Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Canada's Emergency and Disaster
Preparedness
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 1, 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 Terrance Stratton (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Lieutenant-General Henault, when you were previously before this committee you gave a presentation. Do you have a follow-up to that presentation?
Lieutenant-General Ray Henault, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence: We are here, at your request, to answer some specific questions put by honourable senators when the minister was before this committee, and also to provide any additional information that honourable senators may wish.
I am here with Ms Ann Marie Sahagian, who is the Executive Director, Emergency Preparedness Canada, and Mr. André Tremblay and Mr. Michael Braham.
Ms Sahagian will take the lead. She will respond to the majority of the queries that were asked by honourable senators at the meeting in question. I will then make a few very brief comments on military preparedness and so on. We will then be open to your questions.
Ms Ann Marie Sahagian, Executive Director, Emergency Preparedness Canada, Department of National Defence: Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, further to the appearance of the Minister of National Defence before this committee last month, I am pleased to provide you with some additional information regarding the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements and other areas in which you had expressed an interest during our last appearance.
[Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to deal with a number of the issues raised during my testimony.
[English]
There is, I am afraid, no simple answer regarding the definition of an emergency in Canada, primarily because there is no single definition. The term is used variously to describe an abnormal situation that requires special measures.
At the federal level, a national emergency is defined in the preamble to the Emergencies Act as:
...an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada, and cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
The declaration of a "national emergency" requires a strict definitional test and a number of other requirements such as parliamentary and provincial/territorial consultation before a part of the act can be invoked.
With respect to emergency preparedness, the training provided by the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College in Arnprior uses the following generic definition for emergencies:
An abnormal situation which to limit damage to persons, property or the environment requires prompt co-ordinated actions beyond normal procedures.
[Translation]
To a large extent, the spirit, if not the letter, of this definition is found in provincial and municipal statutes, because each level of government exercises its own prerogative to define an emergency as it sees fit.
Provincial and territorial legislation generally allows the competent authority to declare a state of emergency when the authority is convinced that an "emergency" has occurred or is about to occur.
The various definitions of "emergency" are flexible and subjective enough to give the competent authority the latitude required to decide to declare a state of emergency or not.
Authorization to make such announcements give the provincial authorities the appropriate powers within the context of their resources to correct the situation. If these resources prove inadequate, the provincial authority may subsequently turn to the federal government for assistance.
[English]
Designated local authorities such as municipal councils, mayors and reeves may, in a similar fashion to their provincial counterparts, declare a local emergency in the event of a perceived actual or imminent emergency as defined in their local bylaws. Authorization of such declarations provides the local authority with access to appropriate powers within its resources to deal with the situation. Should they prove insufficient, the local authority may then seek assistance from its provincial or territorial government.
You had asked in our previous meeting for some specific examples of improving Canada's response to emergencies and disasters. Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of emergency preparedness in the world. The reason for that is the well-trained, dedicated emergency management professionals, at all levels of government, in the private sector and in the volunteer sector, who devote their lives and energies to the safety and security of their fellow Canadians. As well, many Canadians feel personally responsible for their personal safety and well-being. One can only imagine the increased workload for first responders during the ice storm and during the Red River flood, for example, if ordinary citizens had not pitched in to help in their communities.
I would like to spend the next few minutes describing a number of important initiatives aimed at raising the level of national preparedness. During this glimpse of a complex issue, I hope to highlight three areas in particular that I believe are essential to the continued enhancement of Canada's national emergency management capability -- cooperation, technology and resources. It will become clear that they are closely interrelated and that they apply equally to all levels of government.
At the heart of this successful national program is cooperation: cooperation between government departments, ministries and agencies; cooperation between governments; cooperation between government and business; cooperation between government and the volunteer sector; and finally international cooperation. The following examples dramatically demonstrate these interrelationships.
Emergency management is an increasingly complex business, driven by rapidly changing technology and new challenges. Our existing emergency management resources -- both human and financial -- at all levels of government are relatively small. This is one of the most cost-efficient activities in government.
[Translation]
Let me give as my first example one of the most important sectors -- training. Until the beginning of this decade, the most advanced training in situation management was provided by the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College.
Every year some 3,000 municipal employees took a training program at this college in a number of fields with a view to improving the emergency preparedness of municipalities. The staff of Emergency Preparedness Canada -- which administers the college, in cooperation with their provincial and territorial counterparts, acknowledged that about 10 times as many people would have to be trained each year in order to meet national objectives. Clearly, this objective exceeded the capacity of the College alone, and that is why a strategy was developed whereby the provinces and the territories agreed to assume some of the responsibility.
I am pleased to tell you today that after just five years, we are training more than 20,000 people a year, and this number is increasing all the time. The people in charge of training are currently studying modern, innovative ways of extending the program through distance education techniques and other technological advances.
[English]
At the heart of successful emergency preparedness is a dynamic public information program that reaches out to all Canadians to provide them with advice and information. Emergency Preparedness Canada took an initiative that is increasingly drawing in other partners to expand the information base. Through the "Safeguard" program, partners ranging from the Boy Scouts to the Canadian Red Cross to major Canadian corporations have been participating in this national emergency preparedness information program.
Through contributions, partners receive credit in EPC information brochures and the distribution of such information is greatly expanded. To use a military expression, Safeguard has become a real "force multiplier." All in all, more than 740,000 self-help advice brochures, such as "Be Prepared Not Scared," were printed and distributed during the past year through the SafeGuard secretariat.
Following the tragic industrial accident in Bhopal a number of years ago, Canada undertook a study of its own preparedness for industrial accidents and found it wanting. The solution was the creation of the Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada (MIACC). Originally, an initiative primarily of the federal government, MIACC has developed standards and procedures for the reduction of industrial accidents in this country. The fruits of its labours are evidenced by the significant reduction of such accidents in Canada and by the greatly enhanced awareness of safety and preparedness issues within the industry sector. The nature of the threat facing our emergency management community is constantly changing and placing additional demands on the already hard-pressed planning and response resources at all levels of government.
[Translation]
Heavy urban search and rescue (HUSAR) is a technique that enables us to locate victims and to free them when large structures collapse. This capacity requires a range of specialized skills and equipment. A number of recent events demonstrated how essential HUSAR is -- I am thinking particularly of the Oklahoma City explosion, the collapse of a large shopping centre in Seoul, Korea, and the earthquake in Kobe, Japan.
Three years ago, Emergency Preparedness Canada invited all the provinces and territories to join with it in a project to establish 9 or 10 HUSAR teams in strategic places throughout the country. The objective was to be able to deploy these teams wherever required throughout the country, or, for the same reasons, throughout the world, so that they could provide specialized assistance to disaster areas.
I am pleased to tell you that we have made considerable progress, without increasing resources, but rather through increased efforts and motivation on the part of everyone involved. We've established a standard team structure and the requirements as regards equipment and training standards. A complete, fully, trained team ready for deployment is in place today in Vancouver. Eight other municipalities throughout the country have expressed an interest and are at one stage or another of establishing a similar team. It costs about $1 million to equip a team of this type, and close to $50,000 to maintain it.
[English]
For its part, the federal government has assigned priority to HUSAR with the annual allocation of the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program -- JEPP -- funding, a federal-provincial-territorial program through which the costs of improving emergency management capabilities and capacity are jointly shared. The total annual federal share of JEPP for all provinces and territories is now set at about $4 million.
Another important new initiative to raise national preparedness is in the field of managing the consequences of a terrorist incident in which a chemical, biological or radiation agent is used. Until recently, such an event was unthinkable and existing first-responder capabilities were thought to be adequate to manage the consequences of a conventional terrorist incident. The terrorist attack a few years ago on the Tokyo subway system using sarin gas changed all that. While the likelihood of such an attack in Canada is assessed as low, the consequences of any such incident could be most serious.
At present, the civil capacity to deal with such an incident is very limited. The only comprehensive capability in Canada at present is the joint RCMP/Canadian Forces Nuclear Biological Radiological Team located at CFB Borden in Ontario. Notwithstanding its excellent capabilities, the effectiveness of this team is limited by its ability to deploy to geographically distant parts of Canada. Clearly, a civil capability dispersed throughout the country to deal with such an incident is required.
EPC, with assistance from the Canadian Forces and with the active cooperation of the provinces and territories, has launched a project to raise awareness of the problem and to provide training and specialized equipment to first responders. This important project is being accomplished again within existing resources.
There were several questions that were raised at the committee dealing with mitigation. I would like to address that topic. As illustrated by the previous examples that I have just presented, we are actively working to improve Canada's emergency management capabilities at all levels. Emergency management is generally considered to be comprised of four pillars.
Mitigation: Actions taken to reduce the probability of risk or to limit its effects should it happen.
Preparedness: Actions taken to develop effective policies, procedures and plans on how to best manage an emergency.
Response: Actions taken immediately before, during or directly after an emergency occurs.
Recovery: Actions intended to provide critical services or to support individual and group efforts to repair and restore communities after an emergency.
[Translation]
The legislation on emergency preparedness in Canada is mainly about the state of preparedness and response of both the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. This is also true of most emergency preparedness programs and emergency measures.
By focussing our efforts on these programs in the last two decades, we have seen the state of our preparedness and response in this country become more and more comprehensive and effective. Mitigating disasters is an area that is receiving increasing attention, both here in Canada and abroad. The government of Canada has been proactive in its efforts to bring together our partners and the main players involved in order to make progress on this important issue.
[English]
Emergency Preparedness Canada, in conjunction with the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, since late 1997 has been conducting a cross-country assessment among all potential stakeholder groups of the requirement for a coordinated approach to mitigation.
In the fall of 1998, regarding our preparedness for disasters, more than 400 people participated in discussions at workshops and at a national mitigation conference that were co-sponsored by EPC and the institute. Participants included a broad range of stakeholders, including not-for-profit organizations, First Nations groups, industry, academia and all levels of government.
Based on the findings of these events, Emergency Preparedness Canada and other essential partners are continuing efforts to advance this important file, including promotion, advocacy and facilitation of a more integrated approach to disaster mitigation in Canada. We are currently examining our role as one of a broad range of partners and stakeholders in disaster mitigation, including the issue of a federal policy and a broader national mitigation strategy within an expanded emergency management framework.
[Translation]
The potential contribution of each level of government and of other partners and players will be determined in the context of this policy and a broader national strategy.
Emergency Preparedness Canada is continuing to work on this important issue. However, in light of the priority given by everyone to the Y2K problem at the moment, I am not expecting any broader consultations on this issue until after January 1.
[English]
One final area was raised at the last meeting concerning potential or perceived differences between provinces with respect to the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements.
Each of you has been provided with background information and the guidelines for the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA), which will provide you with an appreciation for how the program works and formulae that are applied.
[Translation]
The provincial and territorial authorities decide when an emergency or a disaster requires a financial assistance program. The criteria for evaluating a disaster and the events that trigger the introduction of financial aid programs vary a great deal from province to province.
[English]
Most provinces and territories have a standing program of assistance where a citizen or municipality may, upon having suffered damages by a non-insurable situation, file a request for assistance to the provincial government and obtain satisfaction of the claim under the statutory program. Others, like Quebec for example, proceed by first evaluating the situation, and a decision to provide assistance by the government is expressed by the promulgation of Orders in Council for each clientele and for each area of assistance the province wants to cover.
[Translation]
In Ontario, however, the program is implemented only as a result of a decision by the government following a disaster. The Ontario program functions as follows: local committees are established to organize fundraising activities and the province contributes one dollar for each dollar raised. The committee receives individual applications and determines how much assistance to provide people from the total amount in the program.
[English]
Let me comment briefly on the perceived differences following the 1998 ice storm which were raised at the last meeting. The Ontario government decided not to request, for example, the cost of apple orchard tree replacements from the DFAA because these costs could have been covered under the tree replacement provision of the province's crop insurance program. Given the low level of take-up under the crop insurance program, Ontario accepted claims from apple orchard owners under their own program, the ODRAP, which provides limited financial assistance to clients not otherwise covered under the DFAA.
The Quebec government decided by Order in Council to give assistance to apple orchard owners for tree replacement because they considered the risk of ice damage non-insurable under the tree replacement provision of their provincial crop insurance program. Such costs, however, are not eligible under the DFAA. Quebec does not have an alternate assistance program such as the one in Ontario.
I hope that these remarks have responded to the four primary areas of questions that you raised at the last committee. I will now turn over the floor to Lieutenant-General Henault, who will address some remarks concerning the ability of the Canadian Forces to respond to emergencies.
Gen. Henault: Following Ms Sahagian's comments, I believe there is one other area, which is the area covered by Senator Fraser at the last session, and that is the capacity of Canadian Forces to respond to domestic emergencies. I would like to provide you with additional information on how the Canadian Forces respond and how we ensure that the necessary resources are available for those types of responses. History has shown that, over the last several years and, in particular, the last three years, there have been several successive emergencies here in Canada that have called upon our support.
The emergency process in Canada has been well described by Ms Sahagian. It depends on the cooperation of various and escalating levels of organizations, from the municipal level through to the national level, using the philosophy of dealing with the situation at the lowest possible level.
The CF policy on emergency response covers that same ground, if you like, and uses the same basic tenets for dealing with emergencies here in Canada.
[Translation]
If an emergency were to exceed the capacity of a province or a territory, or if the province or territory felt that it did not have the capacity required to mitigate the situation using its internal resources, it could ask the federal government for support.
[English]
This initial request would normally go from a provincial authority to an area commander, that is, a Canadian Forces officer who is normally at the Brigadier-General level. Canada is divided into five areas of regional responsibility. The Land Forces Western Area covers the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C.; Land Forces Central Area primarily focuses on Ontario; the Land Forces Quebec Area, or Secteur du Québec des forces terrestres, is concentrated in the Quebec area; and the Land Forces Atlantic Area is concentrated in the Maritimes. In addition, we have Canadian Forces Northern Area that covers everything north of 60.
The request would go to a commander, who would decide, on behalf of the Chief of Defence Staff in this particular case, on the appropriate response. That commander would provide, within his own resources, the actual response to an emergency wherever he can. That response is in the form of personnel, equipment or other resources to the province or territory. We have a Provision of Services Agreement in Canada that also caters to these types of responses and lays out the terms and conditions under which much of that is done.
This is a very important factor from our point of view, in that we always retain a supportive role as opposed to taking the lead in emergency response. That was very clear during the ice storm, the Manitoba flood, and the Saguenay situation.
Once the area commander has assessed nature of the emergency and the extent to which he might respond, if in his opinion the emergency response is beyond the capacity of his particular area -- perhaps it requires a response from more than one area or more than one regional responsibility, which was the case during the ice storm, or because the magnitude of a particular emergency goes beyond his area of responsibility, as in the case of the Manitoba floods -- he will raise the requirement for response to the national level, that is to the National Defence Headquarters.
In all cases, that response requirement or at least the request for additional resources will come from the area commander to the Chief of Defence Staff through my office in most cases. Once that response request has been made, it then becomes the responsibility of National Defence Headquarters and, more specifically, the responsibility of me on behalf of the Chief of Defence Staff to provide the support, the cooperation and so on that is required from the national military requirement.
From the national level, we then task the necessary resources, from across Canada, if we need to. We will move the resources to where they are needed when they are required. In response to each of those requests, we make that assessment; we put the resources to it. We try to move them, if we can, within our own resources. If we cannot, then we contract or we provide other means of doing it.
Unfortunately, because of the number of natural disasters and emergencies that Canada has had to face in the last three years, you have seen the results of this process. It is not one that we like to have to do, but certainly when we are called upon we do everything we can to respond.
I would add two to the list that I have already given you. Forest fires become very prominent in Canada when we get into a very dry season like we are in now. The crash of Swissair flight 111 engaged a large number of federal departments but, in particular, we became very engaged because of its maritime location and the proximity of our maritime Atlantic headquarters.
[Translation]
I should also like to say a few words about our capability and the availability of the resources of the Canadian forces as regards our response to emergencies or domestic needs.
[English]
You are aware that the CF has a finite number of resources. We do have a cap or a ceiling on the number of regular, reserve force, and civilians that are available to the Canadians Forces and the Department of National Defence. We are faced presently, as I think everyone in this room is aware, with a fairly high pace of activities. Because of those realities and the decision to commit troops, as we are already doing, not only to the air campaign but also to peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, and the deployment of our troops to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, we do have to make a number of decisions in that respect. We must to balance our priorities and requirements, and balance the response capability that ultimately we will have.
[Translation]
Naturally, we take our international obligations, as well as our domestic operations, very seriously. When there is a need, the Canadian Forces give priority to domestic operations.
[English]
This is why the commitment of troops and the management of resources, in our case, is always a very careful balancing act, to ensure that all of our defence priorities are met, not only within Canada but outside Canada.
I hope that that enhancement of the comments made by Ms Sahagian and the comments provided to you earlier by the minister and deputy minister give you a better idea of how we respond to domestic emergencies. The Canadian Forces, I will reiterate, has both domestic and international commitments. As such, we do try to do that very careful balancing that I talked about.
We look forward to the recommendations from your study on emergency preparedness in Canada and what we might do to enhance or improve our capability through our executive director and the minister, in his capacity as the minister responsible for emergency preparedness in Canada.
[Translation]
We turn the floor back to you, Mr. Chairman, and we are ready to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chairman: That is quite clear and succinct.
You talked about the commitments that you have on your plate right now. This is a concern for everyone, even the Chief of Defence Staff, who said that you are at your limit and that he is worried about stress within the Armed Forces.
My question is not so much to do with Kosovo but the fact that, indeed, there is a strong likelihood of a multiple event. In other words, you are involved presently in Kosovo and other places but there is a possibility of a flood or, in winter, an ice storm, or some other event within Canada. The concern that all Canadians would have is your ability to respond appropriately to our international commitments, because we believe very strongly in that, and, secondly, to respond very strongly to the domestic scene.
I want to tie this in to the presentation last night by Dr. McBean, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada. He gave some interesting statistics regarding what is happening with our weather globally and the effects of that on our country. You know more about this than I. I am sure you have been briefed many times by that department. There is an ever-increasing likelihood of floods, ice storms, tornadoes, and those types of things. God help us if there is an earthquake in Vancouver. I am sure that that is part of your program and that you have tested it.
We know that you are committed. However, we know also that you are stressed, at least according to the Chief of Defence Staff has stated, that there are limits that you can go to. All of a sudden next spring, while we are in the midst of those commitments overseas, if there were to be a flood or an ice storm, how would you respond to that?
Gen. Henault: You are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, there are limits to what we can actually achieve. However, that is very much part of the process that we go through. We do an evaluation of the number of troops that we can deploy to a particular operation, including an international operation. We try to balance that requirement for support to the Government of Canada and its decision to engage Canadian forces in multinational operations of various kinds.
We are currently involved not only in the Balkins, as you are well aware, but also in 18 or 19 other support missions around Canada. Currently, we have more than 2,500 Canadian Forces members who are deployed. Ultimately, it will be more, as we see our ship going into the Adriatic in support of the Standing Naval Force Atlantic and so on.
A number of factors continue to mitigate the ability that we have here in Canada. We do, nonetheless, take our domestic responsibilities very seriously, which is why we take very careful stock of all of our requirements as we look at additional missions. We look at what we can do to try to maintain that capacity, not only to respond to additional international missions, but also the domestic missions, which are very important to us. Careful scrutiny is placed on requirements to respond to those types of disasters.
I hasten to add that the national earthquake support plan is one that we are very conscious of and one in which we are continually involved. We are developing this support plan in conjunction with our Emergency Preparedness Canada counterparts and also with the provinces and our forces, particularly in the western part of Canada, the reservists as well as our regular force members, to ensure that we can do whatever we can to respond to all of those requirements.
Perhaps one of the balancing factors here is that, in international operations, the vast majority of the Canadian Forces members who were involved in international operations are regular force members. When we deploy internationally, we have a complement of reservists that do go with us. In most cases, that complement is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 to 20 per cent of the overall force structure that we deploy. That leaves with us, in Canada, a fair number of our reserve forces. These forces are continually training and preparing, not only for domestic operations but also for international operations. We depend and count on their willingness to serve us when we have an emergency like the ice storm, the Manitoba floods or, heaven forbid, if we have an earthquake in British Columbia.
We have seen that and that has worked very well in the recent past. We saw with the ice storm, for example, which is perhaps the freshest number in my memory, the deployment of about 4,000 reservists in support of that particular operation. If we do get into emergency operations in Canada of the nature that you have mentioned, we expect that we can comply and respond to those requirements with a capability not only within the regular force to provide the command and control, the oversight and perhaps the transport capability that is required to move the resources and so on, but also to provide the oversight to our reservists, and indeed to our civilian force members. The reservists and civilian force members are an essential part of our response capability and remain predominantly in Canada in order to respond.
I am very confident that we can handle those types of emergencies even when there are multiple emergencies. Our current preparations for Operation Abacus, for example, are very much in that light. Operation Abacus is looking at the domestic requirement here in Canada and very much catering to what could be some serious difficulty, although we are hoping that it will not be. However, Operation Abacus is also looking at that same balancing act that I have talked about previously in not only being able to respond here in Canada but internationally. All of that ties together in our view to providing response to Canadians, whether it is in Canada or international, again, with the high priority -- and I add this one -- of support to domestic operations.
I hope that answers the questions. The intent is to provide domestic as well as international support throughout operations.
The Chairman: That is quite clear, and I thank you for that. It gives us some comfort that you can react to an equivalent ice storm.
If you are doing that with 4,000 reservists, how many regulars would you have involved and did you have involved in the ice storm?
Gen. Henault: The number was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000. There were about 20,000 people deployed in support of ice storm requirements. It was the largest deployment of the Canadian Forces domestically in its history, Mr. Chairman. Prior to that, it was the Manitoba floods, which were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 13,000 to 14,000.
The Chairman: Do you feel comfortable putting 15,000 regulars and 4,000 reservists into a similar incident, should one occur next spring or over the winter?
Gen. Henault: The actual assumptions for Operations Abacus, for example, catered to a regular force complement initially of about 14,500. That was when we initially put the plan in place. We are also depending on about 50 per cent of our reserve forces in Canada to support us during the millennium turnover.
With our deployments to Kosovo and the requirements for rotations and so on, our number in the regular force, mobile force, as we call it, to support emergency situations here in Canada would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 13,000 regulars plus the reservists that would be called out in support of that.
If we are called upon to provide additional troops, which I know the minister has indicated we have been asked to do and we are in consideration of that at the moment, that will also affect that overall number. When I talk about the number of 13,000 or whatever that number happens to be -- it may be somewhat less than that if we have additional requirements in the Balkins region -- that is a mobile force. The entire Canadian Forces will be committed to supporting the requirements of Y2K or any other domestic emergency that occurs during that time frame and the CDS has committed that very, very emphatically.
To put that into even more precise context, the Canadian Forces has terminated all of its annual leave as of December 30 of this coming year to ensure that all Canadian Forces members -- at least the regular force membership -- are available to support any requirement that happens to come up in support of our provinces and territories. Again, I am very confident in our ability to respond in this case.
The Chairman: I appreciate your response. It does sound like you are a little stretched.
Senator Fraser: By way of careful planning and careful management, you can now handle your actual military role plus an emergency. However, if the predictions we have been hearing about the likelihood of increased numbers of natural disasters are accurate, then there will be greater demands on you, not only to do what you did so well last year, but to do it again and again and again, maybe more than once per year.
Are you building that into your planning? Does that mean more reservists in the long term? Does it mean the creation of a new kind of reserve, say? What do we do as we look down the road to the likelihood of more and more of these disasters?
Gen. Henault: I would be speculative, senator, in this case because we have no idea as to how many of these disasters might occur at any one time. That has not given us any cause, at the moment at least, to increase the numbers of the Canadian Forces. We have gone through a downsizing that has taken us to 60,000 or so. We have 30,000 reservists, and that is the target for reservists in this country, and then the 20,000 or so that make up our civilian work force.
The only thing that could provide us with additional relief, if you like, or additional person power would be a mobilization concept. That would come with a price. There would have to be legislation and so on to go into phase 4 of mobilization, but that would be the next step in providing additional support. Again, I see no present intention to increase our current base of both regulars and reservists.
Senator Fraser: How far ahead do you look when you draw up these plans?
Gen. Henault: Our long-term strategy looks out to about 20 years. We are in the process of developing and finalizing a concept called Strategy 20/20, which is a roadmap for the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence looking out to the 20-year time frame. That strategy includes not only our military requirements but also our domestic support capabilities -- the size of the force, the capabilities we require, capital equipment, infrastructure and so on. Our departmental planning guide looks out about five years. It then focuses on years 1 and 2 and less on years 3, 4 and 5. Those are the planning frameworks that we are working on now.
Senator Fraser: When you were here with the minister, I believe he said that one of the topics that is considered a priority now is improving response time for emergencies.
We know that response time is already very good. Could you talk about the problems and what can be done to address those problems?
Gen. Henault: Our immediate response is relatively good, as you have already stated. We do have immediate reaction forces in all of the land force areas that I have talked about. All of the task force commanders and area commanders have immediate reaction forces available to them, in most cases, with an advance element within six hours and from thereon to about 24 hours for them to deploy into a location. That is normally what we call company-plus-strength, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 to 500 people. That works reasonably well, based on the quick response to the snowstorm in Toronto last December using that immediate reaction force and the basics of that immediate reaction force to deploy to Toronto.
We are very comfortable with those types of things. We have international response commitments, which are a little bit different, where the timelines are longer, of course. They go to 21 days or perhaps even 90 days, depending on the size of the formation and the actual white paper commitment.
We would like to ensure that that is well established and that we have very good connectivity. In fact, when he talked about the improvements, I believe the minister was talking about the coordination between ourselves and the federal and provincial levels. That is done essentially through Emergency Preparedness Canada in terms of the connectivity with the Emergency Measures Organization at the provincial level.
In terms of improving response times and so on, what we are doing is very much connected to Y2K. Ms Sahagian may want to comment more on that. She is very much involved in the Year 2000 process and in direct support of the national contingency planning group in trying to improve the link between the federal and provincial levels. There needs to be a close link between the provincial EMOs and our area commanders, who have an immediate response requirement to the provincial leaders. We need to ensure a very streamlined and refined capability so that we can respond more quickly when we see things starting to creep up on us.
In the case of the Manitoba floods, for example, we had a good indication well in advance that we had a problem mounting. We were able to establish all the command and control requirements well ahead of time. We were able to put forces on standby. We did not anticipate the magnitude of the Manitoba floods, but we were able to add to that particular force.
For Y2K, we also have a sound planning process that will help us to respond to that as well. Earthquakes are a different matter. The Saguenay flood is a good example of a situation where we need close coordination with the provincial authorities, to receive reports in order to initiate a response plan very, very quickly.
There is a national support plan that Ms Sahagian oversees. It involves a national support committee that is made up of participant departments and the federal response team. That national support plan is, in fact, forming the basis for the Y2K commander control response.
Those are the types of improvements that we will see, with Y2K actually providing the catalyst for much of that improvement over time.
Ms Sahagian: I would like to reinforce what General Henault has said. Y2K is a unique situation, in that we know it is coming and we know approximately when the effects of it will begin. However, what we do not know is the exact nature of the situations that may arise from Y2K failures. The national support plan and the structure that we have for coordinating our response to disasters and emergencies was originally designed to be incident-specific; that is, an earthquake or a flood or some other event like an ice storm. Those events, when they are natural disasters, tend to be limited within a certain geographical area. That is different than what could potentially happen under Y2K.
Under Y2K, a number of events could occur at different places across the country at different times. They may or may not require a coordinated federal response.
We are working closely with our federal and provincial counterparts, and others with whom we normally work in terms of coordinating the response to an emergency, to make sure that the structure we have in place will be robust enough to respond to the potential for having multiple events occur.
I would reiterate Lieutenant-General Henault's comments that this is being looked at as a tremendous opportunity by all of us at all levels to strengthen what is already a good mechanism for having those responses managed effectively and efficiently and in a very timely way when the need arises.
Senator Fraser: Incidentally, I would like to thank you for that small mountain of material that you provided. I cannot say I have read every word of it yet.
If you have an unpredictable event -- a dam burst or a tornado -- what is the response time now?
Ms Sahagian: It would depend on the event, but normally the response is immediate at the level of the local response accountable party. When an event happens, the first level to respond would be the municipality. They have in place their own emergency plans and procedures, as first responders, which includes the fire department, the police service, and those sorts of things.
If they are unable to handle the scope of the emergency, they then approach the provincial government with a request for assistance. By that time, we will have already received information because we have directors that are responsible for all the provinces and territories that work very closely with the provincial emergency measures offices. In working in consultation with them, the information immediately comes up through our monitoring capability into our central coordinating body, which is the government operations and emergency coordination centre. We then begin to prepare for the eventuality of the requirement for a response. Should that happen, we can mobilize ourselves very quickly.
Senator Fraser: Within a matter of hours?
Ms Sahagian: I would say easily within a matter of hours. It would be as soon as we receive the information. Our contacts in terms of that information flow are very good.
Also, the land-based forces have regional commanders who work very closely with Emergency Preparedness Canada and the provincial EMO offices. Requests can be made directly as well. Should it be a huge event or something that requires immediate intervention, individuals could go directly from the province to the Canadian Forces.
Gen. Henault: Ms Sahagian has described that very well. I would add that during the Saguenay floods, for example, the response was virtually within hours of the request for support.
Mr. André Tremblay was working at the Emergency Measures office in Quebec City at the time. He also coordinated the Canadian Forces response. Mr. Tremblay would be pleased, I am sure, to offer you some of his insights into how well that worked.
We are concerned about multiple events and we are concerned about being able to respond to multiple events. One of the results of that has been the establishment of a new command centre in NDHQ. It is a refined and updated command centre that has connectivity to all of our military dependencies, in particular, but also into the provinces through Emergency Preparedness Canada. It was designed and built specifically to handle multiple events, including national and international events, knowing that we would have to maintain our international commitments while dealing with a Y2K response, as well as Operation Abacus. All of those things are designed and intended to improve the way that we respond.
We have recognized that one of the shortfalls in responding to emergency events of those kinds is transport and movement of material across the country. The EPC capability has been augmented by a system called the Logistics Operations Management System. Canadian Forces movements and transport experts will go into the EPC organization and integrate into Emergency Preparedness Canada, when a national support plan or an emergency plan is activated, to help coordinate the movement of materials across the country. That is a system that we have just now started to implement. It has been tested during some of the initial Y2K exercises, such as the CANATEX 3 exercise, when the office was manned for the first time.
Those, again, are part of the processes to improve the capacity to respond to emergency situations.
Senator Fraser: It takes time to fly heavy equipment across the country. Do you have a program to stockpile equipment that may no longer be useful in Kosovo but might be useful in the event of an earthquake? What do you do?
Gen. Henault: It would not be realistic for us necessarily to stockpile equipment in different parts of the country without knowing what types of emergencies we might have to respond to.
I will not talk about the heavy urban search and rescue because Ms Sahagian has already talked about that. Heavy urban search and rescue does require a certain amount of prepositioning of equipment in particular cities that are participant to the program. However, in terms of the military response capability, we have land force, navy and army bases across Canada, all of which have a certain amount of heavy equipment, whether it is grader equipment, dump trucks, semi-trailers or backhoes, whatever it happens to be. If necessary, armoured vehicles with dozer blades on them, for example, would provide that support.
We do expect that we will be able to respond in different parts of Canada with the equipment that is available in the region. If that is not possible, then we will move it by whatever means we need to. Primarily, it would be by rail because it is difficult to move that type of heavy equipment by air.
That is all part of the logistics management system that I have talked about, which is to use the most efficient and economical means or the most expeditious means to move that equipment across the country when required.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: I would like to discuss the issue of training and public education. As you probably know, the population is aging. I noticed that you have given your teams within the army and volunteers very good training. I established 72 senior citizens' clubs. This amounts to 12,000 people who get together in various locations every week.
Imagine there is an earthquake. Can you imagine how much of a panic those people will be in? They have no training. Ms Sahagian said that Toronto has a training program where various committees are set up to share information with other areas. We in Quebec are not Canada's orphan. We are part of Canada. We don't have any of that. No one even knows anything about it.
I did a little survey of the cultural committee, because I also look after culture and I have never seen anything like that. We do not know where to turn. We do not even know anything about it. I am not saying this to criticize you; I am telling you about reality.
I also look after cadets: we have a cadet camp in Longue-Pointe, in the Hochelaga area of Montreal. These young people want and need well-disciplined training. They want to serve their communities and their fellow citizens. These young people are aged 12 to 19. From age 12 to 15 they are teenagers, and from 15 to 19, they are young adults. There is no emergency preparedness training; nothing. We have to innovate.
Young people are not trained to respond to emergencies. Some may have taken Saint John's Ambulance courses. The officers who are responsible for the cadets have a bit more training to deal with evacuations, but they do not necessarily participate with people from National Defence in the event of a disaster.
But we have the tools so why not train them? I wonder how we can train cadets. We can set up committees, as Ms Sahagian was saying, and bridge the generation gap, and help these cadets develop by sending them into seniors' homes where they can tell grandparents what to do in the case of an emergency.
That really scares me, because most people are completely in the dark. If you are well trained, you put a pot on the stove and you boil water. But if you have nothing to put in it, what do you do then? That is my point. I am accustomed to talking to seniors from cultural communities who speak in very simple terms. I am also a simple person, and that is why I am explaining my concern.
I did a survey. I am asking you to think about a program that will encourage people to get informed and learn about emergency preparedness. During the ice storm, we saw a lot of resistance on the part of seniors. Many seniors in Montreal get together continually. The population is aging and people get together for leisure activities, meetings, to feel comfortable. Those people don't know about the Internet. You have an Internet site, but they don't understand that. There are still people who prefer to speak to each other, to share information by word of mouth. That is my concern.
You are well organized, you do wonderful work. Your involvement is fantastic, but do people understand it?
I would also like to mention that I told the clerk of this committee that I would like 1,000 copies of your brochure. We have asked for other guides like that from other departments. We have them translated into Italian, Chinese, Portuguese or Greek and we send them to the department. The department has published a guide in two or three languages. The Italian community is taking charge of the work. But the major problem that we still have is people's lack of awareness.
Gen. Henault: We acknowledge your comments and have noted your concerns. We have training programs for young people in the Canadian Forces, as you pointed out for cadets; air cadets, navy cadets and army cadets. We use these programs to try to train young people, to teach them about Canadian values and also to teach them first aid and so on and so forth. We hope that this training will enable them to help people in the event of an emergency.
We also have youth employment programs that we continue over the summer. That is how we try to train our young people.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Throughout Canada or only in Toronto?
Gen. Henault: Throughout Canada.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Really?
Gen. Henault: Yes, cadets are mainly throughout the country.
Senator Ferretti Barth: I know the commander, and I asked if there was an emergency preparedness or disaster training program. That is the answer I received. I am very concerned.
Gen. Henault: We try to give them first aid training so that they can assist, inasmuch as they can as young people, when emergencies occur in Canada. But I cannot say that they receive training like the training at the provincial level Ms Sahagian mentioned, in other words the entire program or the full training process that we provide at the federal level to the provinces; I cannot say that young people are included in that training. I believe that training is at the provincial level. The provinces are mainly responsible for training organizers, as well as provincial and municipal coordinators. We should turn to young people in the schools, which is possible. We have no jurisdiction over the provinces, and that is perhaps one of the reasons why this has not gone any further.
Senator Ferretti Barth: I think that the provinces will willingly accept this initiative, because it is for the common good. Your department deals with municipal administration, human lives. So you must use all of the tools necessary to ensure that human lives are saved.
Gen. Henault: I agree.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Thank you.
Gen. Henault: Thank you for your comments.
[English]
Did you want to add to that, Ms Sahagian?
Ms Sahagian: Lieutenant-General Henault mentioned the fact that we have to work very closely with the provinces in the area of training. We have to recognize that responsibility for individual preparedness does rest with the province.
Emergency Preparedness Canada does have arrangements with each of the provinces, including the Province of Quebec, in terms of the training that we will provide to their provincial and municipal officials, along with arrangements to provide them support and assistance in their efforts to train individual citizens within their community.
We do have a mandate in terms of raising awareness and providing information. I take very strongly and seriously the points that you have raised with respect to that part of our mandate. We will look at that very closely.
Senator Fraser: There has been much discussion of the possibility of some form of mitigation fund to be handled federally. I am not asking you for policy advice on whether such a fund is a good idea. However, assuming the government decided that it was a good idea, where would be the best place to handle such work? For example, would a greatly expanded JEPP effort be the place to handle it?
Gen. Henault: I will let Ms Sahagian handle that because she does handle mitigation matters overall.
I do agree that mitigation is important. Being a Manitoban and seeing the effects of the floodway and all of the dykes that are around the small towns in southern Manitoba, one of which I am from -- St-Jean Baptiste -- mitigation is a very important part of doing business. I do not have the answer as to which level it should be at.
Ms Sahagian: It would be speculative on my part to identify where it should go. Quite frankly, I am not very well placed in terms of the consultations we have had to date to really identify the various accountabilities of all the partners.
In terms of funding mitigation, it is not simply a federal responsibility, nor is it viewed as a federal responsibility. From the ten key findings that came out of the workshops and national conference that were held on mitigation, it was clear that it was felt that the community level has a very important role to play, as well as the provinces and our private-sector partners. Each of them will have some contribution to make, be it funding or programming or other types of contributions towards the mitigation effort.
We are looking at the whole issue around mitigation and how the federal government should be involved in that file. I am not prepared at this point in time to speculate on where a funding program should perhaps rest.
Senator Fraser: As I listen to you explain what exists now, I can see very strong arguments for making you, Ms Sahagian, the prime federal person in charge of coordinating such efforts. At the same time, I can see strong arguments that you have so much on your plate already that this might end up diluting your mission.
Do you have any notion of how other countries have handled this kind of question?
Ms Sahagian: Mr. Braham may have some information on the international side. I know that EPC views mitigation as a very important file. In terms of EPC's role, we have definitely viewed it as a leadership role, which is why we have been working very closely to advance the kinds of consultations that we have done to date. In terms of where leadership should lie, we have an accountability there. We have a role to play, but we also have a role to play in making sure that others are involved in that process as well.
We are still at the preliminary stages. Perhaps Mr. Braham can talk a little bit more about where other countries are in terms of international mitigation programming.
Mr. Braham, Director, Emergency Preparedness Canada, Emergency Programs and Exercises, National Defence Department: I can only speak with some knowledge about the United States. We follow their program very closely. Frankly, they put a lot of money into mitigation, both pre-disaster funding and post-disaster funding.
In their equivalent to the DFAA, Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, for instance, they have a percentage assigned to mitigation. That is post-disaster. Then there are monies upfront somewhat along the lines of JEPP, but a percentage that is relatively much greater.
An important part of the U.S. program, notwithstanding the money they put into it, is their efforts to infuse mitigation into the philosophy of communities, building for communities. Not all mitigation is resource-intensive; some of it is in your head. When you build a new building, for instance, it should not be built on the flood plain. It is that kind of attitude that they are trying to inculcate into their municipalities.
Just as Ms Sahagian said, a great deal of the responsibility for a successful mitigation program would begin at the grassroots, right at the municipal level.
Senator Fraser: But at the national level, at the federal level, is it a part of their civil protection organization or is it a separate organization that would look at this?
Mr. Braham: In the United States, it is part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which oversees the federal part of a national program and provides the federal funding to the national program. The front-end funding that is provided is matched by funding at the municipal and the state levels.
Senator Fraser: If you had a wish list, could you name the first few mitigation efforts that you would like to see magically implemented?
Ms Sahagian: I would not know where to begin.
Senator Fraser: For example, is it more important to get zoning rules and housing codes right, make sure that individuals understand what is and is not appropriate behaviour, or is it more important to do massive infrastructure like the floodway?
Ms Sahagian: We can reduce the requirements for those kinds of massive infrastructure programs if we have an educated and aware public, as well as the willingness to develop an approach that takes mitigation into consideration at the very foundations in the community, as Mr. Braham mentioned.
We can avoid costs by doing things like strengthening our building codes, so that buildings are more resistant to earthquakes, for example. We can also develop and then adhere to appropriate zoning, for example, with respect to flood plains or fault lines, in terms of the kind of construction that is permitted and is not permitted. Communities should identify their own plans and visions about how their communities can be strengthened and made safer in terms of potential natural occurrences or other types of emergencies.
We should start at awareness-raising -- education, community action -- and develop what you could call a culture of awareness around mitigation. In the longer term, that would be much more effective, when it comes to the way we invest our time, energy and resources towards better and safer communities.
The Chairman: Thank you for your interest. As we go down this road, we may be calling on you again.
I have to ask this question of Lieutenant-General Henault: How many sandbags have you filled in your life?
Gen. Henault: I filled quite a few in my younger days, Mr. Chairman.
The committee adjourned.