Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Canada's Emergency and Disaster
Preparedness
Issue 1 - Evidence, May 5, 1999
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 5, 1999
The Subcommittee on Canada's Emergency and Disaster Preparedness of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 5:30 p.m. to examine Canada's disaster and emergency preparedness.
Senator Terry Stratton (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Minister Art Eggleton, Minister of National Defence, is with us. Please proceed.
The Honourable Art Eggleton, Minister of National Defence: I am sorry I could not be here earlier because of the votes just being completed in the House of Commons, but I am happy to take the opportunity to be with those of you who are able to stay. I am here with the Deputy Minister of National Defence, Jim Judd; the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, Lieutenant-General Ray Henault; and Ms Ann-Marie Sahagian, Executive Director, Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Mr. Chairman, there was one hour slotted. Would you still like to proceed with one hour?
The Chairman: I leave that to you, sir, as you have a schedule as well. We had talked earlier that if you would make your presentation and take a few questions, we could then request that your officials come back. We are on a steep learning curve. If we proceed in that way, we may be able to shorten the meeting a bit.
Mr. Eggleton: Let me tell you a little about my role and responsibilities with respect to emergency preparedness. This meeting comes in a very appropriate week, senators, because this is Emergency Preparedness Week, as I declared it to be on this past Monday.
[Translation]
This year's theme, "Be prepared, not scared" truly reflects the nature of Emergency Preparedness' role in Canada.
[English]
"Be prepared, not scared" is the theme. A series of activities has been organized for this week in centres all across Canada. The activities are designed to help people identify local risks, raise public awareness, and start people thinking about the importance of planning ahead for emergencies.
The vastness of the country, our extreme weather conditions, our sparse population, particularly in the North, are all characteristics that render our country's emergency preparedness programs unique. We must cope with risks and challenges probably unequalled in the rest of the world.
Our experience in the past few years with the ice storm, the floods of the Saguenay and Red Rivers, and forest fires in Alberta and in British Columbia has made the value of Canada's emergency preparedness programs clear. It has also forced us to acknowledge the need to draw lessons from these events.
It is for this reason that I find it particularly timely that your committee has undertaken this work. I am grateful for what you are doing.
Recent events have enabled us to identify certain major issues. For example, we are continuing to seek ways to improve the emergency response times for all types of crisis situations. The need for a review of the precise definition of what really constitutes an emergency, and the capacity of our Canadian forces to respond simultaneously in such situations are two other issues that require more consideration and refinement, perhaps.
Since the sharing of the cost stemming from such disasters continues to be a topic of major concern for everyone involved, we will be interested in any recommendations that you may wish to make with respect to cost. We would also be interested in your recommendations with respect to a strategy for mitigating the impact of disasters.
As the minister responsible for emergency preparedness, my mandate is to provide for emergency measures that will ensure that the country is prepared to deal with a full range of emergency situations. My responsibilities in this regard are set out in the Emergency Preparedness Act and the Emergencies Act.
Let me briefly describe these two acts to you. I will spend more time on the Emergency Preparedness Act because that is more pertinent to what we are talking about today.
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, more appropriate to our topic today, 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.
It also defines the responsibilities of federal ministers regarding emergency preparedness within their respective areas of jurisdiction. I am not the only minister that has responsibility.
For example, during the 1998 ice storm and the 1997 Red River flood there were, at one point, from 20 to 25 federal departments and organizations involved. The act explicitly acknowledges the interests of the provinces relevant to the assistance provided by the federal government during a provincial crisis. It also confers on the Governor in Council the judicial authority to declare a provincial emergency a matter of concern to the federal government and to deliver financial and other assistance to the affected province. I fulfil these responsibilities through the organization known as Emergency Preparedness Canada, which is within the Department of National Defence. This organization is responsible for intergovernmental and interdepartmental coordination in the field of emergency preparedness.
[Translation]
It plays a major role in managing disasters by coordinating the federal government response to a declared emergency.
[English]
As we approach the new millennium, however, Emergency Preparedness Canada's top priority will be to help in dealing with the year 2000 computer issue. I am coordinating the government's overall national contingency planning efforts to face any possible Y2K problems, particularly those that might affect the critical national infrastructure. To carry out this task, we have established a new unit, the National Contingency Planning Group, which is working closely with the federal government, other levels of government, and other organizations in risk assessment, contingency planning, and defining test scenarios. Emergency Preparedness Canada reports to the federal coordinator on matters pertaining to the year 2000. He is working to ensure that the appropriate framework is in place to coordinate and respond to the consequences of any emergencies arising during the Y2K period, which might require federal action. It is not only the first of January. There is a period before and a period after, during which there exists the possibility of some systems failing.
The Canadian forces are also a part of this. They are preparing themselves in the event they are called upon to assist civil authorities, as they have done in other disasters, the ice storm being the most recent. We are calling the effort Operation ABACUS. This operation is designed to ensure that Canadian forces will have the optimal capability available to respond to requests for assistance. In other words, we are doing everything necessary to make the Y2K issue the last headache of the 20th century, rather than the first major operation of the 21st century.
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. From there, it moves to provincial organizations and ultimately to the federal government.
Let me explain briefly how it works. In principle, local emergency services will be the first to arrive on the scene. Depending on the nature and the severity of the problem they might appeal for help to the provincial or territorial government. That government 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 organizations.
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. Doing that job involves the organization of a broad range of activities, ranging from training Canadian emergency response personnel, all the way to developing awareness programs. They put out various brochures and promotion materials, particularly this week. Their materials are aimed at ensuring that Canada can handle any kind of emergency situation.
EPC, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, is actively engaged in a number of important initiatives aimed at raising the level of national preparedness. Some examples are: increasing the number of Canadians trained in emergency preparedness and enhancing the quality of training provided; examining opportunities for professional certification of emergency managers through the Canadian Emergency Preparedness Association; and developing common national approaches to emerging concerns.
Due to its central position, EPC plays a leading role in testing and evaluating emergency plans, for example, it organizes drills. It has done a number of them under the name of CANATEX. The National Earthquake Support Plan is another initiative of the organization. This plan was developed to cope with a possible earthquake on the West Coast, and it was prepared in close collaboration with the Province of British Columbia, other provinces, and non-governmental organizations. The plan outlines the roles and responsibilities of the departments and federal agencies. This plan was the subject of a CANATEX drill in 1994.
As I noted earlier, the Emergency Preparedness Act 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.
Canadians have benefited greatly from these arrangements since they were first introduced in 1970. To date, the federal government has paid out over $900 million to the provinces and territories in the aftermath of such disasters. An interesting fact is that out of that $900 million almost $650 million, in other words more than two thirds, has been paid out in just the last three years. The three costly disasters have been the Saguenay flood, the Red River flood and the ice storm of last year. Calculated using a cost-sharing formula, the amount paid out by the federal government to a province or territory struck by a disaster is proportional to the population of that province and the eligible provincial expenditure caused by the disaster. Eligible provincial territorial expenses must exceed the value of $1 per person living in the province or territory before the DFAA can take effect. There is an accelerating scale from there that goes up to the 90 per cent federal contribution level in its final phase.
The payments made under these arrangements go to aid programs whose purpose is restoring the essential assets of individual citizens, farmers, and small business owners. These funds help the provinces to respond to disasters, to restore public utilities to a level of service comparable to that existing before the catastrophe. The government will continue to review and update the financial assistance it distributes to the provinces and territories following a disaster. There has been a fair bit of preparatory work done, some at the provincial level. There have also been preliminary discussions with provincial officials at Emergency Preparedness Canada in this regard. However, in light of the current priority being given to the Y2K situation, no further discussions are expected until after the Y2K transition. Once we get through that we will get back on to this whole matter of the financial assistance formula.
[Translation]
At that time, the provinces and territories would, of course, be consulted regarding any possible changes to the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements.
[English]
To conclude, I should like to call your attention to the excellent work -- and I think this is really worth noting, given those last three major disasters I have talked about -- being done by Emergency Preparedness Canada -- and I wish to note that its new executive director is here at the table -- and the contribution made by the Canadian Armed Forces during the major disasters that have struck Canada in these past three years.
These incidents have helped us appreciate that the emergency preparedness system in Canada is based on principles and an operational framework that are adequate to ensure the security of the Canadian people. However, we can never be complacent -- there is always room for improvement -- and I will be most anxious to receive your recommendations in that regard.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister. I am from the area of the Red River, born and bred in Manitoba, so I have experienced many floods, and I must congratulate you. The performance put on by your people and the armed forces in particular was superb. That, in the minds of all Manitobans, was their finest hour. Manitobans will never forget that.
After a disastrous event -- and I will use the example of a flood because they happen all across the country -- are things just put back the way they were, or are there funds or resources available to mitigate, prevent or lessen the likelihood of the damages occurring to the extent that they did in the previous flood?
Mr. Eggleton: That is an excellent question. It is something that will be occupying our time in the next few months. We held a conference on national mitigation and 400 people participated, including many stakeholders. I have also talked with the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which is very interested in that, understandably. We all are.
We all agree that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so if we can do something to mitigate the terrible toll that these disasters take, we would want to do that. There is not, to this point in time, though, a funding formula for that kind of thing. The provinces are quite at liberty to take these mitigating measures. The DFAA is there to support the provinces and territories by helping with their financial burden. The provinces design the plan, carry it out, and they distribute the money to bring their infrastructure back up to where it was or to provide assistance to farmers and small business people, et cetera. We then reimburse them. Really, they have the responsibility.
However, with all of this federal money that has been spent, in last three years in particular, there is no doubt that there is interest in taking action to lessen these possibilities in future. Indeed, in Manitoba they are doing some mitigation work now. There is, of course, the Winnipeg floodway. I do not know all that needs to be done. Perhaps a lot of mitigation work needs to be done down in North Dakota. We are quite interested in following how that proceeds. Of course, it raises the question of funds and where we get those additional funds, if that is the route we will go, or do we work it in within the funding envelope that exists now? Mitigation is something we need to spend more time on, and we will.
The Chairman: It was my understanding that they are just awaiting the report from the International Joint Commission on its study of the effects of the flood and what should be done.
Senator Fraser: I would like to echo what the chair said about the armed forces. I am from Montreal and, during the ice storm, I watched the soldiers come down my street removing the dangerous trees that had fallen. I will never forget it. It was the end of what had been, for them, a very long day, and you could see on the faces of these young boys that they were exhausted, but they just kept going. They made an enormous difference to us, to 3 million people.
My question is about cost sharing. I assume that there are difficulties, gaps, weaknesses; there always are. Could you expand a little on where your negotiations are supposed to go, once we get past Y2K and you can look at the situation properly?
Mr. Eggleton: There are issues such as the appropriateness of the formula. The formula was set at a time when inflation was at a far different rate than where it is now. It goes back a number of years, and perhaps the formula needs to be updated for that reason. However, the provinces have made it clear that they do not want any reduction in the total amount of money that goes into the DFAA. That is not an issue on which we have taken a definitive position, but it is a matter that requires some further discussions and negotiations, including how we would work in something that might deal with mitigation.
There are issues over what the DFAA covers. Again, as I said a few moments ago, the provinces can do anything they want, but there tends to be a great deal of focus on what the federal formula for reimbursement will be. In all of these last three disasters, we have had to go to a special supplementary plan to deal with some situations that are not covered by the DFAA.
Perhaps the executive director or one of the officials here could comment in more detail on what further issues we need to consider.
Ms Ann Marie Sahagian, Executive Director, Emergency Preparedness Canada, Department of National Defence: The two issues that you have already highlighted are the ones that have been the focus to date: the funding formula, and the criteria that are used under the DFAA for determining whether expenses are eligible. One area of focus will be what we should be using the funds for, in terms of reimbursement. Of course, the provinces will have considerable input on that.
Those are the issues that have been raised consistently with respect to the DFAA.
Senator Fraser: Could you provide the committee with some material about the formula, what is covered now and how it works?
Ms Sahagian: Yes.
Senator Fraser: It was my impression, reading reports in Quebec papers in the months after the ice storm and the Saguenay flood, that every so often some disgruntled commentator would say, "We are not getting as good a deal as they got in Winnipeg." I do not doubt that, in Winnipeg meanwhile, someone was saying, "We are not getting as good a deal as they got in Quebec." I am not alleging actual discrimination here but it did seem to me on occasion that we had perception problems, possibly. I take it that, if the provinces themselves are deciding where the money goes and how, then the federal government has, apart from the actual black and white terms of the formula, no say over how different provinces will vary in their plans, their speed and their criteria. Is that right?
Mr. Eggleton: Not every province is the same, and not every disaster unfolds in the same way. We try to adapt but we try to treat everyone equitably.
During the ice storm, when dealing with the DFAA, we attempted to be as equitable as possible. There were some differences. For example, in Ontario, the electrical power distribution is on a local agency basis, whereas in Quebec it is all distributed through one provincial entity. There was the exception of one municipality, as I recall. There were the things that were a little different and, in discussions with my colleagues at the cabinet table, we needed to constantly find a way of balancing it all out. It did not work the same in both provinces; however, there was an effort to be equitable.
One of the unfortunate aspects is that we did not have the Quebec government and the Canadian government agreeing on all parts of the program, and in a couple of cases we went in separate directions. We tried to go in a similar direction; however, we were not united in one effort.
On the other hand, in Ontario we were able to get that kind of agreement, like in the past in Saguenay and the Red River, and we were able to get those kinds of agreements with the provincial governments.
Senator Fraser: Could you give us an example of areas where there was a difference between Ottawa and the provincial government in the Quebec case?
Mr. Eggleton: There is a difference in the supplementary agreements relevant to the farmers and to the small business people.
Ms Sahagian: First, the categories that are eligible under the DFAA are the same for all provinces. How the provinces choose to compensate their citizens within the province can vary. Not all the expenses that are incurred by the province are necessarily eligible under the DFAA. You can get variation from province to province because some provinces choose to compensate, notwithstanding the fact that they may or may not be covered under the DFAA. There are, for example, supplementary costs. I am trying to think of a specific example. You mentioned farms; the other is orchards or things pertaining to agricultural land, that kind of thing: maple sugar bushes, woodlots and types of woodlots that are and are not covered.
That is as specific as I can get right now. If you wish additional information on that, I would be pleased to provide it at another time.
The Chairman: Municipalities suffered loss. Under the formula, are municipalities reimbursed? I did not think they are. However, I am not certain of that. I would appreciate it if that could be answered.
Ms Sahagian: Yes.
Lieutenant-General Ray Henault, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence: The relationship is between the federal government and the province, and then the province deals with the municipality.
The Chairman: That is what I thought.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: You have described to us the measures your department is prepared to take to cope with natural disasters. Is educating the public one of your concerns? I am referring specifically to the ice storm in Quebec and to my personal experiences.
I have long worked with senior citizens from Quebec's cultural communities. When the armed forces arrived on the scene to evacuate people from the homes and seniors' residences, they panicked when they saw military personnel. Members of some ethnic groups even remained hidden inside in their homes. When the soldiers asked them to come out, they refused.
Educating the public is an important step. Certain measures should be taken before and after disasters occur. It is also important to have the public's cooperation. To ensure that relief efforts go smoothly, the public needs to be educated about how to react when a disaster occurs and the military is called in. I saw some Chinese, Portuguese and Sri Lankans panic and refuse assistance because they did not understand what was happening. The first thing your department needs to do is educate the public and then organize some services with the public's help.
I have read the document prepared by your department. I think it would be a positive gesture for the government to have this document translated into the various languages spoken by the ethnic communities in the country. This would be greatly appreciated. The public needs to understand that it must be alert and cooperate when a disaster unfolds and that the armed forces are there to provide assistance. Some immigrants panic at the sight of a police or military uniform and cannot understand that they are there to provide assistance and protection.
Ours is a diverse multicultural society. The government's primary concern should be educating the public. That is what I am asking you to do. I will be happy to act as a spokesperson for your department. I have worked with neighbourhood parent committees to help young people understand the responsibilities they have as students and the respect they should have for their neighbours and their teachers, and so forth. This proved to be a positive experience. Why not consider forming citizens emergency preparedness committees in cities across Canada? In Canada, we rely on volunteers. I urge you to consider this suggestion.
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: Those are excellent observations. The idea of doing the pamphlet that you have held up, or other materials in different languages, is an excellent one. I come from Toronto, a very multicultural city, and when I was Mayor of Toronto we frequently did that kind of thing as a means of being able to get across to people important issues, and this is very important. We would be happy to have a further examination of that.
What you said about the troops, yes, I also understand that. People of different cultures have a different regard for the military, depending upon what it was like in their home country. The time during the ice storm gave people of all origins, and people who have been here all their lives, a new perspective on the Canadian forces. While people generally see them occasionally or hear about some of their deeds, they saw them on their street, in their neighbourhoods, which they had not seen before. You and your colleagues, and others right across the two provinces in the areas involved in the ice storm, have praised their conduct. I believe that much was done in terms of that military relationship with the population at that time.
Also, we learned many lessons out of the ice storm. There are many things that we can apply to the whole aspect of emergency preparedness and public awareness on a wide range of matters that will in fact find their way into the operating procedures for future, similar operations.
Some important lessons have been learned. We have also learned some important lessons in regard to the Y2K situation. As the military say, plan for the worst and hope for the best. We do hope for the best and we do hope that we will not have negative consequences to face.
We have learned some lessons from the ice storm and other major disasters. Those lessons may be applicable in relation to Y2K, although we certainly hope not.
[Translation]
Gen. Henault: I was directly involved in the relief efforts, including the flood emergency in Manitoba. I have observed an enormous change in relations between the Canadian Armed Forces and the public. The latter appreciated the fact that Canadian Forces personnel came into the community and responded quickly to the crisis. I observed Manitobans working side by side with Armed Forces members filling sandbags to hold back the floodwaters threatening the city of Winnipeg and the southern areas of the province. The experience brought the public closer to Canadian Forces personnel. I appreciate your comments.
We observed the same phenomenon during the ice storm which caught us all off guard. We travelled to communities in Quebec and Ontario to assist local residents. The Canadian public was extremely supportive of our efforts on these occasions.
[English]
If I were to close that off and speak about what we are doing in terms of Operation ABACUS, as the minister has already mentioned, we are very sensitive to the requirements of communications and the requirements to interact with the community and to make them aware of what we are doing. We have learned many lessons in these operations.
We learned many lessons from the Saguenay and Manitoba floods, the response to the ice storm and the response to the snowstorms in Toronto earlier this year.
As we prepare for Operation Abacus, we are doing everything possible to provide information to the public, which is exactly what we did during our most recent exercise with our joint task force at the Heron Road Centre. We took great pains to educate the local community, the schools and the local population, the local MPs as well as ministers in their particular ridings, as to what we were trying to do.
We continue to provide opportunities for people to come in and see what we are doing in terms of our operations and how we are preparing for Y2K. People are given a chance to speak to the soldiers, sailors and airmen who are involved in the operation.
As the minister mentioned, our outreach is our ability to communicate with the public, to make them more comfortable with how we do business and to comfort and reassure them of what the Canadian forces are there to do in a domestic operation, which is exactly that -- to help.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: I would like to ask you a question in my capacity of community worker. I represent a volunteer organization in Montreal comprised of 12,000 senior citizens. Next weekend, we will be celebrating the 25th anniversary of our organization's founding. Given that we provide services to various cultural communities, would it be possible to have the federal government's pamphlet "Be prepared, not scared" translated into the four major languages spoken in this country?
[English]
Mr. Eggleton: We would be delighted to provide copies to the committee clerk.
Senator Fraser: I will start by asking a question for Senator Cook, who has monumental throat problems.
The $650 million which has been spent over the past three years, which was the amount that you sent to the provinces, did not include federal direct costs, for example, the cost of the armed services. Is that correct?
Mr. Eggleton: No, that just covers the DFAA, which goes to the provinces.
Senator Fraser: How much did the federal government spend of its own, do you suppose?
Mr. Eggleton: In regard to the ice storm, we speak about incremental costs. Remember, these soldiers are there; they will be paid anyway. The figure was about $44 million to the federal government.
Senator Fraser: That was just for the ice storm.
Mr. Eggleton: That was just for the Canadian forces in regard to the ice storm.
The total was approximately $80 million. That is outside of the DFAA. That is just the ice storm. It was a very big ice storm. It was the largest deployment in peacetime in Canada of our forces personnel.
Senator Fraser: You spoke about the lessons that have been learned. I am sure that many of them were just very simple practical things like where it is best to park your vehicles, or whatever.
Are there one or maybe two overriding lessons that have been learned from these disasters that we have had in the past two or three years that you could tell us about?
Mr. Eggleton: I will let Ms Sahagian and General Henault speak to that.
Gen. Henault: Perhaps I will start, then pass it to Ms Sahagian.
One of the key lessons we learned was the requirement to have a close relationship from a federal-provincial perspective. In particular, we must have a close relationship between Environment Canada, Emergency Preparedness Canada, the emergency measures organizations and the Canadian forces area commanders who are in the different areas of Canada that we serve.
We have four land forces areas across Canada, each with a commander at the one-star or brigadier-general level. Each of those one-star commanders has regional responsibilities: the Atlantic region, central region, prairie region and B.C. and the West Coast, including Alberta.
Each of those area commanders has links into the provincial governments and responsibilities in terms of providing support to Canadians in times of need and providing all sorts of search and rescue support and so forth.
The links that we had with the provincial EMOs with those Canadian forces area commanders were not as solid or as intimate as we would have liked them to be. We are now applying those lessons. We are actually improving upon and reinforcing those lessons for our preparations for the year 2000.
As part of those preparations, we are working very closely through the national contingency planning group and our joint task force commander, who has each of those area commanders now assigned as task force commanders, to link into the provincial and territorial organizations. Together, we will ensure that we are able to respond quickly and effectively and have the communications that are required to do these types of operations.
That was one of the key lessons that we learned over the last few years of intense operations in Canada.
Ms Sahagian: From the EPC perspective, one of the key lessons had to do with the generic national support plan that we used to coordinate federal involvement in all types of emergencies.
The national support plan is a generic plan that was designed to detail how the national arrangement would be made for any type of major public welfare emergency in Canada. It was based on what we learned through the national earthquake support plan, which is an exercise that the minister mentioned previously.
The means and the method of operation were provided for coordinating all the activities of the federal departments, the non-governmental organizations, plus the links to the provinces and territories. We reinforced our links to our international counterparts, such as the United States, as they were also affected.
It was used for the first time in response to a major emergency during the ice storm. The lessons we learned from that had to do with the way that that coordination mechanism functions. We learned some lessons in terms of how that could be strengthened and how coordination could be improved. In fact, the lessons learned were incorporated into the revision of the national support plan, which was again used as the basis for an exercise that we just had a few of weeks ago in relation to the federal nuclear emergency plan.
In essence, it is a continually evolving and improving system and management framework. We will be using that as the basis for our activities during the Y2K transition period. Many of the things we learned in putting it into operation for the first time in the face of a true emergency will serve us very well in terms of being efficient, effective and capable of responding appropriately during Y2K.
Senator Fraser: It is interesting that you both talk about coordination. I am not saying that it was not as coordinated as it should have been, but obviously there was major learning there.
The Chairman: It is now 7:30. I would imagine that the minister has a very tight schedule. We could ask his officials back to continue the questioning.
Senator Fraser: I was planning to give a little advance notice. I will not ask for the answer, because I expect that it is long.
In your opening remarks, minister, you said that some of the major issues that the organization is contemplating are improving response time and reviewing the definition of an emergency, and the capacity of the armed forces to respond. I thought there were four points but my pencil only noted three, so I am missing one. I would like some further details on each of those, please, including what the issues are and what we are doing about them, and some strategy. When the officials return, perhaps they could come prepared to talk about that, as well any further information about your current thinking on mitigation strategies, which will obviously be a core element.
The Chairman: That is a big topic.
Senator Fraser: I said that I will not ask for answers now.
Mr. Eggleton: We will do the best we can on that last one. We have an obligation to talk to the provinces about any of these things. We must also look at our own resources and our ability to do it. It gets into an area that we have not been in, and it is an area that would require very careful examination. It is a work in progress.
Senator Fraser: Anything you can give us would be very helpful.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, minister.
Mr. Eggleton: Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about this important issue.
The Chairman: You have given us a great start. Thank you.
The committee adjourned.