Evidence of meeting #32 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was capacity.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
You mentioned that you didn't suggest that these capabilities become just another department of CAF. Do you have an idea of the type of direction then? Would it be some sort of national organization of provinces and territories? I would think there would have to be that federal component. As you said, there is lots of expertise within CAF, so if it's not a department with CAF, do you have an idea of what then?
As an Individual
I certainly agree with you that there needs to be a capability within CAF. The question is how big.
I think one of the issues that arise.... If I recall correctly, your next witness is from the Canadian Red Cross, and as I said, increasingly the Prime Minister is saying he's sending in the army and the Red Cross. I think one of the questions that need to be asked is what can civil society provide in disasters? Can they provide hundreds and hundreds of bodies? No, they can't. Can they provide the sorts of things the Red Cross and other organizations provide better than the military can? They probably can.
To my mind, it's a question of somebody somewhere looking at the federal capability, the provincial capability and the capability of civil society as well.
Some people argue that we should go the route of the United States with FEMA, which actually has operational capability for disasters, but a lot of Americans would tell you that it's not the success story that some people think it is.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
This is my last question.
I'm not sure, based on the timing in your bio—correct me I'm wrong—whether you were still advising during Operation Provision and the settling of Syrian refugees. I was curious about your experience and if there's any commentary.
There was a decision to have refugees lodging in CAF bases. You talked about unity of purpose. I was curious what that operational change and that experience might have been, if you have any commentary on that.
As an Individual
I was still there at the beginning. There were a number of plans put forward. One of them was to bring people in and put them in CAF bases, but then some fairly wise people said these people are being taken out of a war zone and they're scared witless at the sight of uniforms—it doesn't matter what the uniform is—so sending them to military bases was probably not the best idea.
Having said that, the military galvanized itself and had several bases ready to do it, but the system and the government of the day decided that, given where they were coming from, it was better to not use military facilities.
Liberal
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for joining us, Mr. Fadden. Your resumé is quite impressive. Come work for me. You can start tomorrow.
Seriously though, in a perfect world, who do you think should be responsible for these domestic deployments? The federal government, the provinces or municipalities? Let's leave the private sector out of it for the time being.
As an Individual
I think it should be up to all three levels of government. It depends on the particulars of the disaster.
If it's a disaster in Trois‑Rivières that's relatively manageable, I think the municipality should be able to take care of it. If it's a major disaster, like the Lac‑Mégantic tragedy, I think the province should take responsibility. However, there are disasters that call for the involvement of all three levels of government. That's probably not what you want to hear, but I would say all three levels should take on that responsibility depending on the circumstances.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Do you support private sector involvement for these types of disasters?
As an Individual
In general, yes, but I think we need to take a very close look at the kind of help being sought.
In my remarks, I said that using military helicopters was not the best possible use of a very specialized resource. Many companies in Canada use helicopters. If we do the kind of general review I suggest, we can easily reach agreements with some of those companies to use their helicopters for disaster response. That's just one simple example, but I think the private sector can play certain roles, as can civil society. The Red Cross, the Salvation Army and organizations like that can very quickly mobilize people that often have skills and experience the armed forces do not. I think we need to use everybody. Doing that efficiently will take some thought.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
During the pandemic, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the CAF, were deployed in various places, including in Quebec. Do you think that was appropriate use of resources? Were they assigned duties that corresponded to their strengths? Generally speaking, was it appropriate to call on them?
As an Individual
I think it was, in the case of the surgeon general's resources, but doctors and nurses are not plentiful in the armed forces. It was appropriate to use that very small number of CAF members, but deploying members of the army, navy and air force that have nothing to do with health care was not appropriate.
If I remember correctly, army units were deployed in Quebec. It quickly became clear that they were able to provide support but could not be used long term. If memory serves, the Red Cross ended up taking over.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Do you think it was appropriate to make short-term use of army personnel to carry out PSW duties, for example?
As an Individual
I think that, in a disaster situation, which that was, we have to use what we have. We didn't have a lot of options, so the best course of action was to intervene, provide help and withdraw as quickly as possible.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Earlier you talked about how politicians have short-term vision, they solve one problem and then move on to the next one. When it comes to this kind of thing, we need a long-term vision. If you were prime minister, what would you do?
As an Individual
I would do what I suggested earlier, which is establish what used to be called a royal commission.
I think we need a national general review involving everyone in a relatively independent capacity to advise the government.
Asking public servants to review themselves isn't always fair. People will try, but it's better for this to be done by people at arm's length.
I think we need an independent national commission of inquiry to review everything. Once that's done, the government will have to decide how to handle any resulting recommendations.
I know people don't really like royal commissions because they're expensive and take a long time, but sometimes you don't have a choice. After all, we've been talking about emergency management in Canada for two decades, but we haven't made much progress.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
That's interesting.
What kind of findings do you think a commission of inquiry would reach?
As an Individual
I'm sure it would find that we need much more coordination among all three levels of government. Potential roles for the private sector and civil society have to be defined carefully.
Once that's done, it's a matter of allocating the necessary resources. One of the problems we have right now is that all levels of government are using their resources to deal with short-term problems, not to think about how to respond to a disaster five years from now.
I'm implicitly criticizing my former colleagues and politicians, but, in some ways, this is how it is pretty much everywhere.
Bloc
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Who pays the bill when the army is called in?
I mean, how did that work in Quebec during the pandemic?
As an Individual
If I remember correctly, the federal government paid for it.
Bloc
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
To continue along those lines, you were talking about how it's too easy for the prime minister of the day—whomever—to have that idea of coming to the rescue. It's really quite a political decision. In order to make this a non-political decision, this royal commission would be I think where you're going in terms of that recommendation. Beyond that though, would you recommend something like a permanent body away from that political decision-making process, away from that sort of “saviour type”, not turning your back on the provinces and all of those things, to continue to make those recommendations going forward?
