Canada-China Relations Committee on April 12th, 2021

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

No, Mr. Chair. As I stated in my earlier testimony, [Technical difficulty—Editor] two Michaels were arrested, I gave direction that we were not to have any further involvement when it comes to the training, and that's exactly what we have done.

The training that was there was actually a direct result of the decision and the agreement that was made under then minister Rob Nicholson, under the member's government, so when the member says that under their time when they were in government, they had no involvement, this was us reversing that position.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Mr. Lightbound, you have six minutes.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for joining us today for this meeting.

Again today, the [Technical difficulty—Editor] committee made public its 2020 report highlighting the growing importance of cyber-attacks by foreign actors to the security of Canadians. This is based on reports, communications from the Communications Security Establishment, which, among other things, identify two main players: Russia and China.

I'd like you to tell us what is being done to ensure that our networks are as protected as possible, including in the context of COVID-19. Indeed, as we know, there has been a lot of telework, which has resulted in greater vulnerability, which may not have been as present in the past.

I'd like to know what cybersecurity measures are being taken to protect our infrastructure and systems.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

We have significant concern when it comes to cyber-actors around the world, and especially when it comes to Russia and China.

Our agency especially, the Communications Security Establishment, has a tremendous capability, and we now actually have the authorities to take the appropriate action. Before the Communications Security Establishment Act was in place, when we came into government we had the capability to do so but didn't have the authority. For example, we had to wait for a cyber-attack to occur—the equivalent of waiting to get punched in the face before you can take any action—even though you knew the attack was occurring.

One of the things we did here was that within the new CSE act, when we see an attack coming, we have now the authority to take further action to be able to shut it down. In addition, we also have the ability as a government to take offensive action.

Now, putting the authorities in place is one thing, but we also have now made significant investments by creating the cyber centre as well, under CSE, making sure that we concentrate all our support there. That's one aspect of it: making the appropriate investments there. It's about having the right people to maintain that capability and making sure you have the right authorities, but also investing in the right capabilities to be able to round it off in making sure that Canada is safe from cyber-attacks.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Specifically on this issue, how important is it to work with our Five Eyes partners? How does the multilateral approach work with Five Eyes partners to combat these cyber-attacks?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, our relationship in the Five Eyes, especially when it comes to CSE and its equivalent agencies, is extremely strong. This is built over time. With the CSE in Canada, we have an extremely good relationship because of the capability we provide and the responsibilities we share, but now our credibility has significantly increased because we actually have our authorities in line with those of our allies. That was very important.

The main thing for us is to continue to invest in the capability, so that we stay at the cutting edge. We have a very good position now, but we need to continue to make those investments, just like we are doing right now, so we stay on that path. Investing in capabilities through our people is the number one priority in making sure we have the ability to remain safe.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister. On a completely different topic, could you tell us about the efforts being made to ensure Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic. [Technical difficulty—Editor] In 2018, China described itself as a near-Arctic state.

Can you tell us about National Defence's policy on Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

We looked at Arctic sovereignty and put it in our defence policy in accordance with maintaining our sovereignty. It was going to take investments.

We had already started with the investments, for example, making sure we had the Arctic-operative patrol ships. In fact, we have the first one actually operating in the region and conducting tests. We're going to have six now, not just five. We will have 15 surface combatants as well, through a fully funded defence policy.

NORAD modernization and continental defence was the last pillar. We have outlined it in our defence policy. We are now moving forward with this. The reason we waited to do it is that we had to work in conjunction with the U.S. on this. We also wanted to make sure we did the proper costing and put the funding into it. This way, no government can come in and start cutting funding. Just like we secured [Technical difficulty—Editor] policy, we're going to do the same thing for the Arctic.

We also want to make sure the people in the north get the appropriate support as we make further defence investments up there.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I'll conclude by thanking the minister, since I only have about 30 seconds left, which isn't enough time to ask another question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lightbound.

Mr. Bergeron, you have six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the minister for being with us this evening. I'm very pleased about that.

I'm going to pick up on Mr. Lightbound's question about the Arctic.

We know of China's growing interest in the Arctic. Despite the fact that, in practice, it has no possession in either the north or the south, it has an interest. As we know, the Chinese tried to get their hands on a mine in the Northwest Territories. The decision not to allow this acquisition has been made.

However, I want to come back to the importance of defence, especially since Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic is not even fully recognized by our main ally, the United States.

How do we plan to deal with the wishes of China and Russia related to the Arctic, given the fact that Canadian sovereignty is being challenged by a certain number of states, including the United States, and the fact that Canada's military capabilities are far below those expected of us by the United States and NATO?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

That's a really important question. When it comes to protecting the Arctic, we can't just look at it strictly from a defence nexus when we look to our sovereignty. We need to always look at a whole-of-government approach to ensure we're not preventing access to various industries. It is extremely important that we make the right investments.

When it comes to the state of where we're at, when we work with the U.S., we probably couldn't be in a better position, because of our NORAD treaty. NORAD is the only binational command in the world where you have a U.S. commander who is selected by the U.S. but also must be approved by the prime minister, just like the deputy commander, who is always Canadian, has to be authorized by the president.

Through this, we manage the security of our airspace. What we're trying to do now, and what we will be doing, is looking at modernizing NORAD and taking things to a whole new level. This is not just strictly about technology investments; this is about looking at new things we need to put in as part of this relationship, and how we possibly look at America. We need to be mindful that the Arctic.... Originally, we were just looking at it in terms of airspace. We want to go from space all the way to under water.

Significant work is currently being done in the research development world right now, in a classified sense, to make sure we figure that piece out and link it to the procurement piece, with our new ships that are coming online. It would then be linked to the ongoing command relationship.

That's what NORAD modernization, or a continental defence, will look like. Once we have that, we need to make sure we send a very strong message of deterrence.

When it comes to some of the other disagreements we have with the U.S., we have a very good relationship and are able to work things out. We have to always be mindful that our relationship with the U.S. can't be even remotely compared to how we work with China.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I fully agree with you, Mr. Minister, however, when we compare the relations between Canada and the United States and Canada and the People's Republic of China, we realize that the People's Republic of China is making enormous investments in its defence, so much so that this is the second largest budget in the world.

As I pointed out, China is now a concern, even for NATO, although it's far away from the North Atlantic region. As I also mentioned, NATO and the United States are raising concerns about Canadian defence investments.

How do we respond to these concerns that are being expressed to us, given the views of China and Russia, among others, on Canada's North?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

First of all, Mr. Chair, when it comes to China's investments in defence, we have concerns with that as well, how we work with NATO.... This is where, Mr. Chair, I'll clarify the relationship.

Yes, there was a significant concern when it came to defence investments. This is why we conducted a very [Technical difficulty—Editor] policy review and then, once we launched our defence policy, demonstrated the.... In addition to what the previous government was going to add to defence, we added $63 billion.

Probably the most important thing when it came to our defence policy was that we didn't just put the policy out; we actually added the money to it. For the 20 years of the defence policy, it will be carved out of a fiscal framework, so that now defence doesn't have to worry about the money for the 338 projects that are there.

We're going to be doing the same thing for NORAD modernization. When it comes to the level of investments, both NATO and the U.S. are very happy with the level of investments we're making. Obviously, we have more work to do. That's where NORAD modernization comes in. As I've always said at NATO—and I spoke with the NATO Secretary General many times about this—as we look at supporting NATO in a Europe—

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Minister, but Mr. Bergeron's time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Now we'll go to Mr. Harris, for six minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us. There are lots of interesting questions arising from your visit.

First of all, I have a concern about the whole issue of security in Canada—that is what we're talking about here—and, in particular, cybersecurity. We know that China and other countries, including Russia and perhaps Canada, have capabilities in cyberwarfare, as I guess it's called sometimes—the capability of doing cyber-attacks. We recently had electricity turned off in India, allegedly by Chinese state or non-state actors. We have, of course, the history of interference with the Iranian centrifuges, which occurred I think in 2010 or 2014, and allegedly recently.

I have a question for you. I know that [Technical difficulty—Editor], but can you tell us how vulnerable Canada's key infrastructure might be to interferences of that sort? Hydro dams are very important. The Internet is very important. Communication is very important. What capabilities does Canada have to protect itself from these kinds of vulnerabilities?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, it's a very important question.

At the end of the day, we need to make sure we protect our valuable assets and our industry. That is why, through the communications security act, we have the authorities available to be able to engage with industry so that we can work with them to make sure they have the right cyber-capabilities.

In fact, the cyber centre works very closely with the various sectors and, more importantly, with almost any company that wishes to get additional information. What we want to do, as we look at not only the sectors, is to make Canada cybersecure. The only way to do that is to make sure, as companies develop and as industries develop—as sectors further develop as well—that they have the right cyber-capabilities from the get-go, advised by the cyber centre. Currently I'm very confident with the capabilities that we have, but it's an ongoing support that we need to provide.

I'm happy to have our chief, Shelly Bruce, provide a greater—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We may ask more questions of the individuals from the CSE afterwards. I'm interested in your views on this.

You're talking about providing information. Is that the strategy—to provide information—or do you have an actual capability of ensuring that people's vulnerabilities are able to be made secure? Saying that companies that are interested.... Clearly, Canada has a strategic interest in ensuring that the infrastructure is operating and is not subject to vulnerabilities. Have you looked at ways of ensuring that this happens, other than providing information?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

No, absolutely. In fact, Jack, a lot of work is actually done in providing not just the information, but when it comes to the infrastructure that is needed to make sure that you actually are cyber-safe. There is very close collaboration with the CSE, with those sectors. Also, there are certain things, obviously, that we can't talk about in this forum, but I'm sure our chief can provide greater information at the next session.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

You mentioned that the CSE act gives you the authority to do that, but the CSE act also allows the CSE to covertly undertake active cybersecurity operations intended to influence public perception, for example, of the Chinese government. You could do it by hacking into the country's information structure and distributing sensitive and embarrassing documents about activities; these are called “hack and dumps” or “hack and leaks”.

Now, if Canada is authorized to do that, you can be sure that China and other countries are also authorized to do that. Is the CSE the organization that's responsible for defending against that kind of attack from other countries like, for example, China? Are there examples of attacks that have been detected or deflected as a result of the CSE's activity?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

First of all, the CSE is responsible for protecting Canada when it comes to these types of attacks, and it does a very good job. I'm very impressed. More importantly, I just want to give a shout-out to the individuals. It is because of the people we have that we actually have this capability. The reason I say this is that I hear this from the allies as well. It's also extremely important, Mr. Chair, for all members of this committee.

With the CSE act, yes, we do have more authorities. What's very important with these additional authorities is that we have very strong deterrents as well. However, anything we do—just like when it comes to the military—is all based on Canadian law and on international law as well. We want to do things in a manner that makes sure that Canadians stay safe, but at the same time sends a strong message to any adversary that we have the capabilities to protect ourselves. We want to send a strong message of deterrence.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Can you tell us what capabilities Canada may have in protecting Canadians by performing a counterattack, or defences or defensive responses in the case of a cyber-style aggression against Canada involving information or an infrastructure attack against Canada?

[The Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Harris, I'm afraid we'll have to wait for that answer, as your time has concluded. Perhaps it will come up again. You'll have another opportunity, of course.

We'll now start the second round of questions.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have five minutes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, Mr. Minister. In your presentation, you mentioned Canada's efforts abroad to support the sovereignty of various countries. That's great, but here at home, from the beginning, we've been talking a lot about Chinese interference in the territory. In 2015, the communist government designated the polar region, the deep seabed and outer space as China's new strategic frontiers and noted that they were rich in opportunity. The Pentagon issued a report [Technical difficulty—Editor] warning that the Chinese government was mapping the Arctic seabed.

Have you been made aware of Chinese submarines in the Canadian Arctic?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, one thing I can assure the member is that when it comes to China or any other nation that works up in the north, we take our sovereignty very seriously. We closely monitor activities, and we have a very strong presence in the area when it's needed as well. Obviously, I can't get into more detail than this.