Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 6 - Evidence - Meeting of March 3, 2008
OTTAWA, Monday, March 3, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:13 p.m. to examine and report upon the national security policy of Canada (emergency preparedness).
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[Français]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. My name is Collin Kenny and I chair the committee. Before we start, I will introduce the members of the committee.
On my immediate right is Senator David Tkachuk, from Saskatchewan. He was appointed to the Senate in June 1993. Over the years, he has been a businessman, public servant and teacher. Senator Tkachuk is deputy chair of the committee. Beside him is Senator Grant Mitchell, from Alberta, who was appointed to the Senate in March 2005. He has had careers in the Alberta public service, in the financial industry and in politics. From 1986 to 1998, he sat in the Alberta legislature and was leader of the opposition from 1994 to 1998. He also sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Beside him is Senator Wilfred Moore, from Nova Scotia, who was called to the Senate in September 1996. He represents the senatorial division of Stanhope St.-South Shore in Nova Scotia. He has been active at the municipal level in Halifax-Dartmouth and has served on the board of governors of St. Mary's University. On my left is Senator Nancy Ruth. She is a feminist activist from Ontario and has been a senator since March 2005. She is a member of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Beside her is Senator Tommy Banks, from Alberta. He was called to the Senate in April 2000. He is known to many Canadians as an accomplished and versatile musician and entertainer. Senator Banks is Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and is a member of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. At the end of the table, we have Senator Joseph Day, from New Brunswick, who was appointed to the Senate in 2001. He was a successful private practice attorney. Currently, he is Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and Deputy Chair of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
As background for members of the public, in March 2004 this committee published a comprehensive report on the state of Canada's readiness nationwide to respond to man-made and natural disasters. The report clearly indicated that Canada was not well-prepared to deal with national emergencies. This committee has undertaken a review of the current state of emergency response capabilities to check on the pace of progress at all levels of emergency response organizations from local to federal.
Our witness today is Mr. Randy Hull, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator for the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba. He is here to discuss energy management operations from a municipal perspective, while also providing details on the interrelationship between local first responders, their provincial emergency management counterparts and the lines of support and communications with the federal government. We had the fortune to meet with Mr. Hull on our last visit to Winnipeg, where we were impressed with what he had to tell committee members.
Mr. Hull, we understand you have a brief statement to make. Please proceed.
Randy Hull, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, City of Winnipeg: Good afternoon. I bring greetings from Winnipeg, Manitoba, and I thank the committee for this wonderful opportunity to present to you today and answer some of your questions.
Winnipeg is the capital of Manitoba with approximately 60 per cent of the population of Manitoba. It is unique in that we do not have a neighbouring city of like size and dimension that we can rely on in disasters. We stand alone. We have a small emergency preparedness program in Winnipeg compared to other cities. We have an active community that supports the emergency preparedness program, and a fairly extensive list of plans has been developed and implemented. With respect to training, we look at trends and address the lessons learned after every exercise that we have in the city.
I come before the committee eager to share my insight and passion toward emergency preparedness. I think we can do a better job — in our city, provincially and in Canada. My comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the corporation or the administration of the City of Winnipeg. I understand you have thoughts and questions, and I am ready for them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hull. You set a record bested only by the head of CSIS, who comes before us without a statement.
Senator Tkachuk: You have the flood plan down pat, I would think.
Mr. Hull: After committee revisions and a good test in 1997, we have it well in hand.
Senator Tkachuk: Do you share your experiences with others?
Mr. Hull: Yes. In most disaster situations, you are timely and topical for about one or two years. We did the travelling road show in late 1997 and 1998, but since 1999-2000 we have not spoken to people about the flood of 1997. You can be topical for a while following a disaster but can quickly fall off the charts.
Senator Tkachuk: What kind of relationship do you have with the provincial emergency measures officer? Do you have meetings with other urban centres or do you have some sort of approach? Who coordinates it all?
Mr. Hull: Using 1997 as a benchmark, since then things with the provincial government have not been as good as they could have been. Since that time, we have put a lot of time and energy into developing a better rapport. Changes to the Emergency Measures Act in Manitoba reflect better coordination between municipalities and the province. I sit on an inter-agency committee that is hosted by the Manitoba Emergency Measures Organization, EMO. We meet monthly, which is positive. I am on the phone with Mr. Don Brennan, Manitoba EMO Preparedness and Response Coordinator, at least twice a week. We have a positive relationship in that sense.
As for other emergency managers and partners in Canada, we meet at different conferences if we can get to them. Most municipal governments are strapped for cash to travel around the country. We take advantage when possible to meet counterparts throughout Canada. I am going to Halifax in a couple of weeks and will meet Mr. Barry Manuel, the EMO coordinator there. I saw Mr. Robert Black, Edmonton's emergency response coordinator last fall and we had some constructive conversations. We stay in touch by regular email.
Senator Tkachuk: Manitoba would be a good example of the need for coordination because when the flood hits, other communities in the southern part of the province are affected. You have to deal with it in a coordinated manner. Is this plan the result of what you learned after the fact or was there a semi-developed plan in place before?
Mr. Hull: The flood of 1997 was preceded in 1996 by a smaller flood that was in some regards equally devastating to Southern Manitoba. There were lessons learned. My comments are more in regards to the City of Winnipeg.
We partner with our neighbours to the south of Winnipeg. However, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Manitoba Emergency Measures Organization. We do not have a lot of direction in regard to their planning, although we end up as a host community for many of those municipalities when they have to evacuate.
Senator Tkachuk: Who allocates the resources needed when there is a flood? Does someone make decisions about the need for manpower or sandbags?
Mr. Hull: When Southern Manitoba is in a flood condition, the provincial Emergency Coordination Centre, ECC, is operated by EMO, located in downtown Winnipeg. They allocate resources throughout Southern Manitoba. They put an emergency preparedness adviser in most of the major communities and ensure that sandbags, supplies and inventories move around Southern Manitoba effectively.
Winnipeg is considered to be resource-rich, having our own public works and water utility departments. Therefore, we are on a stand-alone basis. For example, the only resources requested from the provincial government in 1997 were sandbag sleeves.
Senator Tkachuk: What are the biggest challenges you face in delivering your mandate? What are the most pressing emergency management priorities at this time?
Mr. Hull: The challenges relate to the most recent happenings. When I do training in my courses, I often tell participants that they are only as good as their last disaster. If you have not had a disaster recently, you start falling off the radar. The thinking and the delivery of programs become difficult to do because people start to question the efforts: There is no flood this spring, so what are we doing? We have not had an airplane crash, so why plan for them as much? We have not had a train derailment, so why do those exercises?
As you go through the changes of local, provincial and federal governments, you are always fighting the battle of putting yourself on the radar in regard to the need to be prepared. We plan and conduct exercises to be ready for those activities.
Senator Tkachuk: What are the most pressing emergency management priorities at this time?
Mr. Hull: Across Canada, we need to coordinate ourselves better with regard to having similar mandates of mission and statement. It is difficult to look at what other cities have compared to Winnipeg. I know it is a municipal responsibility to fund the program, but it would be nice if there were provincial legislation or federal direction. What you see in Winnipeg should be similar to what you see in Edmonton.
Senator Tkachuk: Our committee's 2007 emergency preparedness survey found that 95 per cent of the responding municipalities conduct some form of risk assessment in their community. Can you address how your community conducts its risk assessment? Is it a standardized process? Are the provincial or federal governments involved? Is there a need for federal or provincial standards?
Mr. Hull: As I indicated in response to your earlier question, there is certainly a need to standardize the process across Canada. Right now we all use different models. What Ottawa has in place is totally different from what Winnipeg has in place.
Senator Tkachuk: Which model do you use?
Mr. Hull: We use one based on the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, model where you look at history, vulnerability, probability and potential. For example, we have a history with flooding, but not with airplane crashes other than small airplanes. You examine the history and the probability and determine what the vulnerability is to the public. We equate that into a formula and draw a line. You plan for anything that scores higher than 100. Anything that scores lower than 100, if you do not have the resources, you put aside and plan for later if you can.
Nothing is set in stone about how we are to do a risk assessment. The Province of Manitoba, through the Office of the Fire Commissioner, did a general province-wide risk assessment of all communities. I spent one day with a gentleman in Winnipeg, and he wrote a risk assessment for Winnipeg that I do not quite agree with. However, we have our own assessment. We review what comes into the city in the way of new industry or new commerce and we assess what risk that might entail.
Senator Tkachuk: Do you table a report or prepare something at the end of year?
Mr. Hull: Internally we do. There is nothing forwarded to the province as an annual risk assessment from the city.
Senator Tkachuk: Do you forward it to the city council?
Mr. Hull: Yes, internally. From time to time, the assessment is directed to different committees from city council.
The Chair: I was reviewing the report we received from you on risk assessment. When asked how often how a risk assessment is conducted, you answered, ``Not very often.''
Mr. Hull: Correct.
The Chair: What constitutes often? Is it every five years or every three years?
Mr. Hull: The risk assessment is reviewed when new commerce or industry comes into Winnipeg. For example, when we had the Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health, also known as the Level 4 virology lab, we reviewed the potential for risk. As some of the rail lines in Winnipeg changed and were taken out of service, we changed risk assessments for particular parts of the city.
Two major rivers run through the city. Both the CN and CP main lines go through Winnipeg, and we have an international airport in the city. Those are the greatest risks.
The Chair: Is there a common set of metrics in the province? Does the province prescribe how to develop a risk assessment and create a formula? If you looked at the risk assessment in one community and compared it to another, would you understand essentially what they meant?
Mr. Hull: No. I have never been given a template for a risk assessment. I would say that the risk assessments done in Manitoba are generally very subjective and not objective.
The Chair: Has there ever been a discussion about having a standard formula?
Mr. Hull: It has been suggested from time to time. I am not sure if the risk assessment template would be the same for the Winnipeg, which is a very large city compared to a smaller town of maybe only 700 residents. There would have to be different templates.
However, I think there is a need to address the issue on the same template. Because Winnipeg is such a stand-alone case for Manitoba, I think it should be part of a federal template. Any municipalities greater than 100,000 should follow a federal template, and let the province worry about the smaller communities.
The Chair: Would there be a role for Public Safety Canada to consult with different communities?
Mr. Hull: I think Public Safety Canada and the emergency preparedness division should consider something like that.
The Chair: Should it be divided up according to population size?
Mr. Hull: Perhaps; it is not a given. I am just thinking off the top of my head at the moment.
Senator Mitchell: I am very interested in how you need national leadership, but it is very difficult to get it when you have three jurisdictions and one of them is primarily responsible.
I am interested in what you said about singling out major centres and having some federal role in that. How would you see that funded? Certainly not by the municipalities, I would imagine.
Mr. Hull: That is the difficulty with some past federal programs that are one-shot programs. The Joint Emergency Preparedness Program, JEPP, funding that was released after 9/11 for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive events, CBRNE, was a one-time effort. When it was rolled out, it was not very clear what the parameters were.
We submitted a JEPP application for CBRNE. We had a motorcoach kind of delivery, like a bus contraption, where you go in dirty at one end and come out the other end clean. A couple months after that, the program excluded anything that has a motor. We resubmitted in a trailer format that could be pulled. Then they said ``Nothing that has wheels.'' They kept revamping the process.
Back to your question about direction for the larger municipalities, I think if the government's role is to protect its citizens, protecting metropolitan areas greater than 100,000 people would be a good start. Let the provinces worry about the smaller municipalities.
The Province of Manitoba has to deal with nearly 200 municipalities. They deal with most of them quite well through their area representatives. They leave Winnipeg alone because they know I am there, but I am still a one- person shop in a city of just under 650,000 people.
My counterpart in the City of Edmonton, Mr. Black, has done a very good job of putting his program out there and explaining the value of it. It is a nice program with four or five people. However, I think he too would suggest that the federal government should have some role in ensuring that we are all doing a decent risk assessment and seeing what kind of resources we need for that.
Certainly, if the federal government were to suggest in legislation of some sort that cities do this, I think there would need to be some funding. That would be a financial burden on the city that financially they could not accept at this time.
The Chair: I have one last point on risk assessment. You also reported to the committee that you did not involve industry when you were preparing the risk assessment. Was it because industry had no interest or because you did not have the resources to contact them?
Mr. Hull: We did not have the resources to do a lot of follow-up. Once you knock on a couple of doors and get them involved in the process, it is very labour intensive to continue with them in the process. In one year I would have to decide to do risk assessments and involve industry and commerce, but I would have to let everything else fall off the table. I would have be able to train, do research or have an exercise in that year. I would need more people to make those contacts.
We do some contact with them. Perhaps to explain my response to that, I was speaking in the general term. We do not overly involve them, but I do make a call to CN or CP railways once a year to talk about what lines are dormant so that we do not have to worry about a risk assessment for any hazardous materials down that piece of track. There is slight involvement, but not to the extent I think there should be.
Senator Day: Mr. Hull, thank you for your hospitality when our committee visited Winnipeg last year. We have already mentioned the questionnaire that we circulated to various municipalities across Canada, and we received a response from Winnipeg. Was that prepared by you or by your office?
Mr. Hull: It was prepared by me.
Senator Day: How many people do you have in your office?
Mr. Hull: There is myself.
Senator Day: That is it?
Mr. Hull: That is it.
Senator Day: You indicated that you met on a regular basis with others and you have a committee involved in the Winnipeg area. Would that involve the police and the firefighters?
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Senator Day: What other community groups would be involved?
Mr. Hull: Our emergency preparedness coordinating committee at the City of Winnipeg is made up of the same players who would come if we activated the emergency operations centre. We meet monthly. There are representatives from the police, fire and paramedics, public aid, public utilities, public works, public information, human resources, legal, human resources and the risk manager; the committee also includes the chief emergency coordinator, who is the chief operating officer of the City of Winnipeg.
Senator Day: Did you say the chief emergency person?
Mr. Hull: I am the emergency preparedness coordinator, but when we are in active or planning times, the chief emergency coordinator is the chief administrative officer in our plan. The chief administrative officer is currently in an acting position. We just hired a new chief administrative officer last week, and he will come on board with the city in April.
The chief emergency coordinator wears the hat of the CAO of the city, but if we activate or when we have these monthly meetings, the chief emergency coordinator, also the CAO, chairs the meetings. I do the daily activity around the program and then the chief emergency coordinator chairs the meetings.
Senator Day: In the event of an emergency, it is the chief emergency person who steps in and takes over coordination of the activity; is that right?
Mr. Hull: They would step in to the emergency operations centre and ensure that it is being coordinated. They may hand it back to me as the emergency preparedness coordinator. Each CAO comes to the table with different skill sets and comforts. Those who have felt comfortable doing so have taken charge and have led some exercises in the past. On the other hand, others in that position have not had such strong skills around emergency preparedness and have deferred to me to manage the emergency operations centre.
Senator Day: The CAO is the chief administrative officer for the operations of the city.
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Senator Day: In an emergency, that person has an important role to play in the operations.
Mr. Hull: Yes. We have one level above that, our emergency control committee, which includes the mayor, the executive policy committee and other positions within the city. Operationally, we will respond to an event, but how we carry through some policy decisions is decided upon by the control committee. We might ask to suspend bus operations, for example. That might be our recommendation, but the emergency control committee, which includes the mayor, has the right to agree or, if they are not comfortable with that recommendation, to make an alternate plan.
Senator Day: I thought I heard you say earlier that when a new industry comes into town you do a new risk assessment. With your further answer, I was not certain if that was in fact the case.
Do the Armed Forces have a role to play in your risk assessment? You did not mention them in this committee. The Armed Forces are a major player in Winnipeg, given the air base located there. Could you talk about their role? Could you also talk about activities that could possibly pose a risk? I am thinking of Armed Forces' activities or the activities of another major industry, such as the rail lines through Winnipeg. How do you factor those into your planning?
Mr. Hull: We understand that NORAD is located in Winnipeg and associated with the air force base on the other side of the Winnipeg International Airport. The role of the military in Winnipeg is not built into our plan in a structured way. If we need to request the military, we let the Manitoba Emergency Measures Organization know that we need their assistance. In 1997, the military were very helpful to the residents in their sandbagging efforts. In more dangerous situations, the military took over the sandbagging from the residents. They performed maintenance of dikes already built and provided security around them.
Today, our contact with the military is through the domestic operations office located in Winnipeg. The military is not built into the plan, per se, but they are present on a response basis.
Senator Day: Does your request for assistance go through the provincial government?
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Senator Day: Does any training involve the military as one of the responders to an emergency situation?
Mr. Hull: The City of Winnipeg conducts its own basic emergency management training. We provide seats within our training to our stakeholders in the city of Winnipeg. For example, anyone from the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, Manitoba Hydro or Winnipeg Regional Health Authority can have a seat in our course.
The military tie is to the province, so their training would be through the provincial basic emergency preparedness program held across Manitoba. To date, I have run some training in the Winnipeg emergency preparedness class. I have not had a military person in my class but I am sure they are attending the Manitoba classes.
Senator Day: Any training with the military would be through the Manitoba EMO.
Mr. Hull: Yes. The military are part of the monthly meeting hosted by the province. The inter-agency meeting includes the City of Winnipeg, City of Brandon, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Telecom Services, all the provincial departments with emergency roles and the military.
Senator Day: Do you participate at that meeting?
Mr. Hull: Yes, as the representative for the City of Winnipeg.
Senator Day: You talked earlier about supplies in the event of an emergency. During the survey that we asked you to reply to, we asked if you were aware of the federal emergency stockpile system. In our travels, we discovered that in certain areas people did not know about this stockpile and the material wasn't up to date. Could you will tell us about the National Emergency Services Stockpile, NESS? What does it look like? Have you seen it? Would it be helpful to see it? Does it complement what the City of Winnipeg has?
Mr. Hull: I know the location of the federal stockpile system in Winnipeg. I have not seen it but I know the location and the building because I have driven past it many times. I know that the Province of Manitoba has on occasion over the last couple of years pulled out the hospital-in-a-box concept and worked hard to assemble it. I have heard that it is antiquated and difficult to work with.
I am more familiar with the stockpile that we have in our facilities for the Red Cross. For me, that is more attainable and reachable.
Senator Day: We would have to talk to the federal people to determine what that stockpile looks like in Winnipeg. Or, would the provincial people in Manitoba be able to help us?
Mr. Hull: Yes. It is probably more important for them to know exactly what is in their inventory and what is available. If I have any requests outside the bounds of our city resources, I go to the province first and ask them. The federal government has some things in resource to a city but I do not need to know all of them. Rather, I need to know my contact levels in the Province of Manitoba.
Senator Day: I am still looking at your survey responses. There were a number of items to which you answered ``Unsure.'' Since that survey, have you been able to obtain a more precise answer to those questions? One of them was, ``Does your community have the capacity to manage a cyber attack?'' Presumably, as an emergency planning exercise you did not have something. Do you have something now?
Mr. Hull: For a cyber attack, are you talking about IT technology?
Senator Day: Yes.
Mr. Hull: After I answered that question, I am sure I reviewed with our Winnipeg Police Service their link between the city, the RCMP ``D'' Division detachment in Winnipeg and their contacts at the province. I also checked with our internal IT services for the City of Winnipeg. I understand we have a plan to deal with a cyber attack that is more on the side of infiltration into our technology. The plans are in place but I do not know all the details. I am more confident that we have a plan.
Senator Day: Maybe our survey helped expand the area of coverage.
Another unsure response was to the survey question, ``Are your communications systems interoperable with all departments and agencies in your province, other levels of government, and U.S. authorities where applicable?'' Was the question too broad? Let us forget about the U.S. initially. Are you interoperable within the greater Winnipeg area?
Mr. Hull: Yes, we are interoperable in Manitoba because we have the Fleetnet Radio Identification Numbers system. The major players — Winnipeg fire, paramedic and police services — all use a Fleetnet service when their departmental radios fail. As a backbone to the plan, we also use ham radio operators extensively. Because of that, we feel we are more interoperable than we were before. We have had it in our back pocket for 10 years since the flood, and they participate in all of our exercises.
Senator Day: You have a more precise understanding of that now than you had when you responded to the survey.
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Senator Day: Does that include northern American states adjoining Manitoba? Does the Red River problem spill over the border?
Mr. Hull: I am unsure of the northern states but Manitoba Emergency Measures Organization could answer that question for you. I understand that memorandums of understanding are being developed with the northern states, such as North Dakota and Minnesota.
Senator Day: You answered in response to our questions that you are waiting for CANALERT?
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Senator Day: Have you received assurances that CANALERT, a federal government initiative, will help with communications by overriding all other communication systems to help in an emergency?
Mr. Hull: The information I have obtained about CANALERT is that it is to come online in 2010. One year ago at a conference, I saw a presentation on CANALERT and how it will work. They dialled in and the BlackBerry, email and telephone were activated and the crawler went across the television located in the room. We are waiting for CANALERT. The City of Winnipeg does not have the resources to broadcast and we do not have any agreements with the Manitoba broadcasters group, although the Province of Manitoba has had discussions with them.
Most people in Winnipeg turn to a local AM radio station that has a listenership of about 20 per cent in the mornings. Any time we have threatening weather, the listenership can go above 50 per cent. We have an exhaustive list of who we can talk to in the media to get our messaging out. However, we do not have the resources to put in Reverse 911 or a program where we subscribe to a text-messaging system. There is software out there, but they all have per-user or licensing costs. We are waiting for CANALERT.
I think that is a provincial and a federal initiative. Why would Brandon have its own system when Winnipeg has a system? The same thing is true for the Province of Alberta. Why would Calgary and Edmonton each create a system? We should have one common system across Canada so that, regardless of where you travel in Canada, you know how you will get a disaster message or an important message about events that are occurring.
Senator Day: You have been in the emergency management business for 15 years in Winnipeg. You have a lot of contacts. You exchange ideas on an informal basis with many contacts across the country.
Mr. Hull: That is correct. The contacts we make at conferences or at meetings across Canada are very important. It would be helpful if there were a better way to network with contacts and be on chat groups. Most of our networking happens because we are part of different associations. Members of the Canadian Public Works Association or the International Association of Emergency Managers are better networked than those going through the provincial or federal levels of government. It is quite surprising that we have to work at maintaining our contacts when there should be a floor or a platform for that. That is what I would like to see.
I often email my counterparts all over Canada to ask a question. After we have an exercise, if a question comes up or a unique lesson is learned, I am willing to throw out information to all my colleagues across Canada: ``When we did exercise with our airport authority, we learned this. Did anyone else learn that?'' It is interesting how people click ``reply all.'' We learn a ton of stuff.
Senator Day: However, that is all informal, is it not?
Mr. Hull: Yes, it is very informal. It would be better if we captured it in a national way so that we can all learn. I probably have 30 to 40 email contacts. That is nowhere near what it could be for Canada.
Senator Tkachuk: Are your contacts only Canadian or does that email message go to people you know internationally?
Mr. Hull: I do have international contacts, yes. Some international contacts have been made by sharing a business card at a conference. I have a couple of contacts in Australia, London, New Orleans and Grand Forks, south of us, which had severe flooding in 1997. We were just a couple of inches away from that event.
Senator Day: Earlier you mentioned that you spoke to someone who was very involved in the flooding in New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina, and you asked if they checked with North Dakota. Could you tell us that story? I think it illustrates the importance of overall coordination.
Mr. Hull: Our public health agency and health care providers had a conference, and a doctor was there from New Orleans. He was one of the doctors who had to evacuate the Tulane hospital and was also responsible for all the hospitals getting back together. I asked him during our conversation whether he had ever spoken to the people from Grand Forks. They also lost 80 per cent of their city. Although smaller in size, the structure of their recovery program was unique.
The City of Winnipeg developed its recovery plan based on a plan out of Australia and on the city of Grand Forks. I presented that at the World Conference on Disaster Management back in 2002. We wanted to share that.
The doctor from New Orleans said, ``Grand Forks, North Dakota? Why would I call them?'' I am sure that some people in Louisiana are not sure where Grand Forks is. They are landlocked. I told him that they had the same situation, though on a smaller scale, and that their recovery plan was exhaustive, unique and worked so well that they had recovered within five years, while New Orleans after more than two years was still in dire straits. I gave him the names of my three contacts in Grand Forks. One of those three called me a month later and said, ``I am going to New Orleans for three months.''
It took a contact from New Orleans talking to someone in Winnipeg to be told about Grand Forks. Why is the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, not saying, ``Here is a perfect case scenario of another American city that you should follow''?
Likewise, here in Canada it would be nice to learn more about other regions. I have learned about the B.C. forest fires and the evacuations from 2003, but I heard it from my counterparts in B.C.; never have I seen anything federal like an exhaustive list of things learned from B.C. or learned from the flooding in Quebec. I am not sure what the policy people and the planners are doing in Ottawa at the federal level; we are not sharing that information as well as we could be.
The Chair: There has been a recurring theme: there is no central repository of best practices.
Senator Moore: Thank you for being here, Mr. Hull. Senator Day covered many of the areas I wanted to speak to you about. I want to refer to the committee survey in 2007. You might have touched on this a bit.
To the survey question, ``Is there is an expectation in your community that the Canadian Forces will provide assistance to your community in the event of an emergency or disaster if necessary?'' you responded, ``Unsure.''
Perhaps you are more certain today. After hearing you, is that really for the province to ascertain? You said that the participation of the Canadian Forces is not planned in a structured way. However, if you asked the province, the province would ask the Canadian Forces to help you out. Is the role of the Canadian Forces determined by the province as opposed to by a municipality?
Mr. Hull: The City's request for aid from Canadian Forces would have to go through the province. However, we must be clear about what we want from their service. They have certain limitations, and now that they have a core group called Canada Command, we know they are not into policing activities; they are more into security activities around property and resource.
In 1997, as I said, we used them for supervising, staffing the dikes and in some of the constructions in hazardous situations. They took their pontoon boats with sandbags across the rough, icy waters and tried to maintain ring dikes around homes. It was not a safe situation.
Senator Moore: This touches on what Senator Tkachuk was talking about — inventory of materials. Who knows about that?
Mr. Hull: Inventory?
Senator Moore: Yes. Who would know about a simple thing like sandbags in the event of a flood? Would you know that the Canadian Forces has X number available if you need them or do you have to wait until the situation arises? How does that unfold?
Mr. Hull: In the city's application in 1997, the sandbags that the Canadian Forces were using were from our inventory. We have a separate glacier, sand and gravel operating agency of the City of Winnipeg. We have unlimited sand and we have a company in Winnipeg that provides sandbags. We currently hold about 1 million to 1.5 million sandbags in our inventory continually. We make 40,000 every spring for overland runoff and our own use in construction. For example, last year we ramped up and produced 180,000 in preparation for some localized flooding.
If we asked the military to come to the table, it is not for the resource of sandbags. It is for the resource of people, the HR component.
Senator Moore: The manpower and the policing.
Mr. Hull: The supervision of the resource or dikes. When I said in my response that I was unsure, I meant that if we had an airplane crash, I am unsure whether we would ever get to the point that we need the military to assist us. We have a professional police service of 1,200 officers. We have a fire and paramedics service of 1,150 people. We are resource-rich because we are a city. However, if a township just outside of Winnipeg had an airplane crash, they would be more likely to ask for the resource of the military.
Senator Moore: Would that small town call upon Winnipeg?
Mr. Hull: They might, or they might make a request through the Province of Manitoba. The smaller towns in Manitoba and those that surround Winnipeg have mutual aid agreements with each other, because they are alike in size and in resources. Municipalities will have letters of understanding with each other to use their policing or their public works.
From time to time, there have been requests from a city. We will support the request if we can, but we also have to invoice for that service at a later date.
Senator Moore: There is an agreement but there is also an expectation that you pay for the service?
Mr. Hull: If one municipality is assisted by another, it pays for the services that it receives.
The Chair: On that subject, if a state of emergency is declared, the federal government contributes certain levels as well, does it not?
Mr. Hull: Yes, at a graduated level. For example, when we had flooding in 2006 and 2005, we spent about $580,000, which was not budgeted for. We have to exceed $1 per capita before we even see 50 cents on the dollar. From $1 to $3, you will see 75 per cent; and then after the $5 mark, we will hopefully receive 90 per cent on the dollar, but only on a very tight criteria of different resources.
You cannot gain an asset out of what you do. For example, in 1997 we could have bought a sandbag machine for about $30,000, but instead we rented it for $45,000, because the rules say that you cannot gain an asset, so it cannot become yours. What you do is rent it and return it later.
There are mechanisms for the City to recover some of their funds, just like any municipality, but the program is pretty tight in its criteria.
The Chair: Also, the program is sometimes not too bright; is that what you are saying?
Mr. Hull: The citizens of Winnipeg would have greater security if we had a sandbagger on our inventory continually. Maybe instead of the city's taking it into inventory, the Province of Manitoba could do so.
The Chair: There would have been a $15,000 savings in the example you gave.
Mr. Hull: Right.
Senator Moore: Do you conduct emergency management exercises?
Mr. Hull: Yes, we do. According to Manitoba Emergency Measures Organization and legislation, municipalities in Manitoba must have two major exercises every three years. We are fortunate in Winnipeg because we have the airport authority, the rail lines and a very active Manitoba hydroelectric utility.
We have done many exercises. I have probably done seven or eight in the last three years. We have done two of our own and the other five were done with other partners and stakeholders.
Senator Moore: When you have an exercise, does the whole thing kick in? Does the city administrative officer take charge, coordinate with the province? Are people from the province or the Canadian Forces involved? Is it a full-blown exercise?
Mr. Hull: The City of Winnipeg had a couple of exercises in the fall in which we partnered with the airport authority. We had a full-blown fire and paramedic response on the airport property, which was valuable to learn how that worked — what gate you go through and how you clear security.
We also had our own city-wide exercise on May 23, 2007. It was an exercise based on a tornado striking the city, and we had city, fire, paramedic and police. We worked with the school division and the regional health authority and we invited players like the Manitoba government to observe. However, we never called upon the military.
Senator Moore: Did you do this during the school year?
Mr. Hull: Yes, we did. We had the school shelter in place because it was being hit by the tornado. At a certain point, we declared, over the PA system, that the school was hit by a tornado and 20 of the students fell to the ground and pulled out a triage tag and faked their injuries. We then evacuated the school.
It was a very good learning experience for that school division. At the same time, they asked the other five major school divisions to come and participate as observers. I certainly cannot do an exercise in every school division. You do not need to do that; you just need to have one and invite everyone to come and watch for themselves what goes right and what goes wrong. It is very helpful.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Hull, this is very interesting and you have given us elaborate answers. You have spoken a great deal about your community's focus on weather-related emergencies. You have mentioned the potential for an airplane emergency.
In our surveys to municipalities across the country, 61 per cent said they had concerns about a terrorism-related event; 36 per cent were not as concerned. Do you have a concern in that regard as a community? What preparations do you have that would be unique to terrorism?
Mr. Hull: I break it down to a common denominator that, at the end of the day, something will explode or be released. Those things happen day to day in natural industry and commerce. We have had accidental releases of anhydrous ammonia at plants; we have had accidental releases of chlorine at some of our recreational facilities — pools, for one.
I always look at it as what is the end result? There is an event. How the event started, whether there was criminal intent, I leave up to the authorities such as the Winnipeg police or the RCMP. In the province of Manitoba, I can only speak for that.
I know there is a threat advisory group or TAG group. They take information that comes in.
Senator Moore: Is that provincial or the city?
Mr. Hull: The TAG group is provincial. The people on it are the City of Winnipeg police, Manitoba EMO, CSIS and the RCMP. For example, when they had the London bombing in 2005, a threat advisory was sent to the TAG group, and then our provincial TAG group said, ``What are the realities here? This was London; it was a bombing, a terrorist attack. What heightened concerns do we have in Winnipeg?''
I think there was more anxiety for places that had rapid transit systems like rail or subway systems, for example.
Back to your original question, terrorism is on the radar. I am not sure what the percentage is. I am more worried about our response capability after the event occurs. How the event happened is not as important. Our ability to respond after the blast, after the release, after the building collapses is key for me.
Senator Mitchell: You could see, though, where the nature of the response, certainly a federal level of interest, might be different in the event of a terrorist attack over a release because some value broke down in a factory.
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Senator Mitchell: Have you given any thought how the lines of authority among federal, provincial and municipal authorities would be structured in the event of a terrorist attack?
Mr. Hull: That is always a bit of a grey area. We have different properties even within the City of Winnipeg. The airport authority is on federal property. Our fire department regularly visits the federal virology lab.
We always go in with the premise that we are the lead authority at all of our events to start. Our incident command structure starts with the first on-scene district chief or platoon chief. They might share command with the Winnipeg Police Service. Then, as other authorities roll in, we may either move into a greater unified incident command or even transfer the command.
We will always maintain part of the command. We will not let any provincial or federal authority say that they are the ultimate command. If our resources are there, our firefighters and police personnel, we have to have some part of that command. We will maintain a unified command.
For example, we had a CN train derailment in January of 2005. We were in command and when they came on the scene, we then had unified command. They were looking after their interest, which is the train and their commodity. We were looking after our interest, which is the health and safety of our citizens in the surrounding area and our responders.
Another example was an airplane crash we had on a busy intersection in Winnipeg. It was a 10-seater commuter airplane that takes people to the fishing lodges in Northern Manitoba. Our Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service was incident command for the first hour because, at that stage, it is all safety and rescue. Once recovery of the injured was completed, incident command transitioned to the police. They controlled the perimeter, security and investigation. The third transfer of command occurred when the Transportation Safety Board arrived.
Getting back to your question, it is sometimes a grey area when we are on federal or provincial properties. However, if we are the responding agency, we want to be part of that unified command.
Senator Mitchell: Could you elaborate on that with respect to reserves?
Mr. Hull: Do you mean the military reserves? We do have military reserves.
Senator Mitchell: No, native reserves.
Mr. Hull: That would fall under the Manitoba Emergency Measures Organization. They tie into the reserves indirectly through MANFF, the Manitoba Association of Native Firefighters, which has the primary role of emergency response and preparedness on reserves. We do not have a reserve within the City of Winnipeg at this time.
Senator Mitchell: In your response to the questionnaire, you mentioned that the City did not have an objective to establish a category 5 urban search and rescue capability.
Could you discuss heavy urban search and rescue capability? Where is your emergency preparedness in that regard and what structural and financial role should the provincial and federal levels provide?
Mr. Hull: The heavy urban search and rescue, HUSAR, is an initiative that followed 9/11 along with CBRN, before they added the E.
In Manitoba, in both regards the thought at the provincial level was that we should create a provincial response team. The application went through the province and all the monies were channelled to one source, the Office of the Fire Commissioner. They took the CBRN money, and the City of Winnipeg received a few resources. It was the same with HUSAR. A provincial team was created, and it is still in its infancy. The City of Winnipeg is not part of HUSAR. It is now part of CBRN.
We are not part of the provincial HUSAR team because we do not have a letter of understanding with the province that clarifies what will happen if members of the city's forces on the HUSAR team respond to another locale in Manitoba for a week: Who will backfill and pay for Winnipeg staff to be in a different municipality for a week? We would have to backfill those firefighters or technicians. Since we do not have that in place, we are not part of that team. We have our in-house capability.
I cannot rate our capacity; I am not sure what category Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service would say we are at. We do have a HUSAR capability. I know they do training with the lifting supports and building movement.
Senator Mitchell: Do you use the Calgary centre for training?
Mr. Hull: The City of Winnipeg has sent people to Calgary. However, that is more on an observation level. The Province of Manitoba, through the Office of the Fire Commissioner, has been in Calgary.
Senator Mitchell: I think you may have answered this, but I want to be sure. Could you give us a summary of what you feel your preparedness is or your capabilities are in the area of CBRNE.
Mr. Hull: Our capability in that regard is better because we are now part of the provincial team. On CBRNE, we realize that if it is in relation to criminal intent, Winnipeg is most likely the target. That is why we have participated on that team.
I am proud to say that one of our fire paramedic personnel is one of the lead instructors on CBRNE at the college. We know that we have that resource in-house; therefore, we feel confident. All of our firefighters have the level 1. Many have the level 2. I believe more than 40 have the level 3 and there are probably a dozen or more in level 4. That is off the top of my head; those are not exact numbers.
Senator Mitchell: You said that some of your personnel train at the centre.
Mr. Hull: They are the facilitators.
Senator Mitchell: You also indicated in your response to the questionnaire that you believe the training received by Winnipeg's emergency management personnel from the Canadian Emergency Management College is insufficient. That is how we interpreted your answer to that question, but we might be wrong. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Hull: I want to clarify that the training provided at the college is excellent. The number of spots allocated to the City of Winnipeg is insufficient.
There was a time when the provincial government preached incident command. However, the college did not want to say ``incident command.'' They wanted to talk about site management and called the course ``emergency site management.'' The City of Winnipeg was not getting slots on that one course. That has since changed.
I am not sure of the numbers, but there are about six or seven courses per year in emergency operations centre and emergency site management. They run at the same time and Manitoba gets only three spots in each round. The City of Winnipeg is one of many trying to get those spots. That is why I run an emergency operations centre course at the city once a year; it allows me to put 20 or 30 people through. Otherwise, I get only half a dozen spots.
Senator Mitchell: How does your Winnipeg program measure up to the national one? It sounds like you would prefer to do away with yours and send 30 people to the other.
Mr. Hull: I would prefer to send 30 people to the college in Ottawa. With Senator Day we were talking about networking; the amount of networking that goes on at those courses is probably the best thing. You are there with people from across Canada and the exercises are so well designed. After hours, you have the opportunity to expand on what you hear when you can talk to other participants and say, ``I read about you and your forest fire,'' or ``I read about you and your flooding.'' We learn so much.
We maintain those email and phone contacts afterwards. Before I stepped into session here, I was reading an email from a colleague of mine who attended the course last week. She has come back with many new ideas, and she wants to set up a meeting to change some of our emergency plan. Not only do people go off to the college and learn great skill sets and network, but they also come back with a new sense of passion, and that is vitally important. It is hard to tell people it is.
As I said before, you are only as good as your last disaster. If we had a disaster tomorrow, money will flow the next day, but why can it not flow today?
The Chair: Could you summarize? You have raised a couple of areas, one being a repository for best practices in Ottawa. What else, from your perspective municipally, would you like to see from Ottawa?
Mr. Hull: I would like to see best practices and information about growing trends, both nationally and internationally. I am amazed at some of the stuff I pull out of contacts I have with Australia. They are often a key player at the disaster management conferences held in Toronto. Also, I would like to see consistent templates for a good emergency management contingency. It would be nice for Ottawa and the provinces to say something along the lines of, ``If you have a city greater than 50,000 people you should have two emergency people; if you are a city of 300,000 you should have three emergency people.'' That would bode well for me, from a city that has one emergency planner.
Also, if there were a template to say what is recommended, then with that perhaps there should be funds for cities that have greater populations, because it is the citizens of Canada that are there.
The Chair: What would you ask the provinces for? You have described what you think Ottawa should be doing. From your perspective, what should the role of the province be?
Mr. Hull: If the federal government were to work with the major cities, because that is where big parts of the population are, it would free up some of the resources of the province to work with the smaller municipalities. They, too, could then create those templates for the smaller communities and work with them to ensure that they have plans. Manitoba has provincial legislation that you must have a plan, a coordinator and a response mechanism in place. That is in every municipality of Manitoba.
The major cities are unique; for example, in Manitoba, there is the city of Winnipeg at 650,000 and Brandon is next at 50,000. The province should focus on smaller municipalities and support them more, because we are so unique and there is nothing more the province can offer us. I have more sandbag machines than the province has. We have a greater public works department than much of the province has. My needs are so different that the federal government can address them better. That is just my opinion.
Senator Tkachuk: I think you said your idea of the cities and the federal government working together was off the top of your head. Would there perhaps be a problem with provinces seeing that as an infringement of their jurisdiction? I am not sure how you see this relationship working. Do you see the city having a direct relationship with the federal government? Would the federal government work directly with the cities in parallel with the emergency measures officer of each province? I am not sure exactly how it would work. Perhaps you could help me out here.
Mr. Hull: I share your uncertainty. I would agree that the Province of Manitoba would not like to hear some of my comments; I am sure they are conscious about their jurisdiction. We would have to review all the ins and outs of how that relationship would work. Perhaps it would not work.
I apply for Joint Emergency Preparedness Program, JEPP funding through the Province of Manitoba, which then puts the applications in a pecking order and submits them to the federal level. If the Province of Manitoba is given $150,000 of JEPP funding, and I am 60 per cent of the population of Manitoba, still I do not ever see a $50,000 or $60,000 JEPP program. I am always told to keep it to about the $5,000 or $8,000 mark. JEPP funding is allocated on a per capita basis so that Manitoba gets its share, which is smaller than Ontario, and rightly so. Provincially, probably they would not like me to go directly to the federal level with requests for JEPP funding. That is one small example.
I am sure the province has difficulties with some of the things I am saying.
Senator Tkachuk: You will probably find out tomorrow.
Mr. Hull: Yes. I know that some of my colleagues in other Canadian cities in the same position are being put onto the same plate as municipalities that are 2,500 or 25,000, and they are from cities of 500,000 to 900,000. It is difficult to compete, and I do not want to compete with a smaller municipality. They have different needs and different interests.
Senator Banks: You can tell by the fact that we are keeping you long past the appointed time that we are finding your testimony useful.
The condition that you described of communities of whatever size not spending as much money or time as they should on preparedness for whatever will happen and the money suddenly flowing on the day after it happens is universal. There is a third part as well, which is the question, ``Why were you not ready when it happened?'' Of course, the answer is always, ``You did not give us the resources.'' That is pretty well the same across the board.
Am I recalling correctly that we had been told by agencies of the Government of Canada that there is a repository being kept of lessons learned and best practices and that it was being made available to everyone? Am I having a dream?
The Chair: You are recalling it quite accurately, but that was then and this is now. The most recent evidence we have received from Public Safety Canada was that they were not. When they appeared before us prior to that, they said they were.
Senator Banks: I guess I missed the time when they said they were not. I wish they were: it is so eminently sensible.
You have noticed that we have found the responses to the survey we sent to be intriguing, interesting and useful to us. We got a large response, larger than we usually get in a survey. You mentioned that you participate with the province sometimes in the exercises you do. However, when talking about risk assessment, you mentioned in the survey that you do not consult the province or the federal government. How can those two things be rationalized? If the City of Winnipeg does not consult with the provinces and the federal government when conducting the community's risk assessment, and you said you do not, how is it possible to do exercises effectively, tabletop or on the ground, if everyone does not agree about what the problem is?
Mr. Hull: When the City of Winnipeg does an exercise, we are looking at the plans that we have. We try to exercise in such a way that we are testing the plans. Typically, we will exercise with the things that we know are a greater risk. From time to time we will exercise something in relation to a flood or a transportation incident, whether rail line or trucking company. We also look at natural hazards such as tornadoes. Our most recent exercise was a tornado; before that we had a train derailment and before that, a flood. This fall we are planning a pandemic. We are evolving around the known big risk.
We have done a few smaller-scale emergency sessions with power outage scenarios, whereby we lose power based on the scale of the experience along the eastern seaboard and parts of Southern Ontario with the electrical transformer issue in New York in 2003. As well, the ice storms of 1998 showed us that such a phenomenon could bring down power supplies, so we exercised that but more on a tabletop. We will do exercises on known risks. It is unique in the sense that we focus a lot of energy on our exercises and share the lessons that we learn, but we do not put a lot of energy into the risk assessments. Maybe that needs to be strengthened in emergency management legislation.
Senator Banks: I have no idea what I am talking about, but is it not possible that if you consulted the provincial and federal governments on risk assessments, you would find risks that are not on your priority list?
Mr. Hull: Certainly. I have learned from stakeholders, not government, about the critical infrastructure. By talking to MTS Allstream; Manitoba Hydro, which has major connections to the east, the west and the south; and the TransCanada Pipelines, for example, I have learned more about what those critical infrastructures are.
Winnipeg has an aqueduct system that brings in the water for two thirds of the population. When I asked whether that critical infrastructure would be added to the national critical infrastructure list, I was told, no, because it did not meet the criteria. Nationally, it would be of issue because if Winnipeg loses its water supply, I am sure the people in Ottawa would have some issue with that. In the second go around, it has been added to the critical infrastructure.
Senator Banks: That might be added to the suggestion you made about a national template. Talking about that and the assessments, I know that human-caused terrorism events are, thank goodness, the least frequent things we see. More often, we are dealing with tornadoes, floods and train derailments. However, you said that the community does not have a counterterrorism plan. I know it does not necessarily have anything to do with population, because such an event in a small-population area would be just as devastating, although one presumes that most terrorism-related events would happen in a big city. Do you not think you ought to have a counterterrorism plan?
Mr. Hull: I would like to go back to Winnipeg and ask that question of some of my colleagues in the Winnipeg police service. Smaller divisions within the Winnipeg police service have a good connection with the RCMP ``D'' Division in Winnipeg. There are pocket plans for certain escalated events. When I read the survey question, I was answering on the basis of a counterterrorism plan. To me, that was in large scale, so my answer was no. We have different cultural and ethnic bases in Winnipeg that are strong. The police watch the interactions between the different groups and are quite serious about it.
The Chair: When we were in Winnipeg, we met with the officer in charge of the CSIS office. Do you include him in your planning? In light of Senator Banks' question about terrorism, do you receive assessments from him? Is he of assistance to you in your work in that respect?
Mr. Hull: I do not directly confer or have contact with the individual at CSIS. I have a contact person in the Winnipeg Police Service who is in constant contact with that office. They give me a heads-up every once in a while if an issue is on the radar, whether it is water-related or other, that has gone through Homeland Security in the United States, through CSIS and then our way. For example, our water and waste utility service received internal messaging of a possible terrorist water event because a truckload of a certain chemical was hijacked in Arkansas. If such a chemical were added to a water supply, it would become an issue. Those become CSIS events that I hear through our water and waste department or through the Winnipeg Police Service. However, the CSIS officer is not on my planning committee.
The Chair: Is that because there are blockages and he cannot be on the committee or because you are a one-man operation and you cannot see everyone?
Mr. Hull: His link to the City of Winnipeg is through the Winnipeg Police Service. The monthly emergency preparedness coordinating committee has a Winnipeg Police Service sector representative. When we go around the table at the end of every meeting, he sometimes injects things that he has heard from CSIS that are confidential, and we have to leave it at that.
I do not maintain that contact because the police maintain it, like the contact with the Office of the Fire Commissioner. I know the individual well, but I do not contact him directly; my fire paramedic sector representative contacts him. I leave those lines of communication in those areas. I do not talk to people from Manitoba Water Stewardship and instead let our water and waste department talk to them.
Senator Banks: I will go back to a question on the military. Many municipalities with whom we have spoken have found that since having been stood up, Canada Command, which is a relatively new restructuring of the Canadian Forces, has been extremely helpful to them in their emergency planning. That may have been subsequent to this. In the survey, when asked whether you were aware of the existence of Canada Command, you said no. I presume you are aware of them now. Do you plan to get involved with Canada Command? I am not talking about the people on the ground in Winnipeg. Have you been in touch with them?
Mr. Hull: I am aware of them. In Winnipeg, we have a domestic operations office through Canada Command, and I know the individuals. They sit on the provincial monthly emergency preparedness inter-agency committee. I would request Canada Command through the Province of Manitoba.
I understand who they are and their role. I have seen two of their briefings. Certainly, they have themselves in a better position today than they were in 1997 because they are not coming in like bulls in a china shop but rather are coming with a lot of skills, resources and ability to assist the municipalities.
Senator Banks: You talked earlier about the Level 4 lab and other kinds of federal facilities. In response to a survey question about whether the federal government has identified federal critical infrastructure in your community, you answered yes. To the next question, ``If yes, is your community responsible for protecting federal critical infrastructure?'' you said no. Surely you are, in a sense, a first responder.
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Senator Banks: If there is a fire at the lab, you will be there first.
Mr. Hull: In answering that question I was referring to the security of the people at the front of a Level 4 lab doing the check-ins and the supervision. We do not police their building. However, in the sense of protecting, we do respond and we do protect. If at any hour of any day a suspicious truck was driven up the driveway and placed near a Level 4 facility, the Winnipeg police, our bomb units, our SWAT units, our fire units, paramedic and emergency units would all go to protect that facility. My response was in relation to the in-house security of the facility. The facility is, in an indirect way, a taxpayer and a resident of the city of Winnipeg, so they are afforded the same services with regard to police protection and fire and paramedic services.
Senator Banks: I have a question about what you said earlier with regard to a unified command. We have asked these questions in every municipality in the country. It boils down to who is in charge. In most places, if I understand correctly, there is a concept that a person representing some level of authority must always be the person in charge as opposed to a committee, because committees do not react well in emergency situations.
I think I heard you describe something different than that. Did I misunderstand that? You talked about a unified command where different orders of government or levels of authority are brought into the process as they become involved and as the situation escalates, whereas in other places, if I understand correctly, the escalation results in a hand-off from one level of authority to the next and then back down when the situation changes, but there is always a person in charge. Is there always a person in charge in Winnipeg?
Mr. Hull: In Winnipeg's model of incident command, often it is fire or paramedic personnel, typically a platoon chief in our fire department or the district chief.
Senator Banks: I am talking about in the operational command centre.
Mr. Hull: In the emergency operations centre located on the lower level of our city hall, there is one person in charge in the operations. At the end of the day, after a briefing, we have what we call a scrum meeting. Everyone talks about their issues and what their resource needs are, and it is determined what tasks various people will do. At the end of every meeting, the last decision is made by the emergency operations centre manager, or whoever has been designated by the chief emergency coordinator, which in the case of the City of Winnipeg plan is the CAO. On top of that is the emergency control committee, which comprises the mayor, executive policy committee and other department heads.
The operations you are talking about is the one person in charge of the emergency operations centre.
Senator Banks: What would happen if the situation escalated to being a provincial issue rather than a municipal one? Does someone else sit in that chair?
Mr. Hull: They would sit in that chair at the provincial command centre. In the city command centre, we would still be operationalizing things that are relevant to the city. We have one person in control of that, but if it is being controlled provincially, they would have authority.
My reference to the unified command was more at the site. If it is a CN train derailment, the city is the responder but CN is where the event is located. It is on their right-of-way but in our municipality, so we have a unified command. It is our responders and their industry, so we do it together.
In reference to your question, in the emergency operations centre at city hall there is one command.
Senator Banks: In your opening remarks, you said that the planning and capacities in Winnipeg for emergency response are very small in comparison to other cities. Is that in terms of dollars per capita? If it is not in dollars per capita, why are they very small in comparison? Is there not enough attention paid to you by Winnipeg city council?
Mr. Hull: You are only as good as your last disaster.
Senator Banks: Something horrible needs to go wrong before you get the resources to deal with something horrible that might go wrong?
Mr. Hull: It is sort of like having a freeway with no traffic light where people might get injured. You might argue that someone will get injured there one day, but until someone is injured the traffic light does not appear. Once someone is injured there, the traffic light appears. That is the way emergency management is in certain jurisdictions.
There is a very intelligent group of people leading our city — our councillors and our mayor — but the majority of them were not there in 1997. The mayor was not the mayor. After 1997, the then-mayor became a champion of emergency management and thought highly of it. The new mayor came in, and things were different. He experienced 9/ 11 and realized the importance of what we were doing.
I need to ask the politicians how prepared they want to be. I need to tell them that if they want to be very prepared, we need certain things.
For my budget submission in 2008 I did a per capita spending analysis with some of my contacts. I sent out about 20 requests and got 12 responses. On 8 of them, Winnipeg ranks the lowest in per capita spending.
A good friend of mine in Brandon, Manitoba, spends 20 times more than I do, because his administration understands the importance of it. If you have lived through something, you will support it. If you have had a fire in your home, you will have more compassion for someone who has a fire.
There is a person in the administration in Edmonton who experienced the 1987 Edmonton tornado, so it is not a hard sell to convince them that this is important. Sometimes individual programs across Canada are driven by the understanding, passion and enthusiasm of the administration.
I now work in the fire department. When we spoke in September, I had just made the transition. I was in the secretariat under the chief administrative officer of the City of Winnipeg. I was a stand-alone anomaly and was just there. I was subject to the same budget cuts as the rest of the city. In the fire paramedic service they understand what training, preparedness, exercising and planning is about. I have a lot of comfort there. I just need to elevate that to council and other administrators in the city.
The Chair: Mr. Hull, if it helps at all, your experience is nationwide. We all perk up when there is an emergency, but as the months go by memories fade and the urgency drops off. That does not mean the risk drops off, only the urgency.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to go back to what you said about risk assessment with regard to derailments and working together on that. Whom do you contact when you phone a railway line? Is it someone in a risk assessment part of their organization? Is there any obligation on their part to notify you when things change when it is in your municipality? How do you work together, or do you except in, prior to or after disasters?
Mr. Hull: The relationship we have had in Winnipeg has been good. I think it could be better. It goes back to Senator Kenny's comment about being a one-stop shop without enough resources. If I had more resources, I would assign them. I would phone the railway every month and stay in touch with them. I wish I could do that. My issue has been trying to stay in touch with them.
The people I talk to at the rail line are typically in the hazardous materials section of the rail line or sometimes in their occupational health and safety section. I might talk to a safety officer. CP and CN have had different people in different positions. Staying in touch and keeping those networks is important.
If I call you at 2 a.m. to tell you something, it should not be the first time we have talked. That is quite surprising. ``Who is this? You just woke me up, you have a train derailment and I have never talked to you before.'' We do stay in touch, typically with someone in health and safety or hazardous materials.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do they call you, or is the obligation on you to call them about changes?
Mr. Hull: I would say the obligation should be on them to tell me about changes in their infrastructure or their service. For example, if CN changes the location of where they put hazardous materials in their rail yard, they should be speaking to the city so that Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service knows a certain part of the rail line has that commodity.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do they do that?
Mr. Hull: They do from time to time, but it is not consistent. There is a rail line near my home and I had to read in the paper that it was being decommissioned, stripped out and turned into a bike path. I did not hear from CN. I did not realize that they had not used the line for two years; it was still identified on all my maps as being a rail line. I am not sure whose job it is to indicate changes and to inform individuals, ``This is what you should be thinking about.''
Senator Nancy Ruth: All cities have hazardous goods flowing through them. Senator Meighen and I live two blocks away from a terrible site in Toronto.
Is anyone else on the municipal side talking about the obligation of corporations — whether railways or any other corporation — to notify municipalities when there are changes, or in anticipation of anything possible?
Mr. Hull: Quite often those industries are regulated at a federal or provincial level. I would think that we should hear that way. Maybe once the rail line has reported to whatever federal agency it reports to — the Transportation Safety Board or Transport Canada — it should then inform the province. From the province, it should go to the municipalities that are impacted.
It would be a pretty exhaustive list for CN, CP or any major industry to contact all the little municipalities that the rail line might go through if they change something. They should make one report to the federal agency; that agency should then report to the province and the province should trickle down the information to the municipalities that need it.
I am not really expecting a rail line to phone me, but I am expecting a rail line to tell some level of authority if they make changes. The same goes for any commodity or any industry, whether it be chemical or manufacturing. If they make some wholesale change to what they do and that change could impact the neighbouring community, they should be communicating that information to some level of authority and that information should be spread.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is that happening?
Mr. Hull: Not to my knowledge. I do not hear about the things that I think I should hear about.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That is a federal obligation, though? That is what I wanted to know.
Mr. Hull: It could be provincial. It could be a provincial authority to whom they need to declare what their business is and what their commodities are. It could be provincial and it could be federal.
There are some new industries in Winnipeg that are very upfront; they contact our Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service and do an on-site visit so that they understand where their commodities are stored, how they are stored and how to prepare to respond to a facility. I know Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service does a lot of site visits through the year with new industry and manufacturing.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are people in other municipalities as concerned about this as you? Are you able to push anywhere?
Mr. Hull: It is not a topic that we discuss much when we meet at conferences or meetings. We tend to focus more on lessons learned from different events that we have had and on sharing trends and new initiatives that we are doing. I always find it amazing when I go to conferences to hear what people are doing. Much of it is not rocket science; it is just common-sense initiatives.
I am going off to Senator Moore's Halifax in a couple of weeks to tell them about an initiative we have in Winnipeg regarding training seniors to do presentations to other seniors about how to be better prepared. My office of one cannot meet with the thousands and thousands of seniors and seniors' groups in Winnipeg. I am training seniors to present this disaster information to other seniors. This initiative is getting off the ground and being well received. It has been noted in our community papers and in the Winnipeg Free Press just this weekend. It is not rocket science. It is cities learning from other cities.
Senator Meighen: I am labouring under two difficulties: I do not know what questions were asked beforehand, and most of them have probably been exhausted. Senator Banks and Senator Nancy Ruth were speaking to the area I was interested in.
One survey question had to do with protection of critical infrastructure. I am not thinking of that element. However, one of the questions also concerned the involvement of the private sector.
I am not being critical, but in your answer to Senator Nancy Ruth it sounds as though it is hit-and-miss as to whether industry A phones you up and says, ``We have just moved to town and we store hazardous materials here and we would like you to come out and work with us to ensure we minimize the danger.''
Is that accurate?
Mr. Hull: That is correct. We in no way sanction, approve or sign off on emergency plans of other agencies in Winnipeg. The corporations I work with in the city of Winnipeg are the same. However, we would like to review them and understand what different corporations have.
They, too, can look at ours. If you are a new corporation in Winnipeg or have an office there and you write into your plan that you expect the City of Winnipeg to provide transit buses at your doorstep should your building collapse, most likely we will call them anyway because the Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service will be there. It is hit-and-miss as to who I actually get involved with, because there are 28,000 businesses in Winnipeg.
Senator Meighen: Some are more likely to have a problem than others, I assume.
Mr. Hull: Yes. I have contacts with places like the University of Winnipeg and the University of Manitoba, which have large populations. We have a very good working relationship with the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. It employs 27,000 people and is responsible for our seven hospitals and care facilities, plus the personal care homes. Others include CN, CP, the airport authority, and other, larger industries are on my radar. However, many smaller organizations are under the radar. I do not have time to search for and work with them.
Senator Meighen: When you have City of Winnipeg conferences or Manitoba-wide conferences, do you invite the university, for example, or the railway lines?
Mr. Hull: Yes. Last week, Manitoba hosted a successful conference with 476 delegates.
Senator Meighen: That was my next question. Please tell me about that.
Mr. Hull: We focus our conference primarily for Manitobans. We let the rest of Canada know we have a conference, and it is on a website, but we do not really cater to that. There is a large disaster management conference in Toronto that tries to bring in the international flavour.
We are homegrown. We charge a cheap rate, $250 for two and a half days, and the conference is open to anyone. Most of the people who come to the conference are from different municipalities in Manitoba. Industry and business are also there. Manitoba Hydro, MTS Allstream, CN, CP, the Office of the Fire Commissioner and different health authorities all come to our conference.
We try to bring in speakers who are relevant — typically on lessons learned and growing trends. We had a good session last week on disabled and vulnerable populations, which was very well-received. A lot of people opened their eyes to the needs of those demographics.
Senator Meighen: You were referring last week to the disaster management conference.
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Senator Meighen: Whose initiative was that?
Mr. Hull: It is a multi-level initiative. We have a volunteer committee from Manitoba EMO, City of Winnipeg, Manitoba Hydro and the Salvation Army. That covers it.
Senator Meighen: Were you intimately involved?
Mr. Hull: Yes, on the planning committee.
Senator Meighen: You had a speaker from Scotland Yard talking about terrorism.
Mr. Hull: Andrew Clancy from New Scotland Yard did a counterterrorism session on mass evacuation of public gathering locations. He has a unique scenario built into a video looking at a sudden evacuation of a mall with different bomb explosions and how to work through that.
We had four sessions. We did three within the conference; and then we sent out a special invitation to 100 businesses, hoping they would come — any business that has public gatherings or large numbers of people. We had a disappointing response. We had only 14 participants from a couple of our shopping malls, along with Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. It was a very disappointing response.
Even in the business community, if you try to provide a counterterrorism session, the take-up on it is poor. People ask, ``Why would I? We have never had one.'' Not in my back yard is still the mindset of many.
Senator Meighen: It is a challenge for all of us. I congratulate you, Mr. Hull. Winnipeg seems to have the bit in its teeth and is moving ahead, unlike other jurisdictions that do not have the get up and go that you have exhibited. Thank you very much for your evidence.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to echo Senator Meighen's comments. Clearly, we were impressed with the presentation we received from you when we visited Winnipeg. That is why we wanted to have you back on the record here. We are grateful to you for assisting us in our study of this matter. We appreciate it very much.
Mr. Hull: It has been my pleasure to share some thoughts and concerns.
The Chair: For members of the public viewing this program, if you have any questions or comments, please visit our website, www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony as well as confirmed hearing schedules. Otherwise, you may contact the clerk of the committee by calling 1-800-267-7362 for further information or assistance in contacting members of the committee.
Colleagues, we will continue our meeting in camera with only the clerks as staff, because I would like to address budget issues. After that we have to go back in public if we are in a position to adopt the budget, because it needs to be adopted in public.
There is also a question of delegating Bill C-287 to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, if they were prepared to take that on.
I have a motion from Senator Banks that the order of reference regarding Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day, which was adopted in the Senate on February 26, 2008, be delegated to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. All those in favour, please? Opposed? Abstaining?
The motion is carried.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chair: I would like to mention to the committee that we have certain time constraints, particularly if we want to go ahead with the Washington trip. The Senate will be sitting for the first two weeks of this month and then it is adjourned for the last two weeks of the fiscal year. The subcommittee on budgets has indicated that they are prepared to receive budgets and bring them forward to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, which I believe is meeting on Thursday.
The budget first goes before the subcommittee on budgets. What information do we have on when the subcommittee on budgets is meeting? You have asked, but we do not have an answer.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It may be meeting briefly during Senate time this week, but I have not checked my emails yet.
The Chair: That is the impression I have as well. I do not know when they are meeting after that. Once the adoption of the budget is done by the subcommittee, it has to be adopted by the full committee and then it has to go to the Senate.
Senator Nancy Ruth: They are meeting on Tuesday at 3:30 p.m.
The Chair: That is the subcommittee. The full committee meets Thursdays at 8:30 a.m.
You do not have to pass the budget now, but if it is passed, there will be a better shot at getting it adopted before the end of the fiscal year. That will allow people to make reservations. The clerks may not make reservations for hotels or anything until the money is approved by the full Senate. It is against the rules for them to do so.
Senator Mitchell: Do you mean earlier reservation for flights?
The Chair: I do not know that is necessarily so, but I do know that most of us will not be here for the first part of the fiscal year. It is easier to defend if the committee members are here and in place, that is all.
Senator Tkachuk: Are we dealing with this next week?
The Chair: I am waiting for motions.
Senator Moore: I am prepared to move it.
The Chair: Make a motion.
Senator Moore: It is not an onerous budget compared to past ones. The information you will give will not impact on this budget.
Senator Tkachuk: It is important that we have some sort of bipartisan effort here, considering that we have only two weeks before the break. I would like to have everyone's cooperation.
Senator Moore: Does that mean you are seconding the motion?
Senator Tkachuk: You can count on that not happening.
Senator Banks: I want to get my head straight. We are here next week, correct? However, after that, we are on a two- week break, which takes care of the last two weeks of the fiscal year. The week after that, the first week of the fiscal year, we are gone because we are in a different place.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Banks: The following week is a break. You are still away the following week. Then we come back and there is another break in April. There is a week the Senate is not sitting in April. That is April 14.
Senator Nancy Ruth: April 21 is the break week.
Senator Banks: April 14 is a meeting at which we would approve the budget and then go to the Internal Economy Committee? We could not go to Washington in May.
Senator Tkachuk: Why not next week?
Senator Banks: I am following the thinking. Correct me if I am wrong, but if we discuss the budget next week — and let us assume we adopt the budget next week — Internal Economy Committee cannot consider it because we cannot appear before that committee until April 14.
Senator Day: As Senator Nancy Ruth says, they are sitting tomorrow. If we approve the budget next Monday, we do not know if the subcommittee is sitting next week.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I did not know that we are sitting tomorrow until an email came in today. These things happen.
Senator Banks: If this was not brought to the Senate until April 14, we would not be able to go to Washington in the prescribed time.
Senator Nancy Ruth: This is the beginning of March, though, senator.
The Chair: I understand that, but the Senate is not sitting for two weeks.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I understand that. If we met on the March 10, next Monday, and we passed this in one shape or form through Internal Economy Committee — I would love to say ``I guarantee you,'' but that would be foolish. I am 90 per cent sure. We will deal with it and I will speak to them tomorrow.
Senator Banks: When will it be brought to the Senate? The budget subcommittee and Internal Economy Committee cannot deal with it in one week unless a miracle happens.
The Chair: The Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration has to report it out on Thursday. The following Tuesday is when you give a day's notice for the motion to be passed.
Senator Banks: It does not work. We are not here.
The Chair: That was my point.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do you have to present it?
The Chair: The Internal Economy Committee does not present it. Someone from this committee has to present it and defend it.
Senator Banks: What I said is correct: If this happens, this cannot be dealt with by the Senate until the week of April 14.
The Senate has in the past declined to approve budgets, not from this committee but from others, when the chair of that committee was not in the Senate to defend the budget. They say we will wait until he or she is present.
The Chair: I was forced to come back from Regina to do exactly that.
Senator Day: The Internal Economy Committee has refused to look at them until they have all the budgets in. I have been on that committee. They want to know what all the budgets are.
The Chair: There is a motion on the floor to that effect.
Senator Zimmer: Are we waiting for information?
Senator Banks: That is what I first proposed, but I am just looking at the calendar. If we wait to consider this until a week from today, I do not see it being likely or even possible that the Senate would approve it, because the Senate has to approve this budget, before the week of April 14. I know we are sitting on the March 31. If you look at the time off between now and then and the likelihood of the committee's being able to get to do those things and the Senate getting to that motion and the day's notice that you have to give of that motion, because the motion of the Internal Economy Committee has to be approved, and then the chair or the deputy chair has to present the budget, and then the Senate has to agree to debate, we would probably not be able to go to Washington in that time, and that is what was worrying me.
Senator Day: We get into these dilemmas, and we want to be able go to Washington. We obviously need that. We have a problem with Internal Economy. The way to handle this is to allow steering, and then we do not have to get this whole committee back together. The steering committee can meet at any time. My view is that if Senator Moore would change his motion to say that this body accepts this budget subject to the steering committee being satisfied with the production of those various documents and undertakings we have asked for, then everyone would be happy.
Senator Moore: We have a prairie caucus going on.
Senator Tkachuk: I think I got what you said. You said you wanted approval of this budget based on the steering committee approving it, and I will not give that approval. If the committee wants to vote here to give that, that is fine, but I will not vote with it.
Senator Moore: Are you not on the steering committee?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, I am.
Senator Moore: What do you want? You will get the documents.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not approve of the budget or the expenditures.
Senator Moore: Subject to you getting the stuff you want.
Senator Tkachuk: I am saying no. That is the way I am voting.
Senator Mitchell: If you got the information, you would not approve the budget? What is the point?
Senator Tkachuk: There was nothing I could do about it at the time.
Senator Mitchell: You are delaying for the sake of delaying.
Senator Tkachuk: No, I am not. If you want to pass the budget, senator, you pass the budget. I am telling you that I do not support passing the budget.
Senator Banks: Senator Day's question was that this committee give the authority to the steering committee to pass the budget in order that we can get, for the steering committee's consideration, answers to the questions about consultants 1, 2 and 3. Are you now saying that notwithstanding what that information might say, you would not be able to approve this budget?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Banks: You are not saying that.
Senator Tkachuk: No, I am saying that. I will not be voting for this budget.
Senator Banks: Regardless of any explanations that might be forthcoming?
Senator Tkachuk: Regardless.
Senator Banks: Then we might as well vote now.
The Chair: I might remind you, Senator Tkachuk, that when we were preparing last year's budget, last time, one of the reasons we prepared the second year in a row was to demonstrate that we would come in with substantial savings in this year's budget. We have done that. We have reduced very significantly the amount of money. That was one of the undertakings that I made to you at that time, and I thought we had an agreement on that. I think coming in with a budget that is 40 per cent of our previous one is a very significant accommodation to meet your concerns. I feel let down in that regard when you say you will not support this budget.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not believe that anyone is interested in any suggestion I have made to cut costs in this budget, so it is very difficult for me to be part of the process. Therefore, I was not part of your process. That is certainly different from any committee I have ever been on. As the deputy chair and also the chair, when I was the chair of Finance, I worked with Senator De Bané on the budget. We worked together on the budget.
The Chair: And we did on this one. You asked for reduction of staff. We have reduced the staff. You asked for reduction in spending. We reduced the spending.
Senator Tkachuk: That was last year.
The Chair: No, no. We did it with a view to having a significantly smaller budget this year, and that is why we came up with the trips. None of these trips are new to you. You recognize all of the locations.
Senator Tkachuk: I totally approve of the trips to the military bases. I had arguments with the contingency, the $65,000 promotion budget, which I think is a contingency budget, and that is what the $25,000 was last year. I have a problem with the four conventions at the end of the budget. I have a problem with two staff members. I have not been very successful in any of my concerns, and that is your privilege. You do what you want. You are the majority here. All I am saying is those are the concerns I had, and none of them has been dealt with. Therefore, if you want to move the budget, you move the budget. I am telling you what I will do ahead of time. It is not unfair.
The Chair: It is not unfair. It is disappointing when you come to me and when we work together on it and you said you wanted reductions in staff, and you got reductions. You have three staffers off the payroll. You said you wanted to have a lower budget, and you have got a lower budget. You imply that no one has worked together with you, and I am making sure that the committee understands that I have in fact worked with you and took your concerns into account, and they are reflected in this budget.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you for that, chair. I really appreciate that.
Senator Moore: Senator Tkachuk said that his comments have not been taken into consideration. Senator Day's suggestion was to pass the budget subject to the steering committee, of which you are a member, Senator Tkachuk, getting information on these two items that you were very concerned about on page 1, and that is it. I did not hear any contention on the rest of it. Those were the items.
Senator Tkachuk: I did object on item miscellaneous, on stationary, on the trips, the $65,000 promotion. There is no concern here about any of those items, so therefore I do not support those items. I am not being unreasonable. I just said they are too high. I also said the $65,000 budget is too high and there are too many conventions at the end. We have four. We could do with two.
Senator Moore: There may be six. You may end up with staff suggesting some other conference that comes up that is important that relates to the work of the committee.
The Chair: To go from $1.4 million to $600,000 is a significant reduction.
Senator Mitchell: I think you should go to a couple of these conferences and learn something.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not need that.
Senator Mitchell: Senator Nancy Ruth and I learned a lot.
Senator Tkachuk: I am sure you did.
Senator Zimmer: If we passed this based on the steering committee dealing with it when that information came back, would that not be agreeable?
Senator Tkachuk: No, because the steering committee then takes a passed budget. You can make the motion to report it to steering committee. I will not support it.
Senator Day: I was only suggesting that to accommodate you.
Senator Tkachuk: Except with the information coming.
Senator Day: Subject to you being satisfied with the information that is forthcoming.
Senator Moore: If you do not like that information on these items on page 1, you can convince your colleagues on steering to adjust some of them. You might want to go upward. I do not know.
Senator Banks: Senator Tkachuk, I want to remind us that I remember a meeting with you, Senator Kenny and me in which we discussed your desire to substantially reduce this committee's budget. It was previously $1.4 million, not ever spent, but properly approved. We arrived at what I understood to be an accommodation that, if it was reduced to somewhere near the present level, would — I hate to use the word — ``satisfy'' you. I left the meeting with that impression.
The committee thereby was instructed by the steering committee on budgets to do that. I think this budget is a reflection of that instruction. As I think Senator Kenny has said, this budget is less than half what the previous budget of this committee was.
I thought that that is what we all understood. I think that economies have been obtained, have they not?
The Chair: Yes. I have precisely the same recollection. That is why I am expressing disappointment. We recognized that we had a large budget last year.
Senator Tkachuk: Just so it is clear, I do also have a recollection. I argued against last year's budget and we made accommodation. There was never a deal, any intention or an understanding that we would never talk about budget items again.
Senator Banks: Of course not.
Senator Tkachuk: Then what are you saying?
The Chair: When you say you have not had anyone consider your views, I am pointing out that your views were taken into account by the removal of three staff; your views were taken into account by cutting the budget by 60 per cent. Those are very significant accommodations. Now you see other things that you would like. However, you should not say that there has not been an effort to meet your concerns.
Senator Tkachuk: All I said was that, in this discussion that we had here, I brought up a number of concerns. Those concerns do not meet with your agreement. I do not argue with the fact that you have the right to do what you are doing. You do not have to agree with me. I am a democrat. Let us have a vote. I am saying I will not support it the way it sits now.
The Chair: You are telling us when you make a deal and we have an understanding with you, we cannot count on it later on.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Kenny, that is not a fact.
The Chair: I am sorry, but that is my recollection.
Senator Tkachuk: You told me previously when I argued with Senator Banks that the way I phrased it was the proper way to phrase it. Now are you saying I made a deal on this budget? Not in a million years.
The Chair: What you said about this budget was that none of your concerns were being taken into account, and I pointed out to you —
Senator Tkachuk: I did not say that. I said you do not agree with me. The concerns I had were not taken into account in this budget but that has nothing to do with last year's budget.
The Chair: A staff cut of three and a 60 per cent reduction in spending is, by any measure, a substantial concession to your concerns.
Senator Zimmer: Senator, what could we do to accommodate your understanding of this budget? What can we do? We dropped it. We said we will take these other pieces of information into consideration when they come back from the steering committee. What can we do to accommodate your wishes?
Senator Tkachuk: Let us start at the back with the conferences. I would like to go to two. I do not mind anything with the programming. I like the programming. This is what our committee should be doing: visiting the bases, going to Washington. I have no problem with any of that. I am not being a prude here; I am just making my case.
I would like to see a reduction in the stationary supplies miscellaneous by half. Cut all three of those items in half. Regarding the courier charges, if you can convince me you have to send those three or four documents — which are surveys — to news media for a cost of $10,000, I may not argue too much about that.
I have a real problem with promotion of reports, meetings and other matters related. That is a $61,570 item which should be taken out totally.
Senator Banks: Can I ask about that last item? Is it your view that, unlike in the past, the chair or some other senator — it has sometimes been the deputy chair — should not, following upon the presentation of some of our reports to the Senate and their release to the public, go to have meetings with the editorial boards of newspapers across the country and promote the profile of the reports? That is what that budget is for. The $61,000 is to do that.
Senator Tkachuk: I have been on those tours in other committees, the Agriculture Committee and the Banking Committee. We just flew from Ottawa to Toronto. I flew from Saskatchewan to Vancouver when I was out there. We split it up and went on our own nickel. It was no big deal. It was not that far. We went and promoted.
I think this is way too much. Last year we had $25,000 and this year we have $61,570.
Senator Banks: When you went to Vancouver, who paid for your hotel room?
Senator Tkachuk: We paid for our own.
Senator Banks: Out of your office budget?
Senator Tkachuk: No, we paid out of our expense budget. We are on Senate business.
Senator Banks: You paid for your hotel room out of your individual office budget? It comes out of your office budget.
Senator Tkachuk: It does not, Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Where does it come from? I want to know. Maybe we can do that. When I go someplace in Canada, and sometimes the United States, on Senate business, the hotel bill comes out of my —
The Chair: Travel budget. It is a statutory item.
Senator Banks: What travel budget?
The Chair: Your 64 points.
Senator Banks: That includes hotels? I have never paid for it that way. I have just learned something. Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: My office would only be too glad to help you. I have told you that.
Senator Mitchell: Then it is a moot point. Then in fact, I have a concern with that. I would rather have the expense identified for what it is rather than plugging it into this other budget on the side.
Senator Tkachuk: I have concerns with the two staffers, which can be addressed by the steering committee.
Senator Day: Two staffers on every trip?
Senator Tkachuk: No, no, no. I have a concern with that, but I am not arguing. You convinced me of that. Your chair was very convincing. We will see. I am referring to the two staffers: the research administrator and the writer. I want to see the invoices and be satisfied with that.
Senator Mitchell: You said you would not be satisfied.
Senator Tkachuk: Do not put words in my mouth, Senator Mitchell. That is not what I said.
Senator Day: I think we know all of the points of concern to Senator Tkachuk now, thanks to Senator Zimmer. What are we going to do, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: I was going to suggest before it comes to a vote that we take a look at some of the items that Senator Tkachuk has raised and get a sense of how people feel about it.
The four conferences that are proposed are not unusual for a committee. Senator Tkachuk believes that we should be doing two. Are there other items on that?
Senator Banks: Four.
The Chair: What would you leave it at?
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am happy to have four conferences, because if we do not use it, it goes back to Treasury.
Senator Moore: Who knows what events will happen in the course of the year in this crazy world we are living in. If another topic of urgency comes forward, and someone convenes a meaningful meeting on that, the committee may end up going to one more. I do not know. I would not take away the four, and I would not presume it will be only four.
Senator Mitchell: I am for four.
Senator Banks: Can I just remind everyone again that we could just as well say that the total conference budget is $72,500 to attend however many conferences we want to go to, because we might take that amount of money and go to six conferences or go to two conferences or send everyone to one conference. All we get is $72,500 in the conference budget, and within that you can move it around however you want. You can send one guy there, two ladies over there and five people over there. This is strictly pro forma. We are not limited to four conferences.
The Chair: We are limited to $72,500.
Senator Day: Are you okay with that, Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Is that half the budget?
Senator Mitchell: It is 15 per cent, or 12 per cent.
Senator Banks: It is two conferences.
Senator Day: We do not know how many conferences we might be going to, following Senator Moore's point.
Senator Zimmer: It is a budget. We may not go to four. It is a budget. We have not spent all the other money either. We should look at the actuals and say we have budgeted this amount but past history has shown that we do not use anywhere near that amount of money. It is only a guideline.
The Chair: We would have used most of it except that one conference was scuttled because we did not have enough police on the committee.
The other item, working backwards, that was of concern was the promotion and miscellaneous travel section. There were issues last year, the fiscal year we are in currently, that we were poaching out of the promotion budget to provide for travel for other related committee business that came up that we could not predict in the future. That is why we changed the title. I am talking about page 2. What we have is a total of 24 days' travel, or 24 senator days of travel is the best way I can describe it.
Would 20 days of senator travel work for you, Senator Tkachuk? That is a significant reduction.
Senator Tkachuk: Four days?
The Chair: Out of 24, it is a sixth of the proposal.
Senator Tkachuk: First, you support the total budget for the four conferences. Basically, this is very minor. It is not a major adjustment in the budget.
The Chair: We are working our way through the different issues you have raised one at a time.
Senator Tkachuk: I think it should be reduced very substantially or thrown out all together.
Senator Moore: Page 2?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Senator Moore: What would you reduce it to?
Senator Tkachuk: I would say zero. If you want to know, I would say zero.
Senator Moore: Zero will not happen. What is your next best?
Senator Tkachuk: I do not have a next best. What is yours?
Senator Moore: My next best? Four days off. That is my best. That is it.
Senator Tkachuk: That is good.
Senator Moore: Are you agreed?
Senator Tkachuk: I do not agree with that, nor do I agree with the conferences. What is your next one?
Senator Moore: You agreed with the conferences. Are we going back to that? This is the third time we are going back. You only get one shot, and you keep going back.
Senator Tkachuk: I did not agree with the conferences.
Senator Moore: You did not?
Senator Tkachuk: No. You did not change anything.
Senator Mitchell: I think Senator Nancy Ruth, and I do not want to speak for her —
Senator Nancy Ruth: Good idea.
Senator Mitchell: I was at a conference last year. It was exceptionally good. It was brilliant in what it offered. If you have not been to one, I am serious that you should take these in. You get a lot of background that is very good. We have an important job to do. That helps us to do it. I do not think $72,000 is too much to ask.
Senator Day: Besides, senator, you and I are on the top of the list to go this year, not having gone last year.
Senator Mitchell: The insights you get are amazing.
Senator Tkachuk: Instead of $72,500, why not cut it in half to $37,000 as a total umbrella budget? That is my suggestion. We are still talking about conferences. I just said two, so why not cut the total budget in half from $72,500 and leave it as a global budget, which I like since we do not know what conferences there are.
Senator Banks: The Internal Economy Committee insists that you give pro forma examples. They will not give you a global budget.
Senator Tkachuk: There you go.
The Chair: They are putty as long as you do not expect two senators to go to a conference. Do we then select the senators —
Senator Banks: One at a time.
The Chair: — one at a time.
Senator Moore: You cannot send one person to a conference.
The Chair: Senator Tkachuk keeps asking for a Conservative and a Liberal to go to each conference. That is unacceptable, because it means that the Conservatives are going —
Senator Moore: Leave it at $72,500. It could be more than that.
Senator Banks: What about that argument? Is it not appropriate that a government member and an opposition member should go to each conference so that they are reporting back?
The Chair: No, it is not appropriate. There are some conferences where just one person would go. That would be satisfactory. The point is that I do not see why Conservatives should go to twice the conferences that Liberals go to.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Unlike the Liberals last time they were in power. I understand the principle.
Senator Day: Per capita distribution. We understand that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If we trusted each other, we would not be having the discussion.
The Chair: The issue that arises, Senator Tkachuk, is that you are giving us an all or nothing deal.
Senator Tkachuk: No, I am not.
The Chair: Basically you are.
Senator Tkachuk: You gave me an all or nothing deal. You presented the budget.
Senator Mitchell: We cut $800,000 out of it.
Senator Tkachuk: Last year's.
The Chair: That was the understanding. That was the meeting that Senator Banks was talking about to make serious cuts next year and get rid of some of the staff, and we did that.
Senator Mitchell: How else would we know we cut it? How else would you know that we cut it?
The Chair: My point is, if each page is a deal breaker —
Senator Tkachuk: I did not say that. Chairman, do not put words in my mouth.
The Chair: I did not say you said that.
Senator Tkachuk: Each page is not a deal breaker, because what we talked about was the conference budget. I said I have no problem with the programming part, which is the base visits and the trip to Washington, which was part of our programming. I did not argue about those.
The Chair: I was referring to the four pages you object to. If you need all four of those pages, there is no point in talking about it any longer.
Senator Tkachuk: Do you mean on the conferences?
The Chair: If you have to have the conferences cut and the promotion and other matters cut as well as the stuff on page 1 cut —
Senator Moore: That is four pages.
Senator Tkachuk: That is three pages.
Senator Mitchell: You would have to cut two pages from the conferences because you want half as much, and then you would have to cut the other two pages. That adds up to four.
Senator Tkachuk: A global budget of —
Senator Mitchell: You cannot do a global budget.
Senator Tkachuk: He said we could. I am taking Senator Day's wonderful suggestion. I like it. Let us go with a global budget of half the amount and put together a couple of scenarios like you have done here.
Senator Mitchell: You are just fighting for the sake of fighting, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Banks: I think a straw vote has indicated that the majority of people want the conferences to stay at four.
Senator Tkachuk: And the amount to stay at $72,000.
The Chair: If someone said something like $65,000, it does not make any difference. It does not go far enough for you.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not arguing against the whole budget. If we want to talk globally, why not go to a $400,000 figure and then work within that. However, I do not want to talk globally. I am talking programming. I identified three programs we should talk about.
The Chair: That is what I am trying to do.
Senator Tkachuk: You have given me $12,000. You are saying I should be a happy camper with a $7,000 reduction.
The Chair: It is a start. That is a 10 per cent reduction.
Senator Tkachuk: It could be four smaller conferences. Go to two conferences or one big one, I do not care.
Senator Mitchell: Would you say we could use one of our 64 points to go to Victoria?
Senator Tkachuk: Why would you not?
Senator Mitchell: Then you are hiding the expense.
Senator Tkachuk: No you are not. It shows up in your expenses, and it is Senate business.
The Chair: It is a long-standing, established principle that you do not use personal budgets to subsidize committees. In the 24 years I have been here, the Internal Economy Committee has supported that position.
Senator Mitchell: We are in favour of transparency.
The Chair: It is transparent that way.
Senator Moore: You have consensus on the four conferences. That is done.
The Chair: I understand that. I was trying to see whether a 10 per cent reduction on the 72 per cent had any traction for Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: No.
The Chair: Then there is not much point in going any further. Does anyone have any further comments to provide on this budget?
Senator Banks: Only that we have never had a budget that has not been passed unanimously by this committee. It is unfortunate we cannot find some accommodation.
Senator Day: I think we can pass it unanimously subject to being approved by the steering committee.
Senator Banks: They cannot do that.
Senator Moore: Are you abstaining?
Senator Tkachuk: No. I am opposed to this budget.
Senator Day: Then there is no sense making it subject to the steering committee. I will call the question.
The Chair: Any further comments, please?
Senator Moore: Senator Tkachuk, did you think that the four-day reduction on page 2 was reasonable?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Moore: You did not?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Moore: All other expenditures on page 1 now total $23,000.
The Chair: On page 1, I was prepared to suggest a cut in the stationary supplies.
Senator Moore: Take it down to $15,000 rather than $23,000. What does that do for you?
The Chair: I would take $5,000 off of stationary and supplies and I would cut it in half. I would take $2,000 off miscellaneous.
Senator Banks: That is an improvement.
The Chair: I hear you. I am trying to accommodate the deputy chair.
Senator Tkachuk: I have asked for total cuts of $116,500 from that budget plus an evaluation of two staff members.
Senator Mitchell: It is already down 60 per cent and you are asking for an 85 per cent cut.
Senator Tkachuk: What did you compromise to?
Senator Mitchell: It might be we have an election in two weeks and you will get all the cuts you want. You cannot do this.
Senator Moore: What was the number, chair, that you ended up with?
The Chair: It was $5,000 off of stationary and supplies and $2,000 off of miscellaneous. That is $7,000.
Senator Moore: So $23,000 becomes $16,000?
The Chair: That is correct. I make that as a motion as an amendment to your motion.
Senator Moore: With regard to page 2, we had 24 days. Will we try to do that in 4 fewer days?
Senator Mitchell: I think it is important that we promote this amongst the Canadian people. I think these are ideas they need to hear.
Senator Day: We have to think this budget was well thought out before it was brought to us. Now we are nickel-and- diming the thing for no purpose.
The Chair: That is what I was trying to say. If we cut four days off of page 2 and cut 10 per cent off of the back end, do we move you at all, Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
Senator Mitchell: If he does not get his own way, he will not agree.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Mitchell, I have made my case.
Senator Mitchell: We have made ours.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, you have made yours. I asked for a total cut of $116,500 and an evaluation of two staff members. That is all.
Senator Moore: It is not an evaluation. We have to get the information about what they do. You are not evaluating their job. You will get copies of stuff. That is what you are doing. You are not an evaluator.
Senator Tkachuk: They were going to make certain decisions about that.
The Chair: This has been open since the reporters got back. Call for the question on the amendment?
Senator Banks: This is amending the amount under all other expenditures from $23,000 to $16,000. Is that correct?
The Chair: Yes, by reducing stationary from $10,000 to $5,000 and miscellaneous from $10,000 to $8,000.
Senator Day: Will there be some discussion?
The Chair: Discussion is welcome.
Senator Day: Why?
The Chair: I was trying to accommodate Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Day: I understand, but he has already told us that that will not accommodate him, so why make the change?
The Chair: I was hopeful that that together with other changes might move him. He has indicated it will not.
Senator Day: That is right. Therefore, why are we making the change? This was well thought out before it was given to us. The staff had worked hard on this. To make this change for no purpose is in effect to say the staff did not do their jobs.
The Chair: I would not blame the staff entirely.
Senator Day: Then we should not be making a change without a reason.
Senator Moore: Move it as it is, then. Let us get out of here.
The Chair: Can I please see who is in favour of the reduction on page 1 that we have just discussed. Those in favour raise their hands. Those opposed raise their hands. Those abstaining raise their hands.
Is there any further discussion on the main motion?
Seeing none, I would like to know all those in favour?
Senator Zimmer: Before you take the vote, do you not want to list all the other accommodations you want to make, such as the four days, the 10 per cent cut, et cetera? Do you not want to list all of those accommodations prior to the vote to indicate all of the concessions you are willing to make?
The Chair: It is on the record. The significant ones are the reduction from $1,432,000 to $600,000 and the reduction of three staff.
Senator Tkachuk: That was last year's budget. That has nothing to do with this year's budget.
The Chair: The two budgets came forward in conjunction. That is where they were discussed.
Senator Tkachuk: That is not so, Senator Kenny. We did not do two budgets. We dealt with only one budget.
Senator Banks: I am confused about the motion. If I understand it correctly, the motion that we are talking about on the floor is Senator Moore's motion. That is an approval of the budget subject to some other considerations.
The Chair: It is to approve the budget as it stands.
Senator Banks: Thank you. I just want to remind us all that, as Senator Zimmer said, the likelihood of nine of us going on all these trips and of spending all the conference budget is pretty remote. This is a maximum. If history since the beginning of this committee repeats itself, a substantial amount of this will be returned to Her Majesty.
Senator Day: I think that when we are planning trips, it is very unfair to budget for only four people to go on a trip. All who participate in our committee should have the opportunity to go on these trips. That is why it is important to budget for a full committee to go.
Senator Banks: Exactly.
The Chair: Are there further comments?
Senator Tkachuk: I would just like to reiterate my arguments.
Senator Mitchell: We have heard them.
Senator Tkachuk: For Senator Mitchell and others, if you are interested.
The total number of dollars was $116,500, and I look at those other two staff members. Out of a budget of $617,000, that is not unreasonable. Then you insult this side by saying, ``We will give you a $7,000 cut.'' Well, thank you very much.
I want to make it very clear that I do not do this with any — I am not very happy, either, that we are not able to come to a consensus on this budget. I agree with you, Senator Day. I have never been on a committee in 15 years that we have not been able to do this.
Senator Moore: I have never been involved in a discussion in a committee where one person was so entrenched in his position. You have been offered things here, and that is all it is. We are trying to placate you. You are not happy with anything unless you get a 20 per cent cut in the whole thing. The staff have prepared it and gone through I expect tedious examination of the past and the present.
Senator Tkachuk: The staff was working under the direction of the chair and not just on their own, I am sure.
Senator Moore: You can keep your cynicism to yourself. I am for the budget. I would like to have a vote.
The Chair: Just before we do, I would like to correct what you just said, Senator Tkachuk. You were not just offered $7,000. You were offered cuts in the size of the conference budget, you were offered cuts in the committee's reported motion portion, and you were offered cuts in the general expenses. You were offered cuts in all of those areas.
Senator Tkachuk: Totalling how much?
The Chair: I have not finished speaking.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, finish.
The Chair: I beg your pardon?
Senator Tkachuk: Go ahead.
The Chair: I did not hear what you said.
Senator Tkachuk: I did not say anything.
Senator Moore: I can say what he said.
Senator Tkachuk: Let us vote.
The Chair: You were offered cuts in all of the areas that you brought to our attention as having some concerns in. Every time we raised it, you simply said that you were not voting for this budget. Now you summarize your position by saying all you were offered was a $7,000 cut, and that is not true.
Senator Tkachuk: That was a motion he made. The rest was simply discussion.
The Chair: I am sorry. He has not made a motion of a $7,000 cut. He made a motion for no cuts based on the fact that you were not interested in any of the other cuts that I offered.
Senator Tkachuk: No. I was not. How much was the total?
Senator Mitchell: He did not vote in favour of the cuts.
The Chair: I am sorry. You said you did not care what the total was.
Senator Tkachuk: That is not what I said, Senator Kenny. I argued from a position of $116,500 that I would like to see cut in this budget, two conferences, the promotion budget of $66,000, and a cut in the miscellaneous and stationary budget, which is $23,000 with subscriptions, of which none was used last year except for some $1100. I said miscellaneous, stationary and subscriptions. That is what it is, $23,000, of which $1,100 was used.
The Chair: The fact that nothing was used in miscellaneous is fine. You can put that money in for prudence in any event.
You were offered a 10 per cent reduction on the conferences, and you did not respond to that. You were offered a cut of one sixth in the promotion of reports to go from 24 days to 20 days. Then you were offered cutting the stationary and supplies in half and cutting miscellaneous by 2 per cent. You were offered a lot more than $7,000, and you just said no.
Senator Tkachuk: Yes, I did. I did.
The Chair: That brings us to the question.
Senator Banks: In the interests of accommodation, I move an amendment to the motion. In an effort to partly take into account Senator Tkachuk's desire to further reduce the proposed budget, I propose an amendment to the effect that the total budget be reduced by $27,000, being $7,000 from the general budget, $10,000 from the report promotion budget and $10,000 from the conference budget, totalling $27,000 in reduction of the global budget.
The Chair: Discussion.
Senator Banks: Does that interest you, Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
The Chair: Question.
Senator Banks: Senator Tkachuk says that does not go anywhere near to where he wants to go, so I withdraw the motion.
The Chair: Question on the main motion. Those in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Senator Tkachuk: No.
The Chair: It is carried.
Senator Tkachuk: On division.
The Chair: Is there any other business before the committee tonight?
Senator Day: Can the record show that we debated this for an hour and a half?
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. It has been a difficult evening, but it was a process we had to go through. This meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned.