Good piece. It is hard to imagine, under any fiscal scenario, Ottawa setting up a national civilian emergency response agency that sits around at the beck and call of the provinces. It is just not a federal priority and I don't think it ever will be. Apart from the US, which has FEMA, what federation has a national civilian emergency response agency? The better strategy for DND is to request more financial resources to help cover some of their costs with these operations and accept the hard reality that this is considered part of their core function by the federal government (and Canadians).
One point I didn't mention: as in most thing defence, we should look at New Zealand, not Australia. The NZDF has had to come to terms with the fact that they're expected to do domestic disaster response as a core mission. That may be the reality for the CAF, too.
I suggest this still treads the wrong path and ignores the fact that there are other levels of government and government departments with primary legislated responsibility in this domain. The CAF is, and always has been, tasked "to assist" not to lead, run, or control. To be somewhat unkind, the two prominent realities here are that; one, those that have principal responsibility for domestic disaster response have not lived up to their responsibilities adequately; and two, they seem unwilling to do so while government exercises political expediency in thinking of the CAF as a force of first, easy choice, rather than last resort.
I've provided critique. I should offer a solution. We should build on the idea of levels of disaster response found in the 2004 National Security Policy - individual, municipal, provincial and federal, the latter bearing primary policy and strategy responsibility.
First, in this field, nothing is a military task. Civil authorities lead.
Second, each level requires resources to mitigate disasters at their level. So we need a city (or regional) "civil response corps," maybe as a partner organization to established police services. They could include a quite eclectic grouping of people required to ensure resilience at the local level (i.e. more flood mitigators and urban rescuers than wildfire fighters).
Third, at the provincial level, you would have more substantial reaction forces, like firefighters who can be flown into areas of remote northern communities, accompanied by integral doctors, field kitchens, field hospitals etc. These organizations too, could be partners with provincial police forces. Most provincial emergency response organizations have all the necessary skills and capabilities. What they lack is capacity - they need more of everything for when 'the big one' hits.
I am often disheartened by the negative tone set by media and pundits about how difficult all this is and how over-the-top wonderful the CAF are in responding. With a new, positive, constructive mindset, I can see calling for a volunteers to join a city or provincial civil response corps and developing an enhanced and meaningful career path, built on the satisfaction of service to fellow citizens. Federal efforts would be devoted to strategies and plans to re-deploy and concentrate resources from across the country to where they are needed.
I might add a novel idea here too. In the field of emergency planning and management, and disaster response, there is every bit as much of an intelligence function in play, as we find in traditional national security and military operational domains. If we recognize true intelligence as reasoned foresight that enables advantageous action, we can see intelligence as an important enterprise within disaster prevention, response, mitigation and resilience operations. Emergency planning intelligence should be a thing.
While none of this is a military role, former serving military folks could design and establish a civil response force in a heartbeat ... given the necessary resources.
I still think this issue should initially be viewed from more of a constitutional basis. Emergencies and disaster response are first a provincial responsibility, which could even be further devolved to the municipal level, like police services and fire fighting services are. Why call on military troops to fill sandbags? Why not first call on all off-duty police officers, or firefighters, or municipal/provincial public servants. If federal help is needed, why not first call on postal workers, road maintenance workers, LCBO personnel? I think the entire search and rescue apparatus could be entirely civilianized too. There are many options before tapping 'last resort' military forces, although I do acknowledge some CAF capabilities, such as big airplanes might still be needed for evacuations, but why can't Air Canada, or other commercial companies be contracted first?
It seems to me that the basic difficulty here is the failure to recognize that the CAF is first and foremost and armed force, with other things they are directed to do and a requirement to maintain readiness to do them. Conceiving and building civilian emergency response organizations at the provincial level, forcing provinces to live up to their constitutional responsibilities is the way to go. It could include a sizeable volunteer component to alleviate the inevitable whining about cost
I think this hits at the real problem. It's not money or budgeteering, it's that although HADR is one of eight "core missions" in SSE, the CAF refuses to do anything proactive about it because it is considered to be inconsistent with the CAF culture. The CAF resisted national survival during the Diefenbaker government, sovereignty during Trudeau, had a fit about Canada 21 and the perceived "constabulary role" that is espoused, and now would like HADR to go away. Governments on the other hand, have seen HADR and civil security as an important role of the military. The above reference to the NZDF is well-placed
I do agree this is the nub of the problem, but I don't agree that the CAF is 'resisting' or 'refusing' to do anything. The 'core' mission at issue says only,"Provide assistance to civil authorities and non-governmental partners in responding to international and domestic disasters or major emergencies ...." Nothing in that demands anything 'proactive' in the way of non-military training. In any event, the Canadian Army continuously maintains high readiness units prepared to react on short notice to provide such assistance. So I don't see any problem here, other than persistent calls for the CAF to be something other than Canada's last resort armed force.
Good piece. It is hard to imagine, under any fiscal scenario, Ottawa setting up a national civilian emergency response agency that sits around at the beck and call of the provinces. It is just not a federal priority and I don't think it ever will be. Apart from the US, which has FEMA, what federation has a national civilian emergency response agency? The better strategy for DND is to request more financial resources to help cover some of their costs with these operations and accept the hard reality that this is considered part of their core function by the federal government (and Canadians).
One point I didn't mention: as in most thing defence, we should look at New Zealand, not Australia. The NZDF has had to come to terms with the fact that they're expected to do domestic disaster response as a core mission. That may be the reality for the CAF, too.
I suggest this still treads the wrong path and ignores the fact that there are other levels of government and government departments with primary legislated responsibility in this domain. The CAF is, and always has been, tasked "to assist" not to lead, run, or control. To be somewhat unkind, the two prominent realities here are that; one, those that have principal responsibility for domestic disaster response have not lived up to their responsibilities adequately; and two, they seem unwilling to do so while government exercises political expediency in thinking of the CAF as a force of first, easy choice, rather than last resort.
I've provided critique. I should offer a solution. We should build on the idea of levels of disaster response found in the 2004 National Security Policy - individual, municipal, provincial and federal, the latter bearing primary policy and strategy responsibility.
First, in this field, nothing is a military task. Civil authorities lead.
Second, each level requires resources to mitigate disasters at their level. So we need a city (or regional) "civil response corps," maybe as a partner organization to established police services. They could include a quite eclectic grouping of people required to ensure resilience at the local level (i.e. more flood mitigators and urban rescuers than wildfire fighters).
Third, at the provincial level, you would have more substantial reaction forces, like firefighters who can be flown into areas of remote northern communities, accompanied by integral doctors, field kitchens, field hospitals etc. These organizations too, could be partners with provincial police forces. Most provincial emergency response organizations have all the necessary skills and capabilities. What they lack is capacity - they need more of everything for when 'the big one' hits.
I am often disheartened by the negative tone set by media and pundits about how difficult all this is and how over-the-top wonderful the CAF are in responding. With a new, positive, constructive mindset, I can see calling for a volunteers to join a city or provincial civil response corps and developing an enhanced and meaningful career path, built on the satisfaction of service to fellow citizens. Federal efforts would be devoted to strategies and plans to re-deploy and concentrate resources from across the country to where they are needed.
I might add a novel idea here too. In the field of emergency planning and management, and disaster response, there is every bit as much of an intelligence function in play, as we find in traditional national security and military operational domains. If we recognize true intelligence as reasoned foresight that enables advantageous action, we can see intelligence as an important enterprise within disaster prevention, response, mitigation and resilience operations. Emergency planning intelligence should be a thing.
While none of this is a military role, former serving military folks could design and establish a civil response force in a heartbeat ... given the necessary resources.
I still think this issue should initially be viewed from more of a constitutional basis. Emergencies and disaster response are first a provincial responsibility, which could even be further devolved to the municipal level, like police services and fire fighting services are. Why call on military troops to fill sandbags? Why not first call on all off-duty police officers, or firefighters, or municipal/provincial public servants. If federal help is needed, why not first call on postal workers, road maintenance workers, LCBO personnel? I think the entire search and rescue apparatus could be entirely civilianized too. There are many options before tapping 'last resort' military forces, although I do acknowledge some CAF capabilities, such as big airplanes might still be needed for evacuations, but why can't Air Canada, or other commercial companies be contracted first?
It seems to me that the basic difficulty here is the failure to recognize that the CAF is first and foremost and armed force, with other things they are directed to do and a requirement to maintain readiness to do them. Conceiving and building civilian emergency response organizations at the provincial level, forcing provinces to live up to their constitutional responsibilities is the way to go. It could include a sizeable volunteer component to alleviate the inevitable whining about cost
I think this hits at the real problem. It's not money or budgeteering, it's that although HADR is one of eight "core missions" in SSE, the CAF refuses to do anything proactive about it because it is considered to be inconsistent with the CAF culture. The CAF resisted national survival during the Diefenbaker government, sovereignty during Trudeau, had a fit about Canada 21 and the perceived "constabulary role" that is espoused, and now would like HADR to go away. Governments on the other hand, have seen HADR and civil security as an important role of the military. The above reference to the NZDF is well-placed
I do agree this is the nub of the problem, but I don't agree that the CAF is 'resisting' or 'refusing' to do anything. The 'core' mission at issue says only,"Provide assistance to civil authorities and non-governmental partners in responding to international and domestic disasters or major emergencies ...." Nothing in that demands anything 'proactive' in the way of non-military training. In any event, the Canadian Army continuously maintains high readiness units prepared to react on short notice to provide such assistance. So I don't see any problem here, other than persistent calls for the CAF to be something other than Canada's last resort armed force.