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.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
—just on that point?
If a member is questioning another member's speech in the House, that could be a question of privilege.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
On the point of order, Mrs. Shanahan, I mean, it's a matter of public record. Mr. Cooper is not making anything up here, so I'll ask him to continue.
That addresses your point of order.
Mr. Barrett, go ahead on this point of order.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
On that point of order with respect to whether or not a member's speech in the House is being questioned, Mr. Cooper is very clearly staying relevant to exactly the subject we're dealing with, Chair. His question with respect to Mr. Gerretsen deals with an admission of the intentional spreading of false information by the member that he named, something that the member admitted doing under threat of litigation.
This is important, Chair. He should be afforded some time to restate his question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm pretty sure I addressed that in the context of what this study is all about. There have been very specific examples cited on both sides of disinformation and misinformation—or, as I like to call it, lying—being spread.
I will continue with Mr. Cooper for two minutes and 35 seconds, given the fact that we've granted that latitude and those specific examples to all members of this committee.
Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I guess the truth hurts for the Liberals, because Mr. Gerretsen—
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I have a point of order again, Mr. Chair.
As you've rightly said, Chair—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Just because you don't like what somebody's saying doesn't make it a relevant point of order.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
No, no, absolutely not. I love everything that's been said today. I really appreciate the testimony of our witnesses.
If we're going to have an honest, solid study out of this—
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
—let's keep the partisanship and the hacks out of it, please.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I've heard partisanship on all sides today, Ms. Khalid.
I'll continue with Mr. Cooper. If anybody has a point of order, cite under the rules and regulations what that point of order is and I'll consider it. Just because anyone doesn't like what somebody says, it doesn't mean that it's a relevant point of order.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead for two minutes and 35 seconds, please.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you for that.
It is my time and I can use it as I wish. I noted that the truth hurts for the Liberals. Mr. Gerretsen spread blatant disinformation for his political gain. As a result, he had to settle in a legal action that was taken against him.
We saw further disinformation from none other than a network that claims that it is the most trusted news network in Canada, which fraudulently doctored a video of Pierre Poilievre. We had ministers in this government, including Minister St-Onge and MP Noormohamed actually defend the doctoring of that video. It just goes to show that, when it comes to the Liberals, they're very much in favour of disinformation just so long as it isn't against them. In any event, the point is made.
Mr. Kushwaha, you spoke a little bit about Bill C-70. One of the tools in Bill C-70 is a foreign influence registry. Is that something that you see as being a useful tool to counter misinformation and disinformation from hostile foreign states?
Chairperson, National Security Centre of Excellence
Is that onto parliamentarians or in general?
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It's in general.
Perhaps I can provide you with some context.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
When we look at the interference activities that occurred in the 2021 election by the Beijing regime, there were certain Canadian-owned Chinese-language media outlets that amplified this disinformation and that had links and partnership agreements with the PRC. They would now have to register.
It's in that context that I raised the foreign influence registry.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'll have to ask you for a quick response, if you can, in 20 or 30 seconds.
Chairperson, National Security Centre of Excellence
My short response is that I don't think it will make any difference. I don't think a registry will make any difference, because you'll just use somebody else. If it were my team doing it, let's say, behaving this way, and three of my team of people were on a registry, I wouldn't use them. It's very simple. I would still perform the action. I would still get my results.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you.
We'll now go to Mrs. Romanado for five minutes.
Go ahead, please.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Through you, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.
I want to start first with Mr. Kushwaha. I'm going to put these in three buckets: the consumers of information, the creators of information and, of course, the channels of communication.
You were talking a little bit about being an average person who is out there looking at the media. We know that there have been cases, and we just heard in the previous panel of instances, where main street media have erroneously put out information, so more and more people are turning to different platforms to get their information.
How would an average person—and you talked a little bit about the Finland model—distinguish whether what they're reading is factual or not? For instance, my mom would share stuff that she saw on Facebook about an actor passing away. It's been three times that poor actor has passed away, but she keeps sharing the information thinking it's true. How does a person distinguish between what is real and what is not without sharing it?
They keep sharing the same misinformation, and they take it as true. What would you recommend to us?
October 10th, 2024 / 5:25 p.m.
Chairperson, National Security Centre of Excellence
It's an interesting thing. Does it really matter if somebody shared it three or four times? I kind of look at that and think, okay, so they shared it a few times. It's interesting to them. It's meaningful to them. Does it matter if they think that the person has died again and again and again?
I think what matters is real disinformation that misleads you to believe something extremely harmful, especially at a societal level or a political level, and cause you to behave or react in a certain way that could be either changing your decision in how you intend to vote or, if it was a political scientist, changing their behaviour and what they're intending to write in terms of advice, or, if it was a person who was on the edge, maybe getting them to do something violent.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
On that note, now I'm turning to the creator of the information. I want to focus on parliamentarians or political candidates.
I would assume that we have a responsibility to put out accurate information. There may be no rules preventing us from putting out misinformation, but I would assume that there should be some ethical or at least internal gauge on what we put out there.
I'll give the example from south of the border, where we had a presidential candidate sending misinformation about FEMA during the hurricane. There is a responsibility as parliamentarians, as political candidates, to not put out misinformation that could endanger people. Would you agree with that?
How can we make sure that folks who are in these positions of influence understand that the ramifications of what is being put out there have real-world consequences?
Chairperson, National Security Centre of Excellence
When you ask someone a question at a political level, rarely do they say, “I'm really sorry. I don't know.” There is humility in just saying, “You know, let me look into that. I'll get back to you. I really don't know.” You rarely hear that, and I feel like it should be okay. You can't remember everything. You can't have somebody whispering in your ear every moment to have it perfect. You will mess up my name; it is complicated. It's okay to say, “I don't know.”
I think if we promote that kind of idea, it will also help promote the concept of it being okay not to know right away—“Let me look into that. You gave that to me. That's very interesting. Let me look into that”—and not to react. You don't have to. It's okay.