Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies

[kuzadd]

I think I'm more ok as an American having Canadian troops on my soil than I would be as a Canadian having American troops on my soil because the U.S. is more aggressive and more unilateral and more military-minded than Canada is. But yes, I do have some issues with it; mainly I really don't understand what purpose it's supposed to serve. Maybe I'm not understanding it though. Didn't we have Canadian troops on our soil after Katrina? Didn't Canada send troops to help us deal with the aftermath?

If that is the case wrt Katrina, and I cannot recall, to be honest, then why sign an agreement, at all?

Why just not leave it as it has been?

[Guest American Woman]

If that is the case wrt Katrina, and I cannot recall, to be honest, then why sign an agreement, at all?

Why just not leave it as it has been?

I don't know why it couldn't be left as it was.

I found this link from Sept. 8, 2005 wrt Katrina:

A 40-man Canadian military diving team is on scene now in the stricken area, working with the U.S. Navy on the identification and removal of navigation hazards and levee inspection.

A four-ship Canadian task group from the Canadian Navy and Coast Guard (Canadian Forces Joint Task Group 306) left Halifax yesterday for the Gulf Coast, carrying emergency supplies, small boats, communications experts, divers and Army engineers.

The Canadian Air Force is sending two CH-146 Griffin helicopters to assist the U.S. Coast Guard in covering the Boston area’s search and rescue requirements, helping to cover the loss of several USCG helicopters sent from there to conduct rescue operations in the Gulf Coast region.

As with the U.S. and U.S. military response to Katrina, the Canadian and Canadian military response can be expected to grow as recovery efforts unfold and evolve. Canadians, from the prime minister on down, stand ready to help their neighbors to the south for the long-haul.

Edited February 24, 2008 by American Woman

[sharkman]

I can easliy think of a situation where massive help is needed which quickly overloads our limited military's ability to help or be effective. The problem on this thread is, with all of the knee jerking and Harper bashing, some are unable to think clearly.

A massive earthquake hits one of our major cities, say Toronto. Tens of thousands are trapped waiting to be rescued, and our military is unable to reach a tenth of them. Millions more are homeless and need water, shelter, and food. We would need aid quickly to avoid even more casualties, and waiting for international help would take over a week. Having an agreement in place to increase response time would save many lives.

The response of Katrina was, of course, a disaster. The lessons learned from that have been applied to emergency planning. If your brother or sister is trapped and American National Guardsmen are able to free them with military equipment, people won't care what nationalities the rescuers are.

[Guest American Woman]

I can easliy think of a situation where massive help is needed which quickly overloads our limited military's ability to help or be effective. The problem on this thread is, with all of the knee jerking and Harper bashing, some are unable to think clearly.

A massive earthquake hits one of our major cities, say Toronto. ...

I already cited such an instance wrt Katrina, and the Canadian military was there to help, even without this new agreement.

But the concerns people have are real. It's not just emergencies like Katrina or an earthquake, but the article says there may be joint efforts on things like guarding a pipeline in Canada. Furthermore, the article states that the U.S. doesn't allow foreign charge of U.S. troops, so some are concerned that the U.S. would be in charge even though it's in Canada. Last but not least, the concern is over the lack of openess to Canadians about it. That's a legitimate concern, imo.

It's interesting that it's the left in Canada and the right in the U.S. that apparently has the greatest concern over this.

[sharkman]

I already cited such an instance wrt Katrina, and the Canadian military was there to help, even without this new agreement.

But the concerns people have are real. It's not just emergencies like Katrina or an earthquake, but the article says there may be joint efforts on things like guarding a pipeline in Canada. Furthermore, the article states that the U.S. doesn't allow foreign charge of U.S. troops, so some are concerned that the U.S. would be in charge even though it's in Canada. Last but not least, the concern is over the lack of openess to Canadians about it. That's a legitimate concern, imo.

It's interesting that it's the left in Canada and the right in the U.S. that apparently has the greatest concern over this.

Perhaps I didn't spell out my thoughts. The response to Katrina was a massive failure, and not one to point to as an example that the present system was working just fine. I found that Canada sending a ship was a slap in the face of the citizens of NO. Because it took so long for the boat to get there and all of the supplies on board should have been flown down. It was obvious that changes to that system needed to be made.

As for the oil pipeline concerns, they are also real. Terrorists would love to blow them up as well, and as I mentioned, the Canadian Forces are way too small to adequately protect oil in Canada on top of all of their other responsibilities.

The remarks about openness have been going on with every single decision Harper has made, along with angry declarations that he doesn't have the mandate to do whatever it is he is doing at the moment, since he has a minority. The truth is, he can do anything that doesn't bring down his government, which in a minority situation, has been limiting him all along, but not enough for the leftwingers in Canada, who want nothing less than his resignation. So their constant refrain about openness tends to fall on deaf ears up here after over a year of it.

[kuzadd]

I already cited such an instance wrt Katrina, and the Canadian military was there to help, even without this new agreement.

But the concerns people have are real. It's not just emergencies like Katrina or an earthquake, but the article says there may be joint efforts on things like guarding a pipeline in Canada. Furthermore, the article states that the U.S. doesn't allow foreign charge of U.S. troops, so some are concerned that the U.S. would be in charge even though it's in Canada. Last but not least, the concern is over the lack of openess to Canadians about it. That's a legitimate concern, imo.

It's interesting that it's the left in Canada and the right in the U.S. that apparently has the greatest concern over this.

Oh how i hate those labels. AW. I say that with the utmost respect to you.

any one with a modicum of common sense would be concerned about this agreement.

If we have helped on another in the past, great, no need for an agreement of this type.

So why this agreement? Why now? Why in secret?

What about concerns over who controls troops in which country?

what about Posse comitatus ?

What about the fact that Canadian soldiers will face a heavily armed populace stateside?

What about the fact that here, US soldiers will have authority over a largely unarmed populace?

potential abuses of the populace?

and on and on.

What exactly qualifies as a civil emergency???

Like I said anyone with a modicum of common sense would or should have concerns.

I saw an American poster say and I quote "The first time a Canadian soldier kills an American on American soil. That will mark the begining of the last days of the Canadian Government. American Patriots will not rest until Canada is no more. There will be a huge expansion of the American territory to the North. America will cross into Canada and the destruction will not stop until we reach Alaska."

that is not reassuring now is it?

[bush_cheney2004]

....I saw an American poster say and I quote "The first time a Canadian soldier kills an American on American soil. That will mark the begining of the last days of the Canadian Government. American Patriots will not rest until Canada is no more. There will be a huge expansion of the American territory to the North. America will cross into Canada and the destruction will not stop until we reach Alaska."

that is not reassuring now is it?

It already happened....Americans (US Army) hacked out the ALCAN Highway from Dawson Creek to Alaska.

Canada paid over $100,000,000 USD and survived after all.

Edited February 24, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

Lat week the US and Canadian militiary signed a pact that would allow US and Canadian military into each other countries in case of an emergency such as floods, forest fires, hurrricanes earthquakes and the effects of a terrorists attacks. In the US, this didn't pass the Congress and Harper never said anything about until AFTER the fact. Is this another step of joing the Canada, Mexcio and the US as one?

[Rue]

I have been asked on here by poster why I dislike Harper. I don't dislike him I am afraid of him and this is a prime example of how manipulate and controlling this man is. Canadians should be very wary of this government. They are busy doing things behind the electorates back with no accountability what so ever. Now I am even more frightened of him.

I obviously am with you and AmericanWonderWoman on this one but I wouldn't be afraid of him. Seriously. He's someone who depends on people being intimidated. We Canadians tend to get intimidated too quickly when someone just plain doesn't sit well with us. Yer gut is tellin you something. Telling me the same thing. Nothing for us to fear just think about when we vote.

Technically the US and Canada have always been able to exchange emergency help on many levels. We sent a navy ship full of medical supplies to Louisiana during Katrina. The coast guards and navies from both countries have ignored the borders on the sea in times of peril to save people.

When we have bad bad storms, cities on both sides of the board have sent snow crews, medical emergency personnel, hydro workers. With forest fires we have helped each other out.

I think its a good thing if there is a natural catastrophe we cut through the paper work and get help to victims quickly.

On the other hand, I think yes there may be some underlying political agenda here that he's not being up front about because he knows it would create a political opportunity for Dion and Layton to play the anti-Yankee Doodle Dandy tune to get some votes.

I have always suspected that in the event of a large scale nuclear or germ terror attack Canada does not have a civil defence system capable of responding to a devastated city. We just do not have a large enough armed forces. This could be what is also behind it.

I personally am not afraid of Americans. I really am not. What I am afraid of is our politicians when they sense we are all complacent fools.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Rue

[scribblet]

I have always suspected that in the event of a large scale nuclear or germ terror attack Canada does not have a civil defence system capable of responding to a devastated city. We just do not have a large enough armed forces. This could be what is also behind it.

I personally am not afraid of Americans. I really am not. What I am afraid of is our politicians when they sense we are all complacent fools.

Neither am I, and I wouldn't care whose troops where there to rescue me if need be,.

[runningdog]

Not everything governments do is debated in parliament prior to it happening. This type of agreement is within the executive purview and whose cabinet ministers are answerable to the democratically elected parliament.

You did know that didn't you?

wow.

[kuzadd]

Neither am I, and I wouldn't care whose troops where there to rescue me if need be,.

why would you assume these troops were going to rescue you?

When that is not necessarily the case.

How could a government define "civil emergency"?

Edited February 25, 2008 by kuzadd

[M.Dancer]

When I read posts such as the one above I wonder who this person is. Do they have a strong vested interest in promoting a way of life beneficial to them. Are they directly from the Prime Ministers office?

You tend to spout the same thing to anyone who posts somethiung reasonable in response to one of your hysterical rants.

I imagine by your count there are more paid government posters here than there are in Ottawa....

[Wilber]

With no regular Canadian army units west of the Rockies we will be damn glad of it when the big one hits the West Coast because there won't be much chance of getting help from the ROC if road and rail lines through the mountains are cut. A major flood in the Fraser Valley could do the same thing. With the amount of resources the Americans have in the Seattle area they could be of tremendous help before any arrived from the ROC. Good neighbours help each other when one is in trouble and they don't question each others motives or ask for rewards.

[Rue]

With no regular Canadian army units west of the Rockies we will be damn glad of it when the big one hits the West Coast because there won't be much chance of getting help from the ROC if road and rail lines through the mountains are cut. A major flood in the Fraser Valley could do the same thing. With the amount of resources the Americans have in the Seattle area they could be of tremendous help before any arrived from the ROC. Good neighbours help each other when one is in trouble and they don't question each others motives or ask for rewards.

Actually that is another good point Wilbur. For cheery reading I was reading some disaster management stuff in the insurance industry and what the insurance industry is well aware of are two things;

1-in the event of a major terrorist attack to our infrastructure-we might require US military assistance;

2-specifically the example you gave-that in the event of a major earthquake exactly where you say we do not have the emergency facilities that could respond.

I really suspect that is what this arrangement is about and look I don't like Harper but I think this one is about not scaring the public as to just how inoperative our own armed forces is within Canada in the event of a serious disaster.

The reality is we have a huge country geographically and a tiny armed forces that couldn't possibly with its size or lack of equipment respond.

To think we would not ask the US for help is dumb.

In case anyone hasn't noticed the US Navy is the number one rescuer on the high seas. No one is too concerned when they save people. Its when we get into the imperialism and damn Yankee politics suddenly the Jack Laytons pipe up.

No one complains if the Yanks save people.

I think your point is bang on. It is just reality. If the big on happens and its possible, our borders will become immaterial and the need to rescue people with whoever is available on either side of the border will become paramount.

Does anyone really believe the US wants to invade us? Why? They already control 90% of our economy.

Puhleeze. All these people worried about sovereignty, you willing to give up all your American products and by Canadian? HAH. The Jack Laytons of the world who yadda yadda about America take it for granted America will always be there for them. That's why they are such big talkers.

To me the sovereignty issue is all about the North not joint rescue and military operations with our closest ally who absolutely share security needs with.

I will tell you something else. If some sob terror operation hid in Canada I would not pee my pants if the US military came in and took them down. I would be the first to welcome them in that effort.

I appreciate soverignty is an important issue. But I think its time we understand with serious natural disasters or terrorism, there is a far greater issue at stake in those 2 specific circumstances.

[M.Dancer]

1-in the event of a major terrorist attack to our infrastructure-we might require US military assistance;

In the event of a major (terrorist/environmental) disastor, the US might require assistance from us. It goes both ways.

[capricorn]

I'm glad this agreement is in place at this time. With the possibility of a future Democrat US President there's no telling what that party's position would be regarding bilateral disaster assistance.

[buffycat]

Since both Canada and the US have always helped one another out in times of emergency - one must begin to question what exactly this 'new' treaty intends - ie what kind of 'civil' emergency?

There was no need to create this binding document - except perhaps as mentioned before in this thread to circumvent the Posse Comitatus laws in the US.

So, that makes two agreements that our 'oh so transparent' Harper Government has now signed - without any debate or mention to the public. The first being the deal with Israel wrt 'security' (one must ask: whose security???) and now this one with the US warmonger Admin to the south of us. Geez if we keep this up Canada will be unrecognizable as a soveriegn nation. (Which she most likely already is).

[Wilber]

According to the article it would only be by request. It makes complete sense especially since we have been partaking in mutual defense pacts such as NORAD and NATO for sixty years which already integrate our armed forces to a degree. It makes even more sense when it comes to natural disasters or terrorist attacks which are far more likely than a direct military attack by another nation. The intimation that either country would have the right to unilaterally put it's troops on the others soil without permission is nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me how some people's antipathy for all things American can override common sense and objectivity.

[kuzadd]

According to the article it would only be by request. It makes complete sense especially since we have been partaking in mutual defense pacts such as NORAD and NATO for sixty years which already integrate our armed forces to a degree. It makes even more sense when it comes to natural disasters or terrorist attacks which are far more likely than a direct military attack by another nation. The intimation that either country would have the right to unilaterally put it's troops on the others soil without permission is nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me how some people's antipathy for all things American can override common sense and objectivity.

Would the army come to help or control?

Why does everyone assume help?

Seems silly.

And always with natural disasters or terrorism, like those are the only two possibilities

how about food shortages or massive unemployment?

How about mass protests?

It makes no sense, no agreement was necessary, and could be done has it always has been done , on an as needed basis.

if it ain't broken don't fix it!

The system wasn't broken.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people's antipathy for all things American can override common sense and objectivity.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people's naivety and lack of concern for their own nations sovereignty cause them to lose all objectivity.

To say nothing of how our soldiers may fair on the US side of the border, and there are those nasty "contractors" to think about?

Also , the Americans who are unhappy about this I suppose, they just have antipathy for Canada and Canadians?

I do not think so, I think they are pro-American sovereignty, as the Canadians are ,who are concerned about this. But it is interesting, how some chose to portray Canadians who wish to see Canada put first, as the Americans do, as anti-american, instead of pro-canadian.

I guess it is, just the comfort with the rhetoric of the day, and the applicable knee-jerk reaction, as opposed to having a realistic thought on a situation.

Edited February 26, 2008 by kuzadd

[M.Dancer]

how about food shortages or massive unemployment?

How about mass protests?

Why on earth would anyone need an army for mass unemployment or a mass protest?

Your fears are absurd.

It makes no sense, no agreement was necessary, and could be done has it always has been done , on an as needed basis.

Of course an agreement is necessary. Someone has to organise where resources for aid will be massed and distributed, someone has to have an organiztional flow chart, someone has to be in control. Do you possibly believe these things can be done on the fly in an ad hoc basis? How do you train officers and men to take on these responsibilities when no one will know how or what the logistical needs will be or who will be orchestrating the response?

An ad hoc solution might be fine for the ladies auxillary pot luck dinner, but not when thousand or more lives are at stake.

[Wilber]

It never ceases to amaze me how some people's naivety and lack of concern for their own nations sovereignty cause them to lose all objectivity.

The EU exists in spite of that attitude even though it is often those who point to the EU as a shining example who are so anal when it comes to similar cooperation with other North American countries, particularly the US.

Also , the Americans who are unhappy about this I suppose, they just have antipathy for Canada and Canadians?

They are making the same knee jerk reaction as you but you also hit on the reason these fears are not rational. The people of both countries wouldn't stand for foreign troops on their soil without their governments permission and that government would have to wear the consequenses of any backlash from the public for doing so.

MD hits the nail on the head when he says that it will allow for joint planning to cover eventualities rather than just making it up as they go along. If for some reason we do someday require US troops on Canadian soil, wouldn't you rather it was done according to protocals established by mutual agreement in advance, rather than making it up on the fly according to god knows what?

[scribblet]

lol and how foolish, Are you at all pro-canadian?

controlling our own sovereign issues?

and civil or domestic issues that concern canadians?

Or are you so anti-canadian, you display zero concern about foreign troops on our soil?

How about UN troops? You okay with them too?

El toro poo poo, so anyone who disagrees with you is 'anti-Canadian' sure LOL

I'd welcome UN troops if they were helping out in an emergency, I wouldn't care who was rescuing me. Just more paranoia and hyperbole

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe the U.S. can guard the Northwest Passage for Canada now.

[margrace]

Maybe thats the plan all along