Public Safety Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

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

I would like to make a comment and ask a question on nuclear stations.

I learned many things here today but I guess I am one of those in Quebec and Canada who are totally ignorant about nuclear energy. I do not know if there is a way to educate people on nuclear energy. People still are obsessed by Tchernobyl.

Could you disseminate education material to explain to people that nuclear energy is one of the least polluting sources and does not have all the drawbacks of coal, for example?

I was convinced they used enriched uranium and, as you can see, I did not know any better.

[Gerry Frappier]

Thank you for your question.

There is certainly lots of education material around. We handed out some this morning. All the players in the industry also have lots of materials, such as Hydro-Quebec and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife.

We ourselves, at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, are very neutral as to whether nuclear energy is good or not. Our responsibility and our mandate are to ensure that whatever decision is made will respect the need for security of individuals and the environment, as well as nuclear safety, and that the standards set out in our licenses are enforced.

Nuclear energy is certainly a very technical and complex subject. I agree it is difficult for ordinary people to understand. We do all we can to provide education material. I can leave you my business card after the meeting.

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

Okay.

You also mentioned that you provide training or that there are emergency drills taking place every year. Is this enough? Do all new employees receive special training in order to be ready to face a major event?

[Gerry Frappier]

What we meant to say is that, once a year, we do a follow up in order to ensure that a proper plan is in place and that everybody knows what to do. We carry out drills but we also have lots of training programs for first responders. Our employees receive lots of training even before being authorized to work with us. Continuing training is provided to the employees in the stations. It is not something that we think about only once a year.

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

My other question will be to Mr. Sanderson.

You talked about Manitoba and the territories. Are you able to respond in remote places where there are no access roads? A natural disaster can happen anywhere but if it happened in remote areas such as the Northwest Territories or even in Northern Manitoba, where communities are isolated, do you have agreements with helicopter of aircraft charter companies to do emergency evacuations?

[Chuck Sanderson]

Yes, we have agreements first with the military. We have access, and all we have to do is make a request through PSEPC to access military equipment.

We have also created an urban search and rescue entity within the province, as have many other provinces and territories, that specializes in getting into remote places. The object is to get in as quickly as possible, because in Manitoba we have polar air routes, so we're constantly working to cut down the time it would take to respond to such an event.

We work with the municipalities, and some of the northern remote ones have limited capacity, so at the provincial and national levels, we're working together to make sure there is a capacity to respond into extremely remote areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

To complete this second round, we'll go over to the government side. Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the people who are here in Manitoba.

My interest in this is Bill C-12, not the local issues particularly. What I'd like to know, particularly from Dr. Young and Mr. Sanderson, is whether this bill, as it's currently structured, gives you the tools to work with the federal government, and whether it gives you equally the tools or the comfort to know that we can work with our neighbours, both east and west, and more to the south.

[Dr. Jim Young]

Yes, the bill is really aimed at making it clear, both within the federal government and to those that react with the federal government, how the federal government is structured and how it operates. But that level of certainty, as I think many people said in their opening remarks, is extremely important. Whether we're dealing with other provincial governments, whether it's with the municipalities, whether it's with non-governmental agencies, or whether it's with other countries like the United States, these days when things happen and they're big, you need a consistent approach and a road map. That's really what this does. It sets the road map, it says how it's going to work, and it says how decision-making will take place in a coordinated fashion.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you.

[Chuck Sanderson]

I would say from our perspective it's certainly an improvement over what existed before. The proof will be in the pudding. No matter what legislation says sometimes, it's the will of an entity to actually take the reins and lead. So we're hoping that this legislation will give increased impetus to PSEPC to actually grab on and lead these initiatives. And it's very hard to lead if you don't have the mandate and the legislation behind you. I think there are so many national initiatives that are at a level where they're either going to erode or disappear if that leadership is not actually grabbed onto and taken.

We have talked about them, and there's an eight-point action plan out there that all of the provinces and territories and the federal government are working on. It includes national disaster mitigation strategies, critical infrastructure protection, disaster financial assistance arrangements, national emergency management systems, and national emergency response systems. These are all initiatives that have been worked on for at least the five years that I've been director of EMO in Manitoba. But they do need clarity and a role for PSEPC to actually lead those. I believe this bill will improve PSEPC's position in the federal government to be able to basically command and control respect and bring federal entities to the table to work collaboratively with the provinces and territories.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I guess that's the whole crux of Bill C-12, to provide that umbrella, if you will. I think that's what you're concurring with. It provides that umbrella for the federal government to work with the provinces, not to take over the role that's already there in the municipalities and the provinces. It's not intended to take away their authority or their responsibility at the first level.

Dr. Young, I know you have spent a great deal of time in the United States and dealt with authorities there. My sense is that we're a fair bit ahead of where the Americans are. When they talk about Katrina, there's a difference between the state and the federal government there and the provinces and the federal government here.

[Dr. Jim Young]

Yes, just to finish your thoughts about the role of the federal government, I think the other thing that it does is set a way for the federal government to act. It doesn't take away the authority of individual departments within their areas, but it means that someone is asking the questions and someone is trying to move things along on a schedule.

When we look at the United States and where they're at, my own observation would be that we have a better level of coordination between levels of government. We're smaller. We work better together generally. We also, I think, have a much stronger municipal system of ability to manage. Some of the best of the United States...it's like many things. New York City did a marvellous job responding to 9/11. The same event in another city could have been a major catastrophe, bigger than it was. New Orleans was noted as having a particularly spotty record, both municipal and state--a certain lack of coordination between the two and with the federal government. I've been down there several times, and there are still major issues.

So the lesson out of it is that no one level of government can do this. It is about relationships. It's about operating in a seamless manner. And this bill really says here's how the federal government will do that. We are committed to that, and we've certainly learned those lessons in events here in Canada too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are there any further, or supplementary, questions?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

My other question would perhaps be more to Dr. Young, but also to Mr. Sanderson. We've been talking about pandemics for some time, although they haven't been in the news quite as much in the last short while. Would I be wrong in assuming that Canadians can control some of these things better, because of the delivery of the health care system in Canada, than perhaps our southern neighbours?

[Dr. Jim Young]

Yes, absolutely.

First of all, you will start to hear more about pandemics because the avian influenza will start up again in the next few weeks. It is starting again; we're starting to see a few deaths. So we predict we will start to have more discussion on them.

I've done a lot of speaking in the United States post-SARS about what we learned and how we did things. One of the points I always make to the U.S. is that one of the challenges they'll face, but which made our job easier in Canada when we had the initial provincial emergency—because we were able to issue directives to the hospitals on what to do, and got compliance with those directives and were able to stop the spread of the SARS virus within the hospital system—is that in a more fragmented system, with a mix of mostly private and some public hospitals, it is much more difficult to do that.

Going back to an earlier point, it really means that the way to do that—and what I say to the Americans—is that you must have these discussions now and you must agree that you're all going to do the same thing before the emergency, so you're not trying to bring everybody on board during the emergency, because if you haven't got control over the system then you have to build it through consensus and teamwork.

We recognize this in Canada, and the preparation and consistency in the pandemic plan federally, provincially and municipally is very good in Canada. Now we're taking it outside of health care and looking at all of the other areas of government.

So it's a lesson for both countries, but we do have an advantage because we come to the table with an attitude of working together.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Sanderson, do you have any further comments on that?

[Chuck Sanderson]

I'm not going to speak to the health system, because I'm not an expert on it, but when it comes to pandemics it's clear.... And that's why Bill C-12 is so important.

With things like pandemics and terrorism, all levels of government are going to have to be in sync simultaneously and seamlessly; there's no doubt about that. It was acceptable in the olden days that you could handle the occasional threat, which would mostly be a flood or something like that. You could almost do it with your eyes closed and one hand tied behind your back. But we're into a completely different scenario these days with pandemics.

So the importance of Bill C-12 is to make sure we're all on the same page.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That completes the second round. Before we begin the third round with Mr. Holland, I would just like to pose a couple of questions.

Maybe Dr. Young and Mr. Sanderson could comment on these.

Dr. Young, I'm following up on what you talked about in regards to working with the U.S. Are there plans to coordinate with the Americans in case some kind of an emergency occurs that involves both countries, or where we may need special assistance from them in certain areas?

Mr. Sanderson, you might have some experience from the flooding that took place, as it began in Grand Forks and headed north to Winnipeg. Could you comment? What do we do in coordinating this? Is this through Foreign Affairs?

[Dr. Jim Young]

First of all, it actually occurs at all three levels of government. There are agreements in place and, on occasion, exercises and real-life scenarios in border communities. For example, Windsor and Detroit have MOUs in place and are able to move reasonably seamlessly across the border, and the federal government can play a role in ensuring that. They can also offer mutual aid and share resources. It may be much quicker to bring in a local bordering municipality. They are planning together, exercising together, and thinking about these things.

Many of the provinces, including Ontario, Quebec, and the maritime provinces, have been meeting as groups of provinces and putting in place MOUs for mutual assistance in the event of natural or man-made events that would affect both and working out how to do that. We have seen it actually happen during power blackouts, for example. Hydro crews move back and forth. There are very detailed MOUs in place that allow them to be licensed and to move into various areas. Dealing with forest fires is another area--Canadian crews go south and American crews come north.

At the federal level, we obviously are working with the Department of Homeland Security and building relationships as well and trying to improve on our ability to mobilize quickly and to have the American people understand that we sometimes possess expertise that can assist them and they in turn us.

During SARS, one issue we had was that there were some very detailed investigations we needed to do in a particular case of SARS. We called CDC. CDC from Atlanta sent a team that worked with the federal people and the provincial people. The three levels formed a team and wrote a joint report.

That exists, and we take advantage of it. I think since 9/11 it has actually been strengthening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Sanderson.

[Chuck Sanderson]

It's a really good question, because there are existing MOUs, but I think, as you heard just now, it's spotty. There isn't consistency to them. Quebec and the maritime provinces have a wonderful MOU with the New England states, but trying to replicate that process with contiguous states and provinces is not easy, because it seems to break down at the congressional approval level.

There may not be a panacea MOU, but we actually are looking at some leadership at the national level in creating just such an MOU that is overarching. In fact today, as we speak, without MOUs in place there is reciprocal assistance going on across that border--be it ambulances, firefighters, whatever--doing it for all the right reasons, but perhaps putting themselves at risk or in jeopardy of workers' compensation and things like that, should they be injured. We need to address that. Rather than 13 provinces and territories having individual MOUs with every state, we should be looking at one overarching MOU. This is not to say that the ones that Jim was referring to should be discarded, because they all add value. But I think there has to be a base level of understanding of mutual assistance across the border, and we're not there yet and we really need to get there.

I think Bill C-12 will help.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

I want to broaden this discussion a little bit and go a little further.

The U.S. uses their military, their army, a lot in responding to emergencies. We in Canada usually don't involve them as much. I think they were involved in the Red River flood for sandbagging and so on.

Who calls them in? How does that happen? Do you have any suggestions or any comments with regard to that?

[Chuck Sanderson]

I can respond to that. It is actually well developed and well understood at the provincial and federal level how the military is engaged. It is a one-stop shop through a PSEPC request. It is not a request from the province to the military directly; it goes through PSEPC. The province has to be specific on what it is asking assistance from the military for. It is either asking for aid to the civil power or it's asking for protection, which takes it into a completely different level. The system for making the request is well known and it works very well. As you said, in Manitoba we had the military in here during our flooding in 1997 and it worked extremely well.