CASR

Canadian
American
Strategic
Review

Arctic  Sovereignty   –   New  Icebreakers   –   Canadian  Coast  Guard   –   Updated  July  2007 New  Icebreakers  Should  be  Given  to the  Coast  Guard Senate  Committee  on  National   Security  and   Defence Edited  excerpts  from  Senate  report ,  Canadian  Security  Guide  Book  –  Coasts  [1] New  Arctic  Patrol  Vessels  ( Icebreakers )  approved  by  the  Priorities  and  Planning  Committee [On  13  May  2007,  a  CP  article revealed that the federal cabinet's  'Priorities & Planning' committee has agreed  to enter  "a  two - year  definition  phase"  preceding  the  proposed  procurement  of  six 100 - metre - long ,  6000 - tonne   Arctic  patrol  vessels ,  capable  of  breaking  through  ' fresh  ice '. The design of  the vessels is  likely  to be  based  on  the  Royal  Norwegian  Navy's  Svalbard  class. Icebreaking  has  always  been  the  responsibility  of  the  Canadian  Coast  Guard.  A  recent  report, published  by  the   Senate  Committee  on  National   Security  and  Defence,   argues  that  any  new icebreakers ,  purchased  by  this  government ,  should  be  given  to  the  CCG ,   not  to  the  Navy.] Update: On 09 July 2007, Stephen Harper announced a plan for  6-to-8  Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships. These armed naval A/OPS would act as summer-only patrol ships in the Arctic and as offshore patrol vessels in Canada's Pacific and Atlantic EEZs (Exclusive Economic Zones) during the rest of the year. Spokesmen  for  the  Navy  have  emphasized  that  the  Navy  does  not  seek  a  Constabulary  Role Like  most  sophisticated  navies  from  around  the  developed  world,  the  Canadian  Navy  sees itself  as  a  ' Blue  Water '   operation ,   fighting   for   Canadian   interests   in   distant   waters , usually  in  the  company  of  allied  forces  –  especially  the  United  States  Navy. In  addition,  representatives  testified  that  the  Canadian  Navy  already  has  difficulty getting the funding   it  needs   for   the   many   operations   it   already   carries   out.  The  Navy  is  not  in  the position  to take on  additional  responsibilities,  such  as  patrolling  the  littoral  waters  of  Canada. Guarding  our  Coasts  –  A  New  Mandate  for  the CCG  would  focus  more  on  National  Security The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) is mostly focused on the protection of the environment, support of scientific research,  facilitation of  trade and commerce,  navigation safety,  and emergency response. At  present,  the  CCG  does  not  serve  any  constabulary  [police  or  security]  roles.   Coast  Guard personnel  are  not  armed ,  and  CCG  commanders  report  to  [a  civilian  ministry] ,  the  Department of  Fisheries  and  Oceans  [rather than the  Department  of  National  Defence].  All  of  these  factors tend  to skew  the focus  of  the  CCG  away  from  any  maritime  security  and  coastal  patrol  duties. The  Senate  Committee  on   National   Security  and   Defence  has ,   for  several  years  now ,  asked this  simple  question:  Why  has  no  Canadian  government  taken  note  of  the  fact  that   Canada’s littoral  waters  are  virtually   undefended ?   Furthermore ,  the  Committee  has   repeatedly   asserted that  the  Canadian   Coast  Guard   is  ideally   suited  to  monitor  and   defend  those  coastal  waters. What hurdles must  be  overcome for the Canadian Coast Guard  to  become a  Constabulary Force? Some people  who have  testified  before  the  Senate  Committee on  National  Security  and  Defence contend  that,  because the Coast Guard is unionized ,  it  would  require a  significant  ' cultural shift ' to transform  the  CCG  into a  constabulary  force.  Union cooperation,  they said,  would be unlikely. In  fact,  unionization  is  not  a  hurdle.  The  Committee  took  testimony  from  the two  Coast  Guard unions on  two different  occasions.  Both  unions endorsed the  idea of a constabulary  Coast Guard, subject to the provision of training,  new equipment, and  reasonable raises  for  new  responsibilities. Why  can  the  United  States,  Israel,  Norway,  the  United  Arab  Emirates,  along  with  many  other countries  put  together  constabulary  coast  guards  while  Canada  cannot?  Why,  when  there  are such  huge  gaps  in  our  coastal  defences,  would  we not  make  use  of  an institution  that  cruises these  waters  on  a  regular  basis? Recommendations  of   the  Senate  Committee  on  National  Security  and  Defence  [ SCONSAD ] This  current  state  of  affairs  does  not  need  to  continue.  If  the  political  will  could  be mustered, we  could  make  our  Canadian  Coast  Guard  a  force  worthy  of  its  name.  The  Coast  Guard  could be  equipped  with  the  kind  of  vessels  best  suited  to  do  their  job,  allowing  the  Canadian  Navy to  get  on  with  its  duties  elsewhere.  The  key  element  of   the   Conservative   government’s   new defence  policy  is ' Canada  First '.   Given  that  emphasis,  why  is  there  so  little  within  the  many Priorities  and  Planning  documents  that  addresses  the  urgent  need  to  defend  Canada’s  coasts? The federal government should take immediate steps to transform the Canadian  Coast Guard  from an agency reporting to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans  to an independent agency responsible to Parliament.  The CCG should  continue to carry out  its duties  –  search-and-rescue,  ice-breaking, navigational  aids,  buoy  tending,  boat  safety,  fisheries,  and  environmental  protection  –  but  the agency  should  also  take  on  new  responsibilities  relevant  to  national  security.   On  the  security assignments, the Coast Guard could come under  the  direction  of  Department of  National  Defence. What  about  need  to  assert  Sovereignty  in  the  Arctic  and  the  purchase  of  new  Icebreakers? The current government seems to be determined to get the Canadian Navy involved in icebreaking in Arctic waters. The Committee believes that this would be a strange application of naval force,  given that Canada’s northern sovereignty is not being threatened by invading navies.  Sovereignty  in  the North is not going to be defended by force  –  Can  anyone  imagine  Canadian guns  firing on  US or British vessels going through the Northwest Passage?  It would also be an inappropriate application of available  resources  –  the  Navy has not  broken ice anywhere  for half a century.  Nobody in the Navy has any experience doing this, and no one in a position of command wants to take on this role. Part of the Canadian Coast Guard’s mandate, however, is icebreaking, so why would the Coast Guard not continue to play  this role in the  Arctic?  If  the  government  wants  to  give  other  countries  the impression  that  we are  finally  putting  some  muscle  behind  Canada’s  claim  to  our  Arctic waters, surely  equipping  the  Canadian  Coast  Guard  is  the  most  effective  means of  achieving  that goal.     [1]    Canadian Security Guide Book  –  2007 Edition  –  ' Coasts'              Published  online  March  2007.   [ This report will open as a PDF file. ]