Evidence of meeting #14 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was municipalities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
So it's almost a translation of Bill C-12 into a regulatory or at least an operational framework. That's the objective of it.
National Director, Disaster Management, Canadian Red Cross
That's correct, an operational framework.
October 19th, 2006 / 10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Is there anything that is in conflict with Bill C-12, or is it all marching along?
National Director, Disaster Management, Canadian Red Cross
No. It's moving along very well.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Are we talking about the same thing, an agreement between the Red Cross and PSEPC? That was mentioned earlier. Is that the same document we're talking about?
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
With respect to the Red Cross and PSEPC, and the whole of FEMA, Canada COM, and NORTHCOM, there's a huge interaction there. How comfortable are you about how that is developing--positively, negatively, too slowly, whatever?
National Director, Disaster Management, Canadian Red Cross
I think the thing that keeps me awake at night is that you never know when that next disaster is going to be arriving, whether it's a pandemic or whether it's going to be another earthquake or whatever. So the speed is something that we're going to continue to push until we get agreements in place. There's goodwill on both sides, but the faster we can get agreements in place, the better I'll sleep.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Is there an area that's slowing it down more than others?
National Director, Disaster Management, Canadian Red Cross
No, it's in process now. But really what we want to focus on now is the development of an operational capacity that we can use to support governments. It's all levels of government.
Dr. Duplessis mentioned that the Red Cross, through the Canadian Red Cross Society Act, serves as an auxiliary to the public authorities--that is, at the federal level, the provincial level, and also at the municipal level--and it's critical that we have agreements in place.
In this one particular part of the act, with respect to the Americans, we have a special role to play and we've demonstrated that over the last two decades. We mobilize a lot of people to respond when there are catastrophic events. We need to make sure that mutual aid agreement is in place.
The act specifically talks about the need for collaboration with our friends to the south in the United States. We would agree that this type of collaboration is entirely warranted and we think we have something to offer in terms of making sure that mutual aid agreement can be strengthened through the work of the Red Cross on both sides of the border.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Knight, you talked about as an example the chlorine leak in Mississauga and how the evacuation had to be carried out by the local authorities, and so on. The impression I got was that you felt that there was something inadequate or wrong about that.
The other impression I got from that, then, was that you would have liked more federal assets there to deal with it at the first responder level. Was that an incorrect impression?
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I think so. These things happen suddenly and they have to be dealt with immediately. There's no sense waiting for the army, because that would take too long. I wasn't being negative at all about the federal contribution there. I was just saying that the reality is that when these things happen, it's the local folks who deal with it, and that's really important.
Conservative
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Yes, it's the way it should be.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
So you're not looking to transfer federal assets to municipalities and dilute the availability of federal assets at the federal level.
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I think we have to be aware, as I said a moment ago, that municipal governments have a very limited ability to invest in this area. What will be the future threats of terrorism, and will municipal police forces be adequate to deal with them?
It seems that they did a reasonable job with the assistance of the RCMP in Brampton, but what if they weren't paying attention because of inadequate resources? We have to be aware of the acute resource limitation at the municipal level. I'm not saying other governments don't have resource challenges, but they're more acute, clearly, at the municipal level and it shouldn't be assumed that all the new threats we're experiencing can be dealt with as effectively. It would be inappropriate of us to think that some other city would be equipped to manage SARS as Toronto did, because they had unique resources. As I said, we were lucky in that case.
So we have to be aware. There's this great reliance on the first response and municipal capacity. There are resources being spent by the Government of Canada in these broad areas, but they're definitely not being spent on local capacity at all. That's not where the resource is when they're minor contributions. You just have to be aware that something may happen and the local capacity may not be there.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I have a very quick question for either one.
We talked about Bill C-12 and consultation. Bill C-12 was born of, I guess, Bill C-78, a predecessor bill that died on the order paper. I ask this out of ignorance because I wasn't around then, but what are the similarities or differences between Bill C-78 and Bill C-12? Is it really just finishing up business that was started previously?
Sorry, I didn't mean for it to be a long question.
Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Red Cross
Let's say we didn't track the differences, to be honest. One thing, we were not mentioned specifically and we were not even recognized at the time. To us, that is important. Otherwise, we're in a vacuum. A piecemeal approach with an MOU with PSEPC, maybe with the Department of Foreign Affairs, and with this and with that will not create and give a sense that there is a presence that is recognized.
If you will allow, Mr. Chair, I'll pass it to Mr. David Pratt, simply to give you a sense that we need to be identified; otherwise, this issue of coordination will not happen. This is what we think.
David Pratt Advisor and Special Ambassador, Canadian Red Cross
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to address the issue of the auxiliary-to-government role, because that is really the crux of where we stand as an organization. We recoil--I guess that's the best word to use--from being described as another NGO within the voluntary sector, because we do have this special relationship. However, the auxiliary-to-government relationship is not one that's very well understood, even within the Red Cross movement, let alone government.
We have been trying over the course of the last few years to raise the profile of this particular issue for the Red Cross. We've been encouraged to do that, as well, by the international Red Cross movement. When we look at our statute, for instance, which Dr. Duplessis made reference to--it goes back to 1909, and our letters patent go back to 1970--there's really a pressing need to update our legislation to bring it into the 21st century, to say nothing of the 20th century, and to really make some changes that would recognize this special relationship.
In this regard, I have to say that the reception from PSEPC at this point is actually very encouraging, especially over the last couple of months since they've been aware of this initiative we've been pursuing. They've been very, very attentive to our needs and they understand our concerns about the auxiliary-to-government role, not just as it relates to PSEPC--because actually we would see PSEPC as the lead department in this--but within the broader range of relationships that we have with the Government of Canada. It's not only our relationship with PSEPC that's important; we have a relationship with DND, CIDA, Foreign Affairs, even Industry Canada, and with Transport Canada in terms of water safety, etc.
There's a larger relationship here that we're trying to keep our eyes on. And to the extent that we would like to see ourselves recognized in the legislation--clause 3--as auxiliary to government, we're not prepared to push that at this point, because these discussions are ongoing. We certainly hope they'll produce a better understanding within the Government of Canada of the auxiliary role, and that at the end of the day we will see some changes.
I have to emphasize as well, on this conversation we have with PSEPC in terms of the consultation process, that even though it probably wasn't a formal one in connection with Bill C-12, there's a constant conversation going on between the department and the Canadian Red Cross. Mr. Shropshire is part of the disaster group for emergency management. He co-chairs that group with an assistant deputy minister. So there are some very high-level contacts that take place. I can tell you without hesitation that people at the Red Cross are in contact with PSEPC almost on a daily basis.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
Are there any other brief comments?
Mr. Dhaliwal, beginning the third round, please.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I would like to welcome the representatives from FCM as well as from the Red Cross. I would like to commend the Red Cross for all the good work they're doing worldwide and also the importance FCM plays in correlating with different areas of the government.
My constituency is next door to the port and also the border, and I see a lot of traffic moving. When it comes to emergency preparedness, the very first thing we see is that the municipalities are the first responders to a situation. The way I look at it here, because I'm filling in for another member, is that I'm getting conflicting signals here, that all you're looking for is simply recognition, not more than that.
Mr. Burrett had 40 suggestions; I think they're in here. I think we need to have a comprehensive plan--and not only a comprehensive plan, but in fact the resources in place in those municipalities that are, in particular, next door to the border or the ports that are most dangerous. I don't think it should only be a coordination of the recognition, and I'm very surprised that the axiom wasn't even taken into account when we brought this forward.
Do you have any comments about this? How should we put the efforts into this legislation so that it's not only recognition but in fact the resources in place?