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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Richard Fadden  As an Individual
Conrad Sauvé  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Red Cross
Johanu Botha  Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Measures Organization of Manitoba
Amy Avis  General Counsel and Chief of Recovery Services, Canadian Red Cross

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Canada is a relatively peaceful country. It's not at war with other countries and isn't likely to be. We're seeing more and worse natural disasters though, which is why some people say the Canadian Armed Forces' mission should be changed and they should have more training to deal with that.

What are your thoughts on that?

11:45 a.m.

As an Individual

Richard Fadden

I disagree.

We're very fortunate in that we're not at risk of being invaded. However, Canada is a member of NORAD and NATO, and it participates in the UN's peacekeeping operations. It could not be a member of those organizations if it did not have armed forces trained for military purposes. Is there a perfect balance? That's not for me to say. Canada cannot participate in the western international community without trained armed forces. The Canadian troops that were in Ukraine and those that are now in Estonia are very well trained and respected by their peers throughout the western world.

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Do you know of any models or best practices that other countries use when responding to natural disasters?

11:45 a.m.

As an Individual

Richard Fadden

To be honest, no.

One thing that makes Canada unique is its size. Emergency management practices in British Columbia would not necessarily work in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's just one example. No two countries are exactly alike.

I said earlier that FEMA seems to work in the United States, but that's the kind of extreme federal intervention that might not be welcome in Canada. The Brits have other systems. It would be good to set up a royal commission, as I said earlier, to look at international practices and see how best to use them here.

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Thank you.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

For two and a half minutes, we have Ms. Mathyssen.

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

You mentioned that FEMA has a lot of problems. Can you outline them quickly for us within two and a half minutes?

11:45 a.m.

As an Individual

Richard Fadden

I don't know if I can do that, but certainly during the previous administration and the one previous to that, they did not act quickly enough.

What is their involvement? Do the States have to ask for assistance? Do they not ask for assistance? The distribution of assets was a problem. Like everybody else, they were probably underfunded because people like a peace dividend of one sort or another. If there's not a disaster for 10 years, people start saying, “Well, you know, we can cut back a bit.”

I'm not an expert on it. I just know that over the years they've done some things really well and other things not so well. You'll recall that in Puerto Rico, two hurricanes ago, they were criticized quite a bit for not being terribly helpful.

To repeat myself again, I think you do need a mix of national, federal and provincial. If you put too much at the federal level, it isn't going to work. The provinces do find that frequently their capabilities are exceeded, so you need a mix of the two, which we accept here in principle. I'd just argue that we need to think about it some more, exercise it more and make sure it's more effective .

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Ms. Gallant, you have five minutes.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're talking about attrition. To what extent does the steady attrition of our military impact their ability to respond to natural disasters when called upon to do so?

11:50 a.m.

As an Individual

Richard Fadden

Quite simply, I think it does. The military, I think, will tell you that their main responsibility is to maintain their military operational capabilities, and there's a limit to what they can take away. They cannot move staff from CFB Bagotville or CFB Cold Lake Airport, which is dedicated to NORAD, and all of a sudden have them fight forest fires. There's a limit somewhere, so you have to draw on the reserves, which we do intermittently.

Largely, we have to draw on army units that don't have dedicated functions at a particular point in time, but the fewer troops you have available for military use, active military use and for training.... The generals will tell you that for each military person actively shooting a gun or holding a gun to prevent violence, they need two or three others in training and all of this stuff, so it's cutting back a lot.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Okay, so there's chronic underfunding of the military.

Do you think the chronic underfunding and attrition, based on what you've seen, is intentional on the part of the government?

11:50 a.m.

As an Individual

Richard Fadden

No. I think, for example, that Mr. Harper was a wartime Prime Minister because of Afghanistan. I happen to agree with his decision to have us leave Afghanistan because I think the Canadian Forces at the time were terribly stretched. He and his successors did somewhat reduce the size of the military. It's another peace dividend. Did they do that intentionally? No. They did it to try to save money to use on other things.

I happen to think, in part because of my experience, that national security is as important as other sectors of activity. Various governments at various times take different views.

Mr. Chrétien did not want to be the Prime Minister when 9/11 occurred. The last thing he wanted was to ask Parliament to appropriate $7.9 billion in the December after 9/11, but he was forced to do it because of the circumstances.

I do think that prime ministers and governments have their own priorities. I don't think we give enough in Canada to national security, but that's just me. I'm probably prejudiced because of my jobs over the years, but I think the change in the international environment is such that we're going to have to spend more time, money and effort on the sorts of things you're talking about.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Thank you.

To what extent do fuel costs, access and capacity impact the ability of a province to deal with a disaster and the speed at which our military can provide assistance to civil authorities if needed?

11:50 a.m.

As an Individual

Richard Fadden

I think they all do because it speaks to the extent to which they have set aside reserves to use for emergencies. I don't think we do that a lot.

To give you an example, when I was deputy minister, the military desperately wanted to do more exercises in the Far North because we don't do it enough. I think the cost is four times as much as an exercise elsewhere, so one exercise in the north means they can't do three or four others elsewhere.

If you apply this same logic to emergency planning, where you have a relatively small amount of money available, and all of a sudden fuel costs, for example, are doubled, you can deal with it by pulling resources here and there, but if you don't have reserves set aside, both in terms of money and facilities, it does slow you down.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Are you referring to reserves in fuel or people?

11:50 a.m.

As an Individual

Richard Fadden

I think you need reserves in everything, generally. Fuel is not a big problem in Canada, but you certainly need to know.... We didn't know that what happened in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes was going to happen, so it seems to me that logical questions to ask the military would be, “Did you anticipate, in one of your scenarios, that something like this could happen?” and “If you did, how many armed forces personnel could you have identified within 24 hours to move to the Maritimes?”

I don't know if they've done it. They used to do it, years ago, then they stopped doing it on a regular basis. Planning for emergency disaster relief is almost as important as the actual bodies on the ground. If you plan properly, it really makes a difference.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Thank you.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

We have Mr. May for the final five minutes.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fadden, for being here. It has been truly helpful to get your perspective.

One challenge in going last is that much of what I was going to ask has been asked. I want to take the time to review, perhaps, and pull this together.

You talked about not having the appropriate tools, and I think that's a good place for us to start. You talked about the division between the CAF and the NGOs that can step up, like the Red Cross. What do you see as an appropriate division of responsibilities among the CAF and those NGOs?

11:55 a.m.

As an Individual

Richard Fadden

That's a good question.

In a lot of crises, you have a number of stages. You have the immediate relief. Take the fires in Fort McMurray. You had to put the fires out, and, by and large, the province dealt with that issue. However, you still have, today, people who don't have houses and whatnot, so registering these people and providing them with immediate financial assistance.... I think an organization like the Red Cross can do this immeasurably better than the Canadian Armed Forces, because it's just not in the CF headspace. Moving firefighting equipment from Quebec to help in Alberta.... The armed forces are going to be able to do this better than the Red Cross or any other organization, because they have the physical assets.

It depends on the particular element you're talking about. One question, earlier, was about the assistance provided in Quebec to long-term care homes. I think, in the very short term, they did not have an alternative, so they used the army. To the extent they used the surgeon general's resources, it made sense, but using infantrymen to work in long-term care homes is not good. It's not good for the long-term care home, and it's not good for the people in the long-term care home.

Using people from the Red Cross or another NGO is immeasurably better, particularly because these people are better prepared, in some ways, than the government. The Red Cross maintains long lists, in all the provinces, of people willing to volunteer—general-purpose volunteers, like I would be, but also trauma surgeons. Using that capability, broadly defined.... They're up next here. I think they're your next witness. It will be interesting to see what they say, but I don't think using the logistical support of the military to move people is going to go away. Old-fashioned manpower, where you just need bodies.... They have the bodies—the more general-purpose bodies.

I'm sorry. That's a long and inadequate answer.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

I appreciate that.

My background is working with non-profit organizations. I worked many years trying to manage large staff teams, including volunteers. There are a lot of challenges with that. There are a lot of limitations in terms of what you can and cannot do.

In your mind, is the reason why we haven't relied on volunteers to that extent, on a more regular basis, a trust issue? Is it because we can't guarantee we're going to have the right number of bodies with the right training on the ground to deal with some of these things, especially when they're so episodic? As you said, we didn't know, necessarily, what was coming in the Maritimes. Is it a trust issue?

11:55 a.m.

As an Individual

Richard Fadden

I don't think so, really, but—

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON

Let me rephrase it: Is it a political issue? We're hearing premiers saying, right now, “Send in the troops. We need the troops.” They're not saying, “Send in the Red Cross.”

11:55 a.m.

As an Individual

Richard Fadden

No, because in this particular circumstance, the Red Cross can't cut wood. They could, however, register people who don't have electricity and provide them with immediate financial assistance better than the forces could. It depends on the particular function.

I don't think it's a question of trust, to go back to your earlier way of putting it. I think they haven't used them as much as they could have because they didn't have to. Disasters are occurring much more frequently now, and I think it's forcing everybody to think, “Oh my God.”

If you ask both the military and the Red Cross, for example, who did what during COVID—and not just the military, if you ask PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada—I think you will find that they found the services of the Red Cross met the standard they were trying to set without any great difficulty.

Again, like everything else, you need to plan, you need to exercise and you need to agree on who does what with whom. We're getting there slowly, because we're having to deal with it time after time. I'm a believer, as I was saying, of earlier planning making a big difference on the ground. That's what we're not doing enough of, I think.