Disagree, I think Japan's system is the best. Walk through the health counter (close during flights from nations where infectious diseases are not a threat), go to IMM, get bags, you present all of your bags to a custom officer, and customs officer shows you the awesome list containing several diagrams of banned things (diagrams include: C-17 aircraft dropping a bomb, pineapples with bloody knives going through them, baby in empty mayonnaise bucket full of formaldehyde, etcetc ).
You indicate that your luggage does not in fact contain a dead body, and then the customs officer asks you questions and looks at your paperwork. Whereas BS officers can be BS'd very easily and the physical system in Canada presents way too many loopholes (being able to say you will be in Canada for a week and you have nothing to declare even though you have 4 suitcases checked, changing the answer you gave the BSo at PIL when he sends you to IMM, being able to not declare food yet you checked a leaking box with soil coming out of the tears), the Japanese system is able to not only target people, but they goods they bring in as well.

The officers stand attentively waiting for pax which looks sharp, and because there are about 30 tables, there are never lineups. And like with BSOs at PIL back home, you can go 'shopping' for the Japanese equivalent of a white middle aged male BSO, but they seemingly switch the positions of officers after the pax approaches at random.

I also like Nicaragua's "green light means go, red light means haul your as..s in for customs inspection" system. If I were trying to smuggle drugs in there, I would not disguise my anxiety very well.

The worst is India where all bags have to be x-rayed BEFORE delivered. Seems like a good idea if it's done in a nation with a better reputation for transparency. And I'd have to say Canada is the next worse. While similar to the US, the Americans do it better because a CBP PIL officer is an integrated customs/immigration/food inspector who will perform their own secondary inspection of a pax if needed. Therefore, there are more officers at PIL helping legitimate pax, and there are way fewer spite referrals, leading to a greater amount of continuity, therefore increasing the security logic behind their system.

Many things law enforcers do make sense in their own heads, such as your "send information from my search to CBSA intel who can then fwd it to CSIS" mentality. I can at least credit you for being well intentioned. That being said, your structure is a bit off IMO. Instead of saying "I would ask questions", you should approach this by saying "I will ask one question; LHR for a day!?", and then go from there. The progressive inspection, where you base further questions (if any) are based on the first response and other indicators such as physical, speech, etc.

If a drug trafficker paid my ticket through cash, my "why gone for two days" question would have been weak, and further questioning would be justified.
Being that I am legit, an exit that long would be legit, and the first question would be legit, so questions pertaining to how I paid my ticket, or any questions about my trip would be illogical. Maybe a "where did sleep?" just to see my response would be good. Although I know you are competent at the progressive PIL inspections, many of your colleagues are not.

I find that they are great at land ports (except Coutts). I find that because they have very little control of their physical environment, BSOs there are a lot more careful in what manner they question. The officers that work at smaller ports are also much better; it seems the agency wouldn't appoint a weak BSO to work at a port employing just 10 staff, assigned with one other person for 10 hours a day/night at a remote crossing. I would imagine the dumb-areses would get washed out fast. The stupid &or young &or menopausal BSOs tend to be at ports where managers (and police) are within an arm's reach.

The rovers are so stupid. They'll position them right after pil to ask "more detailed questions". If the officer at PIL had no issue, why the hell would the rover?
Sometimes, they will wander around the baggage claim area. That's also stupid. If I were smuggling in drugs and had body language that would be considered suspect, I would hang out in the washroom until bags are dispensed. If a rover had issues with me, he would take my card, mark it, which would clearly indicate that I am going in for secondary. Then I wait 'til he is gone, I get my bags, rip any identifying figures on them, ditch the bags, and go into secondary. It opens way more loopholes than it attempts to close.

However, if you read the customs act, there is a section about how BSOs have authority in areas in which international flights are departing out of. Like it or not, Canada does have authority over exports.

although we have clashed and i painted you as a troll, you seem like one of the more balanced BSOs.
it sucks that you work for such a crappy organization. at least in 10-15 years all the weak chains in the link will be attrition'd.

i attempted (poorly) to refer to the BSO whose job is to physically pour the liquor down a sink drain.