Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2009

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

That is what I find concerning. At present, departments do not have their own committee to inform them of potential risks. Unfortunately, in the majority of disasters, Public Safety only intervenes after the fact. There is no prevention, and that is what I am concerned about. The best example of that is what occurred at Rivière-au-Renard, in Quebec. Everyone knew that it was a flood area, but people were allowed to build their homes there.

[Daniel Lavoie]

Cases like that are acted on at the local level, much more so than at the federal. In general, only the largest emergencies are managed by the federal government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci, Monsieur Roy.

I want to remind all members to keep their questions short and relevant.

To the witnesses, I ask you to keep your answers precise and succinct.

Mr. Christopherson, you have eight minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you all for your attendance today. It's good to see you all from the AG's office again.

I've mentioned before that in a previous life part of my portfolio responsibility was then called “emergency measures”. It's getting a little stale. It was about 15 years ago, and I accept that. But at least I have some familiarity with the issues and how they work and what the interrelatedness is of the various pieces.

I have to tell you that right from the get-go, as a parliamentarian, I'm outraged. As a citizen, I'm worried, to say the least. Since 9/11, much of the world has been turned upside down, particularly with regard to anything involving security.

Our government and governments like ours around the world have approved billions of dollars in expenditures in tightening up and trying to deal with all the various pieces of public security, given the age we live in. To find out that, for instance, the one main document, the federal emergency response plan, is not there, and you have been working on it since 2004 and it's still not approved, that's where the outrage is coming from. It's not as if this is new. I read your comments, deputy, in your bullet point on page 3, “...clearly many challenges remain before us”.

I reviewed the chapter on emergency management, and agree with all of its recommendation. Yeah, well, so what? So did your predecessors, and they didn't do anything about it. We need something from you that's going to give us a sense that it really will happen. I'm not seeing it in these documents. When I looked at the updated report that we got from the AG, going back to the audit in 2005, to see how many things were identified then that remain unresolved or unsatisfactory—to use the Auditor General's term—I counted them up. There were nine areas that overlapped between the study in 2005 and now, and six of those are unsatisfactory. That's six out of nine recommendations from a 2005 audit, when you started in 2004, and we're eight years out from 9/11. All I get is that you know you have challenges and you'll get on top of it. That's just not going to wash.

Let's deal with this one as an example. Let's deal with this federal emergency response. Right from the get-go, here's what I don't understand. Help me get this. The federal emergency response plan is not approved by the government. Therefore it doesn't have the sanction of government. Yet according to the documents here, it's deemed to be final. It's the document you use. That tells me, as an ordinary citizen, as a parliamentarian, that if something happened right now and BlackBerrys started buzzing in this room, that you would immediately reach to that plan, and it would be what you worked from. Because you deem it to be final, we can feel secure that it's going to deal with the issues as they need to be dealt with.

Yet on the other hand, it's not final enough to go to the government. It's final enough for us as citizens to rely on that plan to be there, to show us what we should do when the emergency hits, but it's not final enough for the government to approve it. On your dateline in your action plan, I see “as soon as possible,” after you've already had one audit condemning you in 2005 for not doing exactly the same thing you're being condemned for now.

Something's missing. I've been around long enough. There's a piece of this that is missing, and I don't know what it is. There's something stopping you from taking it to government. There's some reason government doesn't want to put its final hands on, or you haven't resolved enough issues to answer the questions at the cabinet table, which would tell me the document is not ready for us to rely on as citizens if an emergency hit.

Help me understand how we got here, why you didn't react adequately after the 2005 audit, and why we should feel confident that a document you say is final is not good enough for the cabinet to put their fingerprints on and say yes, this is the plan. Help me understand.

[William Baker]

The member is raising a number of legitimate concerns, but we have to take these one at a time. There has been work on a federal emergency response plan for many years. Officials concluded that for all intents and purposes the plan was in good enough shape by June 2008. I believe that was the date. The prevailing thinking at the time was that it was sufficient to have a plan that was shared with departments and agencies, a plan that all parties were working from.

The Auditor General's report raises an important and justifiable point: to give this plan the weight it needs, government approval should be in place. We agree with that, and we will be seeking it. This is not to suggest that the plan is deficient in any way. I have looked at the plan, and I don't believe it to be deficient. It's not everything, of course—plans trigger other plans, and they trigger other events—but I think it is in reasonable shape. We will have to put it to the minister.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

When?

[William Baker]

I don't want to pass judgment on what ministers might think. They have to have an opportunity to review it.

When we as officials say “as soon as possible”, it's understood that we cannot dictate when items will go before ministers and cabinet for approval. But Minister Van Loan has said that this will be given sufficient priority. I'm confident that we have a product that is in position to be approved in short order.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Have you taken anything on this topic to cabinet before, as a report to be approved, and had it sent back? Or has nothing gone to the cabinet table in all these years?

[William Baker]

To my knowledge, the federal emergency response plan has not gone forward before.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Help me to understand. I'm outraged, but I'm trying to be as fair-minded as I can. Help me understand, what is it that still needs to be done before it can go to cabinet?

[William Baker]

I do not think anything more needs to be done, nothing in the way of refining the plan.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. I don't want to be rude, but I'm short of time.

We're talking about the security of the country. You folks are one notch down from having the Minister of National Defence come into it. That's what scared the hell out of me when I was the minister. I know what's there. If you tell me it's in that kind of shape, why hasn't it been in front of the cabinet a long time ago?

[William Baker]

I think the operating assumption was that the plan as it stood was sufficient, because it was being used at an officials level.

I agree with the Auditor General, as does the minister, that this is not sufficient. We need to ensure that this enjoys the support of government.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, I want to stay with this. It's the main plan. I'm going to be a bit like a dog with a bone here.

I don't understand why it hasn't gone to cabinet if it's in such good shape. You say it's in a final condition. We all recognize that it was done by humans, so it's not perfect. But if it's as good as it's going to get, why would it not go to cabinet in its current form? What needs to be done? And why is the minister not running with this?

This is what I don't understand. This should be motherhood. Everything else about security seems to be motherhood. In the era we're in, often that's the case. But what about the official plan for us to deal with emergencies? Why was that not a political imperative? Why was it not an imperative for you to get it approved, particularly since the Auditor General already went through this once in her audit in 2005?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Mr. Baker.

[William Baker]

Just to repeat, we're going to seek that approval at the earliest opportunity. One should not assume that nothing was done, just because the plan was not approved. This plan has been in the hands of officials for some time now. They have been operating according to that plan in developing work. Our people have not been sitting on their hands, and we will seek this political approval as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses and of course the Auditor General for being here again today.

Just to start off, we have been very fortunate in this country not to have had many national emergencies. We've had a number of regional emergencies and we've not had national emergencies.

I can speak a little bit about involvement in the development of a local emergency plan. And we talked about this, actually, the first time the Auditor General was here. I have some appreciation about this, quite honestly, and I listened to my colleague David, who raised valid points.

I also have a complete appreciation for the complexity and time it takes to bring a plan together. When I'm looking at a plan that went from 2003 or 2004 to 2007, in that time Public Safety Canada was formed and in 2007 the Emergency Management Act was brought forward. With that came a sort of emergency response plan.

I know there is a lot of textbook theory that goes into a plan, and every time there is an event, there is then a review of what happened on that event. Lessons learned come from those, and the good ones are put into the plan and the bad ones are taken out. So I will always believe that an emergency plan is a living document.

Looking at the living document in terms of timing from 2003 to 2009, in 2003 I don't remember a lot about the issues around cyber-security at that time—and in fact I'm not sure it was in the old file. So in terms of some of the earlier discussions that actually happened around agriculture in 2003, I can tell you that in 2003 the issues around biosecurity and genetics were not what they are today. Those are evolving. They are not simple. They are very complex.

I'm not defending unsatisfactory issues. I'm just trying to illustrate to the public and to those of us here that I have an appreciation for the complexity and the timing because what I'm understanding is that we now have a draft action plan.

As you have presented to us now, there is actually an action plan, and this is the timing in which we are going to try to resolve it. Earlier in your comments, sir, you talked about some of the issues, the things we are hopefully going to be able to deal with in this year. I wonder if you could comment in terms of the action plan and how you are going to meet those schedules you have put in place. Some of them, quite honestly, are fairly significant.

[William Baker]

We have, as you are aware, provided the Auditor General's office, and I believe members of this committee, with a detailed action plan on addressing each of the five recommendations. Clearly some of the items raised in the Auditor General's report predate that report and they have a certain history to them.

Our focus right now I believe is where it should be, which is on here and now, what do we need to do over the coming while to get the country in shape with respect to emergency management and to ensure that Public Safety Canada is exercising the necessary leadership that has to occur.

I can tell you I have reviewed in detail this departmental action plan. We have brought this to our departmental audit committee, which includes people who are external advisers. I am confident that this is thorough and that the timelines are reasonable, although I must tell you, as deputy minister, I will be pushing hard to see if we can get some of these things done even sooner, recognizing that it's not the only thing we do. But certainly I'll be seeking to see early implementation of all of these recommendations, and we will move forward on this. In fact, I look forward to reporting on progress on our implementation of these in the months and years to come.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

In the implementation of the action plan, in your presentation you said there are three specific areas where Public Safety Canada needs to raise its game, and you listed them. Basically, just to shorten it up, one was to develop policy and programs to clarify public safety leadership--so basically, leadership. The other one is to strengthen relationships with stakeholders, and I may have a separate question on that one. The third is organizational stability.

I just want to go back, because not everyone has the issues in terms of the action plan. Can you say that those three are going to be addressed in some detail within your action plan over the next year?

[William Baker]

Absolutely. Those three themes come directly from the items raised in the Auditor General's report and in our action items that have been identified. In the vast majority of cases we expect to experience significant progress, meaningful progress, in the coming year.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

If I could just go to the second one, it talks about relationships with stakeholders and goes back to being able to complete and make satisfactory some of those issues that... This is one, actually, being a bit unsatisfactory about being able to accomplish those things in a strategic federal, provincial, and municipal forum. Can you talk to us a little bit about how you actually deal with that relationship?

You have a federal government and you have all these departments. Each of those departments actually has a link down to a regional department. That regional department has some sort of link that reaches down to either a county or a city or a local municipality in terms of their plan. So actually it may be a regional disaster, but I can tell you the federal government will get called in for help. But I'll tell you, the guys who are sitting around the council table locally are the ones who are carrying a lot of that.

I'm trying to understand that development of relationships, which is so important to get the understanding that when something happens, actually the book gets pulled out and there's an action plan in place. How do you build that relationship so that you have credibility, so that you've built credibility with all those regions and the municipalities, so that it's a plan that can be followed and has credibility to it?

[William Baker]

You're raising an important point. Provinces have jurisdiction for emergency management, but it's recognized that sometimes provinces don't have the capacity. Sometimes the emergency transcends provincial or territorial borders, or sometimes it's in the national interest. We have mechanisms to work. The emergency management function within public safety has regional offices. The main reason for those regional offices is to work with provinces on their development of plans to put in sequencing that needs to take place. That relationship seems to be working very well.

Something that was mentioned in the report is the exercises that have been conducted. Those would involve federal, provincial, municipal, and in some cases even other players. We've done a number of these over the last few years to try to bring it to life, albeit in somewhat an artificial circumstances, because these are exercises, and my understanding is that the relationship with the provinces is really quite excellent.

I could say one thing. This is going to be a good year to get people's attention. We've been all focused on H1N1 pandemic planning, we have Olympics coming up, and there are a lot of exercises going on, particularly the province of British Columbia, the federal government, and so on. We're readying for a G-8 and a G-20. This is focusing everybody's attention on emergency management, and I think that's going to be very helpful in advancing our progress.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Before we go to the second round, there are a couple of areas I do want to pursue, Mr. Baker.

I have to somewhat agree with Mr. Christopherson. I'm reading the performance report, and it's not what I'd consider favourable. There are a lot comments here about the lack of leadership, the lack of a plan, the lack of any kind of coordination. When you go back and look at the audit that was done back in 2005, you see that the auditor at that time made nine recommendations about emergency preparedness. I can appreciate that the department was established only in 2003, but still it was a coordination of other functions of government. The audit was done. These were recommendations that the agency or the department agreed to fulfilling at the time. You told Canadians that you would do it, and you didn't do it. And now when we see the follow-up, it's “unsatisfactory”, “unsatisfactory”, “unsatisfactory”.

Then the committee at the time held a hearing. We made six recommendations. Five of them came back unsatisfactory, that you haven't done it.

My conclusion, Mr. Baker, is that this is a department in some difficulty. But what really concerns me, and makes me quite annoyed--

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, would you make it clear whether you are taking an opposition slot in the questions right now? Or are you acting as chair to pre-empt a spot?

You're certainly taking a very partisan position right now, and you have not made clear whether this is an opposition time slot or not.