Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 3103
View Sven Spengemann Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being with us.
Mr. Fadden, it's particularly good to have you here. In terms of your former role as national security adviser, I think you have a unique perspective on how this connects to the Department of National Defence and questions of national defence. I want to start by asking you about that.
Where are the intersections, the grey zones, between what we look at as Public Safety questions and National Defence questions? These two committees have their own mandates. In that way, we're stovepiped, and perhaps there should be a joint study between the two of them.
Can you make some general comments on how much of the national defence component plays a role in good cybersecurity and how much lies on the public safety side?
Richard Fadden
View Richard Fadden Profile
Richard Fadden
2019-04-10 15:53
Well, I tend to agree with you that drawing distinctions in this area is a little bit artificial and that one of the things that should be avoided to the extent possible is the development of these silos. We have quite enough of them as we are, and we don't need any more.
I think National Defence's main contribution is through the Communications Security Establishment and, insofar as the private sector is concerned, the Centre for Cyber Security. They tend to operate quite co-operatively with other parts of the national security environment in Canada. I would argue, in part on the basis of what I knew when I was working, but in part because I now operate a little bit in the private sector, that they certainly were a welcome development, but they have not solved all the problems of cyber-attacks here or anywhere else.
I think one of the big problems they have, and this is a Defence issue, in the sense that the defence minister is responsible, is that we talk about these things, but we talk about them less and share far less with the private sector than a variety of other countries do. I don't blame any particular government or any particular official. There's something in the Canadian DNA in that we think that national security should be dealt with and not talked about, but I would argue that in many cases we're far better off if we talk about them a little bit, without going into operational detail. It raises awareness. It allows both government and corporations to talk and to share more information than is otherwise the request, but I think the main contributor is CSE.
View Glen Motz Profile
CPC (AB)
Can you explain the difference, if there is any, between cybersecurity in the defence sector and cybersecurity in the IT sector? Is there even a difference?
Steve Drennan
View Steve Drennan Profile
Steve Drennan
2019-04-10 17:01
I can think of a few key differences. One of them is that it's like a dam bursting. In cybersecurity in Defence, they are just waiting to move from what's called “defence” to “active defence” to “cyber-offence” as the legislation gets moved forward, because it's a critical enabler. Cyber is now seen as a whole new area; just like having naval or air force, cyber is its own theatre of combat. It's pretty critical that we move that legislation forward so that National Defence can do more on the cyber landscape. As they deploy troops and as they're in theatres of operation, they can now win and lose battles based on cyber. That's one difference. They're held back a little bit. They also have a whole bunch of classified networks and other elements that all have to be brought forward. That has to do with funding and large changes that are being looked at right now.
In the private sector, there aren't as many rules. We talked about cyber-threat intelligence earlier. You will see the large vendors being able to gather that data across the world from the nodes they have in different countries, because it's less restrictive on how they operate. That's actually very positive, because then they're able to share that data with government and industry.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much.
It came up during the opening remarks, but I just wonder if you could elaborate on the significance of an increasing potential NATO involvement in the Arctic. I'm trying to remember who brought it up. We talked about that question a little bit from the China side. Could you explain how other players may see an increased involvement of NATO in the Arctic?
Stephanie Pezard
View Stephanie Pezard Profile
Stephanie Pezard
2018-11-26 16:33
An increased involvement of NATO has been happening, but at a very slow pace. There is a keen understanding from NATO members that it's not an area of the utmost importance for NATO. It is becoming increasingly important as NATO members realize that they may have lost the type of cold weather war-fighting knowledge that they had during the Cold War. They have turned to more expeditionary style of war-fighting and there are simply some capabilities that need to be rebuilt—sort of how Russia is rebuilding, frankly. For that specific reason, Norway has always pushed for stronger involvement of NATO, but other members have not seen it as urgent, simply because the threat has not been as close.
I would say that this closer involvement of NATO in the Arctic is not necessarily about the Arctic per se. It is very much focused on the North Atlantic. In a way, the Arctic is seen as a conduit to the North Atlantic.
There is also worry of keeping a good balance between deterrence and the risk of...not provoking Russia but creating a sense of threat in Russia. Since two-thirds of its strategic deterrent is in the Kola Peninsula, they are very keen on protecting the industry infrastructure they have around the northern sea route. They are very sensitive about the Arctic. It's an area of extreme importance to them. NATO needs to show its presence and its ability to come to Norway's rescue, as a member, if needed, without creating a false sense of alarm or any sense of alarm on the part of Russia. That's a tight balance.
Abbie Tingstad
View Abbie Tingstad Profile
Abbie Tingstad
2018-11-26 16:35
It would also be important for NATO, in terms of crafting the message, signalling how the presence is distributed and how it's being used.
Thank you.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
What should Canada be asking of NATO? How should Canada be helping to try to guide NATO to do that in the right way? What position can we adopt to help our NATO allies make sure we have the capabilities we need in the area, if it comes to that, without provoking Russia in the Arctic while we develop or rebuild those capabilities?
Stephanie Pezard
View Stephanie Pezard Profile
Stephanie Pezard
2018-11-26 16:36
That's not a question that we've addressed directly in our research. It's an ongoing dialogue between Canada and its NATO allies, frankly.
The current state of an increased pace of exercises, especially cold weather exercises, deployments—again through exercises in Europe and the Arctic—seem to be something that has been satisfactory so far.
Are there additional needs or requests to Canada? I could not discuss that. That would come from NATO members.
Ilkka Kanerva
View Ilkka Kanerva Profile
Ilkka Kanerva
2018-11-26 17:05
Just to add a few words to my what my colleagues have said, it's good to remember that we have three fundamental elements in our politics today that concern our military capabilities.
The first is absolutely huge investments. We are just now going through this period. Throughout our history, Finland has never made these kinds of huge investments, especially for the navy, and for fighters as well. It's around 10 billion euros. At the same time, we are making remarkable investments in our ground troops. It means that Finland will reach the level of 2% of GDP. You know what that means for us. These are huge investments.
Second, Finland is increasing very rapidly our international military networks, mainly with Sweden and Norway, as well as under NORDEFCO. The second element in this sector is that Finland's bilateral relations with the U.S. have been increasing also very rapidly, and on a tripartite level, there's co-operation with Finland, Sweden and the U.S. at the same time.
We are also co-operating with the U.K., within the framework of JEF activities, especially given the Brexit situation. Then there's Germany, as well, and also France, with the idea of intervention troops being suggested by President Macron. We also have a lot of bilateral relationships with different European countries, especially around the Baltic Sea area.
The third basic element of the investments and international co-operation is, of course, our legislation reforms. We realized after 2014 that it is necessary to do these kinds of reforms, and it has made a huge difference in our military capacity in terms of our readiness to react to threats to Finland in various ways.
These three elements mean that we are also paying a lot of attention to these activities, and what is interesting is that in our case, almost all the political parties are on board, so our national consensus is very strong concerning our foreign security and military defence activities.
Thank you.
View Raj Saini Profile
Lib. (ON)
Good afternoon, and a very warm welcome to all of you.
I wanted to pick up on this point, because it is a hot topic and I think it's very important. I want you to give me an understanding of the region, especially with what has transpired over the last two days in terms of the Kerch Strait, the Azov sea and Ukraine.
I have observed over the last few years that there have been many more military exercises than in the past. The Russians have done a huge military exercise with operation ZAPAD in 2017. The Swedes did Exercise Aurora in 2017. You have indicated that you would like to do your own military exercise in conjunction with NATO, probably by 2020.
Given the Russian influence that's there, especially in Belarus and in the Kaliningrad oblast, the imposition of missiles there, what is the feeling in the Nordic countries in terms of their own security?
Pertti Salolainen
View Pertti Salolainen Profile
Pertti Salolainen
2018-11-26 17:10
I think it's important that we also do exercises. We are having a lot of exercises with NATO troops. I can tell you that the number of exercises where we are participating—mainly NATO, Nordic and the Baltic Sea area exercises—is about 40 per year, if not more. It's more than some NATO countries have.
That shows that we are very active. We are willing in terms of preparedness to give and receive military help. This is the legislation that we changed just some time ago—that we must be ready to receive and give assistance. This is a fundamental change in the thinking.
I would also like to add that we are also fully following to the letter the sanctions of the west towards Russia. This is also a very important aspect that is not generally that well known.
View Raj Saini Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have one final question. I want to ask a pragmatic question, in a way.
In 2017 you celebrated your 100th anniversary of independence. You've had this amazing ability, over the course of 100 years, to maintain your strength and also your neutrality. Another time we can get into how you were able to do that, but seeing what recently happened in Ukraine, looking at the Russian militarization or the Russian advancement of its interests in the former republics, looking at its control of the Baltic Sea, especially with Kaliningrad right there, philosophically....
I know that in 1995 Finland tilted toward the west by joining the EU, but you have not fully joined NATO. The last country to join NATO was Montenegro. Outside of that, going forward for the next 100 years, when you see the geopolitical landscape changing in such a dramatic manner, do you think Finland is thinking differently, in terms of the next 100 years, on whether it should either join NATO as a full partner or maintain its element of neutrality, as it is now? And is that the right course of action for your country?
Pertti Salolainen
View Pertti Salolainen Profile
Pertti Salolainen
2018-11-26 17:17
One point is this: We are not alone in this position. You know that Sweden is also in the same situation as we are. We think there is a kind of balance there now. If Sweden or Finland joined alone, that would break the balance there, the very delicate balance. We have many times thought that if we one day joined NATO, we would do it together with the Swedes—if that day came. It's not there yet.
I would like to tell you that this is not a big issue at the moment. We are not debating this issue every day. One could say that we are now as close to NATO as you can be without being a member.
Simon Elo
View Simon Elo Profile
Simon Elo
2018-11-26 17:18
If I may, Chair, it's important to note that Finland is not neutral. We are members of the European Union. We are in an enhanced partnership with NATO. Russia doesn't see us as neutral. They certainly see us as part of the west. Of course, the difference with some other countries is the membership in NATO. We are not full members, as you said, so article 5 doesn't apply to us.
I also want to add that after 2014, the perception changed a bit. People feel that being a member of the EU is even more important than it used to be. When we joined in 1995, as you mentioned, security was a big reason why we joined. Now it's even more important. If you think about Ukraine, it's a neighbouring country to Russia, without EU or NATO membership. We don't necessarily ever want to be like Ukraine. It's a neighbouring country to Russia and it's not a member of the EU or NATO. Finns know pretty well what our geopolitical standpoint is right now.
Results: 1 - 15 of 3103 | Page: 1 of 207

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data