Public Safety Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[Dr. Pierre Duplessis]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In answer to your question, we do believe that, yes, it improves the current situation a lot.

I come back to one specific word that was used here, and which is key--the coordination element. If you look at the bill, you see, for instance, in clauses 3 and 4, the word “coordination” is used again and again. In clause 3, it's almost the gist of it, and it's used again in subclause 4.(1), paragraphs (e), (f), and (h). You sense that the aim of the bill will hopefully bring coordination between all levels. That is something we want to underscore.

The second thing is that there's a sort of black hole, if you will, which is called the “other entities”. I think it should be better defined. That's our point. I think there's a huge surge capacity that is needed. Our sector is there, and it should be recognized formally.

Were we consulted, Mr. Chair? The answer is no...not at the outset, and not at the drafting stage. We were not consulted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Norlock.

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

I would go back to Mr. Knight and his observation that municipalities have to be recognized. I did read your submission last night. I must admit that I could only devote about an hour and a half to it. I'm being frank and honest. We get a tremendous amount to read. But I did go through it.

One of the recurring themes, of course, is funding. Everyone has a limitation with regard to funding. I suspect very strongly that sometimes the drafters of legislation.... Of course you've observed by now that I'm new at this game, so I'm not afraid to take chances. Everybody has their hand out for more money. The money comes from one person--the very person who pays municipal and provincial taxes. Whether it's in the province of Quebec, Ontario, or anywhere else, the money all comes from the same pockets.

But once again, if safety is the primary responsibility, we shouldn't shy away from that. We have to make sure there's coordination. In my observation, it's not always about the money. It's about how you use the money, and it's about how you use the existing resources to get the maximum outputs.

That brings me to the most important part, and the one theme I keep stressing at this committee. When we hear from people and organizations, specifically policing organizations, they don't always have the information. You don't always have the best idea from inside your organization. You have sister organizations throughout Canada and the world who have gone through what you have gone through, and they have what we commonly refer to as “best practices”.

I'm sure you're going to be consulted. I'm going to work hard to see that you are. What you've said here of course is part of the consultative process to improvements to Bill C-12. So I'm sure the minister is going to hear what you have said this morning.

But have you engaged in best practices with other countries? You mentioned Hurricane Katrina. Would you be prepared to give information to this group as to what you've observed from other communities with respect to that?

This question is also for the Red Cross.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, that will probably have to be your final question.

[James Knight]

On the question about resources, this area is the fastest-growing municipal expenditure. It's ahead of any other areas. It's currently 17% of our budget, but it's growing exponentially because there are so many new dimensions to this problem.

Safety includes the terrorism threat. You'll remember there were a number of arrests in Brampton in June; these were heavily managed by the local police forces, so there's something....

I'm sure you weren't thinking about terrorism when you were a police officer, but now this is a big part of the policing responsibility. Where should the money come from on that file? When Toronto deployed 1,000 people to contain a potential threat to North America in the SARS crisis, should the people who pay property tax in Toronto have borne that burden, or should it have rested somewhere else?

I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do know that municipal budgets are stretched to the extreme. It's very difficult to increase property taxes; you're just defeated. That's what happens. The candidate who promises not to increase taxes wins the election.

Taxes that grow with the economy are so much more powerful as a revenue source, but we don't have access to those as a municipal government, so if municipal police forces are to focus on terrorism, if municipal public health authorities are to deal with SARS, if the cities are to have the capacity to react to a toxic spill, it costs money--and frankly, they're not going to be able to pay for it very well. It's just a reality. I know there's only one taxpayer, but let me tell you--GST and income tax grow a lot faster than property tax, and that's our problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Thank you.

Dr. Duplessis is next.

[Dr. Pierre Duplessis]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me speak very candidly here and bring maybe some good news. By that I mean there are three aspects, three facets I would like to explore when you say the money. In fact, it's an important aspect.

First, when the Red Cross is asked to jump into operations we bring volunteers. This is usually at no cost for municipal, provincial, or federal governments. We can, as I said, deploy thousands of volunteers. I can go through figures for the ice storm, the Saguenay flood, the blackout in Ontario, for SARS, and for Badger, the little municipality in Newfoundland where people felt frozen after the flooding. Indeed, volunteers went in from adjacent provinces and from Newfoundland. So that's something that is not costly, if you will. It is a cost for us to prepare the volunteers.

The second facet or interesting aspect--and Badger is another example--is that the generosity of the Canadian public is just outstanding. To support those communities, we can bring forward some money through the generosity of Canadians. In the case of Badger, if my memory serves me rightly, we raised about $1.5 million to $2 million. This is incredible for a small municipality of 800 people.

The third aspect is are we working for free? The answer is no. Do we need money? The answer is yes. We need money to prepare and train our volunteers to have this capacity to respond. This is the unknown part of the story. The difficult aspect is that Canadians want to see our being able to respond, but there's no money for that. For this we need support.

So good news. And also, if you want, not bad news but a reality check: I think the message here, in line with the preparedness aspect, is that if you want the civil society organizations to be able to respond, you also have to let them be prepared and provide them with the minimal resources to be able to operate.

About the best practices--absolutely, absolutely. We are 185 Red Cross and Red Crescents in the world. We are learning from each other, and Canada is in the forefront of those leaders. This is just fabulous to be able to count on that pool of resources and expertise. We debrief each time there's something happening. The Canadian Red Cross is active in 40 different countries in the world and we exchange information. We also exchange our people.

Iain Logan, a Canadian from Alberta, is one of the top persons in disaster management and is often requested by the International Red Cross to assist. So I think we should be proud of that.

Lastly, Mr. Chair, with your permission, I would like to come back to the comment were we consulted on the bill. The answer was no, and the answer is still no. I just want to nuance what I said previously.

Through the different contacts we have with the different departments of the Canadian government and through the International Law Commission we were indeed in contact and we knew what was happening. Although it was not formal consultation, we were put into the loop a bit. Were we formally asked to assist? The answer is no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We'll now move to our next round and we'll begin with Mr. Holland of the Liberal Party.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you so much.

Thank you again for appearing today.

I have a couple of things. First, it goes to show you that assumptions are a dangerous thing. Before Mr. Norlock had asked this question, I was assuming that both of you had been consulted in the lead-up to Bill C-12 and its development. I'm deeply concerned that you were not.

Mr. Duplessis, I understand you're giving a somewhat nuanced no. But by the same token, it sounds more that you were just made aware in sort of a general context that it was happening and sort of maybe in an ancillary way engaged. That concerns me, and it certainly concerns me that FCM wasn't engaged there.

If I can, I'm going to start specifically on the legislation with FCM. I'm a bit surprised by what you're asking for, in that you're not asking for more in this process. A reference to some kind of engagement with municipalities might be a start, but I'm surprised you're not asking for more, and I'll explain why.

In developing this bill or dealing with it, municipalities are first responders. Municipalities are the ones—as a municipal councillor, I know—who play an enormous role in the success of responding to an emergency, and as the ones who are on the ground and closest to the emergency and understand it best, they need to be resourced and they need to be tied into what's happening. Oftentimes they have the best understanding of what needs to occur.

You referenced the fact, or at least I thought you did, Mr. Knight, that you're looking for a seat at the table. I'm wondering what form that would take. How could we ensure that this happens, and then how can we ensure that in fact you're included in the dialogue?

I often think that if you're just having discussions between the province and the federal government, there's a lot of extremely important information and local knowledge that is being left out of the loop. If you're not at the table, important considerations are going to be missed and important needs of municipalities will be ignored, in terms of the resources and infrastructure that they require.

I don't know if you want to comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Knight, or someone from the FCM.

[James Knight]

Mr. Burrett will comment on that opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Mr. Burrett.

[John Burrett, Senior Manager, Social Policy, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thanks very much for that.

With regard to us and how much or what we're asking for, here we're trying to respond to the specifics of the bill. We have many recommendations—many very specific things that we are looking to fix, to put it that way. Our report details them, and we have probably 40 recommendations that we wouldn't want to take you through today. They're about coordination, funding, responsibilities, and training and exercises. There are a whole lot of things that, as I think you understand, we would be coming to the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories to amend or fix. That's why we want to be at the table. So the question here is being at the table.

What does a table look like? The really big table that we feel we need to have a formal role at would be that of the senior officials responsible for emergency management. That's where the senior officials of the provinces, territories, and the Government of Canada come together to really make those decisions, and we want to be at the table when the decisions are being made.

Now, there have been questions asked of the officials at SOREM and the ministers as to whether or not that's on. Our understanding is that from some provinces the answer has been yes and from other provinces the answer has been no, which was sufficient to prevent it at this time. But we would still like to have a formal role, along with the provincial and territorial municipal associations at that table. That would be the forum.

In the meantime, we'd like progress towards that. We have been invited to sit on the domestic group on emergency preparedness. That's relatively informal, but it's a good step. But it's not a decision-making body, so to proceed to SOREM would be the goal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Does anybody else have a comment on that?

Just a brief comment, Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I don't have time, and I have a number of issues for the Red Cross, but I know we're going to have subsequent rounds.

Quickly on that point, Mr. Knight, I understand you're making a particular request to be referenced in the beginning. I wanted to underscore this because I'm aware there are other recommendations there, and I didn't want anybody to come away thinking that a simple reference in the preamble would suffice, because in my opinion it won't. One change that has to occur here is to inject an appropriate role for municipalities into this bill to ensure that they have their rightful seat at the table and are contributing to that dialogue.

I know that I'm out of time, and I have additional questions for the Red Cross. I'll wait for subsequent rounds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Is there any response to that?

We'll move to the Bloc and Monsieur Ménard.

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

It is probably the only point we do not see eye to eye on.

I would like to check one thing with you. A great deal was said about hurricane Katrina, which I found quite interesting. However, one fundamental fact remains: people knew that the levees would not withstand the force of any hurricane with a rating superior to a category 3. We knew that a category 5 hurricane was approaching. In the end, a category 4 hurricane struck. The levees were bound to brake. The authorities knew which neighbourhoods would be flooded if there were to be a breach in the levees. So, five days ahead of time they knew which neighbourhoods would be flooded. The local authorities should then have ordered an evacuation.

The same thing probably applies to the United States, but in Canada, we generally find that when an evacuation order is issued, 85 per cent of people will take it upon themselves to find other accommodations. If they have a secondary residence, they will go there, or they may go and stay with friends or family members living some distance away from their home. So, the authorities are left with 15 per cent of people who cannot move.

They knew that in New Orleans, yet they did'nt react. So the higher authorities found themselves with an absolutely horrific situation to manage. I see that that is more or less your opinion as well. Basically, they did'nt have the courage to issue an evacuation order. They were living in a dream world, believing that the hurricane was going to lose some of its intensity and not be as powerful as predicted by meteorologists. So, they did'nt have the courage to issue an evacuation order.

I realize, Mr. Duplessis, that you sometimes get the impression, and perhaps that is what your position requires you to have, that the local authorities won't always have the skills nor the political courage to make the necessary decisions, and that, therefore, these decisions should be made at a higher level within government.

Nonetheless, over 95 per cent of events requiring the use of public safety forces are local in nature. I would add that over 95 per cent of events could be properly managed within a given province. I think that it is important for provinces to recognize the role of municipalities and of the Red Cross, along with that of other organizations like the Red Cross which offer emergency assistance. At the very least, that is the case for well-organized provinces.

The federal government is there to deal with major events, like the explosion of a nuclear bomb, terrorist's attacks, outbreaks, etc. So it is'nt much. In this regard, I don't quite see what municipalities can do, although I know that in Quebec there are three emergency response teams dealing with bacterialogical, nuclear, or chemical attacks.

This is why, Mr. Knight, Quebec is hesitant to support your position. Our system is ready, but we remain worried, in Quebec. You can see why Quebec is more worried than other provinces, because the federal government intervenes in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Certainly, when there is an emergency, there is full cooperation. The army's cooperation has been exemplary in Quebec, and I imagine the same would occur in the future. In my opinion, that is already well established in current legislation, and there is no need to give the municipalities any other responsibilities.

Would you have any comments to make on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Are there any comments from anyone?

[James Knight]

I don't disagree. Quebec is very well organized. It's had some very tough experiences. These have been studied, lessons have been learned, and effective things have been done.

Obviously, we have greatly different capacities in different parts of the country. Some provinces don't have the depth and haven't behaved, I think, as thoroughly as Quebec has behaved.

We don't propose that anyone's jurisdiction be minimized at all. We think a full circle of communication on this particular file could be beneficial.

With all respect to the Government of Quebec, they don't operate at the municipal level. They are not a municipality. They're a provincial authority.

I think having an informal voice from your province, if you like, represented at the table perhaps by the Union de municipalités du Québec or by the Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités, could be useful. Everyone would then more fully understand the roles and functions of everyone else. When the Government of Canada is making decisions, they'd get some grassroots input.

That's basically our view on this, but there's no question that we fully respect Quebec's jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Dr. Duplessis, you had a comment as well.

[Dr. Pierre Duplessis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have two comments to make. First of all, it is not up to me to criticize the response to Katrina. The American authorities have debated the issue at length, and it is up to them to judge. The Red Cross is a neutral organization which steers clear of any involvement in religious, political, ethnic or other debates. We maintain absolute neutrality and seek out access to victims wherever they may be. That is fundamental to us.

However, in the best of cases, even when we are well prepared, even when we are prescient, the first hours are always chaotic. Indeed, evacuations involve traffic jams and people who cannot move on their own needing assistance. It is complex, and the first hours are critical in order for things to run smoothly.

That is why I say that all possible resources need to be made available, including knowledgeable people who have experience. We believe that the Red Cross fulfils that role and that we have proven that on many occasions in Canada, in all provinces, and specifically in Quebec.

That thing said, we are not here to engage in a debate on areas of jurisdiction. It is not within the mandate of the Red Cross. We do however understand that countries need to manage their affairs based on certain areas of jurisdiction, and we respect that.

We would like to remind the committee of one thing. When there are people suffering, when things go wrong or off the rails, victims come first. We must ensure that all levels of government work together and have a common purpose. We hope that is reflected within the spirit of the Bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go over to the government side. Mr. Hawn, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for joining us.

I have a question first for the Red Cross.

Dr. Duplessis, you mentioned an MOU with Minister Day. Are aspects of that MOU covered in Bill C-12? Are there aspects that should be covered in Bill C-12? Are there aspects that are in conflict with anything in Bill C-12?

[Dr. Pierre Duplessis]

Mr. Chair, can I defer to my colleague?

Don, do you want to speak to that?

[Don Shropshire]

There are many aspects of the MOU we signed with the minister that are certainly covered in Bill C-12.

The operation of it is the part we're now working on with the minister's staff, to look at how we can actually prepare it, put boots on the ground, and make sure there's the search capacity we spoke to. But certainly all of the different aspects, from mitigation through to the recovery aspects, are covered within the bill and within the memorandum of understanding.