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]

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]

should the Coast Guard fall under DND?

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

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]

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]

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]

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