Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 17th, 2024

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Shakespeare...?

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

For the kids, we're bringing in Shakespeare as we talk about the disinformation spread by the Liberal government. We saw it, and that's a great example.

We're lucky to live next door to our friends in the United States, because they've provided great cover to the incompetence of these Liberals on matters of terrorism and foreign interference. We're so fortunate that they brought it to light for Canadians, because it would have died in darkness with Ms. Khalid and her colleagues.

We very much look forward to more information about the effects of misinformation. It would be interesting to get some of the people cited in the article—not just the authors, but those who intentionally and without evidence spread false information. That's a damning indictment of this Liberal government after their nine years. They're unapologetic about it.

Ms. Khalid talked about wanting to strip partisan politics out of it. I have an amendment that looks to achieve some of that. I also have an amendment that looks to solve some of the scheduling challenges it creates. The quantity of the meetings is of no issue. The broad substance of the subject is important.

My goodness, look at the ineptitude and failures of the Liberal government on foreign interference and its intentional spreading and amplification of disinformation. We know it should be more concerned about exposition potentially than foreign governments. I think that domestic interference or domestic deception is a giant problem with these Liberals, who also want to seek, of course, to censor what Canadians see on the Internet.

They create the disinformation, limit the channels or the ways Canadians can receive it and then say anything that's offside with their narrative is a lie, when we've seen countless examples that these Liberals are, in fact, the perpetrators of the very thing they claim to detest. It's very timely that we're going to deal with this. I think it's important that we do it.

In paragraph (a), the motion reads, “The devastating impact of malicious, artificially generated online bots used by foreign and domestic actors.” That's fine. It continues to read, “This includes Russia's propaganda machine to manipulate....”

I'll ask the clerk to take note of this. My amendment would strike the word “the” and continue to leave in “public discourse and fake bot accounts”. Then strike all of the words after that up to paragraph (b). That way, we're capturing all incidents of this, not just the one that was already studied. It would include it, of course, and it would allow us to call the witnesses and the experts from the Canadian Digital Media Research Network who created this report.

The last two changes to the motion are in the final paragraph, where it reads, “that the committee”. I would strike the word “immediately”, leave the word “devote” and strike the words “the next”. I would leave the words following that, including “three meetings”.

I think you've probably been able to capture that. It expands the scope in paragraph (a), so it's actually more substantive in its amended form, including the incident that's cited, but it goes beyond that as well.

Because we have a subcommittee meeting after this to talk about scheduling.... Oh, we don't. We have a meeting scheduled Thursday. It would step on that meeting and probably also not give us enough time to spool up witnesses for it. We'll be able to schedule that as part of the other study and for the three meetings that are requested.

Let's get to the bottom of this. Let's do that. I think it's important as part of the public discourse. People are concerned about this. Canadians are rightly concerned about it. They've asked and been begging the government for action on foreign interference. We dragged them, kicking and screaming, to bring in Bill C-70, and though it doesn't go far enough and is not a perfect bill, it got some things right. We're pleased that it's moving forward—and, indeed, with no thanks to the Liberals—so let's do that. Let's have this conversation. Hopefully, these amendments can be included so that we can get the speedy passage of the motion.

Note, Chair, that side conversations didn't require any kleenex over here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

The amendment is moved, and it's been shared by the clerk to all members of the committee. I am going to just review it. The changes that I see are, after the words “to manipulate”, to remove the word “the”, and then, after the word “accounts”, to strike that remaining part: “claiming to have attended”, etc. Then the last change is to, after “that the committee”, strike “immediately” so it says “devote”, and then strike “the next” so it says, “three meetings to these critical matters”. Does that capture it?

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

Yes, it does—100%.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're on the amendment.

I saw that Mr. Villemure had his hand up.

Just so everybody knows, I cancelled today's subcommittee meeting. We'll resume that on Thursday. We have, roughly, about an hour and a bit left. I cancelled it because the list of names was long.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor to discuss the amendment.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have to tell you that I'm going to try the unlikely feat of reconciling Ms. Khalid and Mr. Barrett, because the two points they made are very interesting. Obviously, we shouldn't underestimate the study on disinformation, specifically electoral disinformation—I think that's something that could be added. Mr. Barrett suggested removing the line that refers to the Leader of the Opposition. That is quite fine with me, because the topic needs to be dealt with in a general way, and as Ms. Khalid said, we need to take the partisanship out of it. So it's not an issue at all.

However, if we remove the words “immediately” and “next” from the last paragraph, I am afraid that it could mean “never.” I have a problem with that, because we could get bogged down in a number of considerations and never do it. So I have a concern about that.

I can provide you with a list of witnesses that would satisfy everyone, no problem. I think we need to move forward.

I would just ask for something minor from Mr. Barrett. I think that adding the word “electoral” to “disinformation” would be appropriate, and I would ask for flexibility in terms of the time frame, because I fear that we will never do it. I would like him to comment on that.

Those are basically my two questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

You have raised a very interesting point, because the motion proposes that the committee devote the next three meetings to the issues mentioned in this motion. At the beginning of the meeting, I told committee members that Minister Boissonnault would be coming this Thursday. After that, we will have a subcommittee meeting. Over the next week, two meetings are proposed for this study. If members can send us a list of witnesses quickly, we might be able to invite witnesses to those meetings. So we will hold two meetings quickly. The following week, we can hold more meetings on this study.

I've said a lot, but I really agree that it will be difficult for the committee to devote the next three meetings to this study. We can propose other amendments to correct that.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It's important to add the word “electoral”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Before I go to Mr. Caputo, I want a second with the clerk.

Mr. Villemure, I have another question to ask you.

Where do you suggest adding the word “electoral” in this motion?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I'll read it to you. “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108 (3)(h), the committee immediately expand its study on electoral misinformation and disinformation while…”, and so forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You’re suggesting adding the word “electoral” before the word “misinformation”.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Are you moving a subamendment?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Yes. I’m proposing a subamendment in support of Mr. Barrett.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It’s what we’re discussing now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes. I accept that the amendment be moved.

Am I able to do so, Madam Clerk?

Are members fine with Mr. Villemure's proposal to insert the word...or do we have an agreement on his subamendment?

I don't think it changes much. I think the intention is there.

(Subamendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Very well. We will accept Mr. Villemure's subamendment.

We don't need to deal with that. We're still on the amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I am concerned, based on some of the comments I received from people who were parked outside on Wellington Street, about disinformation still about COVID, and disinformation about the nature of government, conspiracy theories, outright delusion and political violence.

I worry that if we just say “electoral”.... Does that limit the scope? I don't want to limit it because I do believe that a lot of the social upheaval that we have been witnessing post-COVID comes from a bunch of different streams of wackiness that, when balled up, could lead to electoral interference, but might not be, on face value, just electoral interference.

Mr. Villemure, just to get the spirit of the amendment, would this limit us from looking at ways in which other tangential conspiracies and disinformation also affect the electoral process, or are we solely going to be looking at commentary on political actors, parties and leaders?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's funny. I just turned to the clerk, Mr. Green, and I asked if she had the original motion that started the study of misinformation and disinformation.

Give us a second because she's going to pull it up.

I suspect if we're going to....

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If I recall anecdotally from the feedback I got from some of the people who were frothing at the mouth out on Wellington Street—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes. The initial motion is very general because it speaks about undertaking a study of misinformation and disinformation and the impact on the work of parliamentarians. It says, “that the committee devote...the next three available meetings” and “that the committee invite experts in the field of misinformation and disinformation; and that the committee report its observations and recommendations to the House.”

With the initial motion, which we're going to carry on with, and the additional up to three meetings that we talked about, we can propose to expand that study any way we want. The initial motion, in my view, captures precisely what you're talking about. This motion, in the context of that study, adds to it.

If you're satisfied with that.... I know I am. The intention of the committee is very clear to me, and I think it's clear to the clerk as well. If it wasn't, I'd tell you.

Again, what comes with this is a list of witnesses that we need to contact in order for this study to continue. I throw that out to you guys.

We're going to stick with the subamendment as agreed to by committee on “electoral”.

I'm now on the amendment. I have Mr. Caputo, Mr. Cooper and then Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Caputo, on the amendment proposed by Mr. Barrett, go ahead, sir.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here at the ethics committee, first and foremost.

I wholeheartedly support Mr. Barrett's amendment. The reality is that, if we are going to take the partisanship out of it, then why are we naming any parties? This is coming from the Liberals, who, through their public safety minister, whom I had the pleasure of questioning, have refused to name the 11 MPs who are part of undermining our democracy.

If we're going to have a fresh look at electoral interference—and this is a genuine, bona fide attempt by the Liberals to get to the bottom of something—I find it a little bit disingenuous when the Liberals are refusing to name people who are alleged to have committed some of the most serious offences known to Canadian law.

I wholeheartedly support Mr. Barrett's amendment. I think it is truly non-partisan and in the best interest of Canadians, and that's something that I, both as a member of Parliament and as a Conservative, support.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Caputo.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead on the amendment proposed by Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I fully support the amendment put forward by Mr. Barrett, but I do have to say that when it comes to issues of disinformation, particularly from foreign state actors, the Liberals have absolutely no credibility whatsoever on this issue. We have a Prime Minister who covered up Beijing's interference in our democracy—