Toronto tests response to terrorist attacks

[MPIKE]

I was away (thankfully) for a few days and returned to see this thread had 3 more pages added.  ;D
GNR,

I can't say what skills we need

Then you are getting into an area in which you are not qualified nor have a SMEA background.  Then suggest  a time out to read up on this area before you try to argue your point?

Don't forget the first responders to the situation will be the police, firefighters and EMS.

I thought you were finally onside until....

But if we are called in, we would be the first responders to each scenario from that point forward.

Curiously, is there already a liason between the civy responders and the military?  If so, have they witnessed similiar exercises to the one in TO?  Have they made any recommendations that have effected our training?  Or have they determined a way to use our current skill sets in a first response scenario?

Please contact your unit OPs and obtain the 33BDE Professional Development 9-10Apr05 Kingston CD.  This has loads of info which may enlighten you on Domestic Ops, CONPLAN RAPTOR etc.  This may? give you an understanding of just how large of a request you are wanting for the Reserves or the CF to be involved in such training.
I think if you take the time to read this material you will fully understand the CF position. 

edited for brevity

 

[GNR]

Thanks for the more reasonable response Piker!  I intended this to be a constructive conversation, if I wanted to have an argument I would have asked my wife the question. (It's not that she is argumentative, it's just that it is potentially more training that I would be away for)

I reviewed CONPLAN RAPTOR again, thanks for the reminder!  It was the document that spurred on my question.

We are somewhat involved and we have monitored similiar situations, but the development of liasons in each area is not yet complete.  We have listed some areas of expertise, where our troops can be best used and determined that they do not require a new skill set.  But we did all this with-out testing our theories.

Ultimately this brought me back to my original question, why weren't we involved in the recent exercise in TO, it seems like it is the perfect opportunity to test what we have written we are capable of.

I found my answer by reviewing the document "The CF is not funded to carry out tasks other than those that fall within the Defence mandate.  All costs associated with the conduct of domestic operations are normally subject to recovery from the requesting agency."

Our participation in the exercise would be at the expense of the agency that asked us to be involved, therefore we will not test our capabilities and will hope for the best.

 

[paracowboy]

GNR, Michael O'Leary has already told us that we were represented, and that Higher is reviewing/planning.

 

[GNR]

Yeah, thanks paracowboy I mentioned earlier that I wouldn't have even bothered with my original question if that would have been in the article.

But then I started getting questioned on why we should be involved at all.....

 

[GNR]

Curiously, is there already a liason between the civy responders and the military?  If so, have they witnessed similiar exercises to the one in TO?  Have they made any recommendations that have effected our training?  Or have they determined a way to use our current skill sets in a first response scenario?

Sorry, I meant this sarcastically, to point out that others in a much higher pay bracket than me also feel we should be part of a response effort.

 

[2 Cdo]

Gnr, others have pointed out REPEATEDLY your oversimplification of things and your blind adherence to your own argument (which you failed to point out HOW  or WHAT we the military should do).
Maybe it's time to sit back and let those with the training and experience come up with a plan.  :-X

 

[Black Watch]

Montréal did something similar

 

[GNR]

LMAO 2CDO, you're too much.

Read my posts, I have never claimed that I was to be the planning expert, or that I had the solution.  I am NOT the SME in this subject, I asked why we were not involved in an exercise that we could use to prove the skills we are suppossed to use to bail out an overwhelmed group of responders.

I feel that we should be practicing the skills of a first responder in a actual exercise, instead of assuming we can use the skills we have to respond.

I also stated in one of most recent posts (Thanks to Piper for pointing out the document that contained the info!) that it would appear it is up to the agency that requests us to pay our wages, therefore we will not put our skills to the test.

Defending that we belong there was a side track and had nothing to do with why I posted the original question, it has already been established that we are going to be used in domestic ops (similiar to the exercise in TO) by the CDS.  I wanted to know why we weren't involved in this one.  And as I just said my answer arrived, ultimately it comes down to money that prevents us from being part of one of these exercises, NOT that we don't belong etc as was suggested from some others.

Read ALL the posts BEFORE you jump in with your comments.

 

[George Wallace]

:brickwall:

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Perhaps a different perspective is in order here.

The CF plans for Domestic Operations as an important, albeit secondary, task.  We have an extensive liaison structure beginning with the national level at PSEPC and continuing through the various provincial structures.  Here in LFWA, we have a domestic operations detachment permanently emplaced with each province and have liaison officers capable of deploying to the municipal level.

There are all sorts of reasons why the CF doesn't get involved proactively in domestic emergencies:

1.  Emergency response is a provincial responsiblity and the provinces don't often appreciate a Federal institution becoming involved in their sandbox.

2.  The provinces (in my direct experience) also don't appreciate CF involvement at the municipal level - it violates their internal chain of command.

3.  We are the force of last resort.  If the Army's there, there's nothing else.  Having CF involvement at the very beginning creates false expectations of when and to what extent we're going to be involved.  The rule of thumb is that if a civilian agency can handle something, we let it.  However, the request procedure is well established, routinely utilized and is capable of being executed on very short notice.

4.  As much as some would like it to be, domestic operations are not our primary role.  We're good at it because we bring all sorts of capabilities to the table:  planning, rapid mobility, operational flexibility, a capability to operate completely independently, transport capabilities and all sorts of specialized kit.  We bring those capabilities precisely because we train to deploy and execute warfighting operations.

5.  Legalese.  The CF cannot intervene in domestic operations without a specific request from the province concerned.  This includes exercises.  For this one, was an invitation even issued from Ontario?  Even though local commanders now have authority to respond immediately in very specific emergency situations, even they need a request to do so.  A request for armed assistance must follow a very specific legal chain to be approved.

6.  Money.  As I said earlier, domestic emergency response is a provinicial responsibility.  If we participate in domestic operations, we are, in theory, supposed to be reinbursed the funds expended.

7.  Finally, what would a CF role on such an exercise have been?  A Reserve infantry company brings limited skills to the table in an emergency situation.  Our medical people cannot treat civilians without waivers in place.  We cannot do assistance to law enforcement without a formal request via the Sol Gen net.  Our SF cannot deploy without a formal order.  Unless military involvement in a domestic response exercise is planned from the beginning, with all request procedures in place (and exercised), it becomes pretty pointless almost immediately.

There's more but you get the idea....

 

[GNR]

Thanks Teddy.

I can't help but fear that with-out practice we may fail, but I understand why we aren't part of the exercises.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Well, to assage your fears, we do practice - quite routinely - and have a pretty robust procedural process for military involvement in domestic operations that is actually used much more than people realize.

For example, a Pacific earthquake response is to be exercised at the national level next week; I have attended exercises in the US involving movement of both US and Canadian forces across the border in response to a disaster; we are holding a major exercise in the spring to practice the deployment of support forces to BC; there are written, fully validated contingency plans for a number of disaster and attack scenarios already in place; and, finally, our liaison structure is firmly in place and has been utilized on real operations over and over again.  It is also much simpler than that in the US, as has been pointed out on other threads.

All this to say that we now have a significant amount of experience with real-time domestic response.  The new command structure should simplify things even further.

Hope this helps,

TR

 

[bossi]

... Read my posts, I have never claimed that I was to be the planning expert, or that I had the solution.   I am NOT the SME in this subject, I asked why we were not involved in an exercise that we could use to prove the skills we are suppossed to use to bail out an overwhelmed group of responders. ...

In a nutshell, the Toronto exercise was a low-level tactical exercise, of short duration.  It did not entail a scenario whereby civil authorities were overwhelmed, which in turn is the defnitive "trigger" for military assistance.

... I feel that we should be practicing the skills of a first responder in a actual exercise, instead of assuming we can use the skills we have to respond. ...

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. 
However,  in the context of civilian emergency management (which the CF sometimes supports with something referred to as "Domestic Operations") "first responder" means fire/police/ambulance, and in general the CF is the force of last recourse (i.e. not "first response").

... I also stated in one of most recent posts (Thanks to Piper for pointing out the document that contained the info!) that it would appear it is up to the agency that requests us to pay our wages, therefore we will not put our skills to the test.

Yup - I'd have to agree:  You're not the SME ...
(i.e. if you weren't already aware of those documents)

... I wanted to know why we weren't involved in this one.  And as I just said my answer arrived, ultimately it comes down to money that prevents us from being part of one of these exercises, NOT that we don't belong etc as was suggested from some others. ...

If this were a test/exam on a course, and if that was your final answer ... you'd be a trg failure.
Money/funding is NOT the deciding factor.
Whether or not we "belong" there is/was.
Feel free to contact me at work if you still don't get it.

... Read ALL the posts BEFORE you jump in with your comments.

I tried ... but then my brain went numb ...  :brickwall:
How about you stay in your lane, and I'll stay in mine?

 

[bossi]

"Curiously, is there already a liason between the civy responders and the military?  If so, have they witnessed similiar exercises to the one in TO?  Have they made any recommendations that have effected our training?  Or have they determined a way to use our current skill sets in a first response scenario?"

Sorry, I meant this sarcastically, to point out that others in a much higher pay bracket than me also feel we should be part of a response effort.

Your attempt at sarcasm failed - to me, you sounded like an idiot
(but, I'm not a SME on idiots - I'm only expressing my personal opinion).

1.  "... is there already a liason [sic] ...?" - Yes.
2.  "... If so ...?" - Yes.
3.  "... Have they made any recommendations ...?" - Yes.
4.  "... Or have then determined ... ?" - Yes.

Others, in the highest pay bracket, feel our Army should be an Army.

P.S.  The very fact that you do not know the extent of CF participation on the Toronto TTC exercise is irrefutable proof that you do not know what you are talking about.  Until you do, please feel free to listen and learn - you might find it enlightening, or dare I suggest ... educational?

 

[Michael OLeary]

GNR,

in a previous posting I spent a few years as the Domestic Plans officer in an Area HQ. The 20+ plans I dealt with ranged from generic emergency response, to support to counter-terrorism ops, support to Correctional Services, and Nuclear Emergency response. I, or others in the section, attended municipal and federally conducted planning exercises (including ones with DND as the lead agency when applicable) in a wide range of operational scenarios. These exercises involved all response agencies: local and federal police, civilian emergency responders, to JTF-2 and the Solicitor-General's representatives, when applicable. In some exercises, the decision making cycle was modeled up to AND INCLUDING the PM.

At the Canadian Land Force Command and Staff College (CLFCSC), each Army Operations Course (AOC) includes a brief seminar of lectures and syndicate discusions on Domestic Operations; Aid to the Civil Power, Armed Assistance, and emergency response. This ensures that every Army officer will gain some familiarity with the divisions of responsibilities, and the relevent documentation supporting the involvement of the CF in such events. Speakers at these seminars always include representatives from the SOlicitor-General and NDHQ. These seminars are also attended members of the RMCP, provincial and local police forces, Emergency Measures Organizations, and Area HQ staff, among others.

DND has always recognized the likelihood of our involvement of emergemcy scenarios, and being involved in exercising and practicing the required liaison and decision-making structures.

The background documents provide us a strong framework for DND involvement. I would suggest you start by seeking out and reading some of the primary documents, such as:

(a)  DCDS 2/98 Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Operations

(b)  B-GS-055-000/AG-001, Provision of Services Policy

and for your particular point of concern regarding CT;

(c)  The National Counter-Terorism Plan

You should be able to find at least the two former documents through the DIN, and possibly the later (which is an unclassified document detailing the coordination methodologies and responsibilities, not tactical operations).

 

[GNR]

Thanks Michael!

 

[childs56]

I seen the interview by the CDS to the University, not sure what one it was though.
The CDS made a statement that the number one priority for the CF was to ensure that we can provide assistance to any and all domestic situations that may arise. He went on to state that we have to make changes with in the CF to accomplish this feat.  He also stated that we would maintain our war fighting skills to the highest levels.

Really we need to be able to respond to a disaster of any type. The US although not a perfect situation have teams such as the ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. They have and regularly train to respond to disasters and other emergency's. They have the man power and equipment to respond in a decent amount of time and efficiency. As i stated they are not perfect but they do have a plan and can deploy quickly. They already know what is in a city because for the most part they work civie side doing the same job or similar.

A response was made earlier that although Reservists were with in a city that they would be more worried about their own family's to respond. I can say the snow storm in 96 in Vic BC(think thats right year) seen guys show up walking through the snow, some ex members even showed up to volunteer their services.  This showed me the true value of a Reserve force with in a major metropolitan area.
A similar instance when the fires happened two years ago. Reservists from around the province, even ones with high paying jobs came to the call to respond to the fires. some who work as higher ups in major companies responded. This showed the intrest of how we can respond to a situation with in a local community or area.
Was the deployment a great success story. Yes and no Equipment shortages were big problems, those slowly worked them selves out. I remember going to 1ASG for some supply's. Basic stuff sunscreen, batteries, PPE water. When the supply tech heard we had pretty much nothing to our names  he gave us a few tri walls of equipment. All basic deployment stuff but things that made life a little easier.

We have a very basic system in place already, what we need to do is expand on it and practice it to ensure that the logistics work as does the specialization in areas of construction, rescue in urban areas, and possibly other skills that we have not and or haven't for a while practiced .

 

[bossi]

... Really we need to be able to respond to a disaster of any type. The US although not a perfect situation have teams such as the ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. They have and regularly train to respond to disasters and other emergency's. They have the man power and equipment to respond in a decent amount of time and efficiency. As i stated they are not perfect but they do have a plan and can deploy quickly. They already know what is in a city because for the most part they work civie side doing the same job or similar. ...

However, you'll also note the USACE has changed recently ...
(i.e. historically, they've been more attuned to Water Resources, Environment, Infrastructure, Warfighting ... and Homeland Security is a "relative newcomer" since ... 2002)

http://www.usace.army.mil/missions/index.html

And, if we were to imagine creating a "Canadian Corps of Army Engineers" ... where should we cut from our existing Army?  (i.e. our Engineers are already over-tasked ...)

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is made up of approximately 34,600 Civilian and 650 military members.

 

[Bloggins]

Toronto does have a large emergency services group that is trained and equipped to a certain level. What the CF could bring to the table is questionable based not only on our size, equipment and ability deploy.  but also on sustainment. The CF does have a regular force unit always on the list to respond within 24 hours to a domestic crisis and Toronto does have a reserve domestic response unit but currently it has been mandated to respond with 48 hours. The game plan as far as I have been lead to believe is this. The local authorities will respond to a crisis and if help is required the federal Govt will deploy what ever regular force unit is on stand by hopefully arriving within 24 hours. The next day the DRU will with 2 riffle Coy's, 1 troop of engineers, 1 armoured troop (soft skin) an HQ element and limited css will act as follow on forces and be deployed as seen fit. LFCA has been exercising the reserve element 2 or 3 times a year since the trade towers came down. But the exercise that Toronto emergency services conducted has little place for the assistance we would be able to offer. Our support would as far as I know come in the shape of command and control, vital point security, aid distribution and man power. In the U.S when they deploy the national guard under their system they already have all of the kit they need and can just go. In Canada regular force and reserve we need to borrow and trade before we can go any where.

Cheers.

 

[James]

I just have one question, and no it's not why isn't the CF a first response unit.  ;D

The municipal agencies are the first on the scene when we're hit by terrorists. You have the CBRN, police, FD, etc there. The CF would come in later if the city requests their assistance. My question is this: once the police and FD find evidence of the bomb (if a bomb is used), would they share that information with DND, even if there aren't any troops there?

Thanks.