National Defence Committee on Feb. 10th, 2023

[Alexander Rudolph]

I would say that CSE is the most prepared, in part as a lot of their planning has been good and a lot of their open reporting on what they've been doing has been fantastic. It's largely that the connections between CSE and the CAF are almost non-existent. It's very informal, from what I've been able to learn.

There needs to be an actual formal command structure in place to mediate what happens in the event of a conflict. Right now what is likely to occur is that it's going to be given to CSE to respond in an active cyber-threat. I believe that there are more formal connections in relations between CSE and Global Affairs than there are between the CAF and CSE.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Ms. O'Connell you have four minutes, please.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I want to continue on this line of questioning and on some answers from Mr. Rudolph earlier.

I just want clarification. You spoke about transparency, and I wasn't quite sure if you were referring to transparency in policy or the details of these relationships. You talked about databases and that they're all separate databases. Are you talking about the policy around these mechanisms or the details themselves?

[Alexander Rudolph]

I would say both. That ad hoc policy that I referred to was very much new policy every year, or finding that our policy last year did not work, so let's do something new. There really isn't much coherency and logic through the years.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I can see that from an academic's perspective, but you would also have to, I would think, appreciate that when it comes to national security and certainly around cyber there is a policy around a need-to-know basis as well. With transparency of policy, I can totally understand that needs to be out there in open source, but in details or databases, I could also see why you would have multiple databases, because not everybody who has security clearance is on a need-to-know basis for every database.

Then if you use the example of Dr. Keenan about cyber-attacks, malware attacks, could you not see the benefit—maybe not from a researcher's perspective—of silos? I can't believe I'm saying this because I've spent many years on finance trying to break down silos between governments or between government departments.

When it comes to actual cyber-information and having a need-to-know basis and not having that balance of having it in the public open-source network. Open source also means our adversaries can also access that information.

I can understand from a research perspective, but don't you think that there is a very real necessary reason to limit some access to the details of how CSE works with CAF and how CAF works with other departments? Do you see the nature of the security risk if that was all open source?

[Alexander Rudolph]

I would agree in principle, but I would caution against painting it as black and white in that sense as there are varying levels to this, just as there are varying levels to security clearance. The problem is that these silos exist without much thought to whether this needs to be silos in the first place and to what degree these silos are being detrimental to the actual productive work of the armed forces.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Do you have any examples so that we can delve into that a little bit deeper?

[Alexander Rudolph]

The specifics on the databases in question is definitely separate from the policy. The ad hoc nature is very much overall, but the policy that I would really put my finger on that needs to be clarified is CAF's position and strategy related to persistent engagement.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Persistent engagement of what?

[Alexander Rudolph]

Persistent engagement is the U.S. strategy of how to respond to adversarial states in cyberspace.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, I have to draw this meeting to a close. As you can see from the last three or four questions, we're starting to get to the meat of the issues, particularly CSE's relationship to CAF and the relationship it has with Global Affairs and Public Safety, etc. It's silos. We hope it's not entirely silos because security is security is security.

Also, the persistent engagement issue calls into question CSE's ability to conduct in Canada those kinds of operations. I would invite you, on behalf of the committee, to submit any other thoughts, any written thoughts that you have, because we are going to have to try to arrive at some sort of policy recommendations.

I appreciate both of you making yourselves available today to engage the committee in this very challenging conversation.

With that, colleagues, we will suspend and re-empanel.

Again, I thank Mr. Rudolph and Dr. Keenan, and particularly Dr. Keenan for getting up a couple of hours early. Thanks very much. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues, we're back on.

Before I ask Kristen Csenkey and Alexis Rapin to make their five-minute presentations, we should take note that our friend and colleague James Bezan is not with us today. The reason why is that his grandson had open-heart surgery yesterday. I'm given to understand that the baby is doing well, but for those of you who know James well, a note would be in order. Given the Laval incident, our guts all turn when it comes to our kids and grandkids—particularly mine, because I have a few grandkids. As I said, those of you who can should send James a note.

With that, I'm going to first call on Ms. Csenkey for five minutes, and then Mr. Rapin for five minutes.

[Kristen Csenkey, Ph.D. Candidate, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Vice-Chairs, members of the committee and the other witnesses on this panel. I'm honoured to be invited and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all today.

I would like to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you from the traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation, whose presence reaches back to time immemorial and continues today. This land acknowledgement is meaningful to me as a commitment towards reconciliation practices and recognition of our relationship to place and identity.

My name is Kristen Csenkey and I'm speaking to you as a Ph.D. candidate or “all but dissertation” at the Balsillie school of international affairs through Wilfrid Laurier University. My research focuses on cyber-governance and the management of emerging technologies in Canada.

I have the honour of being called by the committee to speak on the study topics of cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. My approach to these topics comes from my personal capacity as a researcher and academic focusing on the governance side of cybersecurity. I have written on issues of relevance to the study topics, including threats associated with cybersecurity, the roles and responsibilities of involved actors, and the intersections with conflict. It is through my research and previous publications that I approach these topics.

In my opening statement, I will focus my remarks on two main points that may benefit the committee in its study. These two main points are, first, that the threats associated with cybersecurity are dynamic and, second, that preparing to address these threats requires coordination and co-operation among diverse actors.

Let me elaborate on each of these points for the committee.

When I say “dynamic”, I mean that cybersecurity is complex, constantly changing and involves multiple actors, contexts and ideas. This is because cybersecurity is an interconnected social, political and technical endeavour, wherein humans and technologies are intertwined. We live in a cyber-physical world, where many aspects of our lives occur in digital spaces with physical linkages. Therefore, threats associated with cybersecurity should include a nuanced understanding of their technological capacity and capability, as well as the role of human actors, especially in interpreting threats and the responses to said threats.

This leads me to my second point. Preparing to address threats associated with cybersecurity requires coordination and co-operation. If we are to speak about the evolving nature of threats associated with cybersecurity, including the technological capabilities and capacities of various actors, we also must speak about how to address them. This point may seem straightforward, but it is not always this way in practice.

I will provide an example for the committee. In a recent journal article, my co-author and I looked at how different co-operating states understand the quantum threat. A quantum threat is a specific cybersecurity threat associated with the capabilities of quantum computers. Among the Five Eyes partners, we found differences in how this threat and its intentions, associated technology, users and potential threat actors were understood in policies. Discrepancies in understanding the threats associated with cybersecurity will have an impact on the roles and responsibilities of actors involved in addressing these threats.

Coordination among diverse actors involved in interconnected political, social and technical aspects of cybersecurity must occur. This could take shape by leveraging existing pathways and expertise beyond a single contextual understanding of the threat. This requires co-operation.

Co-operation is a key part of addressing cybersecurity threats and keeping Canada safe. Canada can leverage existing trusted partnerships to coordinate responses to threats that appreciate the dynamicism of cybersecurity. This could mean fostering informal or formal engagement with other like-minded, high-tech allies to holistically define threats and understand the associated technological capability and capacity, as well as the complex human and technical dimensions of cybersecurity. Prioritizing innovative partnerships may help ensure security, as well as protect and promote Canadian interests abroad.

It is through co-operation and coordination that Canada can work to ensure we remain safe and secure in an already complex cyber-physical world.

I look forward to discussing any ideas and issues raised in the course of my statement during the question period. This concludes my statement.

Thank you for your kind attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Csenkey.

Mr. Rapin, you have five minutes, please.

[Alexis Rapin, Research Fellow, Raoul-Dandurand Chair in Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

I am a research fellow at the Raoul-Dandurand Chair in Strategic and Diplomatic Studies at the Université du Québec à Montréal. My research focuses on issues related to cyber-strategy, cyber-defence and more generally on the impacts of information technology on international security.

In 2020 the research team that I'm part of launched a database dedicated to publicly recording geopolitical cyber-incidents targeting Canada, whether it be its government entities, its companies, its research institutions or its civil society. Our feeling at the time was that geopolitical cyber-incidents in Canada were quick to make headlines but were even quicker to be forgotten. We felt that the Canadian public was not fully equipped to grasp the full, cumulative and pervasive character of foreign cyber-operations targeting Canada. Thus, we set up an online and freely accessible directory of geopolitical cyber-incidents aimed at documenting publicly recorded incidents—their nature, their targets and, when possible, their initiators. The aim of the database was also to keep score of foreign cyber-activities targeting Canada so as to provide the public with a barometer of this phenomenon.

Three years later, as of today, our database has recorded 93 geopolitical cyber-incidents in Canada since 2010. Among those, 14 incidents took place in 2022 alone. In fact, we've observed that the frequency of such incidents is clearly increasing. As I mentioned, our work is based on only publicly recorded incidents, which means that many more incidents remain unreported to this day.

These 93 incidents include various types of malicious activity: economic espionage against Canadian businesses and universities; covert electronic surveillance of Canadian-based activists and non-governmental organizations; and intelligence gathering targeting Canadian government organizations, among others.

Our data further indicates that the overwhelming majority of these incidents originate from just four countries: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. While it is not always clear that the governments of these countries are responsible for each of these attacks, there is little doubt that these four states pose major cybersecurity challenges for Canada.

In 2021 and 2022, our team also published annual reports summarizing our key observations of the most recent cyberincidents. These reports were also intended to highlight certain current trends that we felt were critical to Canada's national security.

Our last assessment, published in 2022, focused on the following trends: the growing threat of ransomware cyber-attacks against Canadian entities, sometimes state-sponsored, which may disrupt critical infrastructure or serve as cover for clandestine intelligence collection; the increasingly aggressive targeting of Canadian-based activists, exiles and dissenters by foreign powers for purposes of espionage, intimidation and harassment; and the rise of the cyber-mercenaries industry, which is starting to target Canadian entities, most probably at the request of foreign powers.

Needless to say, these three trends do not represent the whole picture of cyber-threats that Canada is currently facing. The conflict in Ukraine or the constant economic espionage against Canadian research and development, for instance, should also get our close attention.

What I have tried to demonstrate with these facts, however, is that cybersecurity issues are not a futuristic, hypothetical, distant threat for Canada. Cyber-threats are already here with us. While they may appear discreet or intangible, they directly impact the lives of many people in Canada every day.

Hence, I think it is urgent to address these issues more vigorously and also to discuss them more publicly and more frankly. Today's hearing is an excellent opportunity to do so.

I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Rapin.

Mr. Calkins, you have six minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today has been very enlightening.

I guess the first question I have for either witness is this: If there's an all-out, coordinated cyber-attack on Canada by all the rogue actors in the world, can Canada protect itself? Will our critical systems fail?

[Kristen Csenkey]

I can answer that.

Right now, the Government of Canada, through the various departments that are tasked with protecting Canadians and Canadian critical infrastructure, is doing the best job it can. There's always room for improvement, especially when it comes to reporting cyber-attacks. Right now it's not mandatory to report major cyber-attacks. Especially for SMEs, or companies in that category, to have a mandatory reporting for cyber-attacks would help us understand the breadth of the situation. It would also provide us with more information so that we can come up with a better threat assessment, risk assessment and framework to better protect certain industries and private sector companies.

The government is doing the best it can, but we can always do more. Part of doing more is mandatory reporting of major cyber-attacks.

[Alexis Rapin]

I will answer in French, if I may.

As far as critical infrastructure is concerned, I think there is a risk. Critical infrastructures are indeed extremely important. They are aptly named because they are critical. Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are a high-risk but unlikely threat.

The fact that cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are a high-risk threat means that, of course, you have to think about them, prepare for them and have plans in place in case they happen. However, they remain fairly unlikely.

In my view, there is perhaps a risk to us in paying too much attention to threats to critical infrastructure insofar as, as I say, these are things that are relatively unlikely.

Very few, if any, have actually materialized in Canada. On the other hand, many other threats that are much more subtle, less serious, but still have consequences because they are repeated and occur on a daily basis, get less attention and less thought from us.

I think that's a problem, because the critical infrastructure issue is something that is very visible; it's not necessarily very difficult to draw red lines, to be clear about what would be tolerated or not and what would elicit a vigorous response or not.

In the face of this set of smaller threats that individually are not deemed serious enough to elicit a response, but cumulatively produce damage that I think is problematic, I'm not sure we have a good strategy and ways of trying to discourage and prevent them.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

The mere fact that we're not an important enough target as a nation and that our critical infrastructure is not an important enough target.... However, we are involved in organizations like NATO. I believe that the increase we're seeing is the direct result of our involvement in supplying Ukraine with defensive assets.

Would you agree that, because of our involvement with Ukraine, we are exposing ourselves to risk? I'm not saying that we shouldn't involve ourselves with Ukraine, but are other actors right now using this as cover to probe our defences?

[Alexis Rapin]

In my opinion, in comparative terms, Canada is not, at this time, a priority target for Russia or for cyberactors who would put themselves at its service.

From what we observe and the information I have, the geographical factor still seems to play an important role. It is the countries that are rather close to Ukraine or Russia and the NATO members that are most targeted. I'm thinking of Poland, Slovakia, and the Baltic States in particular, which, from what I've seen publicly, have suffered far more attacks than Canada.

If Russia's goal had been to punish Canada by encouraging its criminal networks to deploy ransomware or by encouraging activists to conduct hacking and information disclosure operations against Canada, for example, we would have seen them by now, and we would have seen a very marked increase by now. But from what I can see, that's not the case.

That being...

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there.

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Mr. May, you have six minutes, please.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was delighted to hear, Ms. Csenkey, that you're from the Balsillie school. I know it very well. Being from the Waterloo region myself, I know that ecosystem and some of the amazing work that's coming out of there. In fact, just a few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of joining Minister Champagne at the Perimeter Institute, which is just around the corner, and launching Canada's quantum strategy. Much of what was discussed there, I have to admit, went completely over my head, but I recognize the amazing work that's being done there.

On that note, how are advancements in artificial intelligence and quantum technology changing the cyber-threat environment for Canada?

[Kristen Csenkey]

Thank you so much for that question from Mr. May.

I would say that there are certain technologies that can have huge impacts related to cybersecurity issues. We can call them disruptive. We can call them emerging technologies. Sometimes we think of them as being a threat themselves or as being very disruptive. However, how I see this problem or this concept is that technologies also interact with humans. Humans create the technologies. We work with them. We can use them for a variety of purposes.

When we think about quantum computers, for example, quantum computers have the potential to benefit many fields. It's not just from a defence perspective that we can look at this. We also can look at the benefits in, for example, accelerating artificial intelligence and for improving simulations and a variety of other purposes, including weather predictions, etc.

When it comes to talking about investing in and developing certain technologies with the intention of developing capabilities for Canada, I think we have an expert base in this country in a variety of regional hubs that are doing excellent work, but I think what needs to happen is that there needs to be more co-operation to address the threats we associate with the use of these particular technologies, while also keeping in mind that it is not just the technology that's the threat. It's the potential for certain malicious actors to use these certain technologies in a way that could cause harm.

One of the ways in which we can help to co-operate to address those threats is through leveraging these existing partnerships. It's by leveraging existing partnerships at home, in Canada, between government, industry and academia through the various research centres that we have dedicated to these particular types of technologies, but also by leveraging existing pathways for partnership amongst our allies.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you.

Monsieur Rapin, do you have anything you would like to add? You've covered it well, I suppose.

In terms of maybe the concept of mass adoption of emerging technologies among Canadians, which trends, in your opinion, present the greatest cybersecurity risks?

We'll start with you, sir.