We have debated the quality of Basic Security Training (BST) for years. Instructors argue for more hours; employers argue for lower costs; the Ministry claims that standards are sufficient. But arguments end when evidence begins.
I have analyzed the current BST Module 3 curriculum, specifically Section 3.10: Safe Incident Response. What I found isn’t just poor curriculum design—it is a documented liability trap that exposes every security company, client, and guard in British Columbia to negligence claims.
The current curriculum explicitly sets safety requirements for guards that the course itself refuses to fulfill. It creates a circular logic in which the Ministry mandates training as a prerequisite for action, while simultaneously removing that training from the mandatory standard.
Evidence #1: The “Training” Trap and The Systemic Failure
The BST module explicitly lists one of the mandatory conditions under which a guard may apply force (blocking, restraining, etc.) as: “You receive training.”
Reality is a Smoldering Gun:
- The student is taking the BST to get the training.
- The BST tells them: “Do not act unless you are trained.”
- But the BST does not provide physical training.
Since 2007, when the Ministry and the JIBC, mandatory practical training (formerly BST 2) was stripped from the license requirement, BST has become a theory-only course. We are certifying guards who have read about force but never practiced it. This failure to provide the mandated prerequisite creates a legal black hole for the worker and the employer.
Evidence #2: The “Confidence” Paradox (And Why Reading Fails)
The exact section lists another prerequisite for action: “You feel prepared and confident in your skills.” This statement implies that confidence is a mood you can summon by reading PowerPoint slides. This contradicts everything we know about human physiology and performance psychology.
- Muscle Memory vs. Multiple Choice: Confidence in a physical confrontation is not an emotion; it is a biological result of repetition. When you physically practice a movement thousands of times, your brain builds neural pathways for muscle memory. The current BST provides zero physical repetition. Asking a guard to feel “confident” in a physical skill they have never performed is like handing someone a book on swimming and throwing them into the ocean.
- The Liability Loophole: By strictly defining “confidence” as a requirement, the regulator has created a devious legal loophole that blames workers for systemic failure. If the guard acts and fails, the system argues: “You shouldn’t have acted. The slide says, “Only act if you are prepared.” Clearly, you weren’t.” This clause acts as a liability shield for the regulator while hanging the worker out to dry.
Evidence #3: The “Kinetic” Disconnect
The slides instruct the student to: “Be mindful of your location relative to the individual’s position (relative positioning).”
Reality: Relative positioning (reactionary gap) is a kinetic skill. It is a physical relationship between two moving bodies. You cannot learn it by looking at a screen diagram any more than you can learn to box by reading a book. Without the mandatory floor drills we used to require, we are sending guards into volatile environments with theoretical knowledge of physical reality. They will freeze, because the brain cannot access a motor program it has never built.
A Note to Employers: The WCA Section 115 Reality Check
This is not just an academic debate; it is a direct legal threat to every security employer in BC.
Suppose you deploy a security worker to a known hazardous location (hospital, shelter, mall), knowing that physical or emotional assault is a risk, and that worker has only taken the current BST. In that case, you have not trained them to deal with that risk.
Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) Section 115 (General Duties of Employers) is clear: Employers must provide the information, instruction, training, and supervision necessary to ensure the health and safety of all workers.
If you rely solely on the “Safe Incident Response” slides in Module 3, you are failing in your duty under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Please don’t blame the workers when they freeze; they are never inoculated against stress.
- Don’t blame the supervisor—you likely haven’t trained them either.
The BST is currently just a SWLS (Security Worker License Status)—a minimum administrative standard, not a shield against negligence.
The Call to Action
We must stop pretending that explaining a concept is the same as teaching a skill.
- To the Ministry: You cannot mandate a prerequisite (“You receive training”) that you fail to provide in the mandatory course.
- To the Industry: We must restore the mandatory practical training (formerly BST 2).
Until we do, we are not building safety; we are building liability.