Public Safety Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you for coming this morning.

Your group is near and dear to my heart. In a previous occupation I was involved as a supervisor in a communications centre and later as a kind of partner in a tiered emergency response from a policing perspective.

Both from a communications centre standpoint and from a basis of allocating resources on a tiered response, one of the issues I've noticed is that we often view emergency responses from a vertical reporting basis, whereas in the field, often the actual application and delivery of services require a lateral or a horizontal reporting.

I was happy to hear you're concentrating primarily on the federal response and indeed recognize that in emergencies the immediate need tends to be from a local respondent, and then it goes up the food chain, shall we say.

When you view your relationship with the provinces and municipalities, as Mr. Holland mentioned, and the fear that perhaps we have someone who appears to know better than another, one of the key elements in almost every emergency is the ability to communicate directly and effectively. I was happy to hear you have software that actually dovetails with other agencies.

I know all the emergency fire and police personnel and ambulances aren't necessarily on the same radio frequencies. I know the Province of Ontario is working to have an overall communication strategy with regard to emergency responders.

Getting back to the software, I suspect Mr. Lesser would be the person to answer this. Are there any problems that you currently see in Canada in your relationship or the federal government's relationship with the provinces? You don't need to be specific, but generally, have you seen any places where the software, communication devices, and/or personnel don't fit seamlessly into the federal perspective?

[Robert Lesser]

I think it's a work in progress.

Depending on the province, a number of them have used software. I don't want to advertise any particularly, but Telus has E Team. It's been used by British Columbia for quite a while and is used extensively by Alberta. Ontario has their own software, which they wrote, and Quebec uses Neptune4. There are a number of federal departments that have started to use E Team. For example, the Health Agency and Health Canada have started to use it, as well as ourselves.

For us, it is an interim package and it is not fulsome enough for the needs we have for a national disaster. As in our plans and response system, we will develop a system that will be interoperable with provincial systems. We won't worry about hooking in municipally. We'll work on hooking in provincially and leave the provincial folks to click in municipally.

If I may also respond on the systems, technology supports the systems and how they actually function. In most provinces, and certainly at the local level—the U.S. system equally follows it, but it is known as the incident command system—it is a system we have used and adapted federally. It is very similar to or the same as the ones used in the provinces, and a very similar one is used at the pointy end of the tactical level. It is also very similar to the military system, the continental system.

On functions, as I mentioned before, there are a lot of similarities in working with the provinces. We have identified seven key functions we all do that are the same. We're now in the process of asking, how exactly are we going to share situational awareness to develop a common operating picture?

We were down in Washington about three or four weeks ago and took a look at what they call COP, which is sort of cute. Common operational picture is software they're developing. We want to make sure we're equally compatible with their particular system. As I said, it's a work in progress.

Again, going back to this legislation, by exercising leadership in emergency management, it allows us to then take the ball and lead in the development with other folks. They're wondering who is going to take the ball with this one. In a lot of areas, this legislation lays out the department's mandate.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

One of the ways we find out whether or not our systems and our plans work effectively and efficiently is to do simulated exercises. I've seen from a practical and operational standpoint that this is the best time to find out just exactly if your plan does work.

Do you, along with your provincial partners--and I suspect, through that, the municipal partners--on a routine basis do simulated exercises, using very different case scenarios, to see how well it works and how coordinated and dovetailed you are with the provinces?

[Michael Baker]

Yes. A cornerstone of our training and our learning as we go forward is to have an exercise program that we work on amongst the federal family as well as internationally and with the provinces and municipalities.

It is a cornerstone. We need that. We need the information. We have to test our plans, see where the problem areas exist, see how well we're doing things, and then build from that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We'll go back to Mr. St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of brief questions.

First, Mr. Ménard was talking about funding arrangements under the national program to assist in disasters. I don't know if the other program, JEPP, came up. The joint emergency preparedness program typically provides more modest sums to municipalities for fire trucks and emergency measures kind of equipment.

Did that program survive the recent spate of budget cuts?

[Michael Baker]

Yes, that program is still in effect. It's in place right now.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

That's good news.

Secondly, a couple of times “evolution” has come up, that the management coordination system is a work in progress. But somebody must have in mind somewhere what this will look like in ten years, in twenty years. I mean, you're evolving into something.

Do we have a sense of where that might be? It might shift a little bit as time goes by, but do we have a sense as a government or as a public service where that could be in ten or twenty years? Does it look, or not look, like the FEMA model in the U.S., which has, notwithstanding the problems they've had, a fairly strong national mandate?

And that's it, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[James Deacon]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd be reluctant to make any direct comparison to FEMA, because our system of government is different. Their arrangements are different.

I think there are a couple of basics that obviously have to be in place and that people have referred to already, such as the need for appropriate infrastructure in terms of authorities, as represented by the bill at the federal level, and in terms of information systems and connectivity.

Sometimes those information systems, as mentioned, aren't always perfect, so we supplement them with real people. If there's a disaster, we will send a liaison officer immediately to the provincial emergency measures organization. Practical arrangements that facilitate the exchange of information allow each jurisdiction to understand what the other jurisdiction is doing.

Is there a crystallized plan? I would say no. But there are some basic concepts that are understood in terms of what needs to be done and what needs to be known. I think we've made a lot of progress there. The federal-provincial-territorial fora that Tracy Thiessen referred to really give us an opportunity to enhance understanding and get consensus about what are the best ways specifically to work together. As often as not, we can see a disaster that goes across jurisdictions, and we have to be ready to respond to those as well.

So there are no lines respected in terms of the emergencies.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

To conclude, is there built into the management system a post-disaster review? Do the various levels involved in a particular disaster meet afterwards to say here's what went well, here's what didn't go well? Is there a built-in learning ability?

[James Deacon]

There absolutely is. Learning from past events and practices is critical. Post-event, part of that is the exercise regime that Mike was referring to, the federal-provincial-territorial exercises. As well, the exercises in lessons learned, as we call them, are part of real incident management as well as any exercise. Even after an exercise, we look at lessons learned in the exercise, most definitely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the panel for being here.

We've talked a lot about different situations with respect to the act, but clause 6, if I can just refer you to it, certainly lays out responsibilities for ministers other than the Minister of Public Safety. I'm just wondering if you could lay out for the committee what responsibilities would involve other ministers. What would they have to do?

I think some of the questions that have come up today, responsibilities of those ministers, other ministers, the Minister of Public Safety, and what they have to do, are actually covered in clause 6. The other part, and I think you've made it clear, is that it is not the federal government that does the hands-on in a situation with an emergency; it is the umbrella that's there to help and guide.

As the last part, I think a few years ago we saw where the largest municipality in the country utilized the services of the military to remove snow. Is that really what we would expect in the future?

[James Deacon]

I'll ask Ms. Wong to respond to questions on the legislation.

[Suki Wong]

I will respond just on the first part of the question, with respect to clause 6.

Clause 6 obviously is a really important section of this legislation. It brings together how the federal government approaches emergencies. One of the key features of this piece of proposed legislation is a common and standardized approach to emergency management, so that in an emergency, it's absolutely clear who is responsible for what aspects of the emergency.

That was an important lesson learned from Hurricane Katrina. It was very difficult. The rules were unclear. So one of the lessons learned from Katrina was that in an emergency, clear rules and responsibilities are absolutely important. This brings us to clause 6, that each minister is responsible for preparing emergency management plans in their own area of expertise. Our minister is not an expert in every aspect of emergency management; he plays the lead in terms of coordinating emergency management activities.

So in terms of clause 6, each minister is responsible for preparing an emergency management plan in their respective jurisdictions or with respect to their mandate. They have to test and maintain those plans to make sure they're current, that they're not sitting on a shelf, and that they're also complementary to other ministers' plans, because there is an interdependent aspect of emergency management.

Each minister is also obliged to consult provinces and territories to make sure that those plans are also complementary. What's distinct or new in this act from the EPA is that the Minister of Public Safety provides guidance on how these plans will be conducted, how they will be maintained, and how they will be implemented. Our minister provides that guidance to ensure a common approach to emergency management at the federal level.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

I don't have anyone else on my list.

Is there anybody else on the committee who would like to ask a question?

Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I have a long list, Mr. Chair.

Actually, what I'd like to do is ask all the questions and then see in the three or five minutes you're going to give me if we can get answers.

So let me do that as quickly as possible.

First--

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'll just ask our witnesses to try to make notes and keep track of them.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

First, was the Federation of Canadian Municipalities consulted during the process of this legislation?

Will there be any change in funding for this part of the department, and have there been any cuts in the department, either in the last budget or in the cuts that occurred last week?

Ms. Wong, on ministerial responsibility, all ministers clearly have to develop these plans, but unless I'm missing something in the legislation, I don't see any mandate for either the Minister of Public Safety or anybody else to monitor those plans to make sure they are complete and updated on an ongoing basis. If I'm right about that, maybe that's happening somewhere internally.

Mr. Baker, you described the drills and testing we do of the systems. From some of the reports I read on FEMA, they did the same thing, and if we'd asked them the questions before Katrina they would have been satisfied that the drills were successful and effective. So I'm just wondering what we do to test the tests and drills we're conducting--if they're real to real-time situations.

Because of my experience during the blackout in Ontario, Mr. Lesser, I have this picture of the minister sitting here in Ottawa not being able to communicate with anybody. I think you said that's been taken care of, but I'd like specific confirmation.

Along the same lines of communications--Ms. Wong, you may need to answer this--one of the problems we had in Windsor at that time was that the local CBC station went off the air. It's both an English and a French service. It was crucial that communications go out in French because between 5% and 7% of our population rely on that as a tool, and they didn't have a backup generator. They were off the air for over an hour. Of course, there was some panic as a result of people not being able to get any communication in their language.

Is there some follow-up for crown corporations, rather than just departments? Are we going to monitor the emergency preparedness plans of crown corporations? I'm thinking in particular of not just the communication industry but the nuclear industry.

The other problem I ran into at that time was I had no idea what I was supposed to do as an MP. Since then I have made several inquiries of our local emergency preparedness people--the head of them is a friend of mine--and they can't tell me what I'm supposed to do. So I'd like to know if there are any plans to give instructions to all MPs or their offices, and I'm talking about their constituency offices rather than their offices on the Hill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Deacon, maybe you can direct the questions to the various people.

[James Deacon]

Thank you.

I'll give the first question on the consultation process with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to Suki.

[Suki Wong]

They were consulted.

[James Deacon]

There have been no specific changes to departmental funding as of yet. There have been no cuts to the department tied specifically to this legislation.

[Suki Wong]

On your question about ministerial roles and responsibilities, paragraphs 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) are the areas where our minister would be responsible for providing advice to other ministers on their emergency management plans, as well as analyzing and evaluating those plans.