Information & Ethics Committee on May 28th, 2019

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

My watch says it's four minutes and 53 seconds.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

We'll have some more time around the hop, so I'd better get going here.

We'll go next to Singapore for five minutes.

Mr. Tong.

[Edwin Tong, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Law and Ministry of Health, Parliament of Singapore]

Thank you.

Ms. Weintraub, thank you very much for being here. In September 2017 you wrote a letter to the then chairman of the FEC. I'll just quote one paragraph from it and ask you some questions. You said, “It is imperative that we update the Federal Election Commission's regulations to ensure that the American people know who is paying for the Internet political communications they see.”

Am I right to assume that your concerns arise from the fact that foreign activity influences, interferes with, and even corrupts political communication, not just in an election but in the everyday life of people in a democratic society, and that if left unchecked over time such activity would seek to undermine institutions and the government, subvert elections and ultimately destroy democracy?

Would I be right to say that?

[Ellen Weintraub]

I share many of those concerns and I worry deeply that what is going on is not just election-oriented but is an attempt to sow discord, to sow chaos and to undermine democracy in many countries.

[Edwin Tong]

In fact, would you agree that the typical modus operandi of such bad actors would be precisely to sow discord on socially decisive issues; to take up issues that split open fault lines in society so that institutions and ultimately governments are undermined?

[Ellen Weintraub]

I believe that is so.

[Edwin Tong]

You mentioned earlier the tech companies. I think you said that their answer to you was, “We've got this.” Obviously, that's far from the case. You also said it's obvious that they were not verifying the persons behind the advertisements and the donations.

Are you aware of the Campaign for Accountability, the CFA?

[Ellen Weintraub]

I can't say that I am; I'm sorry.

[Edwin Tong]

Sometime, I think, after you released Robert Mueller's findings, a non-profit organization called Campaign for Accountability posed as IRA operators, bought political ads and did so very easily. They were able to effectively get Google to run a whole series of advertisements and campaigns for a little less than $100 U.S. and they managed to get something like 20,000 views and more than 200 clicks with that kind of spending.

Is that something that would concern you, and should regulations deal with that kind of obvious foreign activity that also shows that media platforms cannot be trusted to police?

[Ellen Weintraub]

I absolutely think there is a need for greater regulation to ensure that when people see things on social media, they can trust where it's coming from.

[Edwin Tong]

Yes.

On the regulations that you spoke of, from the quote that I read to you, could you maybe, in 30 seconds, tell us what you think should be the core principles behind such regulations to stop the influence and corruption of foreign interference in democratic processes?

[Ellen Weintraub]

Well, as I said, I think what we need is greater transparency. When people are reading something online, they need to be able to know where it's coming from.

We had this example of ads and information being placed, propaganda, coming from the Internet Research Agency in Russia. I don't know anybody who wants to get their news from a Russian troll farm. I think if they knew that was where it was coming from, that would tell them something about how much to believe it.

[Edwin Tong]

Yes, because ultimately, false information is not free speech, is it?

[Ellen Weintraub]

People need to know where the information is coming from, and then they can draw better conclusions.

[Edwin Tong]

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you.

We'll go next to Ms. Naughton from Ireland.

[Hildegarde Naughton, Chair, Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Houses of the Oireachtas]

My first question will be for Mr. Cannataci. It's in relation to legislation we're looking at in Ireland, which could ultimately apply at a European level. It's an online digital safety commissioner. One of the key challenges our committee is having in relation to drawing this legislation is the definition about what is harmful communication. I don't know if you could assist us. Is there a best practice or best way of going about that?

We're also legislating ultimately at a European level, and as we know, we need to protect freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Those issues have been raised here. Have you any comments to make in relation to that?

[Prof. Joseph A. Cannataci]

The short answer is, yes, I would be happy to assist you. We are setting up a task force precisely on privacy and children and online harm. It's a very difficult subject, especially because some of the terminology that has been used is not very clear, including the use of words such as “age appropriate”.

For most kids around the world, there's no such thing as one age being associated with a given level of maturity. Kids develop at different ages. The type of harm that they can receive really needs to be better studied. In fact, there are very few studies, unfortunately, on this subject. There are some studies, but not enough.

I would certainly welcome a joint European, Irish, and indeed, international approach on the subject, because this is something that goes across borders, so thank you for that.

[Hildegarde Naughton]

Thank you very much. I think that's a common concern here around the table in relation to that definition.

I might ask the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Therrien, in relation to GDPR, do you have any viewpoints on how that's working?

As you know, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg has called for GDPR to be rolled out on a global level. I'd like your own comments, from your own professional background.

It is quite new. As you know, it has been rolled out at a European level. What are your viewpoints on that, how it's working, and Mr. Zuckerberg's call for that to be rolled out, even on a modified level, from country to country?

[Daniel Therrien]

The GDPR is still relatively new, so in terms of how it is working, I think we'll need to wait a bit longer to see what its impact is in practice. I certainly believe that the principles of the GDPR are good ones; they're good practices. I believe that individual countries obviously should seek to have the most effective privacy and data protection possible and borrow from other jurisdictions rules that have that impact.

In my opening statement, I mentioned interoperability. In addition, it's important that the national laws, although interoperable and borrowing from good principles such as the GDPR, are also aligned and informed by the culture and traditions of each country. There might be differences in certain jurisdictions, say, on the various weight or the relative weight of freedom of expression versus data protection, but GDPR is an excellent starting point.

[Hildegarde Naughton]

Okay, thank you.

I think those are my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

You have one minute.

[Hildegarde Naughton]

Do you want to ask a question?

[James Lawless, Member, Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Houses of the Oireachtas]

Thanks.

Chair, if it's okay, I'll just use the last minute, but I'll come in on the second round again for my five minutes.