# Quebec Gov't Requests CAF support to address flooding



## dapaterson (5 May 2017)

Quebec's Public Security Minister Martin Coiteux said Friday the province has asked for and will receive assistance from the Canadian Armed Forces to deal with widespread flooding as wet weather and heavy rainfall continues.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/eastern-canada-rain-flood-warnings-1.4100856


----------



## McG (6 May 2017)

A few news sources are reporting ~400 soldiers in 5 squadrons are deployed out of Valcartier.  I have seen pictures of TAPV and Coyote, so I assume 12 RBC is the 2 Div IRU right now, but 5 is more sqn than I expect they have so I assume 5 RGC is at least partially out the door as well.


----------



## McG (6 May 2017)

... but I suppose it is also possible the term "squadron" is being applied to something(s) that are actually something else.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 May 2017)

There goes the budget.


----------



## devil39 (7 May 2017)

Some not so great coverage of Gatineau residents on CBC, complaining that "The Army" is too late and should have been deployed earlier.  The Army is at fault apparently.

Not the Canadian Armed Forces responsibility for the safety of citizens of Quebec or their property in the face of emergencies or disasters.  

I don't know the legislation in Quebec, however in Alberta, that responsibility belongs to Municipalities, who then ask for assistance from the Province, who can then ask for assistance from the Federal Government  Federal government assistance usually equates to CAF assets being deployed.

Watched this work quite well, close up, in multiple Manitoba floods, Saskatchewan fires, Alberta floods and fires. 

Why does this never seem to work in Quebec?  Where is the breakdown?  I seem to recall the last flood event in Quebec (2011?), complaints about the Army, and it turned out that the Quebec Provincial Government asked for assistance far too late?


----------



## Journeyman (7 May 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Some not so great coverage of Gatineau residents on CBC, complaining that "The Army" is too late and should have been deployed earlier.  The Army is at fault apparently.


Feel free to wade into CBC's 'comments' section ( :stars: ) and sort them out.  op:


----------



## sandyson (7 May 2017)

I suppose I'm mean-spirited, but I have little sympathy for people who buy property on a the bank of a river in a flood plain.  It's going to flood. Guaranteed. Why should tax payers pick up the bill for such folly?  I worked on recovery in the two 'floods of the century' of Riviere Saint Francois in the Eastern Townships.  The university was flooded causing serious damage to buildings and infrastructure.One old house of the university sits low and a canoe was used to enter the main floor.  After the first flood the workers recommended just bulldozing the structure after containing the oil tank spill.  The university instead rebuilt it.  The second flood came.  They rebuilt it.  We old boys are now waiting for the third flood. Hearsay has it that with the government recovery grant they could not afford not to rebuild it. The media would fry a politician for saying so, but if you build a house beside a river, a flood is your problem not the governments.


----------



## blacktriangle (7 May 2017)

Sandyson said:
			
		

> I suppose I'm mean-spirited, but I have little sympathy for people who buy property on a the bank of a river in a flood plain.  It's going to flood. Guaranteed. Why should tax payers pick up the bill for such folly?  I worked on recovery in the two 'floods of the century' of Riviere Saint Francois in the Eastern Townships.  The university was flooded causing serious damage to buildings and infrastructure.One old house of the university sits low and a canoe was used to enter the main floor.  After the first flood the workers recommended just bulldozing the structure after containing the oil tank spill.  The university instead rebuilt it.  The second flood came.  They rebuilt it.  We old boys are now waiting for the third flood. Hearsay has it that with the government recovery grant they could not afford not to rebuild it. The media would fry a politician for saying so, but if you build a house beside a river, a flood is your problem not the governments.



Agreed. 

My old man is a little crazy, but as a kid I distinctly remember him doing terrain analysis when buying the family home. He bought in an elevated area, away from water, and got a back up power system for the sump pump just to be safe. My parents have never had to paddle through their front door, and the house is worth seven figures now to boot. Far better than the "prestige" of living by the water - at least to me.


----------



## GAP (7 May 2017)

After the 97 flood in Manitoba the gov  would not rebuild unless the buildings were raised above the 100 year flood level.


----------



## medicineman (7 May 2017)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> My old man is a little crazy, but as a kid I distinctly remember him doing terrain analysis when buying the family home. He bought in an elevated area, away from water, and got a back up power system for the sump pump just to be safe. My parents have never had to paddle through their front door, and the house is worth seven figures now to boot. Far better than the "prestige" of living by the water - at least to me.



Thinking of this, I remember when I got posted to Gagetown and was looking to buy - found a place I really wanted in North Fredericton, but the day I showed up for my HHT, it sold.  Downer...until the realtor pulled out the 20 and 25 year flood tracings - it was between the two marks, and my last year there, the place was under water.  The place I did get was in Burton, on a nice hill, where I got to watch Hwy105 drown, including the church just kitty corner to me, not once, but twice in 4 years.

MM


----------



## Journeyman (7 May 2017)

medicineman said:
			
		

> .... including the church just kitty corner to me


Gutsy move;  _you_  living that close to a church.   


 ;D


----------



## medicineman (7 May 2017)

In my defence, it was on the other side of the substantially large/wide St John River...about 1500m as the crow flew.  Someone was really putting their faith in a higher being by planting the church literally on the river bank  :.

MM


----------



## NavyShooter (7 May 2017)

I grew up in a house that had a basement which leaked in any small rainstorm.

When I bought my first house, I set a rule...the house must be on a hill.  

As a sailor, I recognize the destructive capabilities of water, and having grown up with a leaky basement, I know all too well what happens after ingress starts.

My 2nd house was on a hill, as was our 3rd, and now that I have a waterfront property as my 4th home, I was careful to consider the flood aspect when purchasing.  The road to get to my home may end up in distress if there's a huge flood, but the water would have to rise almost 20 feet to get to my foundation.  I'm satisfied with that, considering the elevations here.

Also, as a bonus, a house on a hill generally provides better fields of fire.



NS


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2017)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Also, as a bonus, a house on a hill generally provides better fields of fire.



Make sure you keep the vegetation trimmed back...


----------



## NavyShooter (7 May 2017)

I have a .30 Cal hedge trimmer....LOL


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 May 2017)

Sandyson said:
			
		

> I suppose I'm mean-spirited, but I have little sympathy for people who buy property on a the bank of a river in a flood plain.  It's going to flood. Guaranteed. Why should tax payers pick up the bill for such folly?  I worked on recovery in the two 'floods of the century' of Riviere Saint Francois in the Eastern Townships.  The university was flooded causing serious damage to buildings and infrastructure.One old house of the university sits low and a canoe was used to enter the main floor.  After the first flood the workers recommended just bulldozing the structure after containing the oil tank spill.  The university instead rebuilt it.  The second flood came.  They rebuilt it.  We old boys are now waiting for the third flood. Hearsay has it that with the government recovery grant they could not afford not to rebuild it. The media would fry a politician for saying so, but if you build a house beside a river, a flood is your problem not the governments.



I disagree.  The blame must be shared.  Different levels of government allowed development of neighbourhoods close to the water, knowing it is close to water.  There is, then, some expectation from the government that people will establish themselve in those neighbourhoods. It is part of their city/provincial planning and should be held accountable to some level.  I am pretty sure the owners will already be losing quite a bit, both immaterial and material.


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2017)

@RalphGoodale

Ont Govt has requested federal support in fighting flood waters thru provision of emergency materials. Answer is of course YES!
https://twitter.com/RalphGoodale/status/861310982466961412


----------



## Occam (8 May 2017)

For any federal government employees in the NCR, you may have the day off tomorrow, depending on where you live/work.


----------



## kev994 (8 May 2017)

So fill sandbags on the side of the bridge that you are stuck on?


----------



## NSDreamer (8 May 2017)

Marlant just got put on standby to assist in NB.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 May 2017)

Not sure if it's a clever Photoshop but it looked/seemed legit.  Image of a soldier that CBC initially used to depict how many soldiers were deployed to the flood was a silhouette that looked a lot like a German Nazi soldier complete with SS on the helmet. Looks to be changed  now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 May 2017)

I drew on a map to show the areas I did not want a house and gave it to my real estate agent, I highlighted the flood area (in case of dam failure) and where most of the known geology issues are with slope failure. Pretty confident the area I am in will stay put in a earthquake. She said in 20 years no one has ever given her such instructions. There was one house I looked at on a steep bank above a creek, the foundation had cracked clean across, been repaired and cracked again, repeated again. I looked at the real estate agent and said "how nice expanding square footage and a future split level house"


----------



## NavyShooter (8 May 2017)

"Location location location" means different things to different people...


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 May 2017)

Just got word from my CoC that the offices in Gatineau are closed again, Tuesday 9th May.  More rain on the weekend and next week too.  This weather is going to get out of hand.


----------



## kratz (8 May 2017)

Not only are average citizens not grateful the military has sent more than 1600 into areas of Quebec, now one of the federal NDP MPs, Matthew Dube, wants the military to stay after the emergency is over to clean up those sandbags.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I disagree.  The blame must be shared.  Different levels of government allowed development of neighbourhoods close to the water, knowing it is close to water.  There is, then, some expectation from the government that people will establish themselve in those neighbourhoods. It is part of their city/provincial planning and should be held accountable to some level.  I am pretty sure the owners will already be losing quite a bit, both immaterial and material.




The _*Globe and Mail*_ agrees with you, Max, in an editorial, dated 8 May 17. People make mistakes, often out of greed and ignorance, as the OP said, but governments, at all levels, then encourage them to repeat the mistake, over and over again: Einstein's definition of insanity.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 May 2017)

kratz said:
			
		

> Not only are average citizens not grateful the military has sent more than 1600 into areas of Quebec, now one of the federal NDP MPs, Matthew Dube, wants the military to stay after the emergency is over to clean up those sandbags.



Fucking ingrates.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 May 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _*Globe and Mail*_ agrees with you, Max, in an editorial, dated 8 May 17. People make mistakes, often out of greed and ignorance, as the OP said, but governments, at all levels, then encourage them to repeat the mistake, over and over again: Einstein's definition of insanity.



The same thing happened with the big flood in Southern Alberta in 2013. A lot of properties wiped out should never have been built that close to the waterways, but various self-interested land developers got deals from various politicians to 'bend' the regulations. 

Who paid the price? The people who'd bought from the developers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2017)

And the people of Gatineau, according to the CBC, are complaining that either the army isn't there at all, for them, or just made a token appearance ... One man, 79 year old Quyon resident Raymond Wilfred Bertrand, who claims to have served in the military as a young man, is quoted as saying: "We are paying the armed forces. It's all taxpayers' money. Why did they not bring them at least two weeks ago? I know they cannot protect everyone's home, but a lot of people didn't go and get sandbags because they couldn't."


----------



## Infanteer (9 May 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Who paid the price? The people who'd bought from the developers.



...and every other homeowner.  House insurance in Alberta went up in Alberta in 2014.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The blame must be shared.  Different levels of government allowed development of neighbourhoods close to the water, knowing it is close to water.  There is, then, some expectation from the government that people will establish themselve in those neighbourhoods. It is part of their city/provincial planning and should be held accountable to some level.  I am pretty sure the owners will already be losing quite a bit, both immaterial and material.


Agreed -- although I wonder if people living in these areas had to sign any sort of waiver given they were in a flood plain?  Or is that only for predictable, everyday flood plains, as opposed to "once every 40 years or so" flood plains?


			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not sure if it's a clever Photoshop but it looked/seemed legit.  Image of a soldier that CBC initially used to depict how many soldiers were deployed to the flood was a silhouette that looked a lot like a German Nazi soldier complete with SS on the helmet. Looks to be changed  now.


See attached  >


----------



## Journeyman (10 May 2017)

Who knew?    :dunno:


> *One way to battle future flooding: stop building on flood plains, say experts*
> 
> "The municipality really doesn't have an incentive to go in and use land-use planning and building codes and communications strategies to tell people that they are at risk of flooding, particularly given that most of the revenue comes from development, it comes from property taxes." Thistlethwaite said. "So they face a real conflict of interest."
> 
> "Poor land-use planning at the local level basically goes unpunished and in fact gets rewarded with additional disaster assistance from the province, from the federal government."


LINK 


In other flooding news....


> *Flooding prompts Prince Edward County to declare a state of emergency*


LINK 

Prince Edward County is just south of Trenton.  They'll be inundated with RCAF people demanding 4-star hotels,  lattes...... and tax-exempt status.   >


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> They'll be inundated with RCAF people demanding 4-star hotels,  lattes...... and tax-exempt status.



Coming from you, this is insulting suggesting the RCAF would ask for 4-star hotels...

You know we would ask 5-star hotels!


----------



## Journeyman (10 May 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Coming from you, this is insulting suggesting the RCAF would ask for 4-star hotels...
> 
> You know we would ask 5-star hotels!


Actually, I initially wrote 5-star;  then I realized that there would be non-aircrew involved.   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Coming from you, this is insulting suggesting the RCAF would ask for 4-star hotels...
> 
> You know we would ask 5-star hotels!



Aircrew buddy if mine was telling me there's some kind of rule that aircrew are supposed to get individual quarters when on the road for sleeping. I guess like single person hotel rooms?  Said there was quite a bit of drama when people were told because of the budget they would likely be sharing rooms when possible.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 May 2017)

Jarnhamar,

To be fair, this is more of a safety concern.  While there has been instances where I shared rooms with someone else but we generally try to avoid it.  When on the road, we generally have a pretty agressive schedule and are either resting or conducting flying activities so good rest is actually important in safe operations.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2017)

Thats fair. No one out ranks general safety ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 May 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Aircrew buddy if mine was telling me there's some kind of rule that aircrew are supposed to get individual quarters when on the road for sleeping. I guess like single person hotel rooms?  Said there was quite a bit of drama when people were told because of the budget they would likely be sharing rooms when possible.



It really depends on your Wing/Sqn policy and the current financial climate. Generally, when on the road, you get your own hotel room. However, I have recently ferried a Sea King across the country and it was shared rooms the whole way because of budget concerns...

On a ship, nearly nobody gets their own cabin. The techs are in 19 mess, which has about an 18 rack capacity (and is right over the propellers, making it arguably the worst mess on the ship for noise and vibration). The aircrew officers often get shoehorned into cabin 6/8 which has 6 racks. This at least has the virtue of letting them control their own crew rest situation, somewhat.

The upcoming classes of ships (I am told) will be much closer to a commercial standard for Accomodations for all ranks.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 May 2017)

Folks

If you are so inclined and can afford it, please consider a donation to the Red Cross, the designated agency for flood relief. We are in the position to do so, and made a fairly substantial one this morning. The park on the St Lawrence where we put our trailer for the summer is under a few feet of water, but that hardly matters compared to what many of our fellow Canadians are experiencing.


----------



## 211RadOp (11 May 2017)

Old Sweat will recognize this place as he has been here once or twice  

The top of the tractor rim is usually 1 to 2 feet above water level at this time of year.  For situational purposes, that is PEC in the background.

Edit:  Forgot to add that this was taken on 9 May and the water has not peaked yet.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 May 2017)

A couple of questions, Rad Op. How is the boat house and is the ferry operating? Oh, and what about the septic system?


----------



## 211RadOp (11 May 2017)

Water is about six feet into the boathouse.  Septic is good as it is in the lilac bushes by the composter.  Ferry is running when the water is not too rough.  Youngest brother was there yesterday cutting the lawn which was in bad need of it.  At least the upper levels.  He opted not to do the hill or the lower levels for some reason.


----------

