NACC

Workers

Water

Energy

Security & civil liberties

Military

Safety & regulations

Transportation corridors

SPP resources

• Deep Integration Timeline
• Backgrounders
• Multimedia
• Media
• Logos
• Facebook

SPP Summit - New Orleans
April 21-22, 2008

• Summit highlights
• Photo gallery
• Media

SPP Summit - Montebello
August 19-21, 2007

• Summit highlights
• Photo gallery
• Highlights from public forum

Teach-in
March 31 to April 1, 2007

• Teach-in resources
• Final teach-in report
• Photo gallery

NORTHCOM, Canada Command release fraction of new Canada-U.S. military pact

May 30, 2008
Posted by Stuart Trew

US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) has posted portions of a Civil Assistance Plan, signed with Canada Command on February 14,  to its website, although it appears to be missing as many as 23 annexes – there is reference to an Annex W –  that are still classified.

Integrate This broke the original story about the Civil Assistance Plan when we noticed it reported in a tiny Colorado newspaper this February but not reported anywhere on the Canadian Forces webpage.

While Canada Command has also quietly posted the plan to its website, there was no announcement or press release.

While there is very little new information in the released portions of the plan, a few things jump out as worrying:

1. Where’s the rest of it? There appears to be up to 23 annexes not included.
2. The report says that support for law enforcement operations will be included in the Canada-U.S. Combined Defense Plan (CDP), another recommendation of the secretive Bi-National Planning Group, whose 2006 final report called for Canada-U.S. military integration, or a NORAD-like arrangement for all forms of continental defence.
3. On page 3, “operations will typically occur in a permissive environment.” Does that mean an environment without an enemy force present, or an environment where Canadians feel generally good about having U.S. troops in the country?
4. Cross-border missions (pg. 5) can include, vaguely, “to mitigate damage to property.” It’s never a good sign when there’s no limit on what that means, no definition. What are the parameters of “damage to property?”
5. Also on page 5, in “Concept of Operations,” it says that “the establishment, maintenance, and regular exercise of bilateral coordination mechanisms are the principal requirement of this plan.” In other words, we have to use it or lose it. How many joint exercises with Canadian forces down there, or U.S. forces up here, are we talking about? Yearly? Monthly? On page 8, under “Training,” it says “cross-border movement of military resources is authorized for training and exercises in preparation for bilateral military-to-military civil support.” It’s one thing for us to be training U.S. soldiers for Afghanistan in Calgary, another to have military civil support teams coming and going across the border for regular exercises that, under most circumstances, will only require civilian response to handle (i.e., police, firefighters, medical services, etc).
6. There is mention of intensified information sharing on page 8: “Both nations will share information to the maximum extent allowed by national laws, agreements, and policy.” (Emphasis added.) This sounds close to the Bi-national Planning Group’s recommendation that information should be shared between security agencies on a “need to share” not a “need to know” basis. The Maher Arar Commission recommended the opposite because of where unfiltered information sharing will get us.
7. The “end state” clause on page 6 says that the “end state” of any cooperative engagement is either “a cooperative and well-coordinated timely response to national requests for military assistance in relation to natural disasters or other major emergencies in Canada or the United States,” or “Forcers have completed all assigned missions and redeployment is complete.” There doesn’t seem to be a requirement for military personnel from one country to leave simply because they are asked to do so. The invitation is clearly from one government to the other, but the operations are militarily established and, it would seem from these two statements, it could be up to the militaries to decide when a mission is over and troops can come home. Hmmm, can you say “Iraq?” Will we really be expected to endure a U.S. military presence until one or the other armies declares Mission Accomplished?

We’ll provide more information on Integrate This as we learn about it.