National Defence Committee on Dec. 8th, 2022

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Thomas, for being here with us to answer some of our questions today.

My first question to you is about the role that foreign actors play in Canada. How concerned should we be? What is Canada currently doing to counter this? What are we doing in order to monitor foreign activities, especially in the Arctic but even more broadly across the country?

[Jody Thomas]

Colleagues from Public Safety and Minister Mendicino, certainly, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence, have spoken about the work being done to ensure that there is no foreign influence and interference in Canada. It is a universal problem. All of our Five Eyes allies are facing the same issues in terms of foreign interference.

The hostile activity of state actors is being examined and monitored. We're doing some public consultation now to look at a foreign agent registry, as well as vigilance in terms of our IT systems through the Communications Security Establishment and working with CSIS in terms of knowing who is a foreign threat actor in this country.

Foreign influence is a constant cycle of activity. Yes, there are particular threat vectors and particular issues that foreign actors would be interested in, but with regard to asserting their country's position on specific issues and trying to influence certain individuals, it's an age-old problem. It has become advanced in terms of the technology that is now used. Certainly, social media has advanced that.

Misinformation and disinformation are key tools of foreign threat actors because they attempt to use disinformation to influence the Canadian population.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

We know that both Russia and China are quite good at this kind of foreign interference, and that they have cyber-capabilities we should be wary of and defending our country against.

What are some of the ways that our adversaries' cyber-abilities influence the way we prepare ourselves? In what ways have we made investments in technologies that would counter these kinds of cyber-abilities?

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you for that question.

As I think you know, the Communications Security Establishment is a jewel in the Canadian crown in keeping our cyber-networks safe from the interference, influence and disruption that can be caused by foreign threat actors.

What we have to do, as a society, is start to look very differently at misinformation and disinformation and how they are used to influence the population. Free speech is, of course, our right, but when we identify something as blatant disinformation—which is deliberately placing information that is untrue, as opposed to misinformation, which is the propagation of that information unwittingly—we have to take it down and address the issues. That gets difficult because of the social media platforms, but it is something that we are examining actively.

I don't know if you'd like to add anything, Mr. MacDonald.

[Mike MacDonald, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Security and Intelligence, Privy Council Office]

Thank you. I'll be very quick.

There are four points I'd like to make in addition. First, key to efforts in dealing with cyber-activities is understanding the motivations of those who are your adversaries, and there's dedicated work in this area. Second are the skill sets of the people who work in this area. Ensure that you have the right individuals and that you grow cyber-experts in your labour force and your work markets. Third is to advocate cyber-hygiene. Get out and educate people. Talk to people about what it really means to click a button. The last is partnerships on all levels between governments, private companies, businesses, civil society, advocates and everyone. You can have a lot of effect if you have strong partnerships.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'm not sure how much time I have left, but I'm assuming I have at least a minute.

On that point, can you speak to us about what role our allies can play in defending ourselves against these cyber-threats as well?

Is there a way that we can work with our allies in order to have more of a united front against these types of threats?

[Jody Thomas]

That's a very important question.

We are working with our Five Eyes allies constantly in sharing intelligence about foreign threats and foreign interference.

The G7 has taken an interest in these phenomena. Global Affairs Canada has a group called the RRM, which looks at interference from other nations in terms of misinformation and disinformation. I think that is really critical. It highlights it and reports back to the G7 body, and action is taken in some cases.

I think that the western world—our world that believes in the rules-based order—has to call out this interference as we see it, and we do that better when we do it as a unified group than if we do it as each individual country. It's a very powerful message when the G7 or the G20 calls out that kind of foreign interference when we see it.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Bezan, how much time do I have left?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have 30 seconds.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'm not going to try to stick a question in here because you won't be able to answer me, but I want to thank you for being with us today.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Desilets, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I like to greet and welcome our guests.

I'd also like to greet my hon. colleagues.

Ms. Thomas, on the one hand , do you feel that polar icebreakers being built by two different companies is purely a question of politics? On the other, will we see any impact from this decision?

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you for the question.

Icebreaking and icebreakers are very near and dear to my heart, going back to my Coast Guard days.

Two companies being provided contracts means that the Coast Guard will get ships faster, and that is the bottom line. The impact of it is that the throughput of refit, renovated, rebuilt and brand new ships for the Coast Guard will reach the Coast Guard, the operators and the client base sooner.

The national shipbuilding strategy is very high profile—there's no doubt—but the positive impact of what has occurred with awarding contracts to the third shipyard is that the Coast Guard fleet will be renewed much more quickly.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What do you mean when you say it will be done more quickly? Has the planned delivery schedule changed?

[Jody Thomas]

The original national shipbuilding strategy awarded all of the Coast Guard ships to Vancouver Shipyards. The recent announcement of the Davie shipyard receiving some contracts means that we will not be waiting for a ship-a-year approach out of Vancouver, which isn't a criticism of Vancouver as that's the capacity. It means that there will be an injection of additional ships from Davie.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What do you plan to do should the Louis. S. St‑Laurent no longer be operational before the new icebreaker is ready?

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you for the question.

I am no longer the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard. He is best placed to answer that question.

There will have to be workarounds. There are icebreakers that are available for lease. They will look at whether they can extend the life of the Louis. She is an old ship, but she's extremely well built, so they'll have to see if there's a refit that can be done that provides good value for money in order to extend her life as we await the polar icebreakers.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Based on our information, it was supposed to be retired as of 2023, but that's been pushed back until the new icebreaker is delivered in 2030. I guess it must be expensive to keep an icebreaker afloat for seven years. It's hard to imagine how much the repairs would cost.

Can a cost assessment be done on that?

[Jody Thomas]

I thank you very much for that question.

That work is being done now within PSPC and within the Canadian Coast Guard to analyze the value for money, as I said, of completing a refit. Some of it will be that you do a refit and it gives you two or three more years. It's significant money, but you have to look at what you lose without that icebreaker. Between the icebreaking capacity of the Louis S. St-Laurent and the science capacity, there would be a significant loss to the continuity of science research in the Arctic and to the continuity of icebreaking.

That's the work they are doing now. I'm no longer actually in this role or involved with the national shipbuilding strategy.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You're talking about two or three years, but we'll need to extend its useful life by seven years. Is that feasible and realistic?

[Jody Thomas]

As I said, I'm not current on the state of the Louis S. St-Laurent, but you would get advice from the Canadian Coast Guard commissioner on that. That work is being done.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

The Louis S. St‑Laurent isn't the only ship in that situation, I believe.

Shouldn't a cost-benefit analysis be done when you have seven years of repairs to do on an icebreaker, to see how the cost of those repairs compares to the cost of a new icebreaker? I don't know much about this type of maintenance work, but the cost must be astronomical compared to the cost of a new icebreaker.

Is this being considered and analyzed by the department?

[Jody Thomas]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, the ongoing cost of refitting old ships is expensive. There's no doubt. They are harder to refit and harder to get parts for. You find more metal fatigue and you find problems you had not anticipated when you open up a ship like that for a refit.

It becomes a question of what you lose if you don't do it. There's a capacity loss that has to be weighed against the investment made. Buying new, though, is a long process. That's the concern.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

We're aware of the political squabbles around this. It's a hot potato that gets passed from one government to the next. I feel like we'll be dealing with the same darn problem in a decade from now.

Ms. Thomas, if you had a magic wand, what would solve this, in your view? Use your imagination.

[Jody Thomas]

I would like a magic wand. I would do a number of things with it, but in the particular case of procurement, for National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, and for the Coast Guard, I would like to see a cyclical plan of procurement.

Number one, the Coast Guard has never had a class of ships built for them. They've had ships added in and old ships refitted. They are now, for the first time in the 65-year history of the Coast Guard, getting a class of ships that are built for purpose, built for them. That's very positive. The Canadian Armed Forces are equally.... The surface combatant is being built for them.

I would like to see a process in this country where it is evergreen procurement. For the surface combatant, you're halfway through building one fleet and you move on to start planning the next one. That's so you're not keeping ships in operation for 30 or 35 years and then starting to look at the next procurement.

It is complex and it is expensive, but I think that as the nation with the largest coastline in the world, and a huge land mass, keeping military and Coast Guard equipment major procurement as an evergreen and economically responsible program is a really critical move forward. If I had a magic wand on that front, that is what I would do.