Evidence of meeting #65 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was russia.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
President, Globe Risk International Inc.
We need to support Ukraine because that's where we have to make a stand. Not just Canada—
5:10 p.m.
President, Globe Risk International Inc.
—NATO, and everybody else. If we don't do that, I believe there will probably be another attack somewhere to try to do the same thing. We have to be consistent and say, if you do this again, we will respond. We're not going to go to war over this. I don't think that, and I wouldn't recommend it, obviously. At the end of the day, we have to show that we're going to support them with everything they need. That's why, when the Ukraine asks for this, this, and this, we should give it serious consideration. If we don't, as I said, and if somebody else doesn't do it either, it's basically leaving Ukraine out on its own.
If we allow Ukraine to fall totally, what's going to happen next? It's going to be a bigger problem. We have to make a stand now.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thanks.
Colonel, would you help us understand your vision, your view. You know our current funding arrangements for training are expiring. We want to understand the importance of the training to you and where you think we can be expanding or upping our game, based on some of the comments that you've heard from our other witnesses today. When you're done, maybe I'll ask Mr. Wright the same thing until my time expires.
5:10 p.m.
Col Viktor Siromakha
Of course, the training that Canada is providing the Ukraine now, with Operation Unifier, is very important. In April 2017, during the visit of our defence minister Stepan Poltorak to Canada, during the negotiations we agreed to increase the level of training, for instance, from the tactic level which Operation Unifier is covering now, to the operator level, to a mid-level of our units.
Of course, I would like to underline Canada's role now in the Ukraine because Ms. Sinclair, who is a strategic adviser for the Ukrainian defence reform advisory board, is doing incredible work. She's personally responsible for the implementation of reforms on the united defence forces leadership. Those are exactly the things we've been talking about.
I'm 38 years old and I'm an officer of a new generation. Yes, we have incredible officers, generals, flag generals in Ukraine with real combat experience. Nevertheless, day by day, week by week, their generation is going. Let's hope that in future years, in five or 10 years, you'll see absolutely a new generation of Ukrainians who are highly qualified with great expertise including combat experience, proper language training. In this case, this approach will be very interesting for us. If Canada has an opportunity to provide the Ukraine with additional funding, it will be very interesting for training and for the professionalization of officers, and it will be an investment in the future of the Ukrainian armed forces. It means a condition of future peace in Ukraine as a state and in the region as a representative of eastern Europe.
5:10 p.m.
Chief Information Security Officer, Aegis Technologies, As an Individual
I would concur with Viktor. In terms of the training, you have the next generation of cybersecurity specialists and experts who are coming out of academia right now. We need to put them in a position where they can train in real-world conditions, look at real operational playbooks. My recommendation, if you're asking, is to take a look at how successfully our counterparts in Israel have been with the IDF in maturing their troops. They're doing their necessary military service. They're getting trained by their SIGINT corps, and their cryptography and cyber-scrutiny specialists, and they're going in and working with industry once they graduate and hardening the skill set and commoditizing it globally.
I think we can follow a similar practice here in Canada, adopt that playbook and basically, take academia, and work very closely with industry, government, and also the Department of National Defence to basically align with those efforts. We need to not just churn them out, but start hardening them, give them the opportunity. We need to compare ourselves to the other threat actors in the world.
An APT1 Mandiant report several years ago indicated the Chinese had 130,000 cybersecurity specialists. I would estimate in North America and perhaps in the G7 at best, there are anywhere between 20,000 and 25,000 in the private sector alone, cumulatively. If you look at the Russians, in terms of cybersecurity, you see estimates are in the same ballpark range.
If you look at WikiLeaks and you take a look at what happened with the CIA, with disclosure, with Langley and their infrastructure, you see they have at least six or seven different divisions and the appropriate cyber-supporting structures. We need to look at the fact that we're being out-gunned, and we need to start engaging very early on, at academia, and start producing the next generation of cybersecurity specialists.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
We'll go for two minutes with Ms. Romanado, and then we'll close with somebody on the other side.
Ms. Romanado.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank you for being here today and for the excellent testimony that you provided us.
You were mentioning, Mr. Wright, about cyber. When I was in Israel for a visit, I met with the company that does the cybersecurity for Hydro-Québec, my home province. We have a company outside of Canada that's actually providing cybersecurity for our power grid in the province of Quebec, so I know we are very behind in terms of cyber-expertise.
We've heard today that we are being reactive in some regards, versus proactive. We've heard you mention the plan of action that we should adopt, for instance revise and adapt our DND doctrine, provide the handbook guidelines and the framework, and adopt the TTPs. We've heard a bit about the fact that it needs a whole-of-government approach to address this issue. We've heard that, from a macro-level, NATO has not rewarded the bad behaviour but hasn't really smacked them down in terms of invading Crimea.
These things are going to take time. We've also heard that we're experiencing on a daily basis in Ukraine that people are dying. We had four soldiers killed yesterday. My question to you, because we'll have to be doing these things in parallel, is what should Canada be doing in the short, mid, and long term to help resolve this?
We have Operation Unifier, but we need to be flying the plane at the same time as we're building it. Could you elaborate on what your suggestions are in the short and mid term?
5:15 p.m.
Chief Information Security Officer, Aegis Technologies, As an Individual
Short term should be, first, a federated model, meaning inter-jurisdictional co-operation with our strategic partners, both here in North America and globally.
Second, start mobilizing the next generation of cybersecurity specialists and align yourselves with academia, industry, government, and military. We need to start training the next generation.
Third, provide funding and a mechanism by which we can communicate, either in an intelligence-sharing forum or at an advisory level, so that we're sharing actionable information at the appropriate time. Also, provide a mechanism so that we can share that without impacting the brands of companies or of the government, or causing brand impact awareness.
5:15 p.m.
President, Globe Risk International Inc.
Governments have to realize that Ukraine has now basically been attacked. What are we going to do about it? Until they come to solving that conundrum, we're not really going to know, because whatever the decision is, it's going to be a government decision.
The Ukrainians have a need at the moment, because the bad guys are knocking on their door. They want certain things. We should listen to them and try to give them what they need if it's within our power, because if we don't and Russia decides to move forward and be more aggressive, we can't turn around and say we wish we had done this because we just lost another country. If we don't stand firm now, we could end up having to fight a war in Europe as a result, because they're going to do it again and again and again before we do anything.
October 25th, 2017 / 5:20 p.m.
Col Viktor Siromakha
It's a little difficult to add something very practical to what my colleagues have said, but I would say that Ukraine has successfully survived the crash test from three years ago, in 2014. Since that time we have had more than 7,000 cyber-attacks, and now we more or less understand what is going on. Our cybersecurity structures are facing these and defending our critical elements of infrastructure in quite good ways.
Yesterday's attack showed us that, yes, we can do it now. It will be very interesting for our partners to come to Ukraine and get this practical experience from Ukraine to tell what is going on and exactly which attacks are coming. We could come to make a threat assessment analysis and create a well-protected environment for other countries.
5:20 p.m.
Chief Information Security Officer, Aegis Technologies, As an Individual
Sherry, may I make one final comment? You asked about the short, medium, and long term.
We've seen absolute developments and I'm not going to get into details. In quantum computing, Canada needs to get into the game. We need to support the resources we have at academia and start putting dollars and measured resources to support those efforts. That is a game-changer for cyber.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to go back to the discussion around a potential UN peacekeeping mission. We heard from witnesses here that Canada shouldn't be a part of it because we're so tied to Ukraine already and involved in their efforts, so we're not seen as the honest broker.
I want to get your feedback on whether you agree with that or think Canada, because of our reputation, could still go in there and lead a UN peacekeeping mission if the opportunity presented itself.
5:20 p.m.
President, Globe Risk International Inc.
No, I was the one who made that remark. Basically, what I meant by that was that Russia would probably object, in the UN, to Canada running that UN mission for the reason that we're very close to the U.S.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
You're not the only one to say this to us, though. We've had other witnesses as well who have said that there's not a chance or a hope in hell.
5:20 p.m.
President, Globe Risk International Inc.
I think it would be a good opportunity for Canada to lead a UN mission because then it would show that we are putting up and not just ignoring things.
No, I think Canada should be a part of that mission. I think it's an integral mission. It's probably one of the most important missions that we can get involved in at the moment. There are a lot of other missions out there—and we all know which missions they are—and they lead nowhere.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Colonel, could you also provide your feedback on that?
5:20 p.m.
Col Viktor Siromakha
Yes, of course. A future peacekeeping mission would be a turning point for the modern history of Europe. If Canada and NATO partners could all play a vital role in this future mission, it would save the situation because the worst-case scenario of the movement of Russia towards the west will jeopardize the situation in the whole region.
Except in eastern Europe, we have numerous regions in the whole world where we now observe confrontations of interest. It's better to stop it now than to fight the consequences of Russian intentions.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Bell, you've mentioned a few times that there are other examples that we should be using in how we deal with the war in Ukraine. What are you referring to? Are you referring to what coalition partners have done in Afghanistan or in Iraq, or do you have something else in mind where we build capacity as well as participate in a conflict?