Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 17th, 2024

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

This kind of behaviour is not unprecedented. We've seen it before. We've seen a lot of distraction, and I think that—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid. You have the floor.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, this is quite uncomfortable for me to make a point when members are clearly talking over me.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I encourage you to make your point. I'm not sure he's talking over you. He was talking to Mr. Caputo.

As I said, there are going to be some side conversations here.

Please go ahead, Ms. Khalid. If it causes problems for me, then it will cause problems for them.

It's not causing a problem for me. I'm listening to what you're saying and I know that the clerk, the analysts and everyone else is.

Go ahead, please.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll just turn to you so that I'm not distracted, if that's okay.

We saw, over the summer, that Pierre Poilievre had to remove an advertisement because it contained stock footage of Russian fighter jets doing a training mission in Canadian skies, Serbian schoolchildren and homes being built in Slovenia.

Pierre claimed not to know anything about the far-right group, Diagolon, when he spent a lot of time snuggling up with it. He was photographed with it and some of its members in the spring, and he previously denounced them for comments made by their founder about his wife a couple of years ago.

Pierre and his Conservative Party have faced criticism this summer for calling the Holiday Inn lavish and swanky, whereas he hosted a fundraiser there at that same location earlier in January.

We've had members of Parliament in that caucus, such as Michelle Ferreri. She had to delete a tweet after claiming that, in Peterborough, the cost of living crisis has driven parents to traffic their own children. Michelle was found to have posted a doctored Global News report that edited out most of the video because it was critical of her.

There was a weird case of online social media bots that were posing as Pierre Poilievre supporters and trying to boost the Conservative Party's messaging about a rally in northern Ontario.

In recent days, reports have come out about a right-wing Indian media personality calling for the Indian government to wage an information campaign in support of Pierre Poilievre. The FBI has seized a Russian-backed fake news site that posted anti-Trudeau and pro-Poilievre content.

I'm listing all of this, Mr. Chair, because this is exactly what this motion is about. It's about a whole bunch of misinformation and disinformation. It's about a whole bunch of nothingness to delay the work that this committee has put in.

Mr. Chair, you know how passionate I've been about the work on our social media study, which got shelved. You know how passionate I've been about the work on the misinformation and disinformation campaigns that our country has been dealing with—with respect to our elections and with respect to foreign interference—that Mr. René Villemure put forward.

I think that we need to be better. I think that we need to move past the politics and move on to what genuinely helps Canadians with respect to the mandate of this committee, and this is not it.

If we're talking about the specifics of the motion, talking about the Liberal Party hiring or bringing somebody on as a volunteer to provide advice on economics, on the economy, somebody who has significant contribution and expertise on the economy, not just here in Canada but also across the G7, what is the Conservative Party trying to achieve here? Are we trying to malign yet another person by dragging them here before this committee? Are we trying to malign...? What is the objective? Are we trying to move our country's economy forward, or are we not?

In the same breath that the Conservatives have taken this motion with, well, what about the flip of that coin? To my understanding, Jenni Byrne is also in exactly the same scenario as Mark Carney by all the wording of this motion. Why is she not part of this motion? She would be unless this motion is presented to be a partisan hack on what we are trying to make sure, as a collective between all parties: that our country is thriving and that our country is progressing.

I'm really wanting to understand what the crux of this motion is about.

Is it to, one by one, malign and shame anyone who has contact with the Liberal Party, regardless of their expertise, their aptitude or their experience and the wealth of knowledge they can bring to make our country better, or is it just Conservative hack politics? I think we can do a bit better than that.

In the interest of being non-partisan and really exploring what this motion is trying to do, I want to bring in the flip side of that coin and say, “Hey, why don't we bring in Jenni Byrne as well?” If you want to bring in Mark Carney, sure, you guys have your day. He knows how to handle himself, I'm sure. I am not speaking for him, and I don't think any of our members on this committee are. He can speak very well for himself, given his track record over his entire career for being the expert he is.

Let's even the score. If somebody is going to be brought in by a political party to give expert advice on an issue, let's talk about Jenni Byrne and her expert advice on grocery prices. Let's talk about why the Conservatives feel it is necessary to talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to grocery prices.

To be fair, I'm happy to support this motion, with an amendment including Jenni Byrne for the same number of hours this motion presents for Mark Carney. I am happy to propose the specific amendment that we can add to this motion.

Again, I would say that Mark Carney has been brought in by the Liberal Party—whether he is paid or not paid is not a question—the same way Jenni Byrne was brought in by a political party. Let's bring them both in and figure out—as I've been saying for many months now, Chair—how we make sure that our rules and regulations ensure there is no conflict of interest, no violation of lobbying and no violation of that public trust that we really should be holding dear to our hearts. How do we ensure that we are talking about policy, not people?

Let's broaden the horizon. Let's talk about both sides of the coin. Let's bring in these people who have been appointed, with whatever expertise they have, for the exact same amount of time the Conservatives are proposing. Let's just have it out.

I'll leave it there, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

I have Mr. Fisher next on the list on the motion.

Go ahead.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm in complete agreement with Iqra. She asked a rhetorical question, though. She asked if we are once again trying to malign a future witness at this committee, and I would say in answer that these nicknames that get tied to people already malign their character. They remind you very much of a former president of the United States.

I have to tell you, as Iqra asked, we would like to think we're better than that here in Canada. When you start the motion, or the preface to the motion, with nicknames attached to people's names, you're already maligning a potential witness.

I thought I heard the possibility of an amendment or more amendments coming later, but I would be interested in hearing from some of the other members as to whether they support going down the road of asking someone who may or may not be a chair, may or may not be hired or may or may not be an adviser. I would like to think that every political party is smart enough to have advisers and to bring smart people in to help advise them on how their party would proceed.

I think it was René who made a comment very similar to that. I would be very surprised. We know the Conservatives have advisers. We know the Conservatives have people who attend their caucus meetings and advise their leader, and I can only assume that the other parties do the exact same thing. Why wouldn't they? It makes perfect sense to try to get smart people in to try to advise your party. There are a lot of assumptions in that motion, whether it's a chair, whether it's a hired person or whether it's...who knows?

I will leave it there, Mr. Chair, and let other people speak as to whether the committee wants to go down this road. You started your conversation at the meeting today, Mr. Chair, about the subcommittee, which I support greatly, and finding a calendar. I remember when I first joined this you were very hopeful that we would stick to a calendar, and we didn't. I'm sure all parties played a part in that. I do like your hopeful direction that we can move forward on things, tie some bows on some reports and do some actual good work here rather than a motion by tweet in the middle of an afternoon on the day of the committee. I don't think that's productive. It becomes reactive rather than proactive. I don't think it gets us, as Ms. Khalid said, where we need to be. We're better than that.

I will pause for now and listen to other speakers to see if there's an interest in going down the road on a motion like this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

I'm going to go to Ms. Shanahan now on the motion that Mr. Barrett put forward.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be back on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

I agree with Mr. Villemure's comments. I always read what the analysts have to say regarding our mandate and the principles of committee management. It reminds me that the mandate of this committee is to look at the work of each of the commissioners: the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Lobbying Commissioner and, of course, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I therefore strongly agree that we have other things to do and that going on a political witch hunt is not useful.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mrs. Shanahan.

Mr. Housefather, the floor is yours.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Very briefly, Mr. Chair, I had only one thing to say.

The reason we have an ethics committee is to apply the law that Parliament has written. If a situation arises that is not provided for in the law, I don't see how it would fall within the committee's purview to rewrite the law to take account of someone else's situation. If that's what we want to do, we have to ask Parliament to amend the law. I don't see how it's within the committee's mandate to summon someone who is only a volunteer. We all have volunteers in our respective political parties who help us write policy. Are we going to say that anyone who works for a political party can be summoned before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics? That seems very strange to me.

I therefore rather oppose this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

I see that no one else wishes to speak to this motion.

Do we support the motion as moved by Mr. Barrett?

We'll go to a vote.

Madam Clerk, call the vote, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

We're still on committee business.

I'm going to go to Ms. Khalid next.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

In my remarks earlier, I mentioned how important it is for us as a committee to combat the threat and the danger of disinformation campaigns we've seen not just the opposition run but also foreign state actors take part in, whether through funding or through the creation of bots, etc.

I propose a motion to add onto the very important study by Mr. Villemure on the state of disinformation in our country and what it means to all of us and our safety and security.

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the committee immediately expand its study on misinformation and disinformation while focusing on foreign interference and domestic deception to investigate:

(a) The devastating impact of malicious, artificially generated online bots used by foreign and domestic actors. This includes Russia's propaganda machine to manipulate the public discourse and fake bot accounts claiming to have attended a rally held by the Leader of the Official Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, on July 31, 2024;

(b) Russian disinformation sites posting Canadian political content;

(c) Recent reports suggesting India may be using social media bots to interfere and wage “information warfare” against Canada to influence the upcoming Canadian elections; and

that the committee immediately devote the next three meetings to these critical matters and invite relevant witnesses to provide expert testimony on these subject matters. The committee shall then report its findings and recommendations to the House.

Chair, I'll say a few words on this motion.

I think the testimony we have heard—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just hang on, Ms. Khalid.

Everybody should have a copy of the motion.

It was sent by the clerk before the start of this meeting.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. I believe that it was circulated earlier. Thank you.

As I was saying, through the study we initiated on social media and their practices with respect to privacy and to online safety and security, and then moving on to the misinformation and disinformation study—knowing and understanding how technologies can impact and sway public opinion and having watched it in real time, whether it was in 2016 through the Trump election or currently with Timbit Trump—we're really trying very hard to ensure that Canada and Canadian democracy are protected. I think the overall study is very important for us to understand what the dangers are and to outline what our government can do to ensure we are protecting and safeguarding not only Canadians individually but our entire democratic institutions.

Quite frankly, I have seen over the summer, as I outlined earlier, too many people making all kinds of outrageous claims that are absolute lies, and with the public influence they're able to wield, it has negative connotations. With respect to these media reports, whether it is fake Russian bots being bought out by the Conservatives or other parties, misinformation campaigns being paid for by the Government of India, for example, as is alleged in news articles, or Russian misinformation sites that are being seized because of their disinformation being spread about Canadian politics, our democracy is under attack.

If we keep on squabbling amongst each other, we are going to lose the very essence of who we are as Canadians—that is, a democratic state. I think it is of the utmost importance for our committee to pick up this very important issue and say, “You know what? Let's put all our partisan politics aside. Let's see how we can work together to ensure that disinformation does not become a tool for toppling our beautiful democracy that is Canada.”

Chair, I'll park my comments there, and I'm hoping that members all across the aisle can support this, because of the gravity of it and the importance of it with respect to maintaining our democratic values here in Canada.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

The motion is on the floor. I have Mr. Barrett and Mr. Villemure, and then you, Mr. Caputo. I see your hand.

I just wanted to bring the committee up to date on where things are at, as we've been gone for the summer. If you recall, there was a motion that was passed before we left in June to add three additional meetings to the misinformation and disinformation study. As I mentioned at the top of this meeting, our plan is to have, not this week but next week, two meetings—two full meetings—on Tuesday and Thursday, on that study. We've already contacted some witnesses in regard to that.

I will let you know that the witnesses we did contact are the only witnesses we have. We didn't get a long list of witnesses from members that would even accommodate those additional three meetings that were approved by this committee before we took our break in June. I want to just throw that at you as you contemplate this motion: We are going to need witnesses. If you want to start this study or continue this study next week, we're going to need more witnesses.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I want to share with the committee an example of real-life disinformation, and it's been propagated by Ms. Khalid and her colleagues: disinformation while talking about disinformation. I'm going to share a Canadian Press story from August 28, 2024. It deals exactly with some of the contents of the motion and what Ms. Khalid talked about before.

It reads:

There is no evidence that indicates the federal Conservatives were behind a bot network on social media that praised a Pierre Poilievre rally, a new study has found.

The Canadian Digital Media Research Network launched an investigation after hundreds of X accounts posted about the Conservative leader's July rally in Kirkland Lake, Ont., all using the same language with phrases like “buzzing with energy” and “as a northern Ontarian.”

The fact that the posts were so similar immediately raised questions about who was behind the network of bots, with the NDP and Liberals pointing the finger at the Conservatives.

The Conservative Party denied having any involvement.

Results from the investigation were published on Wednesday.

“Despite this significant speculation and associated accusations, we find no evidence that indicates a political party or foreign entity employed this bot network for political purposes,” said Aengus Bridgman, Director of the Media Ecosystem Observatory and a contributor of the report.

Instead, the researchers said they believe it was an amateur experimenting with a bot pipeline by sourcing content from news stories, and the Poilievre event was caught in the mix. The rally had been reported on in mainstream media in the days leading up to the mass posts.

“This is not done with intent to manipulate, it's with intent to experiment,” Bridgman said.

Very few Canadians saw original bot posts and the report said their impact was considered to be insignificant, but Bridgman said the narrative about the bots was “hijacked”.

The followup conversation about the posts ended up getting millions of views on X, and millions more through amplification by media, the report shows.

Many of those posts attacked the Conservative party and Poilievre for attempting to mislead Canadians about his popularity.

It also says:

Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen, too, pointed the finger at the Tories, claiming without evidence that the Conservative Party of Canada purchased the bots on social media.

...Ultimately, nearly half of the Canadians who heard about the bots believed a political party was to blame, with a vast majority of them thinking it was the actions of the Conservatives....

Bridgman described the political discourse around the bot campaign as “toxic” and said it should serve as a lesson for future Canadian elections.

Also, this quote is really important:

“The finger-pointing without evidence is actually quite destructive and leans into the hyper-partisan, hyper-polarized information ecosystem that we find ourselves in today in Canada....

Here we have the Liberal MPs who are talking about disinformation actually propagating it. They actually spread disinformation. The false claim they made was disproven by experts, and the report went on to say that it's only because of their disinformation campaign that the effect of these bots was amplified—hook, line and sinker.

Ms. Khalid has said that she wants to put partisan politics aside, but they've put them in the shop window. They've put them to the forefront. We heard her say we're better than this. No, they're actually not. They are actually called out for spreading disinformation.

Let me tell you that I have a few minor amendments to the motion, but we think this is an excellent study. We think it's terrific. I think there are some great witnesses who are listed in this Canadian Press report.

We think the impact of foreign interference in our democracy is troubling. We think that, irrespective of the country, any foreign meddling in our democracy is unacceptable. That's why we've had to drag the Liberals, kicking and screaming, to implement legislation like Bill C-70 on foreign interference or a foreign agent registry. My goodness, it was worse than pulling teeth to try to get the Liberals to do it.

Also, like in many such cases, we needed the FBI to tell Canadians what these Liberals deny and, actually, the public safety minister, a minister in Trudeau's Liberal government, lied about Beijing-operated Chinese police stations in Canada. He lied about it.

Again, that's disinformation—

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, you can't say a member has lied. You can't say that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I don't think he accused a member.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Yes, he did.

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

I didn't.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No. I think he was just talking in generalities.

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

Dost thou protest too much, Mr. Fisher?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead. You know the language you can use and not use.

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

Absolutely.