Some Canadians border guards quit

[Topaz]

Apparentley, 30% of trained border guards are either unwilling or failed the test gov't training program and now the government has to find around 1400 new people to train. Over the next ten years, Canada will spent 20 MI and it will cost 4 MIL for operation cost yearly. Now I'm not a fan of the taser gun but perhaps one place for one is for the guards that don't feel comfortable with a load gun.

[Carinthia]

Apparentley, 30% of trained border guards are either unwilling or failed the test gov't training program and now the government has to find around 1400 new people to train. Over the next ten years, Canada will spent 20 MI and it will cost 4 MIL for operation cost yearly. Now I'm not a fan of the taser gun but perhaps one place for one is for the guards that don't feel comfortable with a load gun.

If there were serious criminals or terrorists attacking border agents, tasers would be futile. Once again tasers would be used to subdue ordinary type joe's. The border needs experienced armed guards whose only job is to parole for such. Let the border agents do their job of getting people through without the worry of having to go to instant war. They couldn't be too worried about it if they are unwilling to sink money into something as seemingly threatening as being overpowered by criminals or terrorists.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Carinthia

[M.Dancer]

Let them apply to be mail carriers......not like there's a shortage of people willing to defend the border.

[Higgly]

Let them apply to be mail carriers......not like there's a shortage of people willing to defend the border.

Border guards should be part of the country's federal security service. AKA the RCMP.

Not to be confused with Customs Officers, who should be bureaucrats.

[Wilber]

Let them apply to be mail carriers......not like there's a shortage of people willing to defend the border.

I agree and lets have them actually patrolling the border instead of just sitting in cubicles at crossings checking ID's and collecting taxes. I live in a border community and am tired of having the defense of Canada's border sap the resources of my local police force which is largely paid for out of my municipal taxes. Securing the nations borders is a Federal responsibility and they have been getting a free ride far too long.

[Borg]

Apparentley, 30% of trained border guards are either unwilling or failed the test gov't training program and now the government has to find around 1400 new people to train. Over the next ten years, Canada will spent 20 MI and it will cost 4 MIL for operation cost yearly. Now I'm not a fan of the taser gun but perhaps one place for one is for the guards that don't feel comfortable with a load gun.

Another typical canuck reaction.

Fortunately there are enough people in this country to replace them.

I suppose they could always move on.

What does a weanie "ex-border guard" ask when they are talking to you?

Would you like your order super sized?

The graduating classes of Algonquin College Police Foundations should benefit nicely from this limp wristed attitude of the 30%.

I for one would not want someone on the border who is either afraid or unwilling to be armed.

Borg

[fellowtraveller]

I thought a federal union was behind the arming of border staff, insisting that it was necessary for personal saftey.

Is this incorrect?

[Peter F]

I thought a federal union was behind the arming of border staff, insisting that it was necessary for personal saftey.

Is this incorrect?

No.

Customs Excise Union (CEUDA)

But arming border agents is not all roses

Swamps & Alligators

Topaz:

Apparentley, 30% of trained border guards are either unwilling or failed the test gov't training program and now the government has to find around 1400 new people to train.

Here's a link to Topazs' post: CTVnews dec 2

From which I quote:

"This estimate was based on consultations with frontline managers, who have firsthand experience in supervising officers on a daily basis," says briefing material obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

"In many cases, these managers have had informal discussions with staff where views were expressed freely and openly."

Which is to say the 30% is a guesstimate at best. The methodology used to arrive at this number is iffy - to say the least.

[Peter F]

deleted - double post

Edited December 6, 2007 by Peter F

[Wilber]

As usual, the devil is in the details and the transition. The job description has changed and that will present some difficulty with some of the people already there. It will present no difficulty with new hires and the situation will straighten itself out over time.

[Fortunata]

I for one would not want someone on the border who is either afraid or unwilling to be armed.

I don't want some trigger happy or taser happy border guard around when I am arguing what should and should not be taxable at the border either. It doesn't take much to be considered unruly and a "threat" these days. When you consider that our border people/customs officers are just glorified tax/duty collectors it might be more appropriate for them to have a calculator strapped on rather than a gun.

I'd rather see RCMP resident at all border crossings to take care of necessary potential threats.

[Wilber]

I'd rather see RCMP resident at all border crossings to take care of necessary potential threats.

Where are you going to find the RCMP? Why have two police officers at every border crossing 24/7 when you can train the people who already work there?

PS: The RCMP may think that arming border personnel is stepping on their turf but the cops in my town think it is a hell of an idea. They figure they have better things to do than look after the border for the Feds.

Edited December 7, 2007 by Wilber

[guyser]

Where are you going to find the RCMP? Why have two police officers at every border crossing 24/7 when you can train the people who already work there?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but a good number of them should not be holding a firearm lest they shoot themselves in the foot.Might be arrogance on my part, but the people in the little booths are not exactly too bright. Would you want the lady who works the passport office, or any other govt office worker handling a gun? Neither would I.

But if one proposes that there be a division of personnel armed and patrolling the lineups, well then that makes sense to me. Think of it this way. Look at the Queenston Lewiston Bridge or Windosrs Ambassador Bridge and recall the lineups. So walking and monitoring the lines would be a good idea, they are outside the booths, able to jump lines and move around freely.The booth people can still ask...where ya from, where ya going, got anything to declare..see ya.

If a problem occurs, both places are on bridges and can be shut down in a second. No more harm and no foul.

PS: The RCMP may think that arming border personnel is stepping on their turf but the cops in my town think it is a hell of an idea. They figure they have better things to do than look after the border for the Feds.

Considering it is a port of entry, then it is fed territory and your cops are right. Send in your cops to Vancouver Airport and have them attempt to arrest someone. Then sit back and watch the RCMP admonish them for stepping on their turf.Tit for tat.

[capricorn]

No.

Customs Excise Union (CEUDA)

Actually, yes. CEUDA (a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada) has been calling for armed border guards for a few years, well before the Conservatives agreed.

CEUDA has long called for the arming of Border Services Officers, as well as for the removal of students from the front-line, and for the doubling up of one person ports.

http://www.ceuda.psac.com/english/publicat...005%202006.html

[Wilber]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but a good number of them should not be holding a firearm lest they shoot themselves in the foot.Might be arrogance on my part, but the people in the little booths are not exactly too bright. Would you want the lady who works the passport office, or any other govt office worker handling a gun? Neither would I.

But if one proposes that there be a division of personnel armed and patrolling the lineups, well then that makes sense to me. Think of it this way. Look at the Queenston Lewiston Bridge or Windosrs Ambassador Bridge and recall the lineups. So walking and monitoring the lines would be a good idea, they are outside the booths, able to jump lines and move around freely.The booth people can still ask...where ya from, where ya going, got anything to declare..see ya.

If a problem occurs, both places are on bridges and can be shut down in a second. No more harm and no foul.

Considering it is a port of entry, then it is fed territory and your cops are right. Send in your cops to Vancouver Airport and have them attempt to arrest someone. Then sit back and watch the RCMP admonish them for stepping on their turf.Tit for tat.

This is why I say the devil is in the details and the transittion. Having border personel who are trained as peace officers and armed is something we want and need. Getting there is not going to happen without its bumps but will be worth it in the end.

[Wilber]

Considering it is a port of entry, then it is fed territory and your cops are right. Send in your cops to Vancouver Airport and have them attempt to arrest someone. Then sit back and watch the RCMP admonish them for stepping on their turf.Tit for tat.

You are going to need police officers at major airports regardless. Most incidents requiring police officers have nothing to do with Customs and Immigration. You cannot expect them to be responsible for policing the whole airport even if it is a port of entry.

[Borg]

I don't want some trigger happy or taser happy border guard around when I am arguing what should and should not be taxable at the border either. It doesn't take much to be considered unruly and a "threat" these days. When you consider that our border people/customs officers are just glorified tax/duty collectors it might be more appropriate for them to have a calculator strapped on rather than a gun.

I'd rather see RCMP resident at all border crossings to take care of necessary potential threats.

Why would you say trigger happy?

How would you know?

RCMP?

A truly diminished organization - no longer deserving the respect they once held.

How many people have border guards killed in the past year as compared to "trigger happy" others.

Tax collectors? I watched them do a pretty nice human slavery take down one night - on a ship using helicopters and military support. Never did and never will make the news.

You only THINK you know what you talk about.

Time to stop drinking your soya milk.

Borg

[Fortunata]

Why would you say trigger happy?

How would you know?

RCMP?

A truly diminished organization - no longer deserving the respect they once held.

How many people have border guards killed in the past year as compared to "trigger happy" others.

Tax collectors? I watched them do a pretty nice human slavery take down one night - on a ship using helicopters and military support. Never did and never will make the news.

You only THINK you know what you talk about.

Time to stop drinking your soya milk.

Borg

Why would I say trigger happy? I think there is a trend for those with the power to use the power. And I don't know if customs officers would be; but there is the potential to be without police training and background. (Or, even as we have seen lately, with police training). I would rather have trained police do the police thing and border guards to what they have been doing. That's all.

I came across one time having purchased in the USA a made in Canada item and the Customs Officer was adamant that it an item on which duty had to be paid. When I tried to argue it I was told to pay up or I could be sitting in a cold room with bars. This was all in the first 2 minutes of arriving. Obviously he had not had a good day but if that officer had a taser, I am sure he would be very quick to use it. I paid up and got a refund later, when I actually spoke to someone who knew that the hell they were talking about. That experience with the C.O. with the quick temper makes me question the wisdom of arming them. I know it was one instance with one person but it makes you wonder what if.

I'm not saying that all Customs do is collect duties/taxes, but that's all I have seen them do. You saw something different? Good for you. It's not something many people get to see; maybe you should think about that before you attack someone without having had the same experiences.

[Canadian Blue]

I'm not saying that all Customs do is collect duties/taxes, but that's all I have seen them do. You saw something different? Good for you. It's not something many people get to see; maybe you should think about that before you attack someone without having had the same experiences.

Perhaps you should look up what the members of the CBSA do before making crass assumptions.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/job-emploi/bso-...rofils-eng.html

[Fortunata]

Perhaps you should look up what the members of the CBSA do before making crass assumptions.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/job-emploi/bso-...rofils-eng.html

Why don't you read before you attack. I said it's all I have ever seen them do. And not always politely, in good humour or intelligently. Not always. And I always declare everything up front so it's not as though they have "read" in my face or actions that something is being hidden. However, I have to say I have had more good experiences than bad, but the one bad that was really bad sticks with me.

[eXploiTeD]

Not all border guards need to be armed. Plain and simple. If your job is to inspect cars and stamp a piece of paper, that's your job; if your job is to provide security and "protect the borders" from mostly imaginary threats, that's another thing altogether. If it's not treated that way now, it should be.

Having an armed presence at every border crossing is a good idea, but there is no need to be excessive about it.

Further, guns have very little to do with maintaining border security (both theoretically and statistically), and so shouldn't be a priority when there are other, far more pressing security issues we need to deal with, such as: installing radiation detectors at every crossing, ensuring emergency response crews are adequately funded and trained, getting Border Guards better equipment, increasing efficiencies enough to double the amount of cars and trucks being inspected, etc.

If anything, there needs to be an agency created who's sole and specific purpose is to protect the border from violent threats. Border Guards are tasked with alot of responsibilities... most of which have conflicting goals and mandates. They need to be fast and efficient, because we trade so much with the United States... but at the same time, they need to be thorough and focused on the new threats facing Canada today (such as terrorists moving weapons into the United States... or Ottawa).

I imagine federal funding could pay for it. This would free up the local police forces, and decrease the load on municipal taxpayers. At the same time, it would create a division of labour that would most definitely increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the borders... Customs does one thing... Security does theres.

Edited December 14, 2007 by eXploiTeD

[capricorn]

Excellent post exploited and good thoughts. I agree not all border guards need to be armed. Some of them could be downright dangerous to themselves and anyone around.

If a special group was assigned to be armed, my suggestion would be that it not be part of the union. The reason I say that is if such a group was unionized it could invoke a union clause revolving around "imminent danger" to refuse to perform a duty. I say that knowing full well that CEUDA would fight the formation of such a group tooth and nail, for obvious reasons.

[Borg]

Not all border guards need to be armed. Plain and simple. If your job is to inspect cars and stamp a piece of paper, that's your job; if your job is to provide security and "protect the borders" from mostly imaginary threats, that's another thing altogether. If it's not treated that way now, it should be.

Having an armed presence at every border crossing is a good idea, but there is no need to be excessive about it.

Further, guns have very little to do with maintaining border security (both theoretically and statistically), and so shouldn't be a priority when there are other, far more pressing security issues we need to deal with, such as: installing radiation detectors at every crossing, ensuring emergency response crews are adequately funded and trained, getting Border Guards better equipment, increasing efficiencies enough to double the amount of cars and trucks being inspected, etc.

If anything, there needs to be an agency created who's sole and specific purpose is to protect the border from violent threats. Border Guards are tasked with alot of responsibilities... most of which have conflicting goals and mandates. They need to be fast and efficient, because we trade so much with the United States... but at the same time, they need to be thorough and focused on the new threats facing Canada today (such as terrorists moving weapons into the United States... or Ottawa).

I imagine federal funding could pay for it. This would free up the local police forces, and decrease the load on municipal taxpayers. At the same time, it would create a division of labour that would most definitely increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the borders... Customs does one thing... Security does theres.

WARNING - plagarism may be called out here - I have taken a bit of poetic license with your scribings to change a few things.

Could not disagree with you more - but then again you may have never been in a situation that required use of force.

________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

Not all police need to be armed. Plain and simple.

If your job is to stop speeding Johnnie and his girl fiend on a small town street and hand out pieces of paper, that's your job; if your job is to provide security and "protect the public" from mostly imaginary threats like gangas and druggies, that's another thing altogether. It's not treated that way now, but it should be.

Having an armed presence in every town is a good idea, but there is no need to be excessive about it.

Further, guns have very little to do with maintaining police security (both theoretically and statistically).

So guns shouldn't be a priority when there are other, far more pressing security issues we need to deal with, such as: ensuring the rounding up of drunks on the streets to Edmonton or Toronto, or ensuring the airport security guards are going their job, ensuring emergency response crews are adequately funded and trained, getting SWAT Teams better equipment to deal with situations where police may need to actually shoot someone, increasing efficiencies enough to double the amount of cars and trucks being inspected on the highways and bi-ways of our nation, etc.

If anything, there needs to be an agency created who's sole and specific purpose is to protect the public from violent threats. Police are tasked with a lot of responsibilities... most of which have conflicting goals and mandates - but protection of the public is actually low on the priority list.

They need to be fast and efficient, because we have some much illegal traffic in drugs from inside our own country - home grown is now considered best in North America ... but at the same time, they need to be thorough and focused on the new threats facing Canada today (such as gangs selling drugs and weapons and illegal booze on the street.)

I imagine federal and provincial funding could pay for it.

This would free up the local police forces, and decrease the load on municipal taxpayers - after all that funding comes form the government - NOT the taxpayer(?) (A typical canucklehead comment). At the same time, it would create a division of labour that would most definitely cause the average cop to start bitching about not wearing a gun - even though he could still use his pepper and taser - all proven to be quite effective in the vast majority of circumstances.

After all it is rare for the police to be there as the crime is committed - usually the police arrive to investigate the crime - long after it is over.

Customs does one thing - ensures the borders are secure - arm them to the teeth and give them the power to use them.

Borg

[acer1982]

Is it that they quit because they don't like guns? Or they quit because they know they cannot pass the examination to carry the guns?? Something tells me it's the latter.

Do they need guns?? I don't know. Personally I would like to see them with guns. What's to stop people trying to cross the border from bringing guns to the border?? If people coming to the border can have guns, perhaps the people defending the border should have guns also.

[eXploiTeD]

WARNING - plagarism may be called out here - I have taken a bit of poetic license with your scribings to change a few things.

It's definitely a weird thing to do, but you're free to do it...

Not all police need to be armed. Plain and simple.

If your job is to stop speeding Johnnie and his girl fiend on a small town street and hand out pieces of paper, that's your job; if your job is to provide security and "protect the public" from mostly imaginary threats like gangas and druggies, that's another thing altogether. It's not treated that way now, but it should be.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about police officers, we're talking about border guards.

Having an armed presence in every town is a good idea, but there is no need to be excessive about it.

Further, guns have very little to do with maintaining police security (both theoretically and statistically).

Again, irrelevant...

So guns shouldn't be a priority when there are other, far more pressing security issues we need to deal with, such as: ensuring the rounding up of drunks on the streets to Edmonton or Toronto, or ensuring the airport security guards are going their job, ensuring emergency response crews are adequately funded and trained, getting SWAT Teams better equipment to deal with situations where police may need to actually shoot someone, increasing efficiencies enough to double the amount of cars and trucks being inspected on the highways and bi-ways of our nation, etc.

Irrelevant. I said there needs to be a department with the sole purpose of protecting the border, separate from both Customs and the local police force. You responded with something totally unrelated.

If anything, there needs to be an agency created who's sole and specific purpose is to protect the public from violent threats. Police are tasked with a lot of responsibilities... most of which have conflicting goals and mandates - but protection of the public is actually low on the priority list.

Point?

They need to be fast and efficient, because we have some much illegal traffic in drugs from inside our own country - home grown is now considered best in North America ... but at the same time, they need to be thorough and focused on the new threats facing Canada today (such as gangs selling drugs and weapons and illegal booze on the street.)

Gangs can easily be decimated if Canada gets the political will to legalize drugs. Doing so will also free up our legal system to start trying and successfully prosecuting violent offenders.

Unfortunately, I suspect you are also the type who would object to drug legalization... I might be wrong, but you do seem to hold some fairly authoritarian values.

This would free up the local police forces, and decrease the load on municipal taxpayers - after all that funding comes form the government - NOT the taxpayer(?) (A typical canucklehead comment).

The statement is true. Municipal taxes are skyrocketing due to provincial downloading of responsibilities. Since protecting the border is in the interest of all Canadians - and not just in the interest of those who live there - it follows that the national (federal) government should fund it. In other words, instead of making municipal taxpayers pay for it, you make national taxpayers pay for it, thus "sharing the load." Understand?

You don't really seem to be opposed to anything I've said substantially, instead just seem concentrated on making an argument?

At the same time, it would create a division of labour that would most definitely cause the average cop to start bitching about not wearing a gun - even though he could still use his pepper and taser - all proven to be quite effective in the vast majority of circumstances.

But we're not talking about cops. We are talking about border guards, who are not cops, not trained like cops, not held to the same standards as cops and, well, not cops!

Why you keep on employing red herrings and other fallacies is beyond me. Why can't we discuss the actual issue - border guards - instead of going on 10,000 irrelevant tangents because you feel like it?

After all it is rare for the police to be there as the crime is committed - usually the police arrive to investigate the crime - long after it is over.

Customs does one thing - ensures the borders are secure - arm them to the teeth and give them the power to use them.

And customs should be separating those who perform administrative tasks from those who will carry guns and gather intelligence and detain suspects/threats. Doing so creates efficiencies and allows for specialization of labour. This is basic economy of labour here.

There should be some officers with guns, and those officers should be trained and held to the same level as peace officers. This requires a separate bureaucracy with it's own mission.

Edited December 17, 2007 by eXploiTeD