Public Safety Committee on March 21st, 2013

[François Guimont, Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you for the question, and thank you, Minister.

I did not really come here totally prepared to answer the OAG report. I've gone through it with my folks, and we have developed an action plan. Actually, I'm put on notice that I will have to go before PACP to explain where we stand on that report.

There is a number in the OAG report, and going by memory, it is around $700-and-some million; that was over a period of time.

But it was not cyber-specific. The OAG was looking for more specificity as to what was invested where. We took it upon ourselves to look into this, but there is a challenge, in the sense that these investments have been made in a number of departments. As the minister says, it's the collective that has the answer to this, rather than one single department.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I understand. But it would be good to have a collective number for the government, since the government is an institution in and of itself.

Are we spending enough on cybersecurity? Countries such as the United States are spending, proportionately speaking, much more than we are. There was an article today in the paper talking about a digital arms race to deal with the new threat of cybersecurity. Compared, for example, with the U.K., we're spending proportionally much less. We are spending proportionally much less than the United States. It leaves us all to wonder whether we're really putting sufficient focus on this issue.

The Auditor General said, for example, that the Cyber Incident Response Centre was not operating at full capacity. You must have known that, as the minister; you must have visited the centre, and they must have told you how many hours they were operating. I don't know why it took the Auditor General's report to alert you to the fact that the centre was keeping bankers' hours.

But the broad question is, how do we know that we're spending enough on cybersecurity? We haven't had a public discussion about this, and the committee hasn't looked at the issue. How do we know that we're taking the issue seriously enough, when this is becoming the key international security issue, it seems?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Deputy Minister.

[François Guimont]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first point I would make is that we look at cybersecurity in the department, and it's one of our top priorities. I want to be clear about that. That's the first statement.

The second point is that we have a strategy in place. The strategy was unveiled a year ago, plus or minus, and $155 million was put into the strategy. It has three pillars. The reason I'm putting emphasis on three pillars is that there's an understanding in the strategy that this is not only the federal government's responsibility; there is a continuum of actions to be taken in society, and there is a continuum, therefore, of accountabilities on cybersecurity.

We take our coordinating role very seriously, and we have, for instance, carried out better coordination, better action at the federal government level. Investments have been made in CSEC for better monitoring activities. We also have actions tied to specific departments, which they have to deliver.

The second pillar has to do with critical infrastructure in other sectors of society. We have 10 cross-sector tables, which we convene regularly, to see where and what people are doing on cybersecurity. We can't necessarily be in everybody's backyard telling them what to do. Banks, for instance, and other institutions have also to assume their responsibility vis-à-vis cybersecurity.

The third pillar is citizens. Such a simple thing as changing your password is something the government cannot dictate—people should see to that for themselves—or being careful about how they interact on the Internet and things of that nature.

So our strategy has three pillars.

More specifically on the U.S. side, we have also an MOU with the United States to deal with cybersecurity issues. We have an action plan, which asks for more cooperation and exchange of information.

I was there last week with the minister. I sat down with the person responsible for cybersecurity in the administration, and we undertook to meet every six months to take stock of where we are and to have cooperation between the two countries.

Taking a step back, we're taking cybersecurity seriously. It's a comprehensive approach, and it's not going to be instantaneous. It's a bit more diffuse as an issue than other programs might be, and outcomes have to be worked at more systematically.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We'll now move back to the second round. These are five-minute rounds.

It begins with the opposition.

Ms. Doré Lefebvre, you have five minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the minister and to the witnesses for joining us today.

Mr. Minister, I would just like to quickly go back to what my colleague Mr. Scarpaleggia has said. At the beginning of your speech, you mentioned a report that said that double-bunking was not a cause of violence. I was wondering what report you were talking about. I have not seen the report. Could you tell us where we could get this information from?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'll defer to the correctional officer. He did a report in the prairies on double-bunking. He can talk about that extensively.

[Don Head]

We looked at the issue of double-bunking from different perspectives. We did a literature review a couple of years ago to look at jurisdictions that have been engaged in double-bunking and what some of the factors are that need to be taken into consideration to minimize any negative impact on staff, offenders, and on the community as a whole.

That literature review has guided us in terms of some of the initiatives that we've put in place, including increasing the correctional program opportunities to keep offenders busy. If offenders are not busy and double-bunked, you've got a potential problem. If you have offenders double-bunked and engaged in programs, education, and work skills development activities, there's less chance of problems developing.

As well—

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

What is the title of the report?

[Don Head]

We have an internal report on that.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Okay. So we can have access to it.

[Don Head]

Yes, no problem.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

If I may, my next questions will be on inmates, the cuts being made and the increase in the prison population.

I know that the people around the table talked about this a little bit. You mentioned the Leclerc Institute. Since that facility is in my riding, I see the direct impact of the measures. My riding has three federal prisons, in addition to the Federal Training Centre, which is currently a minimum-security prison. Three wings have been added to turn it into a minimum- and medium-security megaprison. We have seen the impact; the Leclerc facility has been removed to add the wings to the FTC, in order to make room for a larger prison population.

You have probably heard about the spectacular escape that took place in a provincial prison in Saint-Jérôme. I think it was last week. That escape gave us an opportunity to hear from a lot of stakeholders.

[A voice]

[Inaudible]

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Yes, it is a provincial prison.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes, provincial jurisdiction.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Exactly. As a result, we had the opportunity to hear at length about the impact of Bill C-10. There are a lot of complaints across the province. Currently, the people who are awaiting trial are in provincial prisons, which are over capacity.

Currently in Quebec, we are seeing that our provincial prison system is overcrowded, as a result of the changes made to the Criminal Code. That worries me. After their trial, all those people are going to end up in our federal institutions. When that time comes, in a few years, we might not have the financial support or the correctional officers we need, or the necessary resources for rehabilitation.

Could you comment on that? I am honestly very concerned about that. We are already seeing an increase in the prison population in federal institutions. The people who are currently in provincial institutions, awaiting trial, will end up in the federal system after their trial, and we will not have the necessary support. What will happen then?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I don't know where to begin. There are so many false statements there.

First of all, my understanding is that the remand populations in the provinces have not increased. In fact, we've seen a decrease as a result of getting rid of the two-for-one credits. People have been moving through the remand centres more quickly. I'd like to see this on a Canada-wide basis that remand numbers are going up. They're high and they have always been high. Certain steps need to be taken.

That has got nothing to do with Bill C-10. In fact, Bill C-10, we believe, will assist in bringing that remand population down. In fact, we've seen that trend.

For example, we were asked by the Ontario government to build 1,500 more cells for them because they said that would be the impact of Bill C-10. At the same time that they were asking us to build new 1,500 cells for them, they were shutting down 1,500 cells. Essentially, what they're doing is getting us to build new infrastructure for them. That's not the way we do business.

I'd like to see some of those numbers. I haven't seen the numbers that indicate that remands are increasing in the manner that you've indicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We'll now move to Mr. Hawn, please, for five minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister and officials, for being here.

I'd like to go back to cybersecurity for a second. One of the hats I wear is as Canadian co-chair for the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defence, which has been around since 1940, and one of the areas we look at extensively is cybersecurity.

Mr. Guimont, one of the keys of that, and you alluded to it, is the cooperation we undertake amongst the allies—primarily the U.S., but also the Brits and so on. Is it fair to say that it's not necessarily just a question of looking at what we spend on cybersecurity, but at the efforts in cybersecurity across the alliances?

Also, turning back perhaps to the minister, was there any cyber-strategy before our government took power?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let's put it this way—I'm not casting any blame here—cybersecurity came up on the radar very quickly. It was always a very low priority and it suddenly mushroomed in a very short period of time as countries got together and started working on it.

Generally speaking, the priority of cybersecurity in the last three or four years has increased exponentially, given the threat it poses. What this means is that we can't simply pour money into cybersecurity by ourselves. The only way to really address cybersecurity is on an international basis. That's why not only are we reaching out to private companies, to the provinces, and to the agreement that we signed domestically, but then with the Americans in particular; we are also looking at expanding those agreements to the rest of our Five Eyes community, because we share many of the same concerns and some of the goals.

Before I turn this question over to the deputy, I would say—mention was made earlier of the Auditor General's looking at this issue of cybersecurity—that I think the Auditor General made some very good, helpful observations, but one thing the Auditor General said is that the government has made progress in securing its systems against cyber-threats, improving communications, and building partnerships with owners and operators of critical infrastructure.

That's our focus, that's what we're trying to do, and we're going to do it not only on a domestic basis but internationally as well.

Deputy.

[François Guimont]

I want to briefly address the point made concerning the response centre, CCIRC. I think there's always interest there. The minister rightfully pointed out that investments were made. More recently we have bumped up the resources for that centre. They are now operating at 15/7—15 hours, 7 days a week. That was a recommendation by the OAG. The OAG asked for 24 hours, we made 15/7, and we are always available 24 hours a day. There's always a response to be had, should a call come in; it's just that we don't necessarily have staff present physically.

The last point I would make is that since October, when these investments were made, we've had no call that fell beyond the 15 hours, 7 days; there were zero calls outside that window. It doesn't mean it will never happen—don't get me wrong—but right now we seem to be at the right point in terms of balancing resources and response.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have two points, one just to confirm that the system is available 24/7 to respond to anything that happens. The other fact, and the minister mentioned it, is that it's not just government, but corporations—the civilian industry out there—must play a critical role in the whole issue of cybersecurity. Government can't do it by itself.

Is that fair to say?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Absolutely. This is not something we can do on our own, given the private investments in cybersecurity.

One point I noted when I was in England speaking to the police there about some of the cooperation going on now between financial institutions, for example, is that there has always been a reluctance for financial institutions to cooperate fully. But I think everyone is coming on board in understanding that the simple fact that one institution has been the victim doesn't mean that the hackers haven't utilized a trail through other financial institutions.

The importance of integrating our response to any of these attacks is very great. The Internet or cyberspace really doesn't make a distinction; whether you're privately owned or publicly owned, if there's a path, it will find a way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Hawn.

We will now move to Mr. Rafferty.

Mr. Rafferty, you have five minutes.