Originally Posted by
WR Cage
Both CP and CN have their own private police force that operates on the level of an RCMP detachment. This affords both rail lines the opportunity investigate and ultimately get perps prosecuted that would otherwise get swept under the rug. For example, RCMP and city police are unlikely to conduct sting operations looking for trespassers along the rail lines, its just not worth their time. The private police forces on the rail lines do routinely investigate and prosecute trespassing offences.
The railways don't pay civic/municipal/provincial taxes, so they aren't entitled to city police protection on their lands (and RCMP protection in rural areas is usually paid for by the provinces, in lieu of setting something up like the OPP, Surete de Quebec, etc.). So running their own police force is the only way that their property can be protected.
When AC was split off of the CNR, I'm not sure if they 'inherited' the same sort of police structure. They certainly inherited the various exemptions from provincial regulation (ie: liquor licensing in the MLLs) that were accorded to the CN/CP railways on account of their interprovincial nature, but policing, not sure about that.
Does anyone know if AC has sworn police officers as part of their Corporate Security function? I know VIA Rail (another descendant of the CNR) only quite recently set up their own police force. Not because they're going to have oodles of officers onboard trains or at stations, but rather, so they could be part of the overall sworn law enforcement community for the purposes of investigations that may involve VIA facilities/equipment/property.
Which brings us to the question, what is AC's legal requirement to police its aircraft? Other than simply owing its customers the standard duty of care? If there is not legislation that mandates airlines to provide, free of charge, the seats to the RCMP officers, then it is quite possible the Government will have to pay up if the matter goes before the courts.
I agree with AC that if an individuals risk factors necessitates introduction of a federal air marshal onto the flight, then perhaps that individual should not be travelling by air. Either cancel the flight or deny boarding to the passenger.
I agree. I don't think AC has any problem with security being provided on the flights at the public's expense, but rather, AC wants to be a partner at the table as it takes the economic risk of any in-flight incident/accident/act of terrorism that may occur. That, or AC is just tired of having these officers on the flights, day in and day out, responding to threats which really don't exist and eating up their precious capacity. While potentially increasing the insecurity of the environment, especially since they do bring firearms aboard their aircraft.