National Defence Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have four minutes, Ms. Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you both for being here.

Dr. Lagassé, one of the things we haven't talked about yet today is cyber-threat security. We've had other witnesses before this committee talking about how this is a growing threat.

Can you tell us how governments can collaborate to develop stronger cybersecurity measures for countries?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

I think the first thing Canada needs to realize is that this is not something that will be solved within government. It has to be a partnership with the private sector. I can't emphasize this enough. If we rely on government procedures and IT policies to ensure cybersecurity in this country, we will fall short.

If you look at our largest allies, they rely on and are working closely with all the big IT firms. In the United States, it's Google, Microsoft, AWS and Oracle. In the United Kingdom and Australia, it's AWS. That's simply because of the level of expertise and know-how. Keeping pace with that threat is not something the public sector can do adequately, given the systems we have.

In a Canadian context, this extends beyond simply working with these large firms in the national security community. It also means working with the banking sector and other vulnerable sectors, because it isn't so much an attack on national defence and the national security community that will make us vulnerable; it is an attack on the civilian, private sector banking sector that will leave us hobbled. That level of co-operation is not adequate yet.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Lieutenant-General Leslie, would you like to add to that?

[Andrew Leslie]

I'm going to defer to the professor, mainly because it's not my area of expertise.

Thank you.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

We're certainly seeing times of uncertainty at home and abroad.

Dr. Lagassé, how does Canada best position itself as a strong country, partner and ally, and what investments do you think we need to make?

[Dr. Philippe Lagassé]

I suggest that one of the chief problems we have is trying to be all things to all people—and we try to do that on a very small budget.

As I've said in many other fora, we like to think of ourselves as the Australia of North America, when in reality we are the New Zealand of North America. That's simply to say that it's better to recognize that if we are only willing to spend 1.5% of GDP on defence—which has historically been the case—perhaps we should focus on specific areas and contributions we can make and do them the best we can. It may be the Arctic, which the United States has increasingly been asking us to do. It may be other specific types of roles. I simply don't know how we can keep going, spending less than what we say we're going to spend and trying to have a 2.5% of GDP defence policy on a 1.5% of GDP spend.

I would argue that we need to pick specific roles and contributions and do them the best we can, as opposed to trying to do all things.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Lieutenant-General, go ahead.

[Andrew Leslie]

I understand where the professor is coming from, and it's very logical. Having said that, it's really tough to predict what the future might bring, so you have to have a certain amount of flexibility in the suite of cards that you can play.

Of course, let's not forget the value of diplomacy, a comprehensively staffed and engaged diplomatic corps, and international assistance. That other leg of the stool, if you will, is the defence or deterrence capability. There may come a time, five or 10 years from now, when you want to focus on the UN, which means, more often than not, land-centric. Maybe you want to contribute to a force in NATO, which is usually land-centric, with some air and some sea.

Sovereignty demands a much greater focus on surveillance, which is satellites—which is air force—and then, of course, things that are on the surface of the water and underneath, which is essentially navy. You still have to have soldiers there, but in vastly smaller numbers than you might need for other operations.

You have to have flexibility when you build your force to cater to differing missions. It's a balance that you strike. Right now, I would submit, like the professor said, we're not doing anything terribly well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's a terrible note to end a committee on: We're not doing anything very well. It sounds like Mrs. Gallant will jump on that as a title for our study.

I want to thank both of you on behalf of the committee for joining the issue. This is a real live issue.

I think it was Ms. Lapointe or Ms. Lambropoulos who said that, to everyone's great surprise here, not everybody in Canada follows the proceedings of this committee. I know they should, and it's shocking that they don't. Getting the message out there is the issue. I particularly appreciate Professor Lagassé's sobering reminder that there have been a number of things that we got out the door.

It reminds me of an experience I had in the United States. I was leading a delegation of parliamentarians there. My co-chair was before the foreign affairs committee and said, “Those darn Canadians, they're falling short of their 2%. I'm going to see them this afternoon and I'm going to tell them so.” That afternoon, we all troop into his office and, sure enough, Bill says, “I guess you're here because of what I said.” Well, it was for other reasons as well, but after he beat us up, I used Professor Lagassé's shopping list of things that we've actually done. I made the point that we had bought almost all that stuff from him.

I don't think it's entirely a dismal failure, but both of you have joined the issue brilliantly and I think it's a real contribution to our study.

With that, we're adjourned.