If either my wife or I are travelling with a kid without each other, we carry a notarised letter. When we entered Canada at a land crossing with two of the kids, the CBSA officer had us roll down the rear window and asked the eldest child who we were, fortunately she answered Mummy and Daddy.

CBSA is the only agency we have run across that actually checks you are the parent. The Us, UK and NZ have not been interested in seeing the letter. Kudos to Canada for trying to stop child abduction

Simon... now now, don't be so defensive as if you are hiding something from us people. There is absolutely NO reason why you should be so defensive when an agent asks you an question that could lead to probable cause to hold you further. Your reply to that agent that it was none of their business when you were askeda bout your wife's medical, was evidently an attempt to be defensive and evasive. Think about the wording you used in replying to the agent for a minute and imagine what the agent must be wondering when you just threw them an boat anchor in the face. There is NO reason also to be rude to an CBSA agent questioning you, if they were rude, you should have JUST let them finish processing you then ask for a supervisor right there and about.

Being a "self-serving citizen" doesn't entitle you to a snub of the CBSA and their process which is supposed to work to protect THE VERY COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN!

Sanosuke!

Again, Sanosuke, I have nothing to hide.

I would expect to be treated by CBSA in the same manner as any other citizen entering their home countries, which I witness every week.

If the agent had really wanted to know about those details for some reason of admission to Canada, they would have probed further. Rather, his face went red and he moved on to stamp the forms and send us through with NO trip to secondary.

Hence, purely fishing/nosy.

Simon

How did his face go red? Was it because of the way you snapped like a trout fresh out of the river, in front of him?

Sanosuke!

trout? why not a red snapper?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_snapper_%28fish%29

So long as it's not a red pepper.

I didn't snap at him nor throw a boat oar. I told him politely, and he shut up about it and ended the discussion with no pass-on to secondary.

Simon

Not a matter of being "automatically waved through". When entering as a Citizen with nothing or something to declare, we should then be wished a good day. The primary can make the decision as to whether or not secondary is warranted.

Yes, their is a "perfect right to re-admissibility to your own country", it may be via secondary.

You can choose to not answer the inane questions. Tell them you have nothing to declare, be sent to secondary or not, be questioned further, have your bags searched and then be on your way.

That question has always puzzled me when after being asked the purpose of my trip I have answered a vacation. I guess CCRA figures they haven't chiseled enough money out of me or my business if I can still afford to go on a half dozen or so short, out of country vacations a year.

Especially when you have checked a box on the CBSA provided form that tells them the purpose of the trip.

Some of the questions really are a fishing expedition and can go unanswered.

And one would never guess that a thread entitled "Complaints about Customs" would attract people who have complaints, rather than the silent majority who have no issues?

Talk about a self-selected sample ...

Says who?

I know plenty of regular travellers in "real life" who just roll their eyes when the words "Canada Customs" come forward, and are extraordinarily thankful for NEXUS.

Now, to be fair, some of this (and some of my own personal issues, as the OP pointed out) also have to do with the ridiculous allowances to which we are subjected, which they merely enforce.

Simon

I'm with Simon on this one.

I have never understood why returning Canadians are subject to regular intrusive questioning. It seems to be unique amongst developed nations.

I submit that Australia actually has tighter controls than Canada but without the annoying interrogations.

When entering Oz, your first point of contact is an immigration official whose main purpose is to establish your eligibility to enter the country. As an Australian it involves presenting your passport and getting waved through.

But... the Customs and Quarantine card that you fill in before entering the country is far more detailed than the Canadian one and leaves little wriggle room if you are telling lies. The Australians seem more interested in stopping bad cooties from getting in the country and don't care as much if you bought an extra pair of socks while visiting your granny in the UK. The Canadians seem fixated on trying to find out exactly what you bought in every shop you went into. That's really annoying.

After you collect your luggage you pass through customs and quarantine where everything is x-rayed. If you lied on the card, you will get done here. A big fine or possibly worse. Everybody knows the process and if you want to take the risk.... chances are you are an idiot.

In reality, the Australian system is far more intrusive..... but in effect, it is just so much more pleasant to have to deal with. I have never even met one officer here from either Customs or Quarantine who was on any kind of power trip. Just mostly decent people doing their job. If they catch you... you're stuffed... but no power tripping that I've observed.

Perhaps it is the climate.

MCM.

You clearly know a different set of travelers than I do. But either set is still only anecdotal evidence.

And while I'm thankful for Nexus, it's to avoid the pleasure of the police-state-style interrogations entering the US, and to dodge the long lines at both Canadian and US immigration. To each his own, though.

you are CANADIAN. "what do you do for a living" is an IMMIGRATION question. it's not any canadian's business what i do for a living. if i am going to germany, i would be happy to answer as i am a guest to that nation and it is being asked to determine if i have enough money to get by in germany, and if i plan on living in germany. in canada, i don't owe that information to ANYONE. i only owe the authorities the inspection of my goods without obstruction.

you're right! also note that all these acts pertain to the movement of YOUR GOODS, not YOUR SELF. they can't charge me under the criminal code for anything beyond my goods or any such actions that occur on Canadian soil (except that sex tourism act under the CC). the citizenship act is completely irrelevant as citizenship is not dictated by any law or statute. if i am a citizen of canada, my existence of a canadian is not dictated by a law. it's an inherent RIGHT. they can't ask me anything pertaining to that unless i got Alzheimer's in Jamaica, am wearing a potato sack for pants, and flushed my documents down the toilet en route.

also, last time i checked, not answering anything to your goods doesn't constitute contravention of "answering truthfully". truthfulness works on a binary system: lie/truth. not answering is neither. i presented my goods. the goods speak for themselves. i'm lawful, and there is no question about this because i don't import seeds, meat, fertilizer, or any obscure goods beyond gruyere cheese under 20kg/$20 per import for my croque madame's, so therefore, i do not have to answer. they can play whatever games they want, including the "you're sitting on the bench reading a magazine instead of engaging in my pissing match! i'm going to charge you with hindrance!" game that the middle aged women love playing.

bso's have no power when it comes to my body entering canada, and pretty limited power considering how compliant i am. the problem officers are those who want seizures, and they don't get them from me, so eventually they wear themselves out. then there are the mature ones in their 40s who realize that i'm complaint and they realize that 'the game' is a stupid to get into. we all know these types, the officers who care about law breakers over gucci smugglers, know that someone is 90% to be legal if their suitcase doesn't contain 50kg of cocaine, who go home and enjoy their 4 days off instead of going on flyertalk trolling for posts, etcetc.

Talk to someone who works actually with infectious disease and they will tell you how stupid those nurses that lecture the CBSA every year are. note that they are nurses, not MDs or infectious disease specialists. you can't get anything through an E311 card that was in someone's mouth. and i'm sure that if you could, those kevlar gloves would shield yourself from any possible threat (including the threat of insecurity, yeah?)

And I know the black gloves that they wear. They are the slash proof gloves given for tactical reasons, such as when a fight is about to happen. They're worn by tons of BSofficers at point, and it looks just horrible. Here's something your buddies in secondary will never realize: they look extremely officious and unprofessional. Those gloves are for combative situations, not performing paperwork duties.

your stats (obviously made up because you don't realize the false-negatives that get through you) don't account for postal seizures such as the case that i indicated. the red screen (indicating a hit) will not show up for Sam Smith's cocaine postal seizure recorded under S Smith in 1995. of course, if a targeter is looking for Sam Smith passport number ABC12345, iPIL will show a red screen for Sam Smith ABC12345. that's not disputed.

I'm glad our law enforcers know what's the best for all of us, particularly when it comes down to our rights. CSIS and RCMP are such outstanding organizations that truly care about my liberty, and nothing else. Therefore, we shouldn't ask questions. We should just delegate our concerns to them. Then everyone will be happy and we wouldn't need lawyers/activists/other pain in the asses. I'm glad people who enforce laws have such a broad understanding of various perspectives. But who cares about those perspectives? The authorities always have our best interests in mind. I like how you think, cBSaguy! Imagine how much better our nation would be if all the angry psychopaths with tin foil wrapped around the head turned into normal people "not terribly concerned about cBSa reporting information potentially relevant to national security".

The cBSa has a proud history of looking out for our best interests. Just look at cases like Little Sisters v. Canada Customs.

i never knew that putting my suitcases down in secondary, going beyond the requests of the BSo by emptying my pockets, and then grabbing a magazine (lawfully purchased in canada, of course, because those american magazines full of heinous non-canadian ads are of threat to our nation), sitting on a bench, and reading said magazine until the inspection is completed, OR standing there and not answering a single question a BSo asked all constituted "molesting" "hindering" or "preventing" a BSo from inspecting MY GOODS.
....until we had a BSo interpret the law, of course. I still wonder why cBSa constantly blow drug seizure cases in court?

I get the "i'm gonna charge you with hindrance unless you stop pissing me off!" line every fifth time through secondary and it gets old. I'm not surprised you pulled that one. Next time I should smuggle in a dictionary, have it seized, and I'll bookmark certain pages so the BSos can look at it while it's awaiting destruction in the queen's warehouse.

you're missing the point. there are no grounds for inspection at a port. they can send every single person in or just the ones wearing any purple for inspection. there is no reason to find cause or grounds. this stems into why i don't answer majority of the questions asked; they can inspect my goods but they certainly cannot ask me where i have been, what i do for a living, a business card, etc. a cop can't just ask me all those questions, either. and no one has rebutted that, except with anecdotes about how canadians freely support their information being submitted for CSIS inspection, or how i'm subject to the importation of seeds act

they will never answer that. this is canada. government first. government's coffers second. CEUDA third. people who pay the government (and indirectly, CEUDA), fourth.

CEUDA's not too bad-unlike some of their members-IMO.

trust me, it's best just to hand your docs and say nothing beyond "hullo". they don't care.
"how's it going!?! ", "how are you1?!?! " is something a person in that position gets every 30 seconds, and it gets irritating. it's phony. you don't care how they are doing since their shift started at 4am, so why the f--- would you ask it?
contrary to popular belief, CBP & cBSa officers don't refer someone on the basis of "they didn't smile enough" or "they didn't ask me how my day was going! i really wanted to tell them about how i got along with my manager for once this year!"
they're going to base you on a) how you look b) how thick your passport is c) where you are coming from, d) whether you checked "business", "study", or "personal, and this all combines into e) in what manner do you respond to their questions. (eye contact, sweat, manner in which statements are said, etc).
the "hi how are you!?" doesn't mean squat, son. it would work against you, if anything.

you'll be surprised how much more through and professional the screeners in Pakistan and India are (the latter of which is a wing of the military), in contrast, to.. uh, CATSA.

The 10k rule is so horribly misunderstood. It's for MONEY LAUNDERING PURPOSES ONLY. It's not for the tax man, it's not for the EI investigators. It's for FINTRAC. Nothing else. Asking the 10k question via the air stream is stupid, and you should reply by telling them to read the card. Then you should ask them if they are new. They're obviously new if they're asking you a question that was asked and documented on the piece of paper in front of them.

if you really want to play civil disobedience, insist that you pay $5 tax. that way, they lose money because it costs them something like $20-25 per transaction to collect tax at the windows in ports of entry.

1) rip off the price tags
2) mail yourself the receipts
3) go the extra mile and iron the factory folding marks
=you just removed any grounds for cBSa to take action against you for smuggling. hell, you could not do 3) and they still wouldn't have the grounds ["i purchased these a while ago in the USA, imported them under my exemption, and haven't gotten around to wearing them yet"]

it's pretty easy to get around cBSa.

finally, a voice of reason :-:

the BSofficers in canada likely didn't care because the immigration officer in mexico couldn't find any room in your passport for him to stamp, and then told you to get another 48 page passport when you get home.

this coming from the same agency that uses labradors in their dog team over any other breed for....what reason?
image is a serious matter. just like the dork wearing kevlar gloves at point to collect pieces of paper, there are certain things BSo's do that convey a VERY bad image to the public, without realizing it, of course.
combine that with someone who tried getting help off-peak from the customs counter at an airport and was automatically told to call the BiS line, how do you expect your agency to overcome a poor (officious) public image?

it happens every year or so. they wear the vests, they have the gloves, but when those may be useful, they cheese it. nothing new.

WT_F are you talking about!?!?! These aren't views, these are LAWS!!!!!!

Cur, you are on a role......please add to that why the #$%& to they treat non-resident Canadian passport holders/citizens as "foreigners"........