![hikvision-larger2]()
Canada has ordered Hikvision Canada to cease all operations in the country and close its Canadian business.
Canada’s Industry Minister Mélanie Joly ordered the closure following a government review that determined Hikvision Canada’s continued operations in the country would be “injurious” to its national security.
Hikvision is a Chinese biometric surveillance technology group that has seen increased scrutiny. In the U.S. that country’s
Department of Defense put Hikvision on its list of Chinese military companies, along with other Chinese companies with business in facial recognition and biometrics.
Hikvision has faced
calls for a ban in the UK as well, even as the company’s security cameras are
widely used in Scotland’s public CCTV networks and other facilities run by local governments and businesses.
In Canada a “multi-step review” assessed evidence provided by Canada’s security and intelligence community, according to a
statement by Joly, after which the government decided to order Hikvision Canada to stop all operations.
The National Security Review noted that its scope did not extend to Hikvision’s affiliate operations outside of Canada, and it does not affect its parent company Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co. Ltd.
“However,” Joly said, “I strongly encourage all Canadians to take note of this decision and make their own decisions accordingly.”
As a result of the decision, federal departments, agencies and crown corporations will be barred from purchasing or using any Hikvision products. In addition, the government of Canada is conducting a review to ensure that legacy Hikvision products are not used going forward.
On Saturday, a spokesperson for China’s embassy to Canada condemned the decision, accusing Canada of politicizing trade and urging it to stop the “unreasonable suppression” of Chinese business and infringing on Chinese companies’ legitimate rights.
Hikvision itself also voiced its opposition: “We strongly disagree with this decision and view it with deep concern, as we believe it lacks a factual basis, procedural fairness, and transparency,” the company said in a
statement on Saturday.
“Instead of evaluating our technology on its cybersecurity merits, the decision appears to be driven by the parent company’s country of origin, reflecting broader geopolitical tensions and an unjustified bias against Chinese companies,” it continued.