can humpo the NW Ont/Minn border, and the BC/Wash border.



Tom


----------



## Jarnhamar

> the problem with that though, is do you limit the trades who can apply?
> 
> and which trade would be more Qualified? I could see some problems arising out of that, only because some people might only join up the PRes so they could get Border Duty....



It wouldn't be anything spectacular.   The idea would be to give reserves training (1 week-end a month isn't much) while providing law enforcement with more eyes on the border.

Each regiment could be tasked with providing a group of soldiers who patrol a certain part of the border and switch it up. Makes it fair and removes the possibility of people joining JUST for the tasking.
Theres always reservists needing employment.  By patrolling for a week or two our guys would get some serious exposure to soldiering.  Doing patrolling for real for a week instead of the half tactical exercises at the end of the summer.

Who would it be open to?  Naturally combat arms but what would they basically be doing?  Point, area and especially route recce's.  If you can handle yourself on a recce then that's the meat and potato's of what you'll be doing.  Going from point a to point b either looking for signs of illegal activity or simply being a presence along the border.

If these guys come across anything they pass it on to the RCMP who then take over and do their thing.


----------



## TCBF

No different from any other task.  armed - yes.  ROE's:  sure, G8, OKA, October 70, the CF has done that.

Powers of arrest?  Every citizen has the power to arrest.

To shoot someone?  Every citizen has the power to shoot someone:  The ROE's yo get are mated to your right to self defence.  That righr acrues to you as a citizen - not a soldier.  You were born with that right, it was not issued.

Now, if you sign a 'Police Act' or some other clause where you voluntaraly agree to have such an act impede on your right to self defence, that is another story.

Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Having more eyes and bodies all along the border is a great idea, but when the crap starts flying, thats where it gets tricky.  Do you not remember how fast the Army got hung out at Oka?  
Here is one potential scenario:
You take some Naval Reserve guys out in a patrol boat (seems logical for water stuff) with some Reserve MP's (also seems most closely suited) and come across a native smuggling boat which unknown to you is loaded with 5000 cartons of cigarettes and a couple of keys of coke.  When you approach, you will probably be fired on, likely with AK-s and small arms.  The obvious answer is "return fire" which I for one would love, but unless you can disable the craft and secure it, it will cut and run for the reservation.  Then you will have to try to deal with a whole shore line of sustained fire, likely including belt fed weapons and even light rockets like M-72's.  Because they can't afford to be caught.  If you had to pull back, that boat is gone and anyone who got waxed is a Dudley George hero/martyr.  The political fall out would be brutal and all those individuals that were out there trying to help would be spashed all over every liberal rag as "Rambo Murderers Take out Sacred Medicine Boat".  Sound far fetched?  Ask Ken Deane retired OPP TRU member if that could happen.  If you do manage to get the boat, you have one of thousands of smuggling runs and if you killed anyone in the process, the sh_tstorm is only just on the horizon...



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> Powers of arrest?  Every citizen has the power to arrest.


True, but not to enforce the Customs or Immigration Acts.  You need to be an actual peace officer for that.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> To shoot someone?  Every citizen has the power to shoot someone:  The ROE's yo get are mated to your right to self defence.  That righr acrues to you as a citizen - not a soldier.  You were born with that right, it was not issued.



I will be the first to applaud rules of engagement against criminals, but I would be blown away to see the CF get that kind of green light from the Fed.  We don't even arm our Coast Guard for cripes sake! (I know, there is a thread for that one).   I stand to be corrected, but after Oka, wasn't there some sort of resolution that the Military would not be able to police citizens within Canada?  I would love to hear that had been ditched.
Don't forget also, anything you do "in self defence" in the heat of the moment will ultimately be picked apart by our severely socialist judges and the highly motivated and hugely compensated lawyers acting on the natives behalf.  Will you be willing to put everything you and your family own and will own on the line for this?  
And this is just one scenario (I'm not trying to rag on natives).  
If we are going to put more money into the Reserves, lets put it into training and equipment and let them make more of a contribution in the world scheme where it is really needed.


----------



## TCBF

I agree with your resoning in the present context.  Now, if the government was to pass legislation authorizing lethal force to maintain the territorial integrety of the nation, that would be different.

But, I think the scenario you mentioned would end diferently.  The boat would return the smuglers fire and break contact.  The boat's surv suite would record the fact that the boat fired BACK.  No problem

In any case, I think the ground scenario is much more plausible - Coyotes on surv, etc.

Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Anything is better than nothing, but in reality the only practical and lasting solution is to have a proper armed Customs/Immigration trained Border Patrol.  We are not pulling our weight with cross border non-port illegal traffic.  If the next major terrorism incident on American soil is as a result of our porous border, we will look like total a-holes for not doing anything to stop that since 9/11.  
Now, if a proper border patrol officer were to be overseeing a group of properly trained soldiers on a joint forces op, that could get some real results.  I think the Army winging it would prove disastrous.


----------



## STONEY

One other small point i'd like to add to the discussion, on several occasions when i came through the border in the summer i was processed by a BSO who appeared to be about 12 years old. Later when i spoke to a friend of mine who is a investigator with BS he told me that they routinely hire students to help out in the busy summer season and they are so short of staff that standards are sometimes slackened ,and depending on who you know, or are related too gets one hired . Just how much training these people get , i don't know but should they also be armed? I'm sure the Border Service is aware of all the problems discussed on this thread and will be able to figure out the proper mix.  Federal fisheries officers can carry arms but not all of them do at all times, it depends on their tasking at the time . They receive their firearms/use of force training at RCMP depot Regina. If the politico's give the OK to arm the border service i'm sure they will be quite capable of figuring out the how's, they might already have a plan in place awaiting the go ahead. 

Cheers.


----------



## Blackhorse7

That would be an interesting point... why not schedule random OP's and Coyote OP's, with the premise that any suspicious activity would be reported to local enforcement for action?  The OP's could guide the members right in, without having to take direct action unless directly engaged.

Win/win.  The Reg's/Reserves get in practice (albeit in a very limited, defined role), and border security is increased.

Needless to say, Border Officers need to be armed.  Period.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Now, if a proper border patrol officer were to be overseeing a group of properly trained soldiers on a joint forces op, that could get some real results.



This could work too.  Police forces working along side the military which helps with man power problems AND gives us training and lets us do stuff for real.


May be getting a little off topic but I think Canada needs to grow up, realise the world we are living in isn't all that nice and stop being so afraid of standing up for ourselves.
Border guards with guns, coast guard with guns. Shouldn't be an issue. Should we patrol our borders? Of course we should. Illegal immigrants, gun runners, drug runners, people stealing CHILDREN, all use the border. It's just something we need to deal with.

I think we need to stop treating the reserves with kid gloves and start using them for things like this too.  I'll leave exactly how to do this to smarter people but the reserves are a huge resource that should be tapped into.  A friend of mine in the states was telling me that her reserve unit goes into the mountains and forrests looking for pot fields, meth labs and stuff like that. Works with the DEA i think it was.  We can make much better use of our reserves and even regular force. Both our soldiers and commanders need more practice with urban and rural patrolling and operations. 

I get a big feeling that most Canadians just don't want to believe we are at risk. If we smile and don't carry guns and be nice to everyone then somehow the bad guys will just leave us alone. Many are so worried about not 'looking American' that we are willing to put ourselves at risk.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Quite right.  It's like a story Rob Reuters told us on a Pipline/Convoy drug interdiction course.  He was at a fairly remote location in Manitoba, along the Trans Canada.  He was way ahead of the curve in Canada for commercial drug interdiction, and when he started to pick off big hauls, all of a sudden it looked like [Insert small village name here], Manitoba had a drug problem.  So they moved him out of there, and, presto!  [small village name here] doesn't have a drug problem anymore.  I completely agree that somebody somewhere really wants to keep Canada looking like some sort of public service announcement, rather than confront the organized crime and terrorism issues that we have here.  When I run people on CPIC, my computer allows me to run people NCIC, the American federal computer system for law enforcement.  To date, I have come across four area residents that are on the Homeland Security Terror Watch List as being active participants in supporting known terrorist organizations.  These aren't just guys that got photographed outside of a flag burning rally, these are real players.  
Hows this for a conspiracy theory:  Organized crime has long ago identified Canada as being weak on crime and having "the longest undefended (read: unsupervised) border in the world".  In order to facilitate smooth operations, they have located here, and quietly support socialist organizations and left oriented MP's who in turn appoint socialist judges.  All elements work to keep the country soft on enforcement and provide an unfettered playground for criminals and terrorists.  
People are ready to turn Syria into a parking lot for letting so much crap through their borders into Iraq.  I would love to get a hard number on people, drugs and weapons from there, and compare it to our own border situation (non-port, illegal entries).  I'm betting we would blow them away (stats wise, not the righteous rounds and ordinance way [soon, baby, soon]) .



			
				Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I get a big feeling that most Canadians just don't want to believe we are at risk. If we smile and don't carry guns and be nice to everyone then somehow the bad guys will just leave us alone. Many are so worried about not 'looking American' that we are willing to put ourselves at risk.



Most Canadians are misinformed--thank you CBC and Toronto Star!  Canadians have some fairly solid core values, like wanting to be safe, and not provide a haven for a$$hats.  Initially you will have your hippie a-holes screaming Big Brother and Slippery Slope and other such rhetoric because they want to be able to hike and observe the chartruse, leafy toed, three bump newt in its natural habitat without ever seeing a human for the month they are skulking around in the woods.  Once this stuff starts getting out, though, the normal Canadians will start to think "Damn, maybe there is a problem".  And even more regrettably, it will probably be someone being killed at the Border that ram rods this thing forward.  We can only hope that it isn't one of our guys.


----------



## J.J

Sorry for responding to some to a few posts back, but a colicky 6 week old is keeping me busy... :crybaby:

Caesar I do apologize for stating that you have a "hate on" for BSO's, I believe now you are misinformed. The Statement of quals you listed is correct, but there is much more to the process than that. It states that successful completion of the Border Services Officer Training and Assessment Program for new recruits at the Border Services Learning Centre in Rigaud, Quebec. In Riguad the use of force and "officer powers (criminal code) is taught in the very beginning, if you cannot pass both successfully, you fail and go home. Before you take the interview the board will give you some paperwork with the job description. In that it will state, using force for to effect an arrest, handle firearms (that is why a PALS is required so the applicant will have rudimentary knowledge of firearms, we handle A LOT of firearms). It goes on to say we may have to work in a hazardous or dangerous environment. Dealing with aggressive and violent clients. If the applicant cannot agree to perform all functions, the interview stops and the recruiting process stops.
Our use of force instructors go to the RCMP Depot in Regina, they are on the same instructors course as the Police. They must do a re-qualification yearly in Regina. If you read any Police force's statement of qual's it says nothing about firearms, deadly force etc. it talks more of Community Service etc.

I would say there is some validity to your statement that most legacy Customs Inspectors are more in line with your average Civil Servant, and not say, Police Officers. That statement would have been true 10 years ago, today I can say I see more drugs, guns, money, terrorists than the majority of cops. In 5 1/2 years since the BSO's have been authorized to enforce the CC I have probably have arrested 25-30 drivers and obtained  convictions for impaired driving. The majority of those were in the first 2 years, I am not the exception or a "robo cop" I am the norm for my region, an average officer. We do not respond to car accidents and and do not handle the amount of domestics that a patrol officer would deal with, but I will deal with some situations that a patrol officer would never encounter. These days it is easy to say that BSO's are MORE in line with Police Officer's than civil servants. Saturday night they took a .25 cal from the pocket of a Detroit gang member, with several convictions for drugs and violence, when they went to get the weapon out of his pocket, he fought them. No one got hurt, but it does not sound like what a "run of the mill civil servant" or a "tax clerk" would do

I would probably quit and run for the hills if they armed every BSO, there are people there that should not have a sharpened pencil as they would hurt themselves and everyone around them. I do believe that the vast majority of BSO's would conduct themselves in a very professional manner if they were armed.

Having any military personal at the border will *NEVER* happen. If it takes several years to arm the officer's at the border, the gov't will not accept the military. Remember the Liebrals attack ad "Soldiers in the city, with GUNS". The US, even right after 9/11 did not arm the reserves or National Guard. They were working at all border points, they were there to assist the Officer's, but they were unarmed. The US has used armed soldiers on their southern border, but that is a completely different world. 
I can see Blackhorse 7's idea being feasible, using Coyotes with a surv package, but not one crewman would have any weapons. It is needed out west as they are just walking back and forth at will. I can forsee that happening, I actually am surprised it has happened yet.

On the rumour net at work, it is going around at the management level that they have already started the initial process of building a range in Rigaud, the CBSA College.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

WR said:
			
		

> I have probably have arrested 25-30 drivers and obtained  convictions for impaired driving. The majority of those were in the first 2 years, I am not the exception or a "robo cop" I am the norm for my region, an average officer.


Your'e a maniac with a Draeger, you menace.   Nice to see you back in the "game".


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Here is an excerpt from the Northgate Report, a study commissioned to look into the need for arming Border Services Officers:

*Inherent High Risk Environment (Officer and Public Safety)
The number and frequency of Officers engaged in risk of injury situations are riddled
throughout this Report. From assaults, to intimidation, to being taken hostage, these
Officers are faced with a daily reality – the risk to their lives and to the Canadian public is
an everyday fact exacerbated by the unpredictability of human behaviour.
Unpredictable travellers are presenting themselves for inspection in an intoxicated (and
therefore unpredictable) state, with warrants active for their arrest, with firearms, drugs
and other contraband on their person or in their vehicle, and on a less frequent basis are
fugitives from justice. Again, this Report provides ample accounts of such lifethreatening
incidents. The Northgate Study confirmed what front-line Officers, CEUDA
and others have been expressing for years; what transpires at the POE, or what doesn’t,
is not simply a matter of Officer safety. Rather, the border is a point of examination,
interdiction and enforcement and what “gets through” creates a public safety and
security risk for Canadians.
CBSA policy mandates that Officers, when faced with a dangerous person, allow the
suspect entry and immediately call the police. This “Withdraw Policy” permits
unhindered entry into Canada of persons who are dangerous or are deliberately seeking
to avoid interception. This CBSA policy simply passes the responsibility of
apprehending such dangerous persons to the RCMP or another responding police
agency whose response times, on the whole, are incredibly inadequate. Officers
interviewed, however, do not fault their respective responding police agencies. Officers
stated those agencies are understaffed and are frequently tasked with patrolling vast
areas. The likelihood of there being an immediate police capacity to deal with the entry
of hostile, armed, and dangerous persons is, to say the least, remote.
Northgate shares the view that this is a policy that jeopardizes both Officer and public
safety and that should be immediately revoked. Accordingly, Northgate has made
recommendations for an armed border patrol (Recommendation #7) and that Officers
not allow Armed and Dangerous persons into the country (Recommendation #9).
As an example of Officer and public safety concerns, the Study describes, in Chapter 4,
the commercial off-site warehouse in Windsor, Ontario. Trucks identified as needing
further inspection are directed to a warehouse 3.4 kilometres from the Bridge on the
“honour system”. CBSA has made modest efforts at curtailing the number of trucks that
do not report to the warehouse under this “honour system” by instituting patrols of Huron
Church Road. These patrols are staffed with Border Services Officers whose task is to
accost drivers whose trucks are parked on the side of the road, and to inquire as to their
delay in reporting to the warehouse. By approaching a parked truck on the side of the
road, Officers are at serious risk of interrupting a drug/contraband transaction. Such
transactions are indeed occurring, as verified by statements from RIOs in Windsor who
have been told by their informants that every sort of contraband imaginable is being
dropped off, purchased, sold, and delivered within sight of the Bridge.*

And that is one page of 187, and that is only looking at one little part of my personal piece of the pie.


----------



## Adam_18

unbelievable...using an honor system when dealing with suspected weapon/drug/ hell people smugglers ?...I'm just graduating high school and i think thats a sh*t way to go...

Then to top it off they want the officers to not only deal with these criminals (who if they have their sh*t wired are armed), but to do it with only some mace and a batton...i only hope we don't get a border crossing version of Mayerthorp Alberta to realise that these officers need firearms. 

Adam


----------



## TCBF

"I can see Blackhorse 7's idea being feasible, using Coyotes with a surv package, but not one crewman would have any weapons. ..."

- Then it would not happen.  The crews would be armed, or not go.

Tom


----------



## fredranger

Hello, I just signed up here, so give me a little time to get into the groove of things. I believe that our border guards do need to be armed, but only after some serious attention is drawn towards training. Some of the current employees would probably pass a firearms safety, and proficiency course. Some, I believe, would not. I am not suggesting a major overhaul of this system, but a review of how things have (and have not) been done. I mean, if conservation officers, who appear to be as, if not better, equipped and trained as the RCMP, then I do believe a lit time invested in our border situation would pay off in the end.


----------



## Blackhorse7

fredranger said:
			
		

> I mean, if conservation officers, who appear to be as, if not better, equipped and trained as the RCMP...


Better equipped, maybe...(they have a better pistol, but thats about it...)

Better trained, I would have to disagree with.  RCMP training, and indeed ongoing training is recognized as some of the best Law Enforcement training in the world.  But our place is not in border security enforcement.  Investigation of border offences (ie:  smuggling, cross-border drug trade) is where our duties lay.


----------



## fredranger

Well, having been apart of the Edmonton Police Service, I have personally seen a B.C. Cons Off pull some nice physical moves on a would be poacher, and not the ones you would see on the WWE wrestling. As it goes for investigation of border offences, yes, that is just part of what their mandate requires of them. http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency/menu-e.html  clearly shows that what has been written, and what is being done, don't match up. When you abandon your post because you fear for your personal safety, and are unable to perform your  national security duties, then something has broken down.


----------



## Blackhorse7

Oh, don't worry... I agree 100% with that.  I have long said that our border guards should be armed.  And along with that, properly trained.  Just look at some of the things that get seized at the border.... (shudder...)


----------



## J.J

It is very embarrassing to "run away" from a real or perceived threat, but it is a necessary action. The government has to be forced into acting before Officer's die unnecessarily. Officer's want to intercept the bad guys, but as a new father I will not risk my life for something that is preventable. CBSA cannot rely on the RCMP for security or assistance, they are overwhelmed...to much work and to little money & personal. The members have the will and the ability, but it appears to be like the CBSA. They do not have support from their  hierarchy and their Minister.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I would be more concerned with working with a guy who stayed in his booth as an incoming American real life "cops and robbers" vehicle shoot out was rolling towards him.  I think it goes without saying that if you are in a fire fight with the police, you may have "something to declare".  If you are not armed, get the hell out of there.  There is a nice little photo machine that will catch the plate as the car zips through.  
It is not cowardice, it is common sense.


----------



## Adam_18

One of the main points that has been raised here has been whether or not Customs officials would be willing/able to carry firearms and what to do with the ones who are not willing to carry, or don't qualify?

why can we not stick those officers in an airport, i believe a customs officer himself said that he worked in an airport and felt safe. 

could that not be a feesable solution instead of firing or letting go those who couldn't qualify?

Adam


----------



## zipperhead_cop

First off, I don't see anyone getting fired or let go if they won't pack heat.  
Second, I don't think it is quite fair to lob someone into Pearson who lives here in Windsor, who has their whole life and family here.  
I believe there are plenty of clerical jobs available.  Fire 'em at a desk.  Simple enough.


----------



## HDE

I'd imagine the management would want some pretty serious power to assign armed officers whereever they're needed to assure coverage.  Certainly you wouldn't want a border crossing in the boonies without any armed officers and another one with all of the officers with sidearms.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I believe that the idea is to have everyone armed, with possible allowances for current members to refuse if they feel the need to.  I can't imagine that number would exceed 5% of their current front line officers.


----------



## 3rd Herd

CanWest Global News
February 2, 2006
07:00 Mtn time

One of British Columbia's smallest boarder crossing was shut down last night. The crossing at Rousville was manned by a probationary female customs personal. When reports came in about a armed suspect fleeing towards this tiny crossing being pursued by US authorities. The suspect is believed to have relatives in the Rousville area. She notified her superior by telephone, who then called the two regular male customs service personal in. The regular personal upon arriving at the crossing station deemed it unsafe and closed the crossing at 06:45 hrs this morning.

Yet again folks.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Is this a Customs thing or a gender thing?  I think the gender thing has been done sufficiently.


----------



## 3rd Herd

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Is this a Customs thing or a gender thing?  I think the gender thing has been done sufficiently.



Just a customs thing. Was typing as the newscast was airing and trying to get as much information into the post without my morning coffee first.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Ahh, understandable and appropriate priorities.  Coffee first, always ;D

I would be interested to know what "closing" the border constitutes?  If they are putting out an orange pylon, then that is kind of lame.  If they are putting a couple of cube vans in the out and in lanes and hanging back with local police on site to grab the bad guy, then that sounds like a good plan.  
The bosses at CBSA need to come up with better border crasher solutions, guns notwithstanding(shooting at cars is generally not going to fly).  They need dragons teeth or pop up barricades for the border points because it is kind of impossible to stop something coming through as it is right now.  

No doubt with a over-qualified firebrand like this guy, with his obvious law enforcement credentials, they are being aggressively led into a new golden age of border safety:

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency/president/menu-e.html

(once again the need for a sarcasm-dedicated emoticon is noted)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

A weatherman is in charge of cbsa?


----------



## FastEddy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> A weatherman is in charge of cbsa?




Thats right, after all, all the qualified guys are working for the Quebec Liquor Board.

If nothing else we can feel sorry for the poor souls working in that Agency.

Cheers.


----------



## J.J

From the Budget;

Border security will see a significant cash injection, with $101 million to begin arming border officers and eliminating so-called work-alone posts, and another $202 million to implement a border strategy.  ;D &  :fifty:


----------



## AFireinside13

Just a little response to those who do not want to be armed; 
Perhaps they will have those officers who are unarmed partnered with an officer who is armed. 2 birds, 1 stone, no lone post and atleast someone is armed.


----------



## J.J

There has been a risk assessment completed and it has been indicated that that is how the Agency will progress in arming the ports. It has been identified that the high risk ports will  be armed first (ie Windsor).  The risk assessment is what they used for officer Powers in 2000. Unfortunate for the "air side", they were at the bottom of the list, Land Borders were first.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Any word what the chunk of choice would be?  Would it be the same as the RCMP side arm?  I had heard that the Canadian Cowboys were considering changing theirs, wouldn't it be a hoot if you guys got the new kit first?  
I biasedly recommend the Smith and Wesson 4046.


----------



## J.J

No word yet, but I imagine that we will get whatever the pony boys have....there is no way we will get something better; their feelings would be hurt   

The S & W 4046 would not work for us....the women at work believe it to be to _feminine_ to carry....maybe off duty in their purse  ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop

WR said:
			
		

> No word yet, but I imagine that we will get whatever the pony boys have....there is no way we will get something better; their feelings would be hurt
> 
> The S & W 4046 would not work for us....the women at work believe it to be to _feminine_ to carry....maybe off duty in their purse  ;D



As with the long, metalic items that can be found in your purse (batteries not included).  
I've seen some of your "women at work", and I'm betting they don't get accused of being "feminine" too often.   :dontpanic:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have heard the word “Glock” kicked around a bit. Hopefully not in .40cal, from all the reading I have done .40cal and glock don’t get along, plus I know 2 people that had their .40cal Glocks frame split open on them. There is also a problem with lights on Glocks, seems the light limits/alters frame flex. The G17 would do the job and be reasonable cheap, although I am a Sig fan myself. Mind you the XD polymers seems to be getting good reviews (and I don’t just mean in the gun magazines)


----------



## portcullisguy

For those of you interested in the topic of border guards getting armed, here is a small excerpt from an open-source transcript from the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence meeting of June 19th, 2006:



> Mr. Jolicoeur: We are responsible at the crossings. We will reduce that number of 300 in six months.
> 
> Senator Campbell: This is not good enough.
> 
> My second question is — you cannot tell me that you should not have a pursuit vehicle at those big crossings. You simply cannot tell me that. It does not make any sense. What you are telling me is a joke. If someone runs the Vancouver crossing, chances are they will probably get popped because the Surrey-White Rock detachment is there. If someone runs North Portal in Saskatchewan, you do not have a prayer unless you have a helicopter there.
> 
> Either Canada is serious about this or we should stop telling the public that we are. I look at all of this and it does not make any sense. Let us go to a single officer at a crossing. How many of them do we have?
> 
> Mr. Jolicoeur: In the last budget, we received resources to double up in all of these areas. We will need 400 new employees to ensure that in each single-officer location, there will be two officers on each shift.
> 
> Senator Campbell: How many places are there?
> 
> Mr. Jolicoeur: I believe there are 138.
> 
> Senator Campbell: In 2005 there were 139, so we have taken this seriously. Why do we not forget about the new uniforms and put two people at the border so that they are safer? This is simply not acceptable. What are your priorities in order here — new uniforms? Last year you said you would do something about this. You pledged $101 million to begin arming the border officers and eliminating work-alone posts. How many of those work-alone posts have you eliminated? One, according to these figures. What is the timeline for eliminating them? When are we going to not have single officers sitting in the middle of Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba?



Mr Jolicoeur is the president of the Canada Border Services Agency.

As you can see from the excerpt, and the rest of the transcript (http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/defe-e/04eva-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&comm_id=76) the committee is not very happy with Mr Jolicoeur.

An interesting read, to be sure.


----------



## portcullisguy

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I would be interested to know what "closing" the border constitutes?  If they are putting out an orange pylon, then that is kind of lame.  If they are putting a couple of cube vans in the out and in lanes and hanging back with local police on site to grab the bad guy, then that sounds like a good plan.



Forgive me, as I haven't worked at a land border crossing, but from what I am told "closing" a border crossing normally involves a Part II - Canada Labour Code work refusal, which invokes a walk off by employees, and with managers and supervisors filling in.

So, unless the crossing has no on-site management, the port actually doesn't close.  Trade comes first, in the minds of our "leadership" and so the port remains open, but with a reduced capability to handle traffic.

Labour Canada then arrives to save the day by declaring the port safe and doing a quick investigation, sometimes in that order.

Trade comes first!

I'm glad I don't work at a land border!


----------



## portcullisguy

Adam_18 said:
			
		

> One of the main points that has been raised here has been whether or not Customs officials would be willing/able to carry firearms and what to do with the ones who are not willing to carry, or don't qualify?
> 
> why can we not stick those officers in an airport, i believe a customs officer himself said that he worked in an airport and felt safe.
> 
> could that not be a feesable solution instead of firing or letting go those who couldn't qualify?
> 
> Adam



As a customs officer (Border Services Officer now) who spent six years working at the busiest airport in Canada, I can assure you that they are by no means "safe" although there is a lowered risk to officers.

Without going in to great detail, most of which has been documented already several times in many media sources, and in the Senate Committee report "Borderline Insecure", there are many glaring security and safety risks at PIA and other Canadian airports.

CBSA's officers are the largest representation of peace officers present at any airport in Canada at any given time.  Even on a midnight shift, we outnumber Peel Police.  We also have access to almost all areas of the airport, and certainly everywhere international baggage and passengers go, we have an incredible amount of access to information in our pre-arrival risk assessment units, and enforce upwards of 90 acts of Parliament.

Yet, it is still far from a "safe" work place.

Assaults, attempted assaults, and threats of assault have all occurred involving our officers.  So too has damage to officer's vehicles, which may or may not be a form of "intimidation" against our officers.  Our airside units come into regular contact with airport workers, a good portion of whom it has been demonstrated (see the Senate report) have ties to organized crime, have criminal records, and/or are carrying weapons.

How to airside ramp workers get weapons?  It's easy, but I can't answer that question publicly.

Those are the "hidden" risks.  The obvious one is that firearms come through the airport - legally - every day.  In passenger mode, hunters, target shooters, and sometimes other people import firearms on a regular basis.  This fall, at one terminal, there will be at least one firearm sitting unattended (although in a locked case) at all times throughout the day in the arrivals baggage hall, awaiting its owner to clear customs/immigration and claim it.  And THEN they go through customs again, to exit.  Although airlines require ammunition to be secured in a separate bag, at some point prior to seeing a customs officer and being referred for further examination (mandatory for all firearms imports), the passenger will have BOTH their firearm(s) AND the bags containing their ammunition.

If you assume that all airline passengers have been security cleared before coming to Canada, then you're mistaken.  We've had people just show up at the primary line, with a concealed firearm, declare it (not realizing it was prohibited in Canada) and have it seized.  The particular individual arrived from a South American country, on that country's flag carrier, and they had all the permits necessary .. for THAT country.

Yes, these are all examples of low risk travellers... but the point is, they have the guns, we do not.  And we do not get advance notice of it, either (despite all our high-tech, risk-assessment computers).

As a CBSA firearms instructor, I repeat a mantra to all airport mode officers attending my training:  "STAY ALERT.  STAY ALIVE."  Once you become complacent, you can very easily become dead.


To address where to put officers who won't/don't qualify to carry, there are several options:

- They can work in Ottawa, where I am now, in an office where they do not have direct public contact
- They can work in an admin office locally, handling seizure paperwork, courtroom lists, issuing uniforms/equipment, etc.
- They can work in postal or the commercial longroom or a non-designated office (Front Street, Barrie, etc.)
- They can work in the CANPASS call centre
- They can retire/go somewhere else

Make no mistake, though, the airport is a dangerous place to work, too.

I agree that firearms would be a lower priority there, but I've even seen 30 minute response times from Peel Police, and they are in the same building as our people!


Even police services have to deal with officers who fail to qualify/re-qualify on firearms, every now and then.


----------



## portcullisguy

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Walking off the job shouldn't be an option, especially for customs agents.



I've got news for you: Even if they armed all BSO's tomorrow, walking off the job is STILL an option.  Here's why:

- The Canada Labour Code enshrines the right of employees to refuse to work in a dangerous workplace.  Management has a responsibility to mitigate the risk, not eliminate it.  Even when your duties include apprehending criminals, the officer has the right to ensure that their safety is taken seriously.  A lone police officer will never be asked or ordered to charge into a bank, for example, that is in the middle of a hold-up (although they may choose to at their own peril).
- There could always be a situation where an armed BSO is just simply outmatched and needs to disengage, for example an armed offender takes an officer or member of the public hostage. BSO's are unlikely to be required to deal with this type of situation, which calls for specialized tactical response.



			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> If it's a matter of giving them the silly FAC, PAL, POL course then just give it to them. It took me under an hour for the non-restricted and restricted and i aced them both.  (I'm not a smart guy!)
> Send them to a shooting range for a week-end and get them some hand gun training and presto.



Not that simple.

Here's whats involved:

- Potential armed BSO's need to be adequately screened for behavioural problems that may preclude them from armed duties.  A popular misconception among many BSO's is that this would just involve a simple psych test, because that's what the cops do. The police use psychological screening for much more, as their employees will be in a position of vast public trust (access to criminal information, intelligence, required to take custody and comfort small children, vulnerable victims of crimes, seizre and handle drugs, cash and valuables, etc.).  Firearms are just one part of it.  This type of screening should already be in place anyway. Arming is a good opportunity to introduce it, but we should have had it all along.
- People will opt out.  You can't force people to carry firearms when it wasn't in their employment conditions to begin with.  People that opt out will have to work someplace where they're not required to carry a firearm, or retire/transfer.
- People will want reclassification/promotion. Although there is no sound basis for it, the union will likely push for more pay.  As much as I agree I'm worth more money, I doubt we would win a labour arbitration ruling, if it came to it. We already have the authority to carry firearms, we just don't do so because there is no policy for it yet. We already have use of force tools, and we already got reclassed recently to recognize our "increased responsibilities". In the Federal Public Service, you get paid what the Treasury Board deems appropriate for your responsibilities, not for what tools you carry around.
- We need comprehensive and effective firearms trainers. We can't knit them overnight. The CBSA needs to source train-the-trainer courses for their firearms instructors.  In order to do that, they need to schedule how many people they can realistically train in the coming months, and how often they will need refreshers.  They don't want to send people on instructor courses, and then 6 months later have too many instructors and not enough students.
- We need effective purchasing plans for the equipment.  All of it.  Holsters, mags, and ammo included.  The chosen gun needs to fit everyone from the 5'2" female with small hands, up to the 6'6" gigantic dude.
- The policies and training plans need to be drafted.  BSO's need to know when they can unholster their firearm, under what circumstances it will be self-defence, where to store them, how to care for them, how often they need to be qualifying on them, etc.
- Everything needs to be coordinated with existing use of force instruction.  Police use of force courses don't teach you how to shoot.  They teach you the use of force continuum, situational judgement, when you can escalate/de-escalate your force, and firearms retention.  The firearms instructor has to teach you marksmanship and shooting skills under all circumstances.
- The entire CBSA management needs a massive "paradigm shift" in their thinking because, Baby, if we go armed, we need to start collectively thinking and acting like a professional law enforcement agency, and right now I don't think we are there.
- Courses would have to last at least a week for students, with 1 or 2 day refreshers every year.  That is a vast amount of training time, and a vast cost.
- A range needs to be built at Rigaud, or at the very least, MOU's drafted allowing us to use police/private ranges (as the RCMP do for refreshers, since they can't fly everyone back to Regina for it all the time).
- OS&H committees need resources and time to make decisions on a host of firearms-related issues.  Policies and laws need to be clarified.

That's just for starters... 

That said, with the right motivation, and the right amount of money, I firmly believe the majority of our officers could be trained within 6-8 months.

RUMINT within the dept. has projected this much further into the future, but then again, I don't think some of those managers will be around much longer.


----------



## GAP

portcullisguy said:
			
		

> RUMINT within the dept. has projected this much further into the future, but then again, I don't think some of those managers will be around much longer.



I had the displeasure of watching on CPAC the senate committee interview the CBSA during one of their committee meetings. You might be right about the rumor because if this is the type of bureaucrat running the department, they really, really need to get their heads out of it.


----------



## Klc

[quote author=Alain Jolicoeur, President, Canada Border Services Agency (from Senate hearing above)]
This is an overview of the progress since October 2005 when I last appeared before the committee. As senators are aware, I am committed to the CBSA evolving into an innovative science- and technology-based learning organization. Achieving security and prosperity simultaneously is an enormous responsibility and a constant balancing act between security and facilitation that requires diligence, innovation and flexibility. Thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to your questions. [/quote]



OMFG... I really feel sorry for anyone working under this numptee...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I think this may have been posted, but since the thread is up again I'll repost this:

ALAIN JOLICOEUR
President
Canada Border Services Agency

Mr. Alain Jolicoeur completed his classical education at the Collège de Haute-Rive. He went on to earn a bachelor's degree in physics engineering at Université Laval and pursued studies in meteorology at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

Mr. Jolicoeur began his career in the Public Service of Canada in 1973 and, until 1980, held various positions in the field of meteorology with Environment Canada and the Department of National Defence. From 1980 to 1992, Mr. Jolicoeur held management positions in engineering, technology transfer, technological development, and the state of the environment.

Subsequently, Mr. Jolicoeur joined the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat as head of human resources for the Government of Canada. In July 1999, he became Associate Deputy Minister of National Revenue and Deputy Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA).

In September 2002, Mr. Jolicoeur was named Deputy Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. He occupied this position until December 12, 2003, when he became President of the Canada Border Services Agency.

http://www.cbsa.gc.ca/agency/president/menu-e.html

This is why they call him the Weather Man.  He appears to be a useless Liberal appointee with nothing to bring to the table but a bad moustache.


----------



## Klc

But... he called it a 'science and technology based learning organisation'....  

I can't begin to think what he means by that... He isn't running a school, he's running a government secuity organisation...


----------



## The_Falcon

Wow, I should be surprised but I'm not.  Imagine that the liberals appointing someone to run a LAW ENFORCEMENT agency, who has absolutely zero knowledge, education, or experience in that field. :  How the hell do you run a border agency as "science and technology" based? And people wonder why our southern brothers have such concerns over our borders/points of entry.


----------



## George Wallace

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> :  How the hell do you run a border agency as "science and technology" based? And people wonder why our southern brothers have such concerns over our borders/points of entry.



Wasn't that the Liberal attitude towards the CF just a few years ago.  Who was it as Minister of Defence who said something along the lines that "We don't need gorillas any more, we need technicians.  We are going to be a more technology driven military."


----------



## portcullisguy

Klc said:
			
		

> But... he called it a 'science and technology based learning organisation'....
> 
> I can't begin to think what he means by that... He isn't running a school, he's running a government secuity organisation...



To be fair, we do have some very nifty science and tech elements in the CBSA which are of great value to the operations.

We have a state of the art laboratory, capable of foresnic analysis on fradulent documents, drug analysis, and contraband detection R&D.  We have the office I work out of, where we are able to receive information from a wide array of sources, including tax records, criminal and intelligence databases, passenger and cargo manifests (API/PNR and ACI programs), cross border movement, and a host of other databases.  We have some of the most sophisticated drug and explosive technologies in place at ports of entry, now in use by corrections and border officials in several countries, but originally developed based on our agency's R&D (the infamous Ion Scan).  We have one of the best detector dog training programs anywhere in the world.  We are implementing the same radiation detection technology used by the US at our seaports and land borders.  The technology is impressive, and can be very useful.

The overall problem, in my opinion, is that from the top down, we over-rely on these technologies, and not on our people or main purpose.

To steal a battel school slogan, we forget that we are all "border officers first" -- this is mainly because the VAST majority of our managers have never been border officers.  They are, like our "President", imports and appointees from other parts of the civil service.

I long for the day when our head of the agency started out as a border officer working a primary inspection line and who worked their way up.



As an aside, compare our "mission statement" to that of our nearest ally and largest trading partner.  You will see a REMARKABLE difference in attitude, foundation and direction.


CBSA Mission Statement & Values:
Mission
To ensure the security and prosperity of Canada by managing the access of people and goods to and from Canada.

Values
Integrity, Respect, Professionalism.
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency/who-qui-e.html

US Customs and Border Protection Mission Statement:
Mission
We are the guardians of our Nation's borders.
We are America's frontline.
We safeguard the American homeland at and beyond our borders.
We protect the American public against terrorists and the instruments of terror.
We steadfastly enforces the laws of the United States while fostering our Nation's economic security through lawful international trade and travel.
We serve the American public with vigilance, integrity and professionalism.

Core values:
Vigilance, Integrity, Professionalism.
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/about/mission/guardians.xml

A quick comparison plainly illustrates some glaring differences.  The tone of the American mission statement puts the bottom line up front: "We are the guardians of our Nation's borders."  They "steadfastly enforce" the laws.  Fostering economic security is a byproduct.  Their core values again put the main issue first: vigilance.

The CBSA's mission statement, although more brief and succinct, sounds less like a mission statement and more like a wish.  "We ensure" by "managing".  The first core value is "integrity", possibly because it was drafted at the tail end of 13 years of the last government's blatant and obvious corruption and pocket-lining.

Of course, they didn't ask me for suggestions on what our mission statement should be.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

portcullisguy said:
			
		

> The CBSA's mission statement, although more brief and succinct, sounds less like a mission statement and more like a wish.



I thought it was "to provide a prompt and friendly face immediately upon arrival to Canadian soil, with the shortest possible delay, regardless of security or safety considerations"   ;D
Or is that just the motto from the management career path book


----------



## Klc

It just sounds so wrong tho...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

portcullisguy said:
			
		

> Those are the "hidden" risks.  The obvious one is that firearms come through the airport - legally - every day.  In passenger mode, hunters, target shooters, and sometimes other people import firearms on a regular basis.  This fall, at one terminal, there will be at least one firearm sitting unattended (although in a locked case) at all times throughout the day in the arrivals baggage hall, awaiting its owner to clear customs/immigration and claim it.  And THEN they go through customs again, to exit.  Although airlines require ammunition to be secured in a separate bag, at some point prior to seeing a customs officer and being referred for further examination (mandatory for all firearms imports), the passenger will have BOTH their firearm(s) AND the bags containing their ammunition.



Yep, and I got snotty comments from the staff there when i pointed this out, plus to add insult to injury, Air Canada charges you $65 each way to mishandle your firearm. They lost mine on the way to Ft Nelson, but manged to find it when I threatened to put in a police report, apparently the $65 charge is to cover the "extra costs of handling a firearm" having watched the whole sequence at Smithers, it involves me filling out a form while they throw it in with the rest of the luggage. I hate air Canada and avoid it like the plague.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Just thought I would toss this in, the exchange between Senator Banks and friends vs. the Weather Man:

THE STANDING SENTATE 
COMMITTEE 
ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Monday, June 19, 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 10 a.m. to examine and report on the national security policy of Canada.

Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) is in the chair.

Before us today, colleagues, we have Alain Jolicoeur, President, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). He has been president of the Canada Border Services Agency since December 2003. He has been with the public service of Canada since 1973 and has served in a number of different positions with Environment Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Treasury Board Secretariat. In July of 1999, he became Associate Deputy Minister of National Revenue and Deputy Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. In December 2002, he was named Deputy Minister of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, a post he occupied until assuming his current position. 

Mr. Jolicoeur is accompanied by Barbara Hébert, Vice-President, Operations Branch, Canada Border Services Agency. Welcome to both of you. I understand you have a brief statement, Mr. Jolicoeur.

Alain Jolicoeur, President, Canada Border Services Agency: I am pleased to join you today. It has been about eight months since my last appearance at your committee.

I would like to thank you for your support in passing our legislation. As you know, this has given the CBSA the legal authority necessary to continue forward with our modern border management agenda.

I am happy to share with you some of our progress that we have made since last October and some of the key priorities currently facing our agency.

We are moving ahead and further refining our three basic approaches — with their accompanying tools and technology — to manage, control and secure border operations; collect advance information and turn that information into intelligence; and expand our pre-approval programs to expedite legitimate travel and trade at the border.

Examples of progress include the Advance Passenger Information (API) and Personal Name Record (PNR) agreement that we signed with the European Union. As well, the Advance Commercial Information program, which has been operational in the marine mode since 2004, will be fully implemented by this summer for the air mode. We have integrated training programs for new recruits so that new border services officers can operate technology, work with newly implemented systems and better manage risk. Thus, they will be better able to keep pace with the evolution of our business. We ran successful NEXUS air and marine pilot programs. We continue to invest in research, development, and the acquisition and deployment of radiation-detection technology. The first units were installed in Saint John where testing is taking place. Further deployments are planned for 2006 in Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver. Once fully implemented, our radiation-detection program will allow us to screen virtually 100 per cent of incoming marine cargo immediately upon its arrival in Canada.

We continue to deliver on our plans to provide enhanced connectivity for remote ports and we have made significant progress to connect unconnected sites. Most sites are now connected with only three seasonal sites left to fully connect by the end of summer 2006. We are replacing the existing Primary Automated Lookout System files with an updated system to ensure that border services officers have access to the information they need. We will continue to invest in building a smarter, more secure and trade-efficient border that relies on technology, information sharing and biometrics.

The CBSA will receive $239 million over the next two years to help fund some of the highest profile initiatives under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). These initiatives include NEXUS air, e-manifests, business resumption planning, partners in protection, and the passenger name record program. We are moving to the next generation of smart-border management. These SPP initiatives will improve border security by complementing our existing risk-management strategies. They demonstrate innovative measures to ensure the free flow of trade and travel across a secure border.

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) is the most important bilateral border issue currently facing Canada. We share U.S. security objectives and want to work with them to ensure that both countries continue to streamline the movement of low-risk traffic in both directions. Prime Minister Harper and President Bush discussed the issue earlier this year and agreed to appoint Public Safety Minister Day and Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff as the leads to discuss this matter. They created a working group led by me on the Canadian side and by the head of the US-VISIT program and the new Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Ralph Basham. This working group will examine issues and develop proposed solutions for discussion at the ministerial level. We have had a number of meetings and conference calls to date. Minister Day and Secretary Chertoff met in April and plan to meet again this July.

Specifically, as part of the SPP, we are now actively engaged with our U.S. counterparts to identify jointly acceptable document security standards that will help us to identify other alternative secure documents in addition to the passport and the U.S. n PASS card, already announced as acceptable. The CBSA will receive $100 million over the next two years to begin the process of providing frontline border services officers with side arms and of ensuring that they are no longer required to work alone. We plan to arm approximately 5,000 officers, not only at land border crossings but also at marine ports and, in some cases, inland. We plan to have the first group of officers armed by the fall of 2007. We are actively engaging the union in our implementation planning.

I am committed to broadening our intelligence networks and to ensuring that CBSA staff are well trained and well equipped. We must constantly invest in new and modern tools, adopt innovative approaches and capture the benefits of the best science and technology. The CBSA has built strong partnerships within the security community, as was made clear by our participation in the investigations that led to the arrests earlier this month of the 17 terrorist suspects in Toronto.

We continue to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society by removing individuals that might pose a danger to the public or to the national security of Canada. We are investing heavily to ensure that our intelligence networks and tools are the best. We recently moved detainees under security certificates from provincial remand centres, where all high-risk immigration detainees are held, to the newly operated Kingston Immigration Holding Centre to improve conditions of detention for our security cases.

This is an overview of the progress since October 2005 when I last appeared before the committee. As senators are aware, I am committed to the CBSA evolving into an innovative science- and technology-based learning organization. Achieving security and prosperity simultaneously is an enormous responsibility and a constant balancing act between security and facilitation that requires diligence, innovation and flexibility. Thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator Banks: We are pleased to hear your reference to improvements made since you last joined us at committee, Mr. Jolicoeur. We are in the process of developing a report card of the recommendations we have made to the government in those respects. Your visit here is timely. Almost one year ago, this committee issued a report called Borderline Insecure to which we drew the attention of the government and all Canadians to some of the issues you mentioned. 

The first one is the connections that you said have been made with respect to land border crossings and to the central intelligence capacity with the computer system. I understood you to say that they have been connected except for three seasonal posts. Are the connections via high-speed access? Could you tell us why those three seasonal posts are not connected yet? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: When CBSA was created, 110 offices were not connected. You have asked me on other occasions to report on the status of those offices. During 2005, we connected an additional 31 offices, which leaves us with work to do on 21 offices. The three remaining seasonal offices that are not connected are small but I agree that it could be a problem. We have asked Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) to secure a contract for CBSA for satellite connection for these three offices. They are working hard to obtain that contract for us. I am not sure why but there has been an administrative delay. We are confident that these offices will be connected through satellite before the end of the summer. It should have been done by now, but it is not done yet.

Senator Banks: Has anyone explained this to you? If you and I wanted a high-speed connection from the middle of the Gobi Desert, we could get it in very short order. Why is this delay happening?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Procurement in the public service is something that can be problematic on occasion because of the challenges and rules. 

On a different note, we have spent a year and a half trying to obtain new uniforms for our employees. We are approaching the end of the process and will finally be getting our new uniforms. It is a complex process. Those questions may be better directed to PWGSC. We are approaching the end of the process and these offices will be connected.

I want to refer to another 18 offices that have been connected for some time. We are not comfortable with the high-speed connection or wave-length aspect, the space sufficient for them to obtain all the services other offices are getting. 

We are planning to first analyze how the connection works with these three final examples. If satellite connection provides us with everything we think it will, that will probably be the solution for the other 18 offices that are not sufficiently connected.

Senator Banks: At the moment, let us talk about the three examples that are absent. We will take this to Public Works and Government Services Canada. We see the minister every day in the Senate and we will ask him those questions. 

I can understand why you must get competitive bids on which uniform manufacturer to use. However, matters directly related to national security, particularly at these times, seem to be able to leapfrog those considerations in some way.

With respect to those three "offices" as you call them, I am presuming they are small and are probably manned by an officer at a given time. Is that a reasonable presumption?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes, they are small. They are probably one-person offices.

Senator Banks: How does that person get information about an emergent event? How is that person told that a truck driving up to their office might have something wrong with it, might contain something that ought not to be there, or has people in it about whom they should be careful? How are they notified?

Mr. Jolicoeur: If there is advance intelligence about something such as a vehicle, a person or an event to be aware of, we can always contact those offices.

Senator Banks: By what means?

Mr. Jolicoeur: We would speak to them directly by phone.

Senator Banks: In the event there is something untoward based on advanced intelligence, would you be able to get additional people to that office in short order?

Mr. Jolicoeur: I could not tell you right now how long it would take to get a person to these three offices but I can look into that. If there was such a need, we would send someone for sure.

Senator Banks: This is one of the questions addressed in our report. 

If that vehicle drives through the land border crossing and does not stop, and there are a number of instances of that happening, can you tell us about the recordkeeping in that respect? How many instances were there in Canada last year of vehicles that just drove through a border crossing and did not stop? What is the percentage of those vehicles that were likely to have been found after the fact? Do we have that information?

Mr. Jolicoeur: You recommended to us and we agreed that we needed to start measuring and reporting on that, which we have done. I do not have the exact number but we started reporting last year. 

If you recall the first time you raised that issue with us, the number used the year before was 1,600 across the country over a year. So far, for the six months of this year, we have a number in the 300 range. There has been a significant reduction of those occurrences. 

They are reported, and that reporting has lead to about 70 people being arrested. I do not have the exact number but I do have that information if you want it.

Senator Banks: Will you please send that information to the clerk of the committee? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes.

Senator Banks: I think most Canadians would be surprised, shocked and unhappy to learn that 300 vehicles in half a year drive through the border, are not stopped and get away with it, at least for a while. Whomever or whatever they have in their trunk could be let out in fairly short order.

In a case such as that, the policy of CBSA now is to notify the police. The police may or may not be able to do something about it. We have had other issues about how quickly the police are able to respond to that, and it has not been good news.

Will that policy change when your border officers at those land border crossings are armed? When there is an armed and dangerous person known to be coming to the border, or when a vehicle crosses the border without stopping, will that policy change when your officers arrive?

Mr. Jolicoeur: The policy in terms of what to do when someone crosses the border without stopping will not change when our people are armed. Our policy will be similar to that of the U.S. They will not be allowed to use their guns to shoot at a car that passes through or anything like that. They will advise the police when someone runs the border. That policy will remain the same.

Senator Banks: We will still have to rely upon a police response, and sometimes they are too busy or cannot get around to it. Will CBSA officers have an added capacity to pursue a car or truck that has crossed the border without stopping?

Mr. Jolicoeur: No, we have no means to pursue; we are not foreseeing situations where we will need the means to pursue those cars ourselves. We will continue relying on the police.

Senator Banks: In that case, we are interested in receiving information about the number of vehicles that are somehow intercepted and how long it takes to find them. They could have offloaded whatever it was they had — which is presumably the reason they ran the border — in 20 minutes.

Mr. Jolicoeur: I agree. However, I should point out that we have reduced those numbers significantly using signage and different methods. We need to continue reducing that number. 

At the end of the day, yes, we are dependent upon the police to capture the remaining offenders.

Senator Banks: We have already heard from CBSA officers that the police sometimes cannot respond and when they do it takes a long time. 

If I drive a car across the border with a 20-minute head start, there are a lot of places in Canada I could go where you would never find me again. Is that right?

Mr. Jolicoeur: That is true at the moment. The solution is to reduce the number of people crossing without stopping and to get quicker service from the police. There may be alternative solutions in areas where it is difficult to obtain that service rapidly.

The Chairman: I have a supplementary question on that, Senator Banks. 

Just so we are clear, Mr. Jolicoeur, you said that 300 vehicles ran the border in the first six months of this year? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: The number is roughly 300 vehicles over six months. 

The Chairman: Only 70 of those vehicles were apprehended?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes, I think it is about 70. 

The Chairman: Is it correct that there are 230 vehicles in the country about which we have no clue?

Mr. Jolicoeur: That is true. I would like to point out that it is a very significant reduction over the previous number and it is our belief that the vast majority of cases where people run the port is by confusion. People are confused about signing. The vast majority think they have gone through the whole process when they have not.

The Chairman: If that is the case, why do you not have a barrier? It is easy to raise and lower a barrier.

Mr. Jolicoeur: We could put barriers everywhere. This will slow the process considerably, but it is a possibility. There is also a cost to that. 

The Chairman: There is a barrier when you go into a parking garage and, when someone wants to leave, it is a matter of someone pushing a button and saying, thank you very much, have a nice day and they drive off.

Mr. Jolicoeur: We could have barriers everywhere. I would point out again that our process is measured by seconds. There are cases where it might be a problem, but that could be a permanent solution. 

The Chairman: For people running the border, why not have something farther down the road, not by the post, that incapacitates the vehicle? We see police dragging across spikes and it would be an easy matter to automate that and have the vehicle incapacitated 200 metres farther down the road, not at the post.

Mr. Jolicoeur: There are locations where this could be considered. I am not sure it would be applicable to all locations because of the width. 

The Chairman: I agree. It is not applicable to all. I am not hearing you say we are really concerned about the 230 that are getting through. 

Mr. Jolicoeur: I am concerned, and this is why we have moved from 1,600 to a much smaller number. We need to keep on reducing that by using different techniques, and one of them might be, at the end of the day to bring it down to zero, to consider what you are suggesting. 

The Chairman: I am surprised that I am suggesting them to you. I am surprised that you are not saying, I am sorry to report that 230-plus folks made it into the country, but here is our plan: One, we are going to put up a barrier to stop the ones who are just doing it accidentally and, two, we have figured out a way to stop the other vehicles. You seem passive about these issues and I do not understand why you are not coming before us and saying — here are the problems and, by the way, we have solutions that we are working on. We will test some of these and have some in place by this date. You come and say, well, Public Works is slow putting in equipment and we are also having problems with uniforms and, by the way, 230 vehicles with maybe more people snuck into the country, but I do not have anything to tell you about the solutions to stop that.

Mr. Jolicoeur: Let us take this problem one by one. We are flagging the port running and the difficulty we are having with port running. The last time we discussed that with you, we were collectively unhappy with the number of port runners, which was at 1,600. The plan that we discussed and implemented was to work in the area where that was most prevalent. We flagged two areas where we had some difficulty — one port in B.C. and a secondary commercial one at Windsor. We have worked on both and this is why we have progressed a lot.

I am not saying we are finished, but I am saying we have progressed a lot and we will continue to do so. If we do not find a better or more practical way to bring it close to zero — it is never going to be zero — we will use barriers. However, sometimes this occurs when our ports are closed. We get information about some people crossing the border point when the port is closed.

Senator Banks: That is not okay. How is it possible to say in this day and age, with everything that is happening, that if a criminal finds a border post that is closed, he or she can just drive across it? It is not okay that we have made progress in these things. Following the chairman's point, at each and every land border crossing in Canada, there is a road that vehicles have to drive down before they get to the fork in the road or the maze of streets or the other highways. There is a choke point, to use your language, by the use of which, the numbers of vehicles that drive into Canada without having been stopped and inspected, could be zero. You know better than we do what they are. There is a hydraulic mechanism in the road that stops the car or a set of teeth that come up and ruin tires, which half the parking lots in the country use.

Are you planning those kinds of things? Are you going to install those things so that the next time we talk to you the number of cars coming into Canada without having been stopped will be zero? Making it better is not good enough days, is it? Does it not have to be zero?

Mr. Jolicoeur: I understand your frustration and I would also like this to be zero, but as you know and as I have reported, we have many roads that are unguarded between Canada and the U.S.

If I take all of the former border crossing points and turn them into fortresses, at some point there is a limited return on the investment because —

Senator Banks: Is that the consideration — it costs too much?

Mr. Jolicoeur: The governing consideration is if you have a chain and you try to strengthen three or 15 of the links to make them better, it does not make your security any tighter because of the other ones. So, at some point we have to live with the reality that we have this huge border and there are many places where people can actually go through. 

Senator Campbell: With all due respect, you are copping out. I am new here. I cannot believe this. I just cannot believe what I am hearing here. Are we serious about taking care of terrorism and people crossing our borders here? You cannot cop out by saying there are hundreds of places you can cross in this country. I know there are hundreds of places. You are responsible for the crossings. You came here in October. At that time you said there was no log being kept that would tell you how many people were jumping the border. Now we have a number of 1,600. Where did that come from?

Mr. Jolicoeur: The number of 1,600 was not a formal number. It was a number that was captured by, if I remember, employees across the country that reported on these things. Now we are —

Senator Campbell: There was no formal process of keeping it so the number could have been 3,200 for all you know — correct?

Mr. Jolicoeur: That is correct.

Senator Campbell: And so now we know that there are 300 in half a year.

Mr. Jolicoeur: That is correct.

Senator Campbell: You say there are lots of places to cross. You are responsible for making sure that people do not cross that border. Is that correct, at the crossings?

Mr. Jolicoeur: We are responsible at the crossings. We will reduce that number of 300 in six months.

Senator Campbell: This is not good enough. 

My second question is — you cannot tell me that you should not have a pursuit vehicle at those big crossings. You simply cannot tell me that. It does not make any sense. What you are telling me is a joke. If someone runs the Vancouver crossing, chances are they will probably get popped because the Surrey-White Rock detachment is there. If someone runs North Portal in Saskatchewan, you do not have a prayer unless you have a helicopter there.

Either Canada is serious about this or we should stop telling the public that we are. I look at all of this and it does not make any sense. Let us go to a single officer at a crossing. How many of them do we have?

Mr. Jolicoeur: In the last budget, we received resources to double up in all of these areas. We will need 400 new employees to ensure that in each single-officer location, there will be two officers on each shift. 

Senator Campbell: How many places are there? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: I believe there are 138. 

Senator Campbell: In 2005 there were 139, so we have taken this seriously. Why do we not forget about the new uniforms and put two people at the border so that they are safer? This is simply not acceptable. What are your priorities in order here — new uniforms? Last year you said you would do something about this. You pledged $101 million to begin arming the border officers and eliminating work-alone posts. How many of those work-alone posts have you eliminated? One, according to these figures. What is the timeline for eliminating them? When are we going to not have single officers sitting in the middle of Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Do you want me to speak to the question of single officers?

Senator Campbell: I do.

Mr. Jolicoeur: In Budget 2006, we have, for the first time, money to deal with work-alone posts. Now, we have to hire people and train them for which we have a plan. I admit that it will take about three years before we have no work-alone posts in Canada. That is the time it will take to complete the recruitment and training, given the space we have at our training centre. However, this problem is being resolved.

Senator Campbell: If this is so important, why are you not sending trained and knowledgeable people from the big border crossings to be the second officer and then putting a rookie into the big offices where they could be trained? There had better not be someone killed at one of these work-alone border crossings during the next few years. There is a way around this. I understand about bringing in more officers and the training. However, simply take 139 trained officers from the big offices across Canada and put them into these smaller, work-alone posts. My biggest fear is that someone working alone will be hurt at one of these crossings. Worse, the fact that there are 230 vehicles wandering around likely has nothing to with their missing the signage, as you suggested. If you cannot read the signage at Windsor, then you are coming across with something to do something. This is not acceptable.

Senator Banks: Is the principal constraint money?

Mr. Jolicoeur: For what? 

Senator Banks: Doing all of these things, such as ensuring that no sign at a border crossing indicates "Closed for the night. Come back later," which is kind of silly.

Mr. Jolicoeur: If we want barriers, rules and a system that prevents people from crossing illegally then, yes there is a money consideration.

Senator Banks: Has that money been requested? Does CBSA have a plan for which it has requested the funds to reduce these numbers to zero? This committee argued with the previous government about it not providing sufficient resources. We will not change our minds on that simply because the government has changed. The previous government was deficient in providing the necessary resources for these jobs. However, you need a plan to take to the government in order to secure the appropriate funds to fix the problem. You need to tell the government how much it will cost. Have you made such a plan?

Mr. Jolicoeur: We make requests to every federal budget for additional resources for CBSA. This year, we received over two years $365 million for two improvements to security across Canada.

In the last budget, our request included a piece specifically dealing with running the port. No, I did not have a piece there. We of course were asked to prioritize all of our requests. No, there was not a specific request for that in the last budget. If we were to consider all of the areas where we could strengthen the border then, you are right, the amount requested to fund all of them would be very high. It would take a significant amount of money to add the number of people we would like to have at the borders and consider the areas between border points and post-border points — much more than we are talking about now.

Senator Banks: Most members of this committee believe that most Canadians would think that that would be money well spent. Aside from the specifics of border crossings, it would have a great impact on relations with our neighbour and the things that they suspect are happening in Canada. We argue against some of those suspicions when we send people to Washington to argue the incalculability of the costs. It is not only the fact of those 230 vehicles whose locations we do not know, but also the impact of that on our overall situation. Most Canadians would be extremely supportive of the necessary funding to ensure that we do not have "closed for the night" signs on our border crossings. 

The Chairman: Mr. Jolicoeur, you just described a plan that you have laid out in order of priority. Could you make a copy of that available to the committee, please?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Do you mean in terms of the funding in Budget 2006?

The Chairman: No. We know those figures. We would like to know what you did not receive in that budget and we would like to see your list, in priority, of issues that you want to address across the spectrum. For example, are barriers on your list? Do you have a list of other deficiencies? We are anxious to know that you are on top of the job, and we do not want to be unreasonable in terms of our criticisms of what you are doing. If you have a plan in place that is not being funded, we would like to see what that plan is. We would like to have a look at what you have been arguing for so that we can see that you have a system that will resolve some of these problems. Failing that, we have to assume that you are not focusing on some of these issues.

It would be much fairer to you and to the agency if you were to provide us with what you think you need and what you have on your lists for material, equipment and devices, et cetera, to ensure that the border crossings work in the way that we expect them to work. Can you provide us with that?

Mr. Jolicoeur: That is fine. Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Poulin: Safety has become a major concern for Canadians because of a bad experience in the United States and also during the past few weeks. The quality of our relations with the United States is important to us. Since you are responsible for managing our border posts along the longest border in the world, could you tell us how many border posts there are and over how many kilometers?

Mr. Jolicoeur: The border is about 8,000 kilometers long. Along the land border, we have 119 border posts. When one talks about the border, one should not forget that it refers to all the points of entry into Canada. In addition to the land border, we have a number of marine ports. The three major border posts in importance for the number of containers are Halifax, Montréal and Vancouver. 

Gotta love Ottawa for being succinct  :  Post broken into two halves for size


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Senator Poulin: We only have three?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Those on the largest ones. We also have marine points of service which are not always open.

We also have small marinas which open occasionally. There are also 200 airports that are used as points of entry into Canada.

Senator Poulin: What is the annual budget of the Canada Border Services Agency?

Mr. Jolicoeur: It will be between 1.2 and 1.3 billion dollars next year.

Senator Poulin: Considering the environment we’ve been living in since 2001 from the point of view of security, have you developed a plan identifying clearly the black holes? You’ve referred to long sections of the border without any post. What would be the solution to this problem and how much would it cost? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes, but I was referring to the management of the border as a whole. Our responsibility is limited to entry points. Despite that, we have discussed the possibility to create something equivalent to what the Americans have, which they call the Border Patrol and has a responsibility between the official points of entry. In our case, this responsibility belongs to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Senator Poulin: Are you saying that the responsibility for the border is shared between two agencies?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Indeed I am.

Senator Poulin: Does that not create problems for needs identification?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Obviously, especially since 9/11 but it had started earlier. The agencies work in close cooperation. We have common groups with staff from both organizations who cooperate, among other things, on the «high belt» concept, in an integrated manner, with all the safety agencies and US agencies. We are wondering now if it would not be better to have one single agency at the border instead of two. It's an open question. 

Senator Poulin: I was a bit surprised to learn that the new government has given only 101 million dollars in the last budget for an issue as important as border post security. We are informed that this budget should allow us to eliminate single agent posts. The other objective was to provide weapons to officers at the border. You stated of while ago that even if the officers were armed, the present policy would not change. Why give them weapons, then?

Mr. Jolicoeur: In the 2006 budget, the first objective of the 101 million dollars was to give weapons to our staff. That was not the only amount for our organization. In total, for the first two years, we got 365 million $. So there are many other important projects that have been financed in the last budget. The plan to give weapons to our officers was not specifically aimed at resolving the problem of people running the border but rather to give some tools to our employees when they are faced with dangerous situations at the border. In those cases, our operational policy will change because, if our officers are armed, they will be called upon to intervene more directly in those situations whereas they could not do so in the past when they had no weapons. 

To put that in context, we talk to our American colleagues about their level of comfort with our strategies and with what we’re doing. It is important to underline that we continuously compare our operational methods and our effectiveness to those of our American friends and that they are comfortable with them. Improvement is continuously made on both sides on the border as we go along.

Senator Poulin: Do American officers have weapons?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes, since the seventies.

Senator Poulin: Will our officers receive training on carrying and using weapons?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes, we're working with the Police Institute in Nicolet and with the agency training American officers to develop a course that will last about three weeks. That course will ensure that our people have the proper knowledge and training to use their weapons.

Senator Poulin: This is roughly what this committee had recommended a few weeks ago.

[English]

Senator Atkins: While at airports, one gets the impression that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) has all the personnel it needs and then some. Can you tell us how many personnel you have increased by since the last time we met?

Mr. Jolicoeur: I do not know the exact number of increase but we will have about 13,000 employees within a year. It has been a gradual increase since we started. 

The difficulty in reporting an exact number is that CBSA was not created in one shot. It was created gradually by adding pieces. Our numbers have been increasing steadily since our creation.

Senator Atkins: Getting back to the barrier question that the chairman addressed, if someone arrives by plane and goes through immigration, they see an officer who interrogates them and are then given a card in order to be put through another process where that card is examined. 

Is there not a simple way of implementing a system where you could avoid having vehicles go through the border without examination, such as by having some form of barrier that could not be broken unless they provide evidence they have been examined?

Mr. Jolicoeur: If you are relating to the point raised by Senator Banks and Senator Campbell, to develop a physical means of completely preventing people from racing through the border, the answer is yes, it is certainly doable. There is significant cost related to it, but it is doable.

Senator Atkins: Would that process require more personnel?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes, more personnel and more capital to build infrastructure. 

Senator Atkins: Have you any idea of the number of people or the amount of capital needed?

Mr. Jolicoeur: No, I do not have an estimate on that.

Senator Atkins: That would be helpful.

Do you have a waiting list of people applying to be members of your service?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes. Every time we open a competition, there are many applicants. However, our budget allows us to hire only a certain number. At the moment, the real challenge is to schedule training for these people through our institute at Rigaud. It is fully booked for at least a year. 

Senator Atkins: With regard to the infrastructure for training, can you handle the increase of personnel or will it require serious adjustments to your training process?

Mr. Jolicoeur: There is no question that we need additional financial and human resources on the training side because of what I just described. We obtained additional resources in the last budget specifically for the new training aspects that are coming with the arming of employees. There will be a requirement for additional space and expertise due to that. We received the resources and have a plan to deploy that over the coming years.

Senator Atkins: I understand that you are extending the training period. 

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes. It is a bit more complicated because now we are one organization. Our employees are coming from three different organizations. We have created a new integrated course that includes all the expertise that was covered by three organizations in the past.

Senator Atkins: What are the three?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and customs. We have created a new program that is currently being tested that is more integrated.

Senator Atkins: Is three weeks long enough to train a student? 

Barbara Hébert, Vice-President, Operations Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: The training we give our students covers the requirements they have to carry out their assigned responsibilities. Our students do not fulfil the full range of responsibilities that a regular border services officer would have. 

Earlier you expressed interest in the air mode. Using that as an example, even full-time indeterminate officers would receive three weeks of training if they were to work in the air mode. A student who is to work in the air mode would also receive three weeks of training to do primary processing. From that perspective, they are quite compatible. If a student were asked to do more than that in the example I just gave, additional training would be provided. 

Senator Atkins: Do you have the facilities to provide that training? 

Ms. Hébert: The students are trained locally and regionally. They do not go to our training facility in Rigaud. That facility is for our indeterminate officers.

The Chairman: Are the students on land crossings fully trained?

Ms. Hébert: The students who work at the land borders also receive three weeks training. They receive the training required to carry out the responsibilities they are assigned.

The Chairman: That is a vague answer. Are there times when students are working alone and unsupervised?

Ms. Hébert: No, Senator Kenny, they are not.

The Chairman: What would you say if we produced examples of that happening?

Ms. Hébert: I would like to have that information because it is the policy that they should not be.

The Chairman: This is a policy that you monitor and that you are certain is in place?

Ms. Hébert: I can assure you that I regularly raise it with my management team.

The Chairman: Do they monitor it? 

Ms. Hébert: I believe they do.

The Chairman: How often do they tell you that it is not observed?

Ms. Hébert: I have had this conversation with them no less than once every quarter in the last year, and I believe that any discrepancies have been corrected.

The Chairman: You are telling me that on a number of occasions in the past year you have found that students were in charge of a border post?

Ms. Hébert: No, that would not be an accurate statement.

The Chairman: Clarify for us, if you would, what you meant when you said that any discrepancies were corrected. You need not correct something if there is no problem.

Ms. Hébert: Students are never left alone at a port. I was referring to the latter clause of your sentence. Students would not necessarily be only at the port of entry.

The Chairman: My question stands. Have instances been reported to you of students being alone?

Ms. Hébert: Instances have been reported, as a result of appearances before this committee, and I have taken action to deal with my management team as a result of those representations.

The Chairman: In the past year, how often have you found that there were students working there alone?

Ms. Hébert: I am not aware of any student in the last six months who has been working alone. You asked about a year. Off the top of my head I am not aware of any, but I do not want to mislead the committee. However, I am sure about the last six months.

The Chairman: You can be assured that every time you appear before us that question will come up. If you could, double-check before your next appearance.

Ms. Hébert: To be clear, I believe that we have no students working alone now and have not for some period of time.

Senator Banks: Some students have done wonderful work.

Ms. Hébert: I agree.

Senator Banks: A student is not a bad thing. However, the policy is that students are always working under the supervision of an experienced officer, most of whom I assume would be indeterminate officers.

Exactly what does "under the supervision of" mean? I know that if a student is in a booth at a border crossing, there will not be an experienced officer sitting beside him in the booth. How far away is the supervision under which that student is working, and what exactly does "under the supervision of" mean? Is the experienced officer at a different place or at home where he could be reached by telephone, or does it mean that there is sight contact with the supervisor? 

Ms. Hébert: You are absolutely correct about a student working at a primary inspection line (PIL) booth. There will undoubtedly be people working in the office or at the commercial primary inspection line. The supervisory presence to which I referred could be in another booth or inside the actual facility at the port, but would absolutely be on site. 

Senator Atkins: With regard to PIL booths, it has been suggested to us on other occasions that there is an unofficial time allotted for the processing of a car. Is that a practice that is implemented by your senior people?

Ms. Hébert: We have statistics that indicate the average processing time for the average traveller over the course of history.

Senator Atkins: What is that?

Ms. Hébert: I believe it is 30 seconds.

Senator Atkins: I believe we heard that it is 20 seconds.

Ms. Hébert: I would generally use 30 seconds. That is certainly the average time history has shown us. Having said that, I am not aware of any instance where we direct officers that they shall take no more than 30 seconds or, in your example, 20 seconds. 

Officers are expected to exercise discretion and process the traveller until he or she, being the officer, is satisfied that that traveller can be admissible to Canada. Some processing might take 17 seconds; some might take much longer than that.

Senator Atkins: Therefore, they would not be penalized if they are slow in their operation?

Ms. Hébert: That is correct. 

Senator Atkins: How is CBSA working with the RCMP to combat organized crime in the ports?

Mr. Jolicoeur: We are working at different levels, but the main instrument we are using is the IBET, the integrated border enforcement teams we have across the country. They are led by the RCMP but with participation of our agency as well as others. We also share intelligence regularly at different levels and feed that intelligence through our national risk assessment centre to the local level when it is important that the information be available. We are working as teams.

Senator Atkins: Could you describe the experiment in Saint John?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Are you talking about RADNET?

Senator Atkins: Yes.

Mr. Jolicoeur: RADNET is a system that we have developed in house to measure radioactivity that might be present in containers. We first deployed RADNET to Windsor. It is a sophisticated way to discriminate between radiation readings that would be problematic and related to something illegitimate and the radiation readings that you get regularly from products that properly contain radiation. We have that system in place. Every container is basically screened or read by the readers and the information fed into our risk-assessment system TITAN and compared with the information we have on the importers and carriers, et cetera. A decision is made on the system as to whether or not there is a need to flag a concern and trigger an action by our officers locally. It is a more-advanced system than what they have in the United States for making that decision and will be deployed to other ports this year.

Senator Atkins: I am surprised you would pick Saint John because there is not that much container traffic there. 

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes, but when you test a system and deploy a big machine, a big system, you want to do it in a secure way. You do not want to create havoc so the decision was made to start there for that reason. It could have been somewhere else.

Senator Moore: I want to follow up on what Senator Atkins was asking. In your opening statement, Mr. Jolicoeur, you have mentioned at the bottom of page one that once fully implemented our radiation detection program will allow us to screen virtually 100 per cent of incoming marine cargo.

When do you anticipate the implementation to be complete?

Mr. Jolicoeur: This calendar year, I believe. 

Senator Moore: By the end of December 2006?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes.

Senator Moore: Senator Banks was asking at the beginning about the type of technology used in the connections of the various posts. You mentioned there were three unconnected posts but you were waiting for a contract to be procured and there are 18 others that you may upgrade to that type of new technology. Will all 21 be via high-speed Internet? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: That is what we are aiming for. That is why we want to continue with those 18 to bring them to the level of high-speed Internet but it is a separate line. I could not describe more precisely than that but it is at that level, yes. It is the same level that the others have.

Senator Moore: When you started out there were 110 not connected and now you have it down to three, but 18 you want to upgrade. Are all the others connected via high-speed Internet?

Mr. Jolicoeur: I would not call it high-speed Internet but it is that standard or better. We have our own network.

Senator Moore: It is not dial up then?

Mr. Jolicoeur: The others, no; they are not dial up.

Senator Moore: I am interested in the Canada-U.S. border Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. We had your colleague, Andrea Spry, before our Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on June 8. On that day we also heard from U.S. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter from the state of New York. We were talking about access, moving people, equipment and goods across the border but primarily part of that discussion focused on tourism. When Congresswoman Slaughter crossed the border she was told she had to have a passport. When Ms. Spry gave her presentation she said that was not required. I am wondering where the idea came from whereby the border officers required that visitor and her staff to provide a passport. Are we now moving towards implementation of passports only, or are we using photo ID and citizenship or birth certificates? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: At the moment the passport is not required. It may be that some officers have asked for that but our direction at the moment is that a passport is not required. It is not required in the air mode when you go to the U.S. either and they are asked all the time. However, it is not required.

Senator Moore: How often does the working group that you chair meet?

Mr. Jolicoeur: In the last two months we have probably had three meetings. The U.S. is presently into a rule-making process where they have limited ability to communicate on WHTI while decisions are being made about the specifics of the requirement for the air and marine modes at the moment. 

The Chairman: What is the WHTI?

Senator Moore: That is the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. It is referred to as WHTI. 

The air and marine crossings have one date. What is their date when a card or some other type of identification will be required?

Mr. Jolicoeur: January 1, 2007.

Senator Moore: Is land the following year?

Mr. Jolicoeur: That is correct.

Senator Moore: We heard evidence that there are 123 million crossings each year of people going back and forth between Canada and the United States. We are aware that the United States Senate has passed an amendment to the immigration bill extending the implementation dates by one year, and that the House of Representatives has not.

Do you have any information, in terms of your meetings with colleagues in the U.S., on the likelihood of that one-year extension being put in place?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Everyone is planning on the basis that those target dates will remain the same. There may be some changes at the end; first, the immigration bill would have to pass in the House of Representatives. People do not think that the date will be changed and there will be an amendment in place that will effectively change those dates. If there is a change, it would come close to the end. There is no question that both sides feel we have to plan for those dates to remain in place at the moment.

Senator Moore: Is there any possibility that the provisions with respect to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative would be carved out of that immigration bill and, perhaps, dealt with separately or do you think we are locked into that bill?

Mr. Jolicoeur: At the moment, I believe they are part of that bill and their survival is linked to the survival of the other bill.

Again, there could be other amendments introduced in the future. There could be some changes. We do not believe we will see, certainly before the end of the calendar year, a change in the official implementation date.

Senator Moore: You do not think there will be a change?

Mr. Jolicoeur: No.

Senator Moore: That is certainly the position of Secretary Chertoff a little over a week ago. He said they are sticking by those dates and they think they can do it. What do you think will be the card or document of preference here, given that only 20 to 24 per cent of U.S. citizens have a passport, and they do not think they would support a NEXUS card, for which I understand the application fee is $100? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: I think it is $80.

Senator Moore: Okay, $80 for a NEXUS card and I think there are less than 100,000 of those in existence — 75,000 to 100,000 have been issued. We are talking about millions of travellers. Practically speaking, given these dates of implementation, how will that be achieved? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: First, I have said many times I do not think they will be ready, if we define ready as meaning that people will have cards to cross the border. I know the official administration position is that they will be ready.

Senator Moore: Practically speaking, I do not see how they can be but you are closer to it than we are.

Mr. Jolicoeur: I do not think they will be ready. In terms of what we are doing about it, we are trying to get an agreement with the U.S. administration on a standard under SPP — the Security and Prosperity Partnership — that could be met by different documents. If they meet that standard, then they would become acceptable under WHTI.

Senator Moore: Is this is part of your committee's working group tasks — to come up with some combination such as we have now, the photo ID plus your birth certificate to show citizenship? Is that one of your objectives?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Our objective is to have as many acceptable cards that are properly secured as possible.

The Chairman: May I have a supplementary on this? In June 2005, this committee recommended that cards be developed — that the standard should be tamper-proof, machine readable, biometrically enhanced and based on secure and reliable documentation. Are those the standards that you are pursuing?

Mr. Jolicoeur: There are three categories of standards that need to be addressed and which are being addressed. One is the robustness of whatever cards or documents are used to ensure that they cannot be modified or tampered with and so on.

Senator Moore: You mean secure?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes. Some have to do with the card itself. Others have to do with the information that you put on the card — that is, biometric, which one, et cetera.

The third category concerns how they are delivered. For example, is the infrastructure secure, can the blank be stolen or not? All of the delivery systems need to be secure as well. Those are the three things. 

The U.S. is working on a fourth category, on which we will have to agree — namely, the exact formatting and technology that will be used to read those documents. We are working on the four areas and discussing them.

The Chairman: We are talking about a card that can be read by just swiping it like a credit card — is that correct?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Beyond that — it can be read at a distance.

The Chairman: What about the documentation that is considered to be secure and reliable — in other words, the very premise of the card itself? What will constitute satisfactory identification to get the card? How will you be certain that the identification that you are provided with is reliable? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: We have a document integrity exercise that actually started in Canada. At the provincial and federal levels, we have an initiative to strengthen the base documents. We have offered the work we have done to the United States as being the first element of those standards that both sides would accept. What documents will be accepted finally and deemed to be secure, either as final documents to cross or as documents to be used to justify obtaining those documents, are decisions that have not yet been made.

Senator Moore: I have a further question. Do you want to ask a supplementary question, Senator Atkins?

Senator Atkins: Where do you draw the line on privacy?

Senator Moore: I was going to lead to that area next.

Senator Campbell: You are both reading each other’s minds — so much for privacy.

Senator Moore: There has been some discussion that the cards may have certain personal information imbedded in them, and that not only could they be waved and read at a border crossing, but they could be tracked in terms of your movement within, in this case, the United States. To me, that would be quite a substantial invasion of privacy. Is that one of the issues you are considering in your working group to ensure that does not happen?

Mr. Jolicoeur: A big debate that we have internally and with the U.S. — and it is one of the reasons why we do not have formally approved standards for the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative yet — is the question, which is linked to privacy, of whether we will go with vicinity cards or proximity cards.

Senator Moore: Could you explain the difference between these, Mr. Jolicoeur?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes. They define proximity cards as cards that would be read only within 10 centimetres.

Vicinity cards are the cards that we are using currently with the NEXUS program where you can flag them a few metres from the reader and they would be seen from a greater distance.

The debate is the following. From the perspective of the logistics of managing the border, we almost need to go to vicinity cards. One of the reasons NEXUS works well is that you do not have to stop every time and touch something or speak to something; you have been pre-approved, accepted as someone who is okay. The challenge with the vicinity card at first is whether it can be read at a greater distance. Other people can read it, too, if they have a mechanism to read the card.

The second question is — what do you put on the card? Do you put personal information? It is not required because we will have databases. Thinking of NEXUS, we have a database of people so it can only be a reference to the database, a number. A number does not tell much about an individual, so it is less of a concern.

However, the debate is not finished. The concern is that, even without knowing anything about you, if I can read your card illegitimately with a machine, just knowing your number gives me an advantage because I can more easily follow you in the future since I know that number is associated to you. We are looking at ways to protect that number so it can only be read when the person wants it to be read when crossing the border. The technological challenge here that is not resolved has to do with the privacy question.

Senator Moore: We are told that no more than 100,000 NEXUS cards have been issued. Do you know how many of those have been issued to Canadians? 

Mr. Jolicoeur: It is probably close to half and half. I do not know the number. It is 95,000 for land and about 6,000 for air. However, we believe that, because of WHTI, many more people will want NEXUS cards.

Senator Moore: Is there a different card and a different application depending on whether you are a regular air or a land traveller?

Mr. Jolicoeur: At the moment, yes, but we are moving towards a one-card, one-enrolment process, and a card that would give you access to all services.

Senator Moore: To get one of those cards, do you have to go through an interview?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes.

Senator Moore: Where is the application made?

Mr. Jolicoeur: We have points where it can be done.

Senator Moore: I understand Toronto and Vancouver but are there more ports?

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes.

Senator Moore: Is there an office in the country where you can do that as well? 

Ms. Hébert: You are correct that Toronto and Vancouver are the big sites. There are a couple more. They can be located either on the U.S. or the Canadian side. As you are aware, this is a joint bi-national process so it requires a comfort level by both Canadian and American inspection agencies that a candidate is acceptable to the program.

Senator Moore: Is your application reviewed by each side when you apply?

Ms. Hébert: You are correct. An interview is done with the candidate at those limited number of sites where the application is processed. We are pursuing having what we call "urban enrolment centres," so that people in key urban areas would have greater accessibility to the program. It is an evolving situation.

The Chairman: Regrettably, we have run out of time. We have about a dozen other questions we would like to put to you, Mr. Jolicoeur. I wonder if we could do it by letter and if you could respond to us in writing.

Mr. Jolicoeur: Yes.

The Chairman: I would be very grateful for that. We will put them to you and append them to the record of the meeting today. 

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you both very much for appearing. These subjects are a matter of continuing interest to the committee, and we appreciate your providing us with the information you have this morning.[/color]


----------



## portcullisguy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yep, and I got snotty comments from the staff there when i pointed this out, plus to add insult to injury, Air Canada charges you $65 each way to mishandle your firearm. They lost mine on the way to Ft Nelson, but manged to find it when I threatened to put in a police report, apparently the $65 charge is to cover the "extra costs of handling a firearm" having watched the whole sequence at Smithers, it involves me filling out a form while they throw it in with the rest of the luggage. I hate air Canada and avoid it like the plague.



At Pearson, we have been pushing for the airlines to deliver the firearms to the passengers in the customs secondary area, under our supervision.  This is already done with a number of other "security items" -- although it is seen less frequently now because of already tight restrictions on travelling with anything remotely resembling a weapon of any sort (we used to get great switchblade/mace seizures from "security item" envelopes the airlines would hand off in our areas to the passengers -- believe it or not they were gate checked items, in a lot of cases, although since 9/11 you don't see this hardly at all).

Handing off firearms in the customs area may speed things up ... if you are importing one, you have to see a customs officer anyway.  But the airlines just don't have the staff to dedicate to this, and as you pointed out, they can't organize a trip to the bathroom without detouring through Frankfurt, so we'd probably get a lot of "rifle - pax" or "pax - rifle" both of which = more paperwork.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well i going to the Yukon next week with my shotgun, so it should be interesting, must check the airline webpage to see their new procedures  :


----------



## portcullisguy

You are probably better off bringing a needle and yarn and just knitting yourself a new one.   ;D

Good luck, though!


----------



## Dissident

Caught a blurb from Global news. 

Appears customs agents had to leave post as a murderer on the run was trying to run the border. I think it was the peace arch crossing, although it wasn't all that clear.


----------



## GAP

Guards walk off job at four B.C. border crossings
Updated Sun. Sep. 24 2006 9:59 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060924/bc_border_060924/20060924?hub=TopStories

Canadian border guards at four crossings in the Lower Mainland of B.C. have walked off the job in response to a security scare.

CTV Vancouver reported Sunday night that lineups at four crossings into Canada are massive. Gary Barndt reported from the station's helicopter that the lineups appeared to be several kilometres long at one crossing.

Managers with the Canada Border Services Agency are trying to staff the affected crossings -- Huntington, Aldergrove and Peace Arch, and Pacific Highway -- but Canada-bound traffic is just trickling across.

Agency spokesperson Faith St. John told CTV Vancouver there are reduced lanes at the crossings, all of which are open. "We have called in all our management staff. As more managers arrive, more lanes will be opened."

This was the first time she could recall all four crossings been affected this way.

Rhonda Fuller, a CTV Vancouver news producer, told the station at one point that in the 20 minutes since she last talked to them, "I haven't moved a car length."
More on link


----------



## GAP

An Update:

B.C. border guards back on job after walkout
Canadian Press 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060925.wbcborder0925/BNStory/National/home

VANCOUVER — Canadian border guards in British Columbia were back at work Monday after Labour Canada ruled there was no danger from an armed fugitive in the region.

About 60 unarmed inspectors abandoned their posts at four crossings Sunday afternoon south of Vancouver and in the Fraser Valley.

The walkout left motorists with long lineups and short fuses until Canada Border Services Agency managers cleared the backlog through the evening.

Dan Liebel, president of the B.C. Southern Branch of the Customs and Excise Union, said Labour Canada ordered members back to their posts after overruling a U.S. police warning that a murder suspect might be headed to Canada.

“This is the 57th work refusal, and every single time they've ruled in favour of the employer,” he said. “We find that awfully suspicious.”

Mr. Liebel said federal officials “picked (the suspect warning) apart until they could determine that it wasn't a ‘watch-for' of consequence ... and disregarded the other law-enforcement agency information.”

He said he is not impressed with the Conservative government's promise to arm the agency's guards over a 10-years period.

Only a small percentage will be trained to carry sidearms initially, said Mr. Liebel, when all that is needed is a 10-day, qualification-round course.

“Our officers have already been fully trained up to discharging firearms, (but) you're going to take a year and half to (train) 150 out of almost 7,000.”

He said the whereabouts of the California fugitive is unknown.

Officials weren't sure if a vehicle that ran through one of the B.C. crossings behind another car was the suspect in question, he said.
End


----------



## tomahawk6

Need to at least station the RMC at border crossings until the guards can be armed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215519,00.html



> BLAINE, Wash. —  Four Canadian border crossings were shut down Sunday as about 60 of Canada's unarmed border guards walked off the job after they were warned that a person classified as "armed and dangerous" may be headed into Canada.


----------



## paracowboy

GAP said:
			
		

> Officials *weren't sure * if a vehicle that *ran through * one of the B.C. crossings behind another car was the suspect in question, he said.


 :


----------



## Trinity

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50826.0/topicseen.html

Day late, dollar short


----------



## paracowboy

Trinity said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50826.0/topicseen.html
> 
> Day late, dollar short


merged and moved


----------



## MPIKE

> Officials weren't sure if a vehicle that ran through one of the B.C. crossings behind another car was the suspect in question, he said



Make people wait hours in line and streamline everyone into one line.  You are going to get the road ragers.

So was this really about safety or was it posturing by the union?


----------



## gate_guard

PIKER +1,

It sounds like their union is taking every opportunity it can to get guards to leave their posts.


----------



## MPIKE

It appears that way to me.  I only posed the question as I didn't really see in the reports of the safety concern.  Granted the last incident was a firefight on the border with fugitives but from what was reported this only was a BOLO or Safety alert.  Not sure of the jurisdiction but I'm sure "support" was only a call away?  :

But I'm open to be corrected if someone can set the record straight?.. I'm not afforded the same ability to walk off my "post" and I'm of the thought that CBSA should perhaps be the same in the interests of public/homeland safety ..


----------



## Bergeron 971

I would have walked out, It is ridiculous that our border services are not armed. They should also have a tactical unit near every border as well.
Crist, when you got to the US, you see their border guards with glocks, some with MP5's. we have mace.


----------



## aesop081

Bergeron 971 said:
			
		

> I would have walked out, It is ridiculous that our border services are not armed. They should also have a tactical unit near every border as well.
> Crist, when you got to the US, you see their border guards with glocks, some with MP5's. we have mace.



Good thing you are not a border guard then.  Do the guards not know how to call the RCMP...they had advanced warning from US authorities.  This has nothing to do with safety....just union bullshit......


----------



## Trinity

They've faced 10 times riskier situations over the years.  The possibility of 
a person with a gun and they walk out... union bs i agree.

However, to be fair to many,

If my colleagues were leaving in a situation like that, though i disagree, I fear
I might join them to not rock the boat of the union.  Unions run deep and 
they never forget either!


----------



## J.J

Union posturing for sure! It seems to be the only way to get the CBSA moving on the arming issue. They have known for many moons that BSO's will be armed and they did not have any contingency plans or "warning order's" in place. They are starting from scratch.

Ask a Police Constable to attend any call unarmed and his backup maybe seconds or minutes away. How would they feel? There are several ports that it would take priority back up 45 minutes to attend. They are forced to rely on the USCBS or the local US Police for support. I work in Windsor, the Police HQ is 200m away, and it has taken several minutes for them to attend for priority assistance. They also have a job to protect the municipality and not just us. Ask a worker in the factories to work unsafe, it would never happen. Yes we guard the borders, but I also have a wife and baby to go home to and at the end of the day, that is most important. 

I feel cowardly and like I am shirking my duties and responsibilities when I have been a part work refusal. I also know that pressure from the public and industry, not the officer's themselves is what is going to force the Agency to accelerate their 10 year plan.

Everything is starting from scratch, but from the information coming out so far is that training program is supposed to be shadowing the US Homeland Security training. They are said to have the best training in the US. Which is a pleasant surprise, as it seems they are planning on training us to a high standard.

NB
There is a hiring frenzy going on right now country wide for Post Secondary graduates, look on the CBSA website or PM me for info.


----------



## GUNS

I have no problem with border guards being armed but I have to ask this question. I has only been recently that the border guards have started to leave the post, my question  is, Why now and not before? 

One thing for certain and that is, when these people finally get their sidearms, they will be crying for a major pay raise because they are wearing sidearms.

One more point, when the bad guys try to cross the border, knowing that our border guards are unarmed, they have no reason to do them harm. Put a sidearm on our border guards and he/she becomes a obstacle and a target


----------



## gate_guard

WR, thanks for adding thread, its always good to hear from someone on the inside.

It sounds like some people are expecting the job of a border guard to be that much safer once they are armed. I can't argue that they shouldn't be armed, I'd quit if told to turn in my duty sidearm. That being said, if a & d suspect wants to kill you, aside from employing good officer safety tactics, there isn't much you can do. A police officer once arrested a suspect after questioning him for a few minutes. Upon searching him after handcuffing he found a loaded pistol in the back of his waistband. The guy could have shot the officer at any point before being arrested and handcuffed. Take that anecdote however you want, in the end, being armed doesn't equate to being invincible.


----------



## ThainC

Well... having to had wait 3 1/2 to come back to Canada after spending a weekend in Oregon (picked up some Oakleys too, Woot!), I was not impressed.  They haven't had a need before, and yet now they do (yes, I realize as threats change...).  I just think arming our guards adds an extra factor, which, when not there may keep them safe.  If someone trying to run the border doesn't feel threatened by the guards in their current unarmed state, then I would like to think less harm would come.

Additionally, if someone is trying to run the border, and suspects they may be busted, they probably have their weapon of choice ready, as opposed to a possibly unsuspecting border guard whose reading out from his booth.  How hard is it to let the vehicle pass, and then contact the RCMP? And though I am not sure, I suspect the US would help in a situation as well, though, I don't work for Canada Customs, so I am not sure.  My friend works at the Airport, and all around he thinks arming our guards isn't the best route, but he has his own reasons.

Just thoughts is all... just thoughts.


----------



## J.J

Gate_Guard
I don't believe my job will be safer if I am armed, but it will not be more dangerous. I have several times taken a handgun from somebody concealed on their person and that person was a convicted violent criminal. Why they did not fight, probably because they thought they would loose due to officer presence. Most people from the states and quite a few from Canada already believe we are armed. Last year I took a loaded revolver from a convicted murder from Detroit, when asked by the Correctional Officers in the County jail why he did not shoot himself out of the situation, he replied, "he did not want his girlfriend hurt in the crossfire". When he was told that we were not armed, he cursed and stated he should have shot me and my partner and went back to the States. Another situation; A female Officer was examining a car alone (it was busy night and we were understaffed). While examining the car, she observed a couple of bullet holes in the car, the car was freshly painted (with a roller) and during the exam she found indicators of narcotics. She called for assistance and the 3 males from Chicago, who were obvious gang members, became agitated. One male said out loud to the others, "she doesn't have a gun". One male then pulled a semi-automatic handgun from his pocket and started to point it at her; she grabbed his arm and started to fight for her life. We arrived and we were able to disarm the male and arrest all 3 subjects. It was found out later that the subjects had committed a murder in Chicago from doing a drive by. They were turned over to CPD and they were convicted of 1st degree murder.
So I don't believe the criminals will be easier on us because we are not armed. I think we need it to protect ourselves and the public.

Thainc
I do apologize for you having to wait 3 1/2 hours, but sometimes the innocents must suffer. In this case the ends do justify the means. We have always had a need to be armed, more so in the past 6 years. Customs has had the ability to enforce the Criminal Code since 2000. We now regularly arrest people for warrants, impaired driving, firearms etc. So our hazards at work have increased ten fold. We are not grocery cops anymore, concerned about how much turkey and cheese you have.
Think of it this way. A bad guy crosses the border, I talk to him, identify him as a bad guy and I release him because I do not have the tools to apprehend him. He is released from the border and I contact the local Police. In my situation the local Police HQ is 200m away. Our port runners still get away regularly, because there are too many places to hide. That bad guy enters the town you live in and hurts someone who is dear to you or someone you know. How are you going to feel knowing I could have stopped him? I use the example of Charles NG, he was a serial killer from California who was identified as a bad guy at a border crossing in BC, he was released and he committed several crimes in Canada. He shot a security guard in Calgary and it took several years for him to get extradited back to the states. It went as high as our Supreme Court. If he would have been apprehended at a point of entry, he would have been returned to the US immediately. 
Your friend at the airport, no offense to Officer's who work at an airport, but he works in a sterile environment where everybody has gone through security. The environment of a land border is %100 differant.


----------



## HDE

I think the Customs and Excise Union is going to be pretty careful in how it uses the arming of the Customs Officers.  If it tries to use it as a claim that large pay increases are justified because they're become defacto police officers the public may well demand that the training, qualifications, work conditions, etc. are at the same level as police officers.  What impact would that have on the job?


----------



## J.J

The CBSA are not defacto Police, but they a do job similar to them. I will concede that the hiring practice needs to be improved, but what is wrong with the training? Ask Zipperhead, in Windsor a regular uniformed BSO's regularly attends courses  that only specialized or senior Police Officer's get to attend. What is different from my work environment/qualifications to that of the Police? I don't believe there is much difference.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Neither do I WR, if it helps getting you guys the tools/training you need to do your part in keeping us all safe then keep up the pressure.  

Good luck.
Bruce


----------



## medaid

IMHO, BSO do need to be armed. Currently they have a police defensive baton (Read ASP), hand cuffs, and OC spray. These are woefully inadequate at borders  sometimes. Lets shift focus for a minute to the Sear ports. CBSA also have narc teams and container examination teams that routinely board ships foreign and domestic. I think some of the NBP members on here could probably tell you things could go sour in a very short period of time while they're on a ship, yet the CBSA members don't have the luxury of defending themselves IF and WHEN things go sour. It's pretty silly to think you can fight a CQB on board a ship with nothing but a PDB and OC. 

At to the point of pay increase. CBSA BSOs have been underpaid for the amount of work they do since day one. A constable who enforces only a handfull of legislation, are paid more in their 4 years of pay progression, then does a BSO who enforces upwards to 15+ pieces of legilstation which also includes parts of the Immigration act when travellers approach them at the primary inspection line, and other things ranging from Food Inspection to CITES for endangered animals. Should they be paid more? YES. Should they be paid more because they are armed? YES. However, the yes to the second question should be because they've always been underpaid for the amount of work that they do. 

I think WR can attest to the fact that especially at Land Borders, because there isnt an over abundent number of Immigration Officers, they may have to enforce more and not have the luxury of sending them to the Immigration sections at the International Airports.


----------



## J.J

> who enforces upwards to 15+ pieces of legalization which also includes parts of the Immigration act when travellers approach them at the primary inspection line, and other things ranging from Food Inspection to CITES for endangered animals.



First of all Thank you Bruce and MedTech, but MedTech we enforce or administer *91 acts of Parliament*


----------



## medaid

WR said:
			
		

> First of all Thank you Bruce and Medic, but Medic we enforce or administer *91 acts of Parliament*



sorry   I couldnt remember exactly how man, but hey 15+ does include 90 right?  ;D


----------



## J.J

If you want to be technical.... ;D


----------



## medaid

WR said:
			
		

> If you want to be technical.... ;D


----------



## HDE

Apparently BSOs are paid something in the range of $55,000 per year, whereas a Mountie is paid about $70,000,  so it appears the jobs are not considered
equivalent and having a sidearm issued probably doesn't close the gap.   There are all sorts of issues in determining what a particular job pays and simply saying a BSO is "underpaid" doesn't carry much weight.  How many months of training is required relative to a Mountie?  Do BSOs routinely get transferred to postings aanywhere in most of Canada?  Does being in the union allow more room to not perform/ dispute orders?  Is there the same competitive process/selectiveness  to get taken on as a BSO as there is to be accepted as a Mountie?    Traditionally large numbers of university students, with even less training than a regular BSO,  have been taken on to cover the summer period so the claim that the job is as dangerous/complex as that of a police officer is a stretch.


----------



## medaid

HDE said:
			
		

> Apparently BSOs are paid something in the range of $55,000 per year, whereas a Mountie is paid about $70,000,  so it appears the jobs are not considered
> equivalent and having a sidearm issued probably doesn't close the gap.   There are all sorts of issues in determining what a particular job pays and simply saying a BSO is "underpaid" doesn't carry much weight.  How many months of training is required relative to a Mountie?  Do BSOs routinely get transferred to postings anywhere in most of Canada?  Does being in the union allow more room to not perform/ dispute orders?  Is there the same competitive process/selectiveness  to get taken on as a BSO as there is to be accepted as a Mountie?    Traditionally large numbers of university students, with even less training than a regular BSO,  have been taken on to cover the summer period so the claim that the job is as dangerous/complex as that of a police officer is a stretch.



I agree that simply saying BSOs are underpaid doesn't carry much weight, however, I'm sure the members on the forum here who are CBSA members will be able to testify, that at times the jobs are similar if not much different. Like WR said, the members are now enforcing the CC, which means that in addition to the training you've received at Rigeau (spelling?) you have to complete a study package and exam in order to receive your Officer Powers certification.The last time I checked the training for CBSA in Quebec was 11 wks? (I may be wrong...WR?) now during this period all they do is learn legilstaion after legislation. You may argue, well their training is shorter then! But you also have to look at it in perspective, because the training IS different. A BSO is not expected to complete a course on how to operate an emergency vehicle, the employment of sidearms and the use of force IMIM while they are there, and they are not taught drill. So naturally, the training is shortened slightly, no?

The powers of a BSO is far greater then an RCMP officer on the road. True that the BSO are not peace officers when they are off duty, like members of the police force, however, the amount of enforcement they are required to do when they are on duty is immense. if you've looked at the Customs Act, you will see why. By nature of enforcing such a legislation and others on top like I've previously mentioned, Food Inspection, Cites, CC and other 90 odd FEDERAL legislations, the training and time spent on that alone should warrant a higher salary no? The same argument goes for why a MA or PhD gets paid more then a BA. More training, better training, more in depth training in certain areas. I gather some may think that's a poor comparison, but that's the best one I can come up with right now.

No, a BSO does not get routinely transferred to different provinces, however, neither does that many ppl in the RCMP, at least here in BC 'E' Div they attempt to retain you here as hard as possible at the detachment you initially go to. That being said, there are more RCMP officers then BSOs. Like WR previously pointed out, the land border crossings are extremely dangerous at night, and help is quite some times away. It's not like a member of a police force who, most of the time will be working with other members on the same watch and the same shift. Not so at certain hours at the land border crossings. There are NO 10-33 buttons some times! Selection process is quite competitive in CBSA as well. There involves a written exam, several interviews and criminal background checks just like the police force. Granted no PT tests are administered, however, they expect you to be in decent physical shape, as part of your contracts now, you are expected to be able to pass a one week training on Use of Force. A part you MUST pass in order for your to be considered fully hired under your contract.

I don't know about your comment about being in a union and the choice of not perform or dispute orders... when it comes to enforcement, there's rarely any say or much say with regards to choices. BSOs are just like any other enforcement officers, they enforce. PERIOD. I think that comment has a negative slant on enforcement agencies and their unions...there's a local police force with a union, as a matter of fact many of them do. Are they able to dispute/not perform orders?

Lastly, the Summer Student Program. When you are in a uniform, does a bad guy care who you are? You will be shot, if it comes down to it either way. The selection process is just as gruelling for a summer student, albeit much less then a regular member, but just as gruelling. You are expected to pass the same entrance exam as the regular member, you are facing the same interview as the regular member, and you have a background check just like the regular members do in the CBSA. Danger level and complexity of the job is hard to compare. Does a police officer interview travellers everyday to determine whether they are a threat to the security of Canada, or whether their stay or entrance into our great country may have adverse effects? NO. Does a BSO have a chance at being targeted, injured, and threatened by strangers like a police officer can? YES and it happens more often then you may think. The students are trained by some of the most senior and competent regular members on the job, and they are not released until they have met the requirements to do the job of the regular members. The students are NOT union, so if they perform poorly, they will be terminated. They are held to even a higher standard by their colleagues because many of them are assessed to see if they can do the job later on, as termed or un-termed employees, or even regular members. And they don't 'COVER' they do the SAME job as any primary or secondary officer. They also must pass the same one week course as regular members when it comes to Use of Force.

The RCMP also had summer student programs, where they receive training, and are partnered up with a member. They do the same shifts, attend the same calls, and are exposed to the same dangers. Are the dangers and complexity levels of their jobs stretching it? Because they are paid members. Are they considered to be just as poorly trained as the Student BSOs? Keep in mind an RCMP Student Cst performs at even a lower level of enforcement then a Student BSO does. What about the dangers and complexity levels of an Aux. Cst? they are not paid, they are not armed with a side arm, but they wear a uniform, and are exposed to the same dangers. Many of them have fallen in the line of duty along side of regular members... so? what say you?


----------



## geo

Don't have an opinion on having the border guards armed.... but I thing that the the border crossing posts should have "teeth"....... until the border guard tells ya that it's OK to proceed, your vehicle should be immobilized at the border post...... It you try to blast thru.... you start off your day with the need for a new set of tyres.


----------



## Greywolf

Arming border guards is all well and good, but why it takes 10 years!! to do so is beyond me.  I would call that incompetence in management.  If the government is serious about it, then they should allocate the resources (money/training personnel...) right away, not in a few years.


----------



## noneck

"The powers of a BSO is far greater then an RCMP officer on the road."

MedTech- BULL^&*T plain and simple....talk about what you know! I will not slag CBSA officers, I work with them daily and they perform an outstanding job.

RCMP members have to have a working knowledge of not only the CCC but all other Federal Acts up to and including the Migratory Bird Act! As well as provincial acts such as the MVA here in BC and the local municipal bylaws from the community that they serve. 

We are talking apples and oranges. I too am glad to hear that they are being armed but the duties of a BSO are not the same as the duties of a police officer Muni or RCMP. If CBSA is going to take on more of an armed enforcement role then some significant things in their recruiting and training will need to change. If the powers that be in charge are up to it, then bring it on. Law enforcement in canada needs all the help we can get.

Noneck


----------



## TCBF

"Arming border guards is all well and good, but why it takes 10 years!! to do so is beyond me.  I would call that incompetence in management.  If the government is serious about it, then they should allocate the resources (money/training personnel...) right away, not in a few years."

- Some 'crat sold the guvmint a bill of goods on that one.  He is hoping that the REAL guvmint will return and things will go back to the status quo before too many uppity red-neck customs guys get their six-shooters, is what he is hoping.

The guvmint no doubt knows this, and will move him along with the rest of the Commie trash once the guvmint's position is more secure.


----------



## medaid

noneck said:
			
		

> "The powers of a BSO is far greater then an RCMP officer on the road."
> 
> MedTech- BULL^&*T plain and simple....talk about what you know! I will not slag CBSA officers, I work with them daily and they perform an outstanding job.



Yup you're right, and now that I've re-read it, I realised that wasn't what I had intended to say. I meant to say that 'In some respect, the powers of a BSO is far greater then an RCMP officer on the road. ie. when ppl are entering and exiting Canada' 



			
				noneck said:
			
		

> We are talking apples and oranges. I too am glad to hear that they are being armed but the duties of a BSO are not the same as the duties of a police officer Muni or RCMP. If CBSA is going to take on more of an armed enforcement role then some significant things in their recruiting and training will need to change. If the powers that be in charge are up to it, then bring it on. Law enforcement in canada needs all the help we can get.
> 
> Noneck



mmm yes I agree not the same, but similar in certain aspects, and I've said that previously. maybe not apples and oranges, but how bout apples and pears? similar but different?


cheers,

MT


----------



## Colin Parkinson

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Arming border guards is all well and good, but why it takes 10 years!! to do so is beyond me.  I would call that incompetence in management.  If the government is serious about it, then they should allocate the resources (money/training personnel...) right away, not in a few years."
> 
> - Some 'crat sold the guvmint a bill of goods on that one.  He is hoping that the REAL guvmint will return and things will go back to the status quo before too many uppity red-neck customs guys get their six-shooters, is what he is hoping.
> 
> The guvmint no doubt knows this, and will move him along with the rest of the Commie trash once the guvmint's position is more secure.



First of all you need to get rid of the senior management blocking this drive will awaiting rescue by the Liberals!

The big issue is covering off people on training, it will be a huge cost that will ave to be absorbed, how do you deal with the union issues? Plus it may mean a reclassification of the positions, which could impose another major financial hit.

The best thing would to grab the recruits coming in and send them to a firearms training centre, does not really matter what they train on, although I suspect it will be a glock or another polymer (XD, SIG or S&W MP). They need the basic skills first anyways, once they have that, they can transition to another firearm. Canvas the existing employees for people that already have firearms experience and volunteers who want to learn. These two groups will be the core of your firearm training and support team, they can write up the job specs with help from other LEO’s. 

I suspect Glock and S&W will behind over backwards for the contract, so you even our government could negotiate a decent deal, buy a couple of hundred guns now with parts, repair training and handling training, spend the next 2 years training this core group and at the same time prepare the union agreement, job description, training plans, SOP’s, procure funding for training. You will also need to create regional implementation teams to coordinate training with other LEO’s , rent ranges and training time. It’s a lot of work.


----------



## TCBF

Alright, let me give this a MODERN perspective...  If the guvmint demanded the Border Cops be given a ten day mandatory course in Sexual Harrasment and Racism Prevention, do you think it would take them TEN STINKING YEARS to do it?

I'm just askin' is all...


----------



## Nug

Its probably not going to take ten years to train. It will take ten years for them to figure out how and with what. Its likely that even though a blind man could have seen this coming that there has been no forethought put into this at all, like picking a weapon, caliber, holster, training program,use of force guidelines, what qualifications do you want in a use of force instructor and who is going to train them. As has been said before a lot of management in the BSA are ignoring the problem in the hopes it will turn out to be a bad dream.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Ten years is an arbitrary Liberal number set such that nobody that is in power when it was set could possible be held accountable for such a unreal deadline.  However, when an officer gets killed at the border, some tool can go "but we had a plan in place".  
I don't get why some people are getting defensive on behalf of the RCMP?  Customs *does* have greater powers of search and seizure at the border.  RCMP are bound by the rules of the Code, just like the rest of us.  And if they can make as much money as the rest of us LEO's, then so be it.  How does that ruin somebody else's day?  Surely securing the border better is a worthwhile federal expense?  
The alternative is for them to continue to let dangerous asshats into our country, and I don't blame them.  The crap they get saddled with is unbelievable.  As far as tapping local resources to intercept these clowns, the procedure is purely reactive.  When the target m/v comes through, they let it go and call us.  They are not mobile, so all they can tell us is "it went left/right  out of the driveway".  Which in downtown Windsor is less than useless information, since both directions require a subsequent turn within a block or so.  
I do agree with the dragons teeth devices.  However, the problem arises when the booth (primary) refers a car to the inspection area (secondary).  If the referred car doesn't go where it is supposed to, that is where you would want to set up your spikes.  However, then you have the issue of any other cars in motion at the same time getting taken out as well, which will get expensive pretty fast for the Fed.  Or, if there is a common funnel point for all cars, the choke point would create a brutal traffic backup and you are back to your 4+ hour waits.  What needs to happen is once the BSO's are armed, they will likely get pursuit driving training as well, and then they might be able to go after the cars that jet.  Then they could at least follow the m/v until local law enforcement arrives.  Some border runners are not raging maniacs, they are just clueless dolts that can't follow directions.  
I would also scratch the summer student program.  I always thought that was a bad idea.


----------



## J.J

> The last time I checked the training for CBSA in Quebec was 11 wks? (I may be wrong...WR?)


Our "basic training" is 14 weeks in Rigaud, Quebec and then when you get back to the port there is several weeks more on port specific training. Then followed by a 1 year of probation.

NoNeck does have a good point, for which I have stated several times that CBSA needs to improve it's hiring procedures. Right now it concentrates more on education and test scores, than personal suitability. There are some very intelligent people _(I know right now everybody is picturing a friend or an officer they came into contact with and is disputing this, I am talking in generalities)_  within the CBSA, but many would not be able to talk their way out of a wet paper bag, forget about fighting out of one! This is an excerpt from a new hiring competition   





> Some Border Services Officers appointed from any new process may be required to carry a firearm and qualify in its use and safe handling. In addition to the above conditions of employment, these Border Services Officers will be required to successfully complete all related training and *pre-requisite physical * and other evaluations


 What they mean by this is unknown, it does not refer to a medical etc as that is mentioned somewhere else in the job posting. Maybe the rumour of a physical abilities test is coming to fruition?




> I would also scratch the summer student program.  I always thought that was a bad idea.



I agree %100...This is something taken from the Agencies Intranet....





> Will there still be a place for students working as border service officers in the CBSA?
> 
> The presence of students in locations that will be armed will be phased out over time. Students will be replaced by part-time, fully-trained and equipped border services officers.



The 10 year plan is insane as they are hoping for a change in government then the program can be scrapped or altered. The national management are ardent Liebral cronies who do not believe in having armed officer's...my personal belief.

I am hopeful because the CBSA can only go up from here...they can't sink much lower. :


----------



## geo

zpperhead cop....
I don't want the Border guards going into pursuit.  It's bad enough when the local authorities get involved in one of those and a tremendous accident occurs.....


----------



## Thompson_JM

I dont think zipperhead is referring to one of those hollywood highspeed pursuits.... but rather that the BSO's simply stay on a veh until the local LEO's can take over or stop em... really the question is, do you pursue, or do you sit back and let the baddies get away..... I guess the best answer IMO would be that the situation would have to dictate, ie: speed of the pursuit, threat level of the suspect (how bad is the dude), traffic density, time of day etc.. etc...


----------



## zipperhead_cop

geo said:
			
		

> zpperhead cop....
> I don't want the Border guards going into pursuit.  It's bad enough when the local authorities get involved in one of those and a tremendous accident occurs.....



Yeah, I agree.  Pursuits for the most part are not generally worth the risk, since 9 times out of 10 you are chasing a stolen car with some jagoff kids.  
But in the case of a known armed fugitive fleeing from the USA, I would stick in that pursuit until my fuel ran out.  You let this guy get away from you, then the next time somebody deals with him he has the drop and you risk a guy getting killed.  At least if you are on them from when the enter the country, you won't lose track of them.  Also, sometimes they are just mules that are only going a couple of kilometers in to drop their package, and will just go back after that.  If you want those drugs/guns/smuggled people, you need to stick with the bad guy.  
Some of the main port runners are the transport truck drivers.  So it's not like they are hard to follow, you just need to pool the right resources together in case it doesn't stop.  Again, there are a number of people that don't go where they are supposed to not because they are criminals, but because they are hammer heads.  And in fairness to them, the procedure to get from the Ambassador Bridge to the truck inspection facility is a goat show (no, they are not co-located.  Go figure)  Even if they have 5000 kg of weed or whatever, they generally will stop because the will want to argue in court that they didn't load their own trailer and had no idea what they had on board.  But again, you have to stick with them.


----------



## geo

Think that they should implement a "chicane" at the border crossings - give the guards remote control over "dragons teeth".

Once they get away from the border, they"ve gotten away and you've lost the "game".


----------



## TCBF

I recall driving onto a NATO base during the good ole' Baader-Meinhof days, and the car check included the sliding mirror, but, this was done between two barriers.  You drove over a flat steel piece, it then raised up (like a lift bridge) so you could not drive over it, flatten it, or push it out of they way.  Once cleared, the raised ramp in front of you lowered, and away you went to the Rod and Gun to buy your Delta Elite.  Cheap, yet effective.

A good solution for Port of Entries.  The veh goes nowhere until you push the button.  If the driver gets out with a gun, you go into bunker mode, dump the hydraulics (another button) so he can't open it himself, then shoot in self defence when he climbs into the guard shack.

Yard-sale his truck after you hose down the office. 

Remember to pull any gold teeth he may have for the staff Christmas Party Fund.



Tom


----------



## Nug

Yard-sale his truck after you hose down the office. 


Ya but knowing how the government is with money the gurds would have to supply thier own pressure washer.


----------



## Slim

Well...Not to completely hijack the thread (redirect perhaps) I have been speaking to various members of Canadian Customs as the ship I'm on currently travels around the East coast of Canada. The customs enforcement officers seem to feel that the first firearms will be going to the marine inspection/enforcement units on the east and west coasts...It sounds as though (from listening to them at least) like the airports are going to be last and that there will be some sort of salary increase when the pistols and whatever else they get come on line.

This info is not confirmed...just what they've been telling me as I visit from place to place. No words yet on what they're getting or when although two years before any of this starts to show up is the general concensus.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## GAP

Actually, if you had followed the news more closely, vehicles blowing through the border and other incidents are one of the main causes of CBSA personnel now being armed....things are changing....


----------



## J.J

Not going to elaborate due to OPSEC, but "port runners" are handled better on this side of the border than the US side. They only have stiffer penalties for the offence. Our penalties have  recently increased dramatically and they are almost _"draconian"_ compared to sentences given for other types of offences committed on the street.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

WR said:
			
		

> Not going to elaborate due to OPSEC, but "port runners" are handled better on this side of the border than the US side. They only have stiffer penalties for the offence. Our penalties have  recently increased dramatically and they are almost _"draconian"_ compared to sentences given for other types of offences committed on the street.



I like "draconian".......maybe it will spread.


----------



## J.J

I wish, but the punishment comes from the Customs Act and IRPA....not the criminal code


----------



## medaid

Well arming will occur in different phases with airports being the LAST to be armed. The priority are Land Borders, Special Teams/Sections, Sea Ports with boarding teams being priority and the airport... If required. WR can correct me.


----------



## medaid

Don't mistake boarding teams with Boarding Party of the Navy. The go aboard docked vessels to search and inspect containers.


----------



## CougarKing

MedTech said:
			
		

> Don't mistake boarding teams with Boarding Party of the Navy. The go aboard docked vessels to search and inspect containers.



Yo Medtech,

So do you watch Grace Park on "The Border" nowadays? Does she look good in a CBSA uniform? Does she even wear one on the show? hehehehe.  ;D


----------



## medaid

Um... No it's two completely different things. The reasons are different as well. Anyways it's too long to go into on a crackberry typing interface. If WR comes back maybe he can better explain it.


----------



## J.J

_"Currently"_ CBSA does not have any long guns/assault weapons, but it will happen. When??? I do not know, but it is on the radar. 
Every boat that is boarded a risk assessment is done and if the risk is that high, an RCMP marine boarding party will attend first and when clear, the CBSA will take over. We do not have sufficient training in high risk entries, nor the tools to complete that task (and probably won't for years to come).


----------



## IrishCanuck

WR said:
			
		

> _"Currently"_ CBSA does not have any long guns/assault weapons, but it will happen. When??? I do not know, but it is on the radar.
> Every boat that is boarded a risk assessment is done and if the risk is that high, an RCMP marine boarding party will attend first and when clear, the CBSA will take over. We do not have sufficient training in high risk entries, nor the tools to complete that task (and probably won't for years to come).



(Bit of a revival)

But it's coming slowly... I dont know what your work location is (marine?) but there is a slow but gradual increase in all things enforcement oriented, including much more CBSA involved prosecutions, in some cases now just having the responding police agency hold the subject while we take care of court transport, briefings etc etc. I think that will be one of the biggest measurements of the direction the agency is headed in.. if we become more self-sufficient in CA and CCC enforcement and prosecution the ball will keep rolling forward with new initiatives.. if not... well... boo.


----------



## Greymatters

It is a logical end state, but unfortunately forces the question "will it occur before or after a major incident"?


----------



## medaid

MUCH later afterwards...


----------



## The_Falcon

I would say sooner, saw a couple of postings on the federal job website, for an "Enforcement Assistant" for the CBSA, whose duties is to basically steer/handle all the paperwork, for prosecutions.  So I think the days of handing stuff off to the Mounties/Locals is coming.


----------



## medaid

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I would say sooner, saw a couple of postings on the federal job website, for an "Enforcement Assistant" for the CBSA, whose duties is to basically steer/handle all the paperwork, for prosecutions.  So I think the days of handing stuff off to the Mounties/Locals is coming.



I think there was a disconnect between 

CBSA on the Immigration side has always handled the prosecutions or detention cases when it comes to individuals who have violated the IRPA. Enforcement Assistants do not steer/handle all the paperwork for prosecutions. They do do allot of the clerical side of things, but the Minister's Delegate or Enforcement Officers and Hearings Officers are the ones steering/handling the case files.


----------



## The_Falcon

Well then I stand corrected


----------



## Yrys

Border agency misses target on firearm records: audit, CP

OTTAWA  -- An internal review found records were "missing or incomplete" 
for almost half of cases in which newly armed Canadian border agents 
drew their guns.

And border officers in one region were completely unaware they had to send 
reports to headquarters on incidents involving force, including use of weapons 
such as pepper spray and batons.

"This may result in information on incidents not being reviewed, incomplete 
data on the use of force and no followup or investigation taken to address 
serious concerns," says the Canada Border Services Agency audit completed 
in October. "Therefore, the agency may not analyze breaches of policy and 
ensure corrective action is taken when systemic problems become evident."

The lapses were among early growing pains cited in the report on the agency's 
ongoing initiative to arm border officers. While the auditors found "reasonable 
progress had been made" in putting the program's building blocks in place, 
there was also room for improvement on setting use-of-force policies, training 
staff, assessing the various risks, and tracking ammunition and spare firearms.

The audit made several recommendations for improvement and spelled out plans 
by the border services agency to deal with the glitches over the next two years.

Border officers have been provided in recent years with handcuffs, pepper spray, 
batons, protective vests and use-of-force training to help them enforce the law.
Three years ago the Conservative government announced a 10-year plan to train 
and equip 4,800 officers to carry firearms -- an initiative long rejected as 
unnecessary by the Liberals. Almost 500 officers were instructed in gun use 
from July 2007 through last June.

The review was done to nip any problems with the controversial program in the bud.

The auditors looked at 23 incidents from July 2007 to April 2008 -- 10 involving 
guns and 13 randomly selected events concerning general use of force. Of the 
firearm incidents, six files contained the necessary documentation. In the other 
four cases, review reports were missing or documentation had not been signed 
by the officers involved.

The audit also found the border agency's procedures were vague on what officers 
"are permitted to do, expected to do or prohibited from doing" in situations 
involving use of pepper spray and batons. "Management advised that detailed 
guidance on administering general use of force would be provided in training 
packages that are being developed."

Tracie LeBlanc, a spokeswoman for the border services agency, said that 
whenever officers use force the agency reviews the matter and confirms 
if standards and protocols were followed and identifies any discrepancies 
and required actions. LeBlanc added that border officers are "well aware 
of situations in which force may be used, and are trained in the proper 
use and application of force."

In each of the 23 cases in which officers used force, proper procedures 
were followed during the actual incidents, the audit says. Though 
employees have pulled guns from their holsters, none has fired one on 
duty, said Ron Moran, national president of the Customs Excise Union, 
which represents border officers.

Moran said he was generally pleased with the arming program's 
implementation, and took issue with the notion that use-of-force training 
was lacking. But Moran said he was surprised the audit didn't mention 
that officers took firearm training at congested ranges in Ottawa and 
Chilliwack, B.C. It means officers are sometimes on the ranges at 2 or 
3 a.m. after being in class all day, he said. "It's just an accident waiting 
to happen."

The audit says there was initial confusion over whether officers were 
required to wear their guns during meal and rest breaks, as well as 
whether employees on extended leave could keep their firearms.

The auditors also found a need to prepare officers who don't carry 
guns for situations when they find themselves caught up in the middle 
of altercations between colleagues with firearms and members of the 
public. Delays in entering data about training and inventory, along with 
"problems regarding user friendliness," meant regional branches of the 
border agency were bypassing the central computer system and setting 
up their own databases -- a wasteful duplication of effort.

The border agency has developed and is now using a national information 
system that provides access to timely, comprehensive arming data, LeBlanc 
said.

The report also reveals a full assessment of risks associated with the arming 
initiative won't be complete until April.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

That is the best they could come up with?  Bad staff work?  Are these the same idiots that acted like there would be a Barney Fife-esque feu de joix (sp, sorry Franco's) once the guns were taken out of the boxes?  
Sounds to me like the program has been quite successful and the personnel are being trained to USE the weapons properly.  Not reporting back to some quail hearted bureaucrat so they can armchair street level decisions isn't the worst thing in the world.  
(none of which is aimed at you, Yrys, just in case I came off wrong)


----------



## Yrys

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> (none of which is aimed at you, Yrys, just in case I came off wrong)



As you didn't speak of me, but of the "quail hearted bureaucrat", I didn't think you were
aiming at me  .


----------



## IrishCanuck

And the battle between client services and the enforcement branch continues.... :


----------



## medaid

You mean... They're NOT on the same team?! Say it ain't so!


----------



## IrishCanuck

Well client services has to scratch and claw for every budget dollar they can get, for fear of enforcement actually becoming the main priority, and not "client faciliation".

Case in point, border wait times.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

IrishCanuck said:
			
		

> Well client services  has to scratch and claw for every budget dollar they can get, for fear of enforcement actually becoming the main priority, and not "client faciliation".
> 
> Case in point, border wait times.



You mean the tax collectors


----------



## medaid

IrishCanuck said:
			
		

> Well client services has to scratch and claw for every budget dollar they can get, for fear of enforcement actually becoming the main priority, and not "client faciliation".
> 
> Case in point, border wait times.



Pffffft  get the client services guys to put on a uniform and a sba... THEN get them to go stand a watch at a POE, preferably a REMOTE POE and a LAND one at that. Let's see them try and 'facilitate' the first drunken... person that's got a firearm on them trying to access land border.


----------



## IrishCanuck

MedTech said:
			
		

> Pffffft  get the client services guys to put on a uniform and a sba... THEN get them to go stand a watch at a POE, preferably a REMOTE POE and a LAND one at that. Let's see them try and 'facilitate' the first drunken... person that's got a firearm on them trying to access land border.



Preaching to the choir.

Doesn't help POERT is full of "facilitation" and seemingly avoiding taking charge of persons and situations at all costs.


----------



## J.J

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Border+guards+firearms+trainer+fired+union+calls+move+vindictive/3419621/story.html

order guards' firearms trainer fired; union calls move 'vindictive'


BY CHRIS COBB, OTTAWA CITIZENAUGUST 19, 2010


OTTAWA — The firearms expert chosen to supervise the weapons training of Canada's border guards has been dismissed by the Canadian Border Service Agency in what his lawyer says is "vindictive and unfair" treatment.

RCMP Sgt. Richard Groulx, one of Canada's leading firearms trainers, appears to have been unwittingly caught in a bitter dispute between the border guards' union and senior agency managers in Ottawa.

Groulx remains employed by the RCMP but is now fighting to continue the secondment to CBSA, which began almost four years ago when he was hand-picked to lead the firearms training of the country's 4,800 border guards.

The union-management dispute is over the arming of customs officers who are asked to take part in joint search operations with the RCMP and other police forces.

The union says trained guards should be allowed to carry their weapons when asked by other forces to take part in joint operations but CBSA hierarchy opposes the move, apparently for legal reasons.

When CBSA instigates its own searches, guards are armed.

Lawyer James Cameron represented a Montreal border guard in a test case at the federal Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal earlier this year. The guard had refused to take part — unarmed — in an operation with Montreal police, claiming his life was at risk.

To help bolster the guard's case, Cameron subpoenaed Groulx, who testified that the weapons training given to border guards is likely superior to that of the RCMP.

Although Groulx had no choice but to respond to the subpoena, Cameron says that senior CBSA managers are punishing him for doing so.

Cameron is now representing Groulx and has filed a complaint to the Public Service Labour Relations Board accusing CBSA of violating the Canadian Labour Code.

Under the code, it is illegal for an employer to dismiss, suspend, lay off or demote an employee for testifying at such a hearing.

Groulx, who designed the border guards' training program, wants to keep his secondment until the work with CBSA is finished. If the Labour Relations Board rejects his complaint, he will be replaced at the end of this month.

"It's vindictive," lawyer Cameron said. "The only reason his secondment was terminated early was because he told the truth under subpoena from me. He had no choice but to appear and is being penalized for saying nothing more than these trained guards can handle themselves in any situation."

Groulx would not comment.

The CBSA would not discuss the Groulx case or explain why they had apparently asked for his removal but a spokesperson said the training agreement with the RCMP will end in less than two years.

"In February 2010 the CBSA announced to its staff that the use of the RCMP for firearms related training would begin to be phased out," the official said in an email.

"The CBSA will gradually phase out the use of the RCMP and end all RCMP related assignments by March 31, 2012. The CBSA is now in the stage of phasing in independent selection, certification and monitoring of its firearms and control and defensive tactics training."

However, according to the complaint filed with the Public Service Labour Relations Board, another RCMP officer has already been seconded to replace Groulx at the CBSA.

According to the written complaint filed at the Public Service Labour Relations Board, Groulx was told by his RCMP superiors that the CBSA hierarchy was "upset" when it heard he was going to appear as a witness in the hearing over joint operations.

No date is set for Groulx's labour relations board hearing but the federal Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal is expected to rule soon on the joint operations issue.

The Harper government passed legislation five years ago that allowed the arming of border guards.

The first were deployed in July 2007 in Surrey, B.C., and Fort Erie, Ont., and now, about 1,500 of the 4,800 border guard force is armed. All are expected to be trained and armed by 2016.

But their union president Ron Moran claims that senior CBSA bureaucrats were against the move and that their resistance to joint operation arming is their "last stand."

The guards say that once firearms have become an integral part of their training, they are risking their lives by going into dangerous joint operations without their weapons.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

_
 Sgt Groulx is recognized internationally for his abilities and it just shows CBSA's senior management inability to accept how the agency has progressed._


----------



## zipperhead_cop

No good deed goes unpunished.  

Gotta love working for hand-wringers.   :


----------



## OldSolduer

Hand wringers....or the lace panty crowd, most of which are men.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Hand wringers....or the lace panty crowd, most of which are men male.



There, fixed it for you.  Sadly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> No good deed goes unpunished.
> 
> Gotta love working for hand-wringers.   :



Sadly not surprised by this either, it's far to typical of the Public Service these days.


----------

