|
Security industry in favour of body armour regulation |
|
|
|
|
| Written by Kathleen Sibley, on Mon-September-2009 |
Page 1 of 2
 A recent survey indicates that many security professionals support the idea of regulating the sale, possession and use of body armour if it means improved on-the-job security — and if employers are forced to foot the bill.
The survey, which was recently conducted by the Canadian Society for
Industrial Security Inc. (CSIS Inc.), found that almost 80 per cent of
respondents would support a government move to license the
manufacturing, sale and use of body armour. Almost 70 per cent said the
employer should pay for the associated costs. They also support the
idea of regulating the cost and type of material that retailers can
sell, and guidelines for the destruction and decommissioning of used
body armour so it doesn’t end up back on the street.
“Most people are in favour; it’s just a matter of how it will
be done,” says Robert Marentette, the organization’s executive
director.
CSIS Inc. surveyed its members on the issue to provide the
B.C. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General with additional
insight following the ministry’s own consultations on the subject. The
B.C. government, which did not provide a spokesperson for comment at press
time, is looking at regulating the sale, possession and use of body
armour as part of its “Guns and Gangs” initiative.
If approved, B.C.’s licensing program will include criminal
record checks. As well, it will provide for the possible confiscation
of body armour from those without a valid licence, according to the
ministry’s website.
CSIS, explains Marentette, felt the province should also
consider the perspectives of security industry professionals affected
by potential regulations. He estimates that body armour regulation
would affect about 70 per cent of the organization’s membership.
“I said (to the organization’s board of directors) we should
approach the government and ask why it is just going to manufacturers
and the people who own the companies,” says Marentette. “Why not go to
people who wear the body armour?”
CSIS sent the survey to all its members across the country,
even though the proposed regulation would affect only its B.C. members
if passed — at least for now.
“We know a lot of stuff has spun out of B.C. regulatory-wise
and other provinces have caught on,” he says. “We wanted to go after
whether this is going to be a bigger issue down the road for a lot more
people involved in security and find out if there is support for a
licensing program the likes of what B.C. is going to do.”
Of those CSIS surveyed, 95 per cent said they thought within
the next five years more security personnel will have to wear
protective body armour while on duty. Part of that growth is due to the
fear of being stabbed. About of quarter of respondents currently wear
body armour as part of their jobs.
The survey also asked what kinds of security professionals
should have to wear body armour. Most respondents (almost 90 per cent)
said contract security guards, along with corporate and private
personal protection staff, should have to wear it; three-quarters said
special events staff and proprietary security guards should also have
to don body armour. Just over half said bouncers and loss prevention
officers should wear body armour, while about a third said it should be
mandatory for private investigators.
Rather than view body armour regulation as another
bureaucratic imposition, though, many survey respondents seemed
indicated they see it as an occupational health and safety issue.
|
