News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 635     0 

Time to increase security at Toronto's Armories?

Admiral Beez

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
12,027
Reaction score
6,107
With the killing and wounding of two soldiers in Quebec, do you think CAF will increase security of the military bases in Toronto? Yes, the Quebec attack happened off base, but the relatively unprotected armouries would seem a possible target. Right now when you pass by the armories in Toronto you see no security at all, just a locked door.
 
With the killing and wounding of two soldiers in Quebec, do you think CAF will increase security of the military bases in Toronto? Yes, the Quebec attack happened off base, but the relatively unprotected armouries would seem a possible target. Right now when you pass by the armories in Toronto you see no security at all, just a locked door.

Because a whack job in Quebec drove a car into two guys? C'mon. That's a silly reason to change any protocols at military buildings in Toronto.
 
Because a whack job in Quebec drove a car into two guys? C'mon. That's a silly reason to change any protocols at military buildings in Toronto.
What is a good reason?

We're sending soldiers and airmen into the battle against ISIS, their leadership has called on their followers to attack soft targets in Canada. A radicalized recent convert to Islam attacks and kills a Canadian soldier and wounds another before suicidally attacking a police officer. We may not see it as a big deal, but I imagine the commanding officers of bases and units across Canada are today reminding their uniformed personnel to be vigilant when in public.

While not as sensational, it certainly reminded me of the British soldier who was attacked outside his armory with a car and beheaded in the street.
 
With the killing and wounding of two soldiers in Quebec, do you think CAF will increase security of the military bases in Toronto? Yes, the Quebec attack happened off base, but the relatively unprotected armouries would seem a possible target. Right now when you pass by the armories in Toronto you see no security at all, just a locked door.

Because a whack job in Quebec drove a car into two guys? C'mon. That's a silly reason to change any protocols at military buildings in Toronto.

It's actually a rather reasonable reason to increase security.

At Downsview, our auxiliary security force was deployed this morning. It's basically military support personnel, taken from their desk jobs, armed with rifles and issued with specific rules of engagement, to work with the Military Police. This is normal practice is light of any incident that might be deemed a security threat.

@Admiral

Just because you don't see armed guards out front doesn't mean there's no security. For the last few months, all armouries in Ontario have been going through security audits, including testing the security of weapons vaults and reaction times to auxiliary security forces. But by and large, for most armouries, they are directly alarmed to the nearby police stations and that's the first line of response. Most of us in the military would feel rather uncomfortable engaging civilians (criminal or not) without very specific legal authorities to do so. Though we'd certainly defend ourselves if some crazed individual decided to attack us at work.

It should be noted too that the incident in question happened near the base, not at it. The deceased soldier was basically targeted for wearing his uniform. This brings up a previous practice of not wearing uniform to work, which was common in the 90s, after the military became really unpopular, owing to the Somalia incident. Assaults against members in uniform were rare but a regular occurrence. There's been some renewed debate whether we should go back to that practice. But for now, the chain of command is taking this in stride. Although, I'd classify it as a terrorist attack, it's certainly more the work of a lone wolf crazed individual than an organized terrorist attack by a terror group. We need to keep threats in context.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the insider info and perspective.

This brings up a previous practice of not wearing uniform to work, which was common in the 90s, after the military became really unpopular, owing to the Somalia incident. Assaults against members in uniform were rare but a regular occurrence.
This reminds me of opposite of police officers, where if they're wearing their uniforms they're on duty, and always armed. If they're not on duty, they're not in uniform, and thus not armed. Perhaps something similar is needed for CAF personnel, armed if on duty and in uniform.
 
Last edited:
Tend to agree with Keithz assessment - besides, one'd think CF members are better at handling threats than softer targets, which, pardon the optics, offers more bang for the buck.

AoD
 
While I wouldn't want to see American style hysteria here, I find it a little disconcerting how easily people seem to dismiss the threat.

You have an individual here who was known to the authorities, had posted lots of disturbing stuff on social media, and had his passport seized for trying to leave the country to join a foreign terror group.

The attack also comes ISIS recommended using cars to attack random citizens in attacks by Westerners in their home countries.

To suggest that this is a single deranged individual, appears, prima facie, to be true. But, we shouldn't deny the real possibility that his motivation was indeed to engage in terrorism.

I wonder if people would take it differently if he had used a firearm in the attack or if he had attacked random civilians instead of military personnel.
 
This reminds me of opposite of police officers, where if they're wearing their uniforms they're on duty, and always armed. If they're not on duty, they're not in uniform, and thus not armed. Perhaps something similar is needed for CAF personnel, armed if on duty and in uniform.

This is a very problematic proposition. To start with, military personnel have a semi-automatic rifle as their basic firearm, not a handgun. Next, military personnel are trained to escalate force according to strict rules of engagement. They are not trained to make judgements on civil rights or to de-escalate an individual experiencing a psychotic episode. It's easy to protect bases or any other key infrastructure with defined rules of engagement which could also included the use of force against anyone considered to be undertaking a hostile act. Not so easy to tell a soldier what to do while he's at Starbucks or Tim's and he's armed and there's an attacker coming in. Also raises the question of what to do where an armed soldier witnesses a crime. Is he/she obligated to intervene? How much escalation of force are they allowed? What are their protections or repercussions if they get it wrong?

There's also the practical nature of working in an office or hangar (where most of us work) while in possession of firearms. While trained to do that during wartime, it is a massive pain in the rear to operate that way at home. Such a change also requires security provisions (including separation of live and blank rounds) in every office (proper weapons lockup) as opposed to base wide or unit wide, as we do now.

If it's warranted we may get to it. But I'm highly skeptical that level of force security will be required anytime soon. For comparison, mandatory carriage of a personal weapon, for all personnel, was last required in Kandahar. We don't even have that for several other locations where we operate in countries with higher threat levels than Canada.
 
My solution is to get rid of the two downtown armouries all together. They take up valuable land that could be put to better use. While we're at it...take back that useless "naval base" taking up valuable downtown waterfront land.
 
My solution is to get rid of the two downtown armouries all together. They take up valuable land that could be put to better use. While we're at it...take back that useless "naval base" taking up valuable downtown waterfront land.

Thankfully, government doesn't make security decisions based on the whims of condo tower fans.

The armouries exist to facilitate reservist training. And to provide a space from which to mobilise in the event of an emergency. This could vary from extra space for the homeless on nights of cold weather alerts, to a major disaster to minor disasters like major power outages.

Would you suggest closing police and fire stations because they take up space?
 
Thankfully, government doesn't make security decisions based on the whims of condo tower fans.

The armouries exist to facilitate reservist training. And to provide a space from which to mobilise in the event of an emergency. This could vary from extra space for the homeless on nights of cold weather alerts, to a major disaster to minor disasters like major power outages.

Would you suggest closing police and fire stations because they take up space?

Indeed. The space taken up by Moss Park and Fort York Armoury is minimal anyways. I do wish that there is more "openess" to at least some aspect of both sites - they are located in an urban setting and it wouldn't hurt for CF to include some sort of outreach component.

AoD
 
Thankfully, government doesn't make security decisions based on the whims of condo tower fans.

The armouries exist to facilitate reservist training. And to provide a space from which to mobilise in the event of an emergency. This could vary from extra space for the homeless on nights of cold weather alerts, to a major disaster to minor disasters like major power outages.

Would you suggest closing police and fire stations because they take up space?

I can assure you that federal agencies don't make any decisions on their Toronto land holdings based on what's good for the city of Toronto.

And that lovely razor-wired, so-called naval base can't accommodate a single naval ship. The handful of "trainees" can go train elsewhere (perhaps at a real naval base with real naval ships).

What we should be doing is asking that Queens Park demand the feds (and especially the TPA) to piss off and give their land holdings to the City. They have been nothing but detrimental to Toronto.

What does this have to do with fire and police...those things are actually useful.
 
Indeed. The space taken up by Moss Park and Fort York Armoury is minimal anyways. I do wish that there is more "openess" to at least some aspect of both sites - they are located in an urban setting and it wouldn't hurt for CF to include some sort of outreach component.

AoD

All the military units in the GTA (and across Canada) do have open houses. Maybe not publicized enough.
 
I can assure you that federal agencies don't make any decisions on their Toronto land holdings based on what's good for the city of Toronto.

And that lovely razor-wired, so-called naval base can't accommodate a single naval ship. The handful of "trainees" can go train elsewhere (perhaps at a real naval base with real naval ships).

What we should be doing is asking that Queens Park demand the feds (and especially the TPA) to piss off and give their land holdings to the City. They have been nothing but detrimental to Toronto.

What does this have to do with fire and police...those things are actually useful.
Just because you are clueless about what happens at these places does not make them useless. To start with HMCS York, aside from being a naval reserve training facility, routinely assist the TPS, CBSA and CCG on maritime ops and security, search and rescue, maritime safety and navigation. Not every naval station has to have giant warship parked out front to be useful.

The reservists who work there are also trained in diving to remove underwater hazards and to deal with found explosives (or something planted with a more sinister intent). And they are routinely called on by various authorities in the area for support. Neighbouring Fort York and Moss Park down the road have a comms regiment setup to provide communications in the event of a major disaster. They also house a reserve medical unit that can set up ambulatory care (smaller than a field hospital) in emergencies.

Various governments have considered moving these facilties out over the years. And they all reach the same conclusions. Recruiting would suffer when reservists have no place local to train, to the detriment of our national capabilities. And moving these facilities away from urban areas dramatically hampers response for mobilizing other forces during any incident or emergency. Nothing like having a familiar operating environment, with personnel having local knowledge. Each of those armouries is set up with secure communications to various headquarters, stores of medical supplies, spare parts and ammunition that allow it to support other units that need to operate in the vicinity. If the land is that valuable, you could always up the regular force budget by a substantial amount and build bases outside Toronto staffed with full-time personnel (hard to get that many reservists elsewhere)....somehow I don't think you'd like that kind of expenditure.

The objection is also bizarre. Ever been to New York City? You'd be stunned at the land holdings by their armed forces in NYC (good chunk due to history). Much of it very prime property, including a recruiting station at Times Square, and a fully functioning naval base on the waterfront (not just a tiny building like HMCS York). You won't find too many New Yorkers complaining. And to complain about 3 tiny facilities in the downtown core of Toronto? Most would find that laughable.

BTW, the land held by defence installations does not fall under the TPA and would not be handed over. Good luck getting DND to declare these lands surplus.
 
Last edited:
All the military units in the GTA (and across Canada) do have open houses. Maybe not publicized enough.

It's fairly invisible - to the average Joe both armouries are a bit of a mystery. Granted, there are issues around security - but it would be beneficial to have more of a public face to both facilities I think (housing perhaps relatively insensitive uses like regimental libraries/archives, etc.)

AoD
 

Back
Top