Critics charge the proposal, under review, is an attack on Canadian sovereignty, will make it harder to track who has guns, result in more cross-border police pursuits and open the border to gun smuggling.
Further, it's so vaguely worded it raises questions about what would happen if a U.S. officer discharged a weapon here, and who would be covered under the new regulation: Would it apply to bounty hunters?
"We don't need people who are not accountable to Canadian authorities carrying deadly weapons," said Alan Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. "Allowing foreign jurisdiction officials to come in with guns is not very much different from inviting an army in – it's just a matter of numbers."
Loosening red tape is an obvious benefit for U.S. officers, said Capt. John DeMarco of the Niagara Falls, N.Y. police.
In a few instances, he recalled, officers have waited weeks for a permit to cross into Canada for a matter that should have been dealt with immediately. "Any time you've got to do paperwork, it's always a pain, especially if you're only going over there for a short period of time."
However, he said, officers in his department have rarely entered Canada armed. Most often, American officers only bring their guns into Canada for ceremonial services, such as police funerals, so they can attend in full uniform.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/266844
[Proofreader’s note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on October 16, 2007]
Note: http://www.thestar.com/...

Orwellian speak translation:
foreign = US
law enforcement officers = unaccountable gun toting goons
Meanwhile, the peeons are not allowed to bring water and nail clippers on board a flight, and the "Homeland" brown shirts want the airlines to hand over personal information on every passenger to be compared against their politically motivated black lists.
People, stop flying!
1. If US police officers (as reported) only rarely enter Canada armed, and mostly for ceremonial services, such as police funerals, why not change the rules so that "full uniform" means "without a gun"? Most Canadians know that US police officers carry guns, and do not need to be reminded at police funerals.
2. If US law requires air marshalls to carry guns on planes, (which by the way does not improve air safety at all, but rather creates a fear of flying), why can they not leave their guns on the US plane till their return?
Are these guys scared and paranoid to be in a foreign country?
Because 'Full Uniform' means with a gun, except at certain ceremonial events (dinner parties, for example). Even RCMP wear a side arm when in 'Full Uniform' (Red Serge, or NWMP Browns). Colour Guards (white belts) have must have rifles. US and Royal Marines carry swords. That's the way the tradition is, and to single out 'American LEO's' would be rather crass on our part.
"why can they not leave their guns on the US plane till their return?"
They may be taking a different plane home.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
When will we stop cowering?
Maybe we should return that earlier favour and ship some of these gun toters away to SYRIA or EGYPT and question their real intentions.
Yes, but the RCMP- NO MATTER HOW CORRUPT AND WILLING TO SELL OUT HER own CITIZENS- are still Canadian. Lets IMPLEMENT our own protocols without needing US approval
and whatever the "report" is trying to sell stinks to high heaven
This is all part and parcel of the NAU
I recall as a kid seeingh a replica side arm that i was told was used ceremonially
Full dreas My ass!
there is no need of Foreign arma on our soil.
Period!
More later on this
re air marshall and side arm
losk the in cabinet on board
so what if the guy needs a side arm have it in a lock bobox
and who ever is asigned to fly out of Canada into the US can have access,
You will rue the day Yank guns are allowed on Canadian
How do I start a petition here
to stop this foolishnes?
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake