B.C. border guards leave posts after report of threat

[jolinar of malkshor]

How do you guys feel about this?

Traffic ground to a halt late Sunday at four U.S. border crossings in B.C.'s Lower Mainland after about 60 border guards walked off the job, claiming a threat to their personal security.

Agents left their posts at the Douglas, Pacific Highway, Aldergrove, and Huntington crossings at about 2 p.m. Sunday after an alert was issued that an armed and dangerous man was planning on crossing the border into Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...er-guards.html

This wouldn't be happening if the Liberals hadn't considered border officers as tax collector for years before.

[Footscray]

Ya damn liberals, stevebot and the potato man should charter a jet out there and turn him back themselves.

I actually think both their preparation and the response is pretty sad, they should be trained for such an instance but if not you think they could have at least sent a detachment of mounties out there and reinforced them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Good for them, until the Border Guards are given either arms, or an ability to call for immediate armed help, they shouldn't put thier lives in danger.

[browna]

I wonder if people who work at a bank feel like walking out. At any random point, a guy with a gun could walk in waving a weapon asking for money.

Union or not, do your jobs. You're paid a decent wage as a line of defense for this country. If you took the job not understanding the risks of such a position, then quit.

This person considered armed and dangerous, was not the first, or the last, person crossing into Canada under suspicious/illegal cirumstances and carrying a weapon for equally suspicious/illegal purposes. It probably happens weekly.

I realize they should be armed, I guess (although at worst case scenario, a firefight with a fugitive who's packing a weapon and who's ready to use it, and a border guard 5 ft away from each other isn't going to turn out good for either person) but this is not the way to show that.

It borders on cowardness, to be honest.

[jolinar of malkshor]

How can you compare bank tellers to border guards? That arguement then can be made for any proffession. We give firearms to Brinks guards but not people that protect our borders??? Doesn't make sense.

They are our first line of defence, and as such should be equiped to handle this situation. This risks? Then why are police armed? Same can be said for them. I think the reason they are doing this is because for years the governments(particularly the libs) said there is no danger. What are they suppose to do when buddy shows up with his firearm running from the US and wanting to get into Canada??? Pepperspray him? If they had the tools and then walked off the job, I would agree with you. but that is not the case.

Exactly so they need to be equiped properly. Hell why don't they just have a few shotguns in the crossing station just in case of an emergency. Because the government won't give it to them.

At least they would prevent them from getting into the country.

Again, if they had weapons and did this then I would agree, but what do you want them to do when buddy arrives? Make a line across the border and hope he gets scared and goes back to the USA?

The government must realize they have a dangerous job otherwise they wouldn't issue them bullet proof vests. It's ok to be shot at but you can't have a weapon to shot back?

[browna]

All I am saying is that these people have understood the risks of being a border guard when they took the job (ie, not armed) and took on that role.

I don't have stats in front of me, but I don't know of many standoffs at the border, or deaths of our border guards, where them being armed would've prevented a horrible situation.

As I said, I am sure people likely as dangerous with guns, and ready to use them if need be, happen many times every month at the border, and go undeteced. That doesn't mean its right, it also doesn't mean that border guards having guns would deter those desperate people if that's how things played out.

As I said, arm them. if the government sees fit to fit in with the US demands on border security.

But it appears, from history, that the chance of a border guard threatened by a gun, or getting a gun pulled on them first (no matter if a report comes across a wire), happens a lot less then bank tellers in this country every month.

[MatsNaslund]

Originally Posted by browna

Union or not, do your jobs. You're paid a decent wage as a line of defense for this country. If you took the job not understanding the risks of such a position, then quit.

Most union jobs have a collective bargaining agreement. This agreement goes through A-Z everything in relation to job and what is required as well as pay,o.t., leaves of absence, etc. This agreement will safeguard the employees from any type of discipline for something like this. Anything that is not part of 'job duties' in the agreement does not have to be done by staff. So if the job duties in the present agreement do not include taking a bullet while being unarmed then these federal government workers have every right to do what they just did.

Either provide them with Police backup & arm them with guns OR expect more of the same.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

Anything that is not part of 'job duties' in the agreement does not have to be done by staff. So if the job duties in the present agreement do not include taking a bullet while being unarmed then these federal government workers have every right to do what they just did.

Wow, that is an extremely specific example; and you expect it to be in the collective agreement? Does their collective agreement mention me by name? Because I have crossed the border.

While understand the guards being upset about not being armed, by them walking off the job with a slightly higher than usual risk they put 100's of other civilians at risk. How would buddy who was armed have reacted when he saw a couple of kilometres of cars blocking his path to "freedom." If was indeed so dangerous, it could have been a disaster.

[White Doors]

They will be armed soon. The governmnet just agreed to do so a couple of months back. And no, I don't blame them.

[fredr123]

I'm not convinced that giving the border guards guns would solve anything in this situation. I have doubts the clause that allows CBSA to withdraw their services if they feel in danger would ever be removed, even if they were armed. Even with guns, the CBSA officers could take off from the port just like we saw yesterday (and several times before).

I'm also not convinced that having an armed border would prevent dangerous people from trying to enter our country. I have doubts that the government has the capacity to properly train and arm the thousands of border officers necessary to bring about the secure border so many people envision.

It will take a fundamental shift in thinking to change CBSA officers into border guards. To expect them to properly use a firearm and defend the border with force, if necessary, is a completely different job from what they are used to and trained for.

Consider the intensity and quality of training that police officers go through in order to be properly prepared to handle dangerous situations where deadly force may be used. The average person probably wouldn't qualify through that training program. Hopefully the government, in handing out firearms to border officers, makes similar training necessary. Not doing so would be irresponsible. (The counter-example to all of this is probably Brinks or Securicor where they basically protect millions of dollars with poorly-trained loose cannons.)

Given what has happened in the past with the unions and employer involved, I could see a good deal of resistance to the more rigorous training. Already there is a fairly rigorous training process in place but older officers are grandfathered around those requirements. That shouldn't be allowed for anyone with a gun. What happens if it is found that a good 50% or so of the current border guards are unfit to carry firearms? Do they attempt to recruit better officers? Where do these higher-quality candidates come from? Or do they just lower the standards?

The alternative, I suppose, is to make a tough business decision and keep things going the way they are currently. Give the officers minimal training and protection (to keep costs down) and deploy RCMP or local police the odd time a real threat occurs. This way is much cheaper given the high cost of properly training border guards. I'm not sure I would continue down this path though...

[Azure]

So we don't give the border agents guns because we don't trust the government, yet we have border agents there, as a government agency to protect Canada?

And use 'stats' to decide whether or not we should arm them? Give me a break.

[fredr123]

I'm not satisfied that a majority of the border guards are, at this point, competent to carry and, when required, actually use a firearm. Extensive training is necessary. Many officers should not be able to complete the training because it is too intense and/or they are mentally or physically unfit for such a task. The union will fight to keep these employees. The employer will have to hire new employees that can meet the new requirements or else lower their standards to allow the otherwise noncompetent employees to continue in their work. More qualified employees will be difficult to find and recruit. It will be easier and cheaper to lower the standards so otherwise noncompetent employees will be able to keep their jobs.

Thus, you will have armed border guards that may or may not be fully competent to do what you expect them to do - protect the border with force, if necessary. They would still likely have the ability to run away from the border if things got harry. Not a lot different from what we had yesterday except it would be an armed border guard leaving the post instead of an unarmed officer.

Both this alternative and the status quo are not acceptable. I would prefer a wholesale reorganiztion of what used to be known as Immigration and Customs. Unfortunately this would be difficult, costly, time consuming and would result in a drastic reduction in the number of government employees.

[Superflyer]

I do not believe that having an armed border will stop these dangerious people from crossing the border, I do believe that it will stop them from entering legally at the border crossing. If they want into Canada they will find a way in, and really it is not that hard to get accross the border with out the guards knowing, especially in B.C.
I lived in Creston and my back yard litterly ended at the Canada\U.S. border. I could see houses out my back window and they were American. I could easily walk or drive accross the field to them and then keep going and no one would know the differance.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I'm not satisfied that a majority of the border guards are, at this point, competent to carry and, when required, actually use a firearm. Extensive training is necessary. Many officers should not be able to complete the training because it is too intense and/or they are mentally or physically unfit for such a task.

Have you ever taken a gun course? Its not as intense as you are suggesting.

Plus, IIRC, the guns were taken away from them by the Liberal goverment. The Harper government is supposed to give them back.

Both this alternative and the status quo are not acceptable. I would prefer a wholesale reorganiztion of what used to be known as Immigration and Customs. Unfortunately this would be difficult, costly, time consuming and would result in a drastic reduction in the number of government employees.

Good point.

The whole Union thing should be thrown out, IMO.

[jonesy]

report: bad guys plan to come to canada
response from canadian border guys: help, run away, retreat!

Makes me proud.
Oh well, at least we have a lot of land to retreat back into.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jonesy

report: bad guys plan to come to canada
response from canadian border guys: help, run away, retreat!

Makes me proud.
Oh well, at least we have a lot of land to retreat back into.

I would be even less proud if, after significant whining, these border guards were finally armed but still retreated. That would look even stupider. On the other hand, I wouldn't want them to stand and fight unless they were adequately prepared for it. I'm less than confident they will be prepared to that extent.

So in that light, there are two possible outcomes:
1. Border guards are armed and still retreat; or
2. Border guards stand and fight though inadequately trained and casualties occur

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Azure

Have you ever taken a gun course? Its not as intense as you are suggesting.

I am praying that the training the receive is more intense than whateve people have to take now in order to get a PAL or whatever they call it to carry and use a handgun. Even now when all they have is pepper spray and batons, there is a lot of training on when and how to use their force. There ought to be similar though much more intense training for using handguns in their line of work. Now their role would officially be to defend the border rather than to defend themselves.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

I do not believe that having an armed border will stop these dangerious people from crossing the border, I do believe that it will stop them from entering legally at the border crossing. If they want into Canada they will find a way in, and really it is not that hard to get accross the border with out the guards knowing, especially in B.C.
I lived in Creston and my back yard litterly ended at the Canada\U.S. border. I could see houses out my back window and they were American. I could easily walk or drive accross the field to them and then keep going and no one would know the differance.

I went to elementary school and junior high in a town where the edge of the playground was the 49th parallel. People walked across their quite often. In fact, a border jumper was caught hiding in our library at one point. I know how you feel.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I am praying that the training the receive is more intense than whateve people have to take now in order to get a PAL or whatever they call it to carry and use a handgun. Even now when all they have is pepper spray and batons, there is a lot of training on when and how to use their force. There ought to be similar though much more intense training for using handguns in their line of work. Now their role would officially be to defend the border rather than to defend themselves.

Most of the time government agents when carrying a firearm, will be certified to use it.

I also hope that the training they receive is properly checked, and when completed, the agents know how to use a handgun properly.

Will that happen? Do we trust government discretion in such situations?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Azure

Most of the time government agents when carrying a firearm, will be certified to use it.

I also hope that the training they receive is properly checked, and when completed, the agents know how to use a handgun properly.

Will that happen? Do we trust government discretion in such situations?

See, I think this goes to a point I tried to make above but wasn't very clear.

Customs officers are treated by their employer as more akin to bank tellers than law enforcement agents. Customs officers would probably like to be treated more like law enforcement agents since some of their duties (such as arresting smugglers and enforcing the 4 million statutes they claim to enforce) no doubt fall within that category. Demanding to be properly armed and trained to do their job makes sense. Thus the union stance. I question the need to walk off the job so often now but I digress...

Changing from a customs officer to a border guard will require a paradigm shift. The way Customs uses force now is different from how police officers do. For the most part, force is used to control a subject during a lawful arrest or as self-defence. Disengaging when things get too dangerous is hammered into their psyche. A police officer doesn't have the luxury of disengaging. If they are doing their thing, they can't let the culprit win and will, when necessary, shoot the bad guy.

Such a shift will require, in my opinion, more than merely a new gun license and some shooting lessons. It should mean that the standards used for selecting border guards should be raised commensurate with the expectation of a higher level of skill and responsibility in the job. In no way do I mean to disparage current customs officers but I believe there are a lot of them out there that should not be allowed to meet this higher standard.

If that's the case, then you'll have a pile of officers no longer qualified to do their job and a number of spaces that need to be filled by uber-qualified individuals. You can shift those other officers around all you want but I'm not sure there are enough spaces for them. And on top of that the employer will have to deal with the Union response to suddenly having a bunch of its members out of work.

Filling the spots with uber-qualified people will put CBSA in competition with police agencies across the country. Ask the RCMP and CPS how easy it is to attract, train and retain qualified individuals.

So what would the cheap and easy solution to this be? Lower the standards. If this were to occur you would have a group of workers who potentially don't past muster carrying guns trying to do a job that they probably aren't qualified for. Not cool.