 |
|
|
|
||
|
CEUDA to
Government:
protect our borders, AUG 17 2005 (see Talking Points, and Q's & A's below) - Canadians learned yesterday from the National Post and Journal de Montreal there are serious shortfalls with the way the Customs lookout database is managed. It routinely fails to let Customs Officers know when they are dealing with individuals which other law enforcement agencies consider armed and dangerous, violent or a terrorist. Ron Moran, National President of the Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise (CEUDA), representing 10,500 members, more than 5,000 of whom are Customs Officers that include Canada’s uniformed Officers working on the front-lines, as well as the Investigation, Intelligence, and Trade Customs Officers, says “Canada Customs have guidelines that make it optional whether or not someone considered violent, armed and dangerous, or as having terrorist ties, will be recorded as such in the Customs lookout database. More often than not, those guidelines are used in a way that prevents Customs Officers from knowing they’re dealing with someone dangerous, which unjustly places them at risk of grievous bodily harm and death.” Canadians will be shocked to learn that, because Customs Officers are not armed, Customs policy tells them not to deal with dangerous people but to instead release them and permit their entry into Canada where local police can hopefully find them thereafter. Police are supposed to then find and arrest them. Moran adds “Perhaps the only thing more foolish than withholding dangerous person status information from Customs Officers is telling them that should they actually discover one, to let them freely enter Canada. This is nothing short of irresponsible negligence where front-line Customs Officers and Canadians are needlessly put at risk. “ “On that issue and in support of public security,” Moran says, “we’ve made repeated calls for Customs management to provide evidence that armed and dangerous people sent up the road by Customs Officers have indeed been caught by police and brought back for Customs and Immigration processing.” Unfortunately, the only evidence on record was provided by CBSA’s President at the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Public Safety and National Security in February 2005, when he indicated that in his view, there’s no problem. A CEUDA request under Access to Information for such evidence recently revealed that there is a problem. The August 9, 2005, letter from CBSA’s ATIP Director reads: “Please be advised that officials of the CBSA have advised that there is no information available that is responsive to your request. We have been informed that statistics of this nature are not captured in HQ or the Regional offices.” Once again, CBSA seems to have an aversion to the truth. Moran concludes, “Just so Canadians get this straight, Customs doesn’t tell Officers who’s armed and dangerous, a Customs policy tells Officers to let dangerous people into Canada, and to cap it all off there’s absolutely no record keeping of how many dangerous people released up the road are caught by police and brought back for processing.” These kinds of serious problems with border security are the driving force why CEUDA has commissioned the Northgate Group to carry out a nation-wide, professional study and risk analysis pertaining to whether or not Customs Officers require sidearms. - 30 -
Talking points Unfortunately, CBSA … the Government of Canada … has refused permission for CEUDA to have this study undertaken on site at the border crossings and ports of entry to Canada. As disappointed as I am, like many of you familiar with the CBSA and border security in Canada, I’m really not surprised. CBSA has a long history of not being candid with its employees or Canadians when it comes to border security. In fact, not more than three months ago, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence revealed that CBSA had altered … and that’s their word, not mine … a supposedly independent report that recommended an armed presence at the border. Although this recommendation was in the original report, without telling anyone CBSA deleted that part and pretended it had never been made. Thanks to Senator Kenny and his Committee, that is now a matter of public record. Yesterday, members of the media reported on the incredible state of affairs that our members … front line officers screening the entry of persons into Canada … are not provided information about persons considered armed and dangerous, subject to domestic criminal arrest warrants, or war criminal deportee orders. As incredible as it is almost four years after 9/11, they also don’t have information about wanted terrorists. I understand one Member of Parliament who was asked about this said that the only thing more stupid would be to willfully let dangerous people into Canada. Unfortunately, that is exactly what CBSA directs our members to do. I suspect Canadians will be shocked and outraged to learn that CBSA policy requires our officers to withdraw from situations they perceive as threatening … including dealing with persons they believe to be armed and dangerous … and to let them enter Canada where hopefully local police miles away can somehow find them. CEUDA believes our members deserve better than this and that Canadians do too. Getting the straight goods on these kinds of situations was also why we commissioned this review and why we will continue to find ways to ensure our officers’ voices will be heard. I’ll be glad to take your questions.
Q's & A's A1. We have instructed Northgate to continue to attempt to complete on site visits and we’re hopeful some managers value officer and public safety above bureaucratic cover-ups. Additionally, we will make off-site-off-hour arrangements at various sites to be visited to ensure the people who do this job have a voice. I should add that Northgate has already compiled a wealth of information relevant to the subject including evidence given before Parliamentary Committees, OSH reports and cases and a detailed, objective analysis of the original data gathered that the government tried to suppress. Q2. Isn’t this all just about getting your members guns? A2. Obviously, ensuring our members are properly equipped to do the job to which they are duty bound is our goal. It’s also the law, by the way, pursuant to Part II of the Canada Labour Code. What we want to ensure however is that this study is based on fact not fiction and not head in the sand posturing that ignores the reality of the law enforcement focus which is reality ... or should be at our border. CBSA seems to think Canadians want the border to be a place where government collects more duty instead of a place where government keeps criminals, terrorists and guns out of country. We remain confident CBSA is wrong and that when we get the truth, Canadians will insist on protection not platitudes. Q3. Why do you think the government refused to allow the visits? A3. Other than hiding the truth you mean? Seriously, that is a very good question, but you should ask Anne McLellan not me. While you’re at it why don’t you ask her why our officers don’t know who the criminals, terrorists and criminal deportees are. Or, why she insists we just let dangerous people into Canada? Or why CBSA doesn’t keep track of dangerous persons Customs Officers have had to let into Canada? All good questions that deserve HONEST answers! |
