Evidence of meeting #23 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was defense.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
I agree.
When it comes to cyber-threat or cyber-attack, I'm not clear on the remedy or the response to that. Putting aside prevention, where, obviously, you want to be focusing your efforts, once it's actually occurred, is it a question of rebooting the system? How do you recover from something like that? I'm sure it's very complicated, but I—
Managing Director, Sonecon, LLC, As an Individual
No, it's an excellent question and one on which I think much further work needs to be done.
Scrubbing malware from an operating system is utterly unlike re-rigging power lines. There are many fewer people capable of conducting these response operations. Sharing them between utilities could pose additional challenges. Let's remember, at the same time that restoration activities are going to be under way—efforts will be under way to clean up the malware that's been inserted—the infrastructure is also a crime scene. So, in our nation the FBI would want to preserve evidence and would be conducting law enforcement operations at the same time that industry needs to be getting the systems back up and running.
What would be the role of the Canadian government in this, the Department of Public Safety or potentially the Department of National Defence?
I understand how the Department of Defense supported power restoration in hurricane Sandy. We delivered fuel and utility trucks. What is the equivalent role in a cyber-attack in restoring the functionality of the grid when malware has been deposited in our networks?
These are big important opportunities for dialogue between the United States and Canada, with the defence establishments in our two nations playing an important role.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
When we talk about some of these natural disasters, do you think maybe that's actually the wrong comparison?
I come from a small province of 800,000 people, New Brunswick, which is right next to the state of Maine. Over the holidays there was a power outage because of bad weather. At one point 20% of the population was without power. Also, over several weeks, lines were strung up again and the power was slowly restored. It was a combination. We had assistance from New England and from as far away as Ontario, actually, Hydro Ottawa. You saw the resources that came together in terms of assistance, with industry working with various power companies. As well, there was civilian oversight.
Perhaps the better example is the power outage we saw in 2003. A natural disaster brings in a whole different component which causes all kinds of chaos. In 2003, in Ontario and eight states the power went out, and 50 million people were affected. Where are we 10 years later? To me that's a better example, I think, in terms of a quick blow. I think under your scenario you'd want to incorporate some sort of cyber component to it, as well. 'm curious to know your thoughts on that scenario, and where we are 10 years later, in terms of that kind of quick shock to the system.
Managing Director, Sonecon, LLC, As an Individual
The loss of power in 2003 was very wide in geographic scope, but the key is that it was very brief. Power was restored to the vast majority of customers within 48 hours.
If there were either a natural disaster or a man-made attack that caused outages of much longer duration, then we would be in a different world in terms of defence support to civil authorities. Then the requirements for the nation to have assistance would be much greater, and the difficulty of delivering that assistance for our military and civilian authorities would be enormously more severe. That's why the puzzle we're facing now is so much more challenging, and why the need for additional planning and building on the current foundations for collaboration are so important.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
It sounds like when you present your scenario, you're talking about defence. This is where maybe I get a little concerned. A natural disaster is very serious, but there's no military threat to that. There is no foreign threat. A natural disaster impacts hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, of people and is very serious, as we've seen several times in your country.
Is there not a risk that the military is overstepping its boundary, and that a natural disaster should be dealt with by domestic authorities with a joint partnership between the two countries, of course, and that it is not really a role for the defence establishment? That would be a scenario where there is an attack either within or from abroad. What are your thoughts on that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Norlock
The witness will have to get back to us in writing or through a follow-up question.
Ms. Murray, for seven minutes.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you, Mr. Stockton, for being here to help us understand the possibilities of better collaboration between our two countries for continental defence and defence of Canada. I'd like to ask you a broader line of questioning. Based on your prior role as the assistant secretary for defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs, you must have been privy to many areas of overlapping interest between our country and the United States of America, and various ways in which our countries have collaborated to be more effective with defence and security measures.
Could you think back to not just these kinds of domestic challenges of the critical infrastructure and responding to natural disasters that you've been discussing, but more broadly, whether it's cooperating in the Arctic, in the maritime sphere? Talk to us about some specific collaborations that were examples of what works that we may want to build on as two nations.
Managing Director, Sonecon, LLC, As an Individual
Let me give you an example of concrete collaboration that's very important now and could be built upon going forward, and that is collaboration in building partner capacity in the western hemisphere and beyond for defence and for disaster response.
One of the very first meetings that we had when I came into office in the Permanent Joint Board of Defence included a discussion of how Canada and the United States, with full participation and leadership of DFAIT and our Department of State, could build on each other's comparative advantages in strengthening partner capacity in the western hemisphere, because Canada has some terrific programs under way—for example, in Jamaica, in order to train up Guatemalan helicopter pilots. It would be wasteful for the United States to replicate what Canada is already doing in building partner capacity. By having a dialogue about which country is going to invest where, we can together make sure that those investments are more efficient and more effective.
This dialogue about how we can have a collaborative approach in the western hemisphere has been going forward with great effectiveness, and now it has been expanded to the Asia-Pacific, where our Secretary of Defense and your Minister of National Defence recently agreed to a dialogue on Asia-Pacific engagement, including the ASEAN nations, in order to determine how best to have a coordinated approach to work together with nations of the Asia-Pacific region, in order to not step on each other's toes, in order to spend our scarce engagement resources most effectively, and to be of mutual support in ways that serve the interests of both Canada and the United States. We've gone far down this path in the western hemisphere. Now we're applying it more broadly.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thanks for those two examples.
Even two departments within the same ministry sometimes have a hard time working together on collaborative projects. Across ministries, it's more complicated still. Across countries, it's very complicated. Can you tell us what mechanisms have you seen function that make that collaboration flow more smoothly rather than adding a whole lot of bureaucracy and time delays to the mutual objective?
Managing Director, Sonecon, LLC, As an Individual
The Permanent Joint Board of Defence provides the institution and the framework in order to advance these opportunities for collaboration. Our Department of Defense will always be in support of FEMA or the Department of Homeland Security for disaster response. Our Department of Defense will always be in support of the Department of State in international engagements. The Permanent Joint Board of Defence now incorporates Public Safety Canada, DHS, DFAIT, and the Department of State in the dialogue so that the departments that are in the lead for these issues can help shape the kinds of defence collaboration that go forward.
The future of our defence collaboration is not only military NORAD-type issues but defence support to civil authorities, where DND and DOD will always play a subordinate role and should always play a subordinate role in critical infrastructure protection, in disaster response, in all of these issues that we've been discussing today.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Can you give me some examples of attempts to work together that have failed or that have created more problems than they have solved, just so we understand the kind of things that don't work as well as the kind of things that do work? This is in collaboration between Canada and the United States, raising issues of sovereignty, cost-sharing, a different vision of how to move forward.
Managing Director, Sonecon, LLC, As an Individual
In the defence realm, I did not encounter any problems in terms of building a collaborative approach. Clearly on some issues, sovereign nations are going to make their own policy and they won't always agree. That's certainly the case with ballistic missile defence. That's fine. The important thing is to sustain the dialogue and, where each sovereign nation shares an interest in defence collaboration, to advance those opportunities. I think there are many more opportunities to build on the foundation that exists today, which need to be advanced.
Conservative
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
I was highly pleased to see that you were on the witness list today, especially given your subject, security in the electric grid system, and given that here in Ontario there's public upheaval over mismanagement of our electrical generation and distribution systems at the time.
When the military and heads of state were drafting the NATO strategic concept, the principle of energy security had been proposed by some of the eastern European nations that were dependent and had suffered the valve turn-off by Russia. The alliance decided not to adopt power security as part of its new strategic concept. My question is this: should the principle of energy security be included as central components of our national defence policies, either separately or collectively in North America?
Managing Director, Sonecon, LLC, As an Individual
This, of course, is a sovereign decision for the Government of Canada to make regarding its own energy policy. But in the United States we recently, in fact just two weeks ago, took a very important step in the Department of Defense. I brought with me the first ever Department of Defense policy on energy, which tackles many of these issues in terms of the importance of energy to the Department of Defense and how to build resilience.
The Department of Defense is never going to be investing in public utilities in order to build the resilience of the electric power grid. That's within the private sector. That's a challenge for regulators who provide for cost recovery, to ensure that investments are prudent and that rate payers ought to be paying for them. But in the Department of Defense, ensuring the flow of power so that our armed forces can accomplish their missions no matter what is the key focus of this new policy.
If you would like, I'd be happy to provide a copy for the record, for your committee to review.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Recently, we had announced in Canada the sale of one of our province's transmission lines, AltaLink, which was Canadian owned by SNC-Lavalin and it's selling to Berkshire Hathaway energy. We're allies, but in the future, part or all of those transmission lines could be sold to an entity outside North America.
Should there be consideration given from a security standpoint into the ownership of power generation and transmission lines in North America?
Managing Director, Sonecon, LLC, As an Individual
I'd like to provide an answer for the record to that question. That is a very thoughtful question. Let me have an opportunity to come back to you after the hearing with an answer.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Okay.
We are recently hearing more and more about the Internet of things. That's where our smart appliances talk to one another; baby monitors transmit to work what's going on in the nursery. All these are interconnected—the rationale being that we will be able to use our power more wisely—and they send the information in turn to our smart meter. From your standpoint and knowing that we've just had a breach—apparently 750,000 households in North America were hacked by a commercial entity to spam them—but from a security entity, do you see this Internet of things as a vulnerable point from which unfriendly entities could attack our energy system?
Managing Director, Sonecon, LLC, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely. The smart grid and the Internet of things is going to provide for a more efficient operation of infrastructure and everything else that's now web-enabled to provide for more effective management of these systems, but the connectivity of these things to the web provides a potential means of attack to adversaries. Security needs to be baked into these investments in efficiency and effectiveness, baked into this development of connectivity to the web rather than tacked on after a successful attack occurs.
Conservative
