Talk:Canada Border Services Agency
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Start class until there are some references, I'm afraid--SGGH 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Building the CBSA page
The CBSA entry has been pathetically small forever. I've decided to try and build it up, but it's a pretty big job. In comparison to the RCMP entry, this thing is laughable. But, considering that it is the second-biggest law enforcement agency in Canada, it needs to be better.
I work for the CFIA, and am having a dickens of a time including the CFIA logo because of copyright issues. How were you able to use the CBSA seal? Did you need to get special permission? NCL75 (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to help out with the rebuild is more than welcome. I'm not sure that how I've formatted it is all that great, but it will do for now. It needs information thrown in and categorized, and then we can figure out how to format it. It should also spawn the creation of several new pages which don't yet exist, including:
- Integrated Border Enforcement Team
- Border Services Officer
I will add more as I come across them.
The article needs some images, such as the logo, etc. It could also use a section of the rank insignias, which some military pages have. Basically there's a whole lot to be done here.
(10 Sep 2006 1646GMT) - Rank insignias? What rank insignias? Superintendent 2 stripes, chief 3 stripes :).
- Rigaud facilitators have 1 1/2 stripes, there's something above a Chief that has 4 stripes.
The Border Services Officer page has been created, but is bare bones. I'm working on an IBET page. Addin some US info to it would be great once it's up. I've also categorized and cross-linked to more related pages. Cfish039
I wish to add a clarification to the article which states:
"The intensity of an examination depends on the reasonable grounds that the officer has to escalate the intensiveness of a search."
This statement is specific only to the subject of searches of the person (section 98 of the customs act.) Reasonable grounds are neccesary to justify the need for compelling the traveller to disrobe or submit to more invasive procedures.
It should be noted that examination of purses and wallets, and the pockets of coats and pants etc do not require such grounds. Furthermore, in the event that a traveller is detained or arrested, a very thorough "frisk" is reasonable to ensure there are no weapons or other threats to the officer's safety.
Reasonable grounds are also not required for the examination of any sort of goods or conveyances (vehicles), to whatever depth the officer feels is required accomplish his duty. Based on the principal that a soverign nation has the right to control all goods entering its borders, the freedom to inspect objects is essentially unlimited. - Observer94
- Yes and no. Reasonable grounds are more stringent under section 98, but under section 99 there are still limitations. The CBSA is still limited by the Charter, particularly sections 8, 9 and 10. Unreasonable search and seizure, and arbitrary arrest and detention still apply. There is a grey area where a regular customs examination turns into a detention. In particular, this comes into play when BSOs are enforcing the Criminal Code. They must, for example, have RPGs to arrest for impaired driving and reasonable suspicion to demand a sample of a person's breath. There's no carte blanche in play. It is simply less stringent.
Immigration to Canada
This section, in my opinion needs serious work. The statistics quoted are out of date (end of 2003) and the end of the second paragraph hardly makes any sense:
"There are very few illegal immigrants who enter the country without first being admitted by the CBSA. The reason for this is that Canada is physically very difficult to get to, with the exception of crossing the Canada/U.S. border. As the U.S. is itself a prime destination for illegal immigrants, not many illegal immigrants then attempt to cross the border into Canada in the wild. This differs significantly from the illegal immigration patterns in the U.S., which stem from illegal border crossings."
I am not sure what this section should contain as the article is about the CBSA. It might contain the role of CBSA in Canada's immigration process which is primary determination of admissibility at the port of entry as well as detention, and removal of inadmissible persons. These duties were taken over from Citizenship and Immigration Candada. Gordon Bonnar 00:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
CBSA agency is part of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), a union that also promotes social justice, gender and racial equality. The fact that they include a partially-armed force such as CBSA could be considered contradictory (perhaps disgraceful).Opusv5 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the Canada Border Services Agency the ONLY agency performing checks on Canadian borders? I was told (don't know how true it was) that the RCMP were doing checks on borders as well but mainly secondary ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Border checks (ie. Passport/Cargo), etc are done by BSOs from CBSA. I don't think RCMP are involved unless there's a threat beyond what CBSA can handle.--Cahk (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
CBSA has a long history of discriminating against gays.. someone should add a blurb about that. Lots of court cases/etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Info about entry compliant issues....
Insert non-formatted text here== CBSA shoulder patch ==
Is the uniform should patch currently depicted out of date? It doesn't look like it matches the new heraldic devices unveiled in July this year. However, I haven't been able to find an image of the new patch so I'm proposing that we take it out for now, unless of course I'm mistaken. Any thoughts? Jagislaqroo (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a digital photo of the new shoulder I do not know how to change it on this site, u can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I can send to someone who does know how to
NPOV: "Recent successes"
I have flagged this article for NPOV issues because of its section headed "Recent successes". The title of this section alone makes a value judgment on the operations it describes, and the absence of a corresponding section for recent "failures" seems biased. This leaves at least some of this page looking like a self-congratulatory press release rather than a neutral article. I'm not in a position to judge the notability of the events described in the "Recent successes" section, but if they are not particularly notable, then simply removing this section could probably solve the NPOV issue. Otherwise the section may need to be retitled, reworded, and/or balanced with extra information on the agency's notable failures. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the absence of any discussion on the matter in the last three months, I have boldly removed the section on "recent successes". I did some rudimentary investigation and found that at least some of the material was posted in violation of copyright (i.e., copy-and-pasted directly from news wire releases). The other material wasn't sourced at all, and I couldn't find third-party sources establishing its notability. If anyone feels that this material should be restored it would be great if they could first provide citations. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)