Evidence of meeting #68 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 students.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
These questions are for Dr. Huebert.
First of all, as you know, in Warsaw, the alliance agreed to include cyber in its domain and include that article 5 could be triggered by a cyber-attack. We know there are different types of cyber-attacks: ransomware, denial of service, and so on.
Assuming there is attribution, what would be the trigger point where we would actually become involved militarily in invoking article 5 in a cyber-attack?
5:10 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
You answered part of the answer I was going to give. It's at the attribution issue.
The big challenge that we're facing in terms of cyber-attacks is that they are becoming increasingly sophisticated in hiding their footprint. We see, once again, that this is part of the methodology that those who attack through cyber are utilizing. You use small attacks, you see how quickly people are able to respond, and then you basically improve upon it. It's attack, learn, attack, learn. The attribution issue is going to be the problem.
I think that the way we would see a triggering of article 5 would be if we could somehow catch an attribution where it's clearly coming from a peer competitor—and I'm talking about the Russians in this particular context—and when it's something done to threaten the actual security system, in other words, bringing down the defence systems or intelligence systems, say, of the nuclear weapons of the United States or Britain or other parts of NATO. It would have to be very high. It would have to be a direct security threat and we would have to be in the stage where we already know how to respond to that cyber-attack before we can respond, because that's the added problem we face.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
As Russia and other countries change the focus of their attacks from kinetic to cyber and information warfare, what can the government do to educate Canadians on this use of misinformation, fake news, or whatever you wish to call it?
5:15 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
Trump, to a certain degree, is making it a little bit easier for us. It's the one positive thing I might say about the Trump administration, because people can see how information can simply be lied about or repeated, and I think there's a greater willingness within Canada since Trump's been elected to accept, in fact, that there is this danger of mis-shared information.
I think the government has to be very forthright when it catches these elements of these cyber-attacks. They must make sure that they are publicized at the highest level, so that when we start catching, as Alex and Robert referred to, the robot attacks in terms of some of the op-eds that appear in The Globe and Mail or the RT or whatever, there's the clear indication that, yes, we're catching the attacks and we are making it clear that there are, in fact, foreign powers that are bringing it forward in that context.
Be prepared. They're going to lie and push-back as soon as we catch them and we need to be ready for the counterpunch.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
We do have our centres of excellence on this hybrid warfare, but how can the alliance function together to better protect the countries, especially those bordering Russia right now? How can we better co-operate?
5:15 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
One of the things we have to recognize is that it's not going to be cyberwarfare and conventional. The big danger we're now entering into, and we're seeing this very much in the Baltic and in eastern Ukraine, is that the Russians are starting to manoeuvre on how to make a cyber-attack look as though someone else is doing it and are then using kinetic force. I think this is something we're pretending isn't out there, and we need to be more forthright and say that this is the future for the types of threats we are facing. I think this is where, of course, government plays a critical role.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Where we are in different theatres with Operation Reassurance, should we have Canadian officers in the command centres where they are integrating the kinetics plus the cyberwarfare or the hybrid warfare?
5:15 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
Traditionally, the major Canadian contribution, and often it goes unnoticed, is in fact that type of expertise. If we just refer to the gender issue, for example, how many Canadians know that the NATO war college in Rome is headed by a woman, and that she happens to be Canadian? This is the stuff we need to talk about.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to try to do two things quickly. Given that we've seen the U.S. withdrawal from the leadership role in NATO at the presidential level, I guess I would say, and given that NATO functions on consensus, who's really in charge? Who's really leading NATO in responding to the changing threat theatre we've seen?
I would ask Professor Moens and then Professor Huebert.
5:15 p.m.
Chair, Political Science Department, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
When you study the American position in NATO, it has been an enormously discouraging scene for both the Americans and the allies for a long time. But it appears that General Mattis, General Kelly, and General McMaster are in fact stabilizing the actual relationship between the United States and NATO. I see a bit of encouragement and a bit of optimism coming back.
I think it's important for us to realize that after President Trump, the Americans are likely going to try to correct this period of significantly poor relations in NATO. Usually, when the Americans do that, they're always going to look at key allies to work with them. We've talked, for example, about cyber, and we've talked about creating centres of excellence. I think it's smart for Canada, for example, to join Latvia's centre of strategic communications rather than creating a new one, to be involved and to expand it into a multilateral affair. But the Americans are still in charge.
5:15 p.m.
Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute, As an Individual
I think one of the important things to notice, which supports what Alex is saying, is what the Americans have been doing in the last three months in Ukraine and the Baltic states, because you can see clearly that they've been increasing their presence in western Ukraine and, I suspect, in other parts of that region. They've also been supporting the involvement in the Baltic states. In other words, I firmly agree that when Trump opens his mouth on it, first and foremost, he doesn't understand, but the three generals seem to have a very clear understanding of maintaining American involvement in that context. I think that's the one reassuring point we can take from that.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Great. Thanks.
There's one last thing I'd like to do. We've talked a lot about youth, and we have two students we haven't heard from, so I'd like to put those two on the spot and ask them what they think we've missed, and what we have not really asked that we should have been asking, or what they think we should have given more emphasis to.
5:20 p.m.
Elisha Evelyn Louise Cooper Student, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Hi. My name is Elisha Cooper, and I'm a linguistics student here at SFU, so I'm not in political science.
I think education is probably the most important to me, because you can't really care about something that you don't know about, and you can't support it if you don't know that it's important. It was touched on here, but I just wanted to reiterate the importance of making sure that young people know what's happening, that they know that Canada's involved, and that what we're doing is important.
5:20 p.m.
Samuel Thiak Student, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
My name is Samuel, and I'm a political science student at Simon Fraser University.
I think everything has been talked about exhaustively, and that letting students on campus, especially on our campus, know has been a very important step for us. A good number of students are being informed about NATO and its activities and those of the Canadian Armed Forces. If we go ahead with what we're doing, I'm sure it will be a good step.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Thanks very much.
We have a couple of extra minutes left, if any of the other students wanted to speak a bit more. I can probably give another two minutes if either of you wanted to say a few more words.
Peter.
Yes. My specialization is actually nuclear disarmament and nuclear strategy. This is what I've ended up studying, for whatever reason. I have no idea how I got into that.
When we were discussing what we can do, everyone was right in saying that the conditions for disarmament are not there. There eventually has to be a relationship with some degree of trust with Russia, China, or any of the other nuclear powers, because it's a security dilemma. If you reduce your numbers, there's the fear that someone else will take advantage. Even if there's no actual threat here, neither side can necessarily just jump the gun.
Working on smaller projects, whether in the Baltics or the Ukraine, can eventually allow step-by-step reduction. If Canada were to not necessarily take a lead but find a way forward with Russia, diplomatically speaking, eventually, that's what Canada could actually do as a non-nuclear power. That's what I hope to see in the future. That's the role Canada can play.
5:20 p.m.
Chair, Political Science Department, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
You have the last word.
5:20 p.m.
Student, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
On behalf of all of us, thank you so much for giving us this opportunity. We're really glad to have been included. It's very inspiring to hear that a lot of the conversation is actually about engaging young Canadians and how to create the policy-makers of the future. We're happy to help you do that in any way we can.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to thank you all for your time today, engaging with us on this very important conversation. This conversation is very timely. There are a lot of things happening on this planet right now, and NATO is a big part of our collective future, so this conversation is timely and very important.
A big shout-out to Professor Moens for including your students. That's supercool and I'd encourage others to do the same next time we meet, because I'm sure we'll see many of you again in the future.
Could I get a motion to adjourn? Stand by, we have a motion.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
It's a really simple motion. I apologize, first of all, to the members of the Liberal Party and NDP. I should have sat down and talked with you first, but we gave notice last week.
The motion is pretty simple. It's that the committee undertake a study of no fewer than three meetings on the state of Canada's defensive capabilities against cyber-attacks and the Government of Canada's offensive cyberwarfare capabilities, and that the committee report its findings to the House.
I think it's self-explanatory. We're hearing threats of cyber-attacks coming up in every meeting we have. It doesn't matter what witnesses you talk to. They bring it up. This last year I spent a lot of time in the U.S. and went to a variety of different governors' conferences. At every governor's conference, cybersecurity was one of the top topics they were discussing. It's a topic that is front and centre on the minds of American governors. It's something that's front and centre with a lot of the witnesses who are coming here.
After finishing the Ukraine study, we heard a lot about fake news, cybersecurity, cyber-threats, and what's going on in the Ukraine, so I think it's prudent for us to get a good understanding of what we're capable of doing and what we see as our strengths and weaknesses in cyber, to get a better understanding there. That's the reason for the motion.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Before I open it to debate, this is just a reminder to the committee that we have a panel. I know that's not what you're asking about, but in this particular study we have one panel dedicated to cybersecurity. It's different from what you're asking for, but I just wanted to remind the committee.
We'll have Mark Gerretsen and then Randall Garrison.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Chair, it's important that whenever we set to undertake another study, we do it in the context of realizing what the competing interests are. I know in the past we've made a concerted effort to line up exactly how we're going to do what.
It would probably be more appropriate to discuss this at the pre-committee, to try to sort out where that would be. I am not in favour of voting on this right now, because I want to understand its context in terms of where it lies with everything else. Therefore, I move adjournment on this debate.