Evidence of meeting #40 for Canada-China Relations in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was csis.
A video is available from Parliament.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you very much.
We didn't touch too much on it, so I would like to hear a little about how the government can protect Canada's research institutions from threats, through AI and cyber-attacks, by foreign hostile actors. I would like to hear more about even a recommendation that could contain some of your thoughts on that.
2:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I'll go back a bit to what I said earlier. If you're going to deal with private sector research and development areas, passing legislation or regulations is not going to make a huge difference. You have to convince these people there's a real risk.
The only way we're going to do that is if we share information with them and we bring them, to some degree, within the tent.
I know CSE makes a significant effort to try to explain to corporations and whatnot the dangers of cyber, but when we compare what we do to the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, we're still very reticent about what we share with the private sector.
Sure, change the rules if you have to—require reporting on cyber-attacks; require basic measures to be taken—but no large corporation is going to significantly shift its investment pattern, for example, if it's not convinced itself that there's a real risk that its R and D or its IP will be stolen.
We have to find a way of bringing them along more than we have now.
I'm repeating myself, and I apologize, but we as a country simply don't share enough information with the private sector.
One of my political masters once told me, when we were talking about sharing information, that national security is to be dealt with, not talked about.
2:05 p.m.
An hon. member
I'm just in my room. We just have about—
2:05 p.m.
As an Individual
That view still permeates chunks of the community.
I'm not sure what that was. Was that a cyber-attack?
2:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
May 3rd, 2024 / 2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I think it's an unmuted member of Parliament. That happens sometimes, and I apologize for that.
I'm the parliamentary secretary for National Defence. As you know, everything is classified and needs a high level of security, particularly when you talk about industry. One person was just reflecting on the fact that, here in Canada, in a lot of our industry, maybe on the defence side but also more broadly, from what I understand from you, they don't have that clearance. We have restricted ourselves from talking to these individuals to find a solution.
Would you recommend that possibly some of the industries should elevate their status to enhanced security clearance, or is it the opposite? Should we change a bit of our system to accommodate that sharing of information?
2:05 p.m.
As an Individual
In the final analysis, Mr. Chair, the government would have to change its rules in order to permit members of the private sector to be security cleared and then impose some conditions on those who receive specialized clearances.
I want to stress, from my perspective at any rate, that this doesn't mean that every manager in every defence industry gets a security clearance. It means that even key personnel who are involved in immediate issues with the defence department would probably not have top secret clearance. You do a heck of a lot with a secret clearance. We would have to change our rules to make it possible for them to receive the clearance and then impose conditions on how they deal with that information once they've been security cleared.
2:05 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Mr. Fadden, you also told us this in 2021:
… the Chinese authorities are absolutely determined to achieve their goals, no matter what people think. I'm particularly concerned about their willingness to use almost any method to succeed. We can't do that here in Canada, or in the west in general.
Then you added:… one of the challenges I think we face in Canada is to develop an understanding of what we are going to do if we accept the view that countries like China present a risk.
Do you get the feeling, three years later, that we have understood that countries like China present a risk? If so, do you think we have started to adopt the tools that will enable us to protect ourselves against this risk?
2:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I think progress has been made and that is in part because of the problems Canada had with China over the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. Surveys covering the period following the two Michaels period indicate that Canadians' attitude toward China is much more negative than it was. We started no longer seeing it as a country that was not in any way an adversary, and that is progress. However, have we reached the point when a majority of Canadians accept the fact that China really is an adversary?
China is not an enemy, but the United States, the United Kingdom and France, who are our close allies, consider it to be a strategic adversary, on the same basis as Russia. There has been some improvement, but the fact remains that we are probably the only western country that does not have a foreign policy framework. That kind of framework would allow us to say clearly that the Government of Canada regards China as a risk.
Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy does include a few paragraphs that indicate a change of attitude toward China on our government's part, but Canada has not clearly stated that it considered China to be a serious adversary, as its close allies have done. At the risk of repeating myself, I will say that we have made some progress, but it is not enough.
2:10 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
It really is unfortunate that time is up.
Thank you very much, Mr. Fadden.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Unfortunately, your time has expired.
Ms. Blaney, you have two and a half minutes.
2:10 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, Mr. Fadden, this was a very helpful session, and I appreciate your time.
One thing that concerns me is that Canadians are starting to question a lot of our processes. We know that when mistrust grows, it can be very detrimental to our communities and to our nation. We know that in this context, it took years to resolve the issue. In my opinion, that's not the best time frame.
You spoke earlier about working with provinces, territories, and academic and private institutions in terms of giving more information.
What mechanisms do we need, and how can we take those mechanisms, do the work, but also have a way of sharing it with Canadians to build that sense of faith and trust?
2:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Going back to my point that doing this doesn't mean giving everybody in the country security clearance, I would go about it using a sectoral approach. For example, the banking industry and the financial industry have associations. You develop a memorandum of understanding with them that certain of their members are given security clearances, and they find a way of distributing this information in a non-classified way with their membership.
I'll use another medical analogy: Fighting against cancer is not helpful; you have to fight the specific kind of cancer. Therefore, just saying that we're going to clear all Canadians is not helpful. We have to find a way of narrowing the number of people and the number of institutions that we're talking about. I may be wrong, but I think the Government of Canada has 13 critical infrastructure industries. Pick three or four of those, like nuclear, financial, oil and gas—I have forgotten what they are—and develop an understanding with them that we're going to be a bit more open than we are now. Then see where we can go from there. Then, start spreading that out beyond the private sector with maybe the Canadian association of universities.
However, I'm not sure that going to a particular university and to a particular collection of professors and giving them security clearances alone would work in the short term. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think there's a silver bullet.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Thank you. That brings us to the end of our time.
We appreciate the extra time you spent with us, Mr. Fadden. I think that there's at least one other committee, maybe more, that owes us lunch for the work that you have done here, because you've really covered some very good ground.
I want to remind our substitutes that we will be looking at drafting instructions for this study on Monday. You may wish to switch out, at least for that portion of the meeting, so that you can provide your input to the analysts.
With that, I want to thank everybody for their time today. There were excellent questions, and there was excellent testimony.
Thank you to the staff, the clerks, our analysts and everybody.
The meeting is adjourned.