Public Safety Canada’s dealing with natural and communication infrastructure disasters

OTTAWA—Public Safety Canada has long-established legal co-ordinating responsibilities in emergency management planning in this country along with the provinces and territories. But recently released access-to-information documents indicate there are gaps in what the department does to deal with crises. Public Safety tried, in one case, to assist in preventing what is on the increase: climate-induced wildfires. But it indicated it has co-ordinating difficulties due to some of the agencies having outdated IT that interferes with making critical decisions. Public Safety used the example of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada not having “access to real-time data as the wildfire situation develops, relying on information from provinces and other sources," where Agriculture Canada officials may only get data, unhelpfully, “at different times during the day”. In another case, when Rogers Communications experienced a widespread wireless outage in July 2022 which affected more than 12 million Canadians, Public Safety found, surprisingly, that “it did not meet the threshold to formally activate the federal emergency response plan." But the outage “highlighted vulnerabilities within Government of Canada … where existing governance frameworks did not allow for fully effective internal Government of Canada communications, with their being “unclear roles and division of responsibilities," including in handling 911 calls. Not greatly helping matters was a Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) commissioned report this year by Xona Partners Inc.—costing $230,000—that saw this outage as largely a fixable technical problem that communication carriers should be alerted to and work on. After the report was released, the CRTC seemed to say that was the end of the matter, believing that such a massive communications breakdown did not require strong regulatory action, or a hearing or a whole-of-government approach. Public Safety, as the lead emergency preparedness agency, failed to see its needed involvement in this outage that could serve as a forewarning to what it calls “black swan” events that are “large scale, unusual and potentially catastrophic, requiring ‘heavy lifting.’” More generally, Public Safety had to admit that its federal preparedness and response capacity could “pose reputational, legal, and financial risks to Canada." And that “Canada is the only Five Eyes country without a formal federal or national role in emergency management workplace development." New agency to deal with public health emergencies Canadians still remain nervous about public health emergencies having experienced the world-wide COVID-19 pandemic. The government has not helped matters by side-stepping calls for a national inquiry into authorities' uneven handling of the pandemic that led to many disruptions, deaths, and large amounts of misinformation and skepticism. So, there are mixed feelings last month when the government announced the new Health Emergency Readiness Canada within the Innovation department, as to whether the agency will coherently perform a critical role in handling future epidemics. The Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada (ISED) news release claims that the new agency will provide “the industrial capabilities necessary to protect Canadians against future public health threats by centralizing efforts and resources." While short on details and costs, Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne added that creating this agency requires no new legislation, but will be done in “a very close nexus with industry," according to a Canadian Press story. The life science industry has been lobbying over the years for a better powerful positioning for its industry, and for quicker approval of its vaccine, medical therapy, and diagnostic products. Already, some critics question whether industry—the main beneficiary of this initiative, many of whom are not based in Canada—can be mobilized to quickly move health emergency plans forward, or whether the costs and safety of such drugs will suffer, and be of only secondary consideration. It’s not helpful, either, that ISED has said it needs 315 days to respond to my access-to-information inquiry about the Health Emergency Agency. ISED rarely honours such lengthy time deadlines with requests ending up being in limbo for years. New Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute to deal with AI risks Meanwhile, the feds announced this month that they were setting up another new agency—the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute (CAISI)—to start research on this country's ability to handle the rapidly increasing risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI). But again, the agency is not independent, and is housed in Innovation Canada. It is to be closely allied to the AI private-sector research community. It is not to be a regulatory agency policing the AI risks uncovered. It will do research, but also will be there to promote and push AI development and deployment, especially among Canadian businesses. It remains to be seen how quickly will CAISI—with its $50-million budget over five years—get up to speed and will boost domestic capacity to fight AI risks, while creating confidence that Canadians will be protected and know how they are so protected. For some years, the federal government has been paying multi-millions of dollars to AI firms for many projects with little transparency either about the projects or their implications. The government move comes at a time when its Bill C-27 that includes an Artificial Intelligence and Data bill is faltering, and is considered by civil society critics and others as a weak, non-starter regulatory initiative. Authorities at ISED are now are beginning to see there is serious risks “posed by AI’s synthetic content, including impersonation and fraud, as well as risks posed by the development or deployment of systems that may be dangerous or hinder human oversight." They further see the risks as “including AI misuse in disinformation campaigns, cybersecurity breaches and election interference." But there are mixed reviews whether this new agency can or wants to deal with rapid and unfettered AI development affecting our economy and people’s lives. Ironically, there is no national emergency management agency as there is in the United States that deals with climate change, though there are powerful fossil fuel industry forces who would oppose this. Thinking about emergency planning is still largely traditional with many bureaucratic silos, concessions, and hype. It’s time to get serious about managing the emergency crises facing Canada, and to strengthen and make such an effort arms-length, regulatory, trustworthy, and coherent. Ken Rubin writes on public policy issues and is reachable via kenrubin.ca The Hill Times

Public Safety Canada’s dealing with natural and communication infrastructure disasters

For some years, the federal government has been paying multi-millions of dollars to AI firms for many projects with little transparency.

Canada’s aging crisis and a call for reform in eldercare

Sudan’s warring sides and the long-simmering ethnic conflict

Balanced approach needed on right-to-repair bill, protecting IP rights and public safety

Reflections from a new citizen