If what the linked article suggests that some Nexus users have been abusing the card, one can expect that there will be a bureaucratic overreaction.

Off to secondary more and more users will go for spot checks....

Too bad that 99% of honest users will be penalized for the 1% of cheaters.....

I agree completely - I hate the fact that I am penalized for being honest based on the very small percentage of rotten apples.

I'm not sure about others, but I was honest before the card, and after it. If for no other reason, you think Nexus members would be honest so they didn't lose their cards - I can not afford to have this happen - and will not let it happen. But as I commented at the G+M site, I don't mind being sent to secondary every so often (and this does happen, mostly into the US for me). If they search my bags (happened before once or twice, but mostly they doesn't), I have nothing to hide anyway.

Part of the article notes the lack of safety checks by the government, such as address information, or convictions. That certainly would be more of a concern than not declaring items acquired abroad. Surprised that the US does a check every 24hrs, though if nothing else, the system was thorough as I discovered when I did my Nexus interview (was asked why the FBI already had my fingerprints on file :D)1

I'd say that people who fear being replaced by a NEXUS card are not the best people to offer an opinion of the effectiveness of the program. I'm not really interested in how the BSO "feel" about the program. It is normal human behavior to feel that you could do a job better than a computer.

The only thing that should matter is impartial proper statistical analysis, which according to the article can not be done.

"Incomplete data meant the evaluation was not able to determine how often card-carrying travelers might be cheating."

Quelle surprise.

fly-yul has it bang on.

Too bad for the BSO. If so many of them weren't such intrusive, nasty SOBs, perhaps people would actually choose to go see them when the line is totally empty.

As I've said before - with a UK passport going into any EU country, there are no questions asked. As a Canadian citizen coming into Canada, it's the third degree.

But as that BSO who was on FT a while back said - they're just trying to assess whether you have customs violations by asking you inane questions that are none of their business.

They should bump the 48-hour allowance up to $2000 as the Kinney committee recommended, or remove it entirely, and they'd stop having so many people "smuggling" :rolleyes: consumer goods in.

US purpose for entry checks: stop the bad guys.
Canadian purpose for entry checks: seize bottles of wine or tax, tax, tax.

Simon

Simon,

Why do you only presume that Canada Customs is only looking for those who under-declare their wine allowances on their exemption forms? To me that sounds a little narrow minded in your presumption of Canada Customs' official duties. If CBSAguy is still around, lets page him and let him at this!

Sanosuke!

Basically the custom agents have more or less unlimited power. They can search anything they want. After going through my luggage, one agent went through my journal when I came back to Canada after two months of sabatical leave. I felt my privacy was unnecssary violated but I kept my mouth shut so that I would not get into more trouble. It was highly technical and only good for insomnia reading . I don't know why he was so interested in it in first place!

Solution (I'm talking Nexus only here and, specifically, airports):

1. Correct the deficiencies with the programme. Update databases, ensure the initial screening is done properly with a focus on security, keep everything current. The way the article describes the current situation is a disgrace.

2. Expand the programme, encouraging more people to join, thus freeing up a number of officers from their duties of processing travellers on the Primary Inspection Line.

3. Redeploy these resources more effectively: working with detector dogs, conducting more random and targeted examinations, x-raying more bags, roving the baggage hall, etc.

If done properly, this would result in a quicker Customs/Immigration experience for many Canadians; an increase in drug, weapons, child porn, and big-ticket commodity seizures; and an increased focus on higher-risk travellers. All this with no job losses.

Er, is badgering me about my clothes and where I bought them and how much I paid for them conducive to discovering whether I am smuggling drugs or weapons, or plotting to blow anything up ?

I think the term 'narrow-minded' is more appropriately applied to people who operate on the principle that 'if your reason for travelling + demographic profile do not appear to correspond with one of our three approved narratives for international travel, you must be a criminal.'

The fact is that the CBSA are obsessed with catching people who might be trying to dodge customs duties on personal shopping. The concerns raised by officers in the G&M article seemed to refer exclusively to this kind of violation. To be fair, I do not know whether or not they apply the same level of diligence to detecting more serious violations. I certainly hope they do.

Um, how about because he said the reason they ask inane questions to Canadian citizens, who have a right of entry to Canada once they have established their citizenship, was to see if they could detect subtle signals or some such that they weren't telling the truth and might have customs issues?

Tax, tax, tax. That's our mantra, yes it is.

Whilst entering UK: "welcome home, sir."

Simon

My cynicism had a hunch where the report came from. It proved correct.

Whining from the union to try and create/protect more jobs in order to boost the union's fee base.

I agree that the exemptions should be increased. As it stands, if you leave Canada for less than 24 hours, you have no exemption and should, technically, be paying duty on that $4 pair of socks you picked up because you needed them. I don't agree that the exemptions can be removed entirely. To an extent, they do serve to protect sectors of the Canadian economy. If removed entirely, what's to stop everyone from bringing back a trunk full of liquor or cigarettes after a 15 minute trip across the border? The current allowances do make Canada seem like a really cheap country (the $60 gift allowance for visitors as an example).

I think they (BSOs themselves; perhaps not their employer) have moved quickly away from the old Revenue Canada taxation mentality and more toward a public safety mentality. Though I know horror stories do exist, I think the majority of Border Services Officers are anything but interested in charging duty on a couple hundred dollar overage (except possibly during work-to-rule action or if the traveller is acting like an idiot).

Then that begs the question: why so many inane questions vs. those of us who hold dual citizenship in EU countries and the smile/welcome back we get on our way in there?

nolens volans' example above is VERY typical.

Simon

Simon,

They should pay the inspectors better wages so they don't have to ask so many questions to get paid at the end of the month.

The answer would be in the country-of-passport acquisition. The smile you might get when you go to Europe, might be based on the fact that you hold an EU or equalivent passport that allows you access to an non-EU country.

To say that every EU immigration inspector should smile and pat you on the back while saying "Welcome home", is akin to saying that CBSA should pat you on the _BUTT_ and say "good trip ? SECONDARY!"

Sorry, but that response of yours wasn't what most of us were looking for. :D

Honesty in your RESPONSE to the customs officer is _WHAT_ they want to hear more than your condricatory statements in reply to the questions. Maybe you hadn't thought about that, Simon.

Sanosuke!

Advice- A twist on the one family, one declaration???
 

Our situation. We are a family of four (hence the login name). Our youngest (4) was too young for a retinal scan. She needs to be processed physically (we can use the crew line). At our interview, we were told to split up. One adult, one child do retina scans and walk through. Other adult and little one do the crew line up and skip retina scans. Do we fill out two declaration cards? This has implications for ensuring that our declared items (such as duty free alcohol) are in seperate bags as half the party may have to go through secondary..... It really would make more sense to have all of us do manual screening, but that isn't what we were told........