Should the Canadian Coast Guard be armed?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.