# Should the Canadian Coast Guard be armed?



## mcnutt_p

I was wondering, should the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) be armed as the US Coast Guard. Also should the Coast Guard fall under DND?

The definition of Guard is:_ to keep a protective watch over, as to shield or defend from harm or loss._

Arming the CCG would not only allow them to do there job better, but would also free up the Navy, for other duties.

What is you thoughts?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sure, why not. And while we're buying guns for them, we should order enough to arm our Customs Officers at high profile border crossings, like Windsor.


----------



## mcnutt_p

I was thinking more along the lines of .50 cals.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Me too!!


----------



## PPCLI MCpl

One of my buddies who left the army for the Coast Guard College in Sydney, NS was trained on the .50 cal.  I spoke with him a few weeks ago and he told me some of the Coast Guard vessels are still armed with .50's.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

PPCLI MCpl said:
			
		

> One of my buddies who left the army for the Coast Guard College in Sydney, NS was trained on the .50 cal.   I spoke with him a few weeks ago and he told me some of the Coast Guard vessels are still armed with .50's.



Those were the former Fishery Patrol Vessels that came under CCG control when DFO merged with the CCG a couple of years ago. 

You will find there is a lot of resistance in the CCG to be militaeized along the lines of the USCG. Most of the CCG is more then happy to do SAR, Aid to Navigation and Icebreaking and leave the law enforcement and territorial protection to the navy.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl

Got it. I'll head to the box and feel shame.  :'(


----------



## McG

mcnutt_p said:
			
		

> should the Coast Guard fall under DND?


I'd rather see them in a department of national security with the RCMP and PSEPC.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You will find there is a lot of resistance in the CCG to be militarized along the lines of the USCG. Most of the CCG is more then happy to do SAR, Aid to Navigation and Icebreaking and leave the law enforcement and territorial protection to the navy.


Then maybe they should be called the sea scouts.  If the CCG is not responsible for law enforcement & sovereignty in Canadian waters, then we may as well be rid of it.  Ice breaking can be privatized, and navigation given to a not-for-profit company (as NavCanada does for air transportation).


----------



## Donut

uhmmm, McG, should we sell off SAR, too, or hand ALL of our offshore rescue missions to DND?

Just looking out the window at about 35,000 people who have to get here by ferry or air....but I'm glad they do Aids to Nav and SAR.  Icebreaking, well, it's been a bit of a cool month, but we'll cope, thanks.  8)

Much as the members don't like it, they SHOULD also be doing interdiction and patrol, too.  And rolling them into a unified public security agency wouldn't be a bad idea either.

DF

who finally got a transfer to the coast.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Much as the members don't like it, they SHOULD also be doing interdiction and patrol, too.



They do...


----------



## jmacleod

Ex Dragoon is right. There will be resistance to arming CCG vessels. Transferring CCG to the control
of Fisheries and Oceans Canada was a major error, and greatly resented in the CCG, which continues
to this day. During 1984-87, plans were underway to "privatize" by contracting out these essential
services to the private sector. Canadian Helicopters Corporation CCH of the period actually prepared
a Proposal to take over all rotary wing operations on behalf of CCG, and the long established CCG
jetties and supporting infrastructure were to be sold off - a member of our family was the Director
CCG operating out of Dartmouth HRM for many years. The plan was terminated when a decision
was made to transfer Federal responsibility. The USCG is being significantly upgraded - go to CASR
DND 101 for the latest information, and I think USCG authorites would prefer CCG vessels and crews
to be armed - USCG ships are in and out of Atlantic Canada ports on a regular basis, and ships
crews are familier with each others responsibilities. Macleod


----------



## Manimal

OH MAN, you mean that they don't...... GOOD LORD.


----------



## Horse_Soldier

Let's keep something in mind here.  The US Coast Guard is an armed service, with military discipline, training and organisation.  The CCG is part of the public service, i.e. unionized, civilian, administered under PS rules - notwithstanding the fact that they wear uniforms.  Huge difference.

And yes, the CCG's transfer to Fisheries and Oceans was, and still is a problem.  They are now a Special Operating Agency under the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but it remains to be seen how this will help them improve the way they do business.  I personally don't think they should be in DFO - they should be in a Homeland Security Department of some sort, along with the Border Security Agency.  If nothing else, it would make my (and many others) life easier  ;D


----------



## mcnutt_p

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> Let's keep something in mind here.   The US Coast Guard is an armed service, with military discipline, training and organisation.   *The CCG is part of the public service, i.e. unionized, civilian, administered under PS rules * - notwithstanding the fact that they wear uniforms.   Huge difference. ;D



Unionized, that is the problem.  

Also creating a Department of Homeland Security, would probably create lots of problems. Yes it would consolidateings such as the CCG, RCMP, CSIS, and Customs all under on command, but like I said earlier, there would be a problem with a union. AFIAK each department so far each have there own union, thus creating a union war with in government. Diisband the unions and then create the department.

McNutt


----------



## Horse_Soldier

mcnutt_p said:
			
		

> Unionized, that is the problem.
> 
> Also creating a Department of Homeland Security, would probably create lots of problems. Yes it would consolidateings such as the CCG, RCMP, CSIS, and Customs all under on command, but like I said earlier, there would be a problem with a union. AFIAK each department so far each have there own union, thus creating a union war with in government. Diisband the unions and then create the department.
> 
> McNutt


Not quite.  Unions are organised along professional category lines, with departments having locals of the various unions.  Within my own directorate, half of my employees belong to the Professional Institute of the Public Service, while the rest belong to the Public Service Alliance of Canada.  Within DFO, pretty much every union is represented, including the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, which represents the Coast Guard's officers.  There is nothing that prevents the government from grouping the CCG, RCMP, CSIS and CBSA under one department, certainly not the union issue.  The government has continuously shuffled organisations from department to department over the years.  Just last year, the people responsible for waterways security within DFO were transferred to Transport Canada.  The Customs officers were part of CCRA until they were shuffled off to the CBSA.  While I have mixed feelings about unions in the public service, they are a fact of life.  But they have no influence on the organisation of government.  If the Liberals want to set up a Department of Homeland Security regrouping all the agencies (except defence, of course), it could do so tomorrow morning.  The fact that it hasn't happened that way may mean that either there are good reasons for not doing so (cost, efficiency, etc) or there are bureaucratic bunfights, or it's still being worked on but OPSEC prevents public discussion.  Take your pick.


----------



## x-grunt

I've seen several posts in various threads that have asked the question about arming the Coast Guard. Frankly, I don't see the point. Why militarize a civilian organization? It's like arming lifeguards and forcing them to be police.

Other nations do not consider their CG to be military or even paramilitary establishments. Only the US and India,  AFAIK, have a military-like armed CG. Singapore uses the Police force to do CG tasks. The UK has two (?) CG establishments, HM Coast Guard and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Neither are security forces. Same with Spain, but my abiilty to deciper spanish is limited so I may have missed something in my research. Australia and New Zealand have volunteer-run CG, strictly SAR. Sweden's CG does SAR and has some customs enforcement role. Etc.

With the exceptions above, nations I've looked at with a CG use it primarily for SAR and to maintain safe waterways. Catching bad guys is not a primary role.

My .02:  if this is needed, let's expand a service that is already involved in security work. I say the RCMP, or an expansion of Naval/Naval Reserve forces, or both. Why not form a combined CoastWatch service of RCMP and NavRes, since the NavRes operational tasking is coastal ops. Give the new R82 types a good role. Maybe there are better ideas, the point is arming the CCG is not needed or desireable.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Other nations do not consider their CG to be military or even paramilitary establishments


They don't? The opposite is more true...most CG I have encountered  in my 11 years of going to sea,are armed and are considered at least paramilitary, especially in Europe.


----------



## x-grunt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> They don't? The opposite is more true...most CG I have encountered  in my 11 years of going to sea,are armed and are considered at least paramilitary, especially in Europe.



I do not in any way claim expert knowledge here, just internet research, a very short stint on the CCGS Daring, and a former friend in the RNLI. I gladly bow to your years of service.

The two European forces I looked at Spain and Sweden, may be the exceptions, then. My impression of them and the UK is that while they may be uniformed they are not really para-military or involved in security except perhaps in a supporting role (Sweden's is involved in customs work, as it apparently evolved out of their customs service). Like our CG - the CCG officers college is like a military-like college, uniforms, and drill and all. But they are a civy organization. Compare them to  Firefighters who have ranks, drill, uniforms, too.

I stick to my point though - IMO it would be easier and more effective to expand existing maritime security services then retool the CCG. Let them do SAR and other maritime safety work.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The problem with letting them do maritime safety and SAR work only is sometimes they are the only platform in the area and it may take some time for armed assets to get there.


----------



## Acorn

They should be part of CBSA (maritime borders are still borders) and should have Law Enforcement powers and armament suitable for that role. They don't need to be militarized though, we have the Navy in the event the CCG needs support for something beyond their abilities, just as the Army has been called in to support Law Enforcement on land.

Acorn


----------



## mcnutt_p

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The problem with letting them do maritime safety and SAR work only is sometimes they are the only platform in the area and it may take some time for armed assets to get there.



Good point. If you have to what for armed assest to get there you don't know what will happen. For example you could pull along side a fishing trawler and some fisherman decides he does not like you looking at him and uncovers a surplus .50 sitting on the bow.



			
				Acorn said:
			
		

> They don't need to be militarized though, we have the Navy in the event the CCG needs support for something beyond their abilities, just as the Army has been called in to support Law Enforcement on land.



Even if they would not become part of DND as the original question asked, they should still be militarized. People tend to think differently when they have a gun pointed at them.

My thoughts

McNutt


----------



## x-grunt

mcnutt_p said:
			
		

> Good point. If you have to what for armed assest to get there you don't know what will happen. For example you could pull along side a fishing trawler and some fisherman decides he does not like you looking at him and uncovers a surplus .50 sitting on the bow.



And how often does this happen in real life? The Native fisheries get a bit riled up, I know, but then the RCMP has jurisdiction there and gets involved with that situation.



> Even if they would not become part of DND as the original question asked, they should still be militarized. People tend to think differently when they have a gun pointed at them.



Militarizing is a major undertaking. Essentially you are starting a new service, on existing ships. New policies, training, staffing of a recruit center, recruiting itself, plus the legal hassles involved in negotiating with existing personnel and their unions who need to be retrained_ if_ they stay. The current CCG has NO military or paramilitary function. We have enough problems recruiting for the CF. Even the existing CCG has manpower issues, if I understand correctly. Transfer or acquire appropriate vessels for the RCMP or beef up the Navy and let them loose on this. Or, if the CCG must be used, keep them as is with the addition of a gun or two and a training course for selected members. Maybe have some CCG officers and selected crew take the NBP course. Or send along a non-CCG sub-unit to fill this role. Again, maybe a role for the RCMP or NavRes.



> The problem with letting them do maritime safety and SAR work only is sometimes they are the only platform in the area and it may take some time for armed assets to get there.



I agree with you  Ex-Dragoon. So what are we expecting here that a CCG vessel will have to address? There in lies the important question that needs answering before the rest of the original question can be properly addressed. What is the mission an armed CCG is expected to perform, is it already being done by someone, and if not why are they the ones to do it?


----------



## Bug Guy

mcnutt_p said:
			
		

> Unionized, that is the problem.
> 
> Also creating a Department of Homeland Security, would probably create lots of problems. Yes it would consolidateings such as the CCG, RCMP, CSIS, and Customs all under on command, but



Do you think this is a top to bottom issue?  Perhaps an interim measure such as increased inter agency co-op would be wise to ensure we have the proper capabilities first.  Concentrate in developing operators and co-operation first, and the command aspect second.  Resturcture of inadequate assets will only create further delay and unnecessary friction.

 :skull:


----------



## mcnutt_p

Bug Guy said:
			
		

> Perhaps an interim measure such as increased inter agency co-op would be wise to ensure we have the proper capabilities first.   Concentrate in developing operators and co-operation first, and the command aspect second.   Resturcture of inadequate assets will only create further delay and unnecessary friction.



If you set up a command structure even if it is interm would allow the development of operaters through the use of the others agencies resources. For example the RCMP and CCG could train togther, for response teams, this could be reinforced by training staff from a NBP.

McNutt


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> If you set up a command structure even if it is interm would allow the development of operaters through the use of the others agencies resources. For example the RCMP and CCG could train togther, for response teams, this could be reinforced by training staff from a NBP



The RCMP already have some personnel trained in boarding ops as does some from the old DFO.


----------



## Slim

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The problem with letting them do maritime safety and SAR work only is sometimes they are the only platform in the area and it may take some time for armed assets to get there.



I have been a member of the CCG auxiliary for going on five years now.

You wouldn't believe the stuff that my crew has come across in Lake Ontario just doing rescues. I don't know if arming either the reg CCG or us is the answer but there definitely needs to be some sort of increased law enforcement on the water...It would blow your mind what goes on out there, just in the great lakes.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## RecDiver

Hi Slim: What unit are you in? TOWARF/ GAMRU?

I have been in CCGA for almost 10 years now and knowing our membership, I would not give any guns to anyone of us! CCGA is strictly a volunteer marine search and rescue organization made of either privately owned pleasurecraft or community unit with vessels donated by municapalities. An exception might be District 9 (real up north) where RCMP RIBs etc are registered and taking part in CCGA. Not sure who would want to install a machine gun onto their slick tupperware (i.e. new fiberglass yacht!).

All community based CCGA units maintain a good working relationship with local Police Units and  on occasion, Police officers or Customs officers join their patrol crews.

I understand with additional funding, RCMP officers will now be on board the CCG cutters serving the Great Lakes Area. And thats a good start for a joint relationship.

Cheers,

Nick


----------



## Slim

> Hi Slim: What unit are you in? TOWARF/ GAMRU?



Crew 5 PARU.

You're right inthat there would have to be some big changes before they start handing out guns to the various crews I've seen.

IUt would have to be an organization-wide change...Maybe something along the lines of the Auxilliary police (of which I am a part of in Durham Region) who aren't too bad at all.

I dunno...The whole thing is way above my pay-grade!

BTW PARU is owned and operated by the Durham Regional Police now.

Cheers


----------



## RecDiver

PARU is THE most respected unit in CCGA. Unit 001, right? And probably the only unit with bravery medals due to last year's daring rescue.

I had started in PARU as well (served few years) and was at Tony's funeral few weeks ago.

You guys had the DRP Credit Card for awhile, I guess now the MOU with them is signed as well. Congrats and I hope it works out well. 

Wish you a safe SAR season.


----------



## Slim

RecDiver

PM inbound

Slim


----------



## mcnutt_p

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The RCMP already have some personnel trained in boarding ops as does some from the old DFO.



Thanks should of checked first.

Does the CCG perform boardings with its members, on the same scale as an NBP? If so are the assisted by members of the RCMP?

McNutt


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

mcnutt_p said:
			
		

> Thanks should of checked first.
> 
> Does the CCG perform boardings with its members, on the same scale as an NBP? If so are the assisted by members of the RCMP?
> 
> McNutt



See above....


----------



## Spr.Earl

One interesting bit of trivia is way back when I was coming from over town in Combats (no money) bugger QR&O's ,I stuck out the old thumb and got a lift from a Fisheries Officer and load and behold he had a holster on his hip so I asked what are you carrying?It blew me away a .350 Magnum short barrel.
We got into why? it turns out they get shot at quite a bit and I'm going back at least 15yrs.

But our Coast Guard also must be given the power to arrest,detain and give on the spot fines also,as of now they have non of these powers.


----------



## Slim

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> But our Coast Guard also must be given the power to arrest,detain and give on the spot fines also,as of now they have non of these powers.



Nope...Now they go out and save drunk and stupid boaters from themselves...At least on Lake Ontario anyway.

Slim


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I do think they  need some form of protection, powers to detain and arrest are needed.
Does the whole force need to be packing, no, the staff wieners at land units no, the guyson patrol in boats on the coasts yes, great lakes, yes, enough smuggling there goes on to pay  for the entire fleet in a year.
People who protect our borders and coasts are out gunned before they  have their first cup of coffee in the morning before work.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> People who protect our borders and coasts are out gunned before they  have their first cup of coffee in the morning before work.



hmmm I don't know....very few drug smugglers carry a 76mm Oto Melara, 29 SM2 Standards. torpedoes, CIWS and 50 cals where I am from


----------



## DogOfWar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> hmmm I don't know....very few drug smugglers carry a 76mm Oto Melara, 29 SM2 Standards. torpedoes, CIWS and 50 cals where I am from



not to mention the 40mm, and the small arms. The Canadian Coast Guard isnt set up to enforce anything... should they be? Sure....but then again has anyone run any of this by the guys in the coast guard? They may not be interested in taking on increased taskings. They would certainy require a ridiculous amount of money. Thats got to come from somewhere- Id imagine right out of the pockets of the RCMP and the Navy. Im NOT in favor of that.


----------



## koss78a

yes they should be armed,


----------



## Infanteer

Whoh boy, you brought this thread to the top to say that?


----------



## paracowboy

personally, I think our postal workers, street cleaners, and school teachers should also be armed. Along with anyone who works in the fast-food industry, sales, basically any white or blue-collar occupation.

"Got a job? Get a gun!"

and I ain't just talkin' li'l hide-aways tucked out of sight. I mean big honkin' Colt Single-Action Armies worn tied down on the hip! But, that's just me. My spurs, they jingle jangle jingle....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Quick scenario.

Canadian Coast Guard spots a boat, that has left the US and is attempting to land in Canada. Common occurrence BTW, at the Windsor/ Detroit corridor. "Stop!!! Canadian Coast Guard!! Stop your motor, and prepare for us to come along side!!.............Fuck you!!!!(pops a couple of caps in the general direction of the CCG). "OK boys, their jumping into a van on shore "(too dark to read the plate), I think this may be the OPP's jurisdiction now, give them a call and let them know. 

                                                   -or-

 "Stop!!! Canadian Coast Guard!! Stop your motor, and prepare for us to come along side!!.............Fuck you!!!!(pops a couple of caps in the general direction of the CCG).

Coast Guard pops a couple of flares, night turns to day. Five rounds of fifty AA (one ball one trace) flash over the twenty foot tri-ihull with thirty illegals on it. Pull up, take all into custody, seize all property and arrest bad guys. Get invited to the annual CG dinner in Detroit and tell the USGC that the Canadian gov't let's you play with flares and guns too.


----------



## TCBF

Hell, even Barbie's got a maw Deuce:

http://www.thegunzone.com/gagpix/mg-barbie.html

Tom


----------



## Neill McKay

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quick scenario.
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard spots a boat, that has left the US and is attempting to land in Canada. Common occurrence BTW, at the Windsor/ Detroit corridor. "Stop!!! Canadian Coast Guard!! Stop your motor, and prepare for us to come along side!!.............**** you!!!!(pops a couple of caps in the general direction of the CCG). "OK boys, their jumping into a van on shore "(too dark to read the plate), I think this may be the OPP's jurisdiction now, give them a call and let them know.
> 
> -or-
> 
> "Stop!!! Canadian Coast Guard!! Stop your motor, and prepare for us to come along side!!.............**** you!!!!(pops a couple of caps in the general direction of the CCG).
> 
> Coast Guard pops a couple of flares, night turns to day. Five rounds of fifty AA (one ball one trace) flash over the twenty foot tri-ihull with thirty illegals on it. Pull up, take all into custody, seize all property and arrest bad guys. Get invited to the annual CG dinner in Detroit and tell the USGC that the Canadian gov't let's you play with flares and guns too.



Given the current taskings, training, and equipment of the Coast Guard, a more likely scenario is somewhere in the middle: mounties embarked on a CG vessel to look after the police work.  (There's at least one vessel in the CG fleet now that does this.  Odd-looking thing too: the hull is painted in the usual CG colours, but the superstructure has RCMP striping and other markings.)


----------



## Old Ranger

paracowboy said:
			
		

> personally, I think our postal workers, street cleaners, and school teachers should also be armed. Along with anyone who works in the fast-food industry, sales, basically any white or blue-collar occupation.
> 
> "Got a job? Get a gun!"
> 
> and I ain't just talkin' li'l hide-aways tucked out of sight. I mean big honkin' Colt Single-Action Armies worn tied down on the hip! But, that's just me. My spurs, they jingle jangle jingle....



Paracowboy for el Presidenty!!!


----------



## Old Ranger

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quick scenario.
> "Stop!!! Canadian Coast Guard!! Stop your motor, and prepare for us to come along side!!.............**** you!!!!(pops a couple of caps in the general direction of the CCG).
> 
> Coast Guard pops a couple of flares, night turns to day. Five rounds of fifty AA (one ball one trace) flash over the twenty foot tri-ihull with thirty illegals on it. Pull up, take all into custody, seize all property  and arrest bad guys. Get invited to the annual CG dinner in Detroit and tell the USGC that the Canadian gov't let's you play with flares and guns too.



Option 2 is the No Brainer, and the profit from the seized items would be great rolled back into the CCG.


----------



## Old Ranger

x-grunt said:
			
		

> With the exceptions above, nations I've looked at with a CG use it primarily for SAR and to maintain safe waterways. Catching bad guys is not a primary role.



So, what's wrong with a secondary role?

As long as the training and disipline is in place, gear up! :fifty:

The more support the good guy's have the better!


----------



## paracowboy

even if it not a primary role, it is still something they are called upon to perform. Doesn't it make sense for them to have the means to return fire? I am extremely uncomfortable with sending good people to face a threat and not providing them with the means to at least defend themselves, if not enforce their will on recalcitrant ne'er-do-wells. Give 'em guns, training, the best boats available, air over-watch (with armed support rotary-wing aircraft), the works! Let's protect the men and women who are doing their best to protect us.


----------



## Neill McKay

The Canadian Coast Guard's jobs are search and rescue, icebreaking, maintaining the aids to navigation system, running the marine communications system (radio stations), and fisheries-related work.  It's a very different mandate from the US Coast Guard, which often seems to be the yardstick against which the CCG is compared.  Coast Guard members are a lot closer to merchant mariners than to naval or police personnel.  Arming their ships and giving them a law-enforcement role would be a very large undertaking, and would almost certainly have serious financial and cultural implications for the members.  Imagine the contract you'd have to write (and they are unionized) to include compensation for the dangers of getting into armed confrontations with criminals.


----------



## Old Ranger

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Imagine the contract you'd have to write (and they are unionized) to include compensation for the dangers of getting into armed confrontations with criminals.



Is there not already wording for compensation for the Hazards they already face?

Slim, can you shed any light?


----------



## Neill McKay

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Is there not already wording for compensation for the Hazards they already face?



I'm only speculating on how a union would react to having its members jobs change radically from current CG activities to something with the real possibility of armed conflict.   I don't think anybody joins the Coast Guard expecting to be asked to fight a surface action, even if it is only with small arms.  It's a big jump to go from the Dangers of the Sea to also having to face the Violence of the Enemy.


----------



## Slim

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Is there not already wording for compensation for the Hazards they already face?
> 
> Slim, can you shed any light?



Unfortunately I cannot. I'm a member of the auxiliary CG...A whole different beastie.

I can tell you a few things though. About 75% of our coasts are protected by auxiliary boats during the spring/summer/fall time of year. They do far more of the rescues than the reg CG do. Usually the rescues performed by the CCGA are more the "my engine broke, please tow me!" type. However we do get some good ones. Another crew on my boat was decorated for bravery for taking our boat (35 foot rescue cutter) *UP ON A SEA WALL * to rescue a group of vietnamese fisherman who had gone out in a Zodiac inflateable boat in near hurricane conditions.

That being said the CCG and the CCGA are so underfunded that most reg units hire summer students for crew on the reg boats during the summer now and the CCGA have to scrimp and save what they can just to continue to operate.

A sad state of affairs to be sure.

Slim


----------



## Old Ranger

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> It's a big jump to go from the Dangers of the Sea to also having to face the Violence of the Enemy.



True, but the Storm still rages on if you pop some caps into the Sea.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

From the law enforcement end:
Drugs are now smuggled mostly in ships coming up from Columbia and over from the Golden Triangle into Canada, specifically BC.  They have an almost completely autonomous run up, and can off load with no problems.  They don't even try to get into the States because of the previously mentioned enforcement actions of the USCG and the tightened up ports in the US.  There are thousands of pounds of contraband moving across Canada in trucks every day and flowing into the States.  WE export most of the drugs to the US, except what comes from Mexico.  
If we can get a few more sets of eyes that are properly trained and armed on the water, that can only help everyone.  A huge undertaking to be sure, but why not?  
And the Canadian Homeland Security idea is overdue.


----------



## STONEY

No way !  no one who knows the slighest bit about the Coast Guard  would ever suggest such an insane idea. Now if you were going to completely shut down the whole organization and fire everyone and start over again from scratch recruiting and training new people and had lots of funding then it would be possible provided the law was changed .  When a CG vessel is on fisheries patrol it carries armed fisheries officers to do all enforcement operations the CG merely provides the platform also when involved in anti-drug ops or other similar ops they carry RCMP officers and it is up to them and them alone to do the actual boarding and arresting and once again the CG merely provides transportation. If at any time the Captain of the CG vessel feels his vessel or crew are in any danger whatsoever its is his duty to refuse to take his ship into harms way and they have done so on many occasions.
    When police are going on a drug raid they don't stop any car goinng down the street and tell the man or woman driving to take them on the raid, on the contrary they make sure all civilians are well clear of the area. Canadian Coast Guard vessels are manned by civilian merchant seaman and many of the crew are not even permanent employees but casual seaman on short term contracts.  I know its hard to understand just how the CG works but imagine this:  You are a infantry private in the 1PPCLI and you hear that 2PPCLI is short a Major so you apply for the job and you get it ,because there is a shortage of Major's at present.  After a year in the job, suddenly a major comes to replace you so you are sent back to 1PPCLI and since they have enough infantry privates but there is a vacancy for a sargent cook so they put you there . Bizarre you say , well not in the Coast Guard , anybody can apply for any vacant position & there is no such thing as a rank progression as understood by military personnel.

Please excuse my terrible spelling.
Cheers.


----------



## Blackhorse7

Absolutely arm them, and make whatever changes it takes to do so.  We are living in a new age that the nicey, nicey, 1970's version of Canadian Ideals does not fit into.  I would like to see the Canadian Coast Guard become an integral and essential part of border integrity and security.  To do that, they must be armed.  

Yes it would be a huge cost in training, equipment, and the list goes on.  But think of the price to be paid.  Illegal drugs coming into this country are rampant.  Guns, contraband, etc are so easy to smuggle into Canada that it is a joke.  For God's sake, I was on a trip out to Prince Rupert awhile ago.  No kidding, the ONLY border enforcement that was there was a sign on the dock that said "If entering Canada from a foreign point, please report to Canada Customs Office.", or word to that effect.  

Like it or not, the US is our next door neighbor, and we have a duty to assist in their safety, to say nothing of our own.  With such a huge waterfront to patrol/enforce, I can't even fathom why there is a question as to arming the Canadian Coast Guard or not.


----------



## enfield

Give them armed boarding parties, deck guns, high-performance Navy-type ships, give them armed ice breakers, and helicopters with door guns. Give them the civilian Search and Rescue role as well, and possibly surveillance aircraft. Integrate them directly with Border Services and the RCMP. 

We have the longest coastline in the world - anything less than an armed Coast Guard, mandated for a range of aggressive actions and law enforcement, is irresponsible.

Of course, the difficulty lies in how to accomplish - the current CG is far removed from a para-military organization like the USCG.


----------



## Neill McKay

The real question seems to be "should the mandate of the Coast Guard be changed to include police and border security work?", for which they would have to be armed.  Given the CG's _current_ mandate there's no earthly reason to arm them.


----------



## Old Ranger

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> The real question seems to be "should the mandate of the Coast Guard be changed to include police and border security work?", for which they would have to be armed.  Given the CG's _current_ mandate there's no earthly reason to arm them.



Yes, change the Mandate!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Better yet expand the Navy both regular and Reserve and let us assume the roles.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

It appears that Stoney has been there and may have the pulse of the CCG.  So if they want their only role in enforcement to be simply be a skittish taxi service to the other agencies, who are we to force them into a more dynamic role?
If the union thing was an issue, maybe something like the Dutch have for their military?  When they are in non-op/training mode, the union is right in there.  If they deploy in a real theatre, the union stuff gets suspended until they are back.  Same deal on the water.  Union applies in harbour, on the water, all military.
If the CCG doesn't want it, give it to the Navy.  They have the combat training, have military discipline and already do boardings.  I'm betting the bad guys know the difference between a dayglow orange tug boat, and a shark grey patrol boat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Just a little off topic for a moment, but I think everyone, in Canada, with the proper training and no record, should be armed.


----------



## Armymatters

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Better yet expand the Navy both regular and Reserve and let us assume the roles.



Make sure to enact job protection legislation for the naval reservists... but that can be done easily. The Kingston class vessels in the fleet can be used in the interm, although they may be slow, while new cutters can be purchased. Perhaps latch onto the US Coast Guard Deepwater Project?


----------



## STONEY

Gentlemen stop and think for a moment.  If the new PM were to try to implement any of the these bright idea's & suggestions we would have the shortest government in Canadian history. The opposition would bring down the government so fast as to be unbelieveable. In case your not aware even the military uses fisheries officers or police to arrest anyone in Canada as they have no powers in peacetime. Remember the FLQ crises when Trudeau ordered out the military in aid of civil power , that is still looked upon by civil libertarians as a black day in our history. The Supreme Court wouldn't stand for it either. We do not belong to a military dictatorship and under the CCC only peace officers have power of arrest and even they are severly restricted by the courts as i'm sure you all read about everyday in newspapers.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

STONEY said:
			
		

> Gentlemen stop and think for a moment.  If the new PM were to try to implement any of the these bright idea's & suggestions we would have the shortest government in Canadian history. The opposition would bring down the government so fast as to be unbelieveable. In case your not aware even the military uses fisheries officers or police to arrest anyone in Canada as they have no powers in peacetime. Remember the FLQ crises when Trudeau ordered out the military in aid of civil power , that is still looked upon by civil libertarians as a black day in our history. The Supreme Court wouldn't stand for it either. We do not belong to a military dictatorship and under the CCC only peace officers have power of arrest and even they are severly restricted by the courts as i'm sure you all read about everyday in newspapers.


     The Coast Guard does have a role in dealing with those vessles that have entered Canadian waters illegally, or are opperating in violation of Canadian and international law reguarding safe maritime opperations.  So the Coast Guard doesn't arrest anyone, ordering the vessle to heave to, and towing it to shore for the proper authorities to carry out the arrests (if required), or boarding to inspect the vessle are both within the function of the Coast Guard, and require an armed presence to carry out.  If you dissagree, then take a look at the US Coast Guard and its role in border security and drug interdiction.  It has clearly worked for them, and we have passed the point of pretending that we do not require the same.  I am not suggesting that the Coast Guard become police, but they are as much our border security force as Canada Customs on the border, and they are being armed as we speak.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

STONEY said:
			
		

> Gentlemen stop and think for a moment.  If the new PM were to try to implement any of the these bright idea's & suggestions we would have the shortest government in Canadian history. The opposition would bring down the government so fast as to be unbelieveable. In case your not aware even the military uses fisheries officers or police to arrest anyone in Canada as they have no powers in peacetime. Remember the FLQ crises when Trudeau ordered out the military in aid of civil power , that is still looked upon by civil libertarians as a black day in our history. The Supreme Court wouldn't stand for it either. We do not belong to a military dictatorship and under the CCC only peace officers have power of arrest and even they are severly restricted by the courts as i'm sure you all read about everyday in newspapers.


Your "black day in history" is my "high point of a career yet to be achieved".  It is exactly the "looked upon by civil libertarians" that is what is directing this country into a craphole.  
If the sour grapes Lieberals want to shoot down some new legislation that makes our country safer, then it will be their political suicide.  
In the mean time, recall:

*     Criminal Code
            INTERPRETATION
Definitions
 2. In this Act,

"peace officer" includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(d) an officer or a person having the powers of a customs or excise officer when performing any duty in the administration of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001,

(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,

(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft

(i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or

(ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft registered in Canada under those regulations,

while the aircraft is in flight, and

(g) officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces who are

(i) appointed for the purposes of section 156 of the National Defence Act, or

(ii) employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers;*

So you see there would be no vote in Parliament.  Someone just has to green light the topic.  You can also see from this definition that there are several ways to skin this enforcement cat.  I reitterate:  If the CCG does not want an expanded role, kick it over to the Navy until a proper Border Patrol is implimented.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

In my books, if the Coast Guard is culturally unsuitable to be an armed service, because of it's history and current makeup, why don't we do a role swap with them?  We (the CF) gives them responsibility for ALL primary SAR in Canada (this cost us $800 million a year and I don't even know how many PYs for a function that has no wartime role).  We (the CF) takes responsibility for all maritime security from them.  We patrol, we act as a taxi service for fisheries officers, customs and RCMP when there are law enforcement issues to deal with (that should keep Parliament and the Supreme court happy).  The Coast Guard could still act as a set of eyes while fixing nav aids and doing SAR patrols (anyone can pick up a phone and call a Joint Force Area Ops Centre when they see something "suspicious").

Thoughts?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

*THAT WILL BE ENOUGH OF THAT!!*

You are spewing out the political vitriol known as "common sense".  Knock it off or you will be branded as a "practical person" and undoubtedly halt your forward promotional potential.  
You have been warned. ^-^


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Sorry.  Won't happen again.


----------



## NorthernProtector

Just to clarify a couple points...

The RCMP, CBSA, CSIS and CSC are already governed by the same ministry, namely, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.  If the mandate of the CCG changes to include active enforcement, they should be transferred to this Ministry.

CBSA has the mandate for Border Protection.  The RCMP via a Memorandum of Understanding were given the former Customs Protective Services mandate back in 1932.  The RCMP are still funding by the CBSA for Customs and Excise enforcement activities related to specific situations outlined in the MOU.

Believe it or not...but between WW1 and WW2 the Customs Protective Service had more patrol vessels than the entire Canadian Navy and the RCMP Air Service was created from the aircraft transferred as a result of the MOU.

Changing the CCG mandate is possible however it would be a nightmare to manage and the costs would be staggering.  It makes more sense to have the CBSA and RCMP continue enforcement activities utilizing CF vessels rather than arming the CCG.


----------



## orange.paint

I believe the coast guard does have weapons.I remember them firing tracer over the bow of the "estai" (sp?) the european fishing vessel off the coast of Newfoundland back in the early 1990's.

They should be armed with small weapons like this for dealing with other fishing vessles etc but why would you strap dual 105's on a boat to search a shrip boat?

50 cal will mess up a trawler.


----------



## Neill McKay

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> I believe the coast guard does have weapons.I remember them firing tracer over the bow of the "estai" (sp?) the european fishing vessel off the coast of Newfoundland back in the early 1990's.



That wasn't the Coast Guard -- it was the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.  The Coast Guard was still with the Department of Transport at that time, and DFO had a separate fisheries patrol fleet.  (The DFO vessels have since been merged into the Coast Guard fleet, and the Coast Guard itself transferred to DFO from Transport.)


----------



## MarkOttawa

As someone who worked in the CCG (as a bureaucrat) I must say that Stoney has it exactly right.  Turning the CCG into a paramilitary or law enforcement agency would be a nightmare to achieve.  For enforcement purposes it should normally suffice for CCG vessels to serve, as they do now, as platforms for law enforcement personnel when intelligence indicates the need.

Meanwhile, the RCMP should have a small number of high performance and armed (.50 cal. or 20 mm) boats dedicated to high-risk enforcement activities, with the Navy in reserve for anything requiring such massive (comparatively) firepower.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Then why not just give the boats directly to the Navy (or reserves) so they can start putting together regular training on them?  With the understanding they have to drop everything and crew a boat when the RCMP need them.  Seems like it would be a good joint forces gig for them.


----------



## CougarKing

IF the question of ever arming the CCG is armed is ever resolved, and IF the govt. ever decide in favor of doing so (along with enough funding), does anyone here think that the current, larger CCG vessels can be armed with ASW equipment?

Why? Well, considering all the talk about guarding Canada's Arctic Sovereignty in other threads (and at the risk of sounding like zipperhead's "practical person"), perhaps having better armed CCG vessels patrolling the Northwest Passage on sovereignty enforcement might not be a bad idea. It could be a better stopgap to patrolling the passage until the time the CF can have SSNs like those in the plan killed by Mulroney in the 1980s.  As for how to arm the current generation of vessels, perhaps arming those Coast Guard BO105s (and the single CCG Sea King) helicopters with ASW torpedoes might be a start. Perhaps they can be armed like the larger USCG Cutters, but suggesting Phalanx for icebreakers is going too far.

Some here will this probably dismiss this as yet another hare-brained idea since they would say those recent CF exercises up there which included a Frigate might be enough.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Didn’t read the whole thread, but I will add my 2cents worth, served in the guard for 15 years on Cutters, Icebreakers and Hovercrafts, I agree with Mark that making the CCG an armed service would be very difficult. The last commissioner was dead set against it. However unbeknownst to most we were armed in a fashion. Our cutter had a .303 still wrapped in Cosmoline and paper under the Capt. Bunk when we retired her, also the Icebreakers carry a scoped rifle for bear defense.

I suspect that international events will force us to arm our CG whether they want to or not, I expect it to happen within the next 10 years. The CCG  senior staff was very hostile to the concepts of the Rescue Specialist (RS) and Rescue Diver programs, both which where grassroot initiatives, they and the fleet have finally accepted the RS program but still a lot of doubt about the diver program. The world of the CCG has very much been a Icebreaking and Navigational aid program centered world, where even dedicated SAR was looked down upon and seaman were considered “deck apes” not fit to administer First Aid. Much of the SAR related stuff came from the small boat stations who are generally a bit more independent thinking.

From above you can see how overjoyed they would be of accepting the responsibility of being armed and using it. In their defense the CCG is overtasked and another role would strain the system badly. Also CCG takes pride and comfort in being the “Good Guy” of the sea and is seen in a different light than our DFO cousins. The USCG is often referred to as the “water nazi’s” by boaters accustomed to our laid back ways. Another factor is the average age of the CCG personal, generally 30-50’s as opposed to the USCG which is closer to 20-40’s

To the question: To enhance the security of  Canada, the CCG should and will likely have to shoulder a greater burden of guarding the coasts, the greatest need right now is in the North where CCG are the only representative of the Government. These vessel should be equipped with 2 .50cal MG’s at a semi protected weapon station on either side of the vessel, with comms to the bridge and a dedicated spotlight. The purpose would be to provide support and protection to armed boarding parties from the police or military.

Next the major vessels should be equipped with a couple of hunting rifles with scopes and shotguns. Volunteers can be recruited from the crews to receive training (with some extra pay) in their use (not a big issue as many are already hunters). Their job will be to provide security for the vessel or to guard boarding vessels or seized vessels.

I also think that any new build ships should be fitted with hard points able to accept larger weapons and also designed to accept Fire control systems and defensive measures. A number of these can be bought and stored at depots. As the concept of an armed CCG grows, then a vessel could be armed with a self-contained weapon system in the 57mm range. It will be a long road and I think we need to get started soon.


----------



## Hebridean

Canadian leader announces plans to tighten border security
By Marisa Taylor and Greg Gordon

McClatchy Newspapers

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced plans to hire 1,400 border guards and Royal Canadian Mounted Police, addressing longtime criticisms that his nation's immigration policies have made the country a haven for terrorists.

Harper's plan, unveiled Wednesday and Thursday, also calls for arming border security officers over the next 10 years, beginning next year.

Proponents of tough U.S. immigration enforcement have called for tighter controls on the Mexican border, but they've also voiced concern that Canada's sparsely patrolled border provides terrorists with an unimpeded gateway to America.

"The northern border is a concern, because it's double the size of the southern border and it's virtually unprotected," said John Keeley, spokesman for the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

But the measures are already sparking a debate in Canada over whether they'll help bolster security in a post-Sept. 11 world or needlessly militarize the 4,000-mile U.S.-Canada border.

"It's extremely controversial for a lot of Canadians," said Janet Dench, the executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees. "We like to think of our country as welcoming to people who arrive at our border."

Harper's announcements come on the heels of the breakup of two alleged Toronto-based terror plots.

In early June, the RCMP arrested 17 young men and teenagers in an alleged scheme to take hostages in the Canadian Parliament and bomb buildings in southern Ontario. In late August, the United States and Canada announced that they'd foiled a plot by at least nine U.S. and Canadian residents to buy and ship arms to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam, a violent Sri Lankan separatist group.

"A safe, secure and efficient border is important for Canada, and for all Canadians," Harper said Thursday in Surrey, British Columbia. "It is vital to our country's economy and will protect the safety and security of all of our local communities."

Thursday's initiative to hire 400 border guards will cost $101 million over two years, the prime minister's office said. Four thousand Canadian agents are stationed along the border.

On Wednesday, Harper announced at the headquarters of the RCMP, Canada's premier investigative agency, the hiring of 600 officers and 400 support personnel at a cost of nearly $200 million over two years. He said he was keeping his promise to "give our law enforcement agencies the resources they need to help keep Canadians and their communities safe and secure."

Before Sept. 11, Canadians and Americans were accustomed to crossing the border easily, sometimes without identification checks. Since then, the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents assigned to the northern border has tripled, passport requirements have been tightened, and some U.S. lawmakers have proposed erecting a fence along some sections.

The United States has pressed the Ottawa government to toughen its border inspections and to allow armed U.S. agents to be stationed in Canada, across the border from Detroit, so they can question visitors before they enter the United States. The Canadians, who have strong anti-gun laws, have resisted.

James Bissett, head of Canada's immigration service in the late 1980s, said this week's announcements were in line with Harper's campaign pledges before the Alberta conservative won election last January. He noted that Harper's predecessor, Paul Martin, was perceived as a less enthusiastic ally of the U.S. war on terrorism, though Canada responded to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by creating its own homeland security agency, passing legislation similar to the USA Patriot Act and sending troops to Afghanistan to support the U.S. invasion.

Bissett praised Harper's security moves, both as a way to guard against terrorism and to keep violent criminals from entering Canada.

"Many American politicians think Canada poses a risk in terms of terrorism," he said. "But many Canadians think we're at risk to armed criminals coming from the United States. . . . I think the (Canadian) government just feels after 9/11 that we've got to realize that people want to kill us, and they could come from the U.S."

Dench questioned, however, whether border agents need to be armed.

"I don't think the evidence supports that the agents are actually in danger," she said. "Arguments can be made that once you're armed, things can escalate. . . . The fundamental question is, what kind of a country do you want and what kind of a message do you want to send to people who are arriving to our country."

---

© 2006, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15410476.htm


----------



## bdog

there is however option, Kingston-Class patrol vesselsoperated by the Canadian Naval reserve are equal to their task and of United States Coast Guard patrol vessels,so in essence  
the Reservesare due in what would be a United States Coast Guard assignment south of the border.  The armaments of the two types of vessels by even very close, so rather than inject money into a service that would have be greatly altered toward a tasking why not inject money into expanding and better equipment and Naval reserve to undertake those functions? or am I missing something here?

Kingston class
1 x Bofors 40 mm 60 Mk 5C cannon
2 x M2 Machine Guns(12.7mm)

USCG boat 
2 Mk38 chain guns(24mm)
2 Mk19 grenade launchers
2 .50 (12.7 mm) machine guns
6 Stinger missiles

a slight boost in the Kingston armaments remaking the equivalent to the high-end Coast Guard boatsalso provides invaluable training for members of the Canadian Naval reserve


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The USCG Island class (Vosper design I seem to recall) was capable of 32 kts sustained, if the Kingston could sustain 16kts for a long period, I would say they would be useful, but likely they could only maintain around 11-12kts judging by the hull. Speed generally means a weaker hull with less seakeeping ability and poor low speed handling, the Island class I think had a minimum speed of 8kts. I wonder how the USN Swath designs have been working out?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

bdog said:
			
		

> or am I missing something here?



Equipment is not the issue here.  Mandate and jurisdiction are.  There are fairly strict rules with regards to the Military conducting enforcement on Canadian soil.  I believe it consists of "you can't" by and large.  For the Naval Reserve to be doing refugee and drug interdiction would be a monster task with training that would be unbelievably involved.  Albeit there already exists boarding party tactics and training, there are other big issues to deal with.  Handling of property and evidence.  Attendance to court.  Laying of charges and lodging of prisoners.  
I will be the first person to applaud another branch of enforcement to emerge anywhere, and especially on the water.  But for it to happen in a timely fashion, it needs to be something that isn't an administrative boondoggle.  Look at how long it it taking just to get guns to the CBSA guys.  
Realistically, maybe the NRes could be the transport and muscle guys.  Be under the mandate of the RCMP or Immigration, and then intercept and secure bad guys on the water.  Once the pointy stuff is done, turn everything over to the agent in charge.  
Trust me, the further from the paperwork and legal BS you can keep from, the better.


----------



## STONEY

Remember the Kingston Class were designed to be 1. a replacement for the old Gatevessels and as such were a quantiive leap forward. 2. A CHEAP limited capibility Coastal Minesweeper/Minehunter route survey vessel and as such only required a speed of 15-16 knots and did not require open ocean capability.  Now everyone seems to want to turn it into something it was never designed to do. Likewise the CG can't be armed , it would require you to start with a clean sheet of paper and start from the ground up with a totaly new mandate. It would require years of training and new legal laws written.  Only peace officers  can bear arms in Canada , even the military has to practaly have an act of parliament to be called out for aid to a civil power and only for temporary period. It could be done but would take decades and cost big bucks and we all know that the Canadian Gov. doesn't part with its $ easily.

Cheers


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The good news is there are lots of self-contained weapon systems out there that would make arming existing vessels far easier and not as expensive as before. Was watching a video of the Bofors 57mm ship gun, would make a useful addition. As would the 25mm Bushmaster Marine mount.

One of the problems with the existing CCG ships would be the limited space forward to mount a larger system than the 25mm. Most have a forward well deck cluttered with cranes.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think you would still run into problems with storing the ammunition. From what I remember of the few I have been on, you would not be able to have a large amount of ammunition and if you want to store ammunition on the mount then it becomes a safety issue.


----------



## medaid

Just a thought, why dont we put our NavRes members on a Class B/C contract, send them to NBP School, then a stint at say Regau (Customs School) total would be what...umm...something like 6.5months roughly? (just pulling numbers, correcty me if I'm wrong) All of this funded by the PSECP, then make those NavRes members the core boarding cadre for the CCG/CCGA? It would not change the CCG's mandate, albeit we have to tweak the NavRes mandate slightly to include officer powers, but it might work...no?


Wait...I just thought of this but, didnt the CCC say a peace officer is anyone under the NDA whose an officer or an ncm? Those are the MPs right? Why not re-org a component of the NavRes and open up a specialty trade or Marine Boarder Enforcement Specialists (or somethin along those lines). That would some what solve the 'peace officer' issue and not to mention they will be trained at Regau with regards to the Customs Act, CCC and variety of other laws. Just my somewhat sense making .02.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Most of the mounts nowdays have their own built in Magazine, likely the ammo would have to be stowed internally in the gun system with approprite safety measures, but it is a good question. An emergancy measure could be the use of the small shipping containers which could be stowed on deck or between decks in the hold.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

MedTech said:
			
		

> Just a thought, why dont we put our NavRes members on a Class B/C contract, send them to NBP School, then a stint at say Regau (Customs School) total would be what...umm...something like 6.5months roughly? (just pulling numbers, correcty me if I'm wrong) All of this funded by the PSECP, then make those NavRes members the core boarding cadre for the CCG/CCGA? It would not change the CCG's mandate, albeit we have to tweak the NavRes mandate slightly to include officer powers, but it might work...no?
> 
> 
> Wait...I just thought of this but, didnt the CCC say a peace officer is anyone under the NDA whose an officer or an ncm? Those are the MPs right? Why not re-org a component of the NavRes and open up a specialty trade or Marine Boarder Enforcement Specialists (or somethin along those lines). That would some what solve the 'peace officer' issue and not to mention they will be trained at Regau with regards to the Customs Act, CCC and variety of other laws. Just my somewhat sense making .02.



You are hitting all around the idea of a border patrol.  That will come to pass in time, but as mentioned money and political will are all too scarce.


----------



## medaid

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> ...money and political will are all too scarce.



indeed...


----------



## recoverygod

there is one slight big problem in using resv members.  they are for a most part, part time. ( not to be insulting)  And they have other jobs.  Here in Canada there is no law protecting their jobs, after a military stint.  Such a law would be great and would give the gov alot of members that they can now use.  Yes it is a great idea, but can not be done until the gov passes the law.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Comments about the Reserves are very true, attempting to man a vessel 24/7 would be impossible currently. The CCG uses a 28 day cycle for crews. I suspect they could man a vessel for a certain events, like the Olympics, APEC meetings etc, but as mentioned the laws will have to change before you can even hope to come close, not to mention increasing the number of reservists to draw upon.

The CCG should be seeking volunteers that have a background in firearms/military that are interested in designing a armed program. Send these guys/girls for training and to work with the USCG & RCN to build up the skill sets and write the training manuals and standards for the CCG to use in the near future.


----------



## x-grunt

Colin P said:
			
		

> Comments about the Reserves are very true, attempting to man a vessel 24/7 would be impossible currently.



Is this not what the Naval Reserve is already doing? They do crew several vessels 24/7, year round. I'm not saying the idea is do-able or not, and I have heard manning issues are problematic for MCDV's (and the rest of the fleet too, from what I read here). Merely pointing out  that having full-time operational units crewed by NavRes has been going on for some time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well this is a surprise to me, you are saying they have the vessel manned mainly by reservists, operational and tasked year round? Believe me I will be happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## recoverygod

Yes i know that the navy res has crews at the "ready"  but it would help the CF as a whole if we had the same law as they do in the states.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I would be the first person to applaud a Class B-fest for the NavRes.  The more operational/real life training we can get our people the better.  The problem lays in the political will to have the CF conducting domestic enforcement taskings.  I realize that aid to civil power clauses exist, however they are emergency oriented.  We are great with the sand bags and snow shovels, but rounding up bad guys is another story (see: Oka).  What is being discussed here would come under the heading of a peace officer, and then that brings us back to the issue of jurisdiction and administration.  
Canada needs a border patrol, plain and simple.  It should be created and implemented as soon as possible.  Part of that mandate would be coastal/waterway patrol.  At such time as the aquatic element of the border patrol was being put together, I would have to imagine that the Navy guys would have a big leg up in getting hired, especially the ones who had boarding party experience.  As well, you wouldn't need every single member of the ship to be a qualified peace officer, but I believe (and an admin type can set me straight if I am not) that members of the CF would not be eligible for this type of continuous service.   It is DO-able, but it is a case of "would they".
One area the NavRes guys should be looking at is the Army's Regional Defence Brigade concept that is on it's way.  Huge numbers are being looked at for various areas around the country.  I know here in Windsor, they are looking for the Windsor Regiment and the Essex and Kent Scottish to be 1000 strong in the next couple of years between them.  The idea being that if terrorism disrupted the border crossings here, it would take about 2 weeks for Canadian and American economies to cave in.  That being the case though we have a big blob of water to contend with in the form of the Detroit River.  Certainly having Naval resources integrated with the Brigade would be a huge asset.  Even more so for the Left Coast and Maritimes brigades.  
It is definitely a very interesting time to be in the Reserves in any case.  We were told by the area commander that the basic concept of ops will be simply "Overseas operations will be handled by the Regular Force, and assisted by the Reserves.  Domestic operations will be handled by the Reserves, and assisted by the Reg Force".  Some fairly big implications there for us weekenders.


----------



## recoverygod

It can be done,  I have been part of the 32 bdg domestic responce team for many years.  and i jokily say i did more work for the OPP and toronto police then i did for the army.  Not every member has to be a peace office, as long as there is a good ratio of a peace officers supervision.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

recoverygod said:
			
		

> Not every member has to be a peace office, as long as there is a good ratio of a peace officers supervision.



Agreed.


----------



## medaid

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well this is a surprise to me, you are saying they have the vessel manned mainly by reservists, operational and tasked year round? Believe me I will be happy to be proven wrong.



The MCDV (Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels) are crewed and commanded primarily by reservist, so I'm told from my NavRes friends.

HMCS Kingston
HMCS Glace Bay
HMCS Nanaimo
HMCS Edmonton
HMCS Shawinigan
HMCS Whitehorse
HMCS Yellowknife
HMCS Goose Bay
HMCS Moncton
HMCS Saskatoon
HMCS Brandon 
HMCS Summerside

splite evenly on both coasts. Full time vessels constantly on patrol.


----------



## recoverygod

at the risk of sounding insulting, but what do they patrol for?


----------



## x-grunt

Seems like they do a fair bit of stuff, including being a primary training vessel for new Mars types, route surveys, SovPats, SAR patrols, etc.

It's been discussed a few times. See this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23040.0.html


----------



## steveyb4342

Hi just wanting to throw my uneducated opinion out there and as i didnt have time to read all 7 pages sorry if it was already said. For the time being why not just give each CCG ship/boat a .50cal? It wouldnt break the bank for 1 .50cal and you would only have to train a few guys that volunteer for it. Then as they get new ships {hopefully icebreakers for up north} give them a .50 cal and maybe leave a spot purposely in the bow that is ready to accept a deck gun in case its decided that the north must be defened or have a stronger presence in the future. If you really want to get technical maybe get a few volunteers to form a last resort boarding party and arm them with pistols and maybe an MP5 or two? Again, this is my uneducated 2 cents worth sorry if its been said or is dumb.

                                                                             Steve


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

steveyb4342 said:
			
		

> Hi just wanting to throw my uneducated opinion out there and as i didnt have time to read all 7 pages sorry if it was already said. For the time being why not just give each CCG ship/boat a .50cal? It wouldnt break the bank for 1 .50cal and you would only have to train a few guys that volunteer for it. Then as they get new ships {hopefully icebreakers for up north} give them a .50 cal and maybe leave a spot purposely in the bow that is ready to accept a deck gun in case its decided that the north must be defened or have a stronger presence in the future. If you really want to get technical maybe get a few volunteers to form a last resort boarding party and arm them with pistols and maybe an MP5 or two? Again, this is my uneducated 2 cents worth sorry if its been said or is dumb.
> 
> Steve



Next time do some reading....


----------



## midget-boyd91

Well, of course we need to arm the coast guard. They should not have to call for help from the Navy whenever things that require guarding come along. The little stinch we had a few years back with the Spanish vessel off of Newfoundland would be a perfect example.


----------



## Neill McKay

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> Well, of course we need to arm the coast guard. They should not have to call for help from the Navy whenever things that require guarding come along. The little stinch we had a few years back with the Spanish vessel off of Newfoundland would be a perfect example.



We still had an armed fisheries patrol fleet then.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> We still had an armed fisheries patrol fleet then.



I still believe they are armed


----------



## Neill McKay

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I still believe they are armed



There isn't a separate fisheries patrol fleet anymore; they were absorbed into the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard was absorbed into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (creating some controversy over just who absorbed whom!).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I just go by what my neighbour who is with the CCG and who sails on the ships like the Cygnus, according to him they have never given up their .50s and still recieve training on them once a year.


----------



## Neill McKay

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I just go by what my neighbour who is with the CCG and who sails on the ships like the Cygnus, according to him they have never given up their .50s and still recieve training on them once a year.



Sounds like a pretty solid source, and also at least a partial answer to the question about whether we should arm the Coast Guard!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

From what I gather from him though they are unhappy with the merger and still consider themselves seperate entities.


----------



## Neill McKay

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> From what I gather from him though they are unhappy with the merger and still consider themselves seperate entities.



I was on a (civvy) course with a CG member and a DFO staffer a few years ago.  I honestly thought the CG member was going to get up and hit the other guy a couple of times -- all kinds of animosity.  I don't know much at all about the DFO fleet, but I gather the operating cultures were radically different.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I just go by what my neighbour who is with the CCG and who sails on the ships like the Cygnus, according to him they have never given up their .50s and still recieve training on them once a year.



I heard that they armed a couple of the ships with MG's during the Turbot war, but didn't realize they kept them aboard!

The last armed Fisheries vessel on this coast was a patrol cutter called the Laurier approx 120' long.


----------



## midget-boyd91

I can honestly not tell why there is even questions as to whether or not the CG should be armed. Is it costs, politics, or manpower shortages. 
Because, why would we have a guard that does not have equipment to guard in a threatening situation ... can someone here who knows the answer please enlighten me.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The thing is though you are applying USCG standards to be Canadian standards and they could not be farther from each other. Our CG is for ice breaking, SAR, pollution control, navigation and limited enforcement. The USCG has always been military oriented whereas ours is not (and prob never will be).


----------



## MarkOttawa

midget-boyd91: Further to the post immediately above, the CCG is a completely civilian organization with no  peace officer powers (Fishery Officers with such powers are carried on some ships, and CCG vessels sometimes act as platforms for RCMP officers carrying out their duties).  The CCG has no military or quasi-military functions.  Check their website:

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/main_e.htm

As for Fishery Officers, see "THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT":
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/fish_man/office/Fishery_Officer_e.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

A couple of nights ago, I watched that CBC special on the Arctic hosted by Peter Mansbridge, when he was aboard the Icebreaker CCGS _Amundsen_.  I recall a segment of the program when the ship stopped at a certain part of the ice sheet to take ice thickness samples and other scientific readings. I was a little perplexed that the crew of the ship had to hire a local Inuit tribesman from nearby Sachs harbour to help stand watch and guard the scientists/crewmen against polar bears that may be lurking about. Why did the crew need to do that, since I recall someone mentioning early in this thread about CCG crewmen having some .303's?



> However unbeknownst to most we were armed in a fashion. Our cutter had a .303 still wrapped in Cosmoline and paper under the Capt. Bunk when we retired her, also the Icebreakers carry a scoped rifle for bear defense.


----------



## eurowing

I can't speak for the east coast, but in Campbell River, I have walked up to the CG Cutter where it is normally moored at a regular town wharf.  No extra security.  They just tie it up.  If it is ever decided to arm them, then the resultant security issues will be a serious hurdle to overcome.  Guards would be required, duty watches etc, fencing, perhaps a secure "mini-base".  

If we as trained and disciplined soldiers, sailors and airmen aren't to be trusted to hold magazines (for the younglings, in prehistoric times we kept our mags at home or in our ready lockers) what hope would the Coast Guard have of overcoming the firearms rules?

I don't see it happening without a huge culture shift and a very large infusion of cash!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There is generally a rifle onboard for bears, but most Captains don't want the headache involved in letting their guys carry it, easier to hire a local who can easily shoot the bear without as much paperwork, and more likely to do so.


----------



## eurowing

I should have been more specific in my post.  Just in case I caused confusion, I meant that arming the ship with heavier weapons as discussed earlier in the thread would require a great deal of security.  More than a lone long gun requires.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

eurowing said:
			
		

> I should have been more specific in my post.  Just in case I caused confusion, I meant that arming the ship with heavier weapons as discussed earlier in the thread would require a great deal of security.  More than a lone long gun requires.



I think shooting polar bears with a 76 mm would be bad form.


----------



## medaid

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I think shooting polar bears with a 76 mm would be bad form.



The pink mist.... POOF!

Hey... where's the bear?!


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Then after you killed a bunch, you could blame global warming on the declining polar bear population.  
It's flawless!


----------



## eurowing

Sigh, I thought everyone knew the decline of pirates was the cause of global warming.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature. 
http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Back on topic please!

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Stoker

In the past Department of Fisheries vessels have mounted and used .50 Cal HMG's in their enforcement.  The vessels are now combined with the Coast guard and wear their colors. Do they still have the same .50 cal capability?


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief:

I don't have your answer but I am going to take advantage of your opening this thread to ask a related (IMO) question:

Would it really be that difficult to "upgrade" the Coast Guard to an armed constabulary and equip them with the AOPS/MCDV type vessels?

I know this has been discussed before BUT:

The Canadian Border Services Agents, previously unionized unarmed civilians with rubber stamps, has transitioned to an armed constabulary.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/media/facts-faits/118-eng.html



> The Canada Border Services Agency's Arming Program
> 
> In 2006, the Government of Canada announced its decision to provide funding for training and equipping Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers with firearms. CBSA officers at all land and marine ports of entry, as well as officers who perform enforcement functions within Canada, will carry a firearm in the line of duty by March 2016. There are currently 2,142 armed officers that have been trained and deployed throughout the country.
> 
> Providing CBSA officers with duty firearms enhances border security and helps protect our communities. It improves their effectiveness at the border by enabling them to have a broader range of options when responding to dangerous situations and to pursue enforcement activities to a greater extent.
> 
> The CBSA selected the Beretta Px4 Storm 9mm as its duty firearm based on the results of a competitive procurement process. Beretta's products are used extensively by law enforcement and military organizations around the world.
> 
> The role of CBSA officers has not changed with the introduction of duty firearms. They continue to ensure the smooth flow of legitimate trade and travel while keeping Canada's border secure by assessing situations, using their skills, training, tools and good judgment.
> 
> From the onset of the Arming Program, the CBSA has set a high standard to ensure the safety of the public and its employees. The CBSA has partnered with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to design a rigorous, comprehensive Duty Firearm Course customized to the duties and realities of CBSA officers.
> 
> The course trains officers on the safe use, handling, storage and transportation of the duty firearm as well as dealing with dangerous situations. CBSA officers are aware of situations in which force may be used and are trained in its proper use and application while ensuring they do not place themselves, other officers, or members of the public in undue danger.
> 
> Construction to expand the CBSA College in Rigaud, Quebec has been completed. The new state-of-the-art facilities now include a firing range complex and associated simulation and classroom training facilities.
> 
> Through this expansion, the CBSA will be able to provide firearms training to recruits as a component of the Officer Induction Training Program (OITP). The arming of officers completing OITP is a key element in the CBSA achieving its overall arming commitments to the Government of Canada, and is significant in that these will be the first employees who will start their careers within the Agency as armed officers. In addition, the CBSA College will significantly augment the capacity to train the existing workforce and meet Arming commitments. The CBSA College is the largest and newest training facility supporting Arming training. Three other existing locations remain an integral part of the CBSA delivery network and are responsible for helping support the overall training delivery mandate of the CBSA College in the most effective manner, mainly through various components of the Use of Force training program.
> 
> As part of the prerequisites to firearm training, CBSA officers must go through a rigorous screening process, including psychological testing. This is a standard practice among law enforcement agencies and the CBSA is no different.
> 
> To ensure that CBSA officers maintain their firearms proficiency, they attend practice sessions every year and are recertified on an annual basis.
> 
> The CBSA remains committed to implementing and developing the Arming Program in a proper, safe and efficient manner.


----------



## CougarKing

Already discussed to death in this older thread, "Should the Canadian Coast Guard be armed?".


----------



## chrisf

The ccgs Cowley can still be armed as required and still conducts annual re-qualification with its .50 cal qualified crew and officers.

That's the only one though.


----------



## MarkOttawa

> ...
> The Cowley monitors fishing activities to fulfill Canada's commitment to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Since this often involves law enforcement, the vessel has an armed boarding team [they would be DFO Fishery Officers, not CCG personnel--the former "Carry and use firearms and other restricted and prohibited weapons
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/enf-loi/conditions-eng.htm ]...



http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0003338

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## chrisf

The .50 cal machine guns are quite definitely operated by coast guard crew, not fisheries officers.

The coast guard also has trained crew to serve as boarding party members and boarding party officers, actual enforcement is done by the fisheries officers.

The whole thing is a bit of a farce (IMO), or at very least, over kill, as I can't imagine if there was the slightest bit of aggression or opposition they'd be doing a boarding.


----------



## Stoker

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> The .50 cal machine guns are quite definitely operated by coast guard crew, not fisheries officers.
> 
> The coast guard also has trained crew to serve as boarding party members and boarding party officers, actual enforcement is done by the fisheries officers.
> 
> The whole thing is a bit of a farce (IMO), or at very least, over kill, as I can't imagine if there was the slightest bit of aggression or opposition they'd be doing a boarding.



I know the .50's were actually fired at a vessel during the Turbot wars, and that was when fisheries operated their own vessels.


----------



## Kirkhill

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Already discussed to death in this older thread, "Should the Canadian Coast Guard be armed?".



Thanks for bumping that old thread....

Not sure that I agree that it has been discussed to death - at least not in the sense there is nothing new to contribute since 2007.

Since that time the CBSA has transitioned to an armed unionized, civilian service, just as the National Park Wardens have and not much different to the RCMP an armed "unionized" civilian service.

The argument that the Coast Guard isn't armed and therefore can't be armed doesn't seem to hold water.

Especially since some of the Coast Guard is armed.

Which is cheaper to operate?  An RCN MCDV or a Coast Guard MCDV (assuming they had one to operate)?


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Thanks for bumping that old thread....
> 
> Not sure that I agree that it has been discussed to death - at least not in the sense there is nothing new to contribute since 2007.
> 
> Since that time the CBSA has transitioned to an armed unionized, civilian service, just as the National Park Wardens have and not much different to the RCMP an armed "unionized" civilian service.
> 
> The argument that the Coast Guard isn't armed and therefore can't be armed doesn't seem to hold water.
> 
> Especially since some of the Coast Guard is armed.
> 
> Which is cheaper to operate?  An RCN MCDV or a Coast Guard MCDV (assuming they had one to operate)?



Manning wise the Coast Guard would have a easier time of it although they would most likely have multiple crews if they were to maintain the Op Tempo a MCDV historically has.  Mechanically a lot of money would have to be spent to get the existing ships up the point where they would be able to sail and be maintained. Spare parts will be an issue.


----------



## chrisf

It's not a question of can/can't be armed, it's a question of need, there's nothing in their mandate right now where they need to be armed. They're not involved in the defence of the country, at most they occasionally act as a taxi for another department.

Every time this subject comes up, it makes me wonder if anyone has any idea what the "coast guard" actually does?

Fisheries patrols make up very tiny part, and at some point it was felt they needed the option of projecting force to do the job, and they (or more accurately a single ship) has that option.

If you're going to add more roles, you need to add more vessels, many of the coast guard vessels are of the same vintage as the navy's tankers, and all are showing their age (at least one very nearly sank while tied up at the wharf recently, had it not been carrying portable pumps for Sar and also within winching distance of a dry dock , it likely would no longer be in service, oddly that incident never made it to the news, it was actually quite a stroke of luck, as they were only in port because they discovered their life boat had a rather large crack in it)

The coast guard is also having an issue crewing it's vessels, it's not at all abnormal for a ship to be tied up for a few days after crew change while the local crewing office scrambles to fill key positions where crew just didn't show up, called in sick last minute, or quit four weeks earlier but still hadn't been replaced. It might not even be key positions, it might just be that half the deck department didn't show up and you're now scrambling to find a handful of deck hands, because you literally can't sail, there's not enough crew to let go the lines!

Back to the subject of arming vessels, it's not a question of "if" the coast guard can be armed, but more what purpose would randomly slapping guns on the boats serve?


----------



## chrisf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I know the .50's were actually fired at a vessel during the Turbot wars, and that was when fisheries operated their own vessels.



I was referring to the armed boarding parties being a farce, the .50 cals make sense, if only to convince folks to stop, and to ensure they don't try to take off with a fisheries officer on board, but an armed boarding party doesn't... They're boarding fishing vessels, that's it, a pair of fisheries officers with side arms should (and always is) be plenty of force, enough to keep the crew from being argumentative during an inspection. They're not checking for contraband or smuggling, they're measuring a few nets and counting a few fish. I'm. Not saying theres any harm in dragging along a few mp5s but there's no need either.


----------



## Stoker

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> It's not a question of can/can't be armed, it's a question of need, there's nothing in their mandate right now where they need to be armed. They're not involved in the defence of the country, at most they occasionally act as a taxi for another department.
> 
> Every time this subject comes up, it makes me wonder if anyone has any idea what the "coast guard" actually does?
> 
> Fisheries patrols make up very tiny part, and at some point it was felt they needed the option of projecting force to do the job, and they (or more accurately a single ship) has that option.
> 
> If you're going to add more roles, you need to add more vessels, many of the coast guard vessels are of the same vintage as the navy's tankers, and all are showing their age (at least one very nearly sank while tied up at the wharf recently, had it not been carrying portable pumps for Sar and also within winching distance of a dry dock , it likely would no longer be in service, oddly that incident never made it to the news, it was actually quite a stroke of luck, as they were only in port because they discovered their life boat had a rather large crack in it)
> 
> The coast guard is also having an issue crewing it's vessels, it's not at all abnormal for a ship to be tied up for a few days after crew change while the local crewing office scrambles to fill key positions where crew just didn't show up, called in sick last minute, or quit four weeks earlier but still hadn't been replaced. It might not even be key positions, it might just be that half the deck department didn't show up and you're now scrambling to find a handful of deck hands, because you literally can't sail, there's not enough crew to let go the lines!
> 
> Back to the subject of arming vessels, it's not a question of "if" the coast guard can be armed, but more what purpose would randomly slapping guns on the boats serve?



Honestly with the amount of coastline we have, we should have more assets to patrol, conduct SAR, ice break etc and the fact we don't is a tragedy. The crewing problem is a symptom of having unionized employee's and dealing with their BS. I would love to see a para military type Coast Guard, however that would never fly in this country.  The only reason why one Coast Guard ship is armed with .50's is the 200 mile off shore fisheries they patrol, the Navy doesn't have the assets to be able to respond in a timely manner in case something happens. Do I think most Coast Guard ships should have the capability to being armed in an emergency, yes I do. Do they need to be armed all time?, no they don't.


----------



## Stoker

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I was referring to the armed boarding parties being a farce, the .50 cals make sense, if only to convince folks to stop, and to ensure they don't try to take off with a fisheries officer on board, but an armed boarding party doesn't... They're boarding fishing vessels, that's it, a pair of fisheries officers with side arms should (and always is) be plenty of force, enough to keep the crew from being argumentative during an inspection. They're not checking for contraband or smuggling, they're measuring a few nets and counting a few fish. I'm. Not saying theres any harm in dragging along a few mp5s but there's no need either.



The Fisheries armed boarding party is an option and a capability. I know they do do annual training with MP5's and tactics. The fact that that have this capability is a deterrent mostly for the offshore fisheries, can the RCMP do the same job? Yes they can.


----------



## chrisf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Honestly with the amount of coastline we have, we should have more assets to patrol, conduct SAR, ice break etc and the fact we don't is a tragedy. The crewing problem is a symptom of having unionized employee's and dealing with their BS. I would love to see a para military type Coast Guard, however that would never fly in this country.  The only reason why one Coast Guard ship is armed with .50's is the 200 mile off shore fisheries they patrol, the Navy doesn't have the assets to be able to respond in a timely manner in case something happens. Do I think most Coast Guard ships should have the capability to being armed in an emergency, yes I do. Do they need to be armed all time?, no they don't.



It's a lot more than unionized employees causing crewing issues, if that was all it was they wouldn't have an issue finding casual staff for sick calls and vacation relief. It's not a closed shop, they can hire anyone off the street... There's not a lot of people standing on that street.

Two major issues are the same facing the entire marine industry, a lack of interest in working at sea, and a high demand for qualified crew to work at sea, resulting in extremely competitive wages and working conditions... An so-Mao-3 engineer on  coast guard boat makes maybe $50k, maybe $60k after over time, with little hope of moving up in the near future, whereas in the oil industry, doing an identical job is going to start at $100k, and if you're keen, there's all sorts of opportunities for for training and advancement.

Many coast guard college graduate leave the fleet quickly after completing their minimum contract (though if anyone is looking for a good route for a free education plus a guaranteed job on graduation the coast guard is an college is excellent opportunity).

Side note, If there's any navy types coming up on retirement, the coast guard is an excellent post retirement job (private cabins for almost all the crew, at worst you might have to share a cabin, grub is typically good, and the boats are typically "wet" and as I put it to a former navy engineer "welcome to the wonderful world of overtime", it took him a full trip to figure that one out). I even know one former infanteer now baking cookies in the galley, and laughing because between pension and salary he's probably doing as well as the skipper.

Back to the question of arming the boats, absolutely they can be armed (at least lightly, they're not fighting ships and the crews don't have combat training or damage control training to deal with ship to ship combat) but there's no role for them to be armed... Rather than discussing "should they be armed?", you'd first have to discuss "should the mandate of the coast guard be changed?"

If you want to make them a paramilitary force, I say go for it, but you never be able to do it, you'd have to do a complete tear down of the fleet and restaff every crew from scratch. Not only woulda you be commuting politician suicide, you'd be hard pressed to find your new crews.


----------



## Stoker

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> It's a lot more than unionized employees causing crewing issues, if that was all it was they wouldn't have an issue finding casual staff for sick calls and vacation relief. It's not a closed shop, they can hire anyone off the street... There's not a lot of people standing on that street.
> 
> Two major issues are the same facing the entire marine industry, a lack of interest in working at sea, and a high demand for qualified crew to work at sea, resulting in extremely competitive wages and working conditions... An so-Mao-3 engineer on  coast guard boat makes maybe $50k, maybe $60k after over time, with little hope of moving up in the near future, whereas in the oil industry, doing an identical job is going to start at $100k, and if you're keen, there's all sorts of opportunities for for training and advancement.
> 
> Many coast guard college graduate leave the fleet quickly after completing their minimum contract (though if anyone is looking for a good route for a free education plus a guaranteed job on graduation the coast guard is an college is excellent opportunity).
> 
> Side note, If there's any navy types coming up on retirement, the coast guard is an excellent post retirement job (private cabins for almost all the crew, at worst you might have to share a cabin, grub is typically good, and the boats are typically "wet" and as I put it to a former navy engineer "welcome to the wonderful world of overtime", it took him a full trip to figure that one out). I even know one former infanteer now baking cookies in the galley, and laughing because between pension and salary he's probably doing as well as the skipper.
> 
> Back to the question of arming the boats, absolutely they can be armed (at least lightly, they're not fighting ships and the crews don't have combat training or damage control training to deal with ship to ship combat) but there's no role for them to be armed... Rather than discussing "should they be armed?", you'd first have to discuss "should the mandate of the coast guard be changed?"
> 
> If you want to make them a paramilitary force, I say go for it, but you never be able to do it, you'd have to do a complete tear down of the fleet and restaff every crew from scratch. Not only woulda you be commuting politician suicide, you'd be hard pressed to find your new crews.



I'm not a fan of unions, never have been. If it were a para military force modeled after the US Coast Guard, there would be definitely less personnel just quitting or phoning in sick, that sort of stuff that comes with a civilian based organization. Its all academic anyways as Canada would not stand for the Coast Guard to make a fundamental change like that. Your correct that the offshore is attracting many qualified personnel, the navy is homogenizing many trained personnel right now.  In fact many naval trades are changing their qualifications so civilian equivalency is not easier, thus making it difficult for personnel to leave. Personally after 20 years at sea, I won't be looking at a second career at sea.  I think a change of mandate may be doable, just as customs did when they armed their officers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Honestly with the amount of coastline we have, we should have more assets to patrol, conduct SAR, ice break etc and the fact we don't is a tragedy. The crewing problem is a symptom of having unionized employee's and dealing with their BS. I would love to see a para military type Coast Guard, however that would never fly in this country.  The only reason why one Coast Guard ship is armed with .50's is the 200 mile off shore fisheries they patrol, the Navy doesn't have the assets to be able to respond in a timely manner in case something happens. Do I think most Coast Guard ships should have the capability to being armed in an emergency, yes I do. Do they need to be armed all time?, no they don't.



Better to be armed and not need it, than need it and not be armed.

Sitting 180 NM off shore with your ass hanging out to an armed poacher is not a happy place to be.

Especially when they know your status already.


----------



## Danjanou

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I know the .50's were actually fired at a vessel during the Turbot wars, and that was when fisheries operated their own vessels.



yup 8)


----------



## Stoker

recceguy said:
			
		

> Better to be armed and not need it, than need it and not be armed.
> 
> Sitting 180 NM off shore with your *** hanging out to an armed poacher is not a happy place to be.
> 
> Especially when they know your status already.



Ship's doing fisheries do have armed officers and I believe off shore patrol ships conducting fisheries have .50 cals. I'm not sure the reaction would be if more ships were armed up, not too favorable I would guess.


----------



## chrisf

recceguy said:
			
		

> Better to be armed and not need it, than need it and not be armed.
> 
> Sitting 180 NM off shore with your *** hanging out to an armed poacher is not a happy place to be.
> 
> Especially when they know your status already.



Which armed poachers would those be? I think you're over estimating the zeal of some of the rust bucket trawlers. At most, you're armed to convince the to stop, not as a defensive measure.

Again though, fisheries patrols make up a very tiny portion of what the fleet does.

Arming "the" coast guard makes no sense under their current mandate. Having actual coast guard makes sense, but that role is already in the hands of the navy... The department is just poorly named, but "amalgamated marine services" doesn't sound as nice. Most of the coast guard ships are science vessels, small rescue boats, inland aids to navigation, and a handful of ice breakers.

Creating a department within the coast guard as an armed service might make, but you'd still need ships and personnel... It's no different than the navy, they can't provide a defence role without ships and personnel..


----------



## chrisf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Ship's doing fisheries do have armed officers and I believe off shore patrol ships conducting fisheries have .50 cals. I'm not sure the reaction would be if more ships were armed up, not too favorable I would guess.



As per above, only the Cowley is armed, there are a number of other dedicated fisheries patrol vessels that aren't armed, and there are a larger number of vessels that are also used to fill in in a fisheries role that aren't armed.

You'd probably be able to arm those vessels the same as the cowley without any opposition, or at least pass around a pair of machine guns to whoever is filling the role that week, only need to invest in a bit of training, as it is now, once you get a boarding party course and/or a machine gun course you're doomed to the cowley, which is actually quite a nice boat if you don't mind bobbing around on the Grand Banks and sailing a two week rotation.


----------



## chrisf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I'm not a fan of unions, never have been. If it were a para military force modeled after the US Coast Guard, there would be definitely less personnel just quitting or phoning in sick, that sort of stuff that comes with a civilian based organization.



There's more to it than just calling it a union issue.

Many of the crew are on casual contracts, meaning they're contracted for the length of the trip only, with no guarantee  of employment after that, many are also on term contracts, for between a month and a year...  When private industry is offering you double or triple the money, would you stick around for "we might have something for you next month"? The hiring freeze on permanent employees over the last couple of years only compounded the issue.

Add to that the average age of crew in the fleet is 50+, they're being hit hard with the retirement of the baby boomers.

They've literally dragged people out of retirement homes on occasion.

IMO the whole organization, not just the fleet, needs a complete top down rethink and turnover of staff, but that's a much larger issue than a couple of guns, and it's not going to happen.

It's unfortunate really, back to the subject of the boomers retiring, really if you could come up with a plan, and the political will to follow through, now would be a great time for it, but good luck with that.


----------



## The_Falcon

Old thread merged with the new one.

Hatchet Man
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Colin Parkinson

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> It's a lot more than unionized employees causing crewing issues, if that was all it was they wouldn't have an issue finding casual staff for sick calls and vacation relief. It's not a closed shop, they can hire anyone off the street... There's not a lot of people standing on that street.
> 
> Two major issues are the same facing the entire marine industry, a lack of interest in working at sea, and a high demand for qualified crew to work at sea, resulting in extremely competitive wages and working conditions... An so-Mao-3 engineer on  coast guard boat makes maybe $50k, maybe $60k after over time, with little hope of moving up in the near future, whereas in the oil industry, doing an identical job is going to start at $100k, and if you're keen, there's all sorts of opportunities for for training and advancement.
> 
> Many coast guard college graduate leave the fleet quickly after completing their minimum contract (though if anyone is looking for a good route for a free education plus a guaranteed job on graduation the coast guard is an college is excellent opportunity).
> 
> Side note, If there's any navy types coming up on retirement, the coast guard is an excellent post retirement job (private cabins for almost all the crew, at worst you might have to share a cabin, grub is typically good, and the boats are typically "wet" and as I put it to a former navy engineer "welcome to the wonderful world of overtime", it took him a full trip to figure that one out). I even know one former infanteer now baking cookies in the galley, and laughing because between pension and salary he's probably doing as well as the skipper.
> 
> Back to the question of arming the boats, absolutely they can be armed (at least lightly, they're not fighting ships and the crews don't have combat training or damage control training to deal with ship to ship combat) but there's no role for them to be armed... Rather than discussing "should they be armed?", you'd first have to discuss "should the mandate of the coast guard be changed?"
> 
> If you want to make them a paramilitary force, I say go for it, but you never be able to do it, you'd have to do a complete tear down of the fleet and restaff every crew from scratch. Not only woulda you be commuting politician suicide, you'd be hard pressed to find your new crews.



Very true, finding people to go to sea on what the CCG pays is hard, even my department is facing a crisis trying to find ticketed Mariners, much less ones for the smaller communities. The attack on pensions and perceived job stability is only making matters worse. Managers going to industry trying to recruit get laughed at when they mention the wages.


----------



## Donavann

Well Coast Guard associates, are very closer  to merchant mariners than to naval or cops employees.  Supplying their delivers, and providing them a law-enforcement part would be a very huge challenge and would almost, certainly have serious financial and social effects for the associates.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually training them to use a .50cal would be quite easy and can be done onboard within the normal crewing cycle, bringing the trainers to the ships. I suspect the training and practice firing would be enjoyed by about 85% of the crew, let face it shooting full auto on someone else's dime is fun. Training the Commanding Officers in the ROE's is the harder part. Basically what you are doing is adding a little bit of teeth to the taxi, because it's unlikely you be getting full out boarding teams out of the current CCG crews. 

Frankly in my view the time has come to arm all the major vessels with at least a couple of .50cals. This will improve their ability to carry out and support the boarding teams that they occasionally carry now. From a CCG management point of view it's a really smart idea, the costs are minimal for the .50cals for mounting, training and upkeep of equipment and skills. What it will give them is another argument to keep the current fleet size intact. The CCG Regional operation centres are basically working the fleets out of a job, getting a tasking from them is very difficult and the core functions of the fleet, which is Nav aids can easily be contracted out, even most of the icebreaking could as well. That leaves SAR, which the senior management of CCG seems to hate with a passion, especially inshore SAR.


----------



## quadrapiper

Perhaps time to break the CCG into its constituent functions again? Maintain shared basing and support functions but divvy up the fleet and its roles?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I looked at my post and I should have said core functions for the large vessels are nav aids, ice breaking. For some ships their core functions are science and/or fisheries research. Smaller cutters may be dedicated SAR with a secondary tasking of nav aids along with fishery patrol. The east coast may use the larger vessels for fisheries patrol but I am not up on their practices, having only served on the west coast.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Arm the boats and arm the sailors.


----------



## Donavann

Donavann said:
			
		

> Well Coast Guard associates, are very closer  to merchant mariners than to naval or cops employees.  Supplying their delivers, and providing them a law-enforcement part would be a very huge challenge and would almost, certainly have serious financial and social effects for the associates.


----------



## chrisf

Good lord, are we doing this again?

How about before commenting on this thread, posters be required to read and recite the 7 roles of the Canadian Coast Guard so it's not just a out-of-rectum conversation by people who think the coast guard is to the navy as meter maids are to cops.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG from 89-2003 

41' cutter, R class, Pearkes, hovercraft, Rescue Specialist, Rescue diver and then NWPA. Does that count?

throw in driving a 40" Crashboat for 10 years as a hobby 

I have seen a report done around 1922 of DFO machinegunning a Sea Lion Rookery, they used to have orders to ram Killer whales and Basking sharks, in the 80's they wanted to put a HMG on the Gulf Islands to shoot killer whales, sea lions and seals to protect the fish stocks. I was there when the fleets were amalgamated. The role of the CCG can change with a stroke of a pen. They are slowly abandoning inshore SAR, eventually buoy tending will be mostly contracted out. Arming the fleet is one of the best insurances to keep the ships and management is all about keeping the big ships at the expense of everything else.


----------

