Evidence of meeting #44 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was interference.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative James Bezan
I have to cut it off there.
Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you so much for joining us today.
In terms of that conversation, you talked about the role of foreign state actors as compared to the other issues that the Arctic is certainly dealing with. We have heard a lot, though, within this committee, that a lot of this idea of a “potential threat” is just that. There are a lot of guessing games that have to go on. We certainly have to be prepared for that. Our security overall has to be prepared for that.
What kind of data...? I know you can't tell us specifics. What have you seen to solidify that against the idea we have also heard in this committee that says Russia or China isn't going to come onto Arctic soil or is not going to invade Canada? Can you talk about the specifics or the hardline evidence that you see, generally?
11:25 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Adviser, Privy Council Office
I can, in general terms. Thank you. I think it's a really important conversation.
There are some data points we can look at. Russia's rebuilding their Arctic military infrastructure to Soviet-era capability. They had stopped and they're returning. I think that's interesting.
Russia is continuing their construction in the Arctic despite the economic woes they are experiencing as a result of their illegal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine. They're continuing to invest in the Arctic. I think that's an interesting data point.
Their military doctrine indicates when and how they would use their equipment from the Arctic, and we see them exercising that. That's another data point.
They are playing a long game and so is China. They don't have a partnership with China at all. We don't see them as collaborating with China, but they co-operate when it is each to their own advantage. I think that is another data point.
China's interest in rare earth minerals and hydrocarbons in our Arctic and their interest in being able to navigate through the Arctic—their construction of icebreakers when they do not have ice-covered waters that require icebreakers of the size and capacity they're building—is another data point.
At one point, two and two equals four, or you can make two and two equal three. We have decided that two and two equals four.
There is no imminent threat. We agree with all of the analysis, the intelligence and the military view. That said, everything I've described is not happening in a vacuum. We have to be aware and we have to understand it.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
We could argue the same. We're investing in icebreakers. We are investing in commercial and natural resource capacity in our north. We align ourselves with other state actors at our convenience.
Why is that so dramatically different?
11:30 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Adviser, Privy Council Office
It's their intent. China has made it very clear what their intent is with the belt and road initiative and certainly with the polar silk road, I believe it is called. You can look at the belt and road initiative and see the checkmarks down the list of things they're doing. There's no reason to presume they're not doing the same with their Arctic intentions.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
One other thing you had mentioned, of course, is the climate change perspective. We have this huge gap. We're going to be hearing from the Auditor General shortly about this procurement gap, what we haven't been planning for in the last decade and where we need to be, but the immediate threat is climate change.
How do you make sure that's constantly part of your plans? What do you consult in terms of that climate change risk? What's the comparison, in terms of that, with other national security risks?
11:30 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Adviser, Privy Council Office
As I think the chief of the defence staff has said here, climate change is an existential risk. It is opening. It is causing drought. Wars are being fought over access to water. It is causing the world's major protein source—fish—to move further north and away from populations that need it, causing more illegal fishing, which causes economic harm. There are a number of things that are not purely military that add to our risk assessment when we talk about climate change.
In terms of the Arctic, we know it is warming faster than the rest of the globe. It means that the opportunities to access hydrocarbons.... Hydrocarbons, rare earth minerals and things that are of interest are more accessible. They're, in fact, more dangerous in the mid-term.
I think the Coast Guard has probably told you about its concern about how, as the ice melts, multi-year ice comes down from the polar cap and is in the navigable waters. It's much more dangerous for navigation. The Arctic is not charted to modern standards. It doesn't have aids to navigation that are to modern standards. The consequence and the ecological disaster that could occur from that if something goes wrong—a ship going aground—is significant. We have to be prepared for it. In the immediate, there's that kind of risk as opposed to a military risk.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
In terms of the commercial value of illegal fishing, we are certainly seeing that with state actors going that route, and then there's the need for more search and rescue. This certainly plays into the idea, which we have discussed before in this study, that those are policing issues and that it is determined by international law, not necessarily in the military sense, but it also relies upon our having very strong alliances, as you mentioned, with other international partners in that multilateral forum.
Also, you mentioned the role of the Arctic Council. With that further pushing away of Russia within the Arctic Council and their seeing themselves as a major Arctic player, how do you see that in terms of a—
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
How do you see that in terms of a larger problem, and how we solve that?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative James Bezan
Ms. Thomas, I'm asking you to be like question period here, so answer under thirty seconds, if you can. I know it's a lot to unpack.
11:30 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Adviser, Privy Council Office
I would say, very quickly, that Russia doesn't get to choose the parts of the rules-based order it wants to participate in. They have eliminated themselves at the moment from discussions, because they have not proven themselves to be a trustworthy member of the rules-based order. They need to come to the table and account for what they've done in Ukraine.
That said, many multilateral fora go on. The Arctic Council is under discussion. It is moving to Norway in terms of the chairmanship.
A really critical element in terms of safety in the Arctic is the Arctic Coast Guard Forum. It was begun in, I would say, about 2015, and it's where Arctic coast guards talk about ecology, policing, safety and search and rescue.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'm going to have to cut you off there. I'm sorry about that. We have to be judicious.
We'll go to our second round of five minutes for everyone. Well, not for everyone, but we'll start with Ms. Kramp-Neuman for five minutes.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Thomas, were you ever briefed or informed in any capacity about foreign interference or potential foreign interference in any electoral process by China or any foreign actor? If yes, did you relay this to the Prime Minister? If not, why not?
11:35 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Adviser, Privy Council Office
I brief the Prime Minister on intelligence constantly, and certainly on foreign interference.
As I said, I was not in this job, and I was not a part of the panel of five in the election oversight committee for the 2019 election or the 2021 election. The news stories that you have read about interference are just that, news stories. We have not seen.... I'll just say it. We have not seen money going to 11 candidates, period.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
Earlier today you mentioned that we would need to reference a specific CSIS report. Could you possibly let us know if there is a report on the 2019 or 2021 foreign election interference? If so, when was it published? If there was a title, could you share it, and did you brief the Prime Minister on it, yes or no?
11:35 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Adviser, Privy Council Office
Again, CSIS reports constantly, so I can't give you the title of a specific report. It would certainly be heavily redacted if there were one, and I wouldn't be able to speak about it here.
There are several oversight mechanisms to ensure safe elections. There is a technical committee called SITE. Mike is a member of it and, in fact, co-chairs it. He can speak to you about that.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you. I have to move on to my next question.
We've learned, of course, that the Liberal government has awarded a contract to a company with ties to China to secure counter-espionage technology. In my opinion, government seems to be pretending to do a complete 180° with China. How is it possibly a good idea to give a company accused of espionage control of our anti-espionage technology?
11:35 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Adviser, Privy Council Office
As I said, we are looking into what happened with that contract now. It was awarded a year ago, or the RFP process was started about a year ago. The IPS that has just come out has been very clear about the government's position on China. However, we are just creating the terms of reference for the review we are doing. I'm still gathering information from the departments involved.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you for that.
Madam Thomas, when you took on this job, were you briefed on foreign election interference?
11:35 a.m.
National Security and Intelligence Adviser, Privy Council Office
I started this job on January 11, 2022. I had a series of briefings. Foreign electoral interference was not one of the first ones. Certainly, it has occurred. The public reporting that you have seen indicates that there was no interference that affected the outcome of the election.
There is constant misinformation and disinformation. There are people putting out information about elections constantly, about individuals and about your party's platforms and other parties' platforms. That's how this happens in the world we live in today. There was no interference that affected the election outcome.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
Madam Thomas, the Chinese government currently owns approximately 10% of Hytera Communications through an investment fund, and it is being investigated by the U.S. for espionage. Have you advised the Prime Minister and the RCMP about Hytera?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
Perhaps this is a little bit more direct. Do you feel as though you're currently shielding the Prime Minister?