Public Safety Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

You know, Mr. MacKenzie, I happened to be down in southwestern Louisiana and met with local officials there—after Rita, actually. That area of the state got hit at that point. They would very much have liked to have senior levels of government involved, and they were nowhere to be seen.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

With all due respect, I think there is a difference--and we have to understand that--between the American system of governance at the municipal level, through their states, and the federal level. Some days, that state level sort of disappears in the American system somehow. I don't know how it happens. But it is different in Canada. The municipal level is very strong and independent. Equally, too, the provinces. So when the municipalities are no longer able to handle something, it quickly goes to the province, whereas down there they seem to look for their federal government to step in.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair, on that last answer about the MPs and that package, I'm not aware of it. I'd like that information to be sent to the committee, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'm wracking my brain as well. I do not remember seeing that, but that can sometimes be a problem with our offices.

[James Deacon]

Mr. Chair, we'll follow up as to what exactly was sent, if that's acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, okay. Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

First of all, Ms. Wong, I appreciate your answers which are accurate and brief. I shall then ask you a tougher question to which you might answer as briefly as you did earlier.

How do you make a distinction between critical and non-critical infrastructures? I do not see any definition in the Bill. Are you referring to a definition? You have certainly talked about the extent of your mandate. Could you speak to that?

[Suki Wong]

You're right, that's a tougher question.

With respect to the definition of critical infrastructure, you're absolutely right, it's not in the legislation. In terms of whether we are referring to a specific definition, we intentionally did not describe it because how each province and how each sector looks at what is critical is different from province to province. For our purposes, to respect jurisdictional responsibilities, it's important that the provinces themselves decide what is critical within their own jurisdiction. As to the federal government, from our perspective we will be identifying critical infrastructure within the federal government as well.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Now, could someone explain to me the meaning of the provisions in section 3 and I quote:

3. The Minister is responsible for exercising leadership relating to emergency management in Canada [...]

As you can see it doesn't say “in the Government of Canada”, but “in Canada”.

Then what is the extent of the lead role played by the Minister in the management of emergencies in Canada?

[James Deacon]

Perhaps I can make an initial comment. It includes some of the coordination work that we talked about in terms of working with and bringing jurisdictions together while at the same time totally respecting provincial jurisdiction and their responsibilities and integrating what needs to be done. So it's a coordinating role at the federal level, clearly, and it's a facilitating role in terms of bringing jurisdictions together. At the most basic level, that's the way I would characterize it.

Ms. Wong may have further comments based on the proposed legislation.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Now I read and read again paragraph 4(1)(h). I read it in French, I read it in English but I still cannot understand what is its purpose. That paragraph says and I quote:

(h) coordinating the provision of assistance to a province [...] other than the provision of financial assistance and the calling out of the Canadian Forces [...]

I can accept that the federal Government should coordinate the calling out of Canadian Forces if a province requires it, but why that exclusion? It is the same thing for “other than the provision of financial assistance”. I think that the federal Government has a useful role to play under the legislation that I mentioned earlier.

Does “coordinating the provision of assistance” means the assistance given by the federal to a province? Is it really what that means?

[Suki Wong]

Paragraph (h) is very specific to non-financial assistance because there are other provisions in the legislation specifically for financial assistance that triggers the DFAA. So in terms of this section, it's very much to coordinate non-financial assistance, in term of federal resources, federal expertise, as well as to make sure that our DFAA, or our non-financial assistance program, doesn't overlap with other government programs. It's to distinguish between our minister's role and other ministers' roles.

[James Deacon]

Could it be something as simple, Ms. Wong, as, if there were three or four federal departments providing assistance in a given instance, coordinating the work of the federal departments and agencies in that regard?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We shall discuss amongst ourselves if it is necessary to better clarify that it is the assistance of the federal Government that is coordinated and that it is generally provided on the request of a province. That's fine.

Now, Mr. Deacon, in your presentation, you have raised the issue of the requirement for businesses to reveal the risks related to their activities. I do not find anything about it in the Bill. You insisted that you would guarantee them that their trade secrets would be respected. I know that it is a very sensitive issue in high technology businesses that deal with dangerous products. Those businesses would certainly not be very happy to see their information concerning dangerous products and potential disasters in case of an accident published in newspapers on the one hand, or that their statements might be used by their competitors to get their trade secrets, on the other.

I really wonder how you could guarantee to those businesses, in this era of industrial espionage, that you will be able to keep their secrets. This is my last question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

[James Deacon]

Just to restate what I was saying, we do need to obtain information. There's no obligation for the private sector to provide the information. That being said, we are developing relationships and looking to develop relationships to get the information we need in order to carry out the emergency management functions appropriately.

With respect to the Access to Information Act, the proposed amendment would make a mandatory exemption from disclosure for this kind of information. That is the purpose: to provide that safeguard, that security in terms of private sector information.

[Suki Wong]

Right now the Access to Information Act does not specifically reference information that you just spoke about in terms of vulnerabilities to an electrical grid or a nuclear facility specifically, so it doesn't actually say that information shared with the Government of Canada on specific vulnerabilities on a networking system will be explicitly protected. Having this provision does provide each minister with clarity in terms of what protection could be afforded to the private sector when this information is shared with us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

I have two more questioners on my list, and then as a committee, hopefully, we'll have a few minutes at the end to deal with some other items that would not concern our witnesses here.

Mr. Hawn, go ahead, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a very short question. I think that my friend Mr. Ménard is looking for the boogie man where there is none. It's a private joke.

Are you having any difficulty, just following on with what Monsieur Ménard said, in getting that kind of sensitive information from companies or facilities, or have you really started looking for that yet?

[Robert Lesser]

Maybe I'll respond from the cyber point of view. It's probably the best example, because within the Government Operations Centre is also the Canadian Cyber Incident Response Centre. It's a CCIRC, similar to those in four or five other countries.

We are now, particularly over the last few months, seeing a very large growth in information that companies are sharing with us. They talk about their vulnerabilities, though not with Microsoft. As a result of Microsoft, there are other vulnerabilities out there. They are sharing a lot of information with us, so for one thing, if you look on our website under the CCIRC page, Canadian Shield, or CShield, we list the ten biggest threats and how you describe them. That comes from the information we get from the private sector. It also talks about ten or so origin countries. I think China is number one. That just means that the original attack comes from that country, and it could be connected to many other countries in behind that.

Certainly from the cyber point of view, and with the telephone companies, we're seeing a lot of information. We have to be very careful, though, to receive it in a way that's generic so that we don't compromise until we can get this kind of protection in. We're able to provide some kinds of services and give them a general overview of the threats, and tell them what they need to take a look at and what may be coming down their way from other countries. That has started very well, and it's been successful.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

There is a level of confidence and trust that's starting to be built up.

What about the oil patch generally? There is a lot of vulnerability to pipelines and refineries and so on. Is that progressing the way you want it to?

[Robert Lesser]

Do you want to answer on the CIP?

[Suki Wong]

Yes.

In terms of this legislation and the amendment to the Access to Information Act, the amendment is not just for the Minister of Public Safety. It extends to all ministers, so information shared with the Minister of Natural Resources in terms of what you just raised--pipelines or oil patches--would be protected as well. Protecting their information would I think create a trusting environment in which they would feel more confident in sharing that information.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Our final questioner is Mr. Brown.