Deadline Looms On Continental Defence Project.

This is an awkward deadline for Prime Minister Paul Martin as he tries to forge a new political relationship with President George W. Bush while coping with a Parliament and a Liberal caucus that are divided on questions of military co-operation with the U.S. administration. "The military wants to get this deal done under the radar," said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate national security committee and a strong supporter of closer continental defence co-operation between Canada and the United States. Mr. Kenny said anti-Bush sentiment on Parliament Hill is high at the moment. But he senses that a new continental defence agreement could be reached "about a year from now when people cool down and get a better perspective of the relationship. Right now [after Mr. Bush's re-election] people want to personalize it a lot." But first the Martin cabinet has to extend the mandate of the binational planning group. It was set up two years ago by the Bush administration and the government of former prime minister Jean Chrétien in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Bush administration, fresh from an electoral victory, is ready to renew the mandate, U.S. officials say. The project envisions a new treaty on continental defence and security by the end of next year, and broadening the binational command structure that now deals with defence of North American airspace to include land and sea forces. The group's interim report, dated Oct. 13, calls for Ottawa and Washington to make "bold and meaningful strides toward streamlining continental defence and security policy" by expanding the joint North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) to include army and navy units. The planning group, consisting of about 30 officers from each country, is located at a U.S. Air Force base in Colorado near NORAD headquarters. The planners say further integration will make it easier to plug gaps in coastal defence, detect terrorists before they strike, and deal with the aftermath of a disastrous chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack. The officers also know that integration is a touchy political issue, especially in Canada. "Command under one commander may create perceptions of sovereignty issues," the interim report says. Yet if the political hurdles can be cleared, the report says, "an expanded, multidomain North American Defence Command could be established before the end of 2005." Military leaders in Canada and the United States have been down this road before. They completed work on a new "combined defence plan" for North America before the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. The draft plan went unsigned, however, as the military established in both countries shifted gears and began thinking about the implications of attacks by small, hard-to-detect terrorist cells armed with weapons of mass destruction. The Chrétien government showed little enthusiasm for reviving the draft agreement after U.S. forces invaded Iraq last year without UN approval. Canadian officers say the binational command structure they envision will deal strictly with the defence and security of North America and will not require Ottawa to support U.S. military action in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. Some critics, however, say closer military integration could skew Canadian defence priorities. Michael Byers, who holds the Canada research chair in international politics and law at the University of British Columbia, notes that Ottawa bought used British submarines so the Canadian navy could conduct joint open-water exercises with the United States when it might have been a better investment to acquire subs that could operate in the frozen Canadian Arctic. The planning group's interim report, Dr. Byers said, also glosses over difficult questions about the legal liability of Canadian soldiers answering to a U.S. commander and American soldiers operating on Canadian soil. © 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved