Y
Yard Ape
Guest
Canada defenceless, security expert says
Tuesday, September 25, 2001
Globe & Mail
By CAMPBELL CLARK
OTTAWA -- Canada is virtually wide-open to terrorist attacks on key infrastructure and unprepared to deal with major biological or chemical strikes, a prominent expert in domestic defence says.
Brian MacDonald, a security consultant and former executive director of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies, said Canada has long assumed it would not face a major attack on domestic soil, but now must conduct a massive assessment of risks to vital points.
"Quite frankly, we're defenceless," Mr. MacDonald said.
The view that Canada does not have an adequate grasp of where it is exposed, and is not ready to deal with a major biological, chemical, or radioactive materials attack is also bolstered by government reports and statements.
The recently created Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP) acknowledged earlier this year that it has no full "map" of Canada's critical infrastructure -- the vital points to be protected against attack.
And the Solicitor-General's office, in a paper distributed in April to local and provincial officials in a bid to enlist co-operation, conceded the country's authorities are not ready to respond to a major chemical or biological attack.
That latter report prompted Canadian Alliance MP Kevin Sorenson to charge that Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAulay "has failed to act" to protect Canadians -- with Mr. MacAulay insisting Canada has a national counterterrorism plan.
There have been admissions of holes, however. In May, Margaret Purdy, the head of the emergency preparedness office and associate deputy minister of national defence, told a House of Commons committee that the list of things Canada lacks includes "a complete map of its critical infrastructure."
Defence Minister Art Eggleton said yesterday much of that work has been under way for several months and has been reviewed since Sept. 11.
"We're working just as quickly as we can . . . but refinements to it, improvements to it, yes there is more that needs to be done," he said.
Concern has been centred on nuclear power plants, where some fear a suicide airliner attack could cause a major disaster. However, experts say Canada has a host of undefended key infrastructure.
"That's the accident of history that nobody believed that anything bad ever could happen in North America," Mr. MacDonald said in an interview. Planners have not been so much derelict in defending against old threats as they face new threats on a broader scale, he said.
Canada could also be viewed as a target by groups trying to affect the critical infrastructure of the United States, he said.
"A good percentage of their critical infrastructure sits on our side of the border," Mr. MacDonald said. He said he believes the new concentration in the United States on "homeland defence" means the United States will probably push for a co-ordinated program for North America similar to the way the North American Aerospace Defence Command protects airspace.
For example, he said, Canada supplies about 15 per cent of the natural gas used by the United States, but about 97 per cent of the natural gas to the Pacific Northwest states. Terrorists might attack compressor stations on Canadian soil to cut off a significant amount of the energy supply into such areas.
Key Canadian infrastructure, like the highway system, could be hit hard by relatively unsophisticated explosives like those used by Timothy McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Terrorists could target a few bridges in western Quebec and "cut the country in half," Mr. MacDonald said.
Most key points are relatively easy to defend, at a cost. Mr. MacDonald said 19th-century engineers could probably do it with dry moats, ramparts and a garrison of troops. The question is how far Canada will go to defend key sites.
The report on dealing with the consequences of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack is, in fact, a discussion paper aimed at developing co-operation with local and provincial officials who are supposed to be the first line of response in such incidents.
Tuesday, September 25, 2001
Globe & Mail
By CAMPBELL CLARK
OTTAWA -- Canada is virtually wide-open to terrorist attacks on key infrastructure and unprepared to deal with major biological or chemical strikes, a prominent expert in domestic defence says.
Brian MacDonald, a security consultant and former executive director of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies, said Canada has long assumed it would not face a major attack on domestic soil, but now must conduct a massive assessment of risks to vital points.
"Quite frankly, we're defenceless," Mr. MacDonald said.
The view that Canada does not have an adequate grasp of where it is exposed, and is not ready to deal with a major biological, chemical, or radioactive materials attack is also bolstered by government reports and statements.
The recently created Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP) acknowledged earlier this year that it has no full "map" of Canada's critical infrastructure -- the vital points to be protected against attack.
And the Solicitor-General's office, in a paper distributed in April to local and provincial officials in a bid to enlist co-operation, conceded the country's authorities are not ready to respond to a major chemical or biological attack.
That latter report prompted Canadian Alliance MP Kevin Sorenson to charge that Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAulay "has failed to act" to protect Canadians -- with Mr. MacAulay insisting Canada has a national counterterrorism plan.
There have been admissions of holes, however. In May, Margaret Purdy, the head of the emergency preparedness office and associate deputy minister of national defence, told a House of Commons committee that the list of things Canada lacks includes "a complete map of its critical infrastructure."
Defence Minister Art Eggleton said yesterday much of that work has been under way for several months and has been reviewed since Sept. 11.
"We're working just as quickly as we can . . . but refinements to it, improvements to it, yes there is more that needs to be done," he said.
Concern has been centred on nuclear power plants, where some fear a suicide airliner attack could cause a major disaster. However, experts say Canada has a host of undefended key infrastructure.
"That's the accident of history that nobody believed that anything bad ever could happen in North America," Mr. MacDonald said in an interview. Planners have not been so much derelict in defending against old threats as they face new threats on a broader scale, he said.
Canada could also be viewed as a target by groups trying to affect the critical infrastructure of the United States, he said.
"A good percentage of their critical infrastructure sits on our side of the border," Mr. MacDonald said. He said he believes the new concentration in the United States on "homeland defence" means the United States will probably push for a co-ordinated program for North America similar to the way the North American Aerospace Defence Command protects airspace.
For example, he said, Canada supplies about 15 per cent of the natural gas used by the United States, but about 97 per cent of the natural gas to the Pacific Northwest states. Terrorists might attack compressor stations on Canadian soil to cut off a significant amount of the energy supply into such areas.
Key Canadian infrastructure, like the highway system, could be hit hard by relatively unsophisticated explosives like those used by Timothy McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Terrorists could target a few bridges in western Quebec and "cut the country in half," Mr. MacDonald said.
Most key points are relatively easy to defend, at a cost. Mr. MacDonald said 19th-century engineers could probably do it with dry moats, ramparts and a garrison of troops. The question is how far Canada will go to defend key sites.
The report on dealing with the consequences of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack is, in fact, a discussion paper aimed at developing co-operation with local and provincial officials who are supposed to be the first line of response in such incidents.
