Evidence of meeting #149 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was election.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Communications Security Establishment
The intent of the methods by which the opponents are going to try to address foreign interference definitely includes the political parties' key information.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right, because that key information, those databases, voter information, voter preferences.... If somebody is looking to interfere in a Canadian election, getting access to those databases would help weaponize their lies, I suppose, or weaponize their attempts to interfere. Is that a fair point to draw?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Communications Security Establishment
Absolutely, and that's why we're engaged so proactively with the parties, so they can prepare themselves and detect and react—
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right, and you're providing that valuable advice, but there's nothing required under law, under the recent elections changes that this government brought in, to make those parties fall under, say, something like PIPEDA, and there's no legal standard of how to protect that vital information. Is that correct?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Communications Security Establishment
I can say that, within the current method of work, the parties have been engaging with us, and they are taking hold of what the important measures are and taking action.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand. My question is, is there anything required under law in terms of the standard of protection for that information?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Communications Security Establishment
Not to my knowledge.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. So, Minister, why not? You, as the democratic institutions minister, had a report more than a year and a half ago warning of this as the point source of threat. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics recommended to you, that parties should be brought in and required by law to have this standard of protection to keep our elections safe. You chose not to do that. The advice is great. The counsel, working with the parties, is great, but you chose not to do that. Why not?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON
We specifically chose to develop this relationship between CSE and the political parties because political parties are separate from government. They're unique in terms of how they engage with Canadians, and it's important for them to have that independence, I believe, and I think you would agree with me on that. That's why we chose to go down this route, to ensure that we were providing the advice to political parties. It's how they choose to use it, but particularly from a security point of view, it's to give them the best advice and the best tools available to protect their databases and their information.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We're talking about the safety of our elections. On the safety of our roads, we don't give drivers advice and let them choose how fast to drive. We give them speed limits, because we know there's a danger in going above certain speeds. We know from your own report that you asked for from the CSE 20 months ago now that there is a credible threat and that one of the access points was this. You said to drive at whatever speed you like, and here's some advice that you should only drive this fast, but there's nothing required. That's what concerns me going into this election that's just a few months away.
I have a question about social media. You suggested that you were disappointed with the lack of action from the social media agencies in terms of hate speech and banning certain groups. Facebook banned a few, which is a good first start, but there are many more, and those groups, Faith Goldy and the others, have been spreading that hate for years.
You expressed disappointment, and you also suggested that they have done more in the European context. Europe has laws. Europe is bringing in regulations. England has introduced some more regulations, rules to guide the social media agencies.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON
Well, they've introduced a white paper to discuss them, and I would say, with regard to the regulations, that what's going on in the EU with social media platforms is that it's a voluntary code of practice that the social media platforms have undertaken themselves. That is basically the conversation we've been having, if they would do the the same thing here in Canada.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON
To date, they have decided that's not something they want to pursue. However, those conversations are ongoing. I would say that after the comments on Monday, there has been a renewed interest in having a conversation about what they will do here in Canada.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand all that, but if you look at the main differences between Canada and the European Union, the European Union has done much more in legislation than Canada has. That's—
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sorry, but I haven't actually finished my question.
Europe has actually brought in regulations and rules. Social media groups have actually responded. You seem naive and disappointed that they haven't done the same thing here.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON
So has Canada, Mr. Cullen. With Bill C-76 we are the first jurisdiction to require online platforms to have an online ad registry. Actually, there has been response from that. Facebook is doing their ad library. Google has actually said they will not have political ads here in Canada. We are still waiting to hear from Twitter.
When you talk about regulation, in fact, Canada has acted. We were a first movement. Political ads are what we saw particularly in the U.S. election, particularly in the British referendum. They were one of the primary tools with regard to foreign interference using an online mechanism. This is a really important step. It's an important method for transparency and to protect our elections.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Minister Gould and everyone for being here today.
When you were answering questions earlier, you were cut off. You mentioned the white paper in the United Kingdom. Do you have anything to add? You spoke about the European Union, but do you have anything to add about Great Britain?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON
The white paper released on Monday in Great Britain is very good. There's the concept—I don't know how to say it in French—
it's a duty of care.
The term has been used in the hospitality industry to ensure that accommodation units, for example, have functional elevators, and so on.
This concept has been applied to digital platforms with regard to illegal content or content that may pose risks to people's safety. The platforms must take responsibility in this area.
This is good. The idea is to apply a policy regime to digital platforms, since the platforms can be held accountable for their actions. It's new, it's different and it's forward-looking. We want to avoid creating legislation or policies that resolve past issues, but that aren't flexible for the future.
My officials and I have been carefully studying this matter. However, we've also been looking at other activities, for example, in Germany, France or Australia, where good things are being done. I think that we could find a Canadian solution.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you.
You mentioned France earlier. You just mentioned France again, while also talking about Germany.
At last year's G7 summit in Charlevoix, you discussed the issues concerning social media platforms. You said that there had been issues in France, such as information leaks. We've also been looking at the American election, and it's clear that something was wrong.
Do you share information that makes it possible to go even further? You were just talking about Great Britain and the European Union. However, do you share information to help us learn from the mistakes of others, so to speak?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON
Yes. I think that the example of Germany is good. Germany has a bill against online hate, which the country wants to apply to digital platforms. To that end, Germany has introduced very heavy fines for digital platforms that fail to erase messages or images that promote hate. That's good.
We need to think about illegal content and about how we can ensure that platforms aren't manipulated to facilitate illegal activity. We also need to think about violent content. We need to think about a number of things to change the experience of people who use digital platforms.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Okay.
You expressed some disappointment with regard to your meetings with representatives of social media, such as Facebook. Have any other meetings been scheduled?
You said that the European Union has a voluntary code of practice. Is our approach coercive?
