Public Safety Committee on March 22nd, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Let's get started.

This is the 101st meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Our witness this morning is the Honourable Harjit Sajjan, Minister of National Defence.

Welcome to the committee, Minister. You appear to be among many old friends. With that, I'll ask you for your opening remarks.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've actually had a little bit of de déjà vu this morning, given that I was at the defence committee and I see most of the same people here. It's nice to see everyone again.

I'd like to start by thanking all of you for the tremendous work that you have done in studying Bill C-59. These discussions and the experts you have talked to have helped inform the development of this important legislation, so thank you for all of your efforts.

I am accompanied today by Greta Bossenmaier, the Chief of the Communications Security Establishment; Shelly Bruce, the Associate Chief of CSE; and senior officials from CSE, National Defence, and the Canadian Armed Forces. It's our pleasure to be here today as you continue your review of the National Security Act, 2017.

This legislation demonstrates our government's recognition that the pursuit of national security involves two inseparable objectives: the protection of Canadians and the defence of our rights and freedoms. This commitment is apparent in part 3 of Bill C-59, which would establish stand-alone legislation for the Communications Security Establishment.

Last November, I had the opportunity in the House to speak to CSE's proud history of serving Canadians. For over 70 years, CSE has been Canada's foreign signals intelligence agency and the lead federal authority for information technology security in the Government of Canada. Over that long history, CSE has successfully adapted to remarkable change, including very rapid technological advancements and evolutions in the global threat landscape. However, what is needed now are modernized authorities to ensure that CSE is able to continue to adapt in this ever-changing environment both today and into the next 70 years.

In my remarks this morning, I'd like to underscore the importance of this legislation to ensuring that our security and intelligence agencies can keep pace with security threats, while at the same time enhancing accountability and transparency.

First, the CSE act would modernize the foreign intelligence aspect of CSE's mandate by allowing CSE to use new techniques to acquire intelligence through the global information infrastructure. CSE's foreign signals intelligence program is essential to keeping the government informed on matters of national security, national defence, and international affairs. These proposed changes will ensure that CSE is able to continue to collect this vital intelligence.

Second, as Canada's centre of excellence for cyber-operations, CSE operates at the forefront of changes in technology. The act would strengthen the cybersecurity and information-assurance aspect of CSE's mandate. Notably, the act would improve CSE's ability to defend important non-Government of Canada networks and to share cyber-threat information and mitigation advice. Taken altogether, the CSE act will strengthen Canada's cyber-defences by better protecting Canadians' most sensitive information and important cyber-networks from compromise.

Third, and of particular interest to National Defence, the technical and operational-assistance aspect of CSE's mandate would clarify that CSE is allowed to provide assistance to the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. This will enable CSE to better support Canada's military missions and the brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces serving in theatre.

Of course, CSE already provides important intelligence to the forces under the foreign intelligence aspects of CSE's mandate. This legislation would allow CSE to do more to help them to, among other things, conduct active cyber-operations in support of government-authorized military missions. Bill C-59 will enable CSE and the Canadian Armed Forces to better co-operate to ensure the best use of tools and capabilities to meet mission objectives.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces look forward to the opportunity to work more closely with CSE to leverage its capabilities and expertise, as outlined in Canada's new defence policy “Strong, Secure, Engaged”.

I also want to discuss a crucial element of the proposed CSE act: foreign cyber-operations. I know that in her appearance before committee last month, the associate chief of CSE, Shelly Bruce, spoke to you about the active cyber-operations and exactly what they would look like in practice. Today I want to reiterate why these operations are important and why they are needed to protect the security of Canadians.

CSE's foreign cyber-operations mandate will provide Canada with the cyber-means to respond to serious foreign threats or international crises as part of a broader strategic approach.

For example, CSE would use active cyber-operations to prevent a terrorist's mobile phone from detonating a car bomb, or CSE could impede the ability of terrorists to communicate by obstructing their communications infrastructure.

CSE's active and defensive cyber-operations would be carefully targeted, by law, to the activities of foreign individuals, states, organizations, or terrorist groups that have implications for Canada's international affairs, defence, and security. Foreign cyber-operations would be subject to strict statutory prohibitions against directing these operations at Canadians, any person in Canada, or the global information infrastructure in Canada, and would require a robust approval process.

This brings me to my final point. This bill will considerably enhance oversight and review of Canada's national security and intelligence community, which includes CSE, the Department of National Defence, and the Canadian Armed Forces.

The oversight and review positions in the national security act demonstrate our government's commitment to enhancing lawfulness and transparency. I look forward to working with the proposed new bodies, including the national security and intelligence review agency and the intelligence commissioner.

By updating, clarifying, and clearly outlining in legislation what CSE is permitted to do, this legislation will empower Canadians to better understand what CSE does to protect Canada and Canadian interests. By adding new oversight and accountability measures, the national security act should also give you and all Canadians confidence that the measures are in place to ensure that CSE will continue to abide by the law and protect the privacy of Canadians.

To the members of the committee, I'm very proud of Bill C-59. This is very important legislation that will deliver on our government's promise to protect Canadians and their rights and freedoms.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Minister.

Before I go to questions, I want to say to members that I've taken a fairly generous interpretation of relevance on previous appearances by ministers, particularly on estimates and supplementary estimates. I remind all members that we are here to discuss Bill C-59, and I'm rather hoping that members will tie their questions in some manner or another to Bill C-59, however remote that tie might be.

With that, Monsieur Picard, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

I will ask my questions in French for those who need the earpiece.

Minister, it is a pleasure to see you and your entire team again. Welcome to the committee.

I have just come from a two-hour meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, where representatives from Estonia talked about e-governance.

Clearly, beyond what is done on land, on sea and in the air, information is becoming the new battlefield. Big data is becoming a new target and a new playing field for conflicts between countries.

How will those new powers granted by Bill C-59 serve the CSE?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

With Bill C-59, one of the things we started to address when we consulted with Canadians is making sure that we stay at the cutting edge of our technology. However, if we're at the cutting edge of technology, we need to make sure we have the right legislation to be able to adjust to the methods that are being used out there. Bill C-59 will finally allow CSE to be able to protect Canadians from foreign threats.

This is something that's very unique to this bill, because it has never been done before. What it also does is create a separate CSE act that gives exact direction on what CSE is able to do while at the same time putting a very robust mechanism in place to protect the privacy of Canadians.

From a policing perspective, I think Canadians are also looking for protection from identity theft with regard to how they do their banking. CSE has the ability and knowledge base to be able to assist Canadians with the right advice. It has already started to do that through its social media campaigns.

This is what this legislation is about; it's about protecting Canadians and Canadian interests.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

In this committee's previous discussions, we have received comments on the offensive dimension of certain powers or capabilities of the CSE. It is well known that groups that are terrorists or associated with terrorists, such as Daesh, benefit from online informal networks of sympathizers, structures and communications. This new armada or new equipment at the disposal of these terrorist groups represents an additional threat.

How should the offensive approach of the CSE be defined? How will this offensive approach respond to the new threat?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

One aspect in particular that is extremely important, since the Minister of National Defence is also responsible for our Canadian Armed Forces, is that CSE will now actually have the ability to provide the right support to the Canadian Armed Forces. They obviously provided the right intelligence, but now with Bill C-59 they can provide the right expertise. They'll be able to leverage their knowledge base and their technology and keep up to date with some of the terrorist networks and what they're trying to do, especially when it comes to keeping our soldiers safe. That includes everything, as I mentioned, from somebody detonating an IED to disrupting the network to keep it from getting to that point.

We also have to be mindful that even with the best technologies, we had to wait for a cyber-attack on us to occur before we could actually do anything about it. We need to make sure that we are proactive in having a defensive mechanism so that when we see a threat we are able to shut it down beforehand. These are the things that are very important here to making sure that we protect our infrastructure in a very proactive manner.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

You talk about the CSE's support for the various operations, which are not military only. This support is necessary because of the disadvantage of being unable to respond quickly enough to an attack, thereby having to wait for the attack to take place before it can react. This new capacity will support various operations.

Will this support become a new instrument for conducting military operations around the world? Asking the question is sort of answering it.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Especially when it comes to our Canadian Armed Forces, this finally gives CSE the ability to assist our Canadian Armed Forces more correctly in this way. It puts us in line also with our Five Eyes partners. It was either overlooked in the past in previous legislation.... I actually found it quite surprising that CSE didn't have the legislative ability to assist the Canadian Armed Forces in this manner. Now with this bill the Canadian Armed Forces will be allowed to leverage the technical expertise of CSE.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

You are comparing our capabilities with those of our Five Eyes partners. Those new powers will enable us to be at the same level as our partners abroad, even ahead, if our technology allows it. By default, I take it that we have some catching up to do, and this bill allows us to do that.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Greta, do you want to answer that?

[Greta Bossenmaier, Chief, Communications Security Establishment]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and others, for being here this morning.

I think it's safe to say that Canada, allies, and countries in general are really facing a very dynamic cyber-threat environment. The technology has been changing. If you think back to when our legislation was first put in place some 17 years ago, this was before we were talking about things like cloud computing and artificial intelligence, the dynamic cyber-threat environment. Different types of actors were involved in the types of threats we're facing. I think it's safe to say that countries around the world, our allies, and Canada are all facing this very new dynamic threat environment.

As the minister said, this is really about putting the legislation in place that will allow us to have the authority to be able to operate and to protect Canada and Canadians in this new space.

To the question that was posed in particular—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave it there and possibly work your answer into another question. We're out of time.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, welcome to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-59 states that you must work with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We already know that, as Minister of National Defence, you have a close relationship with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Probably weekly, you have to discuss a number of issues and the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces around the world. I am wondering why the bill has to require you to contact the minister, since this co-operation is already part of your day-to-day work, I think.

There is a problem that you will surely be able to help me understand, given your close co-operation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It's about a security breach. I do not know how that expression will be translated, but as a former member of the military, you must know what I'm talking about. The incident took place in India, namely the invitation sent to Jaspal Atwal. We are hearing two contradictory stories. According to the Prime Minister, Mr. Atwal was invited by rogue elements in the Indian government. On your side, your colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, confirmed that the invitation came from Canadian government officials. So we have two versions, that of the Prime Minister, to whom you are accountable, and that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with whom you work every day.

Which version do you believe?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have the floor, Mr. Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I do not see the relevance of the question; it is not about the CSE's communications or role.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I thought Mr. Paul-Hus was very clever in the way he introduced Bill C-59 into this question, but I do call relevance of his question as to the working relationship between the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will leave the second portion of the question for question period.

You raise a good point in terms of the importance of having the Minister of Foreign Affairs as part of this. I think it's absolutely prudent to do this. This is to make sure that when it comes to threats and any type of potential actions that we as the government can take, it's not just about one minister making that call. We need to make sure that we have a prudent look at the threats from different perspectives, especially that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Yes, we do have have a very good, seamless relationship, but we want to make sure that at the same time that our relationship is extremely good.... We don't know about how the relationships. We can't rely on that. Canadians want to make sure that there is a good process in place, and that when governments make decisions of this nature, they have the right oversight and have been looked at properly when we take actions abroad.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Minister, I understand that you talk to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on a regular basis. The need to incorporate this co-operation into a bill is one thing. However, I would like to come back to the event in India.

You were on that trip. How did you see the situation? Do you know who's telling the truth? Is it the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Since you were there, you must have witnessed the events and you must be able to answer my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You're welcome to comment on the relationship but possibly not the exact—

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

On the first portion of your question—I'll answer again—it is absolutely important to put it in legislation, so that, as in this case here, when a government takes its operations overseas—and especially when it comes to this very new field of the cyber-domain, in which technologies will continually change—we can be sure we have the right oversight on this. Canadians expect us to make sure we have this.

As the Minister of National Defence, I don't go on operations even with the military. It's a decision that's made through government. I am given authorities by cabinet to move forward, and that allows me, in this case here, when it comes to the cyber-domain.... It is a very prudent step to make sure that we work with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that we have it in legislation. Canadians expect us, while protecting them, to make sure we have the right oversight and transparency moving forward.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, since the minister cannot answer my question even though he was in India and is working closely with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I would like to introduce the following motion, which I sent to the committee earlier this week:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee invite the Prime Minister's National Security Advisor, Daniel Jean, to provide the committee with the same briefing he gave to journalists on Friday, February 23, 2018, and that the briefing take place in public and no later than Friday, March 30, 2018.

I'm introducing this motion because the Conservatives and the New Democrats on this committee have serious questions about the Atwal case in India.

On February 23, the Prime Minister's senior adviser on national security told reporters that the officials responsible for the invitation sent to Mr. Atwal were officials from India. This created a diplomatic incident with India. On February 27, the Prime Minister confirmed in the House of Commons what Mr. Jean said. Then the Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned that the invitation was from Canada's officials. The MP for Surrey Central, Mr. Sarai, confirmed that the invitation came from him. Mr. Atwal also confirmed that the invitation was from Canada, not from India. So we have two versions of the facts now.

Parliamentarians have the right to know what happened in India. The briefing was given publicly to journalists. We should be able to receive the briefing as well. That's why I think the committee should pass this motion.

In addition, Liberal members of the committee can vote independently, with full freedom of conscience. At his last appearance, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness confirmed that he was not responsible for giving direction to the committee and that its members were independent. If the Liberal members vote against the motion, we can assume that the Prime Minister's Office makes the decisions.

We need to shed some light on this. I think Liberal Party members would also like to shed light on this diplomatic incident that is serious for Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Monsieur Paul-Hus.

We did receive the motion in a timely fashion. The motion is in order. It does bear similarities to your previous motion, which was rejected by the committee, but it is sufficiently different that it is a valid motion. Notwithstanding that the same subject matter is being debated in the House as we speak and you're not waiting for the resolution of the House debate, it is still in order and there is no impediment to this motion being debated.

With that, Monsieur Picard, go ahead.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I think all diplomatic issues deserve to be taken very seriously. Furthermore, it is also the subject of debate in the House today. I think we have to wait until we know what will be said in the House and let the House get to the bottom of the issue as planned.

Under these circumstances, I request that the debate be adjourned.