Should the Canadian Coast Guard be armed?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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