National Defence Committee on Sept. 14th, 2017

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

It is entirely a U.S. decision.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

But you said just earlier that U.S. policy is not to defend Canada.

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

That's correct, so I can't comment on whether in the heat of the moment there would be a discussion at the highest level to decide to go contrary to policy or not, but what I'm saying is that it would be entirely a U.S. discussion and a U.S. decision.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

What defence capability do we have ourselves in that capacity?

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

You mean against ballistic missiles? We don't. The mission that we have is a large part of the continuum, as described, of defence against ballistic missiles, which includes the warning part and the identification and the assessment.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

That leads me back to my conclusion that our defence here is diplomacy; that we have to ensure that such a launch does not occur since we have essentially no Canadian defence against a badly aimed North Korean missile.

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

Sorry, sir, what was the question?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Obviously, diplomacy then is our only defence, if we have none against that missile, to try to make sure those launches don't occur.

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

That's a policy discussion that I'm not able to comment on.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

It's a big concern here that we've called people around this table and what we find is that if North Korea is acting irrationally and has poor technology, we are extremely vulnerable to that. I don't think it's a policy question; it's a defence question that we have to engage in the diplomacy that would make sure this does not happen. Otherwise we remain extremely vulnerable.

I'm going to end my questions there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

If North Korea were to try to attack the United States, it's very clear that we would be either an accidental target or collateral damage. Hawaii now has a state preparedness plan, just in case, specifically designed for an attack by North Korea. At what point do you think Canada should have a public emergency preparedness plan in place for a situation like this?

[MGen William Seymour]

Having lived in Hawaii and having been responsible for disaster management in Hawaii, I'm aware that was developed. I think within the U.S. psyche with the very notion that they're under threat they would walk through that kind of a scenario. It's entirely in line with U.S. thinking.

In the Canadian context, I think our current contingency plans that I referred to cover off elements of a possible nuclear attack against Canada, but I think speaking about a shift from a Cold War mentality to the current era when we're talking about the possibility of a single missile that might or might not strike the North American continent, following through on that to review our plans in light of that threat and building upon our current capacity and response is something we would consider. It's entirely consistent with our approach and policy going forward to continue to develop our capacity to respond to evolving threats.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay, but that doesn't speak to a plan that would alert the public on what to do if such a thing were to happen. Are you suggesting it's not something about which we would be able to contemplate what exactly would happen and what this would look like so we could prepare the public?

[MGen William Seymour]

I think we've been in the mindset of considering terrorist events, and we've had plans that have considered the use by terrorists of certain kinds of weapons, be they nuclear, chemical, or biological, and those kinds of things. Public notification and public response through provinces, the federal government, and municipalities are all a part of that. Shifting to a mindset of a possible nuclear attack by some nation on the Canadian land mass, there is a logical extension of the things we already do, so there's an evolution of existing planning, not the requirement for a new plan.

[Major-General Al Meinzinger, Director of Staff, Strategic Joint Staff, Department of National Defence]

I would add one more example, perhaps. I look at some of the tragedies we've seen happening in some of our universities and our colleges, certainly down south, with active shooters entering educational facilities, and some of our children come home to tell us that they've run through an active-shooter drill, so what we're seeing I think is reflective of the kind of prudent planning that's happening.

I would agree with my colleague that this is generally happening at the bottom level up, with municipalities taking leadership, seeing that there's a potential concern or threat and then developing standing procedures at their facilities. I think that's the approach I would recommend.

[MGen William Seymour]

I could reinforce that too, having worked in the United States Pacific Command and having noted differences between the U.S. and Canada in how we respond to gun violence. In our headquarters we repeatedly exercised first-person shooter scenarios in which we responded to those kinds of things.

In Canada we pay less attention to those kinds of things and, frankly, we don't exercise it to the same degree we do in the U.S. I think were the threat to evolve further, that's the kind of attention we'd pay to it and then we would evolve in how we practise and prepare.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

We know that a growing number of cyber-attacks have been coming out of this region. We've even seen reports in the media of North Korean hackers funding their attacks through bitcoin used to skirt the heavy UN sanctioning, so it looks as though cyberwarfare could be the next battleground.

What steps has Canada taken to protect our country from cyberwarfare?

[MGen Al Meinzinger]

I can certainly start.

I think our most recent defence policy talks about the importance of cyber-protection. Certainly, job number one for us in uniform is to provide the necessary protection for our critical systems, command, and control. When you look at operating abroad, the fundamental enabling nature of our systems needs to be protected, so from a military perspective that's a key part of our approach.

As I look at our defence policy, one of the many initiatives that speaks very specifically to the Canadian Armed Forces is developing a new trade, a cyber trade. Because there's an incredible amount of talent in our youth, we will now develop the skill sets we need to bring into the Canadian Armed Forces to support us in that regard. That's something we're very much focused on. There will be a new opportunity, a new trade, and we're very keen to recruit great young Canadians to come in and join us and become cyber-operators within that realm. That's going to be part of our focus and our effort moving forward.

[MGen William Seymour]

I would just add that we, as a force employer, pay a great deal of attention to this. We work in concert with the Communications Security Establishment on the things that we're already capable of doing on the cyber front in protecting our forces. With the force we sent overseas to Latvia—Mr. Bezan is well aware of this and I understand he's going to Latvia—one of the things we paid very close attention to was making sure that they were cyber-protected against any potential intrusions from any source.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Do I have much time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

You have a minute and twenty, for a question and a response.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Gerretsen touched on this in the last panel on Canada's role in diplomacy. I'm interested in Canada's current role in the stabilizing of this region, on the peninsula, right now. What do we have on the ground? What is our role right now in...? I assume it would be in South Korea. What's our role right now? I know we do an exercise every year in September. I think it's called Ulchi-Freedom. What is our role right now in stabilizing that region?

[MGen Al Meinzinger]

I think, as my colleague mentioned, as part of the United Nations Command in Korea, we have five Canadian Armed Forces members. One in that command is in Japan, with a mission to obviously oversee the armistice agreement from back in the early fifties, working with South Korea and coordinating with our allies. As you've highlighted, we regularly exercise, largely through 1st Canadian Division in Kingston. They are our vanguard element which is typically engaged in that particular area.

Of course, we have a presence as well, as was highlighted. Our attaché network we regularly engage in the region. We have our frigates often in the region, meeting with allies. We look to continually build our understanding and our awareness of the issues. There were the discussions that happened last week at the Pacific Command Chiefs of Defense conference here in Canada. All of that continues to inform our situational awareness and our understanding as to where our allies are at. Certainly, it's very beneficial to get context and perspective for those who live proximate to South Korea and North Korea. I'm talking about the South Koreans and obviously the Japanese specifically.

It's a continual effort and we look to continue to maintain our awareness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

That's all the time for that question.

We have a little less than 20 minutes left with this panel. We'll go to five-minute questions.

Mr. Robillard, you have the floor.