North American Union has it's combined military now...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/nau.asp

Not very interestingly, there seems to be no news of this from a source that might be deemed reliable.
 

I have no idea if the following source can be considered reliable or not.  But it confirms the deal.

Canada, U.S. agree to share troops in civil emergencies

I'm not sure it's a bad idea.  In the event of a serious emergency in our northern states, Canadian troops could likely get there sooner than our troops.  Especially considering how thin we're stretched right now.  Some Canadians have guessed that the main impetus for the deal is the upcoming Olympic games in Vancouver in 2010.  That they want our help in case something goes wrong.

I tend to be one of those 'weird' Canadians that try to keep up with the politics of the day. Although I don't admit it to everyone I quite often find myself watching debate in the House of Commons as well as city hall. This item slipped under the radar! This is the first and only thing I have seen on the new deal. I agree that at some level it makes sense. The olympics is a good example along with natural disasters or mass evacuations. Having said that there is a part of me that is a little nervous of foreign troops marching around our country. We are just not used to seeing armed military personnel. I am always a little freaked out when I pass thru American airports. I understand and appreciate their presence - just not used to it!  Also in the event that something (god forbid) were to go wrong, as Canadian citizens have to ability to hold our gov't responsible - US gov't not so much!   

It's amazing what gets through...

I only heard about this on Coast to Coast last night...
I don't watch tv news, but dh didn't hear anything there either...

For me it would depend on what the situation either army was called in for...

griffinej5

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/nau.asp

Not very interestingly, there seems to be no news of this from a source that might be deemed reliable.
 

www.spp.gov

Straight from the government itself.  

The reason it's not covered by any major news organizations is found in the "owned by" column of the news organizations themselves.  Correlate that with who will profit from the SPP and you'll discover the truth.   

Mildly unrelated, but haven't Canadian troops already helped the US in times of emergency (I'm thinking particularly the bad fires in CA this last year), and possibly vice versa?

Thanks for pointing this out, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. 

Cita

Mildly unrelated, but haven't Canadian troops already helped the US in times of emergency (I'm thinking particularly the bad fires in CA this last year), and possibly vice versa?

Thanks for pointing this out, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. 

I'm not sure about the army. I know that firefighters and other emergency respond teams often respond to cross border situations.  

I heard this on the car radio.  Personally, I see nothing wrong at all with border countries helping each other out.  Hopefully, this will extend to Mexico also.

Joyce

"combined military"? not really. This arrangement was first discussed several years ago, so it isn't new either.

This cuts red tape so that military from one country can be deployed to assist the other in a CIVIL emergency. In a military emergency I think we already have treaties in place which would allow other countries to send their military here to help us fight off an invasion.

If you are concerned about a portion of one country's military being bossed about by someone in the other country, then that's been happening for FIFTY YEARS!  Remember NORAD? They do more than track Santa. The commander of NORAD is chosen by/reports to the PM of CA and the Pres of the US. The commander is in Colorado-----but bases in the US and Canada report to him.

So if NORAD detected a threat over Canada, a fellow in Colorado could send Canadian pilots to go take it out.

BTW NORAD  recently added maritime surveillance to its job description.

polarexpress

This cuts red tape so that military from one country can be deployed to assist the other in a CIVIL emergency. In a military emergency I think we already have treaties in place which would allow other countries to send their military here to help us fight off an invasion.

This isn't about invasion.  This is about "civil" emergencies.  That which the National Guard is tasked to handle.  But they can't since we've deployed them in a combat situation for a never ending war.  

polarexpress

If you are concerned about a portion of one country's military being bossed about by someone in the other country, then that's been happening for FIFTY YEARS!  Remember NORAD? They do more than track Santa. The commander of NORAD is chosen by/reports to the PM of CA and the Pres of the US. The commander is in Colorado-----but bases in the US and Canada report to him.

That's to deal with a MILITARY threat or a threat from the outside.  This, clearly by it's own wording, is for the sole purpose of quelling threats from the inside.

polarexpress

So if NORAD detected a threat over Canada, a fellow in Colorado could send Canadian pilots to go take it out.

Actually that Air Force radar operator could inform the Canadian Air Force that there was a threat.  NORAD is more of a surveillance and reporting agency, not a directive type of agency.