REPORT ON THE COMMITTEE’S EXAMINATION OF
CANADA’S EMERGENCY AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
FINAL REPORT
Second Draft Report
Chair : The Honourable Lowell Murray
Deputy Chair : The Honourable Anne C. Cools
June 2000
RESPONDING TO A NATURAL DISASTER
A. The Emergency Response Framework
B. Federal/Provincial Response
1. Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP)
2. Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA)
3. Special Ad Hoc Programsa. International Joint Commission
b. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
c. Regional Development Agencies4. Other Departmental Programs
a. Fisheries and Oceans Canada
b. Natural Resources Canada
c. Parks Canada
d. Environment Canada
e. National Research Council
f. Public Works and Government Services Canada
g. The Laboratory Centre for Disease Control (Health Canada)
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
Recommendation 2
Recommendation 3
Recommendation 4
Recommendation 5
APPENDIX 1 - WITNESSES LIST
APPENDIX 2 - BRIEFS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE
The Honourable Lowell Murray, P.C., Chair
The Honourable Anne C. Cools, Deputy Chair
The Honourable Senators :
Banks
Bolduc
*Boudreau P.C. (or Hays)
Doody
Finestone, P.C.
Finnerty
Ferretti-Barth
*Lynch-Staunton (or Kinsella)
Mahovlich
Moore
Stratton
*Ex Officio Members
From the Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament
Mr. Guy Beaumier, Research Officer
Luc Bégin
Clerk of the Committee
REPORT ON CANADA’S EMERGENCY AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
In 1999, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance created the Sub-committee on Canada’s Emergency and Disaster Preparedness, with a mandate to study and examine disaster and emergency readiness and preparedness in Canada and matters related to National Defence expenditures, as set out in the Main Estimates 1999-2000. The Sub-committee held its organizational meeting on March 4, 1999, and subsequently held six additional meetings to hear evidence from public and private sources on the nature of disaster and emergency relief measures in Canada. On May 5, 1999, the Honourable Arthur Eggleton, Minister of National Defence, and Minister responsible for Emergency Preparedness Canada, appeared before the Committee to discuss several aspects of the government’s organization to deal with natural disasters in Canada. As the minister responsible for emergency preparedness, Mr. Eggleton has the responsibility to provide for emergency measures that will ensure that the country is prepared to deal with a full range of emergency situations. His responsibilities in this regard are set out in the Emergency Preparedness Act and the Emergencies Act.
The work of the Sub-committee was overtaken by prorogation of the first session of this Parliament, and although the Sub-committee was not resurrected in the current session of Parliament, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance had a desire to see this important study completed. Consequently, it decided to hold four additional meetings to complete the inquiry into Canada’s emergency and disaster preparedness.
The Committee chose to focus its inquiry on Canada’s preparedness for dealing with natural disasters and not with its ability to deal with man-made crisis. It made this choice because it perceived a lack of preparedness, on the part of the country, to deal with the human and economic costs of natural calamities. On the other hand, both the federal and provincial governments have legislation in place that anticipates the consequences of man-made disasters. Such legislation clarifies the responsibility and liabilities, and spells out the proper procedures and preventive measures that are needed in dealing with potential man-made disasters. There is no similar body of laws or rules or guidelines to determine how Canada should prepare for potential natural disasters. The Committee’s focus on purely natural phenomena is meant to complement the fact that Canada has already taken action in what are generalized as man-made issues. This report highlights the findings of the Committee’s consultation with expert witnesses, and sets out the Committee’s recommendations for dealing with emergency preparedness.
According to the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, more than 4 million Canadians over the past five years have been directly affected by extreme weather events. When disaster strikes, Canada responds quickly and efficiently to help people rebuild their lives. Local emergency services, the insurance industry, government agencies at all levels, the volunteer community, and, when needed the armed forces are on the scene almost immediately. Furthermore, the response of individual Canadians to calls for assistance has often been so generous as to overwhelm the ability of non-government organizations to take in and distribute the donated goods, services and funds to assist the victims of disasters. It is a record that Canadians can be proud of.
However, concern has been expressed over Canada’s efforts to avoid damages before a natural calamity befalls a community or region. Very little resources are invested in projects that make communities more resilient to natural disasters. At the federal and provincial level, government involvement in loss prevention or risk management designed to reduce the effects of natural disasters has been both sporadic and supported by few resources. The question arises as to whether enough effort is directed at minimizing the effects of natural disasters. Is it not better for the country to direct some of its resources and efforts at designing a physical environment that helps citizens to limit the effects of natural disasters or at least soften the blow? A strategy to lessen the devastating impact of natural disasters would surely save lives and resources. This is a growing concern in light of the evidence that future weather events will occur with greater intensity and more frequently.
Scientists have put forward several theories to explain the increasing incidence of severe weather events that range from global warming to changes in cyclical weather patterns. Regardless of the specific reason, the evidence is mounting that Canada is experiencing increasingly more severe weather and that such an event is likely to occur again shortly. In appearance before the Committee, Dr. Gordon A. McBean, Deputy Minister at Environment Canada explained that each year the Canadian Weather Warning System issues about 14,000 warnings in Canada, or approximately 40 warnings a day. He also warned the Committee that the impact of severe weather events continue to increase and that in the last 15 years, Canada’s costliest disasters have all been weather related. Foremost among these are the Manitoba and Saguenay floods, and the great ice storm that paralyzed Québec and eastern Ontario. All occurred since 1996. He also believes that the climate change scenarios do not provide any hope of relief in the future as another severe storm is likely at any time.
Every region of Canada is subject to one form or another of extreme weather dangers. As we have recently been reminded, the Atlantic coast is vulnerable to the danger of hurricanes and storm surges, while the West Coast and the St. Lawrence River Valley must prepare for the eventuality of a major earthquake. According to Dr. John Adams of the National Earthquakes Hazards Program, both of these regions are long overdue for a major seismic disturbance. Communities on the Prairies face severe recurring flooding and hailstorms. Central Canada has seen a number of damaging tornadoes in recent years, along with the Ice Storm of 1998. Many parts of Quebec and Manitoba face regular spring flooding. Because of the recurring nature of these events and because of the likelihood of increasing severity of weather events, the witnesses conveyed a sense of urgency is required in order to deal with the real and imminent threat of another major disaster in Canada.
Canada is not unique in experiencing severe weather events. The Committee was reminded that the United Nations report, "Global Environmental Outlook 2000", observed that "natural disasters appear to be becoming more frequent and their effects more severe…rising global temperatures are likely to …raise the incidence of extreme weather events, including storms and heavy rainfall, cyclones and drought."
Nor is weather the only threat facing Canada’s social and economic environments. Dr. John Adams of the National Earthquake Hazards Program reminded the Committee that in the past 20 years, five major earthquakes measuring more than 6.0 on the Richter scale have hit the country. Fortunately, all of those quakes hit remote areas. Unfortunately, such quakes are not only possible in Canada, but will likely hit a major urban region in Canada- Ottawa, Montreal, Victoria, or Vancouver.
Finally, Canada’s physical environment is also host to a plethora of biological agents, any of which might be a source or carrier of epidemic infections. Dr. Michael E. Shannon, Director General of the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control at Health Canada reminded the Committee that Canada faces constant threats from diseases. In recent years new diseases are discovered and old diseases are becoming increasingly resistant to existing medications. Consequently, there is always a legitimate concern about epidemic threats to Canada and about the ability of the health system to deal with such an outbreak. Health officials were particularly concerned about the potential outbreak of an influenza pandemic. These worldwide epidemics have occurred with a certain degree of regularity in the past. The advent of antibiotics has upset the cycle such that no influenza outbreak has reached pandemic proportion since World War I. The Health Canada witness feel that an outbreak is long overdue and they fear that Canada may not be able to respond as well as might be desirable. Dr. Shannon noted that because of our dependency on foreign suppliers of vaccine, the country might not be able to vaccinate all Canadians when an influenza pandemic occurs.
The severity of these catastrophes is evident in the mounting costs of weather damages. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in the early 1980s the annual cost of natural disasters to taxpayers and insurers averaged about $100 million a year. These costs have been doubling every five to ten years. The 1998 ice storm that hit Québec, Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces cost taxpayers and insurers more than $2.5 billion. Research by the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction estimates that the economic impact of a 6.0 magnitude earthquake in or near one of the major urban centres could result in $30 billion in damages, and a high death toll.
The Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction has reported that governments in Canada have spent more than $500 million per year responding and recovering from natural disasters such as the 1998 Ice Storm, the 1997 Red River Basin flood and the 1996 Saguenay flood. There are also additional costs associated with these disasters. For instance, the Conference Board of Canada estimated that a short-term loss of economic output of $1.6 billion and a loss of income of $1 billion resulted from the 1998 Ice Storm. These costs are in addition to the $3 billion in repair expenses incurred by the government and insurance companies. It is natural that the public should be concerned about the increasing vulnerability of Canadian society to severe weather.
The 1990s were designated by the United Nations as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. International studies have identified three reasons for increasing costs associated with natural disasters. The first is that the world’s climate is changing and so, of course is Canada’s. Whatever the cause of global climate change, the effect is more severe weather patterns in Canada. Floods, droughts, high winds, etc. are all expected to increase in severity and frequency.
A second reason the effects of catastrophes are more serious is that we have become a prosperous nation. Over 16 million Canadians now live in a dozen large cities, in higher density settlements, which increases the potential impact of any type of disaster. With the continued growth of our economy and urban regions, a larger population and a larger portion of the nation’s assets become exposed to weather risks. There is a perceptible rise in the human and economic vulnerability of Canada to natural disasters.
A third reason for the increasing cost of disasters in this country is that the nation’s infrastructure is deteriorating. The infrastructure is old and has not kept pace with the growing demands of the population and economic activity. Barely able to meet the needs of day-to-day activities, our sewers, water systems and roadways are not going to withstand a severe weather event. Together these factors imply that increasing demands will be placed on public funds needed for relief efforts.
RESPONDING TO A NATURAL DISASTER
Emergency Preparedness Canada identifies four components to a comprehensive emergency-management policy: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Mitigation involves investments that reduce the probability of damages and loss of life during a disaster. Preparedness refers to the procedures and plans that are developed to guide personnel during an emergency. Response includes the actions taken during and immediately following a calamity. Finally, recovery involves the actions intended to provide critical services or support to the efforts of individuals and groups to repair and restore communities after the event. In Canada, both federal and provincial legislation and programs deal primarily with preparedness and response. Consequently, Canada enjoys a high international regard for its ability to organise and deliver preparedness and response programs. All of the witnesses concurred that the country has a good record in dealing with these aspects of emergency-management.
With respect to recovery measures, the country experienced mixed success. Private volunteer organizations have suggested that more effort needs to be directed at providing post traumatic response services for victims of natural disasters and more resources may be required to assist private individuals with property damages. With respect to private businesses, both the federal and provincial governments have on occasion provided ad-hoc assistance to promote quicker economic recovery from the damages created by a disaster.
Unfortunately, there appears to be less attention given to adopting preventive measures to protect persons and property during natural disasters. Both the public and private sectors are slow to undertake the necessary steps (investments) that will reduce property damages and save lives. Although the concept of mitigation efforts is well understood in official circles, witnesses all agreed that there is not enough preventive investments undertaken in Canada to reduce the losses sustained by a community during a natural disaster.
A. The Emergency Response Framework
In Canada, individuals are expected to take appropriate measures to protect themselves and their property in the event of an emergency. In fact the organization of emergency relief is based in part on the notion that, in the first instance, every individual is responsible for knowing how to respond in an emergency. When the individual faces too great a challenge, then he rightly turns to the municipal or local government services.
According to Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC), 90 percent of emergencies are dealt with at the municipal or local level. This involves the service providers (police forces, fire departments, road crews, health services, etc.) that are closest to the scene and best acquainted with the area affected. At this stage local volunteers may also begin to provide aid to victims or to assist the local emergency response units. If the disaster begins to overwhelm the local government, then they will likely appeal for help to the provincial or territorial government. However, even when other levels of government become involved in providing emergency relief, the local or municipal services and private volunteers usually remain involved. The provincial response will naturally vary from one province to the next including what provincial organization (health units, police forces, hydro crews etc.) will be involved in the relief effort. In the event that federal resources are required, federal and provincial agencies are expected to co-ordinate their relief efforts.
B. Federal/Provincial Response
The federal response to an emergency situation is governed by one of two pieces of legislation. The first, the Emergencies Act, came into effect in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act. It empowers the federal government to provide for the security and welfare of Canadians in a national crisis -- whether it is a natural disaster, a state of emergency, international crisis or war. It is an instrument of last resort, that has never been used since it was brought into effect. Its implementation is expressly conditional on the existence of an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada and which seriously endangers the lives, health and safety of Canadians. This situation must exceed the capacity or authority of a province and seriously threaten the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. There are numerous safeguards built into this particular measure, including extensive parliamentary oversight.
The second piece of legislation, the Emergency Preparedness Act, is more appropriate to the Committee’s interest. It deals with the support and co-ordination needed to implement the civil emergency plans, the development of public awareness of emergency preparedness and the delivery of training programs for emergency response personnel. The Minister of National Defence, fulfils his responsibilities under this Act through an organization known as Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC). This organization operates within the Department of National Defence, and is responsible for intergovernmental and interdepartmental co-ordination in the field of emergency preparedness. In an extreme emergency, the Canadian Armed Forces can be called upon to provide additional support to civilian authorities.
When a major disaster strikes, the provincial governments would ask the federal government to provide assistance, as required, through the emergency preparedness co-ordinator in that province. When a federal department is designated as the lead agent, Emergency Preparedness Canada, through the activation of the National Support Centre, will support the federal communications and logistics related to the emergency response. The National Support Centre works in close consultation with the responding federal departments and agencies, as well as with provincial and territorial governments in organizing the emergency response.
The National Support Centre is a feature of the National Support Plan, which is a generic plan for a wide range of possible emergencies. It provides for an emergency management structure and a concept of operations for the co-ordination of federal and national support during emergencies.
The federal government provides assistance for disaster relief and emergency response under four broad initiatives, which are delivered by several of its departments and agencies. In some cases the initiative is designed to provide some investment in loss reduction. These initiatives are reviewed below. Total spending by department and agency is provided in Table I. In fiscal 1999-00, the government spent $376.9 million on management activities related to natural disasters. In the current fiscal period, 2000-01, it expects to spend $591.3 million. The largest amount is usually spent by Emergency Preparedness Canada (DND).
Table I
Federal Spending by Organization
1999-2000 and 2000-2001
($ Millions)
Responsible Organization |
1999-2000 Actual Spending |
2000-2001 Planned spending |
Emergency Preparedness (DND) |
216.0 |
445.6 |
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
20.6 |
1.5 |
Western Diversification |
17.3 |
16.3 |
Economic Development (Que.) |
1.9 |
-- |
Fisheries and Oceans |
4.5 |
4.5 |
Natural Resources |
10.2 |
17.6 |
Parks Canada |
6.4 |
5.8 |
Environment Canada 1 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
TOTAL |
376.9 |
591.3 |
Source: Treasury Board Canada.
1 For Environment Canada, the 2000-01 Planned Spending of $100.0
M was used as an estimated for 1999-00 Actual Spending.
1. Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP)
As already mentioned, Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC) is an organization that operates within the Department of National Defence, and is responsible for intergovernmental and interdepartmental co-ordination in the field of emergency preparedness. It has the lead federal role in emergency planning and preparing for disasters. It assists provinces and territories by way of contributions to projects that enhance the national emergency response capability. EPC’s primary mission is to encourage people to be better prepared for emergency situations in order to save lives and minimize material losses. This involves the organization of a broad range of activities, ranging from training Canadian emergency response personnel, all the way to developing awareness programs. It also provides financial contributions to provinces and territories to assist in meeting the costs of projects aimed at enhancing the national emergency response capability.
The Agency’s mandate is silent with respect to risk or loss reduction investments and assistance. However, EPC does cost-share two major types of projects with provinces and territories that are aimed at mitigating the consequences natural disasters. The first type, includes planning projects that assist provinces and territories in developing policies, procedures, training programs and exercises to ensure that the appropriate level of emergency response capabilities exist in each community. The second type, capital projects, helps provinces and territories by supporting capital investments that increase or support community response capacity.
2. Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA)
The Emergency Preparedness Act also gives the federal government the authority to distribute financial aid to the provinces and territories affected by a disaster. That aid is possible through what is known as the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, or DFAA. It is provided when eligible costs arising from a disaster are an excessive burden to the economy of a province or territory. The criteria that are used to determine the level of financial assistance are specific to each province because the federal government and the province affected by the disaster are responsible for their development. In general the amount of federal assistance is proportional to the population of the province and the amount of provincial costs arising from the disaster.
Eligible provincial territorial expenses must exceed a value of $1 per person living in the province before the DFAA can take effect. The federal portion of the cost rises as the total cost increase, reaching a maximum federal share of 90% of total costs (see Table II below). The phrase "eligible costs," refers to provincial government expenditures which meet the criteria for eligibility set out in the federal guidelines. These guidelines are general in nature and each disaster raises questions relating to their interpretation.
Table II
Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements
Expenditures
Per Capita |
Federal Share |
Provincial Share |
$0 to $1 |
0% |
100% |
$1 to $3 |
50% |
50% |
$3 to $5 |
75% |
25% |
$5 and over |
90% |
10% |
Source: Treasury Board
The federal government is involved in three special Ad Hoc Programs.
a. International Joint Commission
The Interim Report of the International Joint Commission’s Red River Basin Task Force contained 40 recommendations for reducing the risk of flood damage in the Basin. Acting on these, the governments of Canada and Manitoba signed an agreement to address some of the recommendations from the interim report. Specifically, they are related to flood forecasting and monitoring improvements; emergency measures and planning; and floodplain management. Together the two governments are planning to spend $100 million over four years. Expenditures are earmarked for flood proofing farms, businesses and residences, for community dykes, on data gathering for environmental impacts risk reduction and for technical support to prairie farm rehabilitation efforts.
b. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
The Department provides significant assistance to farmers in cases of natural disasters affecting the agricultural sector. Initiatives in 1999-00 include:
- Provision of a "Supplemental Unseeded Acreage Benefit" in Saskatchewan due to the 1999 flood.
- An "Ice Storm Recovery Program" in Quebec and Ontario assisted in the restoration of economic activity to the agriculture sector in areas of both provinces that were impacted by the 1998 ice storm.
c. Regional Development Agencies
The government has developed special ad-hoc programs on three occasions over the past five years. These have been delivered by the federal economic development agencies in conjunction with provinces, as a result of the provinces requesting more funding than what was eligible under the DFAA. In each case the funding was provided on a 50/50 federal provincial basis. The disasters were the 1997 Red River flood (Manitoba), the 1996 Saguenay flood (Quebec) and the 1998 ice storm of Western Quebec and Eastern Ontario.
4. Other Departmental Programs
Several departments provide services that contribute to a general decrease in the potential for damages in the event of disasters. These services may not be related to specific natural disasters, but can be viewed as preventive measures.
a. Fisheries and Oceans Canada
The Department, through the Canadian Coast Guard, contributes to flood control measures through its ice-breaking services.
The Geological survey of Canada develops predictive tools and methodologies for risk assessment associated with rapid landslide behaviour, including risk assessment along strategic transportation routes. It also operates seismographs across the country to detect and locate earthquakes.
The Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing uses satellite data to develop predictive tools regarding flood behaviour. This imaging is also used to assess damage in flooded areas, and to assist in relief efforts.
The agency is involved in forest fire control and avalanche management. Parks Canada also undertakes "prescribed burns" for fire management. Avalanche management activities are carried out in Banff, Jasper, Yoho, Kootenay, Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks.
The Atmospheric Environment Service of the Department undertakes several planning, preparedness and risk reduction activities. These include ice forecasting, special forecast production, atmospheric modelling and forecast production research, and climate monitoring and risk assessment. These services contribute to several national programs including the National Hurricane Program, the Flood Damage Reduction Program and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
Along with elements of the engineering community, the council administers the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Earthquake hazard reduction mostly comes down to the matter of building codes and best practices in construction and retrofitting.
f. Public Works and Government Services Canada
The Department operates a modest program of retrofitting public facilities for improved earthquake resistance.
g. The Laboratory Centre for Disease Control (Health Canada)
This is Canada’s national centre for the identification, investigation, prevention and control of human diseases. It is a key component of the federal government’s mandate for public health protection. Its core activities are national health surveillance, disease prevention and control. These involve the monitoring and investigation of infectious and non-infectious diseases and injuries, the study of their associated risk factors, and the evaluation of related prevention and control programs. The centre undertakes risk reduction activities related to the spread of epidemic and infectious diseases that could lead to a natural disaster either directly or indirectly as a result of the spread of disease following a flood or earthquake.
Federal spending for each of the four programs is outlined in Table III. By far the largest portion is spent under the DFAA.
Table III
Federal Spending by Program
($ Millions)
Program |
1999-2000 Actual Spending |
2000-2001 Planned Spending |
Joint Emergency Preparedness |
4.6 |
4.6 |
Disaster Financial Assistance |
211.4 |
441.0 |
Ad-Hoc Programs |
19.2 |
16.3 |
Other Departmental |
141.7 |
129.4 |
TOTAL |
376.9 |
591.3 |
Source: Treasury Board Canada.
5. The Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP
Although, the Canadian Armed Forces have a long and distinguished history in war and peacekeeping duty, their recent domestic services during natural disasters have earned the forces the admiration and gratitude of all Canadians. The use of the armed forces to provide direct assistance to the victims of natural disasters was not a common practice in the past. However, the success with which they carried out their duties is not only recognised but greatly appreciated by Canadians. During his testimony before the Committee, Lieutenant-General Ray Henault, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff assured the Committee that the Department of National Defence makes allowances for this expanded role of the forces. In their annual plans enough personnel and resources are set aside in order to meet the potential requirements of a natural disaster relief mission.
Another federal agency that might not always receive the recognition it deserves for services that are rendered during a natural disaster is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. While many Canadians understandably stay away from their jobs during a disaster, most members of the RCMP will likely do extra work. In most provinces, the RCMP is the major police force outside of the large urban areas, and consequently the need for their services actually increases during such periods of natural crisis.
Before government involvement in disaster relief became commonplace, citizens relied on volunteer groups to look after everything from fire control to hospital care. Although government agencies may have taken the lead in disaster relief, non-government organizations (NGOs) remain important contributors to emergency preparedness and disaster relief efforts in Canada. Private businesses also from time to time become involved in their community’s emergency measures programs. The Committee has heard from several organizations that provide help not only when a disaster strikes a community but often long afterwards. The Committee also heard from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, whose members are well informed about the consequences and the cost of natural disasters in Canada. The IBC has also been involved in emergency preparedness beyond simply issuing settlement checks. It recently helped to create the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction at the University of Western Ontario, which will hopefully provide guidance in developing public policy on disaster management in Canada.
The services provided by the non-government organizations (NGOs) vary considerably by organization and by disaster event. They may be heavily involved in caring for victims or in organising relief efforts or in providing nourishment to volunteers and workers in the field. Whatever their role, the Committee was impressed with their experiences and the Committee values their testimony and advice on preparing for eventual natural disasters. Their observations on the conditions faced by relief workers and of the suffering of victims during and after a disasters was also valuable in the understanding of the process of managing emergency relief efforts.
For instance Mr. David Armour of the United Way, observed that many of its member agencies worked with what he called the "softer infrastructure" of society--its people and their families. He noted that the impact of a natural crisis considerably outlasts the event. For example, the people of the Saguenay-Lac-St.-Jean region required additional support from United Way agencies for 12 to 24 months after the flooding. There is the initial crisis of property damage and loss of life, but the stress does not end there. After the physical destruction is repaired there is a lot of work to be done helping people bring their lives back together and get back to normal. He suggests that more attention needs to be paid to this aspect of crisis management.
The NGOs also recognize the need for some degree of centralized co-ordination during a natural disaster. Major Ruth Hollman of the Salvation Army expressed this need clearly: "We need to legitimize the participation and parternaring of all NGOs in emergency disaster relief. Definite co-ordination is needed of all those agencies identified as co-workers in an emergency response operation. We should recognize the roles of each of these agencies in a manner that encourages teamwork and effective partnering. During recent events, it has become abundantly clear that no single government agency or non-government organization has sufficient resources to effectively respond to the huge range of needs presented by the victims of a disaster."
All of the representatives of volunteer groups agree that Canada needs to spend more time and money to reduce the risks associated with natural disasters. For instance, the Canadian Red Cross Society, which endorses a strong national preparedness and mitigation strategy for Canada, believes that "building up the capacity of individuals, families, and communities to deal with inevitable disasters will reduce suffering." According to its spokespersons, the Society has found that the type of costs that disasters create, are a huge burden on both individuals and the governments. They stressed the importance of "mitigating social losses and associated sufferings through appropriate planning and investments in individuals and the community."
There was agreement among the representatives of the volunteer groups that the best time to prepare for a natural disaster is immediately following the most recent disaster. They strongly advocated that when a disaster strikes, relief assistance should include funds to improves the capacity of the affected individuals and their communities to respond to future disasters. The Red Cross Society noted that the most cost-effective way to prepare for disasters is to "build on the capacity of individuals, not only on infrastructures, but individuals, families, and communities. It is the local community that is in the best position to mitigate and respond to local risks." In this view of disaster management, "the simple act of preparing for local risks and being familiar with local risks reduces the very opportunity for costly natural disasters."
The NGOs generally supported an approach that would provide for personal-preparedness education, local-disaster planning and disaster-mitigation efforts. The Red Cross Society advocated an immediate start on the process because it believes that "complacency in emergency preparedness and disaster mitigation increases the risk of death, suffering and destruction in times of natural disasters."
According to these volunteer groups the best way to achieve mitigation practices is to ensure the development of a "culture of preparedness" whereby individuals, businesses and governments invest with a view towards reducing the cost of potential disasters. The best way to achieve this objective is through the school system. The Red Cross Society, among others, suggested that the best way to develop a culture of preparedness in Canada is to teach the basic principles of preparedness to school-aged children. In fact they believe that this is "critical in building a disaster preparedness culture over time so that eventually all Canadians would understand what they had to do, what the risks are in their community, and how they should assist each other should a disaster occur."
Finally, the NGOs supported the need to earmark some portion of disaster relief assistance funds for investment in structures and processes that will reduce the affected community’s vulnerability to a repeat disaster. The Red Cross Society felt that these funds should come from both the public and private sector. It noted that Canadians are generous in donating funds immediately following a disaster, "but trying to wrench money out of very tight budgets in-between large disasters is really tough." To assure a degree of success in a policy of risk reduction, Canada will have to adopt a practice of earmarking a portion of relief funds for long-term mitigation and preparedness projects. In the Society’s view, this would do much more good in reducing the suffering and the loss of human lives than Canada’s current practices.
Several witnesses suggested that Canada should take immediate action against the potential risks of natural disasters. They stressed not only the need to invest in projects that will reduce the country’s vulnerability to natural disasters, but also that the need is urgent. The threat of another major natural catastrophe is real and is likely to occur sooner rather than later. Efforts to prevent and to mitigate the potential damage from natural disasters are not new concepts in this country. Past examples that have worked very effectively include the construction of the Winnipeg flood-way and the hail suppression program in Calgary.
The Winnipeg flood-way is a diversion canal built in the sixties amidst great ridicule and great doubt that it would ever work. The purpose of the flood-way was to divert spring floodwaters around the City of Winnipeg, and hence avoid the expensive recovery and clean up that periodically afflicted the community. The argument at that time was that if the money was spent on the construction of the spillway, then the citizens could expect to save twice that amount in terms of reduced flood cost in future years. While sceptics abounded, the flood-way has since its construction served to divert the waters of 18 spring floods. In 1997, during one of the worst flooding to hit Winnipeg, 59,000 cubic feet of water a second was diverted around the city. That is an almost unimaginable amount of water being taken away from people and property, saving lives and of course diminishing destruction. According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the estimated savings in life and damages are at least 20 times the original cost of the project. In 1997, hundreds of millions of dollars were saved because that diversionary ditch was there.
Another example of a successful loss reduction effort is found in the Insurance Bureau of Canada’s hail suppression effort in Alberta, and Calgary in particular. A single hailstorm in Calgary represents Canada’s fourth largest natural disaster. Close to $400 million in claims were paid out when hail the size of softballs fell out of the sky. It killed animals, and damaged houses and cars. Expensive hailstorms are a regular feature of Calgary summers. In an attempt to mitigate these cost, the Bureau started to seed the clouds with silver iodide particles, a practice that helps to reduce the size of the hail to very tiny hailstones. Recent hail claims in the city of Calgary caused about $70 million worth of damage from a single storm. Although, the figure is large, estimates are that a similar storm of the same magnitude, if not seeded, would have caused damages in the $400 million range. The program costs the Bureau about $1.5 million a year to operate and saves an enormous amount, not only in insurance pay-outs, but in insurance premiums and indeed in reduced damage of all kinds to Calgarians.
The Winnipeg flood-way and the cloud seeding program in Alberta are good examples of successful large-scale proactive approaches to reducing the impact of potential disasters. In the estimation of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the country needs to have more examples like these. The Bureau believes that significant savings can be achieved if a small percentage of the money that is being spent on cleanup and recovery, is diverted to investments in loss prevention.
The Menonite Disaster Service (MDS), is a volunteer disaster relief service that is attempting to increase mitigation activities on a smaller scale. It has recently begun to promote the safe room program in regions threatened by tornadoes and high winds. A safe room is built by reinforcing the structure of the bathroom to be an area of safety and security, able to withstand high winds. The walls of the safe room are made of double layers of plywood and steel. Although safe rooms are now being built primarily in Oklahoma, MDS plans to extend this program to other areas that are subject to tornado and hurricane risks. A safe room provides physical protection and aids in the mental health of storm survivors by giving them a sense of security, knowing there is a safe place to take shelter.
Most mitigation efforts occur at the local level. Homeowners and municipalities undertake numerous investments to reduce the likelihood of damages during a natural disaster. Municipal governments devise emergency plans and construct infrastructure designed to deal with weather events. They introduce zoning by-laws and enforce building codes that will protect individuals in times of disasters. While commonplace, such efforts should not be ignored. They are often the best way of preparing a community for an eventual disaster. Certainly, in the aftermath of a natural disaster it would be appropriate for a municipality to revise its zoning and building codes. In light of the newly acquired experience it might be appropriate to require building techniques that improve the safety of structures in an earthquake, to restrict development in a flood-plain, or to improve municipal infrastructure in order to handle severe weather events.
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In conducting its hearings the Committee became aware of matters that should be of concern to Canadians. First Canada’s weather is changing. For whatever reason, it seems that the country is entering a climatic period that will be characterized by more frequent and more severe weather events. It is also evident that the country faces serious earthquake and pandemic threats.
Second, the Committee repeatedly heard that the potential for another major disaster is imminent. Witnesses constantly stressed that major catastrophes lie only a short time into the future.
Third, Canada is ill prepared to face any of these threats. Witnesses have expressed strong reservations about the country’s infrastructure, which may be too old and outdated to withstand severe weather events. Similarly, our health infrastructure may be inadequate to face the mounting risk of infectious diseases. The Committee is troubled by the fact that Canada currently relies on foreign producers to meet its vaccine requirements. Witnesses have suggested that a real possibility exist that in the event of a pandemic, Canada might not be able to obtain enough vaccine to meet the needs of its population.
Fourth, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that natural disaster and earthquakes will likely cause very expensive property damage and could lead to serious loss of life. Certainly, the federal government’s disaster related expenditures have grown dramatically in the last decade and the Committee believes they will continue to do so. The nation’s rising economic prosperity and its high degree of urbanisation will ensure that property damages will be costly. These conditions, if left unattended will also most likely lead to considerable human suffering. Unfortunately, Canadians are not aware of the measures that can be taken to reduce the suffering and the loss of property during natural disasters.
Fifth, witnesses emphatically expressed a need in Canada for a coordinated mitigation effort to deal with the risk of natural calamities. Furthermore the nation needs to act before these hazards strike, so that the damage that the hazards cause is less than it otherwise would be. At this time the country has no systematic approach to investing in risk reduction measures. As was observed earlier, Canada needs to develop a "culture of mitigation"-- an attitude within the country whereby people want to reduce their vulnerability to disaster. Canadians need to become more serious in thinking about their vulnerability and acting to reduce their risks. The Committee is of the view that such an effort to promote the development of a culture of mitigation will require support of both the private and public sectors.
The testimony suggests that the proper response to any actual disaster involves all levels of government and the private sector. The management of a disaster relief effort is best carried out in a co-operative action that involves municipal, provincial/territorial and federal agencies, and the business and volunteer communities. It is the Committee’s opinion that a successful loss reduction or damage mitigation program will involve a similar partnership of all levels of government and the private sector.
In light of the above observations, the Committee would like to make the following recommendations:
The danger of severe weather events, earthquakes and epidemics occurring in Canada is real and imminent. The need for action to mitigate the effect of potential catastrophe is urgent. In recognition of this urgency, the Committee recommends:
That the government take immediate steps to review the current emergency preparedness policy in order to incorporate measures that would promote public and private sector investments that would reduce the effects of future natural disasters.
Natural disasters are costly events. The human suffering and the property damage is often staggering. The Committee is concerned about the testimony, which suggests that Canada’s municipal infrastructure is ill equipped to handle severe weather events. If Canada is to put in place a successful mitigation effort, then it will have to spend money on projects that reduce the risk to life and property.
This might be achieved by committing a proportion of the funds used to repair the damages created by natural disasters. However, given the current state of infrastructure and the urgency of the problems, it might be preferable to adopt an annual spending target. In this respect the Insurance Bureau of Canada suggested that an initial figure of $150 million a year over the next five years, a total of $750 million, ought to be spent by all three levels of government to support projects identified by local communities as upgrades to its infrastructure. The federal government could certainly begin by revising the criteria on its own infrastructure program to ensure that the funding is directed at disaster mitigation projects. The Committee recommends:
That the federal government consider, as part of its own commitment to reducing the effects of natural disasters, setting aside funds for investments in projects that will reduce the effects of natural disasters.
The time to invest in mitigation efforts is immediately following a natural disaster. The danger is understood by all and the need to deal with it is obvious. Witnesses have repeatedly suggested that all levels of government should take advantage of the moment of a disaster to get people talking about what can be done to forestall the effects the next time this happens in their community. The Committee recommends:
That the government ensures that its investments in loss-reduction projects are undertaken immediately during the recovery period.
Providing relief efforts is certainly a desired activity. However, it would be more useful if in addition to helping people get back on their feet, some money is put into planning how they can stay on their feet the next time disaster strikes in their community. Information and training at the local level will have a great effect on the ability of Canadians to deal with disasters of all kinds. Success in this endeavor will have great benefits as it is about saving Canadian lives, it is about protecting their property more efficiently, and making Canadian communities more resilient in the face of natural adversities. Although there is co-ordinated efforts to deal with disaster relief, there is very little done to reduce the effects of disasters. The Committee recommends:
That the federal government assume the leadership in promoting the development of a culture of preparedness in Canada.
The Committee heard about the generosity of Canadians whenever their fellow citizens are struck by natural disasters. In some cases, the outpouring of generosity overwhelmed non-government organizations providing assistance in the field. It became difficult to handle the funds and goods that came flooding in. It seemed to the Committee that some effort should be made to harness this generosity so as to increase the effectiveness of their donations.
During the hearings it was suggested that a national agency or fund be established to funnel relief donations toward an areas when the federal government declared that an emergency existed. The national agency would receive cash donations from Canadians who in turn would be entitled to a tax credit equal to the value of the donation, but not exceeding $1000. The donations would be held in a fund until they are required to provide assistance during and immediately following a natural disaster. Eligible expenditures would include short-term disaster relief assistance for food, clothing and lodging. It would also include long-term disaster relief assistance, as a portion of the funds could be earmarked for mitigation projects that would reduce the risk of damage and injuries in the future. The Committee recommends:
That the federal government create a Canada Disaster Relief Fund which can receive the donations of Canadians, for use in providing both short-term and long-term assistance to Canadian victims of natural disasters.
Witnesses list
1st Session, 36th Parliament
May 4, 1999 – Issue no. 1
Professor Ian Burton, University of Toronto
May 5, 1999 – Issue no. 1
Appearing :
The Honourable Art Eggleton, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Defence;
Witnesses :
Jim Judd, Deputy Minister;
Lieutenant-General Ray Henault, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff;
Ann Marie Sahagian, Executive Director, Emergency Preparedness Canada.
May 31, 1999 – Issue no. 2
From Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service :
Dr. Gordon A. McBean, Assistant Deputy Minister.
June 1, 1999 – Issue no. 3
From the Department of National Defence :
Lieutenant-General Ray Henault, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff;
Ann Marie Sahagian, Executive Director, Emergency Preparedness Canada;
André Tremblay, Director General, Readiness and Operations, Emergency Preparedness
Canada;
Michael Braham, Director, Emergency Programs and Exercises, Emergency Preparedness Canada.
June 16, 1999 – Issue no. 4
From the Canadian Red Cross Society :
Jean-Pierre Laroche, Chief Operating Officer;
Don Shropshire, National Co-ordinator, Disasters Services;
John Mulvihill, National Director, Disasters Relief and Prevention Services.
From the Insurance Bureau of Canada :
George D. Anderson, President and CEO;
Mark Yakabuski, Vice-President, Governmental Relations;
Grant Kelly, Policy Analyst.
September 9, 1999 – Issue no. 5
From United Way of Canada :
David Armour, President.
From the Salvation Army :
Major Ruth Hollman, Government Relations Liaison Officer.
From the Mennonite Disaster Service :
Keith Wagler
2nd Session, 36th Parliament
April 11, 2000 – Issue no. 6
From the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction :
Paul Kovacs, Executive Director.
From the Insurance Bureau of Canada :
George D. Anderson, President and CEO.
From RADARSAT International :
Wendy Branson, Manager, Strategic Projects, Ottawa Branch.
From the Canadian Space Agency :
Marcel St-Pierre, Manager, Market Development and Commercialization, Satellite
Operations.
May 2, 2000 – Issue no. 8
From Canada Safety Council :
Emile Therien, President;
Ethel Archard, Manager, Marketing and Promotion.
From the Canada Institute for Environmental Law and Policy :
Mark Winfield, Director of Research.
From the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society :
William Pugsley, Immediate Past-President;
Dr. John Reid, Past-President.
May 9, 2000 – Issue no. 10
From Natural Resources Canada :
Dr. Ronald J. Brown, A/Director, Applications Division, Canada Centre for Remote
Sensing;
Laurent Tardif, Team Leader, Emergency Mapping, Mapping Services;
Dominique Goulet, Acting Manager, Engineering Geomatics Canada;
Dr. John Adams, Head, National Earthquake Hazards Program (east), Geological Survey of
Canada;
Paul Egginton, Director, Terrain Science Division;
Terry Pultz, A/Head, Applications Development Section, Canada Centre for Remote Sensing;
Walter Gale, Corporate Clients Coordinator.
From Health Canada :
Dr. Michael E. Shannon, Director General, Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Health
Protection Branch;
Ronald K. St. John, Director, Global Surveillance and Field Epidemiology, Health
Protection Branch;
Dr. John Spika, Director, Bureau of Infectious Diseases;
F. Lorraine Davies, Director, Emergency Services, Medical Services Branch;
Richard Viau, Director, Bureau of Branch Operations, Policy Planning and Coordination
Directorate, Health Protection
Branch;
Jean-Patrice Auclair, Head, Radiological Emergency Preparedness, Environmental Radiation
Hazards Division, Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Protection Branch.
May 16, 2000 – Issue no. 12
From Treasury Board Secretariat :
Andrew M. Lieff, Senior Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Division, Planning,
Performance and Reporting
Sector;
Gérald Cossette, Program Director, Foreign and Defence Programs.
From Black & White Communications Inc. and from The Canadian National Committee for
the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (CNC-IDNDR) :
Kathryn White, President, Black & White Communications Inc. and Board Member of
the CNC-IDNDR.
BRIEFS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE
The following briefs were received from organizations that did not appear before the Committee.
- Hydro One Networks Inc.
- Alberta Minister Responsible for Disaster Services
- Manitoba Minister of Highways and Government Services