This is an extensive paper describing the responses to the 1998 ice storm in the Ottawa Region.

It is interesting in that it describes in detail the reactions (good and bad) of the various players (Region, Municipality, Electrical Utility, Army, citizens, etc) to this wide area disaster. Because of the loss of power, the cold weather and the transportation disruptions, I believe it shows what can reasonably be expected, in the absence of any civil unrest, should Y2K turn nasty early in the new year.

Warning - This will probably take an hour to read. A good weekend project.

Link

-- John (jh@NotReal.ca), November 12, 1999

Answers

" ... the following list suggests possible criteria for the role of a regional government in dealing with disaster:

1. Preparation including mitigation to prevent disasters or reduce their impact;

2. Warning of any threat and informing persons what they need to do to protect themselves from that threat;

3. Maintaining essential services and informing its residents that this is being done or if it is not possible advising them of the consequences and what they should do as a result;

4. Looking after those residents who are under corporate care and protection;

5. Restoring any disabled essential services;

6. Assisting its local municipalities to meet their similar obligations;

7. Reaching out to its neighbours;

8. Cooperating with others to see that limited supplies and services are delivered to those who are most in need;

9. Coordinating the overall response; and

10. Seeing that those affected are kept informed."
----------------------------------------------------

The Post Mortems on America 2000 may take centuries to assemble.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 12, 1999.

LOL! Did you notice that the "Federal" group kept insisting that "Toronto" approve the emergency supplies...I thought Ottawa was the capital of that God-forsaken country.

Guess the BANKS in Toronto have the lion's share in Canadian politics!

Clinton is to the USA what Trudeau was to Canada...a civil liberties disaster!

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), November 12, 1999.

Yeah but I can't see Mick Jagger fitting into the CCC (Crazy Clinton Clan).

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 12, 1999.

I fully realize that this power was available to police during the Montreal ice storm to use, and use responsibly, and I've no doubt that - in that circumstance - it would have been used as intended and for humane purposes.

That said, I was surprised to see that such an all-encompassing and discretionary power exists. If an order was given to move populations out of particular areas during an emergency for one reason or another [food or water shortages, health hazards, etc], would prepped individuals or family who a) refused to answer the door or b) wisely or unwisely refused to go be potentially subject to it?

Just wondering...:)

[extracted from the Report on the Montreal Ice Storm - link above]

"Worried that they might have missed persons who were at home and in danger, the police asked the public to report any cases they were worried about. This revealed that some persons were at home but had not been answering the door. Calls at these homes revealed that some were in real danger. When persuasion failed, police were prepared to use the Mental Health Act. Under the Section 17 of the Act a police officer can take into custody a person that he or she has reasonable cause to believe would cause "imminent and serious physical impairment" to himself or herself. (This section used to be Section 10 and the procedure was and is known as, "Form 1".)"

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), November 12, 1999.

"The night before, the Chair told local media that he might consider declaring a state of emergency. Now he listened to the arguments pro and con. Some present questioned whether such a declaration was wise, would the public panic? In fact studies show the public is much better able to handle the truth than to handle inadequate information about the extent of a situation."

Nuff said.

...(hitting the)...

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 12, 1999.

This is a great, eye opening read. Skip through the jargon or stuff you find irrelevent, but do look it over.

Some things I never thought about (people opening fire hydrants if they don't have water ... what about the rest of the neighborhood?) and just how much trouble generators can be if they aren't run right.

Good community planning stuff as well.

-- Lara (nprbuff@hotmail.com), November 12, 1999.

John Whitley You asked about police powers to remove us "for our own good"

You must not have heard about the PRK (Peoples Republic of Kalifornia)

All someone has to do is hang a red tag on your house and the police will beat you, cuff you and drag you away if you try to reenter. It doesn't matter to them if your dog is dying of hunger or 20 firms business records are on your computer. Red tag means "No go." If the power and gas are off, you should be able to take a chain saw and peel your dangerous house from the top down and get out everything. The Kalifornia overlords don't see it that way. I watched as police held down a woman while bulldozers crushed the apartment that had been her home after the San Fransisco area earthquake. I watched a CHP hold a man a gunpoint during the Malibu fires a few years ago. It did not matter to them that he had a pool full of water, a gasoline powered water pump and hoses and sprinklers. they were not going to let him go up the hill.

NOTE: Of course the government doesn't have to obey the same rules. When they were overhauling the State Capitol building, they simply put signs on all the doors, "Earthquake Unsafe, enter at your own risk". Try doing that on your house and you will be thumped.

I like the Washington State rules lots better. When Mt. St Helens was getting ready to blow, the athorities came around and told everyone, "The best evidence is that that mountain is getting ready to blow. We very strongly suggest you leave the area." They did not force anyone out. The mountain blew up and killed a few people but they died free.

-- woody (woody11420@aol.com), November 13, 1999.