Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 36 - Sixteenth Report of the Committee
THURSDAY, June 10, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has the honour to present its
SIXTEENTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which were referred the 1998-99 Estimates has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, March 4, 1999, examined the said estimates and herewith presents its second interim report and the first interim report of the Subcommittee on Canada's Emergency and Disaster Preparedness.
The 1999-2000 Estimates were tabled in the Senate on March 1, 1999, and referred for review to the National Finance Committee. As is customary with this committee, meetings are arranged for an initial review of the estimates, followed by an interim report. Additional hearings on the estimates are held through the remainder of the fiscal year to cover other concerns of the Committee's members. The first set of hearings began on Wednesday evening, March 24, 1999. At that time, officials of the Treasury Board appeared before the committee to answer questions of concern to members of the committee. On the next day, March 25, the officials returned to provide additional information on issues raised by committee members. The committee submitted an interim report to the Chamber at that time. On Wednesday, June 2, 1999, Mr. Ianno, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board appeared to respond to the additional concerns of the members of the Committee.
Once again members expressed an interest and opinions on a wide range of issues. The members of the committee noted that Main Estimates are $6.1 billion greater or 4.2 per cent higher that last year's level. They expressed some concern that the growth of government expenditures is greater than the rate of growth of the Canadian Economy. Mr. Ianno reassured members that government expenditures were under control and that the recent increase does not pose a threat to the fiscal soundness of the country.
Senators expressed some frustration in the fact that almost 70 per cent of government expenditures are now fixed commitments of Parliament, and do not appear to require an on-going examination by parliamentarians. Accountability to Parliament may be undermined by the introduction of a provision that would create authorities that would not expire for two years. Specifically, the Canada Custom and Revenue Agency and the Canadian Parks Agency are two agencies that will be using this system of appropriation. This approach would seem to place further appropriation into this category of spending that might not be regularly reviewed. While Mr. Ianno agreed that this two-year appropriation provision lies somewhere between an annually voted appropriation and a statutory appropriation, it will still be open to regular parliamentary scrutiny and it will be reported annually in the estimates.
Along similar lines members were concerned that TB Vote 10, which allows for appropriations on a government wide basis might reduce departmental accountability because there is now opportunity to hide too many small, but significant expenditures under such a broad provision. Mr. Ianno explained the efficiency requirements of such an approach to reporting government expenditures. He noted that the Vote will provide authority to supplement departmental votes for government-wide management initiatives, in particular for comptrollership modernization, positive human resource measures, and career transition support. He reassured the Committee that the Treasury Board is diligent in examining departmental spending requests that fall under this vote.
Other topics discussed included: the capital expenditures of the Department of National Defence; the nature of spending under the Fisheries Adjustment and Restructuring Program; and changes to the Public Service Pension Plan. Members were also interested in any progress achieved by the government in developing opportunities in the Public Service for persons with disabilities and Aboriginal peoples and other visible minorities.
As is customary, your committee intends, at a later date, to continue to examine in greater detail various aspects of the government's spending plans. In this regard the committee has established a subcommittee to examine the issues and the questions relating to the costs associated with natural disasters in Canada. An interim report on its work is provided below.
At this time the committee has also decided to review the operations and policies of the Canadian International Development Agency. Hearings with the officials of the agency are planned for June 1999. Included among these officials are Mrs. Huguette Labelle, President and Mr. John Robinson, Vice-President.
In obedience to the examination of the Main Estimates 1999-2000, the Standing Committee created a Subcommittee called the National Finance Subcommittee on Canada's Emergency and Disaster Preparedness. This Subcommittee was authorised 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. Its first interim report is provided below.
FIRST INTERIM REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CANADA'S EMERGENCY AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS.
The Subcommittee on Canada's Emergency and Disaster Preparedness held its organisational meeting on March 4, 1999. The subcommittee also held three additional meetings to hear evidence, and further meetings are scheduled for this month to hear from both private and public sector witnesses, including the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
On May 5, 1999, the Honourable A. 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 Emergencies Act, which came into effect in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act, 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. In fact, it 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 Emergency Preparedness Act, is more appropriate for the type of natural disaster that is of interest to the subcommittee's work. It deals with the support and coordination 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 fulfils his responsibilities under this Act through an organisation known as Emergency Preparedness Canada (EPC). This is an organization that operates within the Department of National Defence, and is responsible for intergovernmental and interdepartmental coordination in the field of emergency preparedness.
The minister also explained some of the factors that guide the organisation of emergency assistance in this country. In Canada, emergency preparedness is based on the following principles: first, every individual is responsible for knowing how to respond in an emergency. Should the individual be incapable of coping with a situation, the various levels of government will progressively assume responsibilities for responding to the emergency in keeping with their specific capabilities and level of required resources. In fact, 90 per cent of emergencies are dealt with at the municipal or local level. Depending on the nature and the severity of the problem they might appeal for help to the provincial or territorial government.
The provincial governments would ask the federal government to provide assistance as required, through the emergency preparedness coordinator in that province. In the event of a natural disaster for which a federal department is designated as the lead department, Emergency Preparedness Canada, through the activation of the National Support Centre, will support the federal communications and logistics related to 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 emergency measure organisations.
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 coordination of federal and national support during emergencies. The primary mission of Emergency Preparedness Canada 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.
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.
The costs associated with natural disasters have risen considerably in recent years, and the Minister agreed that it would be advisable to explore measures that could mitigate these costs. However, at this point in time no funding formula exists for that kind of action, which necessitates collaboration between the federal and provincial governments.
The minister reminded the subcommittee that there have been several recent events that necessitated an emergency response from all levels of government. These events have enabled Canada's officials to identify certain major issues such as the need to improve the emergency response times for all types of crisis situations and a determination of the capacity of our Canadian forces to respond in such situations.
As a follow-up to the meeting with the Minister, his officials returned for further discussions on June 1, 1999. At that time the Subcommittee explored in greater detail the actual workings of EPC and the role of the Canadian forces in responding to natural disasters in Canada. The subcommittee also discussed the capacity of Canada's forces to respond to a natural disaster in light of its growing international peacekeeping role and its NATO obligations. The subcommittee was assured that Canada's contributions to fulfil its international obligations were made only after due consideration was given to the need of the forces to provide support to emergency response organizations in the event of a natural disaster in Canada. The Department of National Defence stated that at this time it can adequately meet both its domestic and international obligations.
On Monday, May 31, 1999, the subcommittee heard from Mr. G.A. McBean, Assistant-Deputy Minister, Atmospheric Environment Service at Environment Canada. Mr. McBean explained how the nation's network of weather stations combines information gathered domestically and abroad to provide Canadians with advance warnings of major weather disturbances. The amount of advance warning provided will vary with the type of pattern developing: more time with snow storms, less for tornadoes. He also discussed how the information is relayed to Canadians and what investments need to be undertaken to preserve the effectiveness of the system.
Mr. McBean explained that since we cannot control the weather, the normal response to potential weather hazards has been to reduce the risk of exposure of individuals and their property to these hazards. In Canada this is done by providing Canadians with warnings of impending events and through information on how better to protect themselves and their property. Each year the Canadian Weather Warning System issues about 14,000 warnings in Canada, or about 40 warnings a day.
Mr. McBean warned the Subcommittee that the impacts and costs of severe weather continue to increase. In the last 15 years, Canada's costliest disasters have all been weather related. Furthermore, the climate change scenarios do not provide any hope of relief in the future. He predicts an increase in the severity and frequency of severe weather events. He went on to describe how global warming may affect different areas of the country, and how some of these changes are expected to have catastrophic effects on Canadians. While no specific solutions exist at this time to deal with these effects, he explained that federal departments have begun to develop policies and to consider appropriate responses in the face of impending disasters arising from global warming.
Respectfully submitted,
ANNE C. COOLS
Deputy Chairman