:
I call this meeting to order.
This is the sixteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and today we are having a meeting in regard to .
We would like to welcome our witnesses from the Canadian Electricity Association. I believe the leader of the delegation is Mr. Francis Bradley, and he is the vice-president of corporate resources.
We welcome you and the people who are with you, sir. I will allow you to make an opening statement. You can introduce your colleagues, and if any of them have any comments or statements, they can make them as well.
Normally we allow ten minutes, sir, but if you need more time, you may take more, as you are the only witnesses today. After you are done, our procedure is usually to go to the government side first, then the official opposition Liberals, and then we'll go back over to the government side to conclude the first round of questioning, which consists of seven-minute turns.
Again, welcome. We look forward to the testimony that you have for us. You may begin.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.
Thank you for this opportunity to meet with you to discuss Bill C-12 and to inform you about the viewpoint of the members of the Canadian electricity sector.
My name is Francis Bradley. I am Vice-President of the Canadian Electricity Association, which represents all electricity-related areas of activity in Canada, including production, transportation, distribution, customer service and electric energy marketing.
[English]
I'm responsible for the association's critical infrastructure protection activities, or CIP program, which was launched in January 2000.
The chairman of our CIP working group, Dave Baumken, from Hydro One, was unable to join us today. He's actually in Germany representing Canada at a NATO event, but he asked that I convey his greetings to the committee and offer, on behalf of CEA, to provide a subsequent briefing to the committee on the security of the electricity sector, at the committee's convenience.
[Translation]
With me today are the persons responsible for the security activities of three of the largest electricity businesses in the country.
[English]
Chris Price is with Hydro One, the Ontario transmission and distribution company. Jim Davis is with Ontario Power Generation, the largest power generation company in this province, with hydro, thermal, and nuclear generating facilities.
[Translation]
Jean-Guy Ouimet represents Hydro-Quebec, the main producer, transporter and distributor of electricity in Quebec. Mr. Ouimet is also the chair of our task force.
Following my introduction, we'll be pleased to discuss our views on Bill C-12 and on the challenge of protecting the electricity industry in Canada.
[English]
Our critical infrastructure protection initiative looks at both physical and cyber threats and events. It takes an all-hazards approach, and it includes work on such diverse issues as pandemic planning and marijuana grow ops.
Given the interconnected nature or electricity in North America, we work closely with the North American Electric Reliability Council, the NERC. In fact, a Canadian, Stuart Brindley, of Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator, is the chair of the NERC CIP committee, and he's a former chair of our group.
[Translation]
The regulatory framework of Canada's electricity industry is different from that in the United States.
In the U.S., the federal administration holds essential authority for regulating this industry. In Canada, it's the provinces that have most of the powers in this area. It goes without saying that this aspect has at times made our security activities more complex, requiring coordination between federal and provincial authorities and between federal departments.
[English]
In addition to our North American activities through the North American Electric Reliability Council, we also collaborate with other sectors in Canada and with a wide range of government officials at Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Natural Resources Canada, the RCMP, and CSIS, to name a few.
The association launched its CIP initiative following the Y2K transition. While Y2K was seen by many to be a non-event, we learned a great deal during the transition, most particularly about infrastructure interdependencies and the importance of information sharing.
During the Y2K transition, the federal government's activities were coordinated through the National Contingency Planning Group. The NCPG played a critical role in engaging all infrastructure sectors and providing analysis of the interdependencies between the various sectors. Their analytical work was subsequently captured in a March 2000 report entitled “Canadian Infrastructure Interdependencies”. I highly recommend it to the committee, as it left no doubt as to the importance of electricity.
Electricity is the original and ultimate example of just-in-time manufacturing. It cannot be stockpiled in large quantities like other commodities.
[Translation]
From the moment someone switches on a light or boots up his computer, the additional electricity that action requires must immediately be available at a power station that may be located hundreds or even thousands of kilometers away.
[English]
The importance of electricity to the economy was detailed in a discussion paper published by PSEPC that reviewed the 2003 blackout. Permit me a moment to quote from that NCIAP discussion paper, which came out in November of 2004:
The August 2003 blackout provided an object lesson in infrastructure interdependencies by demonstrating how a disruption in one infrastructure can cascade across others. This was the largest blackout ever in North America, leaving 50 million people from New York to Toronto without power for up to two days. Ontario's public health infrastructure was stressed due to hospitals operating on emergency generators. Food and water supplies were put at risk. Grocery stores were forced to discard thousands of dollars worth of food and water treatment plants operated on emergency power. Thousands of Ontarians felt a cash crunch due to closed banks and disabled bank and debit machines. Transportation and commuting were disrupted when gas stations were unable to pump gasoline (pumps require electricity to be able to operate). Flights were cancelled at both international airports in Ontario (Toronto and Ottawa). An extraordinary volume of calls created tremendous backlogs on 911 systems, and cellular transmitter stations failed when their battery back-up power was exhausted.
Given the importance that electricity plays in our economy, CEA began engaging the federal government on CIP early in 2000, initially through the federal government's CIP task force; subsequently with the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, OCIPEP; and then with Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, PSEPC. We've worked cooperatively with governments and government officials on a wide range of initiatives over the past six years, from providing input on policy matters to developing scenarios for and participating in tabletop exercises.
[Translation]
However, from the start of this relationship, our most urgent concern has been the issue of an effective information sharing framework.
According to the assessments that the government itself has conducted, the private sector owns and operates 85 percent of the essential infrastructure. It is mainly responsible for protecting its own property.
An effective two-way movement of information between the private sector and government is essential to our success.
[English]
The importance of protecting industry-provided information has been acknowledged by the Department of Homeland Security in the United States. Through their protected critical infrastructure information program, they have recognized that they need to work with the private sector and provide protection for information.
[Translation]
Even if an information sharing framework requires much more than mere protection of the information that the industry provides to government, we consider protection the basis of a relationship of trust between these two partners.
[English]
The protection accorded to information provided by industry to government in Bill will allow for a far greater depth of collaboration. We believe that it will greatly enhance the partnership that already exists between industry and the Government of Canada, and that it is the backbone of a much bigger relationship.
It's been said that there's a wealth of information available in the public domain about the vulnerabilities of our sector. This may have been true once, but no longer is that the case. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the industry moved rapidly to remove information from the public domain that could compromise the safety and security of systems, and in 2002 we began adhering to a North America-wide standard for protecting potentially sensitive information.
Industry has information that cannot be shared without the protection provided for in Bill , and we believe that it would benefit PSEPC as well as federal security, intelligence, and law enforcement to be able to access this information in the planning and execution of infrastructure protection activities or law enforcement activities, which, if not implemented appropriately, could lead to unnecessary threats against the electricity sector.
[Translation]
For things to be this way, a complete information sharing framework is still necessary. Protecting information is the first important step.
To sum up, we feel that the bill strikes a fair and prudent balance between the public's right to information and the imperative of ensuring the protection of the electricity industry, this central infrastructure essential to everyone.
[English]
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today. My colleagues and I would be happy to discuss Bill or other CIP matters with you.
:
First of all, thank you to the witnesses for coming today and taking the time to speak to our committee with respect to Bill .
I am going to start with some issues on which I have concern and on which I would be interested in your perspective, and then move to some things you might be suggesting.
Obviously you're quite right, after 2003 and the blackout people understand just how critical a resource electricity is and how essential it is and the devastating impact it can have when there are disruptions.
I am going to draw from my experience, and certainly both Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation, and perhaps all of you, can relate to the important role that municipalities play when these problems occur. For example, if there's a situation in Pickering with the plant, some of the first communications are between the municipality and the station as well as with the local Veridian Corporation, which I was on the board of directors of, and with local utility operators, distributors.
My concern is that this bill doesn't really address municipalities or bring them to the table at all. I am wondering what your thoughts are on that and how you think that might be addressed. Do you think they should be at the table as part of this process? There's barely a reference to them in the bill. Do you think they should be partners at the table and taking part in the broader discussions around emergency planning, when they are, in many cases, the first responders and the people who you would be dealing with right away as well?
:
We didn't provide a brief because in fact our message is, I think, fairly concise and very specific.
We don't have any comment on the first seven clauses of the bill because it talks about how the government is going to organize itself and how it's going to deliver its services, the responsibilities of the minister, responsibilities of the ministries, and so on. That is the government's business, to manage the government's business. The term they've used previously is “looking after our own house first”.
Our only specific area of interest in the legislation, and the only one that will likely impact us, is in clauses 8 to 10, which deal with the protection of information. That is an issue that we, as I say, have been engaging the government on for quite some time.
Of course, as I said, this is a piece of what is a much larger relationship. A great deal more has to be done to improve the flow of information, cooperation, and coordination, but I wouldn't expect this legislation to address any of those other issues. It's really quite specific and quite pointed, and on the issue we're particularly interested in, it goes where we want it to go.
:
Sorry about that, but this is something that needs to be brought out.
I'm carrying on before I get to the question, Mr. Carrier's question. One of the purposes is not to have you folks here to look for something wrong, it's to ask you to look at the bill and, from your perspective, if you have some suggestions as to how this committee can improve it, whether it's information sharing or whether you see something in the way the government wants to coordinate, the ability to react to a situation that could have a pan-Canadian implication, which will in all probability affect your sector.
Please feel free to make those suggestions. I don't think we'll be so sensitive that we can't see them for what they are, and that's a genuine interest in making them better. Perhaps Mr. Davis might feel...and these questions are just general, because specifics relate to the bad guys. What plans do you have to thwart their evil doings, shall we say? Because these hearings are public, we need to assure people in a general way that the agencies we have at our disposal, both public and private, work in an integrated fashion in the interests of the people we all serve, our customers and our client base, as well as our constituents.
That having been said, in some of your installations that have the propensity for greater harm should something go wrong--and I'm thinking in particular of nuclear or nuclear-related industries, but it could be dams also, because we know there can be things happening there--would I be correct in saying that from a nuclear facility--and I know there was mention of Chernobyl, which won't happen in Canada because the CANDU reactors are much better--one of the issues to be concerned about not only involves the police but fire and some other issues?
When we were dealing with police and fire, Mr. Ménard asked why a policeman or fire protection personnel, or for that matter ambulance services, would want to rush into a potential problem. Quite frankly, Mr. Ménard, they would be prepared to jeopardize their safety. I can tell you that.
Fire, ambulance, and then the police are often first responders. Would you say that Ontario power generation and distribution keeps in constant contact with Emergency Preparedness planning? As for any changes they see and information they think needs to be passed on to the various agencies, do you feel there's an appropriate exchange of information with which to allow those public safety people to do their jobs? And if so, with what frequency does that occur? Then, if you feel free, maybe you could relate that to the rest of Canada.
:
I will answer the three parts of your question, I hope, but before that I would reiterate what Mr. Bradley said, and I would add to it that I know the wheels sometimes turn slowly, but the more quickly the bill can be passed the better, because we will be able to then share information we can't share right now.
To answer your question, my area of expertise, again, is in the security area, not specifically emergency preparedness. Ontario Power Generation sees this area as important enough that we have staff who have those titles. I do collaborate with them on a frequent basis. I sometimes like to say that I speak to our manager of emergency preparedness more than I talk to my wife. I do know that he collaborates with other people in emergency preparedness.
I did mention drills earlier. We do drill on a frequent basis and, again, we use a lot of different scenarios. We use anything you could imagine and try to throw it into the drill so that our staff is prepared, and the emergency preparedness people who we do work with, including the police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency organizations in Ontario, are comfortable that when they are responding they know what their role is and we know what ours is.
I can't speak for right across Canada, but I do know there have been drills. Mr. Bradley mentioned drills earlier. These drills have happened in various locations in Canada and North America, as a matter of fact coordinated with the U.S. So I think we are in a far better situation than when I first started in the security business, probably more years ago than I want to admit. I do remember the last blackout, and I don't mean the one in 2003.
I believe we are in a much better situation right now, and yes, we do collaborate on a daily basis.