Regarding the security measures in the commercial establishment of

Canadian Tire

New Sudbury

on Barrydowne Drive

Introduction:

Have you ever been asked to have your bag searched? If so, were you caught off guard and surprised? Did you allow it, maybe feeling a little annoyed and confused? Did you walk out with your purchase wondering, “What was that all about?” wondering whether you had showed any suspicious behaviour or done something wrong? Did you drive/ride home mulling this over then feel angry once you got home and related the incident to family or friends?

Do something about it!

The real issue:

This happens every day, and it’s not criminal or even illegal. Doesn’t that surprise you? The law does not legislate these commercial practices, so there’s a hazy area when it comes to personal property rights in commercial establishments. It’s illegal for someone in a position of authority to unlawfully search you. The corollary to that is that you have a right NOT to be searched unless it is conducted lawfully by a member of the authorities. You don’t have to submit to being searched just because a store employee is trying to convince you that you do.

It is clear that this store is taking advantage of most citizens’ ignorance of their civil rights. Most Canadians have a very trusting nature, and avoid conflict, so we frequently lay aside our own rights and comply.

Also, why impose this practice after the purchase is concluded? Because stores want and need the customers’ money. Better to insult and embarrass a customer after you have their money than before.

Suggestion for Alternative Practice:

Why be a bully when there are better solutions that do not insult and demean customers. This could be solved by giving the consumer a clear choice: hire a greeter to work at the door announcing the no-bag policy. This way the customer can choose to leave the bag elsewhere, ladies carry your wallet in your hand, or simply leave and not shop there. You could have a bag-check area, placing the burden of trust on the customer instead of the other way around.

Upon entering the store a choice must be given and made clear to you. GIVE YOU THE CHOICE TO DECIDE WHERE TO SPEND YOUR MONEY, A CHOICE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO, once made aware that your privacy will be required to be disregarded.

From the legal standpoint:

We should know that every store can implement any sort of security practice because Ontario does not legislate on any of these matters. Furthermore, on the legal stand point, no crime is committed by the store since most shoppers, who are surprised by the request and having concluded their purchase, acquiesce to the search (I refrain from using “consent” since this term implies that all parties involved are fully informed of their rights).

Ontario has no legislation on these matters. Quebec does however, and set a precedent when a theater (Guzzi Theatre) was sued after searching attendees’ bags and purses for video taping equipment. The perks of a distinct society!

So, no legislation, no specific private property (on your person) rights clearly defined in Charter of Rights and we find ourselves in no man’s land as a consumer. And, with 9/11 to be used as a crutch, security measures and practices are a touchy issue that no one particularly wants to address. Basically, the store owner’s right to protect his economic interests trumps your rights as a citizen while in the establishment.

Mr. Len McNamara does what he is doing because he can, and we are letting him.

Original Incident:

The incident that spurred this letter arose from my newly immigrated husband’s trip to Canadian Tire New Sudbury on Barrydowne to buy a small car part. He was riding public transit, an environmentally-friendly practice which, unfortunately, does not allow you to leave your belongings in a vehicle in a parking lot. When he was asked to let his gym bag be searched after having paid for the merchandise, he obliged, much taken aback. My husband readily complied as this is common practice in his country of origin, Guatemala. The person who checked my husband’s gym bag/backpack went through all compartments and moved his clothing around to look beneath them. When he told me of this incident I decided to look into it as I hoped it was not some kind of profiling. This spurred my further inquiry into this matter.

First reaction:

I spoke with the Sudbury Police regarding this type of action and they told me to call the store and make an appointment with the owner or manager stating it was on police recommendation. So I did make the call. I did speak to Mr. Len McNamara about this and he explained that my husband had not been singled out. He assured me that all (well, not all, to be realistic) patrons’ bags are searched. He refused to meet with me to discuss this matter. He said he’d look into this incident. I breathed a sign of relief that he would be unable to find out anything about the incident with my husband since it is so commonplace. So, I decided to look into the matter to see where the truth lay.

Field Research:

I was very surprised and displeased with what Mr. McNamara told me and decided to investigate further. I decided I would go to the store and see for myself. Before going in, I interviewed exiting patrons about this practice and 2 minors who said they were asked to have their bags searched and that they had acquiesced. Other women also said they were asked to have their purses checked. An older woman said she had refused when it had happened to her, made a fuss and stormed out. She also stated that her daughters—who are minors—had also been broached, if not intimated, by this request once before while shopping there.

Second Incident:

I walked around, found what I was looking for and proceeded to the check out. My item was charged, receipt printed and item bagged, then the young cashier asked to let my bag be searched. I refused. The supervisor was called to the check out. The supervisor proceeded to explain to me that this was store policy and they needed to check my bag. I asked if I was suspected of shoplifting. She said of course not, it was just store policy. She repeated that she needed to look into my bag. I asked again if I was suspected of theft. She answered no, then proceeded to say that if I had nothing to hide, why not let them just peer into my bag. I said I disagreed and since I was not suspected of shoplifting, I wanted to leave. She said she needed to check my bag.

I asked: Are you telling me I cannot leave until I am searched?

She answered: We won’t search you, just your bag.

I asked again: Do you mean to say that I cannot leave the store until you search me?

By this time I believe the supervisor wanted to avoid calling further authorities, (police perhaps? To avoid setting a legal precedent), so let me off the hook and I left.

Store Security Practice Information:

In order to deter shoplifting, which we know affect many if not most stores, this franchise’s management implemented the practice of the check-out cashiers asking a customer, once they’ve paid, to search their purse, bag, backpack or school bag.

There are stickers at about chest height on the automated doors’ left-hand door, and other 2 stickers near the entrance expressing that they reserve the right to search all purses, bags, backpacks and schoolbags. Then at each check out counter, there are two of these signs, yellow, posted on either side of the detectors.

There are no signs however, indicating that your large bags are not welcome on your shopping trip and will be asked to be searched, not that that would make the practice right.

The store supervisor (and Mr. McNamara during our phone conversation) suggested to me that I could have checked my bag with customer service. In this particular store, there are separate entrance and exit doors. The customer service desk is tucked to the left hand of the entrance, not very visible. No sign saying to check your bag there. In theory, if you were to check your bag there, shop, pay and leave, you would have to exit the store, re enter through the entrance, retrieve your bag and leave once again through the exit doors, passing once again through the entire store and then through the check out lines, to be asked to have my bag searched?. So the suggestion that anyone could or should check their bag at that counter is slightly absurd—there are no procedures put into place to correct the exit-enter dilemma and no sign telling you to do so.

Common Interpretation of Security Practice Signs :

All establishments post some sort of warning. But experience has shown us that these practices are carried out when there is cause for suspicion or outright breaking of the rules.

Human behaviour is largely based on experience, which means we don’t spend our mind’s energy re assessing all situations in order to act or speak. We interpret and draw parallels from experience, our own and external, make associations, all pretty much automatically and focus our efforts on more immediate needs, such as NEW input or physical tasks. With that said, although we may see the sign on a door, it’s size being unimpressive (a little bigger than the size of a bumper sticker), we do not consider it for analysis.

Proud to be Canadian because…

We Canadians are very proud of our reputation for being a peaceful, kind and tolerant society. We are flattered when compared to European countries in our civility and peacefulness. This sets us quite apart from the perceived-hostile United States. One of the pillars of such a peaceful society is that of trust: if I cannot trust my neighbour, I breed suspicion, sow the seed of hostility and erode the core of our society.

We cannot allow ourselves to minimize the significance of Mr. McNamara’s practices. To allow this in our community sets a precedent, an insidious precedent that sets us sliding down a very slippery slope of being denied our civil rights.

More points to ponder:

Your unattended minor shopping there will be asked to let his school bag searched.

Your young son or daughter working there as a cashier will be required to ask this of patrons, facing refusal, maybe even verbal abuse from outraged customers.

If a cashier does a search, opening zippers, moving items around inside a bag to look into it, may touch things with bare hands that could be disgusting at best or even dangerous (knives, weapons, stash of drugs). This type of search cannot be left up to just any employee. This practice is along the lines of airport security checks.

From author:

I know about living without civil rights. I lived in Guatemala for 11 years and saw firsthand the consequences of civil rights being denied at the drop of a hat, so to speak. We do not want to go down that road in Canada. We must not allow any action that remotely resembles the denial of civil rights to occur. That is what makes Canada Canada. If you disagree with these practices, speak out: don’t shop there, refuse the search. Hit the store where it hurts— in its pocketbook. Surely the money lost in future sales will far outweigh the money it loses in shoplifting. Maybe they’ll hire some in-store surveillance to deter theft, instead of violating YOUR right to privacy. There are other competitors out there who are not doing this who will be more than willing to have your business. For example, the South End Canadian Tire does not engage in these practices.

Conclusion:

I did speak to Mr. McNamara about this. He staunchly stood by his practices and refused to meet with me to discuss this matter. He will argue his point to the death. He will stand by the fact that he is doing nothing illegal. He will say he is trying to curtail shoplifting, which in the end the customer ends up paying for in the higher prices of products and services. Yes, well, there are other methods to attain the goal of less theft, and other commercial establishments have put those into place, name withheld, with pleasant greeters with stickers at the entrance of their store. There are alternatives, for everyone.

Let me know what you think and feel about this matter. Write to: opinions@mysudbury.ca

or

post your comment



Background Research:

Spoke with Canadian Tire Corporation: They state that franchises have the right to administer according to their particular needs, economic and otherwise. They have a standard Code of Ethics, but this still does not seem to affect each franchise’s practices. They were surprised at the practice and stated that security measures were to be enforced by senior and management staff or specifically security officers. But again, preferred to leave it up to each franchise.

Sudbury Police Services: Surprised by practice, referred to make an appointment with store manager or owner.

Human Rights Commission
Better Business Bureau
Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Charter of Rights
Bureau de la Concurrence
Protection au Consommateur/Consumer Protection