Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 31st, 2023

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

The meeting on Friday makes sense as it's scheduled.

I'd like to see, as I indicated, the 106(4)-directed pair of meetings disposed of quickly. Obviously, as Ms. Khalid said, we'll need to see when we can get the minister.

Recognizing that the foreign interference study is a priority.... There are competing priorities with ATIP and others. I know there are other motions in the names of other members. They have a new interest in those. They would likely want to address those in this session, as well.

Once we get past the next three meetings, and in order to ensure we prioritize the work we plan to do on foreign interference, I suggest—if it's the will of the committee—we populate only foreign interference meetings until we dispose of that study. We then dedicate one meeting per week, after next week, to foreign interference, then populate the other meeting each week to wind down those other priorities. The different studies rank in different spots for different folks, but we have stakeholders who are interested in all of them. This way, we can do that.

Disposing of the 106(4) meetings next week.... Since we determined we are not issuing a report, it would then be closed.

We have an awful lot of loose ends. I think this is something that—once we've had this discussion, which informs the clerks and analysts with respect to our priorities, and you've had those conversations with Mr. Villemure, and we have a draft work plan come forward, in the short term—we can then plan to conclude some of those studies.

I will also flag, in Mr. Villemure's absence, that the foreign interference study will be “number one with a bullet” for him. I won't speak for his colleague, who's here in substitution, but I share that. That was the sentiment in the room when the motion was passed in December.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate the input, Mr. Barrett.

I think we have consensus, then, about what we're trying to do for next week.

The Commissioner of Lobbying will be joining us on Friday.

Then, next week—again, subject to the minister's schedule—we will plan on having the subject matter in the motion that was passed earlier today in those two meetings.

Then, following that, if I'm hearing everyone correctly....

Mr. Garon, I will give you the floor in a few seconds.

The foreign interference was a priority for this committee. The fact is that Mr. Villemure is not here, and I know it is a priority for him that we start that as well, so my suggestion—and I agree with Mr. Barrett—is that we start it in the following week, which would be the week of February 14.

If we're all in agreement on where we go on Friday and where we go next week, the only thing we have to discuss and finalize is where we go in the following week, that week before the two-week break.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for welcoming me today.

At the risk of repeating what has already been said, I can confirm that the study on foreign interference is a priority for Mr. Villemure. It needs to be conducted in the very short term. I am replacing him this week, but he will be back next week. There is nothing forcing us to wait for Mr. Villemure to plan things. He will be the one who is here.

A relevant motion was tabled today, and we would agree with starting the study right away. The agenda for this Friday's meeting is already set, but we could have the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the minister appear next week.

I have one reservation about examining foreign interference once a week. While it is perfectly fine to dedicate one day per week to foreign interference, we should not box ourselves in by making it every Tuesday or every Friday. We should find a way to keep some flexibility since witnesses, particularly European Union witnesses, will undoubtedly raise other topics.

That being said, making it a priority is exactly what Mr. Villemure expects.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

For my part, if we decide to dedicate one meeting a week to our study on foreign interference, I would prefer it to be every Tuesday or every Friday. The Information Commissioner wishes to come back to talk about the report tabled before Parliament in December. We could start our study on foreign interference on the Thursday of the week after next week.

I'm sorry. Did I say “jeudi”? I meant “mardi”. It was Tuesday and Friday, which are our new meeting days.

My preference is to start on the Tuesday after next week on the foreign interference.

Go ahead, Iqra.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I'm just wondering, are there any deadlines or any other urgencies with respect to the ATIP report that's been tabled or anything else that's on our agenda?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

No, there are no particular deadlines.

I will remind members of the committee that the analysts were charged with writing a draft report. If we're going to pick up on the ATIP study again, then my suggestion would be—and I've had discussions with the analysts as well—that we just add on to that report before tabling it in Parliament, especially if we get to that very quickly.

That's the only thing we have, and that report is due on February 10 or 11 or somewhere around that range.

[Alexandra Savoie, Committee Researcher]

It should be distributed by the end of next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. That's the only thing, I would think. On the other issues, other than the prescribed meeting dates up to a maximum or a minimum, we have no deadline on any of these other reports. Okay?

Go ahead, Monsieur Garon.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I just want to come back to the question you asked me, because I had to get some information.

The committee is under some constraints, and I don't want to get in the way, but there will be time zone issues, particularly when we hear from witnesses in Europe. It would be easier to meet on the study on foreign interference on Friday mornings than on Tuesday afternoons. I am told that that would make it easier to schedule the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I personally agree with that; I won't object to it. It may be more complicated for some witnesses to appear in the morning, but we will see how it goes.

I want to respect Mr. Garon speaking on behalf of Mr. Villemure. Is there any problem if we deal with the foreign interference studies on Fridays, then, consistently? Is once a week a problem? Is that okay?

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm just wondering if and would humbly suggest that perhaps we can look at a proposed work plan for the next 30 meetings. That way we'll have a better idea. If we're going to be doing multiple studies at the same time, then obviously I want to prepare myself, and I'm sure other members want to prepare themselves, for what is next on the agenda.

Mr. Chair, I provided a notice of motion. I will also seek your guidance on when would be the best time to table that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

On the work plan, the challenge we have right now is really getting through the next couple of weeks. Everything stopped in December. We knew where we were going to stand on Friday. Next week we know where we're going to stand, pending the minister's schedule. It really is for the following week that I want to get down as having those two meetings on the Tuesday and Friday, because it helps the analysts and the clerk contact witnesses.

I will make a commitment to the committee that we will have a work plan set out. I'll sit down with the clerk and the analysts so that after those weeks we'll know what the schedule is going to be like and they'll know what the schedule is going to be like. That way, we can determine who is going to appear in front of the committee and determine the timelines based on the motions and how many meetings were scheduled for that. I will make that commitment to the committee.

Given that—I see you, Mr. Fergus—in the week following next week, if we've determined that we're going to deal with foreign interference on the Friday, I would like to invite the Information Commissioner to come before the committee on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the tabling of the ATIP report by the Treasury Board president. That would set us up for the next three weeks as far as where we're going with meetings. The work plan will be presented to the committee after that.

Mr. Fergus, I saw your hand. I just wanted to reiterate what my preference would be before you spoke. Please go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I support your preference, Mr. Chair. I trust you and the clerk and the analysts to make the appropriate decisions, but if on occasion in our foreign interference study a particular witness is not available to come on a Friday but is available to come on a Tuesday, I hope that you would have the flexibility from members from time to time to adjust accordingly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that, Mr. Fergus. I know how important that study is to this committee. We will try to accommodate the witnesses as much as possible. Even if we have one hour of a witness because they couldn't be accommodated for a Friday, we'll make every attempt to do that. Thank you.

That is our work plan for the next three weeks. Is everybody is okay with that?

Madam Clerk, you're good?

Analysts, you're good?

This brings me to your next issue, Ms. Khalid. I know you put in a notice of motion and submitted it to the clerk. We're in committee business, if you want to deal with that now.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although I admit that I have not canvassed my colleagues to see their interest in this, I think this is something that is becoming a bigger and bigger issue in our communities in terms of our youth engaging in digital activities and how data is being used. I think this is the perfect committee to study this issue.

With your indulgence, Mr. Chair, I move the following:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the committee undertake a study of the use of TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance Ltd., and their involvement or use of the private information of Canadians for the objective of data harvesting and unethical/illicit sharing of personal information with foreign entities; that the committee study whether this private data and information of Canadians is adequately protected and stored; that the committee invite relevant witnesses from the Canadian Communications Security Establishment, key executives from ByteDance Ltd., relevant cybersecurity experts and watchdogs to testify; that the Committee devote a minimum of three meetings with witnesses to this study; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

The only thing I would ask is that, again, given the tight schedule that we have with the 30 meetings, there be some discretion left to the chair to schedule those meetings at a later date. It's not something we're going to get to immediately.

I don't want to diminish or dismiss the importance of what you're proposing here, because I think it's important.

The motion is on the floor. Are there any comments?

Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I certainly concur with the importance of finding ways for us to examine the inherent privacy protections for Canadians on social media platforms.

What I caution against, though, is limiting it in scope to one particular company. I'm a firm believer that what we witnessed with Cambridge Analytica, with Facebook and what Mark Zuckerberg was capable of with the various insurrections around the world, and with Twitter with Elon Musk.... We would probably benefit from broadening the scope to all social media platforms.

The challenge I have when we single out one particular company is that—while I think they're all villains in this regard—we're going to miss some of the other hostile actors. I'm just wondering if around the table there would be an appetite to broaden the language of the motion to include references to all major social media platforms. When a security analyst comes, I would suggest that they come prepared to speak on all of the companies, because they likely would have done security-intelligence threat assessments on them. I think it would be better for the House to receive all the information. That would be my preference.

I would say that I'm also cautious that sometimes we fall into rabbit holes, doing what I'll call “red-baiting” around China in particular. China's not the only hostile actor in the world. Let's be very clear about that. There are many hostile actors. I'm not suggesting that it's not one, either. I don't want to just always have the attention on China. I think we should look around the world. Referencing the on-device tracking that we had.... We found that there are numerous countries involved in this. It would be interesting to see where the other ones fit into this discussion as well, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Did you move the amendment? I'm sorry. I was talking to the clerk.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's so moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It is so moved...about all other social media platforms.

I'm just going to go, Mr. Green, to the analysts.

Alexandra, I know that in 2017 there was a study done on social media platforms and the issue of privacy, etc. Maybe for the benefit of the committee you could talk about what the study included, perhaps what some of the findings were, and whether, in fact, this would be a repeat of something we've already done.

[Alexandra Savoie]

Sure. I will have to jog my memory.

What Mr. Green referred to was when the Cambridge Analytica affair was brought to the public eye. It also involved AggregateIQ, which is a Canadian firm that was involved in that. The Privacy Commissioner did an investigation on this, and then our study was a broader look on how data breaches from different social media platforms could have an impact in many ways but also on the democratic process. As you will remember, Cambridge Analytica had some links with the Brexit vote. It led to a study that lasted almost a full year. It also created this grand international committee, which grouped different parliamentarians from different Parliaments. We went to London, and they came here. It led to two reports—a preliminary report and a final report—with many recommendations. I would have to go back to tell you exactly what the recommendations were. It was a very broad study, and it focused on Cambridge Analytica as well as on broader recommendations as to how to better regulate social media platforms.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have Ms. Khalid, and then we'll go over to you, Mr. Green, after that.

Ms. Khalid.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Building on that, I realize that we just had a fulsome discussion about how limited our schedule is and how much we have on our plate. What I'm proposing in this motion is just three meetings and a report. I would like for us to spend those three meetings doing a deep dive into something that I don't think this committee's looked at before: specifically TikTok and its parent company.

I know we've had many discussions, not just in this committee but in many committees around the House, on various social media platforms. I just feel that TikTok is one that is quite new and one that we haven't really done a deep dive into. With three meetings, I think it's better for us to narrow the scope as opposed to broadening it. I'm sure we can reference other reports that have been commissioned by this committee in the past in our findings. However, I think that we should limit it to TikTok as it stands.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Mr. Green, go ahead on the amendment.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

A lot's happened since then. We had the January 6 insurrection, the convoy and the insurrection in Brazil. We just had, in the news, Facebook selling information to Home Depot.

I'll just put this very clearly to my friends in the Liberal Party: I will support this only if I have the latitude to ask other questions. That's what I'm interested in. It's that when we have subject matter experts, I have the latitude to include companies besides TikTok, given what has happened over the last two and a half years. A lot has happened since Cambridge Analytica.

If it's three meetings, that's fine. If it's four meetings, whatever, but if we're going to do this, let's do it well. Let's take our blinders off and realize that there are a bunch of hostile actors. Surveillance capitalism is real. AI and Moore's law mean that we are light years ahead of where we were when that report came out. I think it would be incumbent on us to take that seriously and to be open to those discussions when the time arises.