Evidence of meeting #66 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Just a moment. They are telling me there is no interpretation.
It's working now.
You can start over, Mr. Fergus.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
You're very kind, Madam Chair. That also gives me a chance to start my timer.
First, I would like to thank the two witnesses for being with us today.
My questions will be for Ms. Marineau.
The witnesses in the previous panel raised the question of Russia and talked about the ongoing consequences of its activities, interfering with the intent of stirring the pot in the democracies, in particular the United States in 2016, or in the United Kingdom or, we need to reiterate, in Canada.
You have studied the issue of Russian interference or influence. Can you talk a bit about what you consider to be its modus operandi for interfering in elections in the west?
8:20 p.m.
PhD Doctorate, International Relations, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
The method used by Russia in 2016 and in 2020 was to disseminate information constantly, massively and rapidly, much more rapidly than a human being or a media platform would be capable of doing. As I said earlier, the method consists of sending out enormous amounts of information, some of which will be contradictory, and the truth is not important. The information that will be retained and disseminated is the information that hooks people. So they will observe what information is reposted the fastest on Twitter or Facebook. If they see that a trend is developing, or information is taking hold, they will continue to disseminate it. If there is information that people are not agreeing with, it will be discarded or modified. They adapt extremely well. So the Russian method is based on speed and quantity.
Yes, we are still seeing the effects of these activities, because once the division is created and the doubt is sown, it is hard to rebuild trust. In the United States, a significant fringe of the population no longer trusts its institutions. Both Russia and political parties have repeated that the election was stolen and the result was not valid. Once a significant fringe of the population completely loses confidence in its institutions, it is very difficult to regain its trust and recreate unity.
We definitely still see divisions. Of course, the situation may be different in Canada, but once a political party gets hold of the information, politicizes it and associates it with its party line, as we saw in the United States, that creates divisions and it is then extremely difficult to reconcile that information.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Can a parallel be drawn between that situation and the situation in Canada?
8:25 p.m.
PhD Doctorate, International Relations, As an Individual
I don't think I am equipped to answer that question. I have worked mainly on the American case and on Russia.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Are there other state actors that have played a role similar to Russia's, in the United States? Have China and Iran also played a role? Other witnesses whom we have heard have said that these three countries were kind of the troika of political interference.
8:25 p.m.
PhD Doctorate, International Relations, As an Individual
Yes, in my research, China and Iran came up often.
However, China and Russia were not necessarily disseminating the same information and did not necessarily have the same objectives. With Russia, we saw a tendency to favour the Republican Party, while China tended to favour the Democratic Party a little more. Each of those countries favoured the party that was most likely to be sympathetic to its government and create partnerships or sign agreements with it. Russia believed that the Democratic establishment was very anti-Russia, while China believed that it was a bit more sympathetic to its cause than the Republican Party.
Russia, China and Iran do engage in state disinformation, so those countries have organizations that are funded and sponsored by the state. They are permanent organizations whose main objective is to spread disinformation. They work at it full-time, while pursuing other objectives at the same time, obviously.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
Ms. Normandin, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.
8:25 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to turn to you again, Professor Turnbull.
In your opening statement, you said that the issue of interference was not new, but had taken new forms over time. We can imagine that between elections, when a term is ordinarily four years, it is highly likely that it will evolve considerably.
I would like to hear your opinion about the importance of having a body that would be responsible for combatting interference outside election periods.
In addition, another witness recommended that we establish an independent bureau of investigation, separate from CSIS and the RCMP, that would be impartial and would report directly to the House, somewhat like the Office of the Auditor General.
What do you think about that kind of tool?
8:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Thank you for that.
I can see the logic to it, because as elected members, you are in a bit of a tough spot to deal with this without the help of an independent body. There is a sense that, you know, because you're the participants in the very elections you're talking about, it's possible that....
People want a totally non-partisan treatment of a thing like this. You can imagine such a thing where people who have expertise in security issues, in cybersecurity, in democratic health or in all kinds of things would come together to build an organization that would be able to take a very cross-disciplinary approach to figuring out how to deal with these sorts of things. Reporting to Parliament would be important, because you would want everything to be open and transparent.
That said, I'm always a little nervous when we take decisions away from Parliament. It's not that you'd be taking decisions away from Parliament, but sometimes there can be a whole bunch of voices and the sense from the public is that, “Oh, we're going to appoint one more person who can't really make decisions but can talk about things and give advice and do reports and so on.”
Honestly, I have a sense of urgency about this. I wouldn't be entirely satisfied if that sort of thing happened, but I can see why it would have value.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
8:30 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you so much, Chair.
Professor Turnbull, I'll come back to you so that we can follow up on the discussion of lowering the voting age to 16. It reminds me of knocking on a door and having a 17-year-old drag his mother down. She did not want to talk to me at all. He asked all the questions. She just listened in. I think they can be very engaged, so perhaps you would comment on that.
Second, I feel like you were recommending an inquiry on democracy that would focus on not just foreign interference in elections but also the state of democracy. What kinds of things do you think should be studied or publicly inquired through that process?
8:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
On the first point, yes, I think if we considered lowering the voting age at the same time as there was a vigorous civics education process, you'd be getting people when they are still in school and when they have the day to learn. My daughter is nine. She told me how much she wishes she was doing more civics in school. Of course, I was so excited to hear that.
I think there is a lot of value and opportunity there. I understand that education is a provincial jurisdiction and that there would be all kinds of issues, but I honestly think we could pull that off.
The other thing is that, from a teenager's perspective, you have a different view in terms of being forward-looking. You have a different idea about the long term and about trying to make decisions that will make sure that the planet is a good place for you. You're thinking long-term about things. You actually do have, in many ways, a very different type of vantage point on the sorts of questions we are asking ourselves.
It doesn't mean that people who are younger have different priorities. When it comes to climate change and the cost of living, I think we see a lot of overlap across ages, depending on who we ask. However, I think it would be a different perspective sometimes, because there's this sense that you're in this for the long haul. It's very much a perspective that's worth gathering and that's very important to gather.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I don't have enough time for you to answer on the public inquiry and democracy, so if you want send something, I'm sure the chair will tell you all about how to do it.
Thank you.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
That was another very fruitful panel.
As I like to remind all of our guests, if there is anything you would like to elaborate on or add or something else comes to mind, please share it with the clerk, and the clerk will make sure it is circulated around in both official languages.
Ms. Marineau and Ms. Turnbull, I want to thank you both for the time you've taken with us and the insights you've provided. It really does mean a lot to us for the purpose of this study and beyond. On behalf of all PROC committee members, I would like to thank you both for your time and attention and for being with us here today and for all the important work you do.
Please keep well and safe. With that, have a good night.
The meeting is adjourned.