OTTAWA—With the return of Parliament last week, the clock is ticking on the federal government’s latest self-imposed deadline to reveal the results of its examination of potential security risks in next-generation 5G data networks.

The three-year-old review has had constantly shifting timelines, an opaque process and uncertain potential consequences.

Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne said in early November that the results of the review would be revealed within a couple of weeks of Parliament’s return on Nov. 22.

Canadian telcos spent a combined $8.9 billion in a federal auction of wireless spectrum in the frequency expected to be ideal for 5G. Boasting much higher speed and much lower latency than their predecessor technologies, 5G networks are supposed to enable autonomous vehicles, smart infrastructure and even remote surgery.

The sensitivity of those uses raises security concerns—specifically that one potential provider of 5G gear, China’s Huawei Technologies, could skim valuable intelligence from 5G data streams and feed it to the Chinese government. Canada’s partners in the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance have all banned or sharply limited Huawei’s participation in their networks.

Canada has not. But its drawn-out, secretive handling of the question has produced an unstated prohibition on new Huawei equipment.

Who is doing the Canadian review? Lots of government officials.

“Public Safety Canada, the Communications Security Establishment, the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Global Affairs Canada, and Innovation, Science, and Economic Development are working together on this important issue. This review also includes the careful consideration of our allies’ advice,” John Power, Champagne’s spokesperson, told The Logic by email.

What form is that review taking? Harder to say. James Cudmore, a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, said it’s being conducted under the Crown prerogative—the general executive authority the cabinet and ministers hold. It “does not require a separate legislative foundation and is undertaken as part of the core work of the government,” he said.

So unlike many other ways the government exercises power, the 5G review has no legislated terms or timelines.

When the federal government assesses the potential environmental effects of, say, a mine or a port or a dam, there’s a clear process laid out in law, with regular public notices about the reviews that are underway. If you want to start a new television or radio station, there’s a process for that. If the government wants to charge someone with a crime, there’s definitely a process for that.

There’s also a process for national-security reviews of foreign investments in Canada. The Investment Canada Act gives the federal government a lot of power to simply reject an attempt by a foreign company to buy all or part of a Canadian business, or launch a subsidiary in Canada.

Like other types of review, the Investment Canada Act spells out timelines, so would-be investors aren’t stuck in limbo for years. When the federal government reviewed (and eventually approved) the purchase of Alberta’s Nexen oil company by a Chinese state-owned oil company in 2012, there were announcements, deadlines and extensions, all out in public. 

The only even semi-official notice of the 5G review is on the website of the Communications Security Establishment, the national cryptologic and cybersecurity agency that answers to the Minister of Defence. One of its units, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, is engaged in the review.

“A government review is underway,” the page says. “Over the coming years, 5G mobile technology will be introduced that has the potential to improve Canadians’ lives through enhanced, real-time connectivity. As the government anticipates the implementation of 5G infrastructure in Canada, the Cyber Centre’s expertise and experience will be important in assessing cyber threats and risks, as well as providing advice and guidance about possible mitigations.”

The website says it was last updated in 2018.

It also talks about the centre’s ongoing examinations of 3G, LTE and 4G systems and the equipment that supports them. Huawei is very used to that, said Alykhan Velshi, Huawei Canada’s vice-president of corporate affairs (and a former senior staffer in the Prime Minister’s Office under Stephen Harper).

“We’ve been selling 4G and LTE network equipment in Canada for a decade,” Velshi said. That gear, which is embedded in both Bell’s and Telus’s older systems, has been part of CSE’s examinations, he said. “There are regular touch points—weekly, if not more.”

Rogers and Telus did not respond to inquiries from The Logic about these reviews, the 5G review, and what impact a Huawei ban could have. A Bell spokesperson did not respond to  questions about the pre-5G processes, but said banning Huawei from 5G networks would have no effect on the company’s 5G plans.

On the 5G review, Velshi said, “Our engagement with the government has been limited.”

Huawei is “aware of the government’s comments in the media” and is keen to see the completion of a thorough review, Velshi said, but has no insight into whether that work is close to being done.

The 5G review wasn’t even formally announced. Ralph Goodale, who was then the minister of public safety, revealed after a cabinet meeting one day in September 2018 that the government was examining the “issue of security in relation to supply chains right across the government.”

Canada’s arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou that December touched off a diplomatic donnybrook that perhaps understandably delayed matters, but in May 2019, Goodale said the government would make a decision on 5G networks before the election due that fall. In July, he said no, in fact it wouldn’t, because Canada wanted more information from the United States.

Goodale lost his seat in that election. His successor as public safety minister, Bill Blair, was briefed on the review with materials (partly made public through routine government practice) that told Blair his department was coordinating it.

The Conservatives recently called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to join the Five Eyes allies and “stand up for Canadian interests at home and abroad, ban Huawei from Canada’s 5G infrastructure, and tell Canadians what date they will be making this decision.”

Tory innovation critic Ed Fast didn’t respond to questions from The Logic about how the Liberal government should effect a ban. The other Five Eyes countries have used an assortment of legal tools:

• In Britain, it’s taken a bill that gave the government power over the composition of telecom networks—a law that needed nearly a year to make it through Parliament.
• The U.S. did it by presidential order under Donald Trump, who invoked a national state of emergency to give himself the necessary authority.
• In Australia, the government used regulatory powers ordinarily applied to telecom companies themselves, prohibiting them from using equipment from suppliers that might be under the sway of foreign governments.
• In New Zealand, the equivalent of Canada’s Communications Security Establishment has regulatory powers over telecom security and used them to turn down a telecom company’s application to use equipment furnished by a provider the authorities didn’t name. But the telco, Spark, said it was Huawei.

Canada’s method, implicitly threatening a ban on Huawei gear without actually banning it, has been nearly as effective: As years have passed, Bell, Rogers and Telus have all announced they’re using gear from Huawei rivals Ericsson or Nokia for their 5G networks. But the Canadian review is still going on.

If Huawei, or any other provider, is found to be a security threat, what tools can the Canadian government use to keep its equipment out of 5G networks?

“As the review has not yet been completed, it would be premature to discuss hypothetical future steps,” Power said.