ARCHIVED - CBSA Arming Initiative
Evaluation Study

This page has been archived.

Final Report
November 2009

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Introduction and Context
  • Evaluation Purpose and Scope
  • Evaluation Methodology
• Key findings
  • Relevance
  • Design and Implementation
  • Achievement of Expected Outcomes
  • Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy
• Key Conclusions, Recommendations and Management Response

---

Executive Summary

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is an organization with a multi-faceted mandate including national security and public safety. Specifically, the CBSA's mandate is to facilitate the movement of legitimate travellers and goods and intercept those travellers and goods that pose a threat to Canada. The CBSA fulfills this mandate by providing integrated border services that support national security, public safety and economic prosperity priorities.

In 2006, the Government of Canada approved $785 million in funding for the 10-year implementation of an initiative to arm 4,800 CBSA officers including:

• 3,600 border services officers (BSOs) at land border and marine facilities;
• 800 CBSA officers who perform inland immigration enforcement, and intelligence and criminal investigations functions; and
• 400 new BSOs who will be hired in order to eliminate work-alone situations.

Providing officers with duty firearms is intended to enhance border security and improve officer effectiveness by providing them with a broader range of options when responding to dangerous situations and pursuing enforcement activities[1]. Phase one of the plan included a commitment to arm 250 officers by March 31, 2008. The remaining will be armed by March 31, 2016.

Purpose of the Evaluation

This report presents the findings of an evaluation of the CBSA's Arming Initiative. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the continued need for the Initiative, its alignment with Government of Canada priorities, its consistency with federal roles and responsibilities, progress to date in achieving expected outcomes, and the Initiative's efficiencies.

This evaluation meets a Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) requirement to report on the Arming Initiative in its third year of implementation. The evaluation was identified initially as a priority in the 2007–2010 CBSA Risk-Based Multi-Year Evaluation Plan, which was approved by the Executive Evaluation Committee (EEC) in November 2007.

Evaluation Methodology

Main lines of evidence included a review of documents, in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, observations made during site visits and focus groups with armed and unarmed officers. In total, evaluators interviewed 113 internal and external stakeholders over the course of the evaluation, and 43 armed and unarmed officers participated in focus groups.

Key Conclusions and Recommendations

This evaluation found that the arming of CBSA officers is relevant and represents a logical progression in steps already taken to improve officer and public safety. Over the last decade, the Government of Canada passed two bills that altered the status of CBSA officers. The passage of Bill C-18 in 1999 granted them with the "powers and responsibilities" of peace officers for the purpose of enforcing the Criminal Code. Bill C-26 expanded these powers and responsibilities to officers enforcing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)[2]. All officers working at the border and those performing inland immigration enforcement, intelligence and criminal investigations functions are provided with handcuffs, Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray, batons and protective vests, as well as use-of-force training. In Budget 2006, the Government of Canada committed to strengthening border security and the safety of CBSA officers "by providing them with sidearms and the training required for their use."[3]

BSOs face real threats of assault and/or bodily harm while conducting their duties. Activities such as the interception of high-risk individuals, weapons and drugs, present an ongoing risk to the safety of officers and the public. As of March 31, 2009, there had been 41 incidents during which CBSA officers had drawn a duty firearm, however no firearms were discharged.

CBSA employees interviewed were unanimous in their view that implementation of the Arming Initiative has exceeded their expectations. Success to date can be attributed in large part to the CBSA having sufficient resources and putting in place the mechanisms and processes to ensure effective project management and communication on policies and progress. Of particular importance was the establishment of an Arming Task Force (responsibilities of the Task Force were transferred to the Arming Division in May 2008) with representation from across the Agency and including responsibility for policy development, planning and operational oversight of the implementation.

Overall, arming certification has proceeded close to the schedule and pass rates are solid (88%). Almost all officers reported that they consider the CBSA Duty Firearm Course to be exceptional. The CBSA committed to successfully train 250 officers by March 31, 2008 [4] and exceeded this goal by certifying 294 officers by that date. In 2008–2009, an additional 519 officers were certified although the goal for that fiscal year was 550. As of February 2009, 36 re-certification sessions were delivered to 227 armed CBSA officers. The vast majority (80%) were successfully recertified.

The enhanced flow of legitimate people and goods across the border ― an expected intermediate outcome of the Arming Initiative ― has taken place in the sense that the Initiative has reduced the likelihood of port closures due to work refusals. Similarly, BSOs, inland enforcement officers and superintendents interviewed indicated that the initiative has reduced the Agency's reliance on other law enforcement agencies, another expected outcome. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the arming of officers has had a negative impact on the reputation of the CBSA among the general public. An analysis of Ministerial Correspondence did not reveal significant concern on the part of the public with respect to Arming.

Chiefs and superintendents have reported that an unanticipated outcome of the Arming Initiative has been an enhanced sense of professionalism among trained officers. Officers indicated that the CBSA Duty Firearm Course has improved their capacity for assessing risks and developing options to mitigate these risks. They reported that they are more aware of potentially dangerous situations in the workplace and are more likely to proactively identify areas that provide better protection should an incident occur.

The evaluation noted a few gaps. Armed and unarmed officers, as well as their supervisors and managers, are concerned about the lack of training for unarmed officers working alongside armed colleagues. In particular, there is concern that unarmed officers may not know the proper actions to take to protect themselves and the public in situations involving use of a duty firearm. In at least one region, this concern was serious enough that training was developed and initiated locally. However, this initiative was cancelled due to concerns that training material was not consistent with national arming policies and would not be delivered by certified trainers.

In light of this finding, the evaluation makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation 1: The Human Resources Branch should develop and deliver training for unarmed officers to assist them in working with armed officers.

Fitting up of arming rooms has been difficult in some locations. Lack of available space is a factor in small Ports of Entry (POEs) and also at large inland offices which may be sharing space with other government departments or private sector organizations. In addition, ensuring access to sufficient facilities for duty firearm training has been challenging. The addition of capacity at the CBSA Learning Centre, located in Rigaud, Quebec, in 2011 will be critical for the Agency to meet its training commitments.

It has been assumed that the 10-year implementation schedule for the Arming Initiative will permit the CBSA to accommodate officers that will not be able to meet the requirements to carry firearms. Those interviewed at Headquarters (HQ) and in the regions indicate that Duty to Accommodate has not been a significant issue to date (due to the level of volunteers) but expressed concern that, should the number of accommodation requests increase significantly, Duty to Accommodate will become a key challenge for the Agency.

The draft list of duties requiring Arming and Control and Defensive Tactics (CDT) released on the CBSA Intranet in early 2009 included the duties performed by inland enforcement officers, criminal investigations officers, regional intelligence officers and BSOs, including those at international airports. A main rationale for not arming BSOs at airports is the close proximity to armed police officers that could be called upon for assistance. This appears to contradict one of the objectives of the Initiative, which is to reduce the burden placed on other law enforcement agencies.

In light of this finding, the evaluation makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation 2: The Human Resources Branch, in consultation with Enforcement Branch, should assess the need for armed officers in airports.

A significant amount of information pertaining to the Arming Initiative is being collected. However, data are held in different information systems or are sometimes paper-based, which limit their utility as management tools (e.g., collection of incident data will continue to be a paper process until the Incident Management and Reporting System (IMRS) is implemented, and data on the number of officers certified, certification rates and practice sessions are pulled from a variety of sources). The internal order and activity codes were not finalized until May 2009. As a result, information available on expenditures is limited.

To support the evaluation of the performance of the Arming Initiative, a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework was developed that includes outcomes related to officer safety and public safety, the flow of legitimate people and goods, and values and ethics. In some cases, it may not be practical or possible to determine the contribution of Arming to these outcomes. The RMAF and related performance measurement framework would benefit from a review.

In light of this finding, the evaluation makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation 3: The Human Resources Branch should revise and implement its RMAF to facilitate performance measurement and ensure that information and data are available to support the summative evaluation of the Arming Initiative.

Introduction and Context

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is an organization with a multi-faceted mandate including national security and public safety. Specifically, the CBSA's mandate is to facilitate the movement of legitimate travellers and goods and intercept those travellers and goods that pose a threat to Canada. The CBSA fulfills this mandate by providing integrated border services that support national security, public safety and economic prosperity priorities.

The passage of Bill C-18 in 1999 granted Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) officers the powers and responsibilities of peace officers for the purpose of enforcing the Criminal Code. CBSA officers are peace officers when performing any duty in the administration of the Customs Act. In 2005, Bill C-26 amended the Criminal Code and gave equal peace officer status to officers designated under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [5] To support CBSA officers in fulfilling their duties, those performing inland immigration enforcement, intelligence and criminal investigations functions were provided with handcuffs, Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray, batons and protective vests, as well as use-of-force training as was already the case for customs officers.[6]

In Budget 2006, the Government of Canada formally announced its intention to arm CBSA officers and to eliminate situations where officers work alone. $101 million was allocated for a two-year period to begin the process. At the outset, the decision was made to separate the planning and implementation of the arming component from the implementation of the work-alone portion, also referred to as the Doubling-Up Initiative.[7] Providing CBSA officers with duty firearms is intended to enhance border security and improve officer effectiveness by providing them with a broader range of options when responding to dangerous situations and pursuing enforcement activities.[8]

In 2006, the Government approved $785 million to fund the 10-year implementation of the Arming Initiative to train and equip 4,800 CBSA officers with a duty firearm by March 2016. Officers included were:

• 3,600 border services officers (BSOs) at land border and marine facilities;
• 800 CBSA officers who perform inland immigration enforcement, and intelligence and criminal investigations functions; and
• 400 new BSOs who will be hired in order to eliminate work-alone situations.

Phase one of the original plan included a commitment to arm 150 officers by March 31, 2008, with the remaining to be armed by March 31, 2016. This target was subsequently increased to 250 CBSA officers.

Governance, Roles and Responsibilities

The Operations Branch was assigned overall responsibility for the Arming Initiative. A formal governance structure for the Arming Initiative (Exhibit 1) was established to provide for regular feedback and engagement of Senior Management, as well as oversight for the work of the Arming Task Force.

Exhibit 1: Arming Initiative Governance Structure

Source: Arming Initiative Project Charter, Final Version, June 2007

The Arming Initiative's project charter outlines the overall project approach and serves as a formal agreement and commitment between the Operations Branch, the Arming Task Force, the Enforcement Branch, the Human Resources Branch, the Comptrollership Branch, the Innovation, Science and Technology Branch and the CBSA Regions.

An Arming Task Force lead by a director general was established to implement the initiative. Task Force members included experts in the full range of disciplines including human resources, training, enforcement, field operations, contracting, and finance. Responsibilities of the Arming Task Force were assumed by a newly created Arming Division within the Operations Branch in May 2008. Specific responsibilities of the Arming Task Force included: [9]

• Developing a project charter and project plan;
• Managing the initiative within the terms of the project charter;
• Developing arming policies and procedures;
• Oversight of day-to-day project activities;
• Status reports and project reviews;
• Tracking of issues, action items and budgets;
• Training of officers on the use of CBSA duty firearms;
• Internal/external consultations; and,
• Devolution of components of the Initiative to program areas.

Arming regional coordinators were identified in each region. Their role is to provide a single window for communication between the Arming Division and regional management teams.

Individual branch responsibilities are as follows:

• The Human Resources Branch's role includes delivery of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP), Critical Incident Stress Management, Duty to Accommodate and the CBSA Learning Centre. The Branch also provides functional direction with respect to the development of staffing plans, job descriptions and staffing procedures.[10]
• The Comptrollership Branch provides contracting and facilities management services. The Branch also provides expertise and guidance with respect to physical security requirements, personnel screening, firearms control audits, departmental financial requirements and reporting needs. This Branch is also responsible for construction of the CBSA Learning Centre.
• The Innovation, Science and Technology Branch is responsible for the development of the Incident Management and Reporting System.
• The role of Enforcement Branch is to provide functional guidance vis-à-vis arming policies and procedures as they relate to enforcement activities.[11]
• Strategy and Coordination Branch is responsible for communications plans, audits and evaluations of the Arming Initiative.
• Legal advice required to support the implementation is provided by Legal Services.

External stakeholders include Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), which is responsible for updates to the Corporate Administrative System (CAS) to support monitoring and tracking of firearms and related equipment, as well as human resources components (e.g., learner prerequisites, loading of courses, etc.). The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is also a key partner in the Arming Initiative by providing expert advice, trainers, training facilities as well as armoury services (storage, distribution and maintenance of firearms).

Evaluation Purpose and Scope

This evaluation meets a Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) requirement to report on the Arming Initiative in its third year of implementation. The evaluation was initially identified as a priority in the 2007–2010 CBSA Risk-Based Multi-Year Evaluation Plan, which was first approved by the Executive Evaluation Committee (EEC) in November 2007, and included as a priority in subsequent updates to the evaluation plan.

An evaluation strategy, including a logic model and an evaluation framework was developed in the fall of 2007. In preparation for this evaluation, the evaluation team, in consultation with key internal stakeholders, reviewed the evaluation strategy, formulated the key evaluation questions and developed an evaluation project plan.

Exhibit 2: Evaluation Questions

Evaluation Issue	Evaluation Questions
Alignment with Government Priorities	Is the Arming Initiative aligned with CBSA and government-wide priorities?
Continued Need	Is there an ongoing need for CBSA officers to be armed?
	Is the Arming Initiative consistent with federal roles and responsibilities?
Design and Implementation	Has the design and implementation of the Arming Initiative been effective?
	Are the training, practice and re-certification processes effective?
	Is there a performance measurement system in place?
Achievement of Expected Outcomes	Does the Arming Initiative enhance officers' ability to conduct enforcement activities?
	Has the Arming Initiative enhanced officer and public safety?
	To what extent does the Arming Initiative enhance the flow of legitimate people and goods?
	To what extent does the Arming Initiative reduce the reliance on other enforcement agencies?
	Are CBSA values and ethics preserved by the Arming Initiative and does it help sustain the Agency's reputation?
	Has the Arming Initiative resulted in any unintended outcomes?
Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy	Are there more economical or efficient means to achieve the objectives of the Arming Initiative?
	Have resources allocated to the Arming Initiative been used as intended?

Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation research was conducted between January 2009 and September 2009. The following research methodologies were used:

Document Review and Analysis

Key documents related to the Arming Initiative were identified and gathered through the Arming Division, as well as through interviews with key stakeholders. These included internal and public reports and communications [12] as well as external documents related to the Arming Initiative such as those published by the Customs Excise Union Douanes Accise (CEUDA), now known as the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), and the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (SCONSAD).

In-depth interviews with key stakeholders

A total of 113 in-depth, in-person and telephone interviews were conducted. Forty-eight interviewees involved regional managers and staff including regional arming coordinators, regional security managers, regional human resources managers and regional directors general. A total of 55 interviewees participated from Headquarters (HQ), including members of the Arming Division, providers of Arming Initiative business cases, and senior decision-makers. In addition, 10 external organizations were interviewed, including the RCMP, Parks Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Exhibit 3: Number of Formal Interviewees

Interview Category	Number of Interviewees
CBSA HQ management and staff	55
CBSA Regional management and staff	48
External Stakeholders	10
Total	113

Site Visits

Site visits included in-depth interviews with regional representatives and unstructured interviews with officers and staff. In addition, the visits entailed observation of arming rooms and equipment, as well as walk-throughs of procedures. Site visits were conducted at the following locations:

Exhibit 4: Site Visits by Region

Region	Sites / Ports of Entry
Quebec	Lacolle
	Frelighsburg
	Port of Montréal
	Inland Enforcement, Criminal Investigations and Regional Intelligence Offices (Montréal)
	Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport
Northern Ontario	Lansdowne
	Inland Enforcement, Criminal Investigations and Regional Intelligence Offices (Ottawa)
	Ottawa International Airport
	Slack Road and Slack Road range facilities
	RCMP Armoury
Greater Toronto Area	Inland Enforcement, Criminal Investigations and Regional Intelligence Offices (Toronto)
Windsor–St. Clair	Ambassador Bridge
	Windsor Tunnel
	Inland Investigations and Intelligence Offices (Windsor)

The western regions' perspectives were captured through the document review and telephone interviews with key management and staff.

Focus Groups / Group Interviews with armed and unarmed border services officers

A series of six focus groups involving 43 armed and unarmed officers were conducted during the site visits. These included armed BSOs, inland enforcement officers, criminal investigators, regional intelligence officers, and unarmed officers at airports.

Study limitations

This evaluation was undertaken early in the implementation of the Arming Initiative. As such, program outcomes were not as evident as would be the case for an evaluation conducted on a fully implemented and mature program. In addition, it was challenging to attribute some program outcomes (e.g., preservation of CBSA values and ethics, enhanced flow of people and goods) to the Arming Initiative, as these intermediate outcomes are shared with many other border management activities.

Arming is being implemented concurrently with the Doubling-Up Initiative. Regional staff charged with the coordination of Arming activities were often also involved in the implementation of Doubling-Up. In some cases, activities take place concurrently (e.g., fitting up of arming rooms and modifications to POE facilities to meet Doubling-Up requirements). The evaluation did not include an assessment of whether plans or resources for the Doubling-Up Initiative had had an impact on the design and delivery of the Arming Initiative. Due to the concurrent nature and shared resources of the initiatives, the financial information in this report may include a portion of the costs related to the Doubling-Up Initiative.

Key Findings

Relevance

Alignment with Government Priorities

Is the Arming Initiative aligned with CBSA and government-wide priorities?

In June 2005, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (SCONSAD) recommended that border security be improved by establishing an armed presence at all POE. [13] Subsequently, in Budget 2006, the Government committed to strengthening border security and the safety of CBSA officers "by providing them with sidearms and the training required for their use."[14]

The passage of Bill C-18 in 1999 granted the then CCRA officers the powers and responsibilities of peace officers for the purpose of enforcing the Criminal Code. CBSA officers are peace officers when performing any duty in the administration of the Customs Act. In 2005, Bill C-26 amended the Criminal Code and gave equal peace officer status to officers designated under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [15] To support CBSA officers in fulfilling their duties, those performing inland immigration enforcement, intelligence and criminal investigations functions, were provided with handcuffs, OC spray, batons and protective vests, as well as use-of-force training as was already the case for customs officers.

The arming of officers represents a logical progression in steps already taken to improve officer and public safety and supports the CBSA Incident Management Intervention Model (Exhibit 5) which requires officers to continuously assess risk and apply the necessary intervention to ensure public and officer safety.

Exhibit 5: Incident Management Intervention Model

Source: CBSA Intranet: Reference Manual, Arming Policies, Policy on the Use of Force.

Continued Need

Is there an ongoing need for CBSA officers to be armed?

A report by the then CCRA in 2002 entitled A National Job Place Work Hazard Review, listed 106 life threatening encounters between 1979 and 2002. It noted that customs officers had been subject to encounters such as being held hostage, being physically assaulted and being fired upon. There were a total of 10 assaults and 13 threats of bodily harm in 2006–07, and 4 assaults and 17 threats of bodily harm in 2007–08.[16]

Activities such as the interception of high-risk individuals, weapons and drugs, present an ongoing risk to the safety of officers and the public. Exhibit 6 provides an overview of key security actions taken by CBSA officers between 2005–2006 and 2008–2009. For example, in 2008–2009, CBSA officers seized over 500 firearms, made over 12,317 drug seizures and issued 175 lookouts for armed and dangerous individuals.

Exhibit 6: Security Actions by CBSA officers 2005–2006 to 2008–2009

Security Action	2005-2006	2006-2007	2007-2008	2008-2009
Armed and dangerous lookouts[17]	294	232	191	175
Release and reports	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Drug seizures – total[17]	8,847	9,818	12,203	12,317
Total firearm seizures	497[18]	509[18]	671[19]	509
Other weapons seizures	n/a	n/a	5,029	n/a
Inadmissible arrests	6,829	7,364	7,163	7,981
Removals[19]	11,286	12,617	12,315	13,200
Removals of high priority	23	30	28	43
Removals due to criminality[19]	1,841	1,996	1,724	1,828
Investigations[20]	341	439	422	487
Improperly documented arrivals[19]	2,329	2,423	2,124	3,092
Interceptions	5,145	4,796	4,125	4,674

Source: Program Coordination, Intelligence Directorate, Enforcement Branch.

Is the Arming Initiative consistent with federal roles and responsibilities?

The CBSA plays a key role in keeping the border secure by facilitating the smooth flow of legitimate trade and travel across Canada's border while at the same time enforcing components of numerous Federal Acts including IRPA, the Customs Act and the Criminal Code.

Design and Implementation

Has the design and implementation of the Arming Initiative been effective?

Of particular importance was the establishment of an Arming Task Force (now the Arming Division) with representation from across the Agency and with responsibility for policy development, planning and operational oversight of the implementation. As well, the use of a network of arming regional coordinators proved to be an effective method for ensuring the flow of information between the Regions and the Arming Division.

The Initiative was implemented based on a project charter which clearly outlined project objectives and the roles and responsibilities of the key partners. The project was guided by a project plan which included the identification of key deliverables and milestones against which progress was monitored. Business cases were developed to address key objectives (Exhibit 7) and resources allocated accordingly.

Exhibit 7: Summary of Business Cases for the Arming Initiative

Branch	Objective
Human Resources	Provide employees and managers with communications, training and learning products as well as a support network, to prepare them for the Arming Initiative
	Enable the Human Resources Branch to monitor the workload related to the Arming Initiative
	To integrate arming requirements to the Corporate Administrative System (CAS) Training and Learning function
	To assist in full integration of firearm training to the new Port of Entry Recruit Training Program (POERT)
	Facilitate expansion of the Rigaud training facility
	To provide support for Employment Equity considerations
	Develop and coordinate the Duty to Accommodate Strategy for Arming and Control and Defensive Tactics
	To ensure additional capacity in Labour Relations and Compensation Directorate to deal with increased resort to redress mechanisms, to provide advice and guidance on case strategy and occupational health and safety support
Comptrollership	Establishing a process to ensure that the CBSA Learning Centre be constructed to accommodate all officers in training
	To address new security requirements resulting from implementation of the Arming Initiative
	To meet new procurement and contracting requirements resulting from the implementation of the Arming Initiative
Strategy and Coordination	To secure resources required to provide complete, accurate and timely communications advice, support and products to the Arming Division
	To meet the CBSA's evaluation commitments to Treasury Board Secretariat
Operations	To enable Uniform Program to manage additional demands resulting from the Arming Initiative
	To provide financial, human resources and accommodation services to the Arming Division
Northern Ontario Region	All major tasks related to maintaining a national warehouse for ammunition storage including inventory control, storage, pick-pack and shipping, return and disposal of items
Legal Services	Primary, to provide legal advice to the CBSA in a manner that will allow the Agency to mitigate the legal risks associated with the arming of border officers
Innovation, Science & Technology	Planning and scoping for an Incident Management and Reporting System (IMRS)

Source: Arming Division, Operations Branch.

Business cases require [21] that performance reports be presented to the Arming Division at the end of each fiscal year, however this has not occurred.

Management and staff were impressed that implementation of the Initiative had met its target dates without significant problems. While some noted that a few delays had occurred (an often-cited example was the upgrading of the CBSA Learning Centre), they also stated that these were to be expected given the short time frames for planning and implementation.

In addition, interviewees indicated that they had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities and those of other groups within the CBSA and partners (e.g. RCMP). Although a third of interviewed officers noted some issues involving clarification from HQ (e.g., policies concerning wearing of firearms and practice with inert rounds) early in the initiative, interviewees were generally satisfied with the speed and quality of the Arming Division's decisions. Officers also commented favourably on the timeliness, quality and availability of communications – specifically materials on Atlas, the CBSA intranet site.

However, the evaluation noted that the exclusion of officers working in the air mode resulted in the lack of a CBSA armed presence at international airports in Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Montréal. The rationale for not arming BSOs at airports includes the close proximity to armed police officers that could be called upon for assistance. However, this appears to contradict one of the objectives of the Arming Initiative, which is to reduce the burden placed on other law enforcement agencies.

The Agency developed a draft list of duties requiring arming and CDT in early 2009 and cross-referenced these functions to the BSO, IEO, CI and RIO categories. Exhibit 8 illustrates that, based on this initial analysis, all four officer groups, including BSOs in the air mode, perform duties on the list.

Exhibit 8: Duties and Officer Categories Requiring Arming and Control and Defensive Tactics

Duties	BSO	IEO[22]	CI[23]	RIO[24]
Land border or marine primary inspection	X
International airport "Point"[25]	X
Land border, air and marine secondary examination	X
Land border and international airport "Roving"	X
Processing passengers at CANPASS remote areas, air or marine	X
Monitoring CANPASS marine or alternate reporting	X
Surveillance		X	X	X
Face-to-face interaction with confidential informants		X	X	X
IEO, CI, RIO attendance at land, marine POEs, small airports and remote locations with direct involvement with arrested or detained traveller		X	X	X
IEO, CI, RIO assistance at land border or marine POE enforcement blitzes		X	X	X
Serving of court documents to an accused		X	X	X
Execution of search warrants		X	X	X
Interview and/or arrest of individuals in violation of IRPA		X	X	X

Source: CBSA Intranet.

The Agency is currently developing detailed occupational requirements for Arming. These requirements will be reviewed by a third party and discussed with the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), prior to finalization and release. These occupational requirements will determine what duties require arming and/or CDT training, and this will then support workplace accommodation decisions.

BSOs interviewed indicated that the monitoring of compliance is strict. While there have been incidents of non-compliance with policies, for example the wearing of a firearm while not conducting CBSA duties, they have been dealt with through disciplinary and/or administrative action as appropriate.

The review focussed on facilities' compliance, safe storage and transportation of firearms, compliance with operational policies, compliance with travel and timesheet reporting, and equipment suitability. In general, recommendations contained in the reviews have focused on improved access to arming policies, the proper instalment of ballistic panel and secure weapons storage cabinets, and the need to explore options to facilitate additional practice sessions (live fire and dry fire). The Arming Division has incorporated these reviews into the CBSA Process Monitoring Framework administered by regional operations as one of the steps in the devolution of responsibilities from the Division to regions and responsible areas within HQ.

In consultation with the RCMP, two firearm specialists with experience as master firearms instructors and armourers were identified and added to the Arming Division membership. The experts took into consideration results of two Job Hazard Analysis reports, CBSA work environments and hands-on assessment of various firearms when developing their recommendations for the specifications of the CBSA duty firearm.

The selection of duty firearm, equipment and storage facilities have been made to maximize the safety for officers and the public. The Beretta Px4 Storm has a heavy trigger pull and a double-action-only configuration that minimize the risk of accidental discharges. The holster design limits the likelihood of anyone other than the armed officer removing the firearm. Storage facilities, including arming rooms and lockers, are designed to reduce the likelihood of unauthorized access to the firearms.

CISM services are intended "to assist employees and their families by mitigating the impact of a critical incident and accelerating the recovery of those experiencing a critical incident." Specific elements of CISM include group counselling sessions appropriate to the incident, one-on-one counselling sessions, and family services and follow-up.[27]

It has been assumed that the 10-year implementation schedule for the Arming Initiative will permit the CBSA to accommodate officers that will not be able to meet the requirements to carry firearms. Those interviewed at HQ and in the Regions indicate that Duty to Accommodate has not been a significant issue to date due to the level of volunteers. However, they also expressed concern that, should the number of accommodation requests increase significantly, Duty to Accommodate will become a key challenge for the Agency.

Challenges reflect the unique nature of each site, which have resulted in widely ranging costs. Space is a factor in both small POEs that cannot accommodate the creation of an additional room, as well as at large inland offices in urban areas with high rental rates and which may be sharing space with other government departments or private sector organizations. Both the Quebec and Atlantic regions reported delays in fitting up small sites due to a lack of adequate space.

Access to adequate firing ranges for training, practice and re-certification has been an ongoing challenge.

The Arming Initiative plan is to have firearm training delivered at three sites. To date, the Slack Road and Chilliwack facilities have been available to handle training demands. However, renovations to the CBSA Learning Centre, scheduled for completion in the fall of 2011, will facilitate arming training for up to 800 new recruits per year.

CBSA officers are required to pass firearm certification on a 25-metre range as this is a requirement for all federally regulated agencies with armed officers (e.g., RCMP, Department of Fisheries and Oceans). All those interviewed indicated that finding 25-metre practice and re-certification ranges have been difficult. Because non-federally regulated law enforcement agencies have a shorter distance standard, most ranges are not long enough for CBSA re-certification use. As the number of armed officers increases over the course of the Initiative, demand for practice and re-certification range time will increase and likely exacerbate this problem.

The Arming Division has taken steps to address this issue. Changes to the practice regime are being considered that will significantly reduce the demands on arming trainers and allow additional facilities to be approved as practice-only facilities. As well, facilities at the Atlantic Police Academy in Prince Edward Island are being assessed to determine if they can be used to deliver future CBSA Duty Firearm Courses and/or re-certification sessions. Finally, the Arming Division has also solicited proposals for the acquisition of modular firing ranges.

Are the training, practice and re-certification processes effective?

During the first phase of training, 75 percent of uniformed officer training seats were allocated to volunteer BSOs and superintendents from the top ten highest-volume land border crossings.[28] Remaining seats were allocated to BSOs and superintendents from small- and medium-sized land border ports on the basis of general risk, operational feasibility and facility readiness. A group of inland enforcement officers was also trained during the first year of the Initiative.[29]

The CBSA committed to training 250 officers by March 31, 2008[30] and an additional 550 officers by March 31, 2009.[31] While the March 2008 target was exceeded (294), only 519 officers had been certified in fiscal 2008–2009.[32] The overall CBSA Duty Firearm Course rate of success for certification is 88.2%. The pass rate improved from 83% in the third quarter of 2007, to 91% in the first quarter of 2009 (Exhibit 9).

Exhibit 9: Pass Rates for CBSA Duty Firearm Course by Quarter (calendar year) to March 31, 2009

	Officers Certified	Officers Not Certified at Training End
2007 – Q3	83.1%	16.9%
2007 – Q4	87.0%	13.0%
2008 – Q1	92.5%	7.5%
2008 – Q2	91.6%	8.4%
2008 – Q3	87.2%	12.8%
2008 – Q4	87.5%	12.5%
2009 – Q1	91.3%	8.7%
Total	88.2%	11.8%

Source: An Examination of CBSA Occupational Requirements to Complete Control and Defensive Tactics and Arming Training (DRAFT).

As of February 2009, 36 re-certification sessions were delivered to 227 armed CBSA officers. Overall, 80% of officers were successfully recertified on their first attempt.

Exhibit 10: Success/Failure Rate for Duty Firearm Re-certification (February 2009)

	Number of officers	Percent
Successful	183	80.6
Failure	44	19.4
Total	227	100

Source: Arming Division, Operations Branch.

At current rates of certification, the CBSA will have difficulty meeting its commitment to arm 4,800 officers by March 31, 2016.[33] The addition of capacity at the CBSA Learning Centre will be critical to the Agency meeting its training commitments.

A full 97.7% of respondents to DFC course evaluations reported that they agreed or strongly agreed that they had met the learning objectives. The detailed ratings showed that a significantly lower percentage of officers who took the training in French reported that they had sufficient time to complete the course activities (22.4%) than did those who took the training in English (70.8%). As well, a lower proportion of French course participants reported that information in the Learner's Guide was easy to understand and that the audio-visual materials helped them understand course content (75.9% compared to 87.9% of those who took the course in English). [34]

The DFC is delivered in two locations, Ottawa and Chilliwack. In Ottawa, classroom and scenario training is delivered at the Slack Road training facility, while live fire training and practice is conducted at the Connaught firing range about 16 kilometres away. In Chilliwack, all training facilities, the practice range and accommodations are located on a single campus. Despite overall officer satisfaction with the DFC, those that had taken training in Ottawa reported that travel to and from the firing range, the Slack Road training facility and hotel accommodations added considerable extra time to an already full schedule. As well, because neither the Chilliwack nor the Connaught facilities are CBSA assets, prime range time is not always available to the Agency and, in the case of the Connaught range, this often results in officers having to practice in the evening rather than during regular work hours.

Recent course delivery has been modified to include content more relevant to inland officers, as both inland enforcement and criminal investigation officers found the training to be too specific to BSO duties and scenarios. Modifications include the addition of scenarios and settings that better reflect an inland office and the addition of content pertaining to high-risk extractions. Some BSOs believed that their training would be more effective if it included additional CBSA-specific situations. Simulators initially used in training were borrowed from various police agencies and included police specific scenarios. The CBSA has now acquired its own training simulators and integrated them into the course curriculum. CBSA-specific scenarios were filmed and are currently being edited in preparation for full implementation of bilingual scenarios later in 2009–2010.

At the outset of the Initiative, each DFC trainer was required to deliver all aspects of CDT and duty firearm training. In addition, trainers were also responsible for reviewing critical incident reports and providing advice to the Arming Division. To reduce pressure on trainers while at the same time maintaining or increasing training capacity, the Arming Division is augmenting its pool of national use-of-force trainers with additional regional trainers. Many of these trainers are specialized and, therefore, will be used to deliver specific components of the training program (e.g. firearm/firing range only, CDT only).

The evaluation found that armed and unarmed officers, as well as regional supervisors and managers, are concerned about the lack of training for unarmed officers working alongside armed colleagues. In particular, there is concern that unarmed officers may not know the proper actions to take to protect themselves and the public in situations involving use of a duty firearm. This concern was serious enough to spawn an initiative in Windsor–St. Clair to provide training for unarmed officers on subjects such as seeking cover and how to avoid line of fire. However, the initiative was cancelled due to concerns that the material being presented was not consistent with national arming policies and was not being delivered by certified trainers.

Is there a performance measurement system in place?

For example, the collection of incident data will continue to be a paper process until the Incident Management and Reporting System (IMRS) is developed. Similarly, data collected on the number of officers certified, certification rates and practice sessions, are not maintained in a central database to facilitate performance measurement, reporting and to ensure data integrity.

The Arming Initiative Results-based Management Accountability Framework includes outcomes related to officer safety and public safety, the flow of legitimate people and goods, and values and ethics. However, information is not being collected to facilitate an analysis of the contribution of Arming to these goals. In some cases it may not be practical or possible to determine the contribution of the Arming Initiative to these outcomes. Proxies such as public opinion and officer opinion research with respect to safety have not been developed.

Most interviewees indicated that CAS does not suit the task of tracking equipment, nor of conducting security monitoring of firearm storage. For example, many of those interviewed expressed a lack of faith in the accuracy of information in CAS with respect to shipping information including notifications of delivery and the location of each firearm.

Achievement of Expected Outcomes

Does the Arming Initiative enhance officers' ability to conduct enforcement activities?

As of March 31, 2009, there were 41 incidents in which 78 CBSA officers drew their duty firearms. In total, 43 officers drew their firearm while enforcing the Customs Act and 29 officers drew their firearm while enforcing IRPA. Over the same period, officers reported drawing their defensive batons during 10 incidents and displaying or using OC spray nine times.

Exhibit 11: Legislation Enforced While Using a Duty Firearm[35]

Legislation Cited by officers	# of officers	% of officers
Customs Act	43	55.1
IRPA	29	37.2
Criminal Code	4	5.1
Other Act	2	2.6
Total	78	100.0

Source: Program Evaluation Division analysis of Use of Force Incident Reports (Form BSF586) submitted to the Arming Division (current to March 24, 2009).

Exhibit 12 presents the number of firearms drawn by duty or activity. One third of incidents involved the drawing of a duty firearm while exercising warrants. Secondary inspection at land border ports of entry accounted for an additional third of all incidents. Enforcement of the Customs Act may require officers to seize firearms from travellers in secondary inspection, a situation that may require officers to draw their duty firearm. [36] However, as already noted, it is not possible to determine whether officers are more effective in exercising these duties as a result of being armed.

Exhibit 12: Firearms Drawn by Duty or Activity

Duty or Activity Cited	# of officers	% of officers
Warrant	25	32.1
Detention	3	3.8
Secondary Inspection	25	32.1
Primary Inspection	19	24.3
Commercial Inspection	6	7.7
Total	78	100.0

Source: Program Evaluation Division analysis of Use of Force Incident Reports (Form BSF586) submitted to the Arming Division (current to March 24, 2009).

The majority of incidents have involved the BSOs, the officer group that accounts for the majority of armed officers. While inland enforcement officers account for only 10% of armed officers, they have been involved in over 30% of incidents. This higher proportion of incidents reflects the nature of inland enforcement officer duties which often include exercising warrants, surveillance and the arrest of individuals suspected of being in violation of IRPA.

Exhibit 13: Armed Officers and Firearms Drawn by Type of Officer

Officer Type	# of Armed Officers	% of Armed Officers	# of Officers Drawing Duty Firearm	% of Firearms Drawn
Border services officer	533	64.4	53	67.9
Superintendent	127	15.3	1	1.3
Inland enforcement officer	83	10.0	24	30.8
Regional intelligence officer	31	3.7	0	0.0
Criminal investigator	24	2.9	0	0.0
Supervisor	11	1.3	0	0.0
Chief	6	0.7	0	0.0
Manager	5	0.6	0	0.0
Learning / Technical	4	0.5	0	0.0
Program officer / advisor	3	0.4	0	0.0
Total	827	99.8	78	100.0

Source: Program Evaluation Division analysis of Use of Force Incident Reports (Form BSF586) submitted to the Arming Division (current to March 24, 2009).

Has the Arming Initiative enhanced officer and public safety?

All officers interviewed indicated that they face risks and that there is an ongoing need to make officer and public safety a priority. The majority of interviewees believed that arming improves their safety and that of the public, and noted indicators of potential risks such as the number of gun seizures and armed and dangerous lookouts.

Exhibit 14: Reasons for Drawing a Duty Firearm[38]

Reasons Cited	# of officers	% of Total
Protect public or another CBSA officer	62	80.0
Protect self	55	70.5
Tactical consideration	26	33.3
Prevent the commission of an offence	12	2.6
Prevent escape	12	2.6
Other	7	2.6

Source: Program Evaluation Division analysis of Use of Force Incident Reports (Form BSF586) submitted to the Arming Division (current to March 24, 2009).

To what extent does the Arming Initiative enhance the flow of legitimate people and goods?

Between November 30, 2004 and June 17, 2009, an estimated 1,359 officers [39] at 68 sites were involved in 85 formal work refusals. Approximately two-thirds (64.7%) of all work refusals were related to armed and dangerous lookouts.[40] As the information in Exhibit 15 shows, there have been no work refusals as a result of armed and dangerous lookouts since the fourth quarter of 2006–2007.

Exhibit 15: Employee Work Refusals by Quarter and Reason

	Number of employees in A&D Work Refusals	Number of Officers in "Other" Work Refusals
2004/05 Q3		1
2005/06 Q1	26	1
2005/06 Q2	174
2005/06 Q3	284	41
2005/06 Q4	208	1
2006/07 Q1	69	3
2006/07 Q2	162	14
2006/07 Q3	36	17
2006/07 Q4	30	61
2006/07 Q4		8
2007/08 Q2		1
2007/08 Q3		180
2007/08 Q4		4
2008/09 Q2		11
2008/09 Q3		22
2008/09 Q4		3
2009/10 Q1		2

Source: CBSA, Human Resources Branch.

All work refusals due to a lack of armed presence up to September of 2006 were the result of armed and dangerous lookouts. Two of the three refusals in the third quarter of 2006–2007 were due to the lack of armed presence while escorting a detained dangerous person. Since the deployment of armed officers began, there have been five work refusals relating to CBSA officers not being permitted to wear their Personal Protection Equipment in the United States or when assisting police agencies. Each of these work refusals was carried out under the Canada Labour Code―Part II, which allows federal employees to refuse to work if they feel their health and safety is in jeopardy. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) – Labour Program reviewed each of the work refusals and ruled that "no danger" was involved.

While not related to officer work refusal, the CBSA temporarily closed the Cornwall Island POE in the summer 2009 due to safety concerns stemming from community displeasure with the decision to arm BSOs at that POE.

To what extent does the Arming Initiative reduce the reliance on other enforcement agencies?

BSOs and superintendents interviewed for this evaluation indicated that the arming of CBSA officers has provided them with the ability to manage situations and address dangerous individuals rather than release and refer[41] them to local police. Similarly, inland enforcement officers consistently reported that carrying a duty firearm has decreased their reliance on other law enforcement officers. However, this could not be confirmed through other data sources since the numbers of release-and-refer situations are not recorded nationally, nor are the numbers of calls for police assistance.

Are CBSA values and ethics preserved by the Arming Initiative and does it help sustain the Agency's reputation?

The CBSA's core values are professionalism, integrity and respect. While some of those interviewed for the evaluation expressed concern that arming may impact on the organizational culture of the CBSA by placing more emphasis on enforcement rather than facilitation, superintendents and chiefs consistently stated that the armed officers return from the training with a greater sense of professionalism and pride in their work.

According to the February 2006 Ekos Security Monitor survey, almost 70% of Canadians supported the arming of CBSA officers. An analysis of Ministerial Correspondence conducted as part of this evaluation (Exhibit 16) did not reveal significant concern on the part of the public with respect to Arming. The most common criticisms were related to perceived costs.

Exhibit 16: Issues Raised in Correspondence to the Minister of Public Safety Concerning Arming

Subject	Times raised[42]
Agreement with decision to arm	4
Disagreement with decision to arm	11
Concern over costs and duration of implementation	18
Arming will not have desired effects	13
Suggested other approaches	16

Source: Program Evaluation Division analysis of Ministerial Correspondance
(n=59 letters/communiqués)

The majority of interview respondents believed that the Arming Initiative has not detracted from the positive public perception of the CBSA. Armed officers interviewed during the evaluation indicated that a large proportion of the public they were dealing with was already under the impression that border officers were armed prior to the Initiative. They attributed this to the addition of vests and tool belts to the uniform as a result of the Officer Powers Program and personal protection and use-of-force policies.

Has the Arming Initiative resulted in any unintended outcomes?

Most of the armed officers interviewed stated that being armed has increased their sense of professionalism. This was also noted consistently by managers who stated that armed officers seem to have more respect for themselves and the job. Many officers indicated that the training they received during the CBSA Duty Firearm Course has improved their capacity for assessing risks and developing options to mitigate these risks. Armed BSOs that were interviewed reported that, as a result of the DFC training, they are more aware of potentially dangerous situations in the workplace and are more likely to proactively identify areas that provide better protection should an incident occur.

Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

Are there more economical or efficient means to achieve the objectives of the Arming Initiative?

The design and implementation of the Arming Initiative reflects the decision of the Government to arm CBSA officers throughout Canada, rather than rely on officers from other law enforcement agencies to provide an armed presence.

Have resources allocated to the Arming Initiative been used as intended?

In 2006 the Government approved $785M (including $77M for Employee Benefit Plan (EBP) and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) Accommodation Costs) to fund the Arming Initiative over a ten-year period. This Treasury Board Secretariat-approved funding also included $654M for salaries and other operating expenses and $54M for capital expenditures (CBSA Learning Centre). Overall, as illustrated in Exhibit 17, approximately $86M had been spent on the Arming Initiative as of September 2009.

Exhibit 17: Budget & Expenditures Summary for the Arming Initiative ($000s) Excluding EBP and PWGSC Accommodation Costs

Approved by Treasury Board[43]

	2006-2007	2007-2008	2008-2009	2009-2010	2010-2011	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	Total
Operating Costs ($)	26,561	28,898	50,850	57,475	64,524	78,002	84,379	89,458	89,500	84,315	653,962
Capital Costs ($)	2,760	24,000	27,240	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	54,000
Total ($)	29,321	52,898	78,090	57,475	64,524	78,002	84,379	89,458	89,500	84,315	707,962

Net Budget Adjustments

	2006-2007	2007-2008	2008-2009	2009-2010	2010-2011	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	Total
Operating Costs ($)	-21,243	-3,551	-16,436	-2,145	-10,682	10,118	19,318	-682	-682	-682	-26,667
Capital Costs ($)	-2,442	-23,109	-26,013	5,425	25,900	20,364	0	0	0	0	125
Total ($)	-23,685	-26,660	-42,449	3,280	15,218	30,482	19,318	-682	-682	-682	-26,542

Expenditures to Date

	2006-2007	2007-2008	2008-2009	2009-2010	2010-2011	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	Total
Operating Costs ($)	5,318	25,347	34,414	18,843[44]	0	0	0	0	0	0	83,922
Capital Costs ($)	318	891	1,227	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2,436
Total ($)	5,636	26,238	35,641	3,280	18,843	0	0	0	0	0	86,358

Source: Operations Branch.

As noted previously, resources for implementation activities such as planning, psychological testing of candidates, CAS training, training development and support for armed officers were distributed based on a series of business cases. Evidence indicates that financial tracking mechanisms were developed and are being implemented. However, at the time of the evaluation, detailed expenditure information at the internal order (IO) and activity type (AT) levels was not available.

Key Conclusions, Recommendations and Management Response

This evaluation found that the arming of CBSA officers is relevant and represents a logical progression in steps already taken to improve officer and public safety. Over the last decade, the Government of Canada passed two bills that altered the status of CCRA officers, and now CBSA officers. The passage of Bill C-18 in 1999 granted them with the "powers and responsibilities" of peace officers for the purpose of enforcing the Criminal Code. Bill C-26 expanded these powers and responsibilities to officers enforcing IRPA. [45] All officers working at the border and those performing inland immigration enforcement, intelligence and criminal investigations functions are provided with handcuffs, OC spray, batons and protective vests, as well as use-of-force training. In Budget 2006, the Government of Canada committed to strengthening border security and the safety of CBSA officers "by providing them with sidearms and the training required for their use."[46]

Border services officers face real threats of assault and/or bodily harm while conducting their duties. Activities such as the interception of high-risk individuals, weapons and drugs, present an ongoing risk to the safety of officers and the public. As of March 31, 2009, there had been 41 incidents during which CBSA officers had drawn a duty firearm, however no firearms were discharged.

CBSA employees interviewed were unanimous in their view that implementation of the Arming Initiative has exceeded their expectations. Success to date can be attributed in large part to the CBSA having sufficient resources and putting in place the mechanisms and processes to ensure effective project management and communication on policies and progress. Of particular importance was the establishment of an Arming Task Force (responsibilities of the Task Force were transferred to the Arming Division, Operations Branch in May 2008) with representation from across the Agency, including responsibility for policy development, planning and operational oversight of the implementation.

Overall, arming certification has proceeded close to the schedule and pass rates are solid (88%). Almost all officers reported that they consider the CBSA Duty Firearm Course to be exceptional. The CBSA committed to successfully train 250 officers by March 31, 2008 [47] and exceeded this goal by certifying 294 officers by that date. In 2008–2009, an additional 519 officers were trained and deployed although the goal for that fiscal year was 550. As of February 2009, 36 re-certification sessions were delivered to 227 armed CBSA officers. The vast majority (80%) were successfully recertified on their first attempt.

The enhanced flow of legitimate people and goods across the border ― an expected intermediate outcome of the Arming Initiative ― has taken place in the sense that the Initiative has reduced the likelihood of port closures due to work refusals. Similarly, BSOs, inland enforcement officers and superintendents interviewed indicated that the Initiative has reduced the Agency's reliance on other law enforcement agencies, another expected outcome. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the arming of officers has had a negative impact on the reputation of the CBSA among the general public. An analysis of Ministerial Correspondence did not reveal significant concern on the part of the public with respect to Arming.

Chiefs and superintendents have reported that an unanticipated outcome of the Arming Initiative has been an enhanced sense of professionalism among trained officers. Officers indicated that the CBSA Duty Firearm Course has improved their capacity for assessing risks and developing options to mitigate these risks. They reported that they are more aware of potentially dangerous situations in the workplace and are more likely to proactively identify areas that provide better protection should an incident occur.

The evaluation noted a few gaps. Armed and unarmed officers, as well as their supervisors and managers, are concerned about the lack of training for unarmed officers working alongside armed colleagues. In particular, there is concern that unarmed officers may not know the proper actions to take to protect themselves and the public in situations involving use of a duty firearm. In at least one region, this concern was serious enough that training was developed and initiated locally. However, this initiative was cancelled due to concerns that training material was not consistent with national arming policies and would not be delivered by certified trainers.

In light of this finding, the evaluation makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation 1: Human Resources Branch should develop and deliver training for unarmed officers to assist them in working with armed officers.

Management Response:

The CBSA concurs that there is a need for unarmed officers to know the proper procedures for working with armed colleagues in the event of an incident involving a duty firearm. To ensure that this is the case, each armed location is now required to develop port-specific Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that include actions to be taken by unarmed officers when dealing with high-risk travellers. Regions are required to submit their SOPs to the Arming Division which will ensure that procedures are consistent with existing national policy and the training delivered to armed officers. Regions will be required to ensure that SOPs are discussed with port staff. These steps will be completed by the end of March 2010.

The Arming Division has developed an online learning product entitled "Introduction to the Arming Initiative" that was made available to CBSA officers via Atlas beginning in September 2008. This product includes scenarios involving armed and unarmed officers interacting in situations requiring duty firearms. To ensure the effectiveness of this approach, Human Resources Branch will review the "Introduction to the Arming Initiative" product to determine if it is meeting the needs of armed and unarmed CBSA officers. The review will include an assessment of rates of usage, alternate delivery strategies, product content and options to ensure that officers use the product and understand its content (e.g. the addition of a testing component to ensure successful completion). This work will be finalized by June 2010.

Fitting up of arming rooms has been difficult in some locations. Lack of available space is a factor in small Ports of Entry (POEs) and also at large inland offices which may be sharing space with other government departments or private sector organizations. In addition, ensuring access to sufficient facilities for duty firearm training has been challenging. The addition of capacity at the CBSA Learning Centre in 2011 will be critical to the Agency achieving its training commitments.

It has been assumed that the 10-year implementation schedule for the Arming Initiative will permit the CBSA to accommodate officers that will not be able to meet the requirements to carry firearms. Those interviewed at HQ and in the Regions indicate that Duty to Accommodate has not been a significant issue to date (due to the level of volunteers) but expressed concern that, should the number of accommodation requests increase significantly, Duty to Accommodate will become a key challenge for the Agency.

The draft list of duties requiring Arming and Control and Defensive Tactics (CDT) released on the CBSA intranet in early 2009 included the duties performed by inland enforcement officers, criminal investigations officers, regional intelligence officers and BSOs, including those at international airports. A main rationale for not arming BSOs at airports is the close proximity to armed police officers who could be called upon for assistance. This appears to contradict one of the objectives of the Initiative, which is to reduce the burden placed on other law enforcement agencies.

In light of this finding, the evaluation makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation 2: The Human Resources Branch, in consultation with Enforcement Branch, should assess the need for armed officers in airports.

Management Response:

The Human Resources Branch concurs and, in consultation with Enforcement Branch, will review its plans for the arming of officers to ensure that the CBSA's strategy supports and is aligned with both human resource planning and branding objectives. This broad review will include an assessment of the need to arm officers at international airports.

The Arming Initiative currently reflects policy and funding approval by the Government of Canada. Should the review conclude that there is a need to adjust current plans, the Human Resources Branch will take the lead in preparing recommendations to the Government of Canada to address these requirements.

The review will be conducted by December 2011.

A significant amount of information pertaining to the Arming Initiative is being collected. However, data are held in different information systems or are sometimes paper-based, which limit their utility as management tools (e.g., collection of incident data will continue to be a paper process until the Incident Management and Reporting System is implemented, and data collected on the number of officers certified, certification rates and practice sessions are pulled from a variety of sources). The internal order and activity codes were not finalized until May 2009. As a result, information available on expenditures is limited.

To support the evaluation of the performance of the Arming Initiative, a Results-based Management Accountability Framework (RMAF) was developed that includes outcomes related to officer safety and public safety, the flow of legitimate people and goods, and values and ethics. In some cases, it may not be practical or possible to determine the contribution of Arming to these outcomes. The RMAF and related performance measurement framework would benefit from a review.

In light of this finding, the evaluation makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation 3: The Human Resources Branch should revise and implement its RMAF to facilitate performance measurement and ensure that information and data are available to support the summative evaluation of the Arming Initiative.

Management Response:

The Human Resources Branch concurs with this recommendation and will review the logic model in the RMAF to ensure that the outcomes identified relate to arming, and that information and data are collected to support future evaluations of the Initiative's success in achieving intended outcomes. Revisions will be completed by the end of February 2010 and implemented immediately thereafter.