[bootlegga]

$1:

Guarding our Coasts – A New Mandate for the CCG would focus more on National Security

The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) is mostly focused on the protection of the environment, support of scientific research, facilitation of trade and commerce, navigation safety, and emergency response.

At present, the CCG does not serve any constabulary [police or security] roles. Coast Guard personnel are not armed , and CCG commanders report to [a civilian ministry] , the Department of Fisheries and Oceans [rather than the Department of National Defence]. All of these factors tend to skew the focus of the CCG away from any maritime security and coastal patrol duties.

The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has , for several years now , asked this simple question: Why has no Canadian government taken note of the fact that Canada’s littoral waters are virtually undefended ? Furthermore , the Committee has repeatedly asserted that the Canadian Coast Guard is ideally suited to monitor and defend those coastal waters.

Spokesman for the Navy have emphasized that the Navy does not seek a Constabulary Role

Like most sophisticated navies from around the developed world, the Canadian Navy sees itself as a ' Blue Water ' operation , fighting for Canadian interests in distant waters , usually in the company of allied forces – especially the United States Navy.

In addition, representatives testified that the Canadian Navy already has difficulty getting the funding it needs for the many operations it already carries out. The Navy is not in the position to take on additional responsibilities, such as patrolling the littoral waters of Canada.

What hurdles must be overcome for the Canadian Coast Guard to become a Constabulary Force?

Some people who have testified before the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence contend that, because the Coast Guard is unionized , it would require a significant ' cultural shift ' to transform the CCG into a constabulary force. Union cooperation, they said, would be unlikely.

In fact, unionization is not a hurdle. The Committee took testimony from the two Coast Guard unions on two different occasions. Both unions endorsed the idea of a constabulary Coast Guard, subject to the provision of training, new equipment, and reasonable raises for new responsibilities.

Why can the United States, Israel, Norway, the United Arab Emirates, along with many other countries put together constabulary coast guards while Canada cannot? Why, when there are such huge gaps in our coastal defences, would we not make use of an institution that cruises these waters on a regular basis?

Recommendations of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence [ SCONSAD ]

This current state of affairs does not need to continue. If the political will could be mustered, we could make our Canadian Coast Guard a force worthy of its name. The Coast Guard could be equipped with the kind of vessels best suited to do their job, allowing the Canadian Navy to get on with its duties elsewhere. The key element of the Conservative government’s new defence policy is ' Canada First '. Given that emphasis, why is there so little within the many Priorities and Planning documents that addresses the urgent need to defend Canada’s coasts?

The federal government should take immediate steps to transform the Canadian Coast Guard from an agency reporting to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to an independent agency responsible to Parliament. The CCG should continue to carry out its duties – search-and-rescue, ice-breaking, navigational aids, buoy tending, boat safety, fisheries, and environmental protection – but the agency should also take on new responsibilities relevant to national security. On the security assignments, the Coast Guard could come under the direction of Department of National Defence.

What about need to assert Sovereignty in the Arctic and the purchase of new Icebreakers?

The current government seems to be determined to get the Canadian Navy involved in icebreaking in Arctic waters. The Committee believes that this would be a strange application of naval force, given that Canada’s northern sovereignty is not being threatened by invading navies. Sovereignty in the North is not going to be defended by force – Can anyone imagine Canadian guns firing on US or British vessels going through the Northwest Passage? It would also be an inappropriate application of available resources – the Navy has not broken ice anywhere for half a century. Nobody in the Navy has any experience doing this, and no one in a position of command wants to take on this role.

Part of the Canadian Coast Guard’s mandate, however, is icebreaking, so why would the Coast Guard not continue to play this role in the Arctic? If the government wants to give other countries the impression that we are finally putting some muscle behind Canada’s claim to our Arctic waters, surely equipping the Canadian Coast Guard is the most effective means of achieving that goal.

Source

For the full parliamentary report;

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/comm ... 07-4-e.pdf

The most worrying thing I see in this is that the Canadian Navy has little to no interest in guarding our coastlines. WTF?!?

I mean, isn't that why we have a navy? I understand our admirals want to play with the big boys and deploy around the world, but defence of Canada should come first and foremost. Isn't that what "Canada First" means?

[BartSimpson]

Guarding coastlines usually and rapidly moves into being a police service and not a military service.

The US Coast Guard, for instance, is very much a police agency. They enforce drug laws, immigration laws, they rescue people who are in danger, they also arrest drunk drivers.

The Navy breaks things and kills people. That's their job. And that's how it should remain.

[Clogeroo]

$1:

The Navy breaks things and kills people. That's their job. And that's how it should remain.

In Lethal Weapon the police destroyed things.

[BartSimpson]

Clogeroo Clogeroo:

$1:

The Navy breaks things and kills people. That's their job. And that's how it should remain.

In Lethal Weapon the police destroyed things.

In LA and New York they kill people, too. For real.

[Scape]

Our navy is not there to stop drug runners. That is a civil threat, not a military one and that is exactly what our navy would be doing if we commit it to coastal duties.

If in the event that there emerges a credible long term naval threat to Canada then I could see the navy acting as a screen to filter out such acts of aggression. To even think that in this day in age that such a threat is even remotely credible is a stretch however. Who is even considered an enemy besides random rouge elements that we have to be on constant guard for already anyway? It's not like NK or China is going to do a pearl harbour on Vancouver.

Simply put having the navy regulated to coastal duty is only going to have the navy idle in position wasting money that the CF could be putting to good use elsewhere. We have a navy as a trump card but the key to playing your trump is not to lead with it but always have it ready on standby to do as Bart says, "breaks things and kills people".

Well said Bart.

[Almighty1]

Well put, I agree entirely. I do still believe that we should build heavy armed ice breakers as oppsed to these light duty boats. By heavy armed-I mean a wee bit more than the Bofors guns. I think Torpedos would be a rough design given the hull type for ice breaking but guided missiles, and/or Phalanx would be a nice touch. With the threat of the passage being open to shipping in the next 10 or so years we should be putting resources into the water that can handle any threat-real or in theory. The light boats that have been proposed should still be built and used, we just also need the heavy capability. Coast Guard all the way tho. Lets transform our CG into that of the U.S. Guard and get these waterways under control, moreso than they are now-this would free up Naval resources even more than they are now, including SAR, Interdiction and Sovereignty patrols on all coasts and passages.

[Streaker]

Has anyone suggested decommissioning six frigates to make way for these patrol vessels? If anyone had, I might understand the Navy's concerns, but that isn't going to happen.

In the end it's still the taxpayers who are going to have to pay for this - presumably it won't make a world of difference costwise as to which service operates the boats.

The Navy should get these arctic patrol vessels, if only because making them full-fledged Navy ships makes a stronger politico-legal statement of Canada's resolve to maintain sovereignty.

If the Navy guys are scared that this might take away from their precious time hanging out with their 'merkun buddies, that's their tough.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Guarding coastlines usually and rapidly moves into being a police service and not a military service.

The US Coast Guard, for instance, is very much a police agency. They enforce drug laws, immigration laws, they rescue people who are in danger, they also arrest drunk drivers.

The Navy breaks things and kills people. That's their job. And that's how it should remain.

Sorry, Bart but I have to disagree. Canada is not the US and the Canadian Navy is not the USN.

Yes, the Navy kills people, but so does the Army, and the government hasn't hesitated in the past to use the Army domestically (fighting fires, ice storms, floods, etc.) and the Air Force does SAR, so why is only the Navy exempt from domestic duty? The Navy's own website extols Canada having the world's longest coastline, yet is unwilling to defend it? To me, that seems strange. That's like the Air Force not willing to defend our airspace.

Wasn't one of the selling points of the used British SSKs that they could be used to track down fishing fleets fishing Canadian waters? That's patrolling the coasts IMHO. Does coastal defence have to be the Navy's only mission? Of course not, but they (the admirals) are scared that if they start actually defending Canada, a future government might decide that we don't need AORs, frigates and destroyers that can be deployed worldwide. Then they'll become a small navy again. It's all about defending their turf, not about anything else.

The Navy has skills that would be incredibly effective in patrolling our coasts. The first one that comes to mind is boarding ships. They do plenty of it in the Gulf on deployments. The navy made a big deal a few years back when they intercepted that freighter full of illegal immigrants and that was great. They should be doing more of that, not foisting it off on the CCG.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Guarding coastlines usually and rapidly moves into being a police service and not a military service.

The US Coast Guard, for instance, is very much a police agency. They enforce drug laws, immigration laws, they rescue people who are in danger, they also arrest drunk drivers.

The Navy breaks things and kills people. That's their job. And that's how it should remain.

Sorry, Bart but I have to disagree. Canada is not the US and the Canadian Navy is not the USN.

Yes, the Navy kills people, but so does the Army, and the government hasn't hesitated in the past to use the Army domestically (fighting fires, ice storms, floods, etc.) and the Air Force does SAR, so why is only the Navy exempt from domestic duty? The Navy's own website extols Canada having the world's longest coastline, yet is unwilling to defend it? To me, that seems strange. That's like the Air Force not willing to defend our airspace.

Wasn't one of the selling points of the used British SSKs that they could be used to track down fishing fleets fishing Canadian waters? That's patrolling the coasts IMHO. Does coastal defence have to be the Navy's only mission? Of course not, but they (the admirals) are scared that if they start actually defending Canada, a future government might decide that we don't need AORs, frigates and destroyers that can be deployed worldwide. Then they'll become a small navy again. It's all about defending their turf, not about anything else.

The Navy has skills that would be incredibly effective in patrolling our coasts. The first one that comes to mind is boarding ships. They do plenty of it in the Gulf on deployments. The navy made a big deal a few years back when they intercepted that freighter full of illegal immigrants and that was great. They should be doing more of that, not foisting it off on the CCG.

I'm not comparing the US & Canada here, I'm delineating the line between a police agency and a military organisation.

If you change the Canadian Navy into a police agency you're making a change to the institutional mindset of the Navy and, frankly, they just won't ever be as effective as warriors anymore. Because now when they go into war they'll bring to the battlefield the mentality of a peace officer and it will distract them from their objective. Cops make lousy soldiers and I've had very little patience with them in the past. They almost always HESITATE in moments where hesitiation will cost someone their life because that's what cops are expected to do.

Soldiers ID a target and take it out.

Cops are conditioned to think about it and seek alternatives before using lethal force.

The enemy has no such limitations.

You'll also compound problems as the naval budget changes to focus on littoral issues and should you ever face a real navy then Canada's 'coast guard' navy will contribute to the environment as bottom habitat. As capital ships get passed over in the budget in favour of rescue helicopters and small gunboats you'll be *inviting* someone else to come clean your clocks.

Bluntly, Canada is NOT going to assert sovereignty with gun boats. You need frigates, destroyers, cruisers, subs, and fighting men with a fighting tradition to do that.

[hampton275]

<throwing hat into the ring>
OK, as an ex-Canadian sailor, this is getting comedic. Firstly, Canada (since I was in 90-97, but I am sure for decades) already does fisheries patrols. We had between 2-4 fisheries officers come on board for 3 months at a time, patrolling the grand banks. I personally have also did radar shadowing of drug runners(with customs on board) and other similar situations.
As far as the sovereignty issue, look back to '95 and the fishing situation with the Spanish off the grand banks. That was a stressful situation, as a nation.
The gov't either needs to arm and increase the Coast Guard or increase the Navy and mandate them to have a standing presence in all three oceans, with the authority to arrest, detain, etc.
The example of the army assisting in national disaster situations, check your references! The Navy sends several hundred sailors and equipment in these situations. Hurricane Andrew, floods in Quebec the mid-late 90s, etc.
The air force has readiness fighters, NOT active sovereignty patrols.
So to put it in the correct light, the navy already does most of these things, they just don't have the personnel or equipment to do it in a standing role and are spread way too thin. If they need to, fine, but give them the equipment and personnel to do it right. The same
The Cdn gov't is famous for sucking the CF dry, instead of giving them what they need to do their jobs.
</throwing hat into the ring>

[ziggy]

Should give the rangers up there now defending Canada's sovereignty something bigger then a ww2 surplus 303 british rifle then.

[Almighty1]

ziggy ziggy:

Should give the rangers up there now defending Canada's sovereignty something bigger then a ww2 surplus 303 british rifle then.

Quite a bit more, and some better training to boot. But only after we establish a permanent arctic warfare/training base up there. Without the logistical platform from which to train and deploy in regoin we have nothing. The current sled dog adventure missions we send could only respond within a few weeks of any incident as is.

[sasquatch2]

The lefty peace-movement instinctively always seeks to transform our military into something irrelevant---the army practicing forestry and filling sand bags, the navy doing whale spotting etc.

In a perfect world ice-capable frigates would be the best but in the real world of personel/funding restraints ice-breakers with simple iron sights lightguns/hood ornaments are preferable to nothing.
Politics is the art of the possible and the opposition political parties will fight tooth and nail to prevent any meaningful military capability anywhere.

We have seen their notion of peacekeeping with our soldiers tied to telephone poles.

Peace is achieved through war not negotiations and appeasement.

[inverted]

Bootlegga,

I think there may be a difference in your idea of defending the coast and the quote from the article. Obviously the Navy's first priority is defending the coastlines, I don't think you will find a sailor out there that wouldn't agree with that. What the article stated was: "Spokesman for the Navy have emphasized that the Navy does not seek a Constabulary Role" To me this means police work, do we want a 150 ft long frigate stopping a 15 ft ski boat for drunk boating (driving, what ever it's called).

In the US the CG is a branch of the Military, I did a course last year and we had a USCG helo pilot with us, it was interesting to hear who they interact with the military and the police naval units. I don't think we want to go down the road of incorporating them into the CF but maybe the RCMP? I think giving the CG full peace officer status, plus bringing them into a more security minded role would cover most of our current coastal requirements. They would be able to stop boats, provide surveillance, patrol harbours, etc, then leave the big stuff like Katie to the Navy.

I also think if we could do this than we should cut the CF's contribution to SAR to the CG. I know there are probably old SAR techs and pilots rolling over in their graves about that comment, but if we had a more robust CG would we need to maintain SAR as a military capability?

Hampton275 wrote:

$1:

The air force has readiness fighters, NOT active sovereignty patrols.

Actually the AF sends up sovereignty patrols, using the Aurora, quite regularly, not as often as they used to but they still happen. There is a desire in the AF to have a new UAV to do Artic coastal patrols, something that could launch from NS or NFLD, crawl the Arctic coast and be recovered in BC. I think something like this, mixed with a Navy ability to act on the information, would provide a pretty good 1-2 punch for anything that might be screwing around up north.

Cheers,

[ziggy]

Almighty1 Almighty1:

ziggy ziggy:

Should give the rangers up there now defending Canada's sovereignty something bigger then a ww2 surplus 303 british rifle then.

Quite a bit more, and some better training to boot. But only after we establish a permanent arctic warfare/training base up there. Without the logistical platform from which to train and deploy in regoin we have nothing. The current sled dog adventure missions we send could only respond within a few weeks of any incident as is.

I really think they dont need any training,
Just from what i've seen.