Evidence of meeting #50 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was disinformation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We'll have to leave the answer there.
Again, colleagues, we're in the same situation we are every time: We have 20 minutes left and 25 minutes' worth of questions. I'll take a minute off everybody's time, and then we'll start with Ms. Kramp-Neuman.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Kolga, thank you for your interesting and thought-provoking testimony so far.
I'd like to complement what my colleague was suggesting earlier in the conversation you had with regard to our forces being targeted regularly. How can we better train CAF personnel to ensure that they are equipped to handle the challenges of cognitive warfare and cybersecurity?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Thank you. That's a very good question.
I don't think it's just our forces. I think there needs to be broader awareness in general for all Canadians so that they can recognize information operations and defend themselves against them. In the context of our forces, again, I think we need to develop that capability to directly address those sorts of narratives that I mentioned earlier and challenge them and push back on them.
When it comes to a conflict situation, as we've seen in Ukraine, Russia doesn't hesitate. Cognitive warfare is an extremely important tool in their tool kit, and we need to make sure that we have the capabilities to address those threats and to go on the offensive against our adversaries when they engage in that sort of warfare.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
In your comments on February 16, 2022, almost a year ago, you indicated that cyber will be the primary battlefield of the 21st century and that Canada is in need of resources and knowledge to confront those challenges. I think you had a crystal ball.
A year later, has Canada taken this advice and prepared itself to deal with these threats?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I think that Canada had, and all of our allies had, a huge wake-up call on February 24 of last year. I think that most of us, including Canada, rapidly developed our capabilities to try to address this threat. I think now, finally, our government and certainly our forces and those of our allies are taking the Russian threat seriously.
Are we prepared? Are we better prepared now? I would say that we are. Are we completely prepared? Probably not.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Agreed. The state of urgency has definitely been noted, but it's time to continue on the path that we're on.
Furthermore, you've written several times on the significance of the energy industry infrastructure for the war in Russia. You indicated that Canada has fallen victim to Putin's energy blackmail and deception.
How could cyber-attacks in the energy industry play a role in succeeding or failing in this war with Russia? As it stands, how vulnerable is Canada's energy industry to an attack?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
I don't have an assessment of how well defended our energy industry is. I think that each company probably has its own protocols.
I think we would be wise as a nation to try to create some sort of standards for cybersecurity for various different industries and such so that there would be guidelines for those companies, whether it's the oil patch or pipeline companies, so that they have an understanding of the minimums that they need to meet in order to secure themselves. I don't think we're there yet, but it's a policy that we should be looking at.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
As my last question with the time I'm provided, do you think that enough has been done to protect civilian infrastructure from potential outages?
February 14th, 2023 / 5:10 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
We can always do more. The threat is always evolving, and we need to make sure that we're keeping up with it. My understanding is that the capabilities of CSE are growing, but we need to make sure that in those specific organizations that control the various different parts of the infrastructure, the people there are well trained and have an understanding of how to defend against these cyber-attacks. I'm not sure that we're there yet.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Kolga, for being here. I have a few questions.
In terms of plans and capabilities for CAF to defend against disinformation targeting our troops, you said that they don't have them. Is that really a fair assessment, though? Why would we post online, for example, or why would CAF share what our plans are for future attacks and things like that for our adversaries to know?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
I think CAF intelligence command is doing a great job of posting and debunking various different Russian disinformation narratives right now. In terms of public affairs, that capability certainly is there. However, when it comes to our forces tactically, if they were engaged in a conflict, the capability that was being developed up until 2020 is no longer there.
In the CAF right now, I don't know if there is discussion about reconstituting or developing that capability. When our forces are in a conflict right now, when it comes to psychological warfare and information operations, they don't have the capability to defend themselves or go on the offensive against an adversary.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Is that clarification specifically about when they're in conflict?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Okay.
In terms of disinformation or misinformation, you talked about examples related to COVID-19 and the anti-vaccine movements. I think it was in response to a question about parliamentarians being vulnerable, and you gave a good example of someone actually promoting Russian TV. Future information would then be sent to a new group of individuals who probably never would have stumbled upon RT.
I've noticed this too in the U.S. Lots of American comedians are showcasing, in a way that's meant to be satirical, some of these beliefs in fake interviews and by asking questions. I've seen ones in which people think President Trump is still the president, or there are two militaries—one that the president controls and one that he doesn't. It's sad to watch, actually, because these people really believe these things.
Knowing how that disinformation starts and then takes on a life of its own, is this not the point of foreign adversaries? It's not really about vaccines or COVID-19 conspiracies or lockdowns; it's really about building mistrust in government. When I use that comedic example, it's really about saying we no longer trust our leaders. We don't even believe the outcome of elections. It's really about breaking down democratic institutions.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Thank you again for, I think, that question.
The problem comes in when our foreign adversaries take those issues that are polarizing us and weaponize them against us. As Canadians, we have the right to freedom of expression, so if we don't like our government, we're absolutely free to say that we don't like it. If we don't like the vaccine policy and if we don't want to be vaccinated, we're free to make that choice as well.
When a foreign adversary, Russian state media, tells us that the vaccine is going to kill us, they're not free to do that. That costs us money and that could cost us lives, and that's where we need to stand up and push back.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kolga, when my previous time ended, we were talking about quantum computing and you were telling me that we were not prepared. You also talked about deepfakes, and you said that, again, we were not prepared.
I would like to talk to you about the left-of-launch actions. I do not know if you are aware of this rumour. It seems that there would be capabilities to hack the launch of missiles. This has reportedly already been tested.
What should we do to prepare for these threats?
You have an opportunity to make a recommendation to the government so that we are better prepared.
5:15 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
In order to be better prepared, we need to make sure that we have the resources available to train experts in this field—to make sure that programmers are able to identify where these threats are and recognize them when they do target our military systems and our critical infrastructure. That's the only way to defend ourselves against it.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Would it be appropriate to create an all-party committee on misinformation in Canada?
5:20 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Absolutely. I think a committee for cyber-threats and, I would argue, one for disinformation as well should be created. An all-party committee much like the national security and intelligence committee could be created, one that is non-partisan and that can meet on a regular basis with regard to disinformation. Disinformation narratives could be brought to light there and discussed. All parties can either agree or disagree that these are foreign disinformation narratives and let members of their caucus know about them.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kolga, you've made the case that the national cybersecurity establishment should have a strategy for combatting disinformation by foreign actors. Should our security agencies also be equally concerned about dangerous disinformation coming from domestic sources?
5:20 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, As an Individual
Absolutely, and I believe that our intelligence agencies do keep an eye out. Specifically, CSIS does monitor domestic extremism and such, as does the RCMP. That definitely is happening, but I don't think we're doing a very good job or an effective job of monitoring how foreign actors amplify and further intensify the radicalization within some of these organizations, because this is happening. These sorts of narratives are emerging from state platforms and also the constellation of proxies. Russian proxies at least are helping to pour fuel onto this radicalization and extremism that's happening right now.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach. I apologize; my colleagues have been criticizing me for mispronouncing your name for the last two hours.