Topic: Commissionaires

[Chief Stoker]

I know the Commisionaires was started as a place where ex military personnel could get employment after their service and to that end they did very well.  It seems that more and more often that the level of professionalism they display is dropping off. For instance in Halifax at the gates the level of professionalism is pretty bad and i'v been vocal to them at this.  I know that they are not military anymore and more often enough their military ties are questionable however I think they need to display themselves better especially at the gates.
I would love to see a more professional force take over the gates at bases, perhaps even MP's.
Do anybody notice this or am I out on a limb?





edited to correct the wrong spelling of the title

[Sythen]

I recently got hired as a Commissionaire. Complain to the manager on duty, not the person messing up.

their military ties are questionable however

In order to maintain certain perks, they must have 65% of their workforce being veterans.

[Chief Stoker]

I recently got hired as a Commissionaire. Complain to the manager on duty, not the person messing up.

In order to maintain certain perks, they must have 65% of their workforce being veterans.

I have complained and the same kind of stuff is still happening, perhaps its time to bring in a more squared away company to look after gate guard duties and so forth. I'm not convinced the commisionaires are completely up to the task. I know some are but alot are not.

[CountDC]

follow it up the chain.  They have one the same as we do.  You could also submit your concerns to the base chief (although he may want to inspect you first  )

[jollyjacktar]

follow it up the chain.  They have one the same as we do.  You could also submit your concerns to the base chief (although he may want to inspect you first  )

They work for the Naval Provost Marshall here in Hfx, or the Base Security Officer at other locations.  If you have a problem, let the MP's know and they will see it sorted out.

[Ex-Dragoon]

It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.

[NSDreamer]

It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.

 /Thread derail

 Do you think that security at the dockyards/Stadacona will increase in future years as they begin building the new ships?

[Chief Stoker]

It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.

I agree. In the US, a lot of the navy and coast guard bases have uniformed armed security forces that handle gate duties. I personally think Canadian bases should have something more than the commissionaires.

[CDN Aviator]

something more than the commissionaires.

Beyond a clipboard and a sharp pencil, what more do we need ?

 

[jollyjacktar]

/Thread derail

 Do you think that security at the dockyards/Stadacona will increase in future years as they begin building the new ships?

Where did they go? Or were they cut back with the Reserve cutbacks?

[garb811]

I have complained and the same kind of stuff is still happening, perhaps its time to bring in a more squared away company to look after gate guard duties and so forth. I'm not convinced the commisionaires are completely up to the task. I know some are but alot are not.

The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up. Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it.  Some places I have been at, it has been horrendous.  One place the Corps did not have enough personnel to fill all the contracts so rather than let the position go to another security company, they had their pers take "leave" from established positions in order to have them work the temporary post they didn't want to admit they couldn't fill.

One other point.  The Commissionaires do not "work" for anyone in the military chain, including MPs. They are contractors who are contracted to provide a service.  It is up to them to provide the service within the terms of the contract they are hired via.  The best we can do, even when someone is obviously unsuited to the job, is to file a complaint with the site manager and request they member be removed from post.  While this normally happens, it is not unheard of for that individual to reappear doing another job several months on...

[Chief Stoker]

Where did they go? Or were they cut back with the Reserve cutbacks?

The gate guard went sometime ago due to funding. There is still force protection water born though.

[Chief Stoker]

Beyond a clipboard and a sharp pencil, what more do we need ?

 

Perhaps a sharp wit?

[Baden Guy]

The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up. Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it.  Some places I have been at, it has been horrendous.  One place the Corps did not have enough personnel to fill all the contracts so rather than let the position go to another security company, they had their pers take "leave" from established positions in order to have them work the temporary post they didn't want to admit they couldn't fill.

One other point.  The Commissionaires do not "work" for anyone in the military chain, including MPs. They are contractors who are contracted to provide a service.  It is up to them to provide the service within the terms of the contract they are hired via.  The best we can do, even when someone is obviously unsuited to the job, is to file a complaint with the site manager and request they member be removed from post.  While this normally happens, it is not unheard of for that individual to reappear doing another job several months on...

Not an expert on this but my story applies to Pearson Int. airport. My understanding is the reason the Commissionaires do not work inside the airport is they were underbid by a private security firm. Hence they are outside doing traffic control.
Ialso recall a hospital where again the Commissionaires were underbid by a private firm.

[Chief Stoker]

The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up. Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it.  Some places I have been at, it has been horrendous.  One place the Corps did not have enough personnel to fill all the contracts so rather than let the position go to another security company, they had their pers take "leave" from established positions in order to have them work the temporary post they didn't want to admit they couldn't fill.

One other point.  The Commissionaires do not "work" for anyone in the military chain, including MPs. They are contractors who are contracted to provide a service.  It is up to them to provide the service within the terms of the contract they are hired via.  The best we can do, even when someone is obviously unsuited to the job, is to file a complaint with the site manager and request they member be removed from post.  While this normally happens, it is not unheard of for that individual to reappear doing another job several months on...

That's very interesting not too shabby having a monopoly. I personally seen Commissionaires asleep in their shacks as well. That also explains how just about anyone can now work for them as well.

[CDN Aviator]

Perhaps a sharp wit?

Would be better than the shitty attitude at many locations.

[Nemo888]

I think most only make 27k a year. You won't get much for that.  Put a layer of real security covertly behind them. Too much visible security attracts attention. 

[Occam]

Note I do not say "unable" as, in my experience, they will fill the post with someone on life support before they admit they can't fill it. 

I think I've met him, actually.....   

The Corps of Commissionaires has right of first refusal on security contracts so in order for a "company" to be brought in, they would need to be "unwilling" to fill the positions and pass on the call up.

As someone very new to the procurement world, I take this to mean that the Commissionaires have a Standing Offer for security services.  If there are other security services who have provided Standing Offers, wouldn't a right of first refusal constitute sole sourcing?

[CDN Aviator]

I take this to mean that the Commissionaires have a Standing Offer for security services. 

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/biens-property/sngp-npms/bi-rp/tech/scrt-eng.html

Under the National Master Standing Offer (NMSO) for Commissionaire Services, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires has the right of first refusal for security guard contracts with the federal government. The responsibility of contracting with the Corps falls to PWGSC, which is recognized by the Treasury Board as the contracting authority for commissionaire services required by federal departments and agencies. If the Corps declines a call-up against the NMSO, PWGSC may initiate a call-up against standing offer from a private security agency.

[Crantor]

Funny story.  But made me angry at the time.  In our armouries I came in and needed keys to a room.  The commissionaire on duty was not the regular one.  So I was asked for I.D.  She looked at it and it all checked out.  except she didn't check to see if I was on the access list (I was).  I called her on that saying that my ID alone shouldn't get me access, she should look at the frikking list.  So once that was done, I need key A.  So I signed for key A and went to unlock the room only to find out she had given me key B.  So I go back to her and say ui was given the wrong key.  No problem she says.  Just sign back in key B to get key A.  I told her I hadn't signed for key B and we could just swap keys.  Nope.  I had to sign back in key B which I hadn't signed out.  Until I did, no key A would be given to me.  This time I was getting somewhat annoyed.  I explained that she could just give me key A because I had actually signed that one out and could just take key B back.  Nope.  Dosen't work that way she said.  I realised that logic wasn't going to work.  So I put it to her like this.  Had someone signed for key A?  Yes.  Me.  is that key in the press?  Yes it was.  So i said I would sign key A back in thus accounting for that key.  No problem right?  Good.  Then i asked her if someone had signed out key B.  No one had.  I asked her if it was in the press.  She said no.  I pointed out i could just leave now without her having any record of me having key B or even giving me key B since key A was what I signed for and apparently returned.  At this point the hamster started spinning the wheel in her head and suggested we just swap keys...sigh.  Felt like a "who's on first" routine.

[jasonf6]

Funny story.  But made me angry at the time.  In our armouries I came in and needed keys to a room.  The commissionaire on duty was not the regular one.  So I was asked for I.D.  She looked at it and it all checked out.  except she didn't check to see if I was on the access list (I was).  I called her on that saying that my ID alone shouldn't get me access, she should look at the frikking list.  So once that was done, I need key A.  So I signed for key A and went to unlock the room only to find out she had given me key B.  So I go back to her and say ui was given the wrong key.  No problem she says.  Just sign back in key B to get key A.  I told her I hadn't signed for key B and we could just swap keys.  Nope.  I had to sign back in key B which I hadn't signed out.  Until I did, no key A would be given to me.  This time I was getting somewhat annoyed.  I explained that she could just give me key A because I had actually signed that one out and could just take key B back.  Nope.  Dosen't work that way she said.  I realised that logic wasn't going to work.  So I put it to her like this.  Had someone signed for key A?  Yes.  Me.  is that key in the press?  Yes it was.  So i said I would sign key A back in thus accounting for that key.  No problem right?  Good.  Then i asked her if someone had signed out key B.  No one had.  I asked her if it was in the press.  She said no.  I pointed out i could just leave now without her having any record of me having key B or even giving me key B since key A was what I signed for and apparently returned.  At this point the hamster started spinning the wheel in her head and suggested we just swap keys...sigh.  Felt like a "who's on first" routine.

Ouch man, that would definitely try my patience.  Bravo for not losing your cool.

[Pusser]

It looked more professional back when we had the Force Protection teams on the gates for the Dockyard.

Really?  In Esquimalt anyway, they scrambled to find people to put there as fast as they could after 9/11.  When I saw one guy on the gate, my first thought was, "who gave the band guns?"  Shortly after that I was on a C7 Refresher course with someone who hadn't the first clue which end was which on the rifle (somebody had to dismantle it for her) and who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (she failed to qualify).  She also seemed to be very nervous with the weapon, almost afraid of it.  I saw her on the gate two days later, weapon in hand.

[Chief Stoker]

Really?  In Esquimalt anyway, they scrambled to find people to put there as fast as they could after 9/11.  When I saw one guy on the gate, my first thought was, "who gave the band guns?"  Shortly after that I was on a C7 Refresher course with someone who hadn't the first clue which end was which on the rifle (somebody had to dismantle it for her) and who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (she failed to qualify).  She also seemed to be very nervous with the weapon, almost afraid of it.  I saw her on the gate two days later, weapon in hand.

That explains the amount of negligent discharge charges on both coasts. Out here the gates were staffed by personnel were kicked off the ship for various reasons.

[Tank Troll]

/Thread derail

 Do you think that security at the dockyards/Stadacona will increase in future years as they begin building the new ships?

Ummmm .... The new Ships are going to be built at the Irving dockyard (civi) Not the Navy dockyard or in Stadacona

[Halifax Tar]

Really?  In Esquimalt anyway, they scrambled to find people to put there as fast as they could after 9/11.  When I saw one guy on the gate, my first thought was, "who gave the band guns?"  Shortly after that I was on a C7 Refresher course with someone who hadn't the first clue which end was which on the rifle (somebody had to dismantle it for her) and who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (she failed to qualify).  She also seemed to be very nervous with the weapon, almost afraid of it.  I saw her on the gate two days later, weapon in hand.

Another reason why I think weapons proficiency and handling should carry as much weight on a PER as the PT test.

[Tank Troll]

 

[ObedientiaZelum]

Commissionaires at CFB Borden impressed me.

Driving rain 9pm at night, quite cold and they were standing out in rain suits with a flashlight checking ID to get on the base.

[jasonf6]

Another reason why I think weapons proficiency and handling should carry as much weight on a PER as the PT test.

[PMedMoe]

Yeah, because the PT test carries so much weight on the PER.     You're better off being bilingual.

Did it ever occur to you that some people don't handle weapons all the time, or hardly ever?  We were lucky if we got to fire once a year, even in a Bde.  I'm not ashamed to admit, I suck with the 9mm.  I can count on (less than) both hands how many times I've fired it over 22 years and on less than one hand, how many times I've actually been tested on it.

Should she have been on the front gate with a loaded weapon?  No.  Should she be ridiculed for something that may have not been in her control?  No.

Esquimalt.  A Navy Base.  What trade was she?  I'm going to guess Clerk or Supply or something like that.

But I digress......

[Halifax Tar]

Yeah, because the PT test carries so much weight on the PER.     You're better off being bilingual.

You cant be promoted if you dont pass a PT test. Linguistic ability is good but a lack of it wont hold you back.

The ability for all CF personel to employ, with safety, the service rifle is just as important as being able to run 10K.

I come from a Navy base (originally) and I am a Sup Tech and I managed to qualify yearly on the C7 every year.

[PMedMoe]

Hey I agree with you.  I just saying that it doesn't always happen that way.

[jasonf6]

You cant be promoted if you dont pass a PT test. Linguistic ability is good but a lack of it wont hold you back.

The ability for all CF personel to employ, with safety, the service rifle is just as important as being able to run 10K.

I come from a Navy base (originally) and I am a Sup Tech and I managed to qualify yearly on the C7 every year.

Gotta agree with Halifax on this one PMedMoe.  Regardless of trade you should be required to pass the PWT every year.  It's not really her failing as much as it is the systems.  And in today's military I'd be sad if every person didn't at least hit the ranges 2-3 times per year.

[PMedMoe]

It's not really her failing as much as it is the systems.

That's exactly my point.

And in today's military I'd be sad if every person didn't at least hit the ranges 2-3 times per year.

Well, you'd be sad then.  Some people just don't get that luxury.

[Tank Troll]

  And in today's military I'd be sad if every person didn't at least hit the ranges 2-3 times per year.

 

We are lucky,lucky to hit the range once year. let alone 2-3.

How ever there is no excuse for not having time for weapons handling.

[krustyrl]

I'm Air Force and it's been almost 4 yrs since I last C7 qualified and even when I did that I was one of tw0 who 's last range qual was ....ahem ....FNC1A1.!  C7 qual was driven only due to the fact I was on WASF.

YUP.!!


 

[startbutton]

Commissionaires at CFB Borden impressed me.

Driving rain 9pm at night, quite cold and they were standing out in rain suits with a flashlight checking ID to get on the base.

Not anymore. They only check on commerical vehicles entering the base and civi vehs from 2300 to 0600. They haven't been doing it for awhile and I think word got out to the locals because it seems traffic has been growing on the base

[PMedMoe]

How ever there is no excuse for not having time for weapons handling.

How about lack of weapons?  Like krustyrl, I remember the FNC1.  I was on an air force base when I first joined the CF and I only qualified on weapons once in my three year posting there.  And only because I was on the Base Defence Force.

[jollyjacktar]

It all depends upon which unit you are with as well.  I was posted to FMFCS for a time.  They don't require it due to the nature of their work and it's being a non-operational unit to keep your qualifications current.  Once I returned to the fleet, I re-qualified.  Simple as that. 

[CDN Aviator]

How ever there is no excuse for not having time for weapons handling.

There may be "no excuse", as you say, but i can think of several "reasons".

[RDJP]

An "excuse" may very well be a good "reason", especially if you, yourself, are not aware of all the factors involved.

[mariomike]

I think most only make 27k a year. You won't get much for that. 

Out of curiosity, I compared a couple of job calls online. Their pay does not seem competitive with corporate security.

[Kokanee]

IMHO the CF needs to cut the commissionaires loose. They provide only the illusion of security, are not accountable in any way to the military CoC where they work, and are an expense we can't afford ATM with the austerity measures we need to conform to WRT budget concerns.

I wouldn't mind pulling a duty @ the front desk of my Unit every two months or so if it meant we could toss them out, heck for once Unit security SOPs and positive control of access to bldgs/restricted areas might actually be enforced. 

[Nemo888]

But the Commissionaires provide work to Vets who often do not have other options. Many soldiers leave the Army too beat up to do most jobs. Bad knees, shoulders, PTSD, etc. We should look after our own.

[CDN Aviator]

But the Commissionaires provide work to Vets who often do not have other options. Many soldiers leave the Army too beat up to do most jobs. Bad knees, shoulders, PTSD, etc. We should look after our own.

That doesn't mean that the Commissionaires should be employed guarding the gate at CF installations. If you are "too beat up to do most jobs", you are too beat up to secure military installations.

[garb811]

...are an expense we can't afford ATM with the austerity measures we need to conform to WRT budget concerns.

The reason there are so many Cmre is because they are the cheapest option out of any available.  There's a reason that when budgets needed to be cut at certain bases who had Reservists manning gates in conjunction with the Cmre that the Cmre stayed and the Reservists went home.

I wouldn't mind pulling a duty @ the front desk of my Unit every two months or so if it meant we could toss them out, heck for once Unit security SOPs and positive control of access to bldgs/restricted areas might actually be enforced.

That might be easy for you to say if you only have 1 x Cmre post at your Duty Centre but the picture isn't as simple as that for everyone.  How do you propose to man all of the positions at a place such as Halifax?  If I recall correctly, there are well over 150 Cmre working posts in that location, most of which do not belong to a "unit" but which support MARLANT and it's lodger units as a whole (ie. gates to the Dockyard).  Where do those positions come from?  I'm sure the Fleet, which is already short sailors, would be more than happy to be told they need to pony up personnel to fill those positions.  How much more effective do you think a Bos'n is going to be while escorting a builidng repair contractor into the Dockyard than a Cmre when he has absolutely no vested interest in the task and is simply filling it because he got "shafted" to do it at 1530 hrs on a Friday of a long weekend?

[Chief Stoker]

The reason there are so many Cmre is because they are the cheapest option out of any available.  There's a reason that when budgets needed to be cut at certain bases who had Reservists manning gates in conjunction with the Cmre that the Cmre stayed and the Reservists went home.
That might be easy for you to say if you only have 1 x Cmre post at your Duty Centre but the picture isn't as simple as that for everyone.  How do you propose to man all of the positions at a place such as Halifax?  If I recall correctly, there are well over 150 Cmre working posts in that location, most of which do not belong to a "unit" but which support MARLANT and it's lodger units as a whole (ie. gates to the Dockyard).  Where do those positions come from?  I'm sure the Fleet, which is already short sailors, would be more than happy to be told they need to pony up personnel to fill those positions.  How much more effective do you think a Bos'n is going to be while escorting a builidng repair contractor into the Dockyard than a Cmre when he has absolutely no vested interest in the task and is simply filling it because he got "shafted" to do it at 1530 hrs on a Friday of a long weekend?

The reservists who were manning the gates were being paid class C because they were armed and was cut back because it was too expensive. The problem is with who the commissionaires hire and who they employ guarding our military bases. Apparently anyone with a heartbeat is hired and they are suppose to be our first line of defence at our bases. I don't know how many times 5 in the morning going through the gate at Shearwater seeing our first line of defense fast asleep in the guard shack.
If we have to employ them fine, however not at the frigging gates and not because they are cheap.

[garb811]

Chief:

Not an argument from my point of view and I, and my bosses, keep making the argument to put dedicated FP pers into the critical roles such as manning ACPs, but we are security advisers only, it is up to the Base Comd to implement or ignore that advice.  BASF/WASF/FASF or rotating duty NCOs is/are not the solution as nobody is willing to dedicate the time to allow their "critical" personnel to meet the training requirements to fill the requirement any better than the Cmre currently do.  Infanteer, I and a few others discussed some options here:  MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles but all of those cost much more than the current solution of relying on the contracted personnel from the Corps. 

As posted earlier, we (the CF and Gov't as a whole) have no option as to who we turn to first for these types of roles, it is enshrined at the National level for "security" tasks, until that changes, and it won't in the short to mid-term due to the recently publicly reinforced perception that the Corps is a dignified and viable solution to the employment needs of ex-CF members (Commissionaires and DND Join Forces to Support Injured Veterans).  You can bet that any move by the Gov't to strip the Corps of its favoured status would be met with a well coordinated publicity campaign highlighting yet another move by the Gov't to abandon the veterans.  Accordingly, the only solution to the problems presented by the Corps' personnel is to find the internal resources to fill the task and time after time, the decision makers vote with their budget and "accept the risk" as opposed to doing what is right.

Point to note:  If you go by the Guardshack at 5am and the Cmre is sleeping, don't just shrug and do a FIDO; file a complaint via the MP so that action can be taken to replace the individual, I have it done all the time.  Not saying that the incoming person is going to be much better, but the message will hopefully get out that sleeping is going to cost them their $10.50 an hour.

[Chief Stoker]

Chief:

Not an argument from my point of view and I, and my bosses, keep making the argument to put dedicated FP pers into the critical roles such as manning ACPs, but we are security advisers only, it is up to the Base Comd to implement or ignore that advice.  BASF/WASF/FASF or rotating duty NCOs is/are not the solution as nobody is willing to dedicate the time to allow their "critical" personnel to meet the training requirements to fill the requirement any better than the Cmre currently do.  Infanteer, I and a few others discussed some options here:  MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles but all of those cost much more than the current solution of relying on the contracted personnel from the Corps. 

As posted earlier, we (the CF and Gov't as a whole) have no option as to who we turn to first for these types of roles, it is enshrined at the National level for "security" tasks, until that changes, and it won't in the short to mid-term due to the recently publicly reinforced perception that the Corps is a dignified and viable solution to the employment needs of ex-CF members (Commissionaires and DND Join Forces to Support Injured Veterans).  You can bet that any move by the Gov't to strip the Corps of its favoured status would be met with a well coordinated publicity campaign highlighting yet another move by the Gov't to abandon the veterans.  Accordingly, the only solution to the problems presented by the Corps' personnel is to find the internal resources to fill the task and time after time, the decision makers vote with their budget and "accept the risk" as opposed to doing what is right.

Point to note:  If you go by the Guardshack at 5am and the Cmre is sleeping, don't just shrug and do a FIDO; file a complaint via the MP so that action can be taken to replace the individual, I have it done all the time.  Not saying that the incoming person is going to be much better, but the message will hopefully get out that sleeping is going to cost them their $10.50 an hour.

I have complained but never followed it up unfortunately. In the future I will be contacting the MP's in that regards.
I'm not advocating abandoning the veterans, however it seems to me that the corp of commissionaires as mentioned in this thread use this enshrined status to their advantage even if it means sacrificing security at our bases. I would like to see them taken to task and be more accountable especially in placing infirm personnel not up to the task in sensitive positions.
I hope to hell nothing occurs that a 60 year old commissionaire with bad legs has to handle. Lets hope the response time of the MP's is good that day.

[ObedientiaZelum]

Linguistic ability is good but a lack of it wont hold you back.

It will at army.ca   



I think we need to stop considering commissionaires as some of defense against anything. Or anyone who isn'r armed for that matter.  Most bases's I've seen have zero security. You could drive a big ol van pretty much anywhere you want on base and park it next to some expensive equipment or lots of people -if you know what I mean.
On the flip side of the coin, Petawawa for example, would riot if the CF started stopping everyone at the 2 gates in and out to check ID. Getting on and off base at peak time is insane enough already.
Heightened security means longer wait times, more frustrations, longer commutes.


Commissionaires seem to have some training issues.  I showed up at my armory on a holiday in civies to check email. The guy let me in and opened up the company office for me. I (politely) suggested he check my military id, write my info down and check to see if I was on the list of people authorized keys.
He was pretty thankful, he told me he had zero 'hand over' or info passed on and when he started to ask questions he said he was told not to worry about it, it's a holiday and people probably wouldn't show up.  Not exaggerating.

As for weapons training.
Commissionaires should not teach it, period.
All soldiers should be highly trained and skilled, but that doesn't always happen.
On our FTX before deploying a navy clerk asked me how to use the C7 during a patrol with blank ammo, enemy force in the village we were approaching.
She hadn't touched a C7 in 7 years.
My platoon left the wire every day overseas, half of us didn't have zeroed weapons for the first 2 months.

[CDN Aviator]

Heightened security means longer wait times, more frustrations, longer commutes.

No it does not. I have been to many US bases in the last decade and have never waited long to get in, despite armed guards, 100% ID checks and random vehicle searches.

The trouble with places like Petawawa is the design of the gates themselves. Properly built, you could have 100% checks and not delay anyone.

[garb811]

No it does not. I have been to many US bases in the last decade and have never waited long to get in, despite armed guards, 100% ID checks and random vehicle searches.

The trouble with places like Petawawa every base in Canada is the design of the gates themselves. Properly built, you could have 100% checks and not delay anyone.

Fixed that for ya.

[ObedientiaZelum]

No it does not. I have been to many US bases in the last decade and have never waited long to get in, despite armed guards, 100% ID checks and random vehicle searches.

The trouble with places like Petawawa is the design of the gates themselves. Properly built, you could have 100% checks and not delay anyone.

Exactly my friend.  It works in the states, they've been doing it what the last 10 years?  How much money did they throw at that problem.

Implementing that in Canada would be a mess. Manpower, budget, things rebuilt (new range control building...),  politics. The CF takes a very long time for anything to be done. We would need to send out requests to make bids, there would be arguments over which company got picked and favoritism.  People would protest that we are becoming "too american" with the silly notion of guarding our military bases.
Sadly it'll take a terrorist attack with some loss of life before anyone takes a serious look at security.

[CDN Aviator]

How much money did they throw at that problem.

Very little i expect.

[Kokanee]

There seems to be a systemic problem in the Army with trusting soldiers with live ammo when tasked with base defence/checkpoints in garrison..... ie:

I asked about throwing my hat in the ring for BASF training, but when I read their SOP's and talked to some of the fellows on it during an event they were activated for, I decided against it. The security situation was deemed to be elevated enough to deploy the BASF with weapons and magazines, but not ammo. At that point I realised it was a giant waste of time and didn't bother following up on it.

After reading this thread though it seems the Navy has no qualms about giving pers (some with questionable quals?) live ammo to defend ports etc.  Not a knock on the Navy, just pointing out the difference.

[EpicBeardedMan]

I agree. In the US, a lot of the navy and coast guard bases have uniformed armed security forces that handle gate duties.
Then again, this is Canada.

On the west coast it flip flops back and forth with people complaining about how lax the commissionaires are to how strict they are and make people late for appointments, etc. Either way it seems like there's no winning solution.

[jasonf6]

The security situation was deemed to be elevated enough to deploy the BASF with weapons and magazines, but not ammo. At that point I realised it was a giant waste of time and didn't bother following up on it.

I never understood this either.  They expect ALL trades to be able to dig a trench, fire a weapon accurately and all that jazz covered by the Universality of Service yet they don't give out live ammo for BASF.  I understand the safety thing but if you're expected to deploy and carry weapons you should be relied on to use them in a safe manner.  If you can't carry a weapon and not shoot yourself in the foot then you shouldn't be in the military at all.  It may sound harsh but it's the MILITARY, not boy/girl scouts.  It's an armed force.

[ObedientiaZelum]

Magazines without ammo for base security 

[Nemo888]

Exactly my friend.  It works in the states, they've been doing it what the last 10 years?  How much money did they throw at that problem.

Aren't they broke now after borrowing a few trillion to pay a bloated military budget for the last ten years?  Better gate guards for the place filled with guns and tough as nails soldiers who would love to shoot a tango may not be money well spent in most civvies minds.  I'd much rather have a quick access plan to loaded ready to go firearms if security became a problem. I can shoot them myself for what I'm being paid now 

[ObedientiaZelum]

Most civilians who worked in high rise buildings probably didn't care much about homeland security and metal detectors at airports back in August 2001 either 

[Tank Troll]

We could could go back to the Germany solution and have Armed Dependants guarding the gates.

[mariomike]

Apparently anyone with a heartbeat is hired and they are suppose to be our first line of defence at our bases.

For comparison,

Commissionaires:
http://www.commissionaires.ca/national/en/careers-available-positions/en-80339-security-patrol/
( Pay rates and job calls vary. )

A corporate security job call ( for an entry level position ):
http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/hr/jobs.nsf/b95d1630385b57cd8525668200523188/c0befdf408af29b8852573e20058b683?OpenDocument
( The pay rate is from 23 March, 2009. Although non-union, as city employees I would guess they have received a similar pay raise since then. )

Not to say one service provides better security than the other. But, there looks to be a significant difference in responsibilities, qualifications and pay between the two.

[garb811]

You're comparing apples and oranges.  Commissionaires =/= municipal/provincial or federal civil service security positions.

A better comparison is with a private security company in the same geographic locations:

Job Number: 6134295

Title: Security guard (NOC: 6651)

Terms of Employment: Permanent, Part Time leading Full Time, Day

Salary: $12.00 to $14.50 Hourly for 40 hours per week

Anticipated Start Date: As soon as possible

Location: South Surrey, British Columbia (1 vacancy)
Skill Requirements:

Education: Not applicable, Not required

Credentials (certificates, licences, memberships, courses, etc.): Security Guard basic (pre-assignment ) training program certificate, Security Guard Licence, Provincial/territorial security officer certificate

Experience: Will train

Languages: Speak English, Read English, Write English

Work Setting: Private security agency, Factory or plant

Type of Assignments: Foot patrol, Patrol post, Roving patrol

Specific Skills: Enforce regulations of establishments, Maintain order, Use telecommunications (i.e. two-way radio, cell phone, pager), Follow radio and emergency telephone procedures, Monitor security television, Ensure safety and emergency procedures are followed, Control vehicular and pedestrian traffic, Respond to alarms, bomb threats and other emergencies, Detect or prevent thefts and vandalism, Write reports

Security and Safety: Bondable, Basic security clearance, Criminal record check, Credit check

Work Conditions and Physical Capabilities: Attention to detail, Combination of sitting, standing, walking, Walking

Work Site Environment: Noisy

Transportation/Travel Information: Own transportation

Essential Skills: Reading text, Document use, Numeracy, Writing, Oral communication, Working with others, Problem solving, Decision making, Critical thinking, Job task planning and organizing, Significant use of memory, Finding information, Computer use, Continuous learning

Employer: Investigation Services Ltd.
How to Apply:

Please apply for this job only in the manner specified by the employer. Failure to do so may result in your application not being properly considered for the position.

Contact Name: Deo Raj
By E-mail: deo.raj@investigation-services.ca

Advertised until: 2011/11/29

This job advertisement has been provided by an external employer. Service Canada is not responsible for the accuracy, authenticity or reliability of the content.