Gradual erosion of the will and capability of Canada to “shoulder and bear arms,” has prompted growing concern such as voiced by Dr. Jack Granatstein 21 Feb 02 at the Conference of Defence Associations: “A weak Canadian military means we must rely on the United States for homeland defence and defence from external threats.”

Canada needs well-equipped and trained military forces in these unstable post-Sept.11 times; and most assuredly one of the greatest concerns is homeland security. However, even with our military strength of the late 1970s (about 120,000), could we secure our “homeland” without American co-operation? We think not.

And, we agree with Jack Granatstein: “The word ‘sovereignty’ is particularly misapplied by those who claim working with the United States threatens our independence. We are a sovereign state, whether we are linked with the United States in a new military command or not. To join or not is a sovereign decision.”

Our lack of commitment and capability to deal with homeland security threats has prompted the following, amongst other warnings: “Canadian analysts say Ottawa should pour money into the Canadian Coast Guard and the military to enhance coastal security or risk seeing U.S. Coast Guard vessels patrolling our coastline.”

We have seen how quickly the U.S. did act to counter Canadian lack of resolve and resources to tighten border immigration and security procedures after 11 Sep 01; they sent their own customs and immigration officers to work our side of the border! While there have been comforting words from Canadian politicians, there have been rather limited examples of measures to ease the concerns of our neighbours who, to date, have taken the full brunt of terrorist action.

What other bombs must go off within North America for Canadian politicians to take Homeland security seriously? How many reports like the following will it take to wake up the Canadian public?

Shipping Fraud: “Maritime certificate fraud is rapidly emerging as a key threat to the industry, and one that poses grave dangers for the wider international community. Oil tankers or ships carrying liquefied gas could be hijacked and used by terrorists for suicide missions.” -The International Maritime Bureau.

Consider the consequences of such an action affecting Vancouver, Halifax or Montreal! Even if it were in Boston or Seattle, the impact on Canadian commerce would be devastating. North American seaports may be the weakest links in our Homeland security. For example, more than six million foreign maritime cargo containers pass through these ports annually. According to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the contents of less than 3% of these containers are physically inspected. And when they are, only the end of the container is seen and, as noted, with potentially fraudulent certification.

And, what if a container with an undetectable remotely activated or GPS activated, conventional weapon of mass destruction or “rogue nuke” was shipped from a foreign land across the North Pacific to Vancouver or Seattle, for trans-shipment to a particular waypoint anywhere in North America, or immediate detonation by a local terrorist cell, who would know before the event? We have seen how intelligence systems failed last September.

There is also some risk from smaller weapons, too. For example, a small $100 bomb “booby-trapped” to explode and kill the first person(s) opening the container door could have disastrous effects on the maritime industry. Who would want to open the next container?

In a 29 Oct.01 address to the Naval Officers’ Association of Vancouver Island (NOAVI), retired USCG Captain Roger Pike said, “It now seems clear, learning to deal with a wide range of asymmetric threats may not have adequately captured our attention. We (the USN) built ships like the USS COLE, fully capable of engaging multiple targets at great distances, but we didn’t take adequate steps to protect them from a couple men in a small (explosive laden) boat.”

There are hundreds of cruise ships, many with 2500 or more passengers & crew, visiting Vancouver & other Canadian ports annually. A terrorist attack on a luxury liner in Vancouver, or in the more remote areas such as BC’s ‘Inside Passage’ could match the tragedy of 11 September (and cause the collapse of the cruise ship industry).

Canada’s port security is pitifully deficient. After the Federal government’s disbandment of the Canada Ports Police a few years ago, port security has fallen to a multitude of local police forces without meaningful coordination or real effectiveness.

“In the U.S., the USCG is charged with the responsibility of coastal and port security, and has been given the resources and the authority with which to fulfill its mission,” Captain Pike explained. “The (U.S.) Coast Guard has people, ships, and planes like any other naval service. So, what unique capability does it bring to the war on terrorism, and to the Homeland Security mission? The answer — is (federal) ‘civil authority.’ U.S. Forces are precluded from being used for civil law enforcement purposes. But, that law doesn’t apply to the Coast Guard.

“Consequently, every uniformed member of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve, third-class petty officer and above, has law enforcement authority—and arrest powers. And, it is this authority that results in the Coast Guard being the primary maritime law enforcement and regulatory agency in the United States.

“The Coast Guard intercepts, searches, and seizes vessels carrying illicit cargoes, ranging from narcotics to illegal migrants. It enforces pollution laws in the maritime domain. It inspects and documents U.S.-flag vessels, and tests and licenses members of the merchant marine.

“Clearly, these kinds of resources, this kind of day-to-day peacetime experience, and this unique kind of jurisdiction make the U.S. Coast Guard a major player in homeland defence, and the major player in the maritime domain.”

Canada does not have an equivalent to the USCG. Our Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) is a civilian organization. Its ships are unarmed. Its personnel may carry firearms as protection from polar bears when working ashore in the Arctic, or when performing Fisheries duties. Otherwise, CCG personnel do not have the authority or the training and resources for an enforcement role similar to that of the USCG. So, if not the CCG, who should be tasked with coastal defence and port security in Canada?

Until recently, there has been little indication that the Federal government is coping with the serious threats of “terrorism” in and through Canadian coastal waters.

Perhaps the new deputy prime minister, John Manley, charged with Homeland security, and the new vice chief of defence staff, LGen George Macdonald, will spark the dialogue initiated on North American collaboration over a whole range of actions that may prevent, or at least confine, the degree of potential damage to this continent by rogue states or terrorist groups.

It was encouraging to see that the Pentagon will ask the White House to place a four-star general or admiral in charge of a new command to coordinate federal troops used in the defence of North America.

It was even more encouraging to see Canadian Defense Minister Art Eggleton confirm that Canada and the United States are discussing an integrated, continental defense structure. Canada already has an agreement for aerospace warning and control over North America as part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). However, a new arrangement could go further, according to Canadian vice chief of the defence staff LGen George Macdonald, who said, “We declared ourselves ready to consider an arrangement that could extend to land and sea.”

While Mr. Manley and LGen Macdonald seem to have the right credentials and experience for international and bi-national affairs, there is less confidence that the Government and the general public appreciate the seriousness of the terrorist challenges, and the sorry state of our military capability to meet those challenges.

The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) has worked hard to convey the concerns of the defence community (see www.cda-cdai.ca ) It seems this helped influence the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence, chaired by Senator Kenny. That report calls on the government to implement:

• A public inquiry into ports security (noting that “a broad range of security issues related to organized crime activities at Canadian ports … increase Canada’s vulnerability to terrorist activities.”)
• Increase of $4 billion in the defence budget.
• Hire 20,000 more Armed Forces personnel.
• Better security at airports and along coastlines; and
• Review of foreign policy tied to recently announced review of defence policy.

All members of the defence community should voice individual and group concerns over deficiencies seen in every field of national security. Please write your MP, speak to your friends, respond to news articles which may criticize defence spending and take every opportunity to build the consensus which is needed to enhance meaningful Canadian preparedness in homeland and international security.

If we do not speak-out and the government does not put-up the capability, Canadians must shut-up and expect to be shut-out of future participation in the events that will shape our destiny. 

BGen Lloyd Skaalen is currently a member and Director of RUSI (Vancouver Island) and member of DANN while Cdr Migs Turner is currently a member of the Victoria Local Marine Advisory Council as well as a long time member of RUSI (Vancouver Island) and the Defence Association National Network.

top

 previous article

next article