Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

The Oscars were already given out this year.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You said you were going to deal with the subject matter at hand. I'm going to ask, in the two minutes and 10 seconds you have left, that you go in that direction.

Thank you.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Deputy Commissioner Larkin, what we were getting at before I was interrupted, now a third time, is this whole concept about a legal threshold. Notwithstanding that no prime minister has ever been charged criminally, but in relation to the RCMP investigation, which is no secret to the Liberal bench—

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I have a point of order again, Mr. Chair, on relevance.

You were pretty clear that we were going to be talking about the current study. I haven't really heard, in the introduction, that we are going there. Before our guests have to answer questions, it would be great to have the relevance of this study again.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that, Madame Fortier. As I said at the onset, I generally give a lot of latitude in terms of lines of questioning, hoping that we end up at a point where we're dealing with the study. I expect that's where Mr. Brock is going.

I have Mr. Barrett on that point of order.

He's followed by you, Mr. Green.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett, on the point of order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would expect that had we not had four interruptions in less than four minutes for Mr. Brock, or four minutes of running time—his clock had to be stopped several times—we would have the opportunity to get to where he wants to go, but he's at a disadvantage when each time the clock is stopped he restates the same question.

If he's just given the opportunity to ask his question without having to repeat it, then perhaps the fullness of what he's looking to get to would be heard by the committee, but he's not being given that opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Green, go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, you know that I have a lot of respect for you. I think you're doing a good job in the seat there. I'm going to share with you what my concern is with what's happening right now.

My concern is that as somebody who will often use procedure.... I know that my good friend Mr. Brock will have an appreciation of this, as we spent a lot of time together on DEDC. My concern is that when filibusters arise—and they do—you will know that I often will reflect on the ruling of relevance. If what we're doing now is setting a precedent that allows for any and all topics to be debated at any and all times, that's going to affect my future interventions on relevance when it comes to filibusters.

I know that Mr. Brock has a deep respect and consideration for procedural rules, and I would ask that we get back to the study at hand, so that in future debates when I call a point of relevance you won't reflect back on today and say that anything and everything is fair game.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes. I have generally tried to give a lot of latitude, as you know, Mr. Green, in lines of questioning, regardless of the subject matter. I happen to fundamentally believe that a member's six minutes is their six minutes. If they want to talk about rainbows and unicorns, they can do that.

Mr. Brock, I'm asking you to come back to the subject matter at hand, if you can, sir.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I intend to. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have the floor for one minute and 40 seconds. Go ahead.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Again, Deputy Commissioner Larkin, hopefully, I can get this question out.

My social media is absolutely abuzz with concerns in regard to this particular area.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I can mention social media a thousand times to satisfy my Liberal colleagues, but social media is such that Canadians want to know: Is the RCMP impervious to the thought that the Prime Minister is incapable of being charged with a criminal offence?

I know this is a sensitive matter, but I asked you for a pointed response, and I'm not getting a pointed response.

If the RCMP had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, had been involved in a criminal offence, which is your legal threshold—reasonable and probable grounds—and you consulted with the appropriate legal authorities—you consulted with the Department of Justice; you consulted with provincial and territorial Crown attorneys—if they gave you the green light that the facts and the evidence were there and that your legal threshold was met, can you advise Canadians that in that hypothetical you could charge Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with a criminal offence? Yes or no, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

In 20 seconds, Deputy Commissioner....

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I have a point of order on relevance again, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that. As I said, relevance is subjective.

Mr. Larkin, you have 20 seconds to answer that question if you want to.

[D/Commr Bryan Larkin]

Again, it's a hypothetical scenario, but regardless of who the suspect is, we follow the legal threshold. We're true to our oath, and we would follow the evidence of any criminal investigation. That's our mandate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Deputy Commissioner.

Mr. Bains, go ahead for six minutes.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think now you know why it's very important to do a study on misinformation and disinformation, both domestic and foreign.

A big worry for me.... I'm a father of a 15-year-old and a 12-year-old, so this is a generational risk where we're trying to find out how we can alleviate some of the concerns we all have.

My question is for the Deputy Commissioner.

I will go to you first, please. With the abundance of information that people are receiving, what are common challenges faced by law enforcement in dealing with cybercrime on social media platforms?

[D/Commr Bryan Larkin]

I think one of the challenges that we're seeing is the amplification of social media around involvement in criminal investigations. Generally speaking, in the majority of investigations that we now touch, whether it be a low-threshold crime, a property crime, a violent crime or exploitation, there is some form of digital entity tied to it.

The capacity for us as a national police service, the capacity for our partners and our police of jurisdiction, is that it has changed from what used to be the fundamental investigation, which was in a neighbourhood or was in a schoolyard, etc.

What we're seeing, particularly in this instance, are foreign actors who are using and amplifying social media to target Canadian citizens and/or citizens who are living from abroad in our country. That presents a significant challenge. We don't monitor social media. We obviously use it as an investigative tool or capacity, but when you look at all the various social media platforms, the reality is that the amplification of social media in criminal investigations is impacting everything we do, every single day.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

You don't monitor social media, but you look at it if there are complaints. Are there established protocols for information sharing between RCMP and social media companies?

I want to use an example. On X, a major in the Indian army tweeted, “It's been long time since”—he referenced a murder victim here in Canada—“was 'condemned to hell'. Time has come to eliminate a few more....” That's a major in the Indian army making that statement on Twitter, which is now known as X.

What have you established with social media companies' allowing that kind of threat?

[D/Commr Bryan Larkin]

To clarify, we don't actively monitor social media; however, we do use it as part of our investigations through open-source information. We use software that refines our searches as a part of our criminal investigations or the work we do.

Through our national cybercrime coordination centre, we have ongoing relationships with all social media platforms. We have protocols in place, particularly around child exploitation and harm to young people. Those are all things that we do.

Obviously, we are working internally with the Government of Canada on online safety and future legislation, etc. However, again, the sheer nature of this is that we work with other police jurisdictions. Information is shared with us. We obviously use that to advance investigations. We follow lawful access, production orders and/or search warrants to obtain further information from social media platforms. We have ongoing protocols with their security departments to receive and retrieve that information.

When you look at every piece of social media that we identify and track and/or use as part of our investigations, it is evidence. It has also increased the demand within our organization. The demand on policing is fairly significant.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

We've learned from other witnesses. We've heard about Telegram's being associated with the Kremlin and how Russia, for generations, would target a generation of people and slowly try to influence and brainwash.

Can you list any evidence of this happening with nations other than Russia trying to influence future generations of Canadians, based on some of the information you already provided in your preamble or earlier statements?

[Brigitte Gauvin, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing, National Security, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I'll take that question, Mr. Chair.

What the national security program does is investigate criminal activities. We don't investigate social media, and we don't investigate if there's misinformation, disinformation or influence. If the criminal activities pertain to foreign interference, we absolutely will investigate that under our mandate.

As part of our investigations, we can obtain information through social media subscriber information and other information we can obtain, either through open source or via judicial authorizations. For the national security program, the criminal activity has to pertain to foreign actor interference, for example.