Team Global says, “As an organization, the Canadian Forces (CF) is the only agency capable of providing the specific assets and professional knowledge to combat today’s threats to domestic security. The CF is the only organization that possesses the corporate knowledge to undertake a task of such magnitude”. However, throughout the essay Team Global contradicts this point of view by stating the CF effectiveness could be augmented to play a more active role in domestic security operation.
Another contradiction is presented by stating, “in order to facilitate these changes, several intergovernmental and interdepartmental relationships need to be developed and maintained in conjunction with civilian authorities, other governments and other departments of the CF. ” Finally, the author says the CF has “unique assets and the government can not afford to overlook them when considering domestic security issues. “
Throughout the essay, the author reveals a series of contradictions leaving the reader with questions regarding domestic security – whose responsibility is it? Team Global makes reference to the CF having a primary obligation to protect the country and its citizens while defending and securing Canada. In comparison with the civilian government organization, how different are these domestic security responsibilities? The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) “is committed to providing a smarter, more secure and efficient border.
To achieve this goal,” they add, “the CBSA relies on technology, information sharing, risk analysis and biometrics,” (Safety and Security). National Security requires an integrated approach to ensure early detection and prevention of any potential threats to Canada and the public. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), and provincial and municipal police services, The RCMP has refocused its National Security Investigations Sections (NSIS) to become Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams (INSETs).
The author states that since September 11, 2001, a government analysis of terrorist threats show the only agency capable of both deterrence and prevention is the CF. The CF, being the only agency funds, would be directed exclusively to this organization. However, Ottawa advanced an initial investment of $7. 7 billion to support a comprehensive, multi-year, multi-department federal strategy to strengthen public safety and security by 2006 – providing a contradicting reflection of funds, (Louis Osemwegie).
Furthermore, the essay leans towards tradition with reference to past civilian security responsibilities. Team Global states, “traditionally, surveillance and control of the Canadian territory, airspace and marine area, lies with civilian agencies such as the Department of Transport” The threat of terrorism regarding domestic security in Canada traditionally existed after 9/11. When the author speaks of tradition and new government analysis, it misleads the actual role these organizations have played and continue to be involved with Canadian
domestic security issues. An article by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives relay that after Sept 11 attacks, the Canadian government developed the concept of Reinventing Borders. The Council explains, “in order to achieve what the Canadian government has described as a border is something that is open for business but closed to terrorism”. This indicates to the reader that it is clear that government civilian organization remain a component of Canadian domestic security in reference to smart border declaration and accord.
Next confusion is further focused with regards to sole responsibility of domestic security when discussing legislation, policies, constitution and the National Defence Act (NDA). Rules and regulation are implemented to guide, direct and set limitation with restrictions to maintain a certain order within society and the organization acting within. The Canadian Forces is being pointed out by the author as the sole organization capable of handling the task and responsibilities of Canadian domestic security.
It is fair to question then, why do the policies, legislation, NDA and Canadian Constitution Act 1867 outline rules with respect to civil power? They reinforce a joint effort to exist between CF and civilian organizations. Again the author says, “the protection of the Canadian coastline is defined through Defence policies, which encourage Maritime elements to increase surveillance of Canadian water and approaches in the cooperation with the Canadian Coast Guard, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the United States Coast Guard”.
Again, a contradiction is made by the author who now reflects a combined effort as an effective means. Finally, Team Global states, “due to the CF’s unique operational experience and assets, they are solely capable of providing both the corporate knowledge and skills required to provide sound domestic security. ” With regards to the assets, team global explain that the Canadian Navy with its Frigates and Victoria class submarines are unique to domestic security capabilities. Louis ? fe ?
semwegie states, “in the Maritimes, it means acquiring patrol vessels to augment the Navy with added capabilities to enable interoperability with USN and US Coast Guard, instead of purchasing an expensive Destroyer or more Victoria class submarines, supposedly, other ‘Cold War’ legacies. ” Furthermore, “submarines are said to be highly effective at sinking ships and other submarines, but they are of little or no use in peacekeeping and peace building operations, or even in conducting coastal patrols to protect fisheries and catch smugglers,” (Staples and Robinson).
In conclusion, Team Global’s view and evidence presents a number of contradictions throughout the essay. Which organization best fits the role of Canadian Domestic Security is not clear. Much discussion is forwarded in relation to organizations, i. e. civilian, Canadian Forces and assets accompanying both. The reader is left to make his or her decision of Domestic Security and Canada’s best fit solution. Canada, being a liberal democratic society presents the voice of its citizens as a liberal democratic society. The author has educated the reader of what organizations are involved but is unclear of whom is solely responsible.