Evidence of meeting #27 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you, Mr. Glover.
We'll now go to Mr. Green, for two and a half minutes.
5 p.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
That's an exceptionally broad question. I don't want to frustrate the minister with my answer. If there's more precision—
5 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I appreciate the promotion, but I'm not quite there, as the opposition guy.
I just received an interesting email about the possibility of staff being directed to buy. Are you directed to purchase Cisco?
5 p.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
Thank you. That's much clearer.
Departments will come to us with their requirements. There are times when they will say, “We can't accept interoperability. We don't have the time to test anything.” They want like-for-like. They make the case that we have to get, not necessarily Cisco, but it could be any vendor's gear. We must replace it with exactly the same vendor. That's the instance where Gartner has said that, when we are doing that, we should review them to make sure they are what the departments claim.
We used to, not all the time but mostly, just accept those. We now review and challenge those requirements to make sure that there is an operational imperative, and that we cannot move to a more open and transparent process. They make the request, and they lay out the case and the reasoning why.
5 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm going to just take a shot in the dark. I'm drawing on a recollection that's pretty old, and I just want to make sure it's not the case.
Does Cisco employ, or do your data centres employ, any Huawei technology?
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Robert Gordon Kitchen
Thank you, Mr. Green.
We will now go to Ms. Harder for five minutes.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Chair, I just want to go back to the conversation before. It was stated repeatedly that the information on page 78 was redacted because of cabinet confidence, but part of what we have there is, “[Blank] is currently an empty data hall awaiting new operations and would have unused capacity for 12-24 months”. Another one says that we know at blank centre, DCSL costs incurred for power support and maintenance are $4.5 million per year. Another quote is “[Data centre blank] incremental cost of power/cooling (2x over [blank]”.
We're talking about bills. We're talking about the location of these centres. We're talking about the impact they have. We're talking about estimated costs. Why is this cabinet confidential information?
5 p.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
I want to double-check my list, Mr. Chair, but that, to me—the location of the data centres—based on the member's question, would be national security. Those are assets, the workloads in them, what moves through them, including, unfortunately—I know it sounds strange—an empty data centre. We would not want to telegraph when we intend to fill that and where it will be to make it a target for those who might want to intercept traffic going in or out of that. We have every intention of filling that data centre.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Chair, what I find interesting is that there was a press release actually issued in 2018 after opening a data centre, and within the press release it gives the location of the data centre. In addition to that, I can just go online right now and google it. Why is this information being put in a press release, and I can google it right now and find out where these data centres are, but the witness thought it was necessary to revoke that information from the Gartner report?
5:05 p.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the member's question—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Is that a breach in national security, then, that the information is out there on Google? Is that what the witness is suggesting?
5:05 p.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
What the witness is trying to convey is that, depending upon the data centre, the nature of the workloads in it, absolutely, we would consider that of national significance and security, and would not proactively disclose that. I would not perpetuate that if somebody else has.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I guess I'm just wondering, then.... When the department sent out the press release, because it came from the department that the witness oversees, were they breaching national security? Because that would seem to be what the witness is saying, then. You can't have it both ways.
5:05 p.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the member's question.
I'm sure the member is aware we run literally hundreds of data centres, so it would depend on the nature of the workload. Not everything we do is secret, protected B. There are some things for which there isn't that sensitivity, absolutely, and it would be disclosable. It depends on the nature of the workload that goes through that and its security assessment. Those security assessments are also subject to change as the workload changes in them, and as the security posture and the intelligence of those actors looking to frankly intercept the data—
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
The centre is the Borden centre, which is one of the four. I guess your department breached national security, then, when the press release went out.
5:05 p.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
Mr. Chair, I'm not going to comment further.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
We've gone from it being cabinet confidence, and then it's a matter of national security, and then now no further comment. A press release went out from this witness's department that now makes him and his department guilty of putting out something that was in breach of national security, or he's “misfeeding” information to this committee trying to mislead us.
Through you, Mr. Chair, which one is it?
5:05 p.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure.... I heard a statement, not a question.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
No, there was clearly a question. Did the department breach national security or is the witness trying to mislead the committee right now by giving us false information? It has to be one or the other.
5:05 p.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the clarity from the member.
I can assure you I am in no way attempting to mislead the committee in any of my answers. Absolutely not.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Okay, perfect.
If the witness is not looking to mislead the committee, then national security was breached when the press release went out, which gave the location of the data centre in Borden. That's unfortunate. The member testifying to this committee, then, should perhaps have a review of his employment.
5:05 p.m.
President, Shared Services Canada
Again, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure there was a question for me in that last....