Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance

Issue 6 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:36 a.m. to examine the Main Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 (Emergency and Disaster Preparedness).

Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, just for the record, during the first session of this Parliament a subcommittee of this committee studied the question of emergency and disaster preparedness in Canada. That subcommittee was under the chairmanship of our friend Senator Stratton. The work of subcommittee was overtaken by prorogation of the first session of this Parliament. There is a desire on the part of the committee, and others who are interested in this important matter, to complete that study. Thus, it was resolved at a recent meeting of the committee that the full committee would take this on, and we have decided to devote four meetings of the committee to the question of emergency and disaster preparedness.

In order to help guide the discussion, I have asked Senator Stratton to sit next to me today and in subsequent meetings because he knows, better than any of us here, the background to what we are doing and is familiar with the evidence and documentation that the subcommittee received.

By the way, you will know that the other day the Senate passed a motion to supply this committee with all documentation that was filed with the subcommittee on this subject in the previous session.

Senator Stratton, if you would not mind, perhaps you would introduce today's witnesses and explain the particular contribution you are seeking from them on this subject.

Senator Stratton: Before I introduce today's witnesses, I wish to remind honourable senators that I am from the Red River Valley in Manitoba. As such, I have experienced flooding and have built dikes and filled sandbags all my life. We all remember the Saguenay River flood, the Red River flood, and the ice storm. Canada spends a great deal of money on natural disasters. In this current fiscal year, for example, the federal government will spend an estimated $552 million on natural disasters. In previous years, it has spent an average of $350 million. The $550 million allocated this year, although I do not know the details, is primarily directed at the after-effects of the ice storm. While these are not huge sums when compared with the overall budget, when they are added, they are dramatic.

In addition, the impact on human lives during flooding is quite traumatic. It is important that we learn to mitigate or lessen the opportunity for these events occurring by doing something about them.

I have been working with our first witnesses, as a continuation of the work we did in the last session of this Parliament. They are from the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. They are interested in mitigation because natural disasters have cost the insurance industry a great deal of money over the years. Natural disasters, by the way, do not just include ice storms and flooding. They include events such as earthquakes in Vancouver and hail storm damage, primarily in Alberta, the hail capital of the country.

Without further comments from me, I would ask you to proceed with your presentation and then we will follow with questions.

Senator Bolduc: In the past, the witnesses have given us a brief overview so that we may have some background information about them.

Senator Stratton: It is difficult to do that now. For the next meeting, we will have a complete list and summary of the history of the previous witnesses, if that is all right with you.

Senator Bolduc: Yes.

Senator Moore: Before we begin, I wish to ascertain whether it is the Department of National Defence that is primarily responsible for disaster relief funding?

Senator Stratton: Yes; primarily.

Senator Moore: Is that the only source?

Senator Stratton: No. Funding can come from other sources, as well. I have been working on this for a month. On the day following the Finance Minister's budget address, I asked for that information in a briefing session that was held in the lower level of the House of Commons area. I asked for a breakdown of where the money comes from to provide relief. They have given me a draft form of that breakdown, but they were not happy with it so they have asked me to keep it in confidence until it has been finalized. That information is forthcoming. You will be provided with a complete breakdown by department and where the money is being spent. It is amazing.

Mr. George D. Anderson, President and CEO, Insurance Bureau of Canada: First, I wish to declare that we are not exactly an independent orbit here. Mr. Kovacs is also the senior vice-president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada and our chief economist.

The Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, while it is a separately incorporated entity operating out of the University of Western Ontario, has as some of its primary supporters members of the property and casualty insurance industry. We are here as a coordinated team rather than as independent entities.

I should like to acknowledge the work that Senator Stratton has done with us to bring us to this point. We have had an important and worthwhile discussion right across the country. This morning, in the brief time available to us, we wish to talk to you a bit about natural catastrophes of all kinds. Naturally, there is an emphasis on flooding, but Canada is subjected to catastrophes of other kinds; for example, earthquakes, which are a major threat on the West Coast of Vancouver and in the St. Lawrence Valley, storm surge in the Bay of Fundy, which is a major threat, and hail in Calgary. Until the ice storm occurred in Montreal, hail damage in Calgary was the highest single cause of natural disaster in Canada. We are a country that is vulnerable, and increasingly so, to these kinds of events. While we are terrific at responding to them, we have not done much to get ready for them. We think there is much that can be done.

Our testimony this morning will begin with Mr. Kovacs, who will give you some background in terms of why this problem has arisen and some of its characteristics.

Later, I will talk about some of the positive things we have done in this field in Canada and advocate a program where we can do more. If that is satisfactory, I will ask Mr. Kovacs to proceed.

Mr. Paul Kovacs, Executive Director, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction: The Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction is a research institute. Most of our money is invested in academic research at the University of Western Ontario. Our research looks at public policy options and at the science of what are the right actions to take so that future losses from nature's hazards can be less in terms of people being hurt and property being damaged. We have secured $8 million in funding to carry us over the next few years. We are off to a strong start in terms of our role in public policy formation and long-term investments in this area.

We have formalized partnership arrangements not only with the insurance community, as was mentioned a moment ago, but also we are working with groups like the Red Cross, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Emergency Preparedness Canada, and Environment Canada. There are a number of international and Canadian organizations that are looking to our institute to try to support research in this area.

More than 4 million Canadians have been affected directly by extreme events in last five years. As Senator Stratton stated, the most evident ones include the 1996 Saguenay flood, the 1997 Red River flood, and the ice storm of 1998. These are the three most expensive extreme events that have affected our country. They have all happened in just the last few years. The ice storm alone has had an enormous public and private cost, in excess of $2.5 billion. Our sense of the international research that is available is that this is part of an international trend, where we should expect greater risk in the future. It is likely to get worse before it gets better unless we can find the right public policy solutions to manage it. The evidence that we have seen, in terms of the cost to taxpayers and the cost to the insurance community, is that the financial burden has been doubling every five to 10 years, likely since at least the 1960s. This is not only a Canadian trend; it is true internationally as well. We see it on our news regularly.

Why is this happening? Why are more people being affected by extreme events? Why are costs rising at such an alarming pace? There are three factors that we found in our research. First, the world's climate is changing; Canada's climate is changing. Scientists are debating the reasons for that. There is clear evidence that the weather is changing, but the reasons for that have yet to be totally determined in the scientific community. One of the outcomes of changing weather is that we are having more extreme events. The British meteorological office predicted that the number of devastating floods around the world will increase ninefold over the next few decades. There are a number of other predictions coming from the scientific community, all pointing toward an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme events.

The second factor that has increased the number of people affected by extreme events and the cost of damage is that we have become a prosperous urban nation. There are more than 16 million people living in a dozen large Canadian communities. The growth of the economy, the growth of the number of people in this country, and the clustering of people into a few areas means that there is a greater potential that nature's hazards can cause much greater damage and affect more people than they did in the past.

The third factor that we found in our research about why costs are rising deals with infrastructure. The infrastructure that we have in this country is starting to age. It is not capable of doing the job that it was set out to do. We are putting more demands on our infrastructure, with more people and more activity, and time is eroding its capacity to handle even the daily events let alone the extreme events from time to time.

Besides violent weather, which has been part of our experience over the last few years, Canada is also vulnerable to extreme earthquakes. We have had five major earthquakes in the last 20 years, all of them registering greater than 6 on the Richter scale and large enough to cause a great deal of damage. There has not been much discussion in Canada about extreme earthquakes, in part because these recent ones, fortunately, happened in areas where there were not many people.

Recently, we celebrated the 300-year anniversary of a major earthquake that happened off the West Coast of Canada. Scientists today can still look at damage caused by that earthquake, despite the centuries that have gone by. Canada has experienced very large earthquakes in the past, and some recently. However, as I said, it is fortunate that they have not been in highly populated places.

Within this context of rising vulnerability, I want to share with you some of the work we have been conducting that describes some of the attitudes of Canadians with respect to how we manage this. In 1998, the institute partnered with the federal agency, Emergency Preparedness Canada, and held hearings across the country. More than 500 experts participated in these discussions. Our goal was to get a handle on how Canadians felt about our system of preparedness.

One of the findings that came out of that exercise was that we need a coordinated mitigation effort in this country. We need to act before these hazards strike, so that the damage that the hazards cause is less than it otherwise would be. Up to now, we have had pockets of knowledge and experience, but we have not pulled it all together into an overall, systematic approach to investing to reduce the risk of future losses. This is something that is done in other countries, but we have not done it here yet.

Second, the hearings led to a discussion about a culture of mitigation, an attitude within the country that people want to reduce their vulnerability. At the moment, the sense of the expert community is that this was not as mature as it should be and could be in this country. There are people in other parts of the world who are much more serious in thinking about their vulnerability and acting upon their risks, and we should do something to promote that culture of mitigation.

A third finding from our discussions with the expert community was that the proper response should involve all levels of government but it should not be managed by governments alone. There is a broad partnership potential here of working with the insurance community, the Red Cross, and many volunteer groups that become very active once disaster strikes. A proper partnership is the ideal way to manage this risk over the longer term.

A further finding from that work is the importance of local action. It is not possible to sit at a distance and tell people the right way to protect themselves. The true knowledge about the right actions to take is available locally. A proper system must involve the local community, the local leaders, and they must give the overall guidance. From time to time, they do need help, finances and resources, but the leadership needs to come from the local community.

Another finding was the importance of flexibility. The solution that is appropriate for one community is not always the right solution elsewhere. The system has to build in an expectation that the approaches will differ.

The final finding from our consultations across the country deals with the important role of education and awareness. Every workshop talked about how important it is that Canadians, Canadian business owners, know the right things to do, how to act, how to be prepared.

The results of our consultations were shared broadly. We tried to get our findings into the hands of as many people as possible. One group, the insurance bureau, put together a detailed plan and proposal that was very consistent with the research. In that regard, I would like now to turn it over to Mr. Anderson to talk about the specific actions that the bureau is suggesting coming out of the consultations.

Mr. Anderson: I would like to outline our recommendations, but before I do that, I should like to give you a few examples of mitigative work we have done in the country, work that has been a very important foundation for all of this.

Also, I should like to say at the outset that Canadians can be extremely proud of the way in which we respond to natural disasters in the country. We have become experts at it; I think there is no question about that. Federal and provincial governments, the insurance community, the Red Cross, emergency services, and, when needed, the military, are all there to help when help is required. A combination of government assistance, insurance coverage, and, probably most important, just plain old community spirit in terms of responding to these disasters has helped people over the years rebuild their homes and lives. We can all take a great deal of comfort in the fact that, once a disaster strikes, so far at least, we seem to know what to do and we do it fairly well. Canadians right across the country respond to these disasters with unqualified help and assistance, which is very good to see.

While we do a great job there, we do not do such a good job at preventing or lessening the effects of disasters, that is, at the front end. That may be, in some curious way, a testimonial to the human spirit. Once we have dealt with a disaster, we go on with our lives, we put it behind us. We are going to advocate today that we should not be doing that. We should be thinking all the time about the possibility of a recurrence of these events and trying to plan in a consistent way to do something about them.

That brings me to the concept of disaster mitigation. Canada has some great but isolated examples of how this can work. Some of you here will recall that, in 1954, Hurricane Hazel roared up the Atlantic Coast and seemed to dissipate as it came in inland; however, in an unusual circumstance, it actually reformed over the city of Toronto and dumped a huge amount of rain in a very short time. That unleashed torrential floods that went down the Don, the Credit and the Humber Rivers. Entire neighbourhoods were obliterated, 81 people lost their lives, and 4,000 families were displaced. It was a great catastrophe of the time.

At that point, public officials learned something about the way in which Toronto was constructed -- it was built on too many flood plains. Therefore, they started to take action to mitigate this kind of event. They built dams and flood control channels. They moved homes off flood plains. Rebuilding was restricted, although the most recent evidence is that, because this worked pretty well, homes are starting to creep back closer and closer to the point of danger because, again, we put the thought of Hurricane Hazel behind us. Of course, while there are no guarantees that this kind of disaster will not strike again in Toronto, I think we are much better prepared than we ever have been.

That was one good example.

Senator Stratton spoke of filling sandbags on the prairies when the Red River periodically rises and inundates the city of Winnipeg, as it has throughout its history. We know this happens on a regular basis. I am sure you will all recall the events of 1997 when this last occurred. In 1963, the provincial and federal governments got together and decided that they would build what is essentially a giant diversionary waterway around the city of Winnipeg -- locally known as Duff's Ditch because it was named after Duff Roblin. This waterway was the subject of great mirth at the time because it is just a great big concrete half-pipe around the city. In those days, $63 million was a lot of money, and so there was some controversy about this. However, when the Manitoba flood hit in 1997, that floodway diverted 60,000 cubic feet of water per second around the city of Winnipeg. Just try to imagine what would have happened had that diversionary ditch not been there. It has been used 17 times since 1963 to save the city of Winnipeg from untold human misery, damage and, potentially, loss of life, and it has worked extremely well. We calculate the payoff on that investment to be at least 20 times the original investment, so it is an excellent example of the kind of thing that can be done if we put our minds and resources to helping people in these vulnerable areas.

We can also soften the blow from earthquakes. Mr. Kovacs spoke about the potential of an earthquake in Vancouver. He perhaps underplayed a little what this potential is. The earthquake that hit 300 years ago in January registered 9.2 on the Richter scale. If such an earthquake were to occur in Vancouver today, it would decimate the city and surrounding area. The possibility of a 9.2 Richter scale earthquake is hard to predict, but scientists tell us that an earthquake of at least 6.5 on the Richter scale will occur in Vancouver some time in the future, and the pressures from the geophysical area there are very evident right now.

We must think about what to do to mitigate this disaster when it strikes. As close as scientists can come, it will occur some time between now and the next 200 years; however, it could happen tomorrow. We need to get ready. It is very important for this committee to think about that prospect. If there is a single threat or a single event that could ruin our economy in 30 seconds, it is a 6.5 Richter scale earthquake in the city of Vancouver. It would take down the bridges, and the fire following that earthquake would create devastation. Those who know Vancouver know that, if the highways are disrupted and the bridges are down, nothing moves. No economic work is done and people are isolated and in a great deal of danger. When the earthquake of 1700 hit Vancouver, the tsunami from it was so large that it reached Japan in eight hours. Imagine a wall of water that big crossing the Pacific Ocean in that period of time from the earthquake off Vancouver Island. That is the kind of geophysical threat that exists on our West Coast, and we have others.

If one looks at the Bay of Fundy, we have forgotten about the great tidal surge of 1868. Maybe some of you have not, but most Canadian have. The tidal surge there pushed 100 billion tonnes of water up the Bay of Fundy into Moncton and all through the surrounding area. We do not have accurate records about how many people lost their lives, but it is reliably reported that hundreds did. We are holding back the Bay of Fundy today with dikes built by the Acadian settlers. A storm surge on the Bay of Fundy of more than two feet would ruin some of our greatest agriculture resources and some of our finest communities in Atlantic Canada. These threats are very real.

There are things that can be done. I like to tell the story about Frank Lloyd Wright. He is a famous architect; however, you would not want him as your architect. He went to the extent of telling people living in houses built by him what they could and could not wear. He was hired by the Japanese to design the Imperial Hotel. If, in your travels, you have stayed there, you may know that it is built deliberately on a bed of mud to absorb the potential for earthquakes. Frank Lloyd Wright understood the devastation an earthquake in Japan could case. Earthquakes there are more frequent but no less dangerous than what could happen to us in Canada. The Imperial Hotel opened in 1922. The next year, Japan had its most devastating earthquake; 140,000 people lost their lives in the fire that followed. The big danger from earthquake is not the shock of quake but the fire that breaks out. If you could see pictures of Kobe, Japan 20 minutes after that quake hit, the entire city is on fire. That is the big danger. Hundreds of thousands of homes collapsed; over 50 per cent of the brick buildings in the city fell to the ground. It was a terrible disaster. Yet the Imperial Hotel stood there, rock solid, because mud absorbed the shock. This kind of thinking, brought to bear in Vancouver, can prepare us for these kinds of disasters.

To its credit, the City of Vancouver does have a list of things it wants to do to respond to earthquake threat. For example, they want to set up emergency centres in the schools and community centres. However, one thing they have not thought about -- or perhaps they have thought about it but cannot do anything about it -- is the fact that these centres may not be standing when the quake hits. We have not invested any money in ensuring that they are shored up enough to act as safety zones for citizens should an earthquake strike.

There is a lot we have done, but there is a lot more we can do as a country to get ready for these kinds of events. We are proposing something called the natural disaster reduction plan. That plan has three components. Quite frankly, it attempts to piggyback on or become an integral part of the infrastructure spending that the federal government is considering making now as part of the last budget announcement. We are asking this committee to consider advocating this program as part of that spending plan if you feel that our ideas have merit.

Our first idea is that about $150 million a year over the next five years, a total of $750 million, ought to be spent by all three levels of government to support projects identified by local communities to upgrade infrastructure and to make neighbourhoods more resilient to damage caused by severe weather and earthquakes. Our hope is that there would be eligibility criteria for infrastructure spending in the country.

We can think of many more examples, but I will give you two. These days, the storm sewer systems in both Moncton and Winnipeg can hardly take a mild rain, let alone a deluge. The damage caused by heavy rains in these two communities over the years is growing because there has been no systematic upgrading of the infrastructure system in those cities for many years. Our program would look at those problems. Our program would also study the earth dikes in the Bay of Fundy, and try to calculate the real potential for a storm surge and the need to shore those up. It would also look at community centres and bridges and other infrastructure in the City of Vancouver; it would look at the Saguenay area, where there is already a plan in place for how to divert water and thus avoid the disaster that befell the people of that region. Our program would invest in those projects on a systematic basis. That program, unlike some infrastructure spending, could be honestly considered an investment.

Right now, as Senator Stratton said, the federal government is spending $350 million a year on disaster recovery and the provinces are spending at least another $150 million. That is $500 million a year we are putting out with, no mitigative effect. A front-end investment could save that expenditure. It only makes sense to take steps to reduce that annual expenditure.

The other part of what we want to do is take advantage of the moment of disaster to get people interest in talking about what can be done to forestall the effects the next time this happens in their community. The Americans have a program like this. About 15 per cent of all money spent on disaster recovery in a community is allocated to studies and projects in that community aimed at minimizing the effects next time around. We have no such provision in anything we do. I heard someone talk about the disaster financing arrangements that we have with the provinces. Apparently, they are under renegotiation in a year or two. We would very much like to see a provision in those that, in addition to helping people get back on their feet, puts money into planning how they can stay on their feet the next time disaster strikes in their community. That would seem to be a wise investment of public funds, rather than simply ignoring, as we do, these events after they have occurred and the community is back on its feet.

From surveys that we have done, public support is there for governments to get involved in this activity, particularly in those communities that are vulnerable to flood, hail and earthquake. In a poll that we conducted, 90 per cent of Canadians surveyed said that they believe that prevention spending for natural disasters should be a priority of government.

The final thing we want -- and we think this committee is a good start -- is to create a culture of preparedness, which is a fancy way of saying that we want governments and communities to start thinking about the disaster and the mitigatory aspects of investments that they make and to think about, in planning terms, how their communities are developing. If we allow people to build on flood plains, how long will we keep paying the bill for them to return to rebuild their homes on those very same flood plains, when we know that, five or six years from now, those areas will be inundated with flood again?

All levels of government should make disaster preparedness a cornerstone of government policy by requiring that future projects that they are thinking of investing in be analyzed as to how they will make Canadian communities more resilient to natural disaster.

What we are proposing requires a major national investment. We acknowledge that the competition for money is great in this country, but we think that this is one of the most useful ways in which money can be spent, not only from a protection point of view but from an economic point of view.

Of course, this is more than just dollars and cents. If we do this well, at its heart we are talking about saving Canadian lives, talking about protecting people's property in a more efficient way, guarding their personal treasures and their neighbourhoods.

I think the time has come for us to look at the Canadian spirit that has been brought together for great national enterprises before and to think about this as a way of doing some good work in this country, of knitting one region more closely to another by providing a national program that makes our cities, towns and villages more resilient.

Senator Stratton: As well as spending the money that you talk about, the concern becomes how the memory fades. After the disaster, for example, in 1997 in the Red River, and then the ice storm, time goes on, memory fades. We have a great deal of difficulty keeping that in the forefront of people's minds, particularly in the areas where these disasters occur.

You speak of a culture of preparedness. Do you have a plan for educating the Canadian public to comprehend what they can do to try to minimize the effects of these disasters?

Mr. Kovacs: We have invested a fair amount of time looking at how these same issues are handled in other countries. There are unique aspects to the risk in Canada, but there are also similarities to the kinds of challenges that exist in other countries. The Americans have focused a great deal on with school-based information, training, education. It is possible to go right into the schools to help the teachers work with the children to know what to do if an earthquake strikes in Vancouver, if a flood is coming in Winnipeg, or if there is a tornado coming through southwestern Ontario. School-based programs have proven to be extremely effective.

Some of the U.S. research has found that some of the learning gets lost in trying to get the message across to adults via television. As you have touched on, Senator Stratton, in time, the message fades, is not quite as strong. If we can bring the message into the classrooms, the children will learn the message that is particular to them and will take it home and talk about it with the rest of the family.

There is also a coordination function that comes out of the school-based training and education and our research shows that work at the school level can be extremely effective.

In terms of a partnership approach, instead of viewing this as purely a government responsibility, if there were a way to work with community groups at the local level, the degree of involvement and interest in the subject would become much stronger and, thus, the learning experience would last longer.

Senator Stratton: The frustrating part of this whole history lesson, as it were, is that following a flood or an earthquake there is great awareness of the problem and limitations are imposed as to who can build where and at what elevations, et cetera, but then as time goes on that awareness diminishes. Before you know it, new houses are being built in flood plains again. My concern for Vancouver is that we set standards and, over time, they tend to diminish. As a result of the way the city is built, on the west side of the mountain, there is nowhere for people to go, so they put buildings and houses on flood plains and in very susceptible areas.

What can we do to ensure that, five years from now, they will be not building in the Red River Valley flood plains again.

Mr. Kovacs: The two largest events in the world to cause trouble were the Kobe earthquake in Japan and Hurricane Andrew, which went through the southern United States. Prior to that hurricane going through Florida, there was a research project that looked at the ability of the system to truly enforce the rules that were in place. That research raised a number of questions about how committed we were at following through once rules were put in place. Then, coincidentally, a year later, this extreme storm came through the community. The finding was that probably half of the damage that happened in southern Florida would not have occurred if we had actually followed our own rules, if we had really built homes as strongly as the rules said, and so on. Following through on the rules that had been designed for this kind of event would not have solved all of the problems, because it was an amazing storm, but it would have greatly reduced the risk.

What they have done, again with this learning and trying to follow through from that particular circumstance, was to try to build a broader partnership. In this case, the follow-through on the building code was a state building code enforced by a municipal enforcement mechanism. Somewhere along the line, there was a lack of funding and commitment, so the insurance community stepped up, in partnership with the public authorities. The insurance community now goes from one local community to another and judges the quality of the follow-through on the building code. It is another form of checking how well the enforcement is being followed up.

An interesting aside is that, in the United States, since this program has been announced, one community after another has volunteered to be first. They really want to prove that they are quite serious, that they really are protecting their own community, because those who prove it get a break on insurance and various other benefits. Hurricane Andrew is a very concrete example of how there was no follow-through of the rules. The consequences were serious, in that the damage far exceeded what it should have.

Mr. Anderson: To reinforce that, having spent most of my career in the housing business, I know something of the pressures between the development community and the planning community. By and large, the development community has the upper hand when it comes to these matters, both in terms of where houses can be built and in terms of enforcement of the municipality's own codes. I suppose it is naive to say that we need to give our planners better support, but I think there are financial incentives that can be used. One thing I have learned about developers is that they respond to financial incentives. If there were financial incentives for them to build on other sites, if there were provincial assistance in the form of tax grants to build in certain parts of the region, I think we would quickly find things going in a much more favourable direction.

In the absence of some thinking about how those incentives could be structured, you are down to the level of the trade-off between local developers, the local council and the local planners, and it would appear on the surface that history tells us that is an unfair fight.

Senator Finnerty: I am from a part of Canada where we have experienced more forest fires lately. Have you thought about that, or have you had any discussion on forest fires and prevention? Do we have enough water bombers?

Mr. Kovacs: Among the three factors contributing to the increase in forest fires is the fact that the weather is changing. Some of the long-term research quite firmly states that the risk of forest fires in this country will build over time. It is often drier now and there are longer periods of dryness. Much of our early work has been focused more on urban fringe fires -- that is, fires near urban centres. This work shows that in terms of the fringe we have a definite vulnerability. We have a structure that deals with a fire that is far away from the urban centre, namely, a response approach, and we have an urban approach, where we call the fire department and a truck comes to your home. However, with respect to the fringe area, it is not clear that fire trucks, which work well in the city, help in some of these fringe areas or that the processes used to help in the middle of the forest work in the fringe area.

Some of the provinces have invested more research into this fringe work. American research is starting to help. California and Florida have had some bad experiences and they are trying to better understand how to manage this area. There is no question that the risk of fire across the country is rising, and it is expected to continue to rise. Our process for managing that risk has been strained, as the risk has been rising but the public resources have been constrained. In part, this area in between the two common approaches to fire needs special attention. I am not certain that there is a jurisdiction in Canada that has it right yet. However, they are concerned and are trying to find the right formula.

Mr. Anderson: We certainly think there is enough water in Canada to douse most fires. The question is: Can we get it to the site? We need to develop mechanisms that do that -- for example, an infrastructure that will help with that -- and then find the funding for equipment that will be more efficient. The City of Vancouver built a wonderful reservoir to try to pump water near the downtown area in case of a major fire downtown following an earthquake but then had to wait for years for the truck that was capable of hooking up to the pipe to make it happen. If we had an earthquake in the meantime, we would not be ready. This kind of thinking must happen now. As Mr. Kovacs says, this danger is increasing every year.

Senator Finnerty: I see a change every year in Timmins. There is no question about that.

Senator Bolduc: Do you have some other experiences that you can relate to us? Europe, for example, in Italy and in parts of Germany, experiences a lot of flooding. Do you have some experience with what the governments or the municipalities have done to try to mitigate those circumstances?

Mr. Anderson: Mr. Kovacs can talk about the experience in France, where there is a well developed program in the area of flooding.

Mr. Kovacs: It is our understanding from the research literature that most other countries are further along than Canada in terms of investment before the hazard strikes. As Mr. Anderson said, our ability to respond is among the best in the world.

With respect to the idea of investing in prevention ahead of time, there are a variety of different mechanisms in place in Europe. The French program looks right across the board at the risk of flood, earthquake, and situations like the strong winds that happened in January of this year, et cetera. It is a very comprehensive approach, one that is very much a linkage between the national government and municipal governments. There is a requirement that a local community undertake a variety of mitigative actions -- for example, that they try their best to keep people out of flood-prone areas -- and that they have in place a plan to manage the hazard before it strikes the community. Only if a local community has mapped the flood-prone areas and has carefully thought through the risks involved does the partnership between the different levels of government lead to funding and financial support. The program is comprehensive. The French program stands out better than the Italian one.

I have spent more time reading about the American and the Australian programs. To greatly simplify complicated areas, the Australian approach involves more investing in leadership at the state or provincial level and working with the local community. The federal authorities cooperate but the direction comes more from the state government. The American approach has more leadership from Washington, and ideas and concepts often come from the national authority, again, closely working with the local community. Only the local community has the knowledge to be able to follow through.

Our research has been less on Europe and more with the U.S. and Australia. The important debate that often happens in this country is: Should the federal government lead in this area? Should the provinces lead in this area? The answer is: Both models exist and work rather well. Both models are possible.

Senator Bolduc: While were you talking, I was thinking of the Beauce Valley, which, every spring, experiences flooding. In fact, people expect it. It is an area that has a heavy concentration of industrial development. All the villages are near the Chaudière River. It is an area where generations have lived -- fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers. It is difficult to convince those people to move up about half a mile to the hill. They do not want to go.

Finally, after a long discussion with the provincial government concerning municipal bylaws, regulations, zoning, and so on, for building towns, provincial legislation was enacted that outlined areas where, if you did build, you would not receive any municipal or provincial grants for sewage disposal, and so on. In other words, there is a financial incentive not to build there, but people are still there.

The Chairman: In New Brunswick, where I lived and worked for a while, the same kinds of problems occur along the Saint John River Valley. There were serious flooding problems there in the spring.

Senator Mahovlich: In my home town, there is a disaster just beginning. The McIntyre and Hollinger Gold Mines have vacated the area and flooding is beginning in some of the mine shafts. With flooding comes erosion. A couple of weeks ago, it started to show on the surface of the city. This is just beginning. Will the government have to look after these problems? The mines have closed, so they cannot go after the mines. I am sure the engineers were aware of what would happen. Are you people aware of that?

Mr. Kovacs: I am certainly not aware of the specifics of the issue, but perhaps I can talk to some extent on the area of the issue. The institute has focused its research on the weather, on extreme weather and on earthquakes. As Mr. Anderson has stated, we have talked about a plan for investing before trouble happens. Our focus on earthquakes and extreme weather in part is to try to complement the fact that, over the years, we do not think we have put in place a strategy for anticipating getting ready for extreme weather and earthquakes.

However, we have put in place a number of rules with respect to the mining industry, to environmental problems and to transporting dangerous product across the country. A number of different pieces of legislation are in place, legislation that anticipates problems before they occur and clarifies responsibility and procedures.

In this particular case, where water seepage is interacting with other things, I am not aware of the specifics of how that one is managed. I would be delighted to look into it further and get back to you.

Mr. Anderson: We will do that. It sounds like an environmental issue where the first liability would go to the existing company or, if not them, then to the parent company or to the survivor company. It would be a question of the government pursuing those remedies. Ultimately, one would then have to turn to public resources to fix the problem. We will look into that for you.

Senator Mahovlich: That would be very interesting.

Mr. Anderson: That would be Timmins, would it?

Senator Mahovlich: Timmins, Ontario. That is right.

Senator Finnerty: I am pleased that that topic was raised. I understand that there have already been cave-ins. Part of the golf club has already caved in, and they are worried about the whole town of Schumacher.

Is it possible to do a ground survey, to determine where ground water is coming up close to the surface?

Mr. Anderson: I think that would be urgent. I would be surprised if the Department of the Environment is not already in some way on to this case, but, as I said, we will look into it for you.

Senator Mahovlich: Some of my friends were saying that the whole golf course is going to go underground.

Senator Finnerty: Before a Shania Twain concert there, engineers tested the ground because 30,000 people were expected to attend and would be standing in that area. They were fearful that people would be killed.

Senator Mahovlich: I remember being stuck in a snowstorm in northern New York. There were two fellows shovelling the sidewalk of a motel that my wife and I had stayed at. One fellow said to the other that the work they were doing, this shovelling, was the responsibility of the state. The other fellow replied: "In conditions like this, we is the state." In other words, in times of disaster, we must all pitch in.

The Chairman: We have been talking mostly about natural disasters and catastrophes of one kind or another. Do you focus on the possibility of pandemics? Every now and then one reads of some pandemic that may be incipient, that people will be dropping like flies from flu or some other disease.

Mr. Anderson: Our industry deals with property and casualty insurance, that is, home, auto and business insurance. Pandemics are a life and health issue; therefore, other than being as concerned about it as I think most other citizens are, we have not spent a great deal of time on that subject.

The Chairman: We should probably look at it.

Senator Stratton: We had a request in the last session, after the hearings <#0107> I think it was from Health Canada -- to make a presentation to this committee on natural disasters and preparedness on pandemics. They say that a pandemic is now is overdue. The Hong Kong outbreak in 1996, I believe, when they slaughtered all those chickens, was probably the beginnings of one that they were able to cut short.

In any event, we have had a request from those individuals would like to appear before us. It is up to the committee to determine whether this fits within the scope of what we are examining.

The Chairman: I think it does, but, of course, I am in the hands of the committee.

On another matter, the amount of money that you are talking about is not enormous when compared to the amounts, reported by both the private and the public sector, that were put into Y2K preparedness. I do not know whether you know much about that, or were involved with it. Do you have any retrospective views on the amount of money that was spent getting ready for Y2K, and the purposes to which it was put?

Mr. Anderson: Our views are that it is impossible to determine what might have happened had we not spent that money. I know that there is some retrospective, ironic feeling that the whole thing was perhaps a bit overblown.

The Chairman: I have always wondered, since so much money was involved, whether Y2K became a convenient basket, or whether the definition was so elastic as to allow money to be spent on anything under the guise of preparedness for Y2K. Perhaps that is a question for the Auditor General.

Mr. Anderson: You are on to something there. The great thing that happened was that not only were we as a society able to get organized to respond to this, but, for whatever reason, whether it was to fix a Y2K problem or whether it was convenient basket to make a infrastructure investment, we came out of this with a very modernized IT system. From a competitive point of view, it has been a very positive thing. All the glitches were looked after -- glitches from old systems operating and the need for businesses to modernize their information technology infrastructure. I cannot think of another event that would have forced companies reluctant to do that to take action.

We are, as a nation, a lot more competitive than we were prior to this event. Thus, there has been an unanticipated positive consequence in all this.

The Chairman: That is a good answer. It had not occurred to me; I do not know whether it occurred to others.

Do you think it has done anything to improve our ability to cope with, or prepare for, the kinds of emergencies you are talking about? Did the improvements made in information technology help us prepare for emergencies?

Mr. Anderson: I would be reluctant to give you a definitive answer on that. I know that, in our own industry, we were prepared from coast to coast for the worst-case scenario; that is, for a shut down of the electrical and power grid across the country. The industry has, on the shelf now, positive ways of reacting to these kinds of disasters.

Beyond that, I do not have anything more specific; however, Mr. Kovacs may have something to add.

Mr. Kovacs: It was our sense, because of Y2K preparedness exercises, that there was a range of businesses in Canada that thought about how to keep their operations going during a disruptive period. Those businesses had perhaps not done that thinking before. Terms like "continuity planning" were part of the process of getting ready, for a number of people who had never done it before.

The efforts required to do a business continuity plan can be applied to a whole series of disruptions, not just a date-related computer problem. Thus, in that sense, we have gone through an experience, as a country, that has forced the business community to think about this kind of disruption, and that must be advantageous.

I would like to share another observation. In terms of the overall funds to support this initiative, it is clear from our work that an enormous amount of money could be invested here. There are projects that arise from time to time that cost many billions of dollars; therefore, it is possible to spend a great deal. The broader spirit that we are trying to share with you is that a mindset of having this country being aware of the extremes to which it is vulnerable, and investing before they happen, can pay off enormously.

The core of our council believe that it is possible to make a $63-million investment in a floodway in Winnipeg and save at least 20 times that. That type of financial approach could be applied to other projects.

If someone comes forward with a project, and each dollar they would spend would save far more public dollars in the future, that is a wise program. If that should be more money than we have talked about, that is delightful because Canadians are saving more. If it proves to be smaller, it is because, as a nation, we have not been creative enough. There are many opportunities, and we have heard of a number of them; however, at the moment, there is not a place to bring your idea.

If one has a good idea, there is not a way to tell someone about it to get funding. Currently, people hold their hat out and go around the local community. I would like to work on the right numbers down the road, in order to create a new forum where this can happen. If the amounts prove to be higher than expected, it is because we have a lot of really good ideas coming forward. That would be great. If it proves to be lower, it is due to the time it takes to get these ideas to come forward.

Senator Stratton: Gentlemen, thank you very much for appearing. I was told that the dollar value for an earthquake of significance in the Vancouver area would be $30 billion.

Mr. Anderson: That is correct.

Senator Stratton: It is a dramatic number. I wanted to record it. If there should be a flood of historic significance along the Red River Valley, Duff's Ditch is not capable of withstanding a flood of that size. The entire city would be gone, and the estimates for that are $6 billion.

Those are the kinds of numbers that we potentially face down the road, so I think we must pay attention to this.

The Chairman: Thank you both for a very interesting morning.

Our next witnesses are Mr. St-Pierre and Ms Branson.

Senator Stratton, perhaps you could tell us why these people are here.

Senator Stratton: During the 1997 flood along the Red River Valley, satellites were used for flood imaging. It is amazing what you can learn from this type of high-tech equipment. For example, it is possible to determine how fast water is rising and receding. To illustrate even further, 80 per cent of the water along the Red River Valley comes from the United States, so it is possible to determine to a large degree beforehand just what you have coming at you. If I am wrong, I am sure the witnesses will correct me.

Thank you very much for attending here. Please proceed.

Ms Wendy Branson, Manager, Strategic Projects, Ottawa Branch, RADARSAT International: Senator Stratton, you are right on the money there. For many of the elements of emergency preparedness, you do require information, both before and after the emergency situation. We are here to talk about remote sensing and how it can be utilized as an information source within an emergency situation.

As you are aware, there are many different aspects within an emergency situation, from the aspect of preparedness, to warning, as Senator Stratton has pointed out, knowing when the floods may actually reach your area, to the aspect of relief efforts, and then again in the mitigation or preparedness for the next time around.

Remote sensing and geographic information systems are both tools that can be used within that process, in each of the different aspects. If you are not familiar with remote sensing technology, I can tell you that it is basically a way of taking pictures from space of the earth's surface and being able to have current information of what is actually going on.

I am not sure that everyone is aware, although I hope you are, that Canada has an earth observation satellite in space. The Canadian Space Agency manages the program. The Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing collects the information from the ground stations, and is involved in much of the research. Our company, RADARSAT International, looks after the international distribution and processing of that information. Today, I will try to focus on our experiences from the commercial side in dealing with emergencies, and Mr. St-Pierre will focus more on the government side and the Canadian situation.

RADARSAT is what is termed a synthetic aperture radar satellite, which uses microwave energy to take pictures of the earth's surface.

Another type of disaster that has not been mentioned is oil spills. This picture is an example of an oil spill in the Strait of Malacca. The interesting thing about synthetic aperture radar is that it sees through the clouds. Often, during disaster situations, there is cloud cover, so you cannot gets regular pictures; you cannot get aircraft, helicopters, and so on up to get a picture. The nice thing about the SAR satellite is that it can take that image.

I would like to discuss something of the way it works. Land and water surfaces, and even oil on water, act as specular reflectors. It seems to be black on the actual image. The oil spill is black there. The same will happen with a flood. Other surfaces act as diffuse reflectors and therefore they are a brighter colour, so you can actually see information that is relevant to an emergency situation.

Canada should be quite proud of the program we have put together. We have the first truly operational remote sensing satellite that is available worldwide, with a focus of getting information out quickly. It has the capability of all-weather imaging, which is important in an emergency situation. It has the capability of revisiting a site quite frequently. In the Red River example, they were taking images every two or three days, in order to watch the water actually move up and to help in the relief efforts. It also has a multitude of image products, so you can look at great detail or span over a very large area.

The program also has its own options. It allows for programming of the satellite to be client-driven, allows for processing of the images very quickly, and allows for electronic delivery to any remote site, or non-remote site. There is ease of integration of the data, and it is very much operationally focused.

In any situation where we are looking at where things can go, you must understand the realities of the system. In that regard, I just want to take a few minutes to look at what it actually can provide and then look at an example of how it can be incorporated into a national framework, which is something that is missing right now, to utilize that data.

The satellite does have to be programmed. It is not just taking pictures all the time. In the Red River example, well before the flood actually occurred, the satellite was programmed to take as many images as it could, and they were collected and stored at CCRS and then processed.

The other aspect is the amount of time required to program the satellite. If you are knee deep in water, it is a little late to be telephone; the satellite still has to come over and CSA has to program it in order to get the acquisition. Therefore, a number of things have been put in place. For example, there is a 24-hour hotline, and CSA has instigated a disaster watch service, where they are trying to collect speculation imagery of areas in which we think disasters might occur so that that information will be on hand.

Something else we do very well is get the imagery from the satellite to the actual users. Once the data has been collected from the satellite, it is downloaded to a receiving station, of which there are two in Canada. One of those is in Gatineau. There are also a number of them in international locations. The data is processed and then sent electronically to users who are using telecommunications or Internet-type access. The turnaround from the actual acquisition of an image to when a user may have it in their hands is between two to four hours. You are looking at current information about exactly what is happening on the ground.

We did a simulation in May with all of our international stations in which we calculated the time lapse from acquisition, to processing, and to sending it out to Vancouver, where our head office is located. On this side of the slide, you will notice that most of the times are less than 2.5 hours, which represents the time from acquisition to us receiving the imagery in Gatineau. Regarding the two that are over four hours, the data actually sat on the tape recorder for a while because there was no network station. We are down-linked to Canada then sent to Vancouver. The turnaround of information is very quick. In an emergency situation, it is very important to get the information off the satellite and into the hands of the users.

Telecommunications is another important element of emergency response because you can receive information anywhere. For instance, a laptop with satellite links can receive data even in the middle of a boat, which is what happened in some of the Red River situations, where the data was down-linked and was being used to locate people who were stranded on top of their houses, et cetera. There are many cases where data can be quickly sent to people, and where they actually need the information.

From an international perspective, I wish to demonstrate how the data has been used and, through this, identify areas where there are weaknesses and where we need to bring forward what I would consider a national framework. The case that I will show is Mozambique. Everyone is aware of the drastic floods that occurred there this year. The Canadian government and our own Department of National Defence were involved in the aid and the humanitarian effort. The actual imagery collected from the satellite was done on spec first, meaning that there were no clients. There was no one saying, "Acquire this for me." That in itself is a problem -- in other words, where people do not realize that they should be getting the satellite programmed. That was done between the space agency, CCRS and ourselves. Once the imagery began to be collected and people started seeing it on the news, all of a DND all of sudden was interested in having that information and CIDA actually funded the acquisition of those images.

This slide is the actual image of the flooding that occurred within Mozambique. The situation there was disastrous. The type of product that was electronically sent within hours of acquisition to Mozambique, to the DND people who were involved in the humanitarian effort, looked something like this. We are looking at a full resolution product. The river is right there. This area is entirely flooded. You can see the roads that are probably up on some kind of pier.

We used the services of a company called Vantage Point, a private Canadian company that does image interpretation. With their involvement, we have created a very useful information product for general use. Vantage Point has highlighted the flooded areas in blue; the green areas represent vegetation. They have added the road networks and the river course so that people can position themselves. This is an example of an information product that is very useful in an emergency situation.

The Chairman: Were those floods in Mozambique predictable? If so, what was the lead time? There was a horrendous loss of life. Was the problem the suddenness of the phenomenon or was it the inability of the government and others there to cope? Do you know?

Ms Branson: I do not know exactly. I know that we are doing some work in Vietnam. These types of floods are linked to typhoons. There is a wonderful typhoon watch system, NOAA -- a remote sensing device -- that enables you to predict that these things are coming. However, you probably cannot predict how bad they will be or where they will hit.

The Chairman: Do you know whether the floods in Mozambique were predicted with any lead time?

Ms Branson: I do not think there was much lead time.

The Chairman: Could there have been?

Ms Branson: I believe we began putting in an acquisition plan after it hit CNN. The time line you need is probably about 29 hours, if you are lucky, from seeing it on CNN to actually getting an image.

The Chairman: The technology exists, though. That is to say, they could have been predicted with greater lead time; is that right?

Ms Branson: You never really know where a typhoon will hit. However, you can predict that something could be happening somewhere along the coast.

Mr. Marcel St-Pierre, Manager, Market Development and Commercialization, Satellite Operations, Canadian Space Agency: From what I recall, the NOAA system in the U.S. had been tracking tropical storms, and I think there were some warnings; it was a major storm. As Ms Branson said, it is extremely difficult to accurately forecast the path of a storm. However, there were some warnings. There are good systems in existence now. Environment Canada has appeared before your committee and has told you how the weather system is currently used to forecast and provide warnings to the population. Some work is being done in that area. Whether it is available in Mozambique and in Africa, however, is the question.

Ms Branson: An element of importance is being able to proactively acquire imagery. In Vietnam, we are linking up, for example, the NOAA typhoon watch system to our own acquisition planning system. Hence, when there is a high probability of a storm approaching, those weather details will be forthcoming. If it does not happen, then you have an image in archive. In terms of emergency preparedness, the use of remote sensing and GIS in a national framework is one of the elements of linking all these different sources together so that you can get the information.

The other obvious element in the case of Mozambique is that you never have the funding before a disaster hits and no one has time to deal with funding issues once the disaster does hit. Therefore, having things in place ahead of time is very important.

Another important element is testing the infrastructure. It is often the case that, just when we need electronic delivery, the Internet lines go down. Therefore, having alternatives in place -- that is, whether you will use satellite links or some other means should the line go down -- is important. All of that testing must be done before an emergency happens.

Another important element is determining ahead of time what the clients actually needs in an information product. Many times, we create a product and hope that is what the person who is trying to do the relief effort needs. A proactive approach defines ahead of time the types of information that will be required.

We have created an emergency response subscription service that focuses heavily on proactive planning <#0107> simulations, making sure that the different Internet options will work, and ensuring that everyone understands the acquisition planning. Currently, this service is being used in Japan, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and Vietnam. In Vietnam, with the support of CIDA, we are trying to put tools in their hands so that they will be able to acquire, use and integrate their remote sensing products directly into their disaster management structures. That is an example of creating a national framework, which is probably lacking here.

I will let Mr. St-Pierre continue from that aspect.

Senator Moore: Is the satellite up there now?

Ms Branson: Yes.

Senator Moore: Is it taking images constantly, or do have you to program it to take images of a certain area?

Ms Branson: You have to program it to take an image of a certain area, basically because of the flexibility of the system. There are multitudes of imaging modes available; the satellite must be programmed according to what the user wants.

Senator Moore: If the satellite were taking images constantly, the images could be used for forecasting. It would not be necessary to wait for a CNN news flash before programming the satellite to take a picture of Mozambique, for example. Is it too expensive to take images constantly?

Ms Branson: You cannot do it, because it is an active remote sensing satellite, which means that it has to create its own energy in order to take pictures. One satellite orbit takes 100 minutes and it can take imagery for 28 of those 100 minutes. Therefore, you select which 28 minutes of the earth you want to look at, based on what a client wants. Decisions must be made as to what images are collected.

Senator Moore: You have 28 minutes in which to take individual images?

Ms Branson: Yes, but there are many constraints on that. Mr. St-Pierre can talk to you about how many image chunks we can get per orbit. It all comes down to planning.

The important thing is that many remote sensing solutions exist that could be integrated. One example is the National Oceanographic Atmospheric Agency satellites.

Senator Moore: Is that Canadian or American?

Mr. St-Pierre: It is American. It is the agency responsible for providing weather information. They operate the weather satellites in the U.S.

Ms Branson: You see it on the news daily. That information could be packaged with other remote sensing type solutions in order to have the different pieces that are required.

The Chairman: Can these satellites be used to track movements of fish stocks?

Ms Branson: I believe there is a satellite that does that, but I cannot remember the name of it.

The Chairman: I wanted to ask that before Senator Doody did.

Senator Doody: You would need a pretty sensitive satellite to find a fish out there now.

Mr. St-Pierre: Thank you very much for offering us the opportunity to illustrate our capabilities for you. I will expand upon the overview that Ms Brandon provided you.

Canada has expertise in this area. We know how to deal with disasters. Unfortunately, we under-utilize the tools that we have, often due to lack of funding. Ms Branson mentioned the case of Mozambique.

It is shocking that Canadian taxpayers are spending $500 million annually in disaster recovery, yet we do not have $50,000 to use this technology to its full potential. Perhaps that should be addressed.

We all know that disasters are very costly. There are different ways of dealing with them, both in prevention and response to minimize damages and, afterwards, in mitigation. I will tell you something about what satellites like RADARSAT and others can offer toward that.

Often disasters are unexpected. We do have good weather prediction systems, but sometimes they are not fully accurate. I came from Montreal today. On the weekend, it was forecast that we would receive 5 to 10 centimetres of snow. I left my car on the street. By the next day, we had received 40 centimetres of snow. We are living in a time of strange weather phenomena, and we have to cope with it.

Disasters are very complex to deal with. There was much talk here today about floods and earthquakes, but there are other kinds of disasters around the world, including volcanoes. There are about eight different types of natural disasters with which we must deal. Each is unique in terms of planning and reaction.

Many organizations are involved in this. Representatives from DND mentioned that there are three major areas: cooperation, technology, and partnership. That is the key. In disaster response, time is of the essence. It involves many people in the chain of command, from those in power who make the decisions to those in the field who are filling the sandbags.

Access to different types of information is crucial. As Ms Branson illustrated, we have learned how to use satellite imagery, but we must combine it with other information to assist the people in the field who need to take decisions in responding to disasters. Access to that information is important.

Finally, training and education is important, not only for the population but for those involved in the response process who can make use of the system. It is important to train and educate them, but it is also very important to have rehearsals. I cannot stress that enough.

Our satellite is leading-edge technology in the civilian word. We should be proud of it. It is a reliable system. At times of floods, for example, there is cloud coverage. A radar system is not affected by that constraint. With this satellite, we have different ways of looking at the earth. The wide mode can cover large areas. We used this mode in the Red River flood to provide the detailed information that was required.

We selected this radar system for use in Canada because of the characteristics of the country. It is very wide. Our coastal areas frequently have cloud coverage and our northern areas have long periods of darkness. However, there are many other systems available that could be used to support disaster management. We have talked about the weather systems that are good in terms of providing warnings.

RADARSAT gives us the ability to see and monitor our country very quickly. The slide on the screen is a mosaic of Canada that we generated just this year over a six-day period. The northern part of Canada is accessible on a daily basis. With the different imaging modes you saw on that pictogram, the rest of Canada can be imaged each day and a half to three days, depending upon the level of resolution required. This is unique and we should be proud of it.

We turn now to the space system. This pictogram shows us a satellite. CSA mission control talks to the satellite and gives it commands. We have the ability to tell it how to work.

In a disaster-management environment, the people involved need to call upon us. They need to get in touch with one of the available order desks. In Canada, the government has one desk, which is operated by the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing in Ottawa.

What lessons have we learned? I will come back to the Red River Flood but, first, there is a tremendous amount of time lost because we are not organized properly. We talk about the national infrastructure system and that is important. People need to be aware, but we also need to be organized to timely task these satellites. Contrary to optical weather systems, which are imaging all the time, this type of satellite needs to be programmed to tell it where to aim and at what level. The reaction time is important here.

Within Canada, with the RADARSAT system, we are unique in that we have our priorities right. We use this asset to support disaster management. We have five levels of priority to task the satellite in the air. Ms Branson runs our commercial arm and distributes the data around the world and brings commercial revenues back to Canada.

The second level of priority is response to emergencies in Canada or abroad. "Emergency" is defined in terms of danger of death or a significant threat of significant damages to the environment. When an event happens and we accept that priority, it holds precedence over all other routine requests, be they commercial or not. That is a significant commitment made by Canada through the Canadian Space Agency.

We have learned a lot since the Red River flood. A period of time elapsed from the time of the request to image the area of the Red River until the time we were able to program the satellite. Forty-eight hours passed before we could accept that request. Since then, the system has been tuned and we can now accept late requests up to 29 hours before an acquisition. This is unique in the world at the moment for that type of satellite.

It used to take days, after receiving the data, to process it into a useful form of information. Over the last three years, we have been able to bring that time down to two to five hours, depending where we are around the world.

In ground infrastructure, time is a factor at every step. Once we image an area, we put it on our tape recorder, bring it back to Canada and down-link it in Gatineau. The data is processed by RADARSAT International. As Ms Branson showed us in this example, this product was prepared and delivered to DND, who were on site in Mozambique to help cope with the situation.

The cumulative time here is 4.5 hours from the time the data was acquired using tape recorder. When we are dealing in Canada, the time from the reception of the data to the generation of a useful information product for the people in the field could be as short as 2.5 to 5 hours.

The Red River flood triggered our ability to make use of such a system. Until that flood, we knew we could use the system in an operational manner, but the event was so important that we worked together to try to raise the awareness and to make use of the information. We learned a lot.

Through CSA, CCRS and RSI, we documented all the behind-the-scenes work that happened at the Red River, the human side and the technology side. All the aspects are contained in this document, which we have reprinted twice now. It is quite a popular document because it tells everything about the technology in a simple manner; it gives the testimony of those who used it telling how and why they used it and how pleased they were with the process.

Regarding the earth observation aspect, we must prepare for the phenomena that will happen in various places. The weather satellite system has a role in providing warnings. Radar data was available regarding Red River. Mr. Paul from CCRS has been using the data to provide input to the flood forecast system. The satellite images can be used in springtime to determine the water equivalent, and input can be provided to the hydrologists in order for them to predict the flow forecasts. This ability was useful in anticipating the significance of the Red River flood.

On the response side, the satellite can provide tactical information. We discovered this in the Red River case, too. Prior to that event, we thought of using the satellite from a strategic perspective, for planning activities and/or assessing the damages from a mitigation perspective.

We found out that, tactically, we could provide images and information products that were useful to DND and the other people in the field.

At that later time, CCRS will provide more detail on the satellite's usefulness in mitigation, but the international steering committee that has been following up on the Red River flood uses a lot of the data acquired by RADARSAT. We acquired about 36 images at the time, and we were able to monitor the flood from South Dakota right up to the lower steps of Winnipeg. That tremendously valuable data set is currently being used to design mitigation measures.

Who has been using the data in the case of Red River? National Defence had a major role to play at the time. This was an historical event. We were able to provide DND with imagery, which was subsequently turned into maps that DND employed to deploy its resources to cope with evacuations. The data was also used by the Manitoba Remote Sensing Centre. They provided the highway department with flood-extend maps, allowing them to identify the parts of the highway system that were flooded and in need of signage in order to close those roadways to public traffic. The data was also provided to the water resources branch where hydrologists update their hydrology model and their forecasts.

We did something very unique at that time: We provided the images to the media. We make poor use of this power in Canada, and that is a shame. The United States use their systems in significant ways and the data is made available to the media. In the case of the Red River, we were fortunate to work with the media, to learn their time lines and the type of information they would like.

One of our images shows a view from 800 kilometres above the surface. At the time of the Red River flood, the CBC were calling it "the Red Sea" because of the magnitude of the floodwaters, which spread about 40 kilometres across.

Space systems and images like this, when properly prepared, can be a significant tool in assisting the authorities to pass on messages to the population and to provide guidance.

The Department of Agriculture's farm rehabilitation program has made extensive use of the data, with the support of Vantage Point, to help them cope with the farmers' requirements at the time and to assess damages.

I broke down this overview into usages before the event, during the event, and after the event. Before the event, the satellite can be used as a flood-warning system. It is one more tool that can be used by hydrologists to help improve the accuracy of the forecast and to get a lead on an event and then to monitor its progress. During the flood, the use was for emergency response. The people in the field could be provided with simple, useful information to make decisions on the spot. Finally, post-flood, you heard from our colleague from the insurance industry. The information is used in the U.S. extensively to update the risk plan.

The flood zone mass we know, but I think something can be done in Canada with the ability to effect the changes to the behaviour of the people living in those areas.

This is an example of the image that was taken at the time. As I said, we had more than 37 images. We were able to cope with and see the progress of the flood right up to the doorstep. We see here the floodway and how it protected Winnipeg. I am sure you recall the dike that was been built, in a desperate manner, in a matter of hours and days. You can see how RADARSAT has been useful in terms of mitigation, the new extent of the flood, how it reached that new dike and how, if that dike would not have been built, it would have affected the City of Winnipeg. You see the water there is in blue. Ms Branson showed you that. This is not the way the radar system looks. You see a dark picture, black and white and grey tones. This is the way that we have learned to show people in a simple manner the extent of the flood, who is affected, how, and the reach of it.

There are other examples. This system can be used for flood monitoring and oil spill monitoring. It was used in the case of the Irving Whale barge a few years back. This is another way we could use it to respond to a disaster situation.

The lesson that we learned with RADARSAT in the case of the Red River is that time is paramount. Planning is essential. I told you we do have a system, but until people are ready to make use of it, it is useless. At Emergency Preparedness, people do have emergency plans and contingency plan measures. Unless the procedures are being incorporated into these plans, these systems cannot be put to work effectively. The reaction time is critical. When something happens, we need to task the satellite in a very timely manner. Someone needs to know which resources can be used at the time, and we will talk about the need for an infrastructure to help deal with this.

The second point about time is budget. Ms Branson mentioned this. Using the system costs money. We need to process the data, and we need to send the data to the people who are requesting it. The amount of money is not that significant, but at times it could be a major constraint to our ability to use that asset in a timely manner and provide the information to the people who need it.

A national infrastructure is required. RADARSAT is one type of satellite. We have the weather satellite and some optical satellites. RADARSAT is not that good in the situation of a forest fire. It is not adequate enough. It is good when it comes to measuring the damages, say, a year after, but optical data is more useful at the beginning. There are different tools available. What is essential is a national infrastructure that can interface with various tools to call for the information and make it available in a timely manner.

The Red River flood taught us that, in terms of image information and product handling, the people in the field and the volunteers who are filling sandbags need simple solutions. We have learned now to better package and better deliver the right level of information.

The Chairman: I must stop you there. I apologize. We have almost run out of time for questions. I want to invite one or two of the members who indicated that they want to ask questions to do so, and perhaps those questions will give you the opportunity to put on the record your further comments.

Mr. St-Pierre: If I could make just one more comment, we have learned that it is very important to be more operational. It is important that people realize the operational dimension of coping with these systems.

Senator Moore: When was RADARSAT launched into orbit?

Mr. St-Pierre: It was launched into orbit in November 1995.

Senator Moore: Who owns it?

Mr. St-Pierre: The Canadian government, through the Canadian Space Agency.

Senator Moore: What is the relationship between the agency and RADARSAT International represented by Ms Branson? You mentioned commercial partners. What is that?

Mr. St-Pierre: RADARSAT is a partnership at the international level between NASA and the Canadian government, with industry in Canada, with RADARSAT International represented here, and with the provincial governments. RADARSAT International is our commercial arm. Over and above our data requirements in Canada, we are distributing the data around the world.

Senator Moore: You sell this information to international customers, governments, agencies, whatever?

Mr. St-Pierre: Yes.

Senator Moore: Who gives the instructions to take an image, for example, of Mozambique?

Ms Branson: There are five order desks, basically. Each one puts in its own acquisition request. It is the CSA's job to go through the list of requests. The requests are put in order of priority. Based on that, the CSA programs the satellite. The data then comes down to a facility either in Gatineau or in Prince Albert. These facilities are managed by CCRS. Our company processes the data and sends it out to the client.

Senator Moore: The space agency actually tells the satellite which image to acquire.

Ms Branson: That is right.

Mr. St-Pierre: We operate the satellite and tell it what to do according to the requests we receive. Another important aspect in making use of this is that the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing is developing applications to make use of this technology and is working with industry to provide the support.

Senator Stratton: A year ago this time, because of the snow pack in the Rocky Mountains, there was a forecast of very severe flooding along the Fraser River. However, what actually occurred was gradual slow melting instead of a sudden warming and melting. Were you asked to take any images of the snow pack and the potential of flooding in that area?

Mr. St-Pierre: Yes. At the time, we were asked to get involved. After the Red River flood, we told people that we needed to be proactive, and we spread the message. The B.C. government did get in touch with us, through the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing and Vantage Point International, to begin to image the critical area in order to get ready, in case of a flood. We did acquire images over the site, but fortunately for the people in British Columbia, the flood did not occur. It was not as severe as they thought that it might be. The Fraser Valley Authority, if I recall, at the time, had been working in making use of that technology, and using that type of information.

Currently, B.C. Hydro has been looking at this in terms of erosion. They have been looking at the images to see if they can help them review their transmission lines and identify measures to prevent damages to their transmission lines resulting from erosion.

Senator Stratton: RADARSAT, in my opinion, saved a lot of towns and villages, in my area, from flooding. When the flood hit in North Dakota, the real extent of it was not known. As we were starting to prepare, we were doing only modest dikes. When the full impact became known through the RADARSAT images, there was substantial change in the approach to creating the dikes. We were very fortunate in being able to have the lead time, thanks to these folks, to prepare properly. Thus, I am a strong advocate of a continuation and enhancement of what they do.

Senator Mahovlich: I want to return to the snowstorm on Sunday, in Montreal. I had an appointment in Montreal. Our airplane circled Montreal for 15 minutes. The plane could not land. It seems to me that satellites could have provided this information earlier. Had we known the day before, I could have taken the train.

Can the airports get together and make use of this satellite system?

Mr. St-Pierre: You have a feeling for the capabilities of the systems, but there are still limits. The daily forecast could be inaccurate at any time. In Montreal, we were forecasting only five centimetres to ten centimetres.

Senator Mahovlich: It was 10 inches. There is quite a difference between 10 centimetres and 10 inches.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. St-Pierre and Ms Branson. It was very interesting. Thank you, honourable senators.

The committee adjourned.