# Does a merger make sense?



## FM07 (8 Jan 2021)

I know there is a lot of knowledgeable sailors on here and that's who I am aiming this post at. As an RCN recruit, I wanted to ask:

Would it make sense to merge our Coast Guard and Navy thus giving the Navy a sizeable fleet and new capabilities? As someone new to the world of the RCN, I am not sure if this is feasible or not, but what do you folks think?


----------



## CountDC (8 Jan 2021)

Personally I think that would just give the government an other avenue to short change the navy on needed equipment.  Navy need more ships?  According to our records they have a fleet over a 122 vessels.   (Fleet of the Canadian Coast Guard - CCG Fleet (dfo-mpo.gc.ca)


----------



## Remius (8 Jan 2021)

Mergers never work out the way they intend them to.  And government is terrible at it.


----------



## Underway (8 Jan 2021)

The RCN and the Coast Guard have very different roles and very different cultures.  Though on the surface they might look the same (they both have ships and work for the government) they are very different.  

The RCN is responsible for the implementation and management of violence on behalf of Canada.

The Coast Guard is responsible for the safety of people, vessels, and the environment on Canadian waterways.  

Not the same thing at all.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jan 2021)

The CCG is sort of made up of a few different groups, 
Navigation Aids=Construction workers of the sea, they build things, put buoys into place, remove them, fix them paint them, they build beacons and light stations, resupply them and maintain them.
SAR vessels= Firefighters, rescue and ambulance mindsets
Science and fishery research= Science types, fisherman and merchant sailors
Fisheries Patrol= Cops on boats with a understanding of fish biology and habitat

Marrying CCG/Science and DFO fleets was painful enough. Generally the majority above are opposed to any military role or mindset. If you are going to arm the CCG, a couple of manned .50cals and two weapon stations (one on each side) with lockers, comms and protection would suffice for the bigger ships, basic training can be done by a roving Navy team or contracted ex-RCN people in the normal crew cycle. These guns would be used to support and protect boarding parties provided by other agencies. The biggest and hardest issue would be to teach the ROE's to the senior Captains and senior management and get buy in from both to use them in angry if required.


----------



## Pelorus (8 Jan 2021)

Aside from the high level issues mentioned above, there are numerous differences in crewing and training models that would make such a merger quite a headache.

CCG are unionized and are paid overtime in certain circumstances. The RCN is neither.

CCG uses a rotating crewing model with a 1:1 time-on/time-off ratio in most cases. I believe the standard period is 30 days for most ships and 90 for the Arctic ones (please correct me if I'm wrong). The RCN is paid better but has nowhere near the same time compensation.

The RCN does not follow TC/IMO certification, making it very difficult if not impossible for RCN pers to be employed in the civilian equivalent of whatever position they hold in the Navy. Granting civilian certs for RCN quals/experience would probably have to be the first step taken if a merger was entertained, as I cannot see TC waiving this requirement for their vessels.


----------



## dimsum (9 Jan 2021)

Underway said:


> The RCN and the Coast Guard have very different roles and very different cultures.  Though on the surface they might look the same (they both have ships and work for the government) they are very different.
> 
> The RCN is responsible for the implementation and management of violence on behalf of Canada.
> 
> ...


I _think_ OP's original question was borne out of a bit of misunderstanding over what the CCG does. Much like many other things, I'm guessing OP's view of CCG is at least somewhat influenced by the info from the USCG, which also inclues sovereignty, security, and other roles that the CCG doesn't have. It wouldn't be the first time people thought Canadian institutions were like US ones with similar names.

I could be wrong though.


----------



## torg003 (9 Jan 2021)

The CCG was originally the Canadian Marine Service*, but renamed Coast Guard by Diefenbaker in '62.

*(Marine = the Ocean environment)

Maybe the gov't should go back to that name (or Marine Safety Service), since the general public have the wrong impression of what the Coast Guard does.  Not going to happen, but just a thought.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jan 2021)

torg003 said:


> The CCG was originally the Canadian Marine Service*, but renamed Coast Guard by Diefenbaker in '62.
> 
> *(Marine = the Ocean environment)
> 
> Maybe the gov't should go back to that name (or Marine Safety Service), since the general public have the wrong impression of what the Coast Guard does.  Not going to happen, but just a thought.


It was an amalgamation of the Dept of Marine Services and the RCAF Crashboat Stations. Kits base here in Vancouver was handed over lock stock and barrel, including personal to the new Coast Guard.


----------



## torg003 (9 Jan 2021)

I thought I read that Marine Services were under the Dept. of Transport or Oceans and Fisheries at different times during their history before become the Coast Guard.  I may be wrong about that.  Aren't they under DFO now?  
The RCN provides constabulary service on Canada's coasts (as well as international maritime threat protection).  Maybe the CCG should go back to being the Marine Service (or Maritime Service, as some Canadians might misunderstand "Marine" to mean something else).  The CAF could could have a separate Coast Guard element that is dedicated to coastal constabulary  service (with smaller, lightly armed ships), leaving the RCN to deter international threats (nationally and internationally).  Maritime SAR could be concentrated with the CG for more efficiency, instead of having 2 organizations doing the same thing.  
Anyway, it's just a thought.  Never going to happen, but this idea might be a more efficient way of doing things (or not).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Jan 2021)

Long story short: The RCN provides NO repeat NO constabulary services. The RCN has no police / peace officer power to enforce any laws. The RCN does have the authority to fight armed intrusions into Canadian waters by  a nation state actor - that's it. We are military, period.

The separation of functions in the Canadian maritime environment harks all the way back to the original Department of Marine and Fisheries instituted shortly after Confederation to basically control offshore, inshore and inland fisheries and to provide (in along list) for harbours, wharves, harbour masters, aids to navigation, including all lighthouses, buoys and shore based markers, etc. and for the certification of masters and mates and inspection of vessels. There was no navy at that time and the fisheries side of things obtained "cutters", which were really light cruisers, to enforce fishing rights against the Americans, since the RN -in charge of our coastal protection - refused to do it for fear of another war with the Americans.

This fisheries protection side of the house became the incubator of the RCN, but continued it's existence and function for all times thereafter, with the RCN serving purely as military muscle.

In all this, constabulary duties (the enforcement of Canadian laws in Canadian waters) was , and remains to this day, the duty of the police, and in particular, the RCMP. When RCN ships are sent to carry out law enforcement, they carry RCMP officers onboard to carry out the policing work. For quite a long time, the RCMP had a rather large marine detachment of ocean/inshore capable vessels, but in the late 1960's/early 1970's, they mostly disbanded it. The vessels ended up as Naval Reserve units tenders or even commissioned vessels (HMCS FORT STEELE). The RCMP now uses large RHiB's and a few twin-hulled small fibreglass vessels on the West coast.

Shortly after WWII, the various government fleets grew quite large and, as ships became more and more capable of operating in some ice, ice breaking became a much more important mission for keeping the sea lanes (read the St Lawrence river and the coasts of Newfoundland) open. Thus, the fisheries remained on their own, but the other duties, relating to nav aids, harbour and certification, together with the now increased icebreaking fleet, was spun out to the Department of Transportation. Also, a new department was created, required as ocean research became more and more important both to support fisheries regulation and to provide the Navy with oceanographic data for ASW and navigation: The Department of Oceans and Hydrographic research.

Then, the marine services that were within the Department of Transportation became a specific service within the Dept and was renamed Canadian Coast Guard, but remained centred on  its nav aids and icebreaking duties + marine certification / inspections. Marine SAR, which they had previously done on a secondary basis, was confirmed into the mix. Finally, the government decided that it had too many different "fleets" and started, first, by amalgamating the Department of Oceans with the Department of Fisheries -spinning Hydrographic services out totally under the Navy for a short while (that merger between scientists and para-military like fisheries personnel went very well: NOT!). Then, they amalgamated the whole lot under the Coast Guard, so that right now, there are basically three organisations only that oversee all aspect of Canada's maritime environment: Ocean Services (The Coast Guard) for all aspects not covered by the other two; the RCN and it's auxiliaries, for all naval defences and military operations of Canada anywhere in the world; and, the RCMP/police (because some of it is done by provincial and municipal police forces within their territories) for all law enforcement duties - with the RCMP operating a few small crafts and bumming ride with the other two services need be (particularly onboard the CCG's mid-shore patrol vessels).

But the Coast Guard did not take over any constabulary duty - nor has such duty been passed to the RCN: It remains with the police. Although, I believe that some limited constabulary powers have now been entrusted to Border Services Canada and that they  have some small RHiB's to carry out these functions.


----------



## torg003 (9 Jan 2021)

Sorry, I used the wrong word.  Constabulary was used in a very general sense, should've said patrolling or guarding, I guess.  Didn't mean anything to do with policing.
Anyway, thanks for the summation.  I had read about how the CCG was formed a long time ago, but couldn't remember where I read it or all the details.

Personally I think the CCG should stick to civvy duties.  I would rather that the RCN be split off from the CAF and be a full functioning blue water navy with it's own air and amphibious assets (ie- becoming a second but separate unified service with sea. air, and land elements).  I would suppose that if that were to happen (and we all know that it never will, but indulge my fantasy), the maritime command of the CAF could become the Coast Guard (main function to help guard the Canadian coastline).  As I said earlier, the current CCG could go back to it's original name.
Another alternative is that CAF is made defunct and the military goes back to the integrated tri-service that is was briefly before unification.
Again, just another fantasy, will never happen.  But the fact remains we need a bigger navy to guard the longest coastline in the world as well as international commitments with allied navies.  The navy is probably the most expensive branch of the military and can't get the funding it needs to carry out it's duties fully as part of a unified force (IMO).


----------



## dimsum (9 Jan 2021)

torg003 said:


> I would rather that the RCN be split off from the CAF and be a full functioning blue water navy with it's own air and amphibious assets (ie- becoming a second but separate unified service with sea. air, and land elements).


Why would that require the RCN to be split from the CAF?  Even pre-unification (when the RCN did have its own air assets) it was still part of the Canadian military.


----------



## torg003 (10 Jan 2021)

I was thinking along the lines of having a budget large enough to fund a navy large enough to protect the Canadian Arctic as well  as the East and West coasts, it would have to have it's own budget, separate from the CAF.   Of course will never happen.  
The fact remains that the navy tends to be underfunded, especially since unification and the gov't doesn't seem to like to be seen spending a huge amount of money on the military.  Just my impression.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jan 2021)

The CCG s not really doing much better, the bigger ships are rusting out, the newer cutters are not that great, the new lifeboats are decent we did get some leased vessels to fill the gaps and 3 new fishery research vessels which were sorely needed. The CCG is also facing crewing shortages.


----------



## CBH99 (10 Jan 2021)

torg003 said:


> I was thinking along the lines of having a budget large enough to fund a navy large enough to protect the Canadian Arctic as well  as the East and West coasts, it would have to have it's own budget, separate from the CAF.   Of course will never happen.
> The fact remains that the navy tends to be underfunded, especially since unification and the gov't doesn't seem to like to be seen spending a huge amount of money on the military.  Just my impression.


Part of it is the Government of Canada does not prioritize defense spending, as we have been able to contribute meaningfully in various allied operations & seem happy to continue doing so.  The idea of us taking unilateral military action against another middle power is remote, at best.

Another issue is the way DND actually spends the money allocated to it, which is the topic of many other threads.  Let's just say, we could be spending our money far more efficiently than we do.

Another aspect of this though, is the legal framework in which money is spent.  Frequently, DND has to return money at the end of the fiscal year to the government that it cannot / is not allowed to spend - sometimes to the tune of $1B or more.  

:cheers:


----------



## Pelorus (10 Jan 2021)

More funding for ships, crews, and infrastructure would be great, but divesting the RCN from the CAF will not save us money.

Having to set up RCN-specific organizations for things like finance, administration, logistics, legal, etc., which are currently shared between the services would not be cheap.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jan 2021)

Become a "Special Operating Agency" No more Shared Services, that alone might be worth it.


----------



## dimsum (11 Jan 2021)

boot12 said:


> Having to set up RCN-specific organizations for things like finance, administration, logistics, legal, etc., which are currently shared between the services would not be cheap.


That just sounds like duplication of work.  As much crap as people like to give Unification, having a single admin/pay system within the CAF is a good thing.


----------



## torg003 (11 Jan 2021)

I would argue that the integration of the armed forces that occurred during the mid '60s accomplished that and that unification wasn't really needed and went too far (just a vanity project of Hellyer IMO).  Going back to an integrated tri-service isn't likely to happen, as it probably would've been done by now.
 From what I've read in these forums, DND HQ is bloated and over staffed.   Splitting DND into 2 departments may not require more admin personnel.  If we had a Ministry of Defence, with a Dept. of National Security (with Army, AF, SOF, etc. and a Dept. of Maritime Security, with Navy, Coast Guard, and other sea assets), might not require setting up another admin system (just splitting up the bloated one we have and using it more efficiently).  
I realize that this idea isn't at all likely to happen, but I've never been a fan of unification, went too far IMO.  DND might as well be changed to the Dept. of International Commitments, as that 's basically it's function, NOT defending Canada.   As pack ice melts and the Arctic opens up more, there will be more interest from China and Russia in the Arctic and we will need a more robust navy to defend our territory there.  Maybe a separate navy might not be the answer, but I don't see the unified armed forces as being effective in defending the Arctic (more focus is on international commitment fulfillment than defending our territory).  Something needs to change IMO.


----------



## lenaitch (11 Jan 2021)

torg003 said:


> I would argue that the integration of the armed forces that occurred during the mid '60s accomplished that and that unification wasn't really needed and went too far (just a vanity project of Hellyer IMO).  Going back to an integrated tri-service isn't likely to happen, as it probably would've been done by now.
> From what I've read in these forums, DND HQ is bloated and over staffed.   Splitting DND into 2 departments may not require more admin personnel.  If we had a Ministry of Defence, with a Dept. of National Security (with Army, AF, SOF, etc. and a Dept. of Maritime Security, with Navy, Coast Guard, and other sea assets), might not require setting up another admin system (just splitting up the bloated one we have and using it more efficiently).
> I realize that this idea isn't at all likely to happen, but I've never been a fan of unification, went too far IMO.  DND might as well be changed to the Dept. of International Commitments, as that 's basically it's function, NOT defending Canada.   As pack ice melts and the Arctic opens up more, there will be more interest from China and Russia in the Arctic and we will need a more robust navy to defend our territory there.  Maybe a separate navy might not be the answer, but I don't see the unified armed forces as being effective in defending the Arctic (more focus is on international commitment fulfillment than defending our territory).  Something needs to change IMO.



Is the issue that unification was a bad idea or an idea done badly?  Although I'm not familiar with their individual structures, a number of nations have a singular defence structure.  Bureaucracy is an organism. Each individual 'client  base' may be smaller, but when you create two of something from one of something, you have to replicate functions.  How would the RCAF fit into such a split, particularly in relation to its multiple NATO/NORAD/SAR roles?  Would it be in the new Department of National Security?  International Commitments?

The Ontario government went to a shared services IT model many years ago.  It took several years for the service delivery bugs to work out, and many individual ministries and departments with specialized IT needs (sortware, hardware, security, etc.) still had to maintain their own services, but now negotiate or deal with shared services who manage the backbone.


----------



## FM07 (11 Jan 2021)

Lots to learn on my end, but the replies paint a good picture of different obstacles and some similarities between the two organizations. Dimsum is correct, I certainly don't have a great knowledge of our Coast Guard. , more than anything, I had the arctic in mind and the prospect of the RCN acquiring some icebreaking capability ( even if it is robbing Peter to pay Paul) .I know the AOP's will have some limited capability in this respect. It is clear, however, that is only 1 small part of the Coast Guards mandate.

I dug up an ancient article from 2008 from Naval Review : https://www.navalreview.ca/2008/01/the-merits-of-merging-the-coast-guard-and-the-navy/

It has some interesting points, I for one didn't know the Norwegians use this model (not that this would necessarily work for Canada) and I don't know if the administrative side of things are as easy as the second paragraph makes it out to be though.


----------



## CBH99 (11 Jan 2021)

Some of the challenges have been mentioned previously, but the 2 main 'obstacles' - and this is put simply, the issues can be/are more complex:

-  The CCG has a completely different culture than the Navy, as can be guessed by the legal framework of their duties, and what they spend most of their time doing.  

-  And unlike the USCG, policing is not one of their functions - although they may assist law enforcement & have law enforcement officers onboard.


A lot of folks would assume that our Coast Guard could, you know, guard our coast.  You aren't alone in having that misperception.  Even having a minor weapons capability such as a C6 or .50 optionally mounted, and the mandate to enforce certain laws, would go a long way.

You are right, we do have the longest coastline in the world.  And, one of the world's smallest populations, hence a pretty small military.  If the government were wise about using resources efficiently (they aren't, just to be clear) - utilizing the CCG to help protect/enforce sovereignty in addition to the RCN would allow more resources to be used towards that, fairly easily. 


Times are changing though, and given some basic leadership & guidance from the right people, the CCG would evolve into something slightly more similar to the USCG in certain respects.

While the USCG is far more armed & aggressive (in a good way) towards some of the policing missions it undertakes, it also has a need to be.  Especially in their southern waters.


With the arctic melting, and both Russian & Chinese governments showing more and more interest in the region - perhaps arming & slightly re-mandating the CCG will be a prudent thing to do over the next decade or so.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Jan 2021)

Reorganization never really addresses the issues that 'unification' efforts are meant to resolve.

Good leadership of nimble organizations, that can quickly team up and collaborate with others to address emergent threats etc, are always more effective.

Unless your key measure of success is 'amount of dollars paid to consultants' 

A surrealistic mega-analysis of redisorganization theories​
Abstract​_Background_ We are sick and tired of being redisorganized.

_Objective_ To systematically review the empirical evidence for organizational theories and repeated reorganizations.

_Methods_ We did not find anything worth reading, other than Dilbert, so we fantasized. Unfortunately, our fantasies may well resemble many people's realities. We are sorry about this, but it is not our fault.

_Results_ We discovered many reasons for repeated reorganizations, the most common being ‘no good reason’. We estimated that trillions of dollars are being spent on strategic and organizational planning activities each year, thus providing lots of good reasons for hundreds of thousands of people, including us, to get into the business. New leaders who are intoxicated with the prospect of change further fuel perpetual cycles of redisorganization. We identified eight indicators of successful redisorganizations, including large consultancy fees paid to friends and relatives.

_Conclusions_ We propose the establishment of ethics committees to review all future redisorganization proposals in order to put a stop to uncontrolled, unplanned experimentation inflicted on providers and users of the health services.









						A surrealistic mega-analysis of redisorganization theories
					

Background We are sick and tired of being redisorganized.Objective To systematically review the empirical evidence for organizational theories and repeated reorganizations.Methods We did not find anything worth reading, other than Dilbert, so we fantasized. ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jan 2021)

boot12 said:


> The RCN does not follow TC/IMO certification, making it very difficult if not impossible for RCN pers to be employed in the civilian equivalent of whatever position they hold in the Navy. Granting civilian certs for RCN quals/experience would probably have to be the first step taken if a merger was entertained, as I cannot see TC waiving this requirement for their vessels.


The RCN, like every other military, is exempt from IMO requirements, and I think literally in the first few pages of the Canada Shipping Act from falling under TC. We do have a pretty robust equivalent safety program, and aside from the warships, the rest of the fleet is built to some kind of class society rules (thus fully SOLAS compliant). We're also required by our own policy to meet/exceed the same level of safety, environmental protection and other areas unless it's not possible for legitimate operational reasons (and you'd better have a really good one and document it).

Even in the case of a merger, TC has zero authority over any kind of RCN vessel, so there is really no question about them waiving anything. Nothing stopping us from voluntarily adopting some civilian certs/training, but in most cases it doesn't make sense, as there is a big delta across the board in extra things we do, and entire trades/departments that don't exist at all in TC world.

I don't think a merger makes sense; fundamentally we're around to break other people's ships and protect our own. Sure, we can do SAR and other stuff, but that's really a bit of a side show to our main purpose. I admire the CCG and what they do, but aside from both of us sailing in ships, pretty limited overlap, and really different operational approach. We need more training/overhead support than they do in some ways, and they need to do a lot of things we don't.

Think stuff like the NSS makes sense, as there isn't much difference between building non-combatants and the CCG ships (the science ships in particular were pretty complicated), and we can probably learn a bit from each other, but no good reason to try and blend the two organizations wholesale, and lots of good reasons to keep them separate.


----------



## Pelorus (11 Jan 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> The RCN, like every other military, is exempt from IMO requirements, and I think literally in the first few pages of the Canada Shipping Act from falling under TC. We do have a pretty robust equivalent safety program, and aside from the warships, the rest of the fleet is built to some kind of class society rules (thus fully SOLAS compliant). We're also required by our own policy to meet/exceed the same level of safety, environmental protection and other areas unless it's not possible for legitimate operational reasons (and you'd better have a really good one and document it).
> 
> Even in the case of a merger, TC has zero authority over any kind of RCN vessel, so there is really no question about them waiving anything. Nothing stopping us from voluntarily adopting some civilian certs/training, but in most cases it doesn't make sense, as there is a big delta across the board in extra things we do, and entire trades/departments that don't exist at all in TC world.



Absolutely agree with what you've said.

Assuming that I understood the original poster correctly, their idea would be for the RCN and CCG to merge into a single entity (Dept of, Water? Coasts?) with a common HR pool of mariners between them who could be posted between combatants and non-combatants throughout their careers. I'm not convinced that the GoC would be on board with the majority of its federally-operated vessels to be crewed by mariners without any sort of TC/IMO certification.


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jan 2021)

boot12 said:


> Absolutely agree with what you've said.
> 
> Assuming that I understood the original poster correctly, their idea would be for the RCN and CCG to merge into a single entity (Dept of, Water? Coasts?) with a common HR pool of mariners between them who could be posted between combatants and non-combatants throughout their careers. I'm not convinced that the GoC would be on board with the majority of its federally-operated vessels to be crewed by mariners without any sort of TC/IMO certification.



Yeah, I assumed that CCG vessels would stay as civilian mariners in that case, so it would really just lead to a step increase in bureaucracy, as they don't need the same kind of operational oversight we do for global operations, and we don't need another layer of safety oversight that they would have under TC. If you keep separate quals, oversight etc. you haven't actually gained anything really, and I can't think of any advantage to having both orgs under a single big giant head.

Always enjoy talking with the CCG folks though, usually a lot of the same kind of complaints, just different flavours of the same nonsense. If nothing else, their offices in Ottawa are at really prime locations, so (pre Covid) it was easy to find a nice patio on a sunny day to pick each others brains.

Lot of Navy folks have jumped over to the CCG side in the projects as well, so that's opened up a lot of conversations just by knowing people. I hope the CCG will get some kind of functional equivalent to the SSE that will help them get long term sustained funding to fix the rust out. The broad plan is there; it's the kind of detailed project costing and tying back to specific operational goals that's really helpful when TB and others come to make cuts. It really helps when you can start cutting out entire projects and point to what specifically you lose during those conversations.

I really like how they run their ship projects, but I think we have more institutional experience at navigating (har har puny) the bureaucracy related to those dollar values, so think that was one good bit of cross pollination in the NSS side of things. Probably completely unintentional, but may as well take advantage of it.

Was pretty funny to have a TC inspector try and come onboard a warship and inspect it though; don't think they were used to being politely told no. Don't usually enjoy digging into the refs, but being able to send the the military exclusion from the CSA (sorry, it was on page 5, not the first few) when he tried to get shirty after that was pretty fun.


----------



## lenaitch (11 Jan 2021)

I can support the CCG taking on a constabulary role, meaning enforcing Canadian law in Canadian waters, rather than just being the chauffeurs, but it would require the requisite law enforcement internal structure and oversight.  As a comparator, a police services entire mandate and structure is geared to law enforcement and public safety.  I have worked with several Ontario ministries that have 'enforcement' of their assigned legislation as a small part of its overall mandate, and found that  the corporate interest, support for the personnel, training, equipment, etc.  is often not there.  It is often viewed as a necessary evil that is lumped in with some other department that probably didn't want it in the first place.  Of particular concern is the stasis that is embedded in their structure that prevents enforcement personnel from exercising their discretion and authority without bureaucratic approval.


----------



## quadrapiper (12 Jan 2021)

If there's a need for more on-water enforcement, why not just boost the RCMP's maritime capabilities, or use the KINGSTONs for that, instead of chasing drug-runners down south?


----------



## YZT580 (12 Jan 2021)

quadrapiper said:


> If there's a need for more on-water enforcement, why not just boost the RCMP's maritime capabilities, or use the KINGSTONs for that, instead of chasing drug-runners down south?


far cheaper to assign a cabin on each coast guard off-shore vessel to the RCMP and staff it with two constables.  You don't need an entire crew for enforcement just one with the authority to speak those words: You are under arrest.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Jan 2021)

YZT580 said:


> far cheaper to assign a cabin on each coast guard off-shore vessel to the RCMP and staff it with two constables.  You don't need an entire crew for enforcement just one with the authority to speak those words: You are under arrest.


Backed up by a 'big stick' at the end of a radio, of course


----------



## lenaitch (12 Jan 2021)

YZT580 said:


> far cheaper to assign a cabin on each coast guard off-shore vessel to the RCMP and staff it with two constables.  You don't need an entire crew for enforcement just one with the authority to speak those words: You are under arrest.



Talk about undirected use of police resources.  I imagine the constables would be thrilled riding around on an ice-breaker busting out ferry lanes around Newfoundland.


----------



## YZT580 (13 Jan 2021)

better than sitting behind a billboard nabbing 10 over drivers for 8 hours or busting up family feuds.  Probably don't need them for inshore vessels but there have been a few times when fishery patrols could have used them on site rather than waiting for them to be airlifted out


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Jan 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Talk about undirected use of police resources.  I imagine the constables would be thrilled riding around on an ice-breaker busting out ferry lanes around Newfoundland.


Make it more attractive by re-commissioning the St. Roch   https://nauticapedia.ca/Articles/NWP_Fulltransits.php


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jan 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I can support the CCG taking on a constabulary role, meaning enforcing Canadian law in Canadian waters, rather than just being the chauffeurs, but it would require the requisite law enforcement internal structure and oversight.  As a comparator, a police services entire mandate and structure is geared to law enforcement and public safety.  I have worked with several Ontario ministries that have 'enforcement' of their assigned legislation as a small part of its overall mandate, and found that  the corporate interest, support for the personnel, training, equipment, etc.  is often not there.  It is often viewed as a necessary evil that is lumped in with some other department that probably didn't want it in the first place.  Of particular concern is the stasis that is embedded in their structure that prevents enforcement personnel from exercising their discretion and authority without bureaucratic approval.


Well said, you could arm the CCG to the teeth, but you would have to rip out several of the senior captains and almost all of the senior management to change the culture enough to get them to open fire when needed. Hell I remember when we started the Rescue Specialist program, one senior captain said; "I am not allowing a bunch of deck apes to touch a pregnant woman"


----------



## CBH99 (13 Jan 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Talk about undirected use of police resources.  I imagine the constables would be thrilled riding around on an ice-breaker busting out ferry lanes around Newfoundland.


I was on a CCG ship a few years ago for a tour (No idea which one tbh, sorry) -- and the ice cream was solid     Like YZT said, there are worst postings...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jan 2021)

One ice breaker I sailed on had a "Hypothermia rewarming device" (aka Hot tub)


----------



## lenaitch (13 Jan 2021)

YZT580 said:


> better than sitting behind a billboard nabbing 10 over drivers for 8 hours or busting up family feuds.  Probably don't need them for inshore vessels but there have been a few times when fishery patrols could have used them on site rather than waiting for them to be airlifted out


In the prairies I thought it was the 'surveillance bush'.

One advantage of using the police is their enforcement capability is almost universal.  Regulatory enforcement personnel are typically limited to the legislation that empowers them.  In your DFO example, it must have been they encountered something outside of their scope; i.e. drugs or something.  In Ontario, a conservation officer has all sorts of authority, but has to call the police if they find a hunter/fisher with liquor (I'm told it happens ).


Colin Parkinson said:


> Well said, you could arm the CCG to the teeth, but you would have to rip out several of the senior captains and almost all of the senior management to change the culture enough to get them to open fire when needed. Hell I remember when we started the Rescue Specialist program, one senior captain said; "I am not allowing a bunch of deck apes to touch a pregnant woman"


Ya, the idea of enforcement seems fine, until things get testy, like people run, fight back, shoot back, etc. then a non-enforcement/public safety organizational culture often fails.  I suppose we could either return the RCMP to a long-legged, blue water marine division, or turn all or part of the CCG into some kind of marine police.


----------



## torg003 (13 Jan 2021)

I was kinda thinking the same thing.  The Coast Guard could be a maritime constabulary that has full law enforcement powers (on the water).  You could roll all the other enforcement duties (such as fisheries and shipping enforcement) into this one organisation.  The other duties that CCG does now (icebreaking, SAR, shipping safety, etc.)  would be done by a separate entity, Marine Services Canada.  In reality it would actually be the CCG being renamed MSC, and the new law enforcement agency being called CCG.  If this agency is created with members from the RCMP Maritime Division forming the core group, maybe it would become the RCCG .


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jan 2021)

Meanwhile the CCGS Bartlett (1969 is doing her last buoys before being retired (again) to be replaced by the "newer" Grenfill (built 1984)


----------



## lenaitch (13 Jan 2021)

torg003 said:


> I was kinda thinking the same thing.  The Coast Guard could be a maritime constabulary that has full law enforcement powers (on the water).  You could roll all the other enforcement duties (such as fisheries and shipping enforcement) into this one organisation.  The other duties that CCG does now (icebreaking, SAR, shipping safety, etc.)  would be done by a separate entity, Marine Services Canada.  In reality it would actually be the CCG being renamed MSC, and the new law enforcement agency being called CCG.  If this agency is created with members from the RCMP Maritime Division forming the core group, maybe it would become the RCCG .



I'm not sure you'd have to split the organization.  The USCG does icebreaking, aids to navigation, inspections, etc.  Something about the 'white fleet' and 'black fleet'.

A 'royal' designation goes to organization, not the people.


----------



## YZT580 (13 Jan 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I'm not sure you'd have to split the organization.  The USCG does icebreaking, aids to navigation, inspections, etc.  Something about the 'white fleet' and 'black fleet'.
> 
> A 'royal' designation goes to organization, not the people.


Splitting the coast guard would simply give another large group of leeches a desk job in Ottawa, with lesser leeches manning more desks where ever a CCG vessel home ports.  That in turn would deprive the actual coast guard of a significant part of their budget.  Department heads, ADMs, training officers, procedures specialists would all require duplication.


----------



## torg003 (14 Jan 2021)

OK.  Would creating a Canadian Maritime Constabulary to handle all law  (and maritime regulation) enforcement on the sea (and work with the current CCG) be a good idea or not?  Might be more efficient way of doing things.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Jan 2021)

torg003 said:


> OK.  Would creating a Canadian Maritime Constabulary to handle all law  (and maritime regulation) enforcement on the sea (and work with the current CCG) be a good idea or not?  Might be more efficient way of doing things.


IIRC the Navy is already good at that.... if we gave them the tools and the people for a well beefed up 'littoral' capability.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> IIRC the Navy is already good at that.... if we gave them the tools and the people for a well beefed up 'littoral' capability.


Normal SOP is to take along RCMP for that stuff on the coasts; they do the actual constabulary duty under their existing authorities and we back them up as required.  Think they have their own inland patrol boats (as do the other police forces that need them). But from what limited stuff I've seen it's generally some radio calls over, polite conversation with the police officers over on the boat, and maybe some tickets issued (aside from something like the Turbot wars or a few other unique ones).

I think the way we do it now is working well enough, and the actual requirement for major enforcement actions at sea within Canadian coastal waters are relatively minimal, so don't think it makes sense to have a dedicated team/assets for it. If the drugs or whatever are coming into Canada to hit the US, way easier to do the interdiction at port.

Also agree with YZT that any reorg would create more bureaucrats than front line assets, but honestly think the current CCG/RCN split just makes sense. Maybe if there is a big shift and we start getting a lot of marine smuggling a dedicated unit might make sense, but if you are going to do it from scratch drones, maritime patrol planes,  dedicated satellite coverage and a bunch of covered gun boat type things would probably be better than a few big ships given the geographic size of the area. Neither of those things are in either org, but would probably be easy enough to do under existing legistlation and C3 setups with some kind of combined RCN/RCMP task force, and a few new toys.


----------



## quadrapiper (16 Jan 2021)

YZT580 said:


> far cheaper to assign a cabin on each coast guard off-shore vessel to the RCMP and staff it with two constables.  You don't need an entire crew for enforcement just one with the authority to speak those words: You are under arrest.


Which I understand is already an option, if the CCG's going somewhere/doing something where having police around would be useful.

That said, _if _there's a need for law enforcement hulls bigger than what Marine Division has now, why mess around with the CCG trying to turn it into (or to create within it) something like the USCG, rather than just giving our existing federal law enforcement agency these hulls (or the RCN, for that matter).

Not sure if it's empire building or something else, but the USCG model seems wasteful for a country that already has a Navy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Jan 2021)

Coast Guard is already an amalgamation of multiple fleets, first RCAF and Dept of Transport, then the addition DFO grey fleet, PWGS fleet, DFO Science and CHS White fleet. Also early on some of the RCMP fleet as well. Currently Parks, CHS and the RCMP maintain independent fleets of small boats.


----------



## CBH99 (17 Jan 2021)

quadrapiper said:


> Which I understand is already an option, if the CCG's going somewhere/doing something where having police around would be useful.
> 
> That said, _if _there's a need for law enforcement hulls bigger than what Marine Division has now, why mess around with the CCG trying to turn it into (or to create within it) something like the USCG, rather than just giving our existing federal law enforcement agency these hulls (or the RCN, for that matter).
> 
> Not sure if it's empire building or something else, but the USCG model seems wasteful for a country that already has a Navy.


Agreed on your points about embarking law enforcement on CCG hulls.  Or, possibly embarking a law enforcement team on an RCN hull if need be.


We also have to remember that the day to day challenges faced by the USCG as an organization are different than the ones faced by the CCG.

While the USAF maintains both a rotary & fixed-wing SAR capability, the USCG takes on a bulk of SAR calls.  The USCG has a pretty sizable fleet of aircraft, and appropriate boats, to take on the vast majority of SAR calls off the coasts of CONUS & Alaska.

The USCG also has a FAR more active, and dangerous, southern border to contend with - including fast movers, narco subs, heavily armed cartels, etc etc.


The CCG, by contrast, doesn't have a constantly/daily influx of fast moving drug boats, nor narco subs.  And unless it's something nearby a ship with an embarked helo, I was under the impression that most SAR calls requiring that level of service falls to the RCAF??

My main point here - and this is just meant as a general point towards to thread - is that comparing the CCG to the USCG is like comparing apples to oranges.  The USCG is considered a branch of the US Armed Forces, and is equipped more along those lines even though their primary 'foe' is drug runners/cartels, along with the usual stuff a Coast Guard does.  The CCG is an entirely different beast.  


0.02 cents


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jan 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Agreed on your points about embarking law enforcement on CCG hulls.  Or, possibly embarking a law enforcement team on an RCN hull if need be.



As I have indicated before, that is already what is being done. Both RCN and CCG vessels embark RCMP officers when needed.

Moreover, the CCG has some hulls dedicated to these functions, at least in the great Lakes/St-Lawrence waterways: Some of the mid-shore patrol vessels. Here below is a picture of  CCGS Constable Carriere. Note the Coast Guard livery  and then, the great big sign that says "POLICE", under that sign and a little to the right, you can see the RCMP logo and colours.


----------



## quadrapiper (17 Jan 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Agreed on your points about embarking law enforcement on CCG hulls.  Or, possibly embarking a law enforcement team on an RCN hull if need be.
> 
> 
> We also have to remember that the day to day challenges faced by the USCG as an organization are different than the ones faced by the CCG.
> ...


I suppose my bewilderment with the USCG is how far into naval territory they operate: from first principles, that level of coastal defence seems like something to drop on the USN, assuming the States' constitutional arcana re: armed forces and law enforcement don't apply to foreigners. (That said, it'd lose the peculiarity of the USCG being able to turn out what is apparently a better littoral design than the USN's LCS)

As far as SAR (and exclusive of CASARA and police helicopter and fixed-wing searches over land), _very _broadly, the CCG and RCMSAR provide surface assets of various sizes, the RCAF provides aviation, and civilian volunteer teams under local police direction handle land/shore SAR. 

The latter vary significantly province to province in implementation, and area to area in equipment and capabilities (North Shore SAR in North Vancouver has a long-standing partnership with a helicopter operator, for example).


----------



## lenaitch (17 Jan 2021)

quadrapiper said:


> I suppose my bewilderment with the USCG is how far into naval territory they operate: from first principles, that level of coastal defence seems like something to drop on the USN, assuming the States' constitutional arcana re: armed forces and law enforcement don't apply to foreigners. (That said, it'd lose the peculiarity of the USCG being able to turn out what is apparently a better littoral design than the USN's LCS)
> 
> As far as SAR (and exclusive of CASARA and police helicopter and fixed-wing searches over land), _very _broadly, the CCG and RCMSAR provide surface assets of various sizes, the RCAF provides aviation, and civilian volunteer teams under local police direction handle land/shore SAR.
> 
> The latter vary significantly province to province in implementation, and area to area in equipment and capabilities (North Shore SAR in North Vancouver has a long-standing partnership with a helicopter operator, for example).



As it does in Ontario.  For SAR, aviation-related and international waters (i.e. Great Lakes) is still primarily JRCC with inland, bush, lakes, etc. being provincial (devolved to the police of jurisdiction).  There is a lot of cross pollination; JRCC assists as requested for inland matters (for example, provincial aviation assets are either equipped or certified for hoisting) and the police will often handle or at least assist near-shore incidents on the Great Lakes as their equipment/staffing allows.  There are a number of near-shore pleasure craft incidents around here that are handled locally and likely never reported to JRCC.

The issue of SAR on the Great Lakes between the CCG and USCG is interesting.  It seems that unless you are within about an hour or so of Trenton, immediate aviation assistance just about anyplace else is going to come from the US.  It might become more of an issue as the Great Lakes cruise business grows.


----------



## Pelorus (17 Jan 2021)

quadrapiper said:


> I suppose my bewilderment with the USCG is how far into naval territory they operate: from first principles, that level of coastal defence seems like something to drop on the USN, assuming the States' constitutional arcana re: armed forces and law enforcement don't apply to foreigners. (That said, it'd lose the peculiarity of the USCG being able to turn out what is apparently a better littoral design than the USN's LCS)



It's always been odd to me that their mission set goes even beyond coastal defence. They have formal AORs in Guam and Japan, and have conducted expeditionary ops in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Taiwan in the past.

At one point during the Cold War some vessels even carried ASW suites with torpedoes, and a few were fitted with Harpoon missiles. I don't know enough about their organization and associated cultures/internal politics to say if this is a managed strategic initiative by both entities, or just the result of decades of mission creep.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jan 2021)

quadrapiper said:


> I suppose my bewilderment with the USCG is how far into naval territory they operate: from first principles, that level of coastal defence seems like something to drop on the USN, assuming the States' constitutional arcana re: armed forces and law enforcement don't apply to foreigners. (That said, it'd lose the peculiarity of the USCG being able to turn out what is apparently a better littoral design than the USN's LCS)
> 
> As far as SAR (and exclusive of CASARA and police helicopter and fixed-wing searches over land), _very _broadly, the CCG and RCMSAR provide surface assets of various sizes, the RCAF provides aviation, and civilian volunteer teams under local police direction handle land/shore SAR.
> 
> The latter vary significantly province to province in implementation, and area to area in equipment and capabilities (North Shore SAR in North Vancouver has a long-standing partnership with a helicopter operator, for example).


I interviewed someone, who applied to the CAF Reserves, who had been deployed to Iraq with the USCG during the invasion in 2003 to control the port facilities, jetties etc. They were sent in only a few hours after the USMC had cleared the bad guys out.

This 'someone' also happened to be female, and seemed to be seriously checked out.

I was gobsmacked, of course, as I couldn't imagine any other country deploying CG folks to do tasks like that in a war zone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jan 2021)

It's been a duty of the USCG to secure overseas ports being used by the USN since at least WWII or longer, not a well known aspect of their work.


----------



## quadrapiper (18 Jan 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> It's been a duty of the USCG to secure overseas ports being used by the USN since at least WWII or longer, not a well known aspect of their work.


Who would expect that, what with the USN having its own, in-house sea-soldier outfit?


----------



## FSTO (18 Jan 2021)

quadrapiper said:


> Who would expect that, what with the USN having its own, in-house sea-soldier outfit?


Marines seize the island, the SeaBees build the facilities and the Coast Guard come in to try very hard to keep the USN from running into immovable objects (like the sea floor).


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2021)

OK, maybe I'm just being picky or maybe it's my morning to actually pick the fly-sh!t out of the pepper, but words matter.

The American armed forces are _Unified_, the Australian Armed Forces are _Unified_, the British Armed Forces are_ Unified, _the Canadian Armed Forces are _Unified_, the Danish Armed Forces are _Unified_ and ... well you get the picture. _Unified_ armed forces have *unity* of command ~ normally one defence minister and one Chief of the Defence Staff or Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff or something like that who work in one (usually _Integrated_) defence HQ.

The Americans extend unification down below HQ level. In their system, major combat commands are also _Unified_. Central Command, for example, the one with which many of you are very familiar, is _Unified_. One commander, with an _Integrated_ HQ, commands separate naval, land and air forces.

The Canadian Forces *used to be* fully _Integrated_. At one time, in the 1960s and early 1970s, a command, like Maritime Command, had its own fully_ integrated_ air component ~ the piots who flew shipborne aircraft saw themselves as Navy officers, first, while the ones who flew Maritime Command's big, multi-engine long-range patrol aircraft saw themselves as Air Force officers who flew as part of a _unified_ force. The colour of their flight suits didn't much matter. That all changed in 1975 with an act of monumentally stupid policy vandalism which was necessitated by the fact that Navy admirals and Army generals always failed to adequately plan for and support the organic air elements of their _unified_ commands. Given a choice between, say, two squadrons of _Harriers_ to replace his clapped-out CF-5 or 12 vs 13 battalions of infantry the Army generals could always be counted on to choose the cap badge over the combat power.

Of course, the CF remains _integrated_ at levels that no other armed force has ever emulated. Medics and cooks and computer techs are all "purple," which is how we define _integrated_.

The US explored _integration_ in the 1950s. President Eisenhower, I believe, was briefed on the notion and shot it down. He wanted _unification_ and while he understood the USMC's desire to have a high degree of _integration_, he opposed large scale _integration_. (There were some exceptions, the US Defense Communications Agency, for example, was an _integrated_ and _unified_ command ~ there were Army, Navy and USAF units but there were also, a few fully _integrated_ units where sailors, soldiers and air force members served side-by-side, albeit not in the same uniform.

The US Marines fought hard, then and later, to keep their own, organic air power ~ their choice of their _Harrier_, a very inflexible aircraft, in their own, organic (_integrated_) USMC squadrons was because they had learned, the hard way, that they could not rely on Navy or Air Force support when they needed it most. Ike agreed with them, as did later president and defence chiefs.

I was told, by a source I trust absolutely, that Paul Hellyer's team was briefed, by the US, in the very early 1960s and were told: *Yes, to Unification 👍🏻 *but* No, to Integration 👎🏻*. But, Mr Hellyer and his team were being driven by other (political and fiscal) concerns and they went for both. Initially, as I said, the _unification_ extended down through commands and formations and even to base level. But that ended and we now have a strange mix of single service force generation commands and a _unified_ force employment command but our force is still i_ntegrated_, despite having an RCN, Canadian Army ad RCAF.

Anyway, the CF is both _integrated_ and _unified, but unified _means e.g. NDHQ, the CDS and CFJOC, while integrated means thigs like purple trades. 

Rant ends; thank you for your patience; and now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------

