Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Shanahan.

I always love those calls from the local magistrate that say that your tax account has been seized or whatever bullshit they give you.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I always smile when I hear the Canada Revenue Agency tell me that the waiting time is short.

I'd like to propose a motion of which I gave notice about a week ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

All right.

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

The motion reads: Whereas on November 6, 2024, the Liberal government announced the closure of the Canadian subsidiary of the social network TikTok, the committee invite to testify:(a) For two hours, François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry;(b) For one hour each:(i) David Vigneault, former Director of CSIS; and(ii) Philippe Dufresne, Privacy Commissioner of Canada;That the Committee report its observations and conclusions to the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

The motion is in order and we will discuss it. I would ask the witnesses to remain in their seats for a moment.

Do you have any comments to add, Mr. Villemure?

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

Recently, we learned from the newspapers that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry had undertaken an investigation into TikTok, a long time ago. The committee has met with TikTok representatives on a number of occasions to ask questions to which we have not received answers. We tried in vain to find out when the investigation would be completed. We now know that it was recently completed.

The minister has issued a press release stating that the government is banning TikTok from Canada. In the same press release, however, it is said that Canadians can continue to use the TikTok application, as this is a matter of personal choice. That's a bit of a paradox, if you ask me.

One important aspect is left completely in the dark in this case: If TikTok is not in Canada, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will have no power of surveillance or control. He'll still be able to monitor, but he won't be able to do anything.

I think this motion is directly in line with the committee's mission. I would like to see the investigation begin as soon as possible. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

You had your hand up, Frank.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe this would be considered a friendly amendment, which is just to add to Mr. Villemure's motion that such would occur prior to our breaking on December 17, 2024.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. We'll have to work that out. We'll try to get it in if we can. I don't know if we're going to add that to the motion, because we have a schedule ahead of us.

Go ahead, Ms. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'll continue in French.

I fully understand the reasons for Mr. Villemure's motion. Of course, a decision of this kind is a big decision.

Personally, I advise all Canadians not to have the TikTok app. I don't understand this kind of business. Everyone knows it's a Chinese company and, frankly, not using it makes a lot of sense. I've just heard of some very creative people who are able to create similar software. Young people love TikTok so much, but it seems to me that we have enough software, platforms and ways of sharing creative content, like dances and all the crazy ideas you can find on this app. It's incredible to see all the information that can unfortunately be collected on Canadians, when we talk so much about confidentiality and privacy.

Mr. Chair, I wonder if we should keep the witnesses here. I imagine you're thinking about that too.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think we can dispose of this motion quickly.

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

I do have a couple of points. The reason I ask this question is because we're coming to the end of the period that was originally scheduled for the meeting.

In fact, it's contradictory, isn't it? We take great care to keep people's information private and confidential. On the other hand, people are attracted by software, applications where they are asked for personal information. This information isn't necessarily financial, but it is personal, isn't it? We're talking about the person's name, address, phone number, activities and, I imagine, associations they belong to, friends and so on.

I'm the first to say that all these activities should be protected by our—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm just wondering what the speaking list is because, given the time, I wouldn't want to subject these fine folks, our public servants, to what is likely to be a lengthy debate. I'm just reflecting on the fact that—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Are we expecting a lengthy debate on this?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No. What is the speaking list?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We have roughly until around six o'clock or so. I have Ms. Khalid following Mrs. Shanahan. I actually have a question for Mr. Hamilton that I'd like to ask at the end of it.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, that's fair enough. We'll wait until six o'clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Anyway, that's where we're at.

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.

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

I want to make a point, which is that protecting privacy is very important.

When the announcement was made about TikTok, I had a question about privacy. It said that TikTok, i.e., the Canadian subsidiary of TikTok, was banned from Canada, but that Canadians could continue to use the platform. When I heard this, I thought to myself: Wait a minute, is there a way to protect Canadians from unethical use, fraud or illegal sharing of their information? Indeed there is.

According to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, the authorities and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada have a right of oversight, they have the responsibility to discipline, set things straight or take action against TikTok if there are violations in this regard, regardless of where the equipment is located, the famous servers. Apparently, this equipment is located in places like Singapore and in countries with which we have agreements and good relations. I was reassured to hear that.

The other aspect I wanted to raise is access to classified information. It puts some people here in a difficult situation, because some current and former members of the committee have sat on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. I don't think it concerns the members on the other side.

Of course, it's obvious and common knowledge that this decision was made for reasons of national security. National security involves access to classified information, which requires a certain security clearance. The clearance process is very strict. In fact, it's as strict, if not stricter, than at the Canada Revenue Agency: You have to accept the fact that you can't disclose or make public information that's related to national security.

I understand the reasons for the motion. I understand the concerns raised by my colleague, because I had the same concerns, namely whether Canadians and Quebeckers will be protected even if the TikTok subsidiary is closed in Canada. The answer is yes. They are protected.

I may have had another question on another point, but I won't even get into that. Honestly, I don't want to mix things up between committees. It would certainly be more appropriate to ask certain questions related to national security and intelligence elsewhere. So I think I'll stop here. I hope my colleague understands that my comments are well intentioned.

We've already studied TikTok and the other platforms, because we all share the same concern. We're wondering what power the government and police forces have, within a legal framework, to get their hands on a company that operates a platform that abuses Canadians' information. That's my point. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to Monsieur Villemure for moving this motion.

I'm sure all committee members—well, the permanent ones here, anyway—know how I feel about the issue of social media companies and how they operate with respect to the protection and privacy of Canadians, so in principle I think this is a good study for our government and for parliamentarians to partake in. However, I'm not sure whether this committee is the right place for this, and I'll make two very quick points on that.

The first is on the ICA, the decision that's come out from the Investment Canada Act on this. I think the RCMP commissioner and the minister would be really limited in what they're able to say, given security clearance challenges and the issue of national security and intelligence in general that surrounds this entire issue, as my colleague Brenda Shanahan said, when we're talking about China and the whole reason this company is under investigation in the first place. I would think that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians would be a better place to house this. There would be more ability for the RCMP and the minister to be open and able to talk with full honesty and, with full paperwork on the table, to say, “This is what needs to happen,” or, “These are the circumstances surrounding the decision.”

The second point I would make on this, Chair, is that I know that Mr. Villemure spoke about PIPEDA and its jurisdiction. Now, I think that TikTok would still be subject to Canadian privacy laws in Canada, regardless of where TikTok operates, as long as there's that touchpoint for Canadians. I'm not sure whether it's accurate that, once they leave the country, they would no longer be under Canadian jurisdiction, because there are a lot of companies that operate in Canada that don't have headquarters in Canada but are still bound by Canadian laws. In this case, I think TikTok would definitely be bound by PIPEDA in the way that it operates in Canada, whether or not its office is located on Canadian soil or not.

Those were the two quick points that I wanted to make.

I realize that we are going a little over time. I want to make a very quick amendment to the motion before we go to a vote. The motion asks for Minister François-Philippe Champagne to appear, and I have no problem with that.

In part (b) of the motion we're asking David Vigneault, the former director of CSIS, and Philippe Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner, to appear for one hour each. I think that the former director of CSIS does not have a role to play in any of this. I think that it should be the current director of CSIS if we are going to invite them to appear, and that would be Mr. Daniel Rogers. I move the amendment that we replace Mr. David Vigneault, former director of CSIS, with Mr. Daniel Rogers, the current director of CSIS.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It's an amendment, if I understand it correctly, to replace David Vigneault with Daniel Rogers. That's it.

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

She also wants to delete the former—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You mentioned Philippe Dufresne in there too, so I just want to make sure—

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

I was just reading out the motion.