Public Safety Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This is meeting number 20, and we are here today on an order of reference from September 22, 2006, in regards to Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts

I'd like to welcome our witnesses this morning.

We have, from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Mr. Ken Pereira, the executive vice-president. I'll let him introduce his colleagues there. We also have, from Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Mr. Jim Young, the special adviser to the deputy minister. Video conferencing from Manitoba, from the Emergency Measures Organization of Manitoba, we have Mr. Chuck Sanderson.

Welcome, sir. I hope you can hear us.

[Chuck Sanderson, Executive Director, Emergency Measures Organization of Manitoba]

Yes, I can, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Very good.

We'll begin with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I believe you have an opening statement, sir. Normally we allow about 10 minutes. If you need a little more time, we are lenient. We are here to hear what you have to say.

Also I think Mr. Sanderson has an opening statement.

Mr. Young, you can introduce yourself.

Let's being with Mr. Pereira, please.

[Ken Pereira, Executive Vice-President, Operations Branch, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

For the record, my name is Ken Pereira. I am the executive vice-president of operations at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I am joined here today by Mr. Gerry Frappier, director general of our directorate of security and safeguards. Mr. Frappier is responsible for the direction of the CNSC's emergency preparedness and response functions.

My comments today will be in English but we will be pleased to answer questions from members of the Committee in the official language of their choice.

Ms. Keen, our president, would have been here today to address you, but she is away presiding over hearings on the renewal of the operating licence for the Gentilly-2 nuclear generating station in Bécancour, Quebec. On behalf of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, I would like to thank you for inviting us to appear before your committee.

Let me begin by telling you a little about the mandate of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and our approach to emergency management. The mission of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is to regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security, and the environment in Canada, and to address Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The CNSC has over 600 staff. While primarily based in Ottawa, we also have inspectors stationed at regional and site offices. We accomplish our mission through a licensing process that requires licensees to demonstrate that their operations are safe. At the basis of the regulatory system is the requirement for licensees to incorporate multiple layers of protection whenever nuclear energy or materials are used. Thus, CNSC also licenses the import, export, and transportation of nuclear materials and other prescribed substances, equipment, technology, and dual-use items.

The issue of emergency management is viewed by the commission and its members to be of critical importance. The capacity of licensees to respond effectively to nuclear or radiological emergencies receives significant attention during the consideration of licence applications and renewals. Effective linkages between the licensee and local first responders are also of key importance.

The CNSC has a dual role in nuclear emergency management: first, in terms of oversight of our licensees, ensuring that their emergency capabilities are as robust as possible; and secondly, in terms of our own involvement in the case of an emergency. I will briefly outline both areas and the high degree of coordination with other government agencies that this entails.

We derive our regulatory authority from the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, which came into force in May 2000. The act provides CNSC staff with significant powers, including the right to order specific actions by licensees, responders, and government agencies at all levels, to address nuclear or radiological emergencies.

Fortunately, there has never been a serious nuclear or radiological emergency in Canada. The significance of nuclear and radiological incidents is rated according to the international nuclear event scale published by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This scale runs from one to seven in increasing order of significance.

Since the mid-1950s, no event in Canada has ever been rated higher than level 2 on this scale. Nonetheless, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or CNSC for short, maintains a comprehensive nuclear emergency management program.

During a nuclear emergency, we monitor the response of the licensee, evaluate their response actions and the response of any other organization involved, provide technical advice and direction in line with our mandate, provide field response personnel to assist local authorities, as needed, and inform the government and the public on our assessment of the situation.

To continually evaluate and improve our emergency response capabilities, the CNSC regularly participates in simulated incidents in collaboration with its licensees, provincial emergency management organizations, and other federal government departments and agencies.

In fact, in October of this year we participated in two emergency response exercises involving Canadian nuclear generating stations at Point Lepreau in New Brunswick and in Bruce County, Ontario. These simulated emergencies were part of an annual schedule of training, station drills, and exercises designed to improve and practise the emergency response capabilities of the CNSC, the licensees, and other stakeholders. Our emergency response plan is updated regularly based on the lessons learned through these exercises.

As indicated, we require licensees to have robust emergency response capabilities in place to address identified risks and to ensure that their personnel are trained and are regularly exercised in their emergency response procedures.

Licensee emergency plans must be approved by the CNSC. Inspectors from our security and safeguards directorate routinely observe these exercises to evaluate the performance of the licensee personnel and identify weaknesses and make recommendations for improvement. In the most severe situations, they may order changes to procedures and practices. This reflects our belief that emergency preparedness or readiness is a continuum of improvement.

The need for coordination across jurisdictions is one of the most challenging areas of emergency management. We work in close collaboration with the provincial emergency management organizations on emergency response issues, particularly in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick, where the nuclear generating stations are located. To the highest degree possible, we endeavour to ensure that our response plans and procedures are linked to those at other levels of response. In Ontario, for example, the CNSC has a defined role in the provincial nuclear emergency response plan, and our staff sit in the provincial operations centre during operations involving nuclear or radiological incidents. We also work closely with emergency measures organizations in other provinces and territories to support their ability to respond to radiological incidents.

Staff from the CNSC regional offices across the country and from our Ottawa headquarters often visit licensee facilities to ensure operations are being conducted safely and in accordance with licence criteria. These oversight activities go a long way toward reducing the risk of accidents that could result in an emergency. Along with other departments and agencies, we are dedicated to maintaining overall federal readiness to respond. The federal nuclear emergency plan, FNEP, describes how federal government organizations collaborate to respond to nuclear radiological emergencies in Canada. The CNSC has a significant and clearly defined role in that response is given over our legal authority over the use of nuclear energy and substances. Responsibility for the FNEP is currently vested in our Minister of Health, and Health Canada is designated to lead the response on that front.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission supports initiatives to improve and strengthen leadership and coordination in the area of emergency management in Canada. Along with other federal departments and agencies, CNSC staff provided input to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada in the development of Bill C-12. We know that Bill C-12 proposes significant changes to the responsibilities of the Minister of Public Safety, essentially designating him or her as the default lead federal minister during times of emergency. These changes to ministerial responsibilities suggest a need to revisit and update current federal emergency management plans, such as FNEP, to ensure they remain current and effective.

There is also a need to maintain and maximize the synergy among federal, provincial, and territorial plans and procedures. As I've said, the need for coordination across jurisdictions is one of the most challenging areas of emergency management. This initiative underscores the government's engagement in emergency management at all levels and the need for collaboration with the provinces and local authorities in responding to emergencies.

In closing, I would like to say that in our view there is nothing in the proposed legislation that will negatively affect our ability to maintain safety oversight over the nuclear industry in Canada. We believe Bill C-12 fits well with our current nuclear emergency management program and response plan, and that its enactment will not necessitate a major shift in our approach. The CNSC looks forward to working with Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada and other federal stakeholders in updating current plans and procedures.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you again for inviting us here today. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pereira.

I neglected to introduce your colleague. Could you do that, please.

[Ken Pereira]

With me is Mr. Gerry Frappier. He is the director general of our directorate of security and safeguards. He has overall responsibility for direction of our emergency preparedness program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

The next person on our agenda is Dr. Jim Young.

I understand you do not have an opening statement. Maybe you could just tell us a bit about yourself, and your role.

[Dr. Jim Young, Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC)]

Certainly.

Good morning to you, Mr. Chair, and to members of the committee. I'm the special adviser to the Deputy Minister in the Department of Public Safety. Formerly I was the commissioner of emergency management for the Province of Ontario. In that role I coordinated and managed the ice storm in 1998 and the power blackout in 2003. I also co-managed the SARS breakout in Toronto in 2003.

As well, on many occasions I've been borrowed by and worked with the federal government, particularly with Foreign Affairs, and helped with the Canadian response in 9/11 in New York, in the Bali bombings, and in the tsunami. For 15 years I was chief coroner for the province of Ontario, and worked on issues like the Swissair crash and other crashes and events in Ontario.

I've been asked to the committee to answer some questions, I believe, and certainly I would be very pleased to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

With experience like that, sir, I'm sure many of the questions will be directed towards you.

[Dr. Jim Young]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We'll now go to our video conference guest and witness, Mr. Chuck Sanderson, executive director of the Emergency Measures Organization of Manitoba.

If you're ready, sir, go ahead.

[Chuck Sanderson]

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here.

Good morning, everyone--and hi, Jim.

Jim Young and I have met each other on many occasions.

Just to give you a little background, each province and territory has an emergency measures organization. That organization has the mandate to coordinate, or command and control, if you will, emergency events within the province. I'm speaking today from Manitoba's perspective only, but there is an entity out there, called the Canadian Council of Emergency Measures Organizations, that could assist this standing committee on getting consensus opinion from provinces and territories on emergency management issues as they relate to Bill C-12. I encourage the committee to do that through the chair of CCEMO, which is Michel Doré, the director of EMO in Quebec.

Again, talking from a Manitoba perspective, there is an entity in each province that coordinates emergencies within the province. In a national event, provinces and territories are looking to, and expecting, the Canadian government to have an equivalent entity at the national level that will coordinate, or command and control, all federal resources to assist the provinces. At this time, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada is the logical entity to do that. We're looking at Bill C-12 to give some clarity and some mandate to PSEPC to in fact do that. The one-window concept of the federal government is what I believe provinces and territories are looking for. I certainly know that Manitoba is looking for that.

If there is a lack of clarity on the role of PSEPC as the coordinating entity for emergencies at the federal level, then I believe we run the risk that the important work that is trying to be done now, at the collaborative federal-provincial-territorial level, will continue to flounder because of that lack of clarity. So all provinces and territories are looking quite eagerly to Bill C-12 to provide clarity on the mandate of PSEPC.

I would be more than happy to answer questions on what the consequences might be if there is a lack of clarity at the end of Bill C-12.

Those are my opening remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, sir.

The usual practice of this committee is to begin the first round with the official opposition.

Mr. Holland, if you're ready, seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. I appreciate your coming before the committee today.

I'm wondering if we could just start with specific thoughts on Bill C-12 from each of the witnesses and on any areas of concern you may have, or areas where you feel the bill should be improved. I know that we've gone through a couple of different versions of this bill to arrive at where we are now today, so there has been a lot of opportunity for input.

For example, when you spoke, Mr. Pereira, you said that the bill wouldn't have any negative impact on what you were trying to achieve, but obviously we want to go beyond that. I'm wondering if you could give your thoughts on what specifically you would like to see changed or amended in Bill C-12.

Further to that, Mr. Pereira, you talked about needing to update the federal emergency plans generally as a consequence of Bill C-12 being enacted. What are some of the first steps you see after Bill C-12 is enacted?

[Ken Pereira]

Thank you for the question.

The challenge we see always in emergency management is to coordinate the roles of the different players. When we look at the mandates and the plans in place of each of the responding organizations, we find that they have sound programs and procedures in place, but the challenge we always face is to bring the different response arrangements into synergy with each other. How we can better integrate those is something that we, in working with Health Canada on the federal nuclear emergency program, have looked at.

I've been in a number of meetings with our partners on the nuclear side to look at how we could streamline the programs if we were challenged in a real emergency. Our hope is that Bill C-12 will address the issue of integration by looking for programs that are designed to promote synergy.

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

But you don't have any changes or recommendations to Bill C-12?

[Ken Pereira]

We do not have any for the bill as it is drafted.

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

Okay.

Could I ask Mr. Young and then also our witness from Winnipeg the same question.

[Dr. Jim Young]

Certainly. I think this is an important bill because it reflects the evolution of and thinking on the management of emergency management in Canada, partly as the result of the experiences we've had. It does not change the federal authority. In fact, what it recognizes is the need for the federal, provincial, and municipal powers and responsibilities to be streamlined and to be working together very well.

I think within the wording of the bill there are several really important things that are highlighted. The word “mitigation” is used. Certainly we saw, for example, in Hurricane Katrina that this is a direction governments need to start looking at. We need to start planning not only how to respond to something, how to recover from it, but also how to mitigate it and to lessen the overall effect.

The bill talks about the coordinating role of the minister, and I think this is very important. By coordination, I think what the bill implies and means is not that the minister replaces all of the powers and all of the decision-making at the various departments, but that what's needed in an emergency, in fact, is that people have to get into the room and have to recognize that all of their decisions affect everyone else. If they make them in isolation, you end up with a lot of problems in an emergency. So you need the information being exchanged. You need to understand the significance of the decision for everyone else's area of responsibility so that you get a coordinated response. You need to do this in a very timely manner.

So really, the role of the minister is to make sure the right issues are being brought forward, that the right decisions are being made, and that they're being made quickly, because you don't have time to study in an emergency. You simply must derive a decision. If it turns out you learn more later, you go back and you revise that decision, but inaction is the enemy in an emergency.

This bill recognizes the special relationship with the United States. We saw that special relationship during Hurricane Katrina. We saw the Canadian population saying to us, “We want to help. We want to be involved”, and we saw it during 9/11 as well. I certainly felt it on both of those occasions through my own involvement. This allows and recognizes that special relationship and the relationship between Homeland Security and Public Safety, which is there and is building all the time, but also recognizes the important role of Foreign Affairs.

It recognizes the role of critical infrastructure. Certainly that was a lesson after 9/11, and an area that we've been doing a lot of work on. Very important in recognizing critical infrastructure is the need to protect critical and proprietary information. This we heard over and over again from industry and from private industry, and from people who hold such information. The bill also, quite correctly, says there may need to be disclosure of certain information. We faced problems both during the SARS outbreak and during the power blackout in Ontario when we had a lot of proprietary information about hydro grids. We had to suspend that privacy for a period of time and then reinstitute it at the correct time. The bill spells out the roles and responsibilities of other departments, so it's important in that regard.

So overall, I think it has everything it needs. It sets the framework, and then the challenge is that the thinking across government has to catch up with the framework. People in departments have to embrace the notion of the bill. They have to understand that we have to get out of silos when we operate, both within governments and between governments.

So I don't see the challenge being in the wording of the bill. The bill is great. I think the proof will be whether or not we're actually able to institute the spirit of it in time.

I'm sorry for that long answer.

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

That's okay. It's just that I know I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'll give you a little extra time. It was a good question.

I wonder if Mr. Sanderson has a comment.

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

Sure. Maybe I'll just set the stage for Mr. Sanderson on that.

I want to clarify that you're not making recommendations for changes to the bill as it stands now, and your comments are generally related to the second question I posed on what we should do immediately after passing Bill C-12 to ensure it remains effective.

So to Mr. Sanderson, do you have changes for the bill now, and what do you think are the most important steps to take after Bill C-12 is implemented?

[Chuck Sanderson]

I don't have specific recommendations for changes. I agree very much with Dr. Young that the proof will be in the pudding when we see the spirit of the way this bill flows into the psyche of emergency management folks in this country.

You've heard the word “coordination” umpteen times already in the very short time we've been talking. It's the key fundamental issue in an emergency, and it's not all about response on the day of the emergency.

Dr. Young started to refer to mitigation.There are four known pillars of emergency management that everybody of the emergency management ilk lives by. They are mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Those are the four component pieces. No emergency exists without all of those.

Mitigation is stopping it before it happens. Preparedness is having the plans in place for any eventuality from an all-hazards perspective. On response, if your mitigative activities do not work, then you need to have the capacity to respond. Then you need to be able to recover. Those are the four chunks of it, and we are looking at this bill to look holistically at emergency management from all of those areas.

Response, which is the one that gets all the attention, is about 2% of an emergency management event. It may get the media, but it's nothing. Recovery--and Dr. Young will know this from SARS--is the hugest part. That's why it's important that the federal government, through PSEPC, has the mandate to coordinate, not only at the time of a response but in advance, to put into place all the planning and component pieces of a full holistic emergency management program within Canada. There is work going on at each of these levels .

I've personally been involved in federal-provincial-territorial working groups for five years. That work will be in jeopardy if the mandate to PSEPC to actually coordinate people, not just in times of response but in getting to the planning and mitigation work, is not clear. I'm not an expert in how to word legislation, but if it isn't clear in this legislation that PSEPC not only leads in an actual emergency event but also leads all federal resources in the four component pieces of emergency management programming, we are going to have an issue. When there is an event and PSEPC is coordinating federal resources, it is imperative that the coordination at the federal level syncs seamlessly with the different emergency management operations within each province and territory.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

To the members of the committee, we're getting some very good feedback from our witnesses, so I'm not going to be as rigid with the time constraints as I normally am.

Monsieur Ménard.

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

Mr. Pereira, I believe one of the major differences between our nuclear generating stations and those of the rest of the world is that we use the CANDU technology, which does not use enriched uranium.