Public Safety Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Who would like to respond?

Mr. Burrett? Go ahead.

[John Burrett]

Thank you.

To respond similarly to what I said on the previous question, I'll say we would love to have a more explicit recognition in the legislation concerning the municipal role—amenable to all parties, and keeping in mind questions of jurisdiction, and trying not to create more difficulties. We absolutely would like to have a more explicit role.

Hence the target of the senior officials responsible for emergency management venue: it's not a political table; it's a deputy ministers' kind of table. It's officials to officials, and yet in a very senior and decision-making kind of capacity. That's why we have that target.

I should stop there, before I contradict myself. It's something we would like to see, by all means.

[James Knight]

I should say on border issues that there is another important discussion going on concerning border infrastructure. We had that discussion with the Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities about investing in our border infrastructure, which is clearly inadequate. That's another discussion we're having; we're very aware of the border challenges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Dhaliwal, do you have any follow-up?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

If we look at all the ports, they are monitored by the local first responders, but I don't think they are well equipped with the resources they need. That's what I think we should be focusing on, besides the explicit recognition.

[James Knight]

There is a heavy reliance on local police for border security, and frankly they're not particularly well equipped to do it. This is for us a whole other important discussion, certainly related to this legislation, but related to other issues as well.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

We'll go to Mr. Duplessis. Go ahead, please.

[Dr. Pierre Duplessis]

I would like to take this opportunity.... If someone were to ask me, “Would you go for more?”, the answer is yes.

And what would it mean? First and foremost, I think it's recognition, and I hope the message here is clear with the committee, that in due time it is important that a strong signal be given to us that “Yes, you're entitled to act” and “Yes, we count on you”, because for us the machinery is immediately different. We feel responsibility. We feel it now, but it's more in doubt; it's inactive. That's the message.

And if you were to say, “Okay, what more is there?”, to come back to what I said earlier, we need to build that capacity; we need to build up those volunteers being trained to be able to deploy. We need also some infrastructure and some materials—pre-positioning of materiel, for instance—to make sure that when an event happens we are able to go for it.

If you were to ask whether we could make a suggestion around—I don't know—maybe paragraph (m) of clause 4, or somewhere in that area, where we're going from establishing policies and programs to conducting exercises, if in between we could strengthen the funding for those entities, including the Canadian Red Cross and local governments, I think it might be appreciated, and it would send a signal that preparedness is extremely important and that capacity in the sector is also expected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank the guests for being here today.

Perhaps the federation people understand the sensitivity of the bill. I think—this is for my colleague—one of the changes that occurred in this bill from the previous bill was in trying to recognize the sensitivities that exist in some of the provincial jurisdictions with respect to what is seen to be the federal government's intrusion into their area. It certainly has different ramifications, depending where you are.

The other thing is that the federal government recognizes there may be shortcoming in some provinces, but it's not our responsibility to necessarily have some sort of heavy hand or to mandate that they all come to the same level. I think the intent of the bill was to try to weave that area.

This is to the federation. Mr. Owen talked about “mitigating circumstances”. Often we go back to Katrina. My understanding is that there may have been original federal plans to mitigate what might have been a future situation, but where the money perhaps didn't go to repair the levees. Had the levees held, Katrina would not have been the catastrophic scenario it was. This might point to the problem with the federal government's being involved at the municipal level without follow-up to as what's happening to the funds. I wonder whether you have any comments on that scenario.

[James Knight]

The levees were built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and they were fully aware that they were not necessarily secure. I'm not aware that the City of New Orleans is taking any action on that matter. From their general behaviour, I would suggest or think they are not.

I agree with Mr. Ménard that they were woefully unprepared. They made every possible mistake, as did everyone else who came in the wake of those mistakes, because other mistakes were perpetuated. I can only say that if the City of New Orleans had access to the information about their levees, they might have acted differently.

Who knows? It just speaks to the need for integrated communications all around. When people who discuss these possibilities are gathered together, it's important to have everyone there, even if it's in an informal fashion. The knowledge that the levees were at great risk might have caused the city to prepare better. However, they might not have been at the federal table, because they have the same issues with that in the U.S. that we do. I'm just saying that in this one area, it's so important that everyone has all the information.

I hope that's a helpful response to your question.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I just wonder if the Red Cross knows your role—and it's an important role. How does it fit in with other groups, like the Mennonite Central Relief Committee and some others? Do you work together?

[Don Shropshire]

Yes, we do. We work very closely with the other members of the voluntary sector. There are a number of mechanisms, but for any of the national relief organizations that wish to make a contribution, we have guidelines for cooperation that spell out how we work together. Groups like the one that was referred to several times, the disaster group on emergency management, are also represented.

As recently as last year, the Red Cross was responsible for chairing a group of voluntary sector organizations to try to build the overall capacity of the voluntary sector. We're recognizing that although there are a number of us who have a commitment to this area—it's certainly our central mandate—we as a sector need to build overall capacity to respond to something like a catastrophic earthquake in B.C., an ice storm in Quebec, or pandemic influenza.

So there is very close working collaboration, and that's recognized both by public safety, public health, and by other non-governmental organizations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.

I think everyone has now had an opportunity to ask a question. If there are no other pressing questions, I would invite you to make any final comments. If there is anything that you feel needs to be clarified, I welcome you to do that.

Madame Bonsant has a brief question.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

I have not said much, because I am not aware of the legislation surrounding Bill C-12. However, I can tell you about my experience during the 1998 ice storm.

I was city counsellor at the time, in a municipality that did not wait for the go-ahead from either the provincial nor the federal government in order to declare a state of emergency. The first people to be contacted were instinctively the police, even before 911 emergency services. Second, came city council.

During that time, we responded by developing emergency measures for the city. We then extended the measures to larger cities, because in my riding, some municipalities have a population of 112 citizens. The locals know where water treatment facilities are. We received tons of phone calls from volunteers wanting to offer their services. We did not have to go running after them; they were there. The only help we receive from the federal government came from the Armed Forces, that told us they could provide us with small cots if need be, that these cots were available.

My question is for Mr. Knight. We did not wait for help from either the provincial nor the federal government, so what are cities outside of Quebec waiting for to develop emergency response systems, why do they need legislation to force their hand?

[James Knight]

Thank you for the question.

I don't think they're waiting at all. I talked about what happened in Mississauga. They were ready and they did extremely well. I talked about what happened in Gander, and they handled it extremely well. I'm only suggesting that the capacity is strained and that it's important that everyone be aware of everyone else's resources.

In the scheme of things, these were not huge events. They were very large events. They weren't vastly catastrophic like Katrina was vastly catastrophic. The resources of all are necessary in that sort of a circumstance.

What if a tanker car full of chlorine were to disintegrate in the middle of Toronto? That would be very difficult, and I think the resources of all would ultimately be needed. Perhaps that's a bad example, but that's what municipal governments do.

You were a municipal councillor. You know that you get the call. It's not your member of the National Assembly and it's not your MP who gets the call. They're hundreds of miles away, or perhaps thousands. It's you, and you will react and you will do all you can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Ménard, I will recognize you as long as it's not too long. I'd like to give our witnesses just a moment if they have any wrap-up comments.

Go ahead.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

They will not regret it. I would be remiss not to point out the invaluable role played by the Red Cross.

Even if that is not recognized in any federal legislation, it seems to me that the Red Cross already has an international reputation. One thing is for sure, it has volunteers which are trained to deal with emergencies. In times of crises, that is what is most important. The Red Cross is always well prepared. I know that they have a truck full of cots, and other trucks filled with other supplies. It is an exceptional organization, in my opinion, even if that is not formally recognized in legislation.

This is a testimony to our appreciation for the work of the Red Cross, something we have felt every time we have dealt with this organization. It is known the world over, when disaster strikes the Red Cross is expected, and when it gets involved, people are never disappointed.

Certainly, this is the best tribute anyone can pay to the Red Cross, and it goes far beyond any piece of legislation, from any province or any country, it is the appreciation felt by all of humanity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

If you have any wrap-up comments, you are welcome to make them at this point. Does anybody want to make any summary statement?

Mr. Duplessis.

[Dr. Pierre Duplessis]

Mr. Chair, I just have a few words.

I'd like to thank the committee once again. I thank Monsieur Ménard for his comments. We're proud to know that we are recognized by a law of the federal government so that we have an existence. We are a legal organization. We want to go further with that, to increase our links with the different departments in the federal government and also at all levels of government, municipal included, because for us that is important. We just want to reiterate the fact that in due time we hope to be absolutely included in that.

The fact that our organization would be included in the legislation gives us a legal mandate, which takes precedence over all smaller agreements, which may be very important, but incomplete or fragmented within each service.

Once again, I would like to repeat my thanks in French.

I thank you, Mr. Ménard, for the comments you have made which we appreciate and which I will share with the staff and volunteers from the Canadian Red Cross.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Knight.

[James Knight]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all members of the committee.

It was a good discussion. Obviously we're trying to find a path. It's not the easiest path on occasion, but I want to thank Mr. MacKenzie for recognizing the realities that we face. I think he was sensitive to our effort and how it's not necessarily simple to go forward.

I thought the discussion was very useful, and I thank you very much for the invitation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to thank our witnesses for coming here today.

If you have any additional comments as you review what's happened and what has been said here today, we invite you to write to us or contact the government. Everybody around this table would like this bill to be the best possible.

Again, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.