You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Great White North
Canada rethinks policy of unarmed border guards
2006-02-20
The 100-mph car chase ended in a blaze of gunfire at the Peace Arch, the graceful marble monument that straddles the U.S.-Canada border here and proclaims the two nations to be "Children of a Common Mother."

As two murder suspects from California blew past the U.S. Customs station and raced north for the border, a deputy sheriff managed to ram their vehicle with his squad car, spinning it down an embankment and across a broad lawn between the two border stations before it came to a stop. The suspects fled on foot, and in the ensuing gunbattle one was wounded; in the end, they were captured.

While the Jan. 24 episode was by far the most dramatic encounter between fugitives and law-enforcement officers at the border in recent months, the reaction on the Canadian side unfolded along a standard — if contentious — script: The Canadian border guards walked off their posts.

Roughly a dozen times in the past four months, Canadian border guards, who unlike their U.S. counterparts are unarmed, have left their posts in response to reports of dangerous suspects heading north.

The walk-offs, spanning the border at posts from here to New York, have closed the crossings for periods ranging from a few minutes to several hours. In the most recent incident Feb. 10, traffic heading from Blaine into British Columbia was backed up for three hours after Canadian guards left their posts in response to a report that a murder suspect from the Seattle area might be headed their way. The alleged killer never materialized.

The tie-ups have been a source of major aggravation for motorists and minor diplomatic headaches. They became an issue in Canada's recent national elections, with the victorious Conservative government promising it would support arming the border guards, an idea backed by the union that represents them.

"Primarily this has been an image thing. We're a peaceful nation, with Canadians being proud of the fact that we don't greet people at the border crossings with someone who's armed," said Ron Moran, the union's president.

"But the reality is that we don't live in Mr. Rogers' neighborhood anymore," added Moran, whose 10,500-member, Ottawa-based group is officially known by its English-French bilingual name, the Customs Excise Union — Douanes Accise. "The reality is that our officers should be armed."

Whether the border officers should carry guns has been debated for years.

Officials of the Liberal Party, which was in charge until recently, generally opposed the idea. As then-Revenue Minister Martin Cauchon put it a few years ago: "Side arms would not reflect our image."
"I mean, here we are perfecting our Dhimmi profile and you want to go and ruin it?"

But Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed during his campaign to give "our customs and border guards the training and equipment they need, including side arms." Harper also said he would address guards' concerns about the solo shifts that some of them work at remote border crossings. U.S. border stations have two or more guards.

On Jan. 31, a guard with the Canada Border Service Agency refused to man his post in remote Roosville, B.C., after hearing reports about an armed and dangerous suspect who had evaded Montana authorities near Lone Pine State Park, about 60 miles south of the border.

Authorities in Flathead County, Mont., issued a bulletin saying the suspect possibly was heading north and had warned authorities that he wouldn't be captured alive. He was apprehended two days later, hiding in the bushes at a park in Kalispell, Mont.

The Canadian border post was reopened after a few hours when a nonunion management official took over. The location was so remote that only four trucks and one car were lined up on the U.S. side.

Management has stepped in during walk-offs by guards but not always with enough manpower to prevent tie-ups, as was the case in Blaine earlier this month. At that busy crossing, traffic was proceeding smoothly the other day. Canadian border guards on duty politely referred questions about the walk-offs to Paula Shore, a spokeswoman for the border services agency.

Shore said there had been "a bit of a slowdown" because of the ongoing dispute over whether guards should be armed. She said the guards, who are issued bulletproof vests and pepper spray, were exercising a legal right under Canadian law to leave a workplace they considered unsafe.

While the U.S. and Canada differ when it comes to side arms at the border, she said, "We all want the same thing: safety and security for our countries and their citizens."
I want a pony too.
No Canadian guard has been killed or shot in recent years by a fugitive crossing the border, Moran said. But several have had guns or knives pointed at them, and have had to follow Canadian procedure: Let the suspected criminals go by without confrontation, then call the Canadian Royal Mounted Police to give chase.
Also, don't forget to roll over and show your belly. Avert your head and don't look at the big guy - it might provoke him. or her. or them.

In the incident involving the California murder suspects, at least two Canadian guards left their posts after learning the fugitives were headed their way.

After Whatcom County sheriff's Deputy Stuart Smith spotted the suspects' car at a rest stop about five miles south of Blaine and attempted to arrest them, the pair sped off. Smith followed them to the end of Interstate 5, witnesses said.

"It was like something out of a movie," said Miguel Ramos, the owner of Paso del Norte, a Mexican restaurant a block or so from the U.S. border station. "These cars came screeching through here, there was a big crash" — Smith ramming the suspects' vehicle — "and then they ran off toward the Canadian side."

The shots that stopped them were fired by U.S. Customs and Border Protection inspectors, said Whatcom County Sheriff Bill Elfo. Elfo, a former Blaine police chief, said the incident was the most sensational border apprehension he could recall.

"You know they're not armed at the station across the border," Elfo said. "That's always a consideration" for U.S. law-enforcement personnel when they are deciding on a course of action during a pursuit.

Moran said members of his union were responding appropriately to the risk by walking off their posts until danger had passed.

"It's normal human behavior," he said. "It is strictly a question of these men and women wanting to make sure they get back to their families at the end of their shift."

No 'duty, honor, country' kinds of considerations, I guess. Sigh. Who doesn't want to get home safely to the family? But it truly isn't Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood at the moment and if Canada isn't part of the solution she's going to become more and more a part of the problem.
Posted by:lotp

#24  That I haven't forgotten Frank. I've always been pro-American and I suspect I always will be. And so will my family. A somewhat funny story... my father, whom I look after, is disabled and has trouble communicating due to aphasia. The morning of 9-11 he had no trouble communicating his anger at those assholes flying the planes into the buildings. Took me a while to convince him that the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan were on our side.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-02-20 23:54  

#23  fair enough - remember, Raphael - we are not your enemies. Carping relatives, yes, but even they have constructive suggestions sometimes .....
I would prefer that there be no need for armed guards in either direction at the US Canada border, but that's another 120 count thread :-)
Posted by: Frank G   2006-02-20 23:16  

#22  Rather than be sarcastic, perhaps you should lobby your own to adopt that stance, which is safer for the guards, and likely safer to crossers

I didn't vote Conservative on a whim. I hope they do get guns, for their sake, and particularly because they asked for them. But my contention has always been that this will not have any impact whatsoever on border security, perceived border security, expression of authority, or what have you.

BTW, it used to be, even before 9-11, that upon arrival at Toronto's international airport, on an overseas flight, that I always saw a Canadian soldier standing guard at the airport's border crossing. This shouldn't be, if American perceptions of Canadian border policies are correct.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-02-20 23:10  

#21  State cops in the U.S. are comparable to the RCMP as we perceive the Mounties - I don't pretend to really know how the Mounties operate.

Canada also has the provincial police, which I think is more comparable to your state police than the RCMP. The RCMP is more like your FBI. In addition to the railway cops who do carry guns (CN Police). In other words, we're more alike than you seem to think.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-02-20 22:49  

#20  Agreed - however I find it strange that you consider your border guards NOT to be in the same category as law enforcement and firemen.

You would seriously put them in the same category? I'd say police officers and fire fighters have an nth degree more dangerous job than a guard at a border crossing, who generally doesn't need to worry about not coming home one day. I guess I find it equally perplexing that you seem to think that not having a gun means being completely devoid of authority, but that's the heart of our differences, I guess.

I understand your sensitivity on this issue. I wonder if you understand the frustration many of us have with what sometimes appears to be rather ... casual ... concern for the border and who comes across it (in either direction).

That's because there isn't a problem at our common border. I don't understand your concern. Who do you think comes across our common border? Illegal Mexicans? Chinese? Cubans? The vast majority are Canadian and US citizens. If it happens that someone has false identity papers, then that's not really a border guard issue is it? Your concerns are misplaced.

Perhaps my comments in the article were unfair. But the image of (admittedly ill-equipped) guards leaving their posts rather than serving with courage is a better fit than I would like for what seems to be Canada's stance these last few years with regard to wider threats.

First of all, that was done as a protest. Secondly, you can only claim bravado because your guards are armed. Thirdly, your image of a Canada without courage seems to contradict facts, given that our comparatively ill-equipped troops are at this very moment serving in Afghanistan alongside your top-of-the-line military.

I suspect what you were really after is just another excuse at good old fashioned Canada bashing. The least you could do is to be honest about it.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-02-20 22:36  

#19  Rafael - I can't speak for every state, but in most U.S. states, the highway patrol (state police) officers usually are considered more that just "regular" cops. They patrol isolated highways alone, with any backup quite a distance away in case of trouble. (Unlike local cops, who have backup a few streets away.) And if a local police department has a problem or possible conflict of interest, the highway patrol/state police investigates. In most cases, they are (at least considered) supercops.

Think Texas Rangers - "one riot, one ranger."

State cops in the U.S. are comparable to the RCMP as we perceive the Mounties - I don't pretend to really know how the Mounties operate.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-02-20 22:05  

#18  above and beyond, Raphael (your ill-humor/sarcasm is beneath you). They are on extended patrols without backup nearby, and can count only on their own skills/equipment. Rather than be sarcastic, perhaps you should lobby your own to adopt that stance, which is safer for the guards, and likely safer to crossers
Posted by: Frank G   2006-02-20 21:55  

#17  The Highway Patrol works for the State. "Cops" as most people use the term, work for cities. The Crips & Bloods work for, um, well, heh...
Posted by: .com   2006-02-20 21:54  

#16  we issue that and more to our highway patrol officers.

You mean highway patrol officers in your country aren't regular cops? Wow.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-02-20 21:50  

#15  And please don't mention firemen,policemen etc, because that's not what that law is about.

Agreed - however I find it strange that you consider your border guards NOT to be in the same category as law enforcement and firemen.

I understand your sensitivity on this issue. I wonder if you understand the frustration many of us have with what sometimes appears to be rather ... casual ... concern for the border and who comes across it (in either direction).

Perhaps my comments in the article were unfair. But the image of (admittedly ill-equipped) guards leaving their posts rather than serving with courage is a better fit than I would like for what seems to be Canada's stance these last few years with regard to wider threats.
Posted by: lotp   2006-02-20 21:43  

#14  Okay, but what if they hold passports from 12 countries? The guards, I mean. I'm just askin...
Posted by: .com   2006-02-20 21:40  

#13  mall security here does not carry guns in almost ALL cases. Mace, yes, radio, yes. It's not the prevalence of guns...it's the authority attitude
Posted by: Frank G   2006-02-20 21:36  

#12  We south of the border often refer to people who perform the job of 'guard' as someone usually armed. On the other hand we refer to someone not armed at a point of transit as an 'observer' or a 'ticker puncher'.

That's because every Tom, Dick and Harry in your country can have a gun. I'm not knocking that but it'd be kind of stupid if a guard in your country didn't have a weapon of some sort with that kind of saturation of guns. Canada is still in the situation where we can get away with the average mall security guard not requiring a gun (though we are getting close to the breaking point).
Posted by: Rafael   2006-02-20 21:34  

#11  "Canadians being proud of the fact that we don't greet people at the border crossings with someone who's armed"
Yep, overdressed receptionists. But it's not the "guards" fault -- it's their pathetic government.
Posted by: Darrell   2006-02-20 21:28  

#10  I wouldn't take a job that required me to throw myself in front of a car...but that's just me, I guess...If you want a professional job that requires policing actions, don't take it without the tools of teh job: handcuffs, spike strips, a gun, bullets, a badge that means something....

jeebus, we issue that and more to our highway patrol officers. Don't ask someone to be a guard when you equip them like a f&*king turnstile!
Posted by: Frank G   2006-02-20 21:25  

#9  "You know they're not armed at the station across the border," Elfo said. "That's always a consideration" for U.S. law-enforcement personnel when they are deciding on a course of action during a pursuit.

It's always refreshing to see someone's got more than an ounce of common sense.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-02-20 21:23  

#8  And you, Frank, would do what? Throw yourself in front of the car?
Posted by: Rafael   2006-02-20 21:20  

#7  No 'duty, honor, country' kinds of considerations, I guess. Sigh. Who doesn't want to get home safely to the family? But it truly isn't Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood at the moment and if Canada isn't part of the solution she's going to become more and more a part of the problem.

Typical American overreaction. Misses the point completely. Armed guards won't do much for border security, or your security for that matter.

Sorry, I have to vent because that "No 'duty, honor, country' kinds of considerations" is kinda over the top. I guess by the same reasoning the London Bobbies don't have a sense of duty, honor, and country kinds of considerations. What bile.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-02-20 21:18  

#6  well, I would say a "guard" who leaves his post when things get dangerous is actually an overdressed "receptionist"
Posted by: Frank G   2006-02-20 21:16  

#5  exercising a legal right under Canadian law to leave a workplace they considered unsafe

I don't understand why you had to put that in bold. Why is that law so strange? All it means is that if an employee finds his work conditions unsafe, then the employer can't fire the worker for refusing to work if indeed the work conditions turn out to be unsafe (by law, common sense, or whatever). Don't you have protections like this in the US? You mean that a power line worker in the US can be fired for refusing to climb a pole in a lightning storm??? Now that's weird.

And please don't mention firemen,policemen etc, because that's not what that law is about.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-02-20 21:04  

#4  Its like other aspects of the English language employed by the various former colonies of the Mother tongue. We south of the border often refer to people who perform the job of 'guard' as someone usually armed. On the other hand we refer to someone not armed at a point of transit as an 'observer' or a 'ticker puncher'.
Posted by: Angaith Grerens9024   2006-02-20 16:37  

#3  Kanuckistan is part of the problem.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-02-20 15:39  

#2  
"But the reality is that we don't live in Mr. Rogers' neighborhood anymore," added moron Moran
You never did, Delbert - you just liked to pretend while we did all the heavy lifting. As usual.

Nothing to see here - move along....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-02-20 15:37  

#1  Well, I suspect that if the guards were armed and one of them did shoot a crook, he'd find himself on trial for "excessive force" or some such. In that case, why bother?
Posted by: Jackal   2006-02-20 08:54  

00:00