Public Safety Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[James Knight, Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you, Chair.

We appreciate the invitation to be here. I am joined this morning by John Burrett, a senior policy analyst in social development in our organization, and Josh Bates, who works with John.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is, of course, the representative institution of an association of municipal governments in Canada. We embrace 1,450 local governments, and they comprise 87% of the Canadian population among them. We have very strong participation from Canadian municipalities in all parts of the country.

Of course, we're here to talk about Bill C-12. We want to say at the outset that inasmuch as the bill empowers the federal minister to act in cases of emergency and to increase the capacity of the minister to act, we are strongly in favour.

My comments are really on the municipal role in emergencies. I would invite you to reflect on that and possibly enhance the act in a small way.

Of course, the department has said on its website that the Emergency Management Act in part is to ensure that the federal response to an emergency is coordinated and harmonized with other jurisdictions. In our view, this can't really happen unless municipal governments have some kind of presence in the consideration. Municipal governments are the first responders in cases of emergency. They provide many services, as I will demonstrate, that are critical whenever something goes wrong.

In our view, the bill as currently written will not lead to better coordination across jurisdictions because there's virtually no reference to the municipal order of government. We will suggest how that reference can be made explicit.

I think that because the municipal role is often not recognized at the federal level, we do not benefit from some of the funding that is made available from to time to improve our emergency capacities. We think this is inappropriate, as I will show, given the things we provide in this area. Frankly, this lack of involvement wastes resources and threatens the well-being of Canadians.

Municipal governments are the first responders in 95% of emergencies in Canada. Municipal governments are generally responsible for police, firefighting, paramedics, public health, which is terribly important, emergency shelters, and other first response capacities.

The threats that we manage are growing, perhaps even exponentially. Of course there is a constant concern about public health and the possibility of pandemics, such as SARS, which I'll talk about later. There are severe weather events driven by climate change, and we seem to have more frequent events. Major accidents and related toxic spills are from time to time also increasing in frequency simply because traffic is increasing exponentially. And of course there is the ever present threat of terrorism.

Cities are also expected to carry most of the burden for security at events such as major conferences and sporting events. In fact, in many cases we own the facilities in which these large events occur.

Finally, it's important to note that we own much of the critical infrastructure: the water supply systems, which I would say are reasonably vulnerable in this country; the waste water systems; in many cases, the electrical supply systems; the transportation networks, bridges, and roads; and the transit systems, which we have seen in other countries are extremely vulnerable. But we are not at the table when decisions are made regarding national emergency management plans and strategies. We're simply not there.

The only reference in Bill C-12 to local authority is that the minister would work with them through the provinces. There's that one mention, but we think it is inadequate.

Failing to acknowledge formally and fully the essential nature of the municipal role in developing and deploying emergency preparedness policy risks perpetuating the current system and does nothing to change the paradigm that has traditionally seen municipal governments and their front-line agencies left out of critical planning and being under-resourced.

From our perspective, the absence of true municipal integration into overall emergency management plans results in a patchwork of guidelines, resources, and expectations that differ province by province, territory by territory, and community by community. We don't believe other orders of government are therefore getting the full picture and taking into consideration the front-line requirements of municipalities.

Our specific suggestion is that, in the preamble to the bill, the Parliament of Canada could recognize the fundamental role of municipal governments in responding to local, national, and international emergencies, and then a coordinated and efficient response to emergencies requires collaboration among all orders of government. This wouldn't be binding in law, but it would be a reference point that would help in the reflection of parliamentarians and service providers, and the minister, in the event that municipal governments were called upon.

We'd be happy to work with the committee or others in suggesting precise wording, and we have delivered to the clerk copies of our June report on emergency planning, which is very substantial. It was prepared for us by external experts, and it outlines in considerable detail many of the issues we would like to raise.

I want to talk about some specific instances to put in concrete terms what we have in mind.

I don't know if many of you were living in Toronto in the 1970s when a railcar filled with chlorine derailed in Mississauga. It was only through the extremely well-organized efforts of the police and fire departments that lives were saved. The entire city was evacuated. A quarter of a million people were evacuated with remarkable speed and remarkable efficiency, a service provided entirely by the regional police and fire departments.

I remind you of the ice storm. Some of you might have been in Ottawa when that terrible event occurred--or in the Eastern Townships or other parts of Quebec, or in Montreal, for that matter. This was a catastrophe of enormous scale, and of course in Ottawa, where I lived, it was the municipal government that was responsible for finding solutions to all sorts of immediate and challenging problems. The Canadian military was deployed, and that was extremely helpful, but that was some days later. Those first few days were utterly critical, and of course it's the municipal government that was there to do what it could.

I remind you of 9/11, not 9/11 in New York, but 9/11 over the Atlantic Ocean. You've all perhaps heard of the efforts of the city of Gander and its mayor to accommodate their equivalent population. Their population doubled in a few hours, and they were able, remarkably, by marshalling all kinds of local resources, not only to care for the stranded travellers but in fact to give them a Newfoundland experience, which was unique. Claude Elliott, the mayor, went on the international circuit, on television and talk shows, and became somewhat of a celebrity.

I remind you, of course, of 9/11 in New York. Again, who was it who emerged as the leader of the city and obviously the person in charge? It was Mayor Giuliani. That was his role.

I'll talk a little bit more about SARS in Toronto. I had the privilege of attending a briefing given by the then public health officer of the City of Toronto, Dr. Sheela Basrur. She gave this briefing to a group of U.S. mayors who had come to reflect on the Canadian experience and learn from it what they could.

This crisis was managed by the public health department and the police department of the city of Toronto. There was a federal contribution, which had to do with science and identifying the virus. It was useful. And there was a provincial contribution, which was to pass legislation enhancing the powers of quarantine so we could ensure that the affected individuals would not spread the disease. Of course that entails a great deal of support for the individuals who can't leave their apartments.

The amazing story is that Toronto has the largest public health department in North America--this, I didn't know--with 1,700 public health workers. They were able to take 300 of these workers, give them all the police support they needed, and put them in a special building. They proceeded to conduct an investigation of where individuals affected with this disease had been over the past month, and then they contacted those they had been in touch with to ensure they were also quarantined. This was an enormous undertaking.

We are very fortunate that this disease hit a city that has such capacity. If it had hit another city--and in the views of the U.S. mayors, any one of their cities--the capacity would not have existed to control this problem.

This is another stellar example of the critical role played by local governments.

We leave you with these thoughts, and we leave you with our broad suggestion. I think you have more detailed written information from us, but I hope this can facilitate our discussion this morning.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Knight.

That presentation, along with some of the things you've raised, will result in questions. As we go through this, your remarks will be clarified.

Thank you very much.

No one else from your group had any other presentations to make, did they?

[James Knight]

They're here to answer the difficult questions I can't deal with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

All right.

Let us move now to the Canadian Red Cross. Mr. Duplessis, perhaps you could give us your presentation, please.

[Dr. Pierre Duplessis, Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Red Cross]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

On behalf of the Canadian Red Cross, I would like to thank you for allowing us to appear before the Standing Committee on public safety and national security.

My name is Pierre Duplessis and I am the Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Red Cross. With me this morning are my colleagues Don Shropshire, the National Director, Disaster Management, and David Pratt, Advisor and Special Ambassador.

First, I would like to tell you a little about the mandate of the Canadian Red Cross, and then I will be discussing Bill C-12, the Emergency Management Act. The Canadian Red Cross is a not-for-profit organization with a single mandate, to assist public authorities.

We play an important role in all areas of emergency management, namely preparedness, as well as medication, response and recovery.

For that reason, the Canadian Red Cross acts as a liaison between government, civil society and communities. Our efforts worldwide, which may involve the national societies of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, are coordinated in Geneva by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies and by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The symbols of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent represent an international movement with 100 million volunteers and members in 185 countries. This movement provides programs and services designed to prevent and relieve human suffering at all times and in all places.

This morning, I would like to stress that the Canadian Red Cross supports the Bill C-12. It provides for the basis of the national emergency management system and will allow the federal government to protect Canadians better.

In our view, it will allow for better coordination between federal institutions and provincial governments and other entities.

We support any initiative designed to establish and straighten leadership and coordination in the area of emergency management in Canada.

In our view, Bill C-12 confirms the importance of emergency preparedness and planning at every level of government. It confirms the leadership role of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It demonstrates to Canadians that the federal government is fully engaged with every facet of emergency management, including working with provincial and territorial governments as well as local authorities and other entities, such as the Canadian Red Cross, in Canada's voluntary sector. This role is indeed critical. For instance, the United States government report on Katrina operations released last February focuses mainly on the inability of various levels of government to properly cooperate and coordinate the relief efforts.

Bill C-12 also shows the importance of promoting public awareness and preparedness across the country. Canadians must be responsible for their own safety and the safety of their communities, and they must be properly informed. In fact, the publication known as “World Disasters Report 2005”, issued by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, focused on the critical importance of information in disaster preparedness and response. The report showed that people need information as much as water, food, medicine, or shelter. Information can save lives, livelihoods, and resources. It may be the only form of disaster preparedness that the most vulnerable can afford. The right kind of information leads to a deeper understanding of needs and ways to respond.

I would like to discuss specific sections of the bill, raise some issues for future consideration, and suggest some changes. Clause 3, for instance, states:

The Minister is responsible for exercising leadership relating to emergency management in Canada by coordinating, among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities, emergency management activities.

The Canadian Red Cross's strategic focus, operational capabilities, and resources make us one of the principal entities in the voluntary sector in emergency management. In fact, I would suggest that the Canadian Red Cross is a national asset prepared to work very closely with all public authorities. The recent memorandum of understanding I signed with the Minister of Public Safety in May of this year is indicative of a very close and cooperative relationship with the federal government.

Importantly, this memorandum of understanding also makes reference to our status as auxiliary to government. This auxiliary status is not something new. It is an integral part of the legal foundations of Red Cross national societies, and dates back to the first Geneva conference of 1863. It also recognizes our founding statute, the Canadian Red Cross Society Act of 1909, and our letters patent of 1970 that broadened the auxiliary definition.

We are tempted to suggest that the Red Cross and its auxiliary status be included in clause 3 as a means of recognizing the important relationship, and educating and informing Canadians about the role of our organization in emergency management. However, we have recently entered into discussions with several government departments through the Canadian National Committee for Humanitarian Law, for instance, with PSEPC in the potential role of lead department.

Our goal is to better define the auxiliary role within the consultative and legislative initiative, in which it would be possible to see our 1909 statute updated and revised. Consequently, until we have the results of that proposed consultation process, I would suggest that any reference to our auxiliary status in clause 3 might be somewhat premature. At the end of the statute provision initiative, the Government of Canada and this Parliament may wish to include a mention of the Canadian Red Cross Society as auxiliary to government within the Emergency Management Act. This could be accomplished as a consequential amendment within the larger statute provision exercise.

Clause 4 of Bill C-12 lists the many responsibilities of the minister, including his coordination role in providing assistance other than financial assistance to a province, and his role in conducting exercises and providing education and training related to emergency management.

Evidence from the United States' Katrina operations report indicates that this is critical to securing and mobilizing appropriate workforce and materials when facing a large disaster. We would therefore urge the minister to take into consideration the resources available through the Canadian Red Cross and the voluntary sector.

The voluntary sector has an important but currently underutilized place in Canada's response to emergencies. While some voluntary organizations like the Canadian Red Cross have well-established roles in emergency response, a much broader range of organizations can and must make a vital contribution before, during, and after an emergency. We, the Canadian Red Cross, can build this surge capacity in mobilizing volunteers in civil society organizations so that their contribution can be effectively applied and useful to government's response.

Clause 5 states that:

In consultation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister may develop joint emergency management plans with the relevant United States' authorities and, in accordance with those plans, coordinate Canada's response to emergencies in the United States and provide assistance in response to those emergencies.

The U.S. government agency responsible for disaster relief and preparation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, known as FEMA, has a statement of understanding with the American Red Cross that describes each agency's responsibility in case of a disaster, and the Red Cross's role in the national emergency support plan. To help fulfil the Canadian government's commitment, the Canadian Red Cross seeks to conclude a similar agreement with PSEPC so that it may be in a better position to cooperate with its American counterparts in times of emergency.

We would encourage the Minister of Foreign Affairs to establish coordination mechanisms that would take full advantage of the Minister of Public Safety's domestic disaster capabilities to support Canada's response to disaster anywhere in the world. The Canadian Red Cross has an unrivalled domestic and international network from which to draw on human, financial, and material resources, with an extensive capacity to help reunite families who have been torn apart by conflict or disaster. The society can offer the Government of Canada an efficient and direct pipeline to distribute international assistance.

Finally, Mr. Chair, let me briefly discuss subclause 6(3), which states that “A government institution may not respond to a provincial emergency unless the government of the province requests assistance...”.

As a humanitarian relief organization, the Canadian Red Cross would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that the primary consideration in determining who responds during an emergency should be informed by the need to safeguard the lives and security of Canadians. Regarding constitutional responsibilities, nothing in the act should preclude the Government of Canada from monitoring and assessing an emergency, and ensuring that all necessary coordination mechanisms are in place for the federal government to support and complement the actions taken by provincial or territorial governments. The humanitarian imperative must always take precedence.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for inviting us to present our views. I will be please now answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much for your presentation. I am sure there will be questions in regard to it.

Did anybody else have any comments? No? Okay.

We will now go to questions and comments, and we'll begin with the Liberal Party.

Mr. Owen, I believe you have some comments and questions. Go ahead.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Knight, Dr. Duplessis, and your colleagues, especially my former colleague and Minister of National Defence, David Pratt, we're grateful that you're here today. I'd like to underline the importance of your presence and who you represent.

The reality of modern governance is that no level of government can deal with a major issue alone, even if the issue is properly integrated across that government's various departments and branches. A government has to work with its opposite numbers at every level. But good governance goes beyond even governments themselves. It involves the market and the academy. Most important, it involves civil society and the volunteer sector that plays a part in it.

These two organizations perhaps exhibit the best practices of modern governance in this country, from the civil society side, the intergovernmental side, and, with FCM, the intragovernmental side. I thank you for that. I think the importance of your role in governance is best demonstrated by what you're doing in emergency preparedness. One thing about Bill C-12 is that we've changed emergency preparedness to emergency management. I wouldn't want to give that away. With proper precautionary action, we might not have to manage an emergency. With the right planning, we might be able to avoid it, or at least mitigate it.

The hardest dollar for any government to spend is a preventative dollar. It doesn't have the urgency. It doesn't have the public imperative. The work that we're considering and that you prepare yourself to practise is immensely important, but it's also the toughest budget to find dollars for. Risk management is just the likelihood of an occurrence multiplied by its consequences. If it's a small likelihood with catastrophic consequences, we had better pay a lot of attention to it. I know that's what you're speaking to today.

I'd like to consider the natural disaster category and leave terrorism and such aside for a moment. We often think we can't avoid the natural disasters, but we can certainly prepare ourselves to react to them quickly. I want to ask your opinion about the possibility of a specific natural disaster. I want to get the value of your experience on how we might deal with it together. I'm talking about the risk of seismic activity on the west coast of Canada and the United States. Some schools that have not been properly updated are particularly vulnerable. Some of them are brick or plaster and 60 or 70 years old.

We know that a major seismic event is going to happen in the Vancouver-Victoria-Seattle area, and this brings in the international aspect that Dr. Duplessis mentioned. We have dozens of substandard schools for our children, while we are in post-and-beam houses or in modern office buildings that are well protected and able to withstand a major seismic event. Our children are sitting beneath piles of bricks and in buildings that will instantly collapse. It seems to me that this is off the radar screen of our emergency preparedness or management. Could you draw on the experience of each of your organizations and tell us how we should be approaching this situation? This is a disaster waiting to happen.

Simply to add the international component to it, Seattle faced a similar situation where they did have a major seismic event that just missed Vancouver a number of years ago, but they reacted immediately to evaluate and then stabilize all of those old structures, of which schools only represent, perhaps, the most emotionally and socially tragic potential emergency. But I value your comments on how we might as a country--

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much. You've used up almost all of your time, but we'll give our witnesses a chance to answer.

Who would like to answer first? Mr. Knight.

[James Knight]

Thank you. I'll make a brief comment.

We have some experience in cost-shared infrastructure programs dealing with municipal systems, dealing with transportation, and we might want to give consideration to expanding the categories of eligible projects.

Frankly, I'm a little taken aback by your comment. I was not aware that this was a major situation in British Columbia. I was under the impression that much had been done to protect against earthquakes, but apparently that's not the case. Amending the Canada strategic infrastructure program to bring in additional categories where there's clearly a national benefit might be an approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Knight.

Dr. Duplessis, do you have a comment?

[Dr. Pierre Duplessis]

Yes, thank you. I will take the floor first and then pass it on to my colleague, Don Shropshire.

Let me tell you, Mr. Chair, this is a very appropriate question and reflection. Indeed, some infrastructures in Canada are fragile and are vulnerable, and people using those infrastructures as well. We talk about schools, but what about the health care facilities, the long-term-care facilities, etc.? All of these have to bring us to a reflection.

Again, part of the solution is preparedness. We've said it, and I think it is in the minds of Canadians. At the Canadian Red Cross, we think this is very important. To prepare families, it means information to be self-sustainable for at least three days, especially in those areas that are particularly vulnerable. It means exercises in schools, in families, in communities. To us, this is critical.

We were part of the government during the Y2K apprehension, if you will, in circulating information to the Canadian population. And although it was a non-event, we found that very successful and we found that it reassured people. Not only was it focused on Y2K, but it also gave Canadians the possibility or the mindset to prepare for other similar events.

We do have a lot of experience internationally with earthquakes, be it in India, in Turkey, or in Pakistan, where I was a few months ago, with thousands and thousands of casualties. In Pakistan there were 96,000 deaths and 1.5 million people affected. We know how to run those camps. We know how to liaise with municipalities. Mr. Knight and I have very good colleagues. In all the events that he mentioned, the Red Cross was there helping the municipalities to cope with the disasters.

On 9/11, for instance, 37,000 people were hosted by the Canadian Red Cross, our volunteers, in a matter of a few hours--37,400 people. We came with 4,500 volunteers in a matter of five hours to provide shelter and food to all those people. So we're liaising and we're coordinating with municipalities when the event is happening, but being prepared is the key component of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Don, would you like to add something to that?

[Don Shropshire, National Director, Disaster Management, Canadian Red Cross]

Thank you.

Mr. Owen, your comments about emergency preparedness and preventing a disaster from occurring rather than having to respond we subscribe to fully. One of the things we support about the bill is that the emergency management terminology encompasses a very broad range: from mitigation, to preparedness, to response, to recovery.

On the point you asked about concerning the seismic activity, really this speaks to mitigation. The Red Cross would promote all levels of government--certainly our friends at the local level as well as the provinces and the federal government--looking at a comprehensive review of the risk hazard analysis across Canada, including the seismic threat on the west coast.

In fact, it's close to home for us. We're actually in the process of retrofitting our own building in the Vancouver area because of the seismic threat. It's obviously an expensive process, but it's one that is critical if we're going to reduce the chance of hazards.

On a related note, the Red Cross is also working with all levels of government to promote a program called Quake Safe. And again, Dr. Duplessis spoke to the importance of encouraging Canadians to take some personal responsibility, and communities taking personal responsibility for understanding the risks and also taking steps to try to mitigate those risks by doing things like retrofitting, but also understanding what to do if there is an earthquake.

Lastly, we've also been engaged over the last 15 years or so working very collaboratively with our friends in the American Red Cross when they have had catastrophic disasters, including earthquakes in California.

Over the past 15 years we've had over 5,000 Canadians who have gone to the United States to work on catastrophic disasters. In particular, there were people from the B.C. government and the local municipal governments in the lower mainland who went down to work with the Loma Prieta earthquake in L.A. and also in the San Francisco Bay area. And they brought back many lessons learned that they actually built into their preparedness plans and the national support plan, one of which is the importance of planning this type of mitigation activity to which you've subscribed.

So we fully support what you're promoting and we'd encourage the government to continue to move on that area.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

I hope many of the remarks and the questions will tie in with Bill C-12, and suggest improvements and so on. I'd ask the questioners and our witnesses to try to focus in, because that's really the purpose of this meeting, to try to improve the legislation if possible.

Monsieur Ménard, from the Bloc Québécois. Go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Comartin has to be in the House at 10:00 a.m. So I have no objection to trading turns with him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I think we'd have consent from the committee for that.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Ménard, for that gracious accommodation.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

Let me follow up on the chair's direction. The major problem I have with Bill C-12 is the one you've raised, Mr. Knight, and I think docteur Duplessis, vous aussi, in the sense that the bill in two very peripheral areas doesn't seem to bring in the municipal level of government or the significant agencies that actually deal with the problem, particularly at first phase.

It's a reality that we live in a federated country and the question we put to the officials, perhaps more general than this is, was how do you interact. We were given assurances that in fact the interaction is occurring but it's at an informal level--which is perhaps not a strong enough term, but it's certainly not legislatively mandated because it can't be legislatively mandated.

I wonder if you have any suggestions as to how we get around that conundrum. How do we amend this bill to in effect create the formal relationship between a lower level of government directly and the NGOs?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Who would like to go first on that?

Dr. Duplessis.

[Dr. Pierre Duplessis]

Let me maybe turn to French to explain where we stand with this.

When incidences occur, there is cooperation and coordination on the ground. There are people suffering, there are victims, and we must take action. We have absolutely outstanding coordination and cooperation with the municipalities. We are in the process of signing service agreements for municipalities with 125,000 people or more throughout the country. In Quebec, for example, over 140 municipalities have signed agreements with us. That is a significant number, and gives you some idea of the coordination that exists on the ground.

We think it is important that we be officially recognized in the Act as auxiliaries to the public authorities, as is the case in some provinces. In any case, the Act establishing the Red Cross, which was passed by the Parliament of Canada, states that we are auxiliaries to the public authorities. This exceptional capacity, which in English is called search capacity and which the government and Canadians need, can only occur if we have agreements, and if we have been working together and if we are prepared.

What we are telling you this morning is that the volunteer sector is important. It should be said that not everyone can offer significant volunteer services. The Red Cross is probably the best placed organization in Canada to coordinate the rest of the volunteer sector as well. We can mobilize 5, 10 or 15 thousand volunteers in a short period of time. That is what we need when the public authorities are overwhelmed. Often, in the first hours of an emergency, the public authorities are overwhelmed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Knight.

[James Knight]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the question.

Remarkably, in this area historically there's been a great deal of jurisdictional jealousy. Of all areas where one might hope not to have that, this would be the one. Surely after 9/11.... I listened to a very senior federal official give a speech to a very small group, about twelve of us, on post-9/11 and what it meant for us. You know, there was not a reference whatsoever about anything to do with first response of municipal government. And I was rather shocked. I would have thought....

I can tell you that since then there is a growing and formal engagement--more discussion than before, some involvement, but still at the margins. We think there would be an opportunity to enhance that. There is a group called the senior officials responsible for emergency preparedness that meets from time to time. It would seem reasonable that there be some municipal presence on that--again, informal. It's not that we want to run this thing or that we don't respect provincial jurisdiction--we do. But for purposes of coordination this might be valuable.

I should note that our organization embraces all of the provincial and territorial municipal associations, so we can bring in that dimension of the provincial interest as well, through those organizations. I think that might be a step in the right direction.

I've already mentioned, of course, the preamble that this might assure officials that they won't lose their jobs if they talk to local governments. There is a perception there that this would be a very negative thing to do.

Those are a couple of thoughts that I'll leave with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are there other comments?

Mr. Comartin, do you have any other brief questions?

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

No, that's all. Well, perhaps I have just a comment.

Let me assure you--and Dr. Duplessis knows this--a number of us parliamentarians were at a conference that he spoke at in the spring in Whistler. It was an international conference, and every single country that came there made the point, Mr. Knight, that you've made, that the first response is always at the local level. So it's key that they have the resources necessary to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

If there are no other comments, we'll go to the Bloc Québécois and Monsieur Ménard.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question will be short and specific. You say, Dr. Duplessis, that you have signed agreements with 140 municipalities in Quebec. Did you sign them with the municipalities or with the MRCs (regional municipalities) in the context of their civil security planning?