Canadian Coast Guard personnel and their vessels could be armed if the Canadian Parliament adopts the recommendations of a federal Senate committee. In late October the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defense proposed that Coast Guard “play a constabulary role on Canada’s Coasts.”
At least one Member of Parliament, however, has concerns that the current resources available to the service may not be sufficient to meet future demands. And M.P. John Efford, from the Bonavista-Trinity-Conception riding in Newfoundland, is also concerned that current functions like fishery protection may suffer.
Efford said he has no problems with the Coast Guard being armed. “After all, Fisheries officers are armed – over the years, going well back before 9/11, I’ve had lots of concerns about the capability of the Coast Guard to patrol the entire coast, particularly where we live; the necessary resources just aren’t there,” he said.
“Not every Coast Guard officer would have to be a peace officer, but all watch officers certainly would be,” the Senate committee proposed in its report to Parliament. “Rather than thinking of a new Canadian Coast Guard as ‘paramilitary,’ a description that fits the U.S. Coast Guard, the Canadian Coast Guard would perform its traditional roles, but have the weaponry to intervene when criminal behavior is transpiring, or appears that it will transpire.”
Specifically, the Senate committee made the following recommendations:
“Coast Guard vessels would be provided with appropriate armament, including: (a) Side arms and protective equipment in all vessels; (b) 50 caliber machine guns or similar equipment on mid-sized vessels; (c) Bofors or similar guns on larger vessels; (d) Necessary boarding equipment; (e) Equipment necessary for self-defense and personal protection.”
Currently, if the Coast Guard faces a situation that calls for weaponry, vessels carry Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers on board.
Another approach, Efford said, would be to restore the service to its original independent status; it’s now a division of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. On this, at least, he agrees with the Senate committee. “The Coast Guard’s budget priorities were changed when it was rolled into DFO. If it were a stand-alone service, which I believe it should be, then we could get the resources to deal with problems like ships dumping bilges, drug trafficking, and the like. Right now they can’t do an appropriate job.”
Efford also took note of the fact that there was a period last year when “vessels were tied up because there wasn’t enough fuel for them to leave port.” He adds, “We need to increase the fleet, and we need to increase fuel for the fleet.”
He concluded, “A mandate to do a job is pointless unless the means are there to do the job.”
Coast Guard officials are not commenting for the time being, according to DFO spokesperson Sophie Galarneau. “This report was submitted to Parliament, and it is for the government to respond, not the Coast Guard,” she said. “Moreover, any changes to the Coast Guard’s mandate would be a decision that would have to be made by the government. Hence, it’s not really appropriate for the Coast Guard to be responding to this report.”
However, on Oct. 29, Canadian federal Transport Minister David Collenette told a conference on shipping and security in New York City, “I believe further governance changes are required to heighten the focus on marine security in a comprehensive way. Our Coast Guard should be better-funded and tasked with marine security enforcement. It should perform the same kind of role that the U.S. Coast Guard has played within the D.O.T., and now the Department of Homeland Security.”