Evidence of meeting #133 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gray.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Managing Director, Digital Society Laboratory, McMaster University, As an Individual
I was referring to rules that would require, with appropriate permissions and conditions, platforms to share information with researchers that would allow them to deepen their study of misinformation and possible tools to address it.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
What rules might you suggest? Has there been any substantive work from the digital society lab with specificity on which rules would be required?
Managing Director, Digital Society Laboratory, McMaster University, As an Individual
The short answer is no. The longer answer is that I would commend to the committee the EU's Digital Services Act as a possible model for how very large platforms are required to share their data with European-based researchers. The ability of researchers to access the data of very large platforms is becoming harder and harder, which makes our ability to inform parliamentarians harder and harder.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Under what “appropriate conditions”? Is that something you've contemplated?
Managing Director, Digital Society Laboratory, McMaster University, As an Individual
I can offer some initial thoughts that researchers should not be doing it for a commercial benefit and that they maintain adequate protections of privacy where it is pertinent. For some platforms, the data would be public. For other platforms, it is not, so very careful consideration of user privacy will be important here. Then I think there needs to be some degree of auditing to ensure that we are receiving the appropriate data with enforcement mechanisms to follow.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
In previous testimony we talked a little bit about the the commodification of information, the way in which it's sold—kind of data capitalism. I think about Clearview AI and the way in which like people can be profiled online using technology. I think about Cambridge Analytica and the way that it was used in 2016. We're now hearing about Russian connections to Canadian social media influencers.
In your view, as a political scientist, what are the greatest risks related to misinformation and disinformation that might not only affect the work of Parliament and parliamentarians but also future elections?
Managing Director, Digital Society Laboratory, McMaster University, As an Individual
I appreciate the question. It's a big one and a difficult one.
As I mentioned a few minutes ago, I think it's the ability for Canadians to make judgments about what's true and false and for them to make informed decisions. Canadians benefit from good information and make good decisions based on that. Likewise, in my view, no political party is advantaged by polluting the information space in the medium term. I think there is a common cause to be built around—
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
If I could—sorry—I heard what you said, but I'm sure you're familiar with Steve Bannon. Steve Bannon has very publicly talked about flooding the zone with a word that would be unparliamentary. They talk very openly on the far right about cognitive warfare. There seems to be, at least in the political spectrum, some advantage to having a post-truth environment where facts don't actually matter and political parties get to make it up as they go along. Is that not the case?
Have you found any correlation or causation theory as it relates to the rise of right-wing populism and misinformation? I know you've done work on COVID and vaccine hesitancy. Is there a correlation there between political ideology and partisan gain to be had?
Managing Director, Digital Society Laboratory, McMaster University, As an Individual
I don't think we want to pretend that there are no politics in misinformation. What I want to underscore to the committee is that there is a public interest that is served, and indeed the interests of major political parties in the medium term, in building a resilient ecosystem. It is entirely appropriate for this committee to spend time learning about specific examples and how they can derive lessons from those examples.
However, when the committee turns around to make recommendations, when there are laws proposed and rules proposed, we don't, I think, want to give the impression to Canadians that those are designed to advantage a particular political party.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I agree.
To the point here, your digital society lab has done some work on regulating digital election advertisements. From that work in 2019 and 2021, do you have specific recommendations you'd like to present to this committee for our consideration, given that we potentially have an election looming and are seemingly pretty far behind on having any real oversight?
Managing Director, Digital Society Laboratory, McMaster University, As an Individual
Thank you again for the question.
I was not directly involved in that research project, but I'd be happy to follow up with the committee on behalf of those researchers.
As I said in the opening statements, the importance of civil society and academia being empowered to undertake the detection of misinformation and being able to provide that to the public in an accessible way is critical. I commend the work of my colleagues in the Canadian Digital Media Research Network. You heard earlier from Aengus Bridgman, of the Media Ecosystem Observatory. They are doing excellent work in serving Canadians in terms of the health of the media ecosystem.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Mr. McAndrews, based on Mr. Green's request, the clerk has made a note to get back to you about providing some of that information to the committee for consideration as we draft our report. The clerk will follow up with you on behalf of Mr. Green and the committee as well.
We've concluded our first round. It's a very interesting discussion, gentlemen. Thank you for that.
We're going to Mr. Cooper now for five minutes.
Go ahead.
October 10th, 2024 / 5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kushwaha, you spoke about Beijing's interference and how its tactics, in many instances, are intricate. To that end, it's difficult to address by way of law enforcement tools the laying of criminal charges, for instance.
We saw in the 2019 and 2021 elections a concerted effort by Beijing to interfere. In the 2021 election, it's now well-established that there was a fairly sophisticated campaign to re-elect the Liberals and defeat certain Conservative candidates, including MPs Kenny Chiu and Alice Wong.
We could be heading into an election any time now. In your opinion, are we at greater risk, lesser risk or as great of a risk of seeing such interference activities on the part of Beijing or other hostile foreign states as we head into the next election?
Chairperson, National Security Centre of Excellence
I think foreign state adversaries are going to play their game. They're going to do it for their personal gains and for their own reasons—whether they're a politician doing it for personal gain or a group of individuals doing it for personal gain, or whether it's for the betterment of their country and their perspective.
There's really no escaping that reality. It's going to happen. It's how we can handle it. How can we do things to possibly change that?
I think it's important to note that we do about $3.4 billion a day in trade with the United States. That's about 66% of our entire trade. That's around the figures when last I was checking on Global Affairs.
If you want to influence another country into doing what you need them to do—whether it be following norms or “knocking it off”, if I may say, in terms of foreign interference—you need something to push them with. We don't have good trade capacity to do that.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It's interesting that you spoke about disinformation on the part of politicians because we saw a very recent example of that when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen, spread blatant disinformation. He did so willfully, for his political advantage and he—
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
I don't think this is the time or place to have personal attacks on other parliamentarians. It's unparliamentary language.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
It's a matter of public record.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
You said yourself that we were having a good series of testimonies here. I think we need to keep it clean.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you for that.
I'm going to allow Mr. Cooper to continue with his questions.
You have two minutes and 35 seconds, Mr. Cooper.
This is a study on disinformation and misinformation and the impact that has on the work of parliamentarians. There is a broad range that members can go to in their line of questioning on this.
Mr. Cooper, you have the floor. Go ahead, please.
Conservative
