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.