Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Canada's Emergency and Disaster
Preparedness
Issue 1 - Evidence, March 4, 1999
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 4, 1999
The subcommittee on Canada's Emergency and Disaster Preparedness of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 12:30 p.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Denis Robert, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. Pursuant to rule 88, I am here to preside over the election of the chair.
I am prepared to accept any motions to nominate a chairman.
Senator Fraser: I move that Senator Stratton be the chairman.
Mr. Robert: Are there any other nominations?
Since not, I invite Senator Stratton to take the chair.
Senator Terry Stratton (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you. I will now take nominations for a deputy chairman.
Senator Ferretti Barth: I nominate Senator Fraser for the position of deputy chairman.
The Chairman: Are there any other nominations?
Since there are none, I welcome Senator Fraser as the deputy chairman.
Now we need a motion to authorize the committee to hold meetings, and to print evidence when a quorum is not present. Would someone so move?
Senator Fraser: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Next is research staff. Would someone move the motion for our current researcher?
Senator Fraser: So moved.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Next, number 7, committing funds and certifying accounts. Again, would someone move that? It is a fairly normal motion.
Senator Ferretti Barth: So moved.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Thank you. Next is number 8, travelling on behalf of the committee. The committee is going to travel, essentially for two weeks, one week West and one week East, probably three days per trip.
Honourable senators may not necessarily want to accompany the committee when it travels out West or out East; however, other honourable senators could sit in your place. In other words, when we go out West, an honourable senator from the West may wish to participate, and vice versa when the committee travels out East. We will need to travel to see the regions. What we need is a motion that certain members of the committee be authorized to travel. I think some of us will have to travel; for example, the committee may have to travel to the U.S., just for a day, a quick trip, to ascertain what kind of policy they have regarding emergency preparedness. That may or may not happen but we have to be prepared for that to occur. That is the purpose of motion 8.
Senator Cook, would you so move?
Senator Cook: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Number 9 is a standard motion providing for travelling and living expenses of witnesses. Would someone move that?
Senator Ferretti Barth: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Next, we have the budget.
Senator Fraser: Could you tell us who the expert consultants are?
The Chairman: The expert consultants would be required, for example, if we need to gather information on a specific issue, such as ice storms. In putting this together, the sources of help have been Emergency Preparedness Canada and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, through their Institute of Catastrophic Loss Reduction. They have helped us immensely in putting the skeleton together on this. We are not necessarily going to spend the money, but we need money in the budget to allow for that to happen. We want it there in case we get into an issue for which we need outside expertise. I do not know what that will be specifically, senator, but I know it might be required.
Senator Fraser: It seems a bit high, 80 days of consulting at $500 a day.
Mr. Robert: If I may, senator, it is divided in two. Part is for research staff but then you also need an expert consultant for communications.
The Chairman: That we have to have.
Senator Fraser: At $500 a day?
The Chairman: Yes. First, we cannot get away without the communications consultant. In order for us to succeed at what we want to accomplish, we will need the media. If we go into Montreal or Winnipeg, we will want to talk to the media. If there is a talk show, we may want to go on that talk show. We need that communications assistance very badly. It is important and critical. Our role here is to help the government formulate policy on this issue and, as such, it behooves us to help in creating awareness across the country of what should be taking place.
I have found since I have been here that we are thought of best when we are out there talking to the people. We get very positive feedback when we do that. I was in a small town in my province and a chap walked up to me and said, "I have never met one of you guys before." The feedback is very positive, which is why, in part, we are doing this. It is not the main reason, but it is a reinforcement of the fact that we do have a role to play, and that it is a strong role.
So having preached, may I have your approval on the understanding that we will not spend this money on research unless we absolutely have to?
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Mr. Robert: The other two items, numbers 2 and 3, regarding translation and interpretation, are there in the event that the committee decides to hold hearings when it travels.
Senator Fraser: We almost certainly will.
Mr. Robert: Working meals when we are here, hospitality for the committee, registration fees for conferences. There is a conference in June, I think.
Senator Fraser: There is a conference in Vancouver.
Mr. Robert: Yes. I think that may be at the end of March.
The Chairman: Since I imposed on you to do this, and you have been very kind to accept, I will go to that event.
Senator Fraser: Vancouver in March is not a hardship but there are many other things going on.
The Chairman: Yes. I know your plate is full.
Senator Cook: The Fisheries Committee is going to the West Coast.
Senator Fraser: And Official Languages is going to Sudbury.
Senator Ferretti Barth: I would like to know if I can have all the paper work in French.
The Chairman: Yes, of course. I apologize.
Senator Ferretti Barth: This morning it was all in English, which, for me, is very difficult. I speak English but it is easier for me to speak in French.
Mr. Robert: Then we go to transportation and communications. This is more or less based on two trips, one to Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver.
Senator Ferretti Barth: While receiving positive feedback is wonderful, often on these trips the delegations consist of five, six or seven people. I do not find it very useful if the committee has to go to a province just to show ourselves there.
We must limit the cost. For each member to travel with the committee to say, Vancouver, costs money. I do not think we need six paid people to look at what is happening there.
The Chairman: What happens normally is that only three or four senators would travel. However, we have to allow for it to happen.
The committee clerk and the library researcher are mandatory, as is the communications consultant. The special researcher would be the other individual. He may not be there.
Senator Fraser: I am not sure we would need to take both a library researcher and a special researcher -- an outside consultant -- on these trips.
The Chairman: Yes, but there may be an instance on a specific area of study we are doing where we need that person for one sitting.
Senator Fraser: It is possible, though not for the grand tour. It seems to me most unlikely that we would do that. I agree that it would be better if we could minimize this official budget.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Yes.
Mr. Robert: I can remove the consultants, if you wish.
Senator Fraser: We need a communications consultant. I think that is agreed. One of the points of this committee is to bring this area of concern to public attention, so we need a communications consultant.
In terms of the researcher, we could simply designate one researcher and leave that to be either our own researcher or a special researcher, whichever is more desirable.
The Chairman: We do not want to go back to Internal Economy twice. We must go to Internal Economy for approval. We do not want to get part way through the study and then not have the money to take care of what we want to do. I do not want to cut that amount out entirely. Perhaps we could cut the time down to, say, half.
Senator Fraser: I was talking about the issue of travel. I am not on item no. 1. I am referring to the travel expenses for transport and communications. We are talking about travelling with staff.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: Nevertheless, we will have access to $10,000 on an emergency basis.
Mr. Robert: That is in addition to our budget.
[English]
Senator Ferretti Barth: If our budget is not enough, maybe we can use the $10,000.
Senator Cook: Can we not approve this budget in principle and revisit it as the details of our agenda become more apparent?
The Chairman: Senator Carstairs and Senator Cools have recommended that this should be rolled into our budget submission to Internal Economy for the next fiscal year so that this becomes a line item. This is the detail and the number is $196,125, but it is part of our global budget for the next fiscal year. That gives us flexibility, which was the recommendation of Senator Carstairs. She is strongly supportive of this study to the degree that she said if we embarked on this study in March and we needed money she would ensure that we found the money to do it. There is a certain sense of urgency here. I would appreciate it if you would accept that proposal, taking into consideration the concerns, which are real.
I recommend that we adopt the figure of $196,125 with respect to our global budget and forward it to Internal Economy for approval, with the recognition that we are extremely careful in how we spend it. We must really monitor how we go through it.
When the Agriculture and Forestry Committee studied the boreal forest issue, we travelled the country extensively. We decided that someone should go to Sweden and Finland because they were the leading edge as far as forestry management was concerned. We needed an outside look at the issue. We then had to go back to Internal Economy to get the money, and there was a big to-do about it.
I was on that subcommittee, but only three senators travelled overseas. There was no communications officer. Only the clerk and one researcher travelled with the committee. We minimized, to the greatest extent possible, the effect of the budget, but we still had to do it. Of course, we took flak for it and we accepted that. That was a necessary part of the game.
That is the kind of thing we could absolutely minimize in certain instances. Using that as an example, hopefully we can manage this process.
Senator Fraser: I think it is important to keep that in mind.
I am concerned about two things. One is the perception, because perception is important. The last thing we want to do is have the public perception of our work deflected by enormous debates over the question of whether we wasted money. That is not what we are attempting to do. It is public money, after all.
There is both a factual and a perceptual angle to this issue. If it is just a line item in a committee budget, then perhaps the onus will be on the actual management of it. We will have to be careful all the way through and watch every cent we spend. It is not without importance.
My next point has nothing to do with the budget, Mr. Chairman, but in addition to going to Sudbury, I will be travelling to Brussels for the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I am a substitute for Senator Pépin. That will be April.
Do we have some material from the EU?
Mr. Robert: The Council of Europe.
Senator Fraser: Would there be anyone in Brussels to see? Perhaps you could check into that.
Mr. Robert: I am also the Executive Secretary of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. I could do that.
Senator Fraser: It would not cost the committee anything.
The Chairman: That is a good point.
Senator Fraser: They probably have a central depository of information somewhere.
The Chairman: If it meets with your approval in principle, we would need two motions.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the Chairman be authorized to seek, as required, authorization from the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to incur expenses up to $10,000 on an emergency basis.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Could I have a motion to adopt the main budget?
Senator Ferretti Barth: As you say, Mr. Chairman, we will be very careful.
The Chairman: I would ask Senator Fraser to move adoption of the main budget itself using the $196,125 total, with transportation and communications being changed from $91,125 to $90,125.
Senator Fraser: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The last item concerns electronic media.
Senator Cook: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: With regard to the subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, I suppose it is fairly normal that the subcommittee be composed of the chairman and the deputy chairman.
Is there a senator who wishes to move the motion?
Senator Fraser: Yes. I should like to move that the other member, if possible, be Senator Cook.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next item is a motion concerning the committee's proceedings and how many copies of it should be printed. What is the norm?
Mr. Robert: This will be a bit touchy. If we can just say that the committee print the copies necessary it would be appropriate, especially seeing that it is now being done in house.
Senator Cook: If we say "as required," would that be all right?
Senator Fraser: What would we normally be printing in the absence of anything else?
Mr. Robert: About 200 copies, except the Institute of Catastrophic Loss Reduction sent me a list of about 400 names of people who want to receive the proceedings.
The Chairman: This is much bigger than we think.
Senator Fraser: I do not think they all need automatically to get copies of the proceedings of the committee. We will want to send the report to the world and its wife.
Mr. Robert: Many of these people are on the Internet.
Senator Cook: Are we tied to time here?
The Chairman: Only in that the institute says that time is of the essence. The farther you get away from a disaster, the memory dims. Thus, the longer we take to do this, the less people will remember the ice storm and the flooding. That is the concern that they have, which is why they would like us to move on this fairly quickly.
I think we can do it fairly expeditiously, depending on the workload and our other committees. How about if we meet at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays?
Senator Cook: I would be open to that.
The Chairman: That works out quite well.
May I have a motion concerning item 4?
Senator Cook: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Robert: Do you want to hear the Minister of National Defence as the first witness? Emergency Preparedness Canada comes under his ministry.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Fraser: I think that would be extremely appropriate. At what point will we draw up a list of witnesses?
Mr. Robert: If you wish, we can go through this list.
Senator Fraser: I do not think we should confine ourselves to that list. Essentially, as far as I can see, that is a list of people who have bought into a given vision. They are all expert and we need to hear from a number of them, but we also need to broaden our range. There is not much point in simply reproducing work that has already been done.
The Chairman: I would like to hear from experts in Ottawa. If there are experts in the field in Quebec or Manitoba, we should go there to hear from them.
Senator Fraser: There are experts on climate here, I would think.
Mr. Robert: There is Environment Canada as well as The Weather Network.
Senator Fraser: It would probably be useful to start talking to them early on, as well as the Minister of Defence.
Mr. Robert: Emergency Preparedness Canada is under DND.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: I am somewhat frustrated by the Senate committee system. I get here and I do not receive any feedback whatsoever. What are we trying to find out? Which direction do we want to take? What do we want to do? We plan to call witnesses. What exactly is our mission? What do we wish to uncover and recommend for the future?
It is important that committee members receive some background information. I know what went on with the ice storm in Quebec. I lived through it. What is our objective in reporting on this disaster to the government? Will we be formulating recommendations? Of course. What problems do the regions face?
[English]
The Chairman: If we look at the example of what took place in Quebec and Ontario during the ice storm, and what took place in Manitoba with the flood, we will find that we react very well to an emergency. Public volunteers helped out in Manitoba. In the case of Quebec, the municipalities helped. One tries to get the volunteers and the municipalities to look after the disaster in the beginning, controlling costs out of necessity. Despite all of that, the army had to be sent in. When the emergency is over, we tend to walk away and forget about it. The emergency then comes up again, and we go through the whole process again. We react very well, but we do not mitigate or plan properly for these events -- we react to the events.
I believe we must go through the process of finding out how we can mitigate these events and minimize the damage to human lives. Fundamentally, that is what it is all about. We must do some proper planning.
We are finding out that governments in other countries have a mitigation plan. An example of a successful mitigation was that the Red River floodway was built. It protects the city. Unsuccessful mitigation is a situation where dikes are elevated around towns, but they are not enough. The next flood that comes along is higher, and they have to do the same thing again, and then they build everything higher.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada believes that, for very little money each year, we can cut down substantially on what it costs the federal government. The Main Estimates refers to $370 million for the ice storm and for the Red River flood.
We need an action plan. We must do some forward planning. We must establish a base budget on an annual basis where the provinces contribute as well. An amount of X-dollars should be put into this fund by the federal government and the provinces so that someone meeting in a municipality or a group of individuals who have a problem with flooding, or whatever the emergency, could develop a plan and submit it to the provincial government and the federal government. They would say, "Here is the plan of action and here is how much it will cost." In doing so, they would prevent damage that runs into the millions of dollars. We do not have that process today.
Senator Ferretti Barth: What about the provinces?
The Chairman: The provinces do not have it either.
There was a major flood In Manitoba. We threw up temporary dikes in southern Manitoba to protect the towns and individual properties. With very little effort afterwards, the dikes that were built could have been made permanent, but there was no money to do so. Hence, the dikes were torn down. If monies had been in a budget, those dikes could have been made permanent for little extra money, and those towns and individuals would have been protected.
Senator Fraser: This committee can make Canadians aware that disasters are happening more often and are likely to happen more often because of climate change. We can explain what is going on and we can explain some of the risks.
The other famous example is a big earthquake in Vancouver. The question is not whether there will be a big earthquake in Vancouver, but rather when that earthquake will happen. People in Vancouver are aware of it, more aware than are we, but are they doing everything they need to do? Have they learned all the lessons that can be learned about how to arrange the city so that when the earthquake comes the damage will be limited?
Senator Ferretti Barth: We must educate the people as to how to confront these disasters.
Senator Fraser: Yes. Then we must look at what other jurisdictions have done to learn.
There is an example in some of the background material about a storm that crossed the border from the United States into Ontario and created flooding. The damage was much worse in the United States than in Ontario. In Ontario, the zoning rules prevented people from building. That is very sensible. However, we do not know whether our zoning practices are up to date. Are we prepared for what is coming?
This committee does not have to look at zoning in every town in Canada, but it would be very helpful to have someone who knows about zoning come in to tell us if Canada is doing enough. Is the country doing enough? Given global warming, we are likely to have floods. Are our building practices up to date? If not, we can designate someone to bring our codes up to date.
Senator Cook: When you talk about memory growing dim, would the military have been debriefed on the ice storm on a regular basis while they were in that operation? If so, would that material be available? That would be helpful. I would think the military would have been debriefed on a regular basis in an operation such as that. If they are forgetting something now, it might help if we were given the original reports.
Mr. Robert: You will be getting a copy of this.
Senator Fraser: There is a useful document from Winnipeg. During the flood, they had someone taking note of what worked, what did not work, and where there were problems. That is very sensible as well. They knew it was coming, mind you. They had two or three months to prepare.
Senator Ferretti Barth: In Quebec, too, I know there were groups in Montreal that had this document. It was a recommendation from Hydro Quebec, Bell Telephone, and others. We should have that document.
The Chairman: There is an awful lot of reading to do.
Senator Fraser: Clearly, we will come forth with recommendations designed to set up mitigation policies but, beyond that, we must keep an open mind. Presumably we will hear from people who have some ideas, or we will learn something that enables us to make some recommendations that we have not yet thought about.
Mr. Robert: There is a question of procedure. The understanding was that we do this under the Main Estimates. The Main Estimates will be referred to the National Finance Committee probably today. If we want to do something on Emergency Preparedness Canada, which has the mandate that we are looking for within the Main Estimates, then we would need the National Finance Committee to refer Votes 1, 5, 10 of the National Defence budget to this committee. This will be, if you wish, your order of reference to undertake this study.
The Chairman: That will be fine.
Mr. Robert: Again, there are three votes under National Defence. I consulted with Treasury Board on this matter. With respect to Emergency Preparedness Canada, money was coming from those three votes. They could divide it, if you wish.
The committee adjourned.