Canada’s Border - Providing Guns but Not Training Doesn’t Make Sense

The Montreal Gazette ran a story on the Conservatives’ plan to arm border guards and the response from the Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland. He’s quoted as saying:

"When you take a look at the fact that there hasn't been any instance that has been documented where a gun would have been helpful to a border agent, it seems that throwing guns into the mix could create some serious problems,"

I think Mr. Holland should maybe talk to the officers working in Manitoba when a man driving a van carrying weapons, ammunition, and fuel ran the border. Or maybe the officers in Ontario who had a similar situation with an American “accidentally” driving into Canada. Our officers deal with real border issues and should have the same level of personal protection as other law enforcement.

But the article raises some real concerns, ones that are more troubling than what Mr. Holland or the members of the Mohawks at Akwesasne, who are against the arming, are saying. No, the bigger concern for me is in the details of how this arming is going to be carried out.

There are 4,800 border guards and it will take until 2016 to outfit them all with 9mm Berettas. There are only 850 guards that have been armed so far(the article doesn’t mention when this program began). At first glance this might seem like too long a time to perform the work needed. I question whether its too short.

The union representing the border guards is mentioned in the article as being critical of the government because they’re only supplying three weeks of training in firearms. Comparatively, RCMP officers receive sixteen weeks. Out of those that have been trained, one in five guards can’t shoot straight according to the union.

There’s also concern about the number of reports filed when weapons are used. Last year it was found that in half the cases where border guards pulled their weapons, reports were incomplete. Considering the findings of a recent CBSA internal review, this is not adding to the public confidence in its operation.

The issue, for me anyway, isn’t whether arming our border guards will make our border safer. It won’t. It will, however, give our border officers who are on the front lines the ability to defend themselves when required; I see nothing wrong with this for law enforcement.

The bigger issue for me is why our border guards seem to be treated as second class law enforcement compared to organizations like the RCMP. If we’re going to commit to arming our officers we have a duty to ensure they receive the proper training in the equipment given to them.

We also need to ensure that procedures and policies are carried out and not just optionally followed as it seems so many in the CBSA are currently doing.

The Conservatives’ plan is a good idea, but we need to see more details in how this will be carried out and what we’re really trying to solve here to ensure that we’re thinking of Canada first and not, as the article suggests, simply pandering to the US to show we’re in line with their current border view.