1. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions CANUSLANT Workshop Breakout Sessions Workgroup process and outcomes

2. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions Initial Command Options for Discussion u Single command post or dual with liaisons

3. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions Deliverable u A final report out on which option works best in each scenario and where the weaknesses are in each case. u How to address deficiencies in each option: u End product : To revise the plan

4. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions Findings u A majority of the workshop participants felt in a level V incident a single command post would be most effective initially. u Explore senior level support of plan and politics u Although Unified Command in the Atlantic Annex is an option, it is not currently in other geographic annexes.

5. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions Strengths of Single Command u Easier to co-ordinate objectives. u Single command needed for source control and on water removal. u Enables JIC and JES to be together. u Facilitates RP’s response. u Economies of Scale u Consolidates Expertise u Projects a United Front/Systems Approach

6. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions Strengths of Dual Command u Familiar and quicker to deploy. u Smaller Footprints for remote areas. u Fewer Boundary Crossing Issues u Politically Expedient u Accomodates Local Provincial/State Entities

7. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions Weaknesses of Single Command u Larger logistical footprint. u Harder to Justify Politically. u Meshing Response Systems. u CBP/CBSA - more potential issues. u Loss of local representation – “voice”

8. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions Weaknesses of Dual Command u Competition for available resources. u Potential for Poor Communications of all types. u Potential for Disjointed Response. u Duplication of effort / perceived costs. u Lack of RP Support. u Difficulty in Co-ordinated Public Message

9. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions Addressing the Deficiencies u Update the Plans u Test the Plans u Share information in plans u Engage IT and Communications u Outreach to government officials, public and industry. u Revisit sites for larger ICP’s. u Generate generic Joint Command priorities/limitations/objectives/assignments and key decisions list. u Improvement of Communication tools between command posts. u Enhanced Liaison Support between command posts

10. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions Great thoughts…… Good logistics drives good responses. Rock Solid Comms are required to maintain jointness. The Environment is a System Explore Stakeholder Issues ( Tribal/archaelogical/historical etc.)

11. CANUSLANT 2007 – Breakout Sessions Recommendations u Develop a matrix to determine appropriate command structure. –Initial preference for a joint command for large and small Level V incident. –Suggest potential triggers for migrating to dual command option with strong liaisons and comms. u Update AGA (CANUSLANT) with matrix and command structure preference. u Eliminate current Level V Option 3 (shared RP finance/logistics). u Review Area Command concept for applicability. u Submit plan updates to higher headquarters (CANUS meeting) for broader CANUS consideration. u Joint Command in an incident should select and centralize on single incident management system (ICS or RMS).