National Defence Committee on May 9th, 2022

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've heard many recommendations in terms of that volunteer sector and getting people to volunteer their time. Madam Normandin was talking about bringing in the reservists. One of my concerns, of course, is that with the armed forces, they have that incredible training. They have years of building all of these skills and those training opportunities. When you pull in those NGOs, obviously volunteers will not have the same kind of training.

I haven't read the Australia report. I'm so grateful that you bring this expertise to this committee. Were there key things they highlighted in terms of things to watch out for to protect that labour force, that we would be drawing upon if we were to go down that route?

[Dr. Peter Kikkert]

That's a great question.

There are training models out there for local response groups. In fact, they exist in Canada. Some of our local volunteer responders are incredibly well trained and I would say far better trained than the regular CAF soldier for a lot of disaster work. When they come on scene, they know how to do things. If we were to build a larger local system, we would have to ensure there was sustained training in things like light search and rescue, flood mitigation, fire mitigation and FireSmart in communities. There are a lot of different things they could do.

However, I take your point about the general nature of volunteering. That's the bigger conversation that is required. Both Germany and Australia have very robust volunteer systems, but both have been put under stress recently and questions have been raised about whether or not they can continue to retain volunteers.

This is where Australia, for instance, now is getting into conversations about incentivization. It's getting into conversations about how to ensure the government pays back employers for lost wages, so that workers who are responding don't lose their salaries, which is something that Mr. Bowen highlighted during his time before you and is extremely important.

Germany, for instance, has that built into their system. If you go to respond to a disaster, you are going to be covered. Your employer is going to be compensated and you will get your wages and salary. Beyond that, there are conversations about incentive and tax breaks. In Australia, they are having a conversation about whether or not, if you're part of these teams, you have to pay a licensing fee, for instance.

There are different mechanisms in place to try to bolster people, but I think those are big questions that we have to talk about. Is this all-volunteer system going to be sustainable in the long term? What can we do to make sure these volunteer groups feel most supported and most inclined to participate? Those are serious questions.

I would also just say the German model is thrown around a lot. It's a great model, but I would highlight.... We hear the number 80,000 a lot. It's important to remember that of that 80,000, 16,000 of those are youth—children who are part of their youth wing—and then only about half of the 80,000 are active responders. Again, they do incredible work. They are also a bit of a social club, in that people have a lot of social interaction through their participation in this volunteer disaster workforce. There are still questions around whether or not this is going to meet the needs long term.

I'm happy to talk about either of those systems more, the Australian or the German model, if the committee is interested.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Greaves, do you have anything to add?

[Dr. Wilfrid Greaves]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

All I would add is to draw attention to what seems to be—I will use the term, if you will forgive me—the “dual use” nature of some of the tasks and training that such a climate core or resilience core would actually be equipped to perform.

To Professor Kikkert's point, the existing kind of volunteer groups that do some of this search and rescue or emergency response kind of work are extremely well trained and extremely highly qualified individuals. They are also individuals who—admittedly there is going to be variation in different ways—spend a lot of time in the outdoors in nature, have excellent outdoor skills and wilderness and orienting-type skills. When we take a step back and think about the application of those potential skills, there is actually a range of tasks that such a group might also be able to fulfill, if they were being properly remunerated and supported.

We have these very acute kind of emergency situations, which is the focus of our discussion, and I think appropriately so. There are also other kinds of circumstances.

For example, at the moment we're dealing with this debris washing up on the western shore of Vancouver Island from this marine disaster. It's a volunteer-led initiative to be pulling all this plastic garbage off the beaches of western Vancouver Island. That's another role that this kind of a corps would be quite well suited to, I think. It wouldn't be the most urgent of their responsibilities, but it would seem to be in a universe of relevant skills that people who are being properly compensated might be quite eager to spend their times doing because of the direct benefits to their own communities, their own regions and to the environment as well.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Of course, as we talk about being so reactive, ultimately, to climate disasters and the natural disasters that CAF is being asked to respond to, can you outline some of the key things that CAF needs to do to prevent further issues? What is the CAF doing or what does it need to do environmentally in order to proactively...not create more of the issues.

One example in terms of dealing with the north is that they can't maintain their bases because the permafrost is melting. What are they doing in reaction to that? What must they proactively do to try to avoid some of these things?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That is an important question, but unfortunately, Ms. Mathyssen has run out of time.

Colleagues, I would just point out that we have 20 minutes before our next guests arrive and we have 25 minutes' worth of questions. That's probably not going to quite work, but I think I will run a full roll of questions in anticipation that our friends might be a bit late.

Ms. Gallant is up five minutes, please.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we are getting a lot of the ingredients to what the solution is. We have a wealth of Canadian Armed Forces personnel who are trained and who can no longer be deployed, but would like to be involved in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have others who are fully trained, but no longer want to deploy. So we have their command and control features; they know how to follow or lead. We have also had the comment made that $1 spent in prevention saves $6 to $13 in repairs.

I'm wondering if what we're starting to outline in terms of a solution and a possible new body for response to disasters would be a hybrid of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, because they do engineering for prevention as well as being called in when disaster strikes, but also the aspects of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is under Homeland Security in the United States and would be under Public Safety in Canada.

We're looking at a hybrid of both of those, from the Canadian Forces as was mentioned, who have specific skills that are needed for situations that are national defence and military related. They could do their work while using the skills they've learned at a later point in time when they no longer are deployable. Is this something that you think could potentially be on guard and able to respond when necessary? It would be a hybrid of the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA if we're looking at a parallel.

[Dr. Peter Kikkert]

I would just say to that question, I think the military is, moving forward, going to have a role in disaster response. I'm not advocating that it has no role. I think that we have to use the specialized skill set the CAF has more. For instance, the search and rescue capacity it has, if we bolster that and improve that, it benefits Canadians who go missing in the wilderness, but it can also be used during disaster situations. I think that the Canadian Armed Forces search and rescue structure is a great thing to build and strengthen for that.

Again, I would argue that putting too much of the emphasis on the army engineers, for instance, it's a pretty small body of personnel.... I just don't think it's going to cut it moving forward. I think that, again, the CAF is very reluctant to do anything besides the response element, because it's already taking up so much of their time. Again, no mitigation, no prevention, no preparedness and no recovery, which are the most time consuming, the most expensive and the most important part of the disaster management spectrum.

I do agree with this idea that there could be dual use in a civilian agency with the military. I just don't think we can allow too much of the CAF's regular forces to be drawn into this if there is a civilian agency that is created to handle it as well.

There's one other thing. You speak a lot about structuring and how this could be structured and what this could look like. At the federal level, for instance, I again highlight Australia and some of the things they've done since their national commission in 2020. They've always had Emergency Management Australia, which is focused on response. They realized that wasn't enough, so they've also now established a National Recovery and Resilience Agency whose focus is on helping communities recover from disasters and then building them in a more resilient way moving forward. They've also established an Australian Climate Service to assist with severe weather events.

Again, we see a growth of structures to enable this response because they are so complex and because they draw upon so many different resources. That's a conversation we could also have in Canada, again, based on the similarities in our structures with Australia's.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

There was the aspect that our local governing bodies are key. The feds aren't called in until it's a last resort. As far as the engineers are concerned, it's not the type of engineers we have currently in the military—they're people who blow up things. I would be looking at more the civil engineer type.

When we had our floods in Renfrew County back in 2019, well in advance of the actual flood occurring, people were looking at the freshet from the north, at the melt, at the water levels and everything that's going on and they were well prepared. It wasn't until it struck and it overwhelmed every other level that we called in the military.

I'm still convinced that the key start has to be at every local level since they know the community and have a finger on the pulse of the situation. How do we weave all that together and call in the national aspect when they are indeed the only source that's left?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Again, it's an important question, but we're well over time.

Ms. Lambropoulos, you have five minutes, please.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank both of you for being here to answer some of our questions on this important issue. For me, having listened to everybody so far, the main question that comes to mind is, given that we just finished a study on retention and recruitment, if we create a body completely separate from the CAF and it's specifically meant for natural disasters and for coming to the aid of Canadians when such a disaster occurs, is that not the same or a similar type of profile to someone who would apply to the CAF?

Considering the fact that right now the competition level is quite high between the general jobs on the market and the CAF, and that it's the main reason that they can't find enough personnel, is this not going to make it even more difficult? What are some of the factors that differentiate the two and would make it so that they don't poach from each other?

[Dr. Peter Kikkert]

Again, that's a great question.

Given the ongoing recruitment issues the CAF is experiencing, I do see that. I would argue, though, that if you look what's going on in emergency management in the country right now, it is an increasingly diverse group of people who are going through these professional education programs, which Mr. Bowen talked about when he was in front of your committee and that are in schools across this country.

If you look at the makeup of emergency managers, we are seeing a transition into a much more diverse work body. I think that, historically, emergency managers were often retired CAF or Coast Guard or police. They're still there and they still do great work, but we also see a lot of other people moving into this field in Canada and abroad. I think a civilian response force would appeal to a broader base of individuals than are interested in joining the CAF. Motivations might be different and the experience would certainly be different. I think there would be a body of recruits that CAF can't draw upon.

All that said, I'm not saying there might not be struggles with this, given the competitive job market that exists. It would be interesting in that light to see how British Columbia does, because it has recently decided to expand its civilian wildfire-fighting force to 1,000 permanent full-time year-round employees, who will be doing disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness work. It will be interesting to see how that model comes through and if they do struggle with recruitment. I think that's something to keep an eye on for sure

[Dr. Wilfrid Greaves]

What I would say is that I think if we recognize that the fight against climate change is in many ways fundamentally different than the fight against foreign adversaries is, then we might actually expect there to be different pools of prospective applicants for these two different types of roles: the Canadian Armed Forces on one side as a war-fighting entity and then some kind of resilience corps on the other.

As we think about the communities that have been affected by major climate disasters, it's all manner of people from all walks of life who will have seen their own lives, their own homes and their own families implicated in those kinds of disasters. I think that for a range of reasons relating to, on the one hand, flexibility around accommodating other work or students and so forth, for people who might see joining the forces in one capacity or other as not being compatible with their other priorities, their other life goals, joining some kind of locally based entity that will be able to continue to maintain the integrity of their community in the face of climate change might be quite a bit more appealing.

I would also note that I think the current conflict in eastern Europe, the invasion of Ukraine, is a clarifying moment in terms of the function of the Canadian Armed Forces as a war-fighting and ultimately alliance-oriented military. While that is separate to our discussion here, I do think that many people in Canada may well look at the CAF with a kind of renewed sense of its core military functions in light of the current conflict.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, both of you. I appreciate your answers. They were very good.

My next question would be for Mr. Kikkert.

You mentioned the study in Australia and the fact that they have a volunteer program right now, and that the main issue with theirs is that the traditional role of the traditional model of the volunteer has changed. It's older people who are looking to volunteer now, and they're not necessarily the same type of volunteer. What solutions have they turned to? What have they discovered or what are they going to be doing instead in the future?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Answer briefly, please.

[Dr. Peter Kikkert]

That's a great question and there are a lot of elements to it.

They have shown that their state emergency services are, in some states, struggling to find enough volunteers. Some of the solutions they are talking about—and this is an ongoing conversation right now—are things like providing additional incentives to volunteers, tax breaks and this kind of thing, or transitioning to a paid, on call kind of thing, where these people are paid for the training they undertake during their weekends or their nights, and they're paid when they are on call.

They have now officially implemented a program where, if you are a volunteer firefighter or a member of the SES, the state emergency service, and you deploy over a long term for a disaster, you will be compensated for that. It's something like $300 a day to a maximum of $6,000. They are experimenting with different structures.

This is an ongoing concern and that conversation is just getting started about how to encourage more volunteers—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there, unfortunately.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

It has already been mentioned that one of the strengths of the regular force was its good operational capability and that, as far as the reserves were concerned, the Canadian Rangers had a good knowledge of the terrain.

When you talk about the possibility of creating something completely different that would be under the control of the population, it seems to me that you should already be working on creating a whole new structure and looking for new skills that you don't necessarily have already.

Wouldn't it be simpler to better fund the reserve force to create more permanent posts, for example?

[Dr. Peter Kikkert]

Again, a conversation about the reserve's future, what that looks like and the role they might play in disaster response is a worthwhile conversation to have.

I would again argue, though, that the recruitment base for a civilian response agency would be broader than for the army reserves. I am not an expert on the military reserves. I work with the Canadian Rangers a lot and I know they are great resources for their communities, but I am not sure that the CAF wants to have ranger patrols in every single community in the country.

There are definitely questions about how far to push this model, and there are questions about the reserves and what they can do in this role. It's a conversation worth having. That's all I can say about it.

[Dr. Wilfrid Greaves]

I'll defer to my colleague's comments in response.

Thank you.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

In the same vein, if the decision was to turn to the reserve, wouldn't we be better off dividing the responsibilities a bit more between the federal and provincial governments, so that the provinces don't have to beg the federal government every time they need help, so that they can fund their forces themselves and step in when needed?

Would this option be feasible?

[Dr. Wilfrid Greaves]

What I would add to that is simply that there is currently no restriction on the capacity of the provinces to establish their own response capabilities of whatever sort. Provinces will exercise jurisdiction should they see the need to create their own autonomous capabilities, and the Government of Canada is quite distinct from that.

Whether or not that's advisable, and whether or not that's the most fiscally responsible route or the most effective in case of actual disasters, is precisely the conversation that would need to be based on evidence, study and informed opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madam Normandin.

Colleagues, I see that our next folks have arrived and I don't want to hold them up. My thought is that we give Ms. Mathyssen a minute, two minutes to Ms. O'Connell and Mr. Motz, and call it a day.

Is that acceptable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have one question and one minute, Madam Mathyssen.