i think the miscommunication comes from what we consider invasive. this line of questioning is certainly acceptable, and you're right, refusing to answer where you were is just pointless. my issue is with the illegal "what do you do for a living?" "who paid your ticket?" "what the hell is a mile run?" "where did you stay?" line of questioning that i received in secondary on two separate occasions over the last few years.
...and the personal exemption thing of $750 is another thing onto itself
and i always seem to get into run-ins with dim witted BSOs over situations CBP wouldn't further confront and EU IMM wouldn't bring up. but this is more of a HR issue with cbsa than a legality thing. i can really respect officers based on cbsguy's above description. it's one thing to be a good officer in a good agency, it's another thing to be a good officer in an agency managed and front-lined by morons.
they have to restructure the physical layout to CBSA at airports. the imm officers should be at PIL with imm secondary still existing and then customs at the exit inspecting everyone upon departure. it's a win win: Canadians zoom through primary, and customs BSOs at the exit can ask more appropriate questions for the people and all of the goods they have. that way, we avoid the stupid line of questioning, and BSOs can get better clues about someone: ie, the guy who went for that one day trip to Cleveland who has 4 pieces of luggage that wreak of glue or the Indian gone for 6 months who declared no food carrying four boxes leaking soil.
i think this is the only country in the world where customs officers ask questions about your goods at an airport without actually seeing them.
oh, and you guys gotta find a way to track people referred from pil to immigration, you may remember that guy in yyc in 2005 who was to be refused admittance into canada, coded to immigration, went into imm, was told to get his bags and come back, got his bags, stole the e311 from someone else, and then left the area and was a fugitive for a month. and there are the people who act one way to an officer at pil, get sent into imm, and then they know how to tailor their answers to imm.
...OTP, CBSAguy, what do you think about the auditor general's recent report, and what do you think a good solution would be to deal with legally admitted, unlawfully residing immigrants?
Invasive questioning has its place. I do ask about employment, where a traveller stayed, and who paid for their ticket, among other things, on occasion. For most travellers, most of the time, it is not appropriate, necessary, or reasonable. It's all about circumstances. For someone returning from a two-day business trip to Boston, I would not generally care about any of those things. For a 16-year-old female travelling back alone after a two-day "personal" trip to see a "friend" in Bogota, my thought process may be different. Nonetheless, if I have sufficient doubt, I would just code her in for a secondary examination. I figure if I ask her too many invasive questions at primary, I'd just be tipping her off that she's going to be sent in for further examination. Then, she may be scared off and just leave that bag full of cocaine on the baggage belt. Of course having a stomach full of contraband is a whole different issue.
Regarding restructuring of the physical layout, etc. at airports, I agree and have for some time. As it stands now, at the exit, that's part of the idea: viewing the whole picture and determining who to send in for further examination. It's the stupid people who get caught. The guy who declares "0" alcohol, but walks out with three of those Jamaican rum boxes, for example. Nonetheless, changes are necessary. Unfortunately, government speed being what it is....
As for the YYC immigration case you're talking about, I cannot see how that would happen at YYZ at least. Once through primary, there's that choke point where everyone has to pass by (behind the booths at the top of the escalators). That officer's sole job is to make sure those referred to Immigration Secondary find their way inside. No one is ever sent down alone to get their bags unless they have been released (stamped in, immigration processing completed). Maintaining control of those in the Immigration Secondary area, without turning the office into a prison atmosphere is more difficult, but changes have been made over the years.
This excerpt from the 2008-2009 Reports on Plans and Priorities may be of interest:
"Discussions pertaining to a new pilot program, available to Canadian citizens and known as the Electronic Primary Inspection Line (E-PIL), were initiated in late 2007. The pilot program will be conducted at Vancouver International Airport and will begin in fall 2008. This program will use new technology to expedite the movement of low-risk passengers and enable the CBSA to focus more resources on high-risk passengers and goods.
"Under the program, rather than handing passports to CBSA agents, travellers will put their passports in an E-PIL kiosk. Low-risk travellers will pass through the primary inspection line quickly, and regulatory authorities will have collected the information they need.
"The E-PIL program has the potential to fundamentally change the CBSA's processing procedures, to meet future processing demands and to enhance border clearance for Canadian citizens and permanent residents seeking to enter Canada at international airports."
If this gets implemented, hopefully it allows us to staff Secondary with more officers and get more officers roving the baggage hall. I'd like to see more people sent in for further examination. We need more staff in Secondary to be able to quickly process more random referrals (For the most part: x-ray baggage, quick look inside a bag, everything checks out, have a good day).
As for the Auditor General's report, I shamefully admit I have not found the time to read it as yet.