Public Accounts Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

We have to be concerned by what we hear, but we also had another incident here dealing with the Trenton building. Apparently the blueprints for some of it were found lying on the streets here in Ottawa. In fact, one was recovered and others are simply missing. The contractor who was doing the architectural work on this--I don't want to mention his name--said he didn't think the blueprints were very important.

The Trenton operation will be the centre for our C-17s, which will be responsible for the movement of equipment, troops, and so forth across the country. It's very important that be on a ready system. How can we express the fact that the person responsible for the architectural work said he didn't think they were very relevant, and we could throw them in the garbage when we wanted?

Do you agree with what that architectural group said about the preparation of a very important military site? Apparently it can be found on the streets of Ottawa if somebody kicks the garbage around. How could that have happened?

[Robert Fonberg]

The Trenton project and the development of the blueprints went through the appropriate kind of security requirements checklist. Those blueprints were deemed to be unclassified. Treasury Board, under the government security policy, now recognizes that there are no document-handling requirements for unclassified blueprints. The story is not much more complicated than that.

I would simply say the allegations that there were other copies of the blueprints remain, I believe, unfounded. Whoever found the original blueprints apparently argued that there were other tubes in the same place. It was not confirmed, as far as I know, that there actually were copies of the blueprints in those tubes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Fonberg.

Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First off, does National Defence know how these blueprints ended up in the place where they were found?

[Robert Fonberg]

Do we know...?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Do you know how these blueprints ended up where they were found?

[Robert Fonberg]

No, we do not know how they ended up there.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Were you informed, at any point, that these blueprints had disappeared?

[Robert Fonberg]

No, we were not informed that the blueprints had disappeared, Mr. Chairman.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Are there any security guidelines regarding blueprints for military buildings considered significant from the security standpoint?

[Robert Fonberg]

Yes, absolutely.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

If so, can you tell me where the flaw occurred that led to these blueprints disappearing and being found in another city?

[Robert Fonberg]

There was no flaw in the process. The process required us to look at whether or not those blueprints should have been classified. A determination was made that they did not have to be classified, the contractors would not require access to classified information, or access to classified areas. A reliability check was done on the contractor. But the documents themselves were not classified, and there is no overall government provision for the handling of non-classified documents.

So as much as we may not have liked to have seen them thrown in the garbage, that was not outside the bounds of what they were allowed to do with those blueprints.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You said you would have preferred not to have seen this situation occur, and I understand why you'd say that.

At this point is there any way to prevent this type of situation from occurring?

[Robert Fonberg]

Is there some way of avoiding this in place? I'd have to look at my departmental security officer. I do not believe we have moved to change the provisions that are there. We are awaiting Treasury Board guidance in the rewriting of the government security policy around the issue of whether there will be special handling provisions for unclassified blueprints associated with government buildings.

Let me turn to my departmental security officer for further elaboration.

[LCol Dave Shuster, Director, Deputy Provost Marshal Security, Department of National Defence]

DM, that's correct--

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Just a minute. You are telling me that this type of situation could recur at any point.

[Robert Fonberg]

I think shortly after the discovery of the Trenton blueprints somebody managed to find some blueprints for another government department's buildings, which were also unclassified, in a similar situation. So could it recur for unclassified documents? Unless we have put certain provisions into the contract for the handling of unclassified documents, it would be above and beyond the provisions in the government security policy. Yes sir, Mr. Chairman, it could happen again.

[LCol Dave Shuster]

The deputy minister's comments are correct. My understanding is that both Treasury Board and the ADM security committee are looking at this particular issue on unclassified documents and looking at different caveats that can be placed on unclassified documents. Obviously PWGSC has to be very involved in this, because classifying these documents changes the whole contracting process and restricts the fairness and competitiveness of government contracts. So Treasury Board, PWGSC, with input from all departments, are currently looking at that right now.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Auditor General, in light of what we've just heard, are you aware of similar situations occurring elsewhere within National Defence? Are you aware of this type of thing?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, we did not assess that issue. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we believe the Department of National Defence should review the way in which it classifies buildings. Oftentimes, the department will begin construction on a building and determine its classification without necessarily considering future use. Buildings are built first and not classified. Depending on its future use, there could be a change to the classification. We believe that under certain circumstances, it would be wise to review a building's classification earlier on and take into consideration its future use.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

What lessons should we draw from this situation from a security standpoint? Mr. Nicholls and others have mentioned a security culture. Does the Department of National Defence have some difficulty in classifying its military buildings for security purposes? Would you yourselves be in a position to know whether important documents referring to these buildings should have been classified? Is there a process in place or are you simply waiting for someone else to tell you?

[Robert Fonberg]

Mr. Chairman, let me just repeat that there was no breach of government security policy or national security policy in the handling of these documents. The project itself went through a security requirements checklist. It was not deemed necessary to classify the actual blueprints. So the handling of the blueprints happened according to existing policy. It was unfortunate that they ended up where they ended up, but there was no actual breach of any particular policy.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm skeptical because we are unaware of when these blueprints disappeared and how they ended up where they were found. Well, we're being told that everything is fine insofar as there was no breach in the security process. I know someone discovered the Diefenbunker was going to be built because a pilot who was flying over a field could see where several washrooms were going to be built, who knows where. That was another era, and yet it seems as though things have not changed.

I find your comments very irresponsible. And I have received no response from you. Perhaps Mr. Nicholls can answer. What are you going to do to improve the situation? Is it a matter of waiting for a Treasury Board document?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

Go ahead, sir.