Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 7th, 2023

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Perhaps the party should have brought that forward using that incident report.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to start off by giving the witnesses the opportunity to make any suggestions that they may have.

We spoke of Finland, especially in terms of its education and awareness programs. We also spoke of areas in which we should urgently and radically change tack. Many things are worrying me. Since 2019, I have been interested in the legitimacy and ethics aspect of the disclosure of interests process. As we have just seen, the cat is out of the bag.

In your article, Mr. Mulroney, you state that “for the activity to be lawful, there must be some form of disclosure that identifies the source of the material and on whose behalf it is being shared.”

You have surely heard the testimony given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on December 13. I would like to hear your take on what she said. I quote: “As for foreign interference in the 2019 elections, I did not have any information in that regard. I think you heard the Prime Minister about this”.

And yet we are talking about transparency and responsibility in matters of disclosure and the importance of setting aside partisan concerns. What should we do then? I am embarrassed by what is going on at the moment. People are watching us, and we have to show them that we must radically change tack so as to prevent the worst from happening.

I would like to know what you think.

[David Mulroney]

Thank you for that question. I have thought about that too.

I must say I've followed all of your proceedings. I listened to our officials, who spoke about the defences we have against interference. They are all very impressive and very capable people, and I know some of them, but I am left with a misgiving. My concern is that sometimes when we design something, we design what we want; we don't design with a view to what actually needs fixing. We don't look at the target. We are motivated by what we enjoy doing or want to do or think is best, without checking.

The impression I had after listening about our various defences was to think back in history to the 1930s, when France constructed the Maginot Line. They were not going to suffer what happened to them in World War I, so they were going to build defences that went from the borders in the low countries all the way along the borders of France to Spain. It was impregnable, and it gave the French great confidence. However, the Germans didn't follow that plan. They had another plan. They entered via the Ardennes, and France fell. It was a disaster because they had designed something as they saw fit.

I don't think we've designed entirely the right defences, and that's why my concern with proxies is so acute. I've heard your discussions. People quite legitimately admit that the use of proxies foils the system. The Prime Minister has talked about the consulate giving the money directly, but if someone doesn't give the money directly—if the consulate gives the money to someone, who then gives it to someone else, who then passes it on—the effect is as problematic. That's what we have to get at. We have to have other systems to back up the systems we have.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to carry on the discussion on this topic with Mr. Burton, who was nodding his head. What's more, during his testimony, he mentioned he agreed with Mr. Mulroney.

During those exchanges, I heard that we were a docile country and that we were just looking the other way. I did not hear the word lax but I may as well have.

What is going on with Canada? What is our big concern that is keeping us from taking action, given the knowledge and the tools that we have today and the education programs that we could offer?

What should I be saying to the residents of my riding? I would like to be able to answer their questions.

[Dr. Charles Burton]

I think there is a problem within Canada of a lot of influence from Chinese benefits going to people in positions of trust. When the Australian Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act came into effect in 2019, several former Australian politicians resigned from lucrative boards, including the former minister of international trade, Andrew Robb, who resigned from an $880,000-a-year private consultancy with a Chinese billionaire who had achieved a 99-year lease on Port Darwin.

I do think this kind of legislation has a dampening effect on people who might feel that they need some funding for whatever purpose and that they can manage the conflict-of-interest aspect that may exist in it. I do think raising awareness of this and providing some mechanisms that ensure accountability is significant. That might encourage more champions within the government to take this matter more seriously and start pressing in cabinet for the necessary legislation to try to bring our Canadian practices and laws up to the standards of other nations.

That would include laws with regard to the transfer of classified technologies and dual-use military technologies to agents of a foreign state. We have a lot of trouble prosecuting these matters, because our laws are not as strong as those of the U.K. and the U.S. It's another area. There are just so many areas of concern about the challenge of China that we need to be able to address.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, you have up to six minutes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to direct my first questions to Mr. Johnson.

I appreciated your testimony today. As we're discussing all of this, what I hope we're all going to come back to, despite our political differences, is how we make sure our systems are strong enough and how we make sure that we're building trust within Canada and holding all systems to account so that people have faith in our processes. That's something that I'm really aware of.

You talked a lot about disinformation and how many people are being pulled into that world. They don't always have the tools that they require to evaluate it more objectively and understand where the source material is coming from. I definitely see that in my constituency, and I'm actually surprised in my role by how many people send me articles just to ask, “Is this true or not?” I am now given the capacity to decide for them, and that's not a role that I think an MP should take on.

You mentioned in your testimony the idea of having a national media literacy strategy to evaluate programs. Could you expand on that and what that role could potentially look like?

Within that, I'm also very curious about what sort of digital media literacy awareness we need to see focused. I represent a more rural and remote area of the world. Are there things that are specifically important for those communities and for indigenous communities? Those are two groups that I represent for which I'm particularly concerned about the impact of disinformation and how we get the proper tools to those communities to be able to address that problem in a meaningful way.

[Matthew Johnson]

Thank you. I'll start with the second part of that question.

Our model of digital media literacy is composed of four competencies. The first of these competencies is access, the ability to access digital media and other media as well. It is the one that underpins the other three competencies, which are to use, to understand and to engage with media. We see access as underpinning the other three because you can't do any of the other three if you do not have access. Access is also unique in that it is both a skill and a condition, because we need to provide full access to digital media to everyone in the country.

We know that as a country, Canada generally does have good Internet access, but we also know that there are pockets, places where Internet access is slow or unreliable. We know from our research with teachers that Internet access within schools is frequently unreliable, and that's undeniably a much bigger issue in rural areas, in remote areas, and among indigenous and northern communities.

We need to be committed to finishing the job of providing every Canadian with good-quality, reliable Internet access. Of course, that means in every school as well. We need to be teaching those access skills, because one of the issues is that many people do face barriers beyond simply being able to access it technically. In many cases, there are barriers caused by disability, language, poor literacy skills and of course poor digital literacy skills. Breaking down those barriers must be a component of digital literacy or a digital media literacy plan for the country.

Equitable access is certainly an important part. It's also really important to ensure that it is a whole-of-society plan, because we know that no one has grown up with these technologies. Adults are just as much in the position of needing to become more digital media literate as young people are. We can't kick the can down the road by only covering it in K-to-12 education.

Of course, we need to build a plan that draws connections between the different levels of government so that each level of government is playing a role in the strategy that makes sense and is complementary to the other ones.

Finally, digital media literacy programming for all sectors needs sustainable funding, so that we don't wind up in a situation that we've seen, when terrific programs got rolled out and either couldn't continue because funding ended or couldn't be maintained. We know that issues change, new concerns arise and new platforms become popular, so there needs to be a provision to make sure that programs that are being offered at all levels are maintained and updated on a regular basis.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I have 20 seconds. If you could add that on to my two minutes and 30 seconds, that would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I want to take a moment to say that I'm really appreciating the pace at which we're speaking for the purpose of interpretation and the fact that one person is speaking and then the other person. I hope we can continue with this. That's very good. I want to commend you all for your good work.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I have many questions, so I will ask you to be brief in your answers.

I will start with you, Mr. Mulroney.

You are very active on social media. You stated that an example must be given from someone high up, such as the Prime Minister himself. Allow me to quote you:

But little will happen so long as the PM is fixated on demonizing domestic critics, fomenting ever deeper division at home. CCP couldn't be happier.

Could you explain why you said that?

[David Mulroney]

The thing that shaped my thinking about this was my experience on the Manley panel when we were deciding whether to extend the mission in Afghanistan. The mission was failing because Foreign Affairs was doing its thing and CIDA was doing its thing and the Canadian Forces were doing something else.

The panellists had a number of recommendations, and the government took them all. The first was that the Prime Minister had to lead. You can't get all of the uncoordinated and disparate parts of government to work together unless they have very firm and direct leadership. They are looking to see what is coming from on high, and I don't think they're seeing it clearly enough.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Do you believe that the Prime Minister is not doing enough currently to counter foreign interference efforts?

[David Mulroney]

Yes. I think his China policy took a long time getting on the right track. I think he was originally—he said it himself—naive when it came to China, and the country has paid a price for that, but I haven't seen the actions to follow up on that new understanding, that new awareness of China.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Burton, you have said that Chinese influence being peddled by the United Front Work Department was particularly profitable to influential people. We have learned that Chinese businessmen have given $1 million to the foundation set up by Mr. Trudeau's father. We also learned that a lot of money is being given to universities.

Is this the type of influence that is being sought currently by the Chinese communist regime in order to pave the way so that it can get involved in Canadian business and indirectly influence our politicians?

[Dr. Charles Burton]

Yes. With regard to that particular instance some years ago, I believe that the person who coordinated the joint donation to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation was a member of the standing committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, which is the lead United Front coordinating body in China. He was attending a fundraiser for the Prime Minister in the home of a Canadian of Chinese origin. He was not a Canadian, and therefore could not donate to the Prime Minister.

Everybody else, I believe all of them, looking to me from the photographs that appeared in mainland overseas Chinese newspapers—in other words, the photographs of who was at the party—initially appeared in China, not in Canada. On the Prime Minister's schedule, I believe they were identified as private meetings. They were all Chinese faces. I imagine they all could well have given the maximum allowable under law.

The question is on this issue of proxies, as Mr. Mulroney pointed out. It's extremely difficult for us to note. We certainly cannot make allegations against Canadians without evidence for that, and we don't have any evidence.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

You also mentioned having noticed a massive disinformation campaign deployed in the Chinese language. During the most recent elections, newspapers reported that a minority Conservative government might be elected. You say that unfortunately, Kenny Chiu was probably one of the victims of that campaign.

You therefore sincerely believe that Chinese interference influenced the election results in certain ridings. Is that correct?

[Dr. Charles Burton]

Is that for me?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

It's for both of you.

[Dr. Charles Burton]

Obviously we don't know why people put an X next to whatever candidate they put it to—what factors inform that decision. However, within Canada, with the exception of the Falun Gong media—the Epoch Times, which I do not regard as a reliable source of information—they are all well identified as being under the control of the People's Republic of China. There are no Canadian-Chinese language newspapers that do not reflect the views of China, and—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

According to you, Mr. Burton, did that have an effect on the election results?

[Dr. Charles Burton]

I'm sorry; I didn't hear the translation.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Do you believe that changed the results of the election?

[Dr. Charles Burton]

My subjective judgment was that the impact was enormous.

People like to believe negative things. They're much more appealing than positive things. My personal view is that if it had not been for that disinformation—