Public Safety Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

[Jean-Guy Ouimet]

But without regard to your question and to the existence of a privacy act in Quebec, there are organizations that are linked to information, for example, or organizations that are under federal jurisdiction with which we exchange information to ensure the protection of Canadian and Quebec infrastructures. It's in this respect that this bill could permit better exchange, a better sharing of information on the various areas in order to ensure greater efficiency.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So, in your view, the bill, if passed, will improve emergency management for federal institutions, but that could nevertheless have been in coordination with the statutes that exist in each of the provinces.

How do you see coordination uner the part of the bill that concerns the conduct of security exercises and training? When an act is well established in a province, don't you think that might be a source of conflict between the provinces and the federal government?

[Francis Bradley]

I'm not sure about the potential conflict between the different levels of government. I can give you some very specific feedback on the issue of exercises and training, particularly exercises in the area of infrastructure protection in which the Government of Canada has become more active over the last couple of years, most notably with the lessons learned workshop that occurred following the 2003 blackout, and then the Silver Links exercise that was held a year later.

What was shown was probably very much like how these situations need to be handled when an event occurs. An absolute requirement is coordination from all levels of government. The Silver Links exercise that PSEPC organized is a perfect example. It was a collaboration between federal and provincial authorities, authorities in the United States, industry, private industry, associations, asset owners, and operators. It proved to be an excellent opportunity to learn some very important lessons.

I think the promotion of exercises is important. We certainly were able to take some lessons from those exercises and make some changes in terms of our processes; I know a number of other sectors that participated in those exercises did so. The further promotion of exercises by the Government of Canada can only benefit all the players involved--those in the federal government, those in the provinces, and those in private industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I would like to ask the committee's permission to break with our usual routine. Mr. Comartin has to go the House in a short time. Are there any objections to having him ask a few questions?

Go ahead, Mr. Comartin.

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

It's actually a follow-up to what Mr. Carrier just asked, and I'm not asking for any breaches of confidentiality here. This is a concern I have because we got a little bit of discomfort from both the Red Cross and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities when they were here last week. There was a sense that the working relationship isn't tight enough.

In the scenario that I will throw at you for yourselves, in terms of planning for a potential--let me be blunt--terrorist attack on one of your institutions, are you being consulted on how that should be dealt with, in the sense that the local police may very well be involved, the local fire services may be involved, and certainly the federal and provincial authorities may be involved? You play a crucial part in being involved; is that happening on the planning side--not on the seminars or that sort of thing, but actually on the planning of how you would deal with it? Are you part of the team?

[Francis Bradley]

Probably the companies here can respond to their specific circumstances.

I don't want to make it sound as though we think everything is going to be solved by Bill C-12. There are some very significant issues and there will continue to be significant issues in terms of improved coordination, improved communication, and we can always do better. I don't think any of us would ever get to the point of saying the relationship among the different players in the planning and execution of protection is perfect, and it never will be perfect, but as I said earlier, this is a first step.

In terms of the specifics on this, I don't know if Mr. Price or Mr. Davis or Mr. Ouimet want to talk about coordination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Davis.

[Jim Davis]

I will. From my standpoint, I can tell you we have worked very cooperatively with policing agencies, fire departments, and other emergency agencies in relation to security drills, for example. The drills are very important to find out what might go wrong during an emergency. We have a history of doing that, not just since 9/11. I can say I'm comfortable that we are getting very good cooperation. It's not perfect, but it's much better every time we do a drill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

I have two more questioners on my list.

Mr. Hawn, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know if you've read Stewart Bell's book Cold Terror, given that he's an author with a point to make.

You said you were comfortable with intelligence sources saying there's no threat to Canadian facilities. I'm not sure whether you really believe that or not. Given the kind of information that's in Stewart Bell's book, whether you accept it or not, but given general public information, given the things we've seen happen in the last few years, can you say you're really comfortable that there's no physical or electronic terrorist threat to facilities in Canada, whether nuclear, electrical, generating, or whatever?

[Jim Davis]

My comment was that we're being advised that there's no direct threat at this time. We always have to be vigilant in relation to security matters, not only in critical infrastructure but during our daily lives. When we travel, we should be paying attention to what's going on around us. It's all part of the security we need to be aware of, not just since 9/11 but in general.

I don't want to mislead you. I'm not saying there's no possible threat, and that's why we are paying so much attention to security these days and working as hard as we can with the intelligence agencies and policing agencies to try to head things off before they become a problem.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You mentioned the Homeland Security Information Network and our requirement to share information, and so on. There are some natural Canadian concerns about information, and Mr. Comartin talked about that a little bit.

What would our system of information sharing look like to provide the information they need? What do we need to give them for cooperation and at the same time to protect Canadians' information?

[Francis Bradley]

It would probably look something like what we're talking about in terms of the relationship of the information between our industry and government. It's going to require a definition of precisely what information will be required, what will be exchanged between the two partners, how that information is going to be used, how it's going to be protected, and so on. This is what we're looking for in our relationship, clearly something that will have to be established in terms of any kind of a parallel system between the homeland information system and the Canadian system, which doesn't exist at this time.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Are you sensing any pressure or potential pressure to provide more information than we collectively would like to give?

[Francis Bradley]

To provide more information?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

From the homeland security side of it.

[Francis Bradley]

No, not yet. We're anticipating a requirement in the future. It does not yet apply to the electricity sector, but it will come the new year, yes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have a quick technical question that may be beyond the scope of what we're talking about here, but I think it has some application to nuclear power being safer and cheaper. I've been reading a little bit about thorium. Do we know anything about thorium? What I'm reading says it's safer, cleaner, and more plentiful as a fuel for nuclear reactors.

[Jim Davis]

It's not an area of my expertise; I'm sorry.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I didn't think it would be. It wasn't to put you on the spot. It was just something....Thorium is an ingredient in uranium 233, rather than uranium 235. It's supposed to be much more plentiful than the fuel we're using currently. It's supposed to be safer, only if used in CANDU reactors—which has economic implications for Canada, obviously in terms of this industry.

That's fine, Mr. Chair. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you. I'm not sure that directly pertained to Bill C-12, but it's an interesting side event.

I would like to follow up a little, because there's a little time.

You made a comment earlier, and it ties in with what Mr. Hawn was asking you. Your concern isn't so much about information sharing as that not enough information may be shared between countries. Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by your concern about maybe “not enough” information being shared, rather than its being shared inappropriately?

[Francis Bradley]

We don't know and are in no position to be able to assess exactly what information is shared among countries, but we've seen over the past couple of years that the coordination is better between, for example, the Government of Canada, PSEPC, and Department of Homeland Security. It is better, but it can always be improved.

It may not necessarily be a question of the volume, but perhaps the quality and—usually in these sorts of things, more importantly—the timeliness of the information. That's been, frankly, for us one of the more significant issues over the past year or two as the Government of Canada has really gotten its act together, at least in terms of interfacing with industry.

It isn't so much now the volume or the quality of the information, which has improved; the big outstanding issue right now for us is the timeliness. There was a time, for example two years ago, when members of our association who had level two security clearances could get security briefings on the generalized threat environment in the United States. They would be hosted by the FBI, Homeland Security, and CIA. We would go to Washington for these briefings. We didn't have the same sort of briefing in Canada.

We've begun now to receive those briefings here in Canada, as of last year. It's been worked on by Natural Resources Canada, and they do it in cooperation with the other agencies. So we're now starting to work with better information, but it continues to be an issue for us with respect to the timeliness of the information we're receiving.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I appreciate those comments.

I have one more person on my list. Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Here are a couple of things. First, we really are dealing with Bill C-12 and we've gone off into a variety of things.

Just as a little follow-up, we always seem to have not a problem but an issue in Canada worrying about what information Homeland Security wants from us, but is the reverse equally true? Do we get information from them, so that it's a two-way street—we pass them information or they request information, but we also want information here? And do we get it from them?

[Francis Bradley]

Thank you very much. That's an excellent question, and it actually relates to my previous answer as well.

Because we get information through the electricity sector on a North American basis, we have previously gotten far more information and far better information from Homeland Security, but not because we're Canadian. Maybe they didn't even know we were Canadian; they just knew we were electricity.

That had been a primary source for us, until a couple of years ago, of some of our basic information. They produce on a very regular basis a lot of threat assessments. They're not the only ones; there's the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and now Canada. But we're of course now getting better at coordinating it. We're now receiving it no longer directly from Homeland Security. With the establishment of the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, or ITAC, at CSIS we're able to work with them and tap into that information more effectively.

But we have over the years not been unhappy with at least the quantity of information that has been coming to us from the Department of Homeland Security. Would that be a fair assessment?