https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/3a884e170c43b6dda3b08cf8fa390117.pdf c02e5ad5532070cac35ec4cff8191276 PDF Text Text SECRET (CO s.15(1) MND SPEAKING POINTS FOR CABINET DISCUSSION OF THE TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE RS. SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 • My comments tills morning will cover five key areas: • Defence activities in the aftermath of this attack; • The assistance Canada has offered to the V.S.; • Our domestic capacity to deal with serious disasters; • The potential implications of this attack on Canada-U^. defence relations; • And finally, the wider international defence implications of this terrorist act. • Since the attack on Tuesday, my Department has taken several steps in response. • First, the Canadian Forces worked with the ILS. in NORAD to monitor and control North American airspace. • While this task is part of normal routine, we assigned additional aircraft to NORAD, placed them on a higher slate of alert and dispersed them across the country. • Eight additional CF-18s were assigned to NORAD, bringing our total commitment to twelve. landed in Whitehorse. • Second, we hove assisted other agencies including Customs, Jmmigraliuu and the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service. • CF aircraft have ferried blankets and cuts to eastern airports to deal with diverted aircraft and passengers. DND facilities have also been used to house stranded passengers. • Finally, the Canadian Forces were placed on alert and CF military Intelligence lias been assisting its U.S. counterparts. • On Wednesday my Deputy made a formal offer to the ILS. authorities in Washington of resources that could assist in post-attack efforts. • • The offer included resources from my department. Health Canada, Transport Canada, the RCMP as well a« provincial and nongovernmental medical resources and some private sector capabilities. The newly created Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness is maintaining a detailed listing of equipment, expertise and services that could assist (he U.S. 1/4 ? 'CO 000114 �SECRET (CO • It is also playing a coordinating role nation-wide and is working closely with the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. • To this point the U.S. has not made any specific request of us for humanitarian or recovery assistance. • These operational issues, while significant, are relatively straightforward. • In my view, the harder part of the equation will be dealing with the potential implications for Canada-U^. defence relations, our own crisis response capacity and for the international security environment. • What can we expect on the bilateral level? • This event will become a defining moment in Canado-L-S. defence relations. Our long-stated commitment to jointly protect North American security win be tested. • There is no doubt that the U.S. focus on the defence of its homeland is now at its sharpest. How Canada responds will come under intense scrutiny. • I believe that bilateral security discussions for the foreseeable future will be dominated by the “homeland defence” issue. • Here, Canada can expect to come under significant pressure. The U.S. will wont to treat North America as a single defensive space. • If tliis comes t<i pass, from a security perspective, our national border will have little relevance. • We will have to think quickly and thoroughly about the wide range of fundamental Issues this course of action would inevitably raise for Canada. • In doing so, we must recognize that the challenge is significantly broader than simply the law enforcement and military aspects of protecting North American security. • First, attention must be paid to re-assuring citizens about their security. That, by the way, also includes ensuring that any reprisals against certain communities in this country are not tolerated. • Second, we must lake a comprehensive look at how this country deals with the terrorist threat Canadians will look to the national government for leadership, • This is a government-wide issue that will require action in the areas of legislation, policy and resources. • Beyond our counter-terrorism response is the question of our readiness to deal with the worst case scenarios. • We need to focus ou our ability to provide federal government assistance to Canadians in the aftermath of an incident involving mass casualties, devastation and the threat of further destruction. 214 SECRET (CO I I 000115 �SECRET (CC) • We have dealt competently in recent years with disasters such as the ice storm and with potential disasters such as Y2K. • But the events of September 11th changed our basic planning assumptions. • We need to reassess our capacity as a national government to handle our emergency planning, response and recovery roles - including scenarios which until recently would have seemed beyond comprehension. • As the Minister responsible for Emergency Preparedness, I consider it essential that we ensure we have the capacity to perform to a standard Canadians have the right to expect of us in times of severe distress and danger. • The potential international defence implications of this attack are no less significant than the bilateral ones. • In the NATO context, the Alliances’ security agenda has changed in an instant • For the first time in its history, NATO invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. • Article 5 states that an armed attack against one of the Allies shall be considered an attack against them all. • The implications are not merely symbolic. • There can be no doubt that the U.S. will take military action. If the U.S. seeks NATO assistance, Canada and the other Allies will be expected to honour a long-held Treaty commitment. • The Prime Minister told Canadians that we will be a part of any NATO action. • It is important to understand that with Article 5 in force, the principle of self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is also in force. • There is no need to seek a further legal basis to take military action. • While Article 5 only obliges Allies to assist as they deem necessary, authentic participation in any effort will become a “test of loyalty” for Washington’s Allies. • Failure to measure up will exact a high price. • For Canada, our unparalleled economic and political relationship with the U.S. is potentially at risk. • Even if the U.S, chooses to act alone militarily, the NATO Article 5 decision significantly constrains the Allies’ scope for criticizing U.S. actions. 3/4 Wc pf t rrci 000116 �SECRET (CC) • In addition, unilateral U.S. military action does not necessarily place Canada on the sidelines. • We have approximately six hundred CF personnel serving in NORAD, U.S. headquarters and with U.S. Forces, including combat units. Canadians also serve on NATO airborne warning aircraft. • The potential implications of this attack on the wider international security context are equally momentous. • First, close L’.S.-Russia cooperation in the fight against terrorism may transform their broader security relationship. • A strong contribution by Russia on terrorism and weak support from NATO Allies could kill the Alliance. • Second, the end product of a shifting international security agenda could well be the return of a great divide in world politics, but this time NorthSouth rather than East-West. • Finally, if the U.S. seeks to build a coalition of the willing to fight terrorism, who joins and who declines will re-order security relationships globally. • The international stakes are high and it is vital that we prepare ourselves for what may lie ahead on all fronts. • Canada must quickly and thoroughly think through its position on potential U.S. military action and the ultimate implications of our commitment to NATO. • How Canada reacts will probably define the Canada-U.S. relationship for the foreseeable future in every aspect, not simply defence. • In conclusion, we must not under-estimate the significance and severity of the challenges that could lie before us nationally, bilaterally and internationally. • At the national level, we potentially face unprecedented and sustained scrutiny from the public, media and Parliament around the government’s capacity to provide its most fundamental service - the security and well being of its citizens. • We ignore this dimension at our peril. • On the bilateral and international level, the security environment has shifted fundamentally and permanently. • Canada needs to focus without delay on how to respond to this change. • We must do this to protect Canada’s most vital national interests and to protect Canadians. 4/4 SECRET (CO 000117 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CDNE00021 Title A name given to the resource MND [Minister of National Defence] Speaking Points for Cabinet Discussion of the Terrorist Attack on the U.S. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 18-Sep-01 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived PCO A-2022-00554 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource PCO Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Canadian Crown Subject The topic of the resource Global War on Terror Description An account of the resource September 18, 2001 Cabinet Meeting - Background Material and Briefing Book Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Canada Declassified Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF