Evidence of meeting #15 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chinese.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
My friends think I'm a dinosaur because I don't have a TikTok account.
Am I out of time? I'm sorry, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
You're out of time, and it's not because you called the rest of us old in a very diplomatic way.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
I feel that, though. I resemble that remark.
Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here today.
Today, I have the honour of replacing a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, so I'm revisiting my old passions.
Mr. Bridgman, based on your research, what is Canada's actual capacity to resist election disinformation? Are negative campaigns about interference sometimes used or exaggerated by political parties themselves? Could that disinformation become a tool during the election campaign?
Director, Media Ecosystem Observatory
Thank you for those good questions.
I can't answer the question about the capacity to resist election disinformation, because my security clearance doesn't allow me to know everything. I have read the reports that have been published, and I can say that, internally, Canada is certainly able to identify disinformation and share information about it.
I'm more of an expert on what's possible for Canada's universities and citizen groups. We have a real capacity. We look at what's happening online, we conduct analyses and we communicate that very well. In fact, we have some of the best capacity in the world to do that kind of research and analysis. That's largely thanks to the Canadian Digital Media Research Network.
We have a lot of capacity, but it should be noted that the data we can access and our ability to understand the situation are really limited because of the platforms' decisions. A very relevant example is the platform X, which decided this week to publish the location of all accounts on its platform. We don't know exactly how it goes about accurately finding an account's location, as well as its definition. For example, the CBC was located in the United States, and tons of accounts were identified in different places. That doesn't mean the CBC is located in the United States; that isn't true. It's also a matter of transparency. We need to know how the platform made that decision. We lack the real-world data to do that properly, to properly protect Canadians from efforts to manipulate information. That's my answer to the first question.
It's a lot harder to answer the second question. Are political parties using information manipulation tools, the tools and capabilities of these platforms, and our current ecosystem to manipulate Canadians' opinions?
I personally think that politics is an exchange of values, a debate on public policy, and an effort to convince Canadians of what's real and what isn't. For our part, our research doesn't focus on political parties or politicians. It's up to you to convince Canadians. However, it's certain that, from time to time, these manipulations manage to convince members or political parties of something that isn't real. That means that you yourselves are also victims of all these dynamics. I'm not going to say that one party or another is spreading disinformation, but you are victims of it as well. I know you don't want to lie to Canadians; that's fundamental. That's the way to think when it comes to believing in democracy. I don't think our system is set up so that you have enough information to react properly, communicate properly, and know if something is true or an effort by a person or a state to convince you of something that isn't real.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
I don't have much time left, but I think your answer was very comprehensive.
In closing, do you believe that politicians are dramatizing or exploiting the concept of interference for certain supporters? You sort of gave us the answer, but we feel that it will be important to be more vigilant during future campaigns. Do you agree with me?
Director, Media Ecosystem Observatory
It will absolutely be important to be vigilant. It can very easily be an attempt at interference. The appearance of interference can be more powerful than interference itself. That's kind of what happened last year in Kirkland Lake, so yes, that's a danger.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
We'll go to Mr. Cooper next. We'll do six minutes, six minutes and then three and a half before we go in camera.
Mr. Cooper, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Mr. Burton, I'd like to get your thoughts on something you referenced—that is, this government's pursuing a strategic partnership with the PRC.
During the English-language leaders debate in the last federal election, Mark Carney said that the PRC is Canada's biggest security threat. He went on to say that it is “one of the largest threats with respect to foreign interference”. Consistent with this, the director of CSIS stated just two weeks ago that the PRC is a major threat to Canada's security because of its foreign interference activities, yet we have Mark Carney's foreign affairs minister talking about a “strategic partnership” with the PRC, including on matters of security.
How can we square, on the one hand, Mark Carney's saying that the PRC is Canada's biggest security threat, backed up by CSIS, and on the other, all the while, his government's pursuing a strategic partnership with a hostile foreign state that is a threat to Canada's security?
Senior Fellow, Sinopsis, As an Individual
It's a great question. The strategic partnership agreement was signed between Canada and China in 2005. I opposed it at the time. Then, when we had the Indo-Pacific policy come up, all of a sudden we forgot about strategic partnerships and talked about disruptive forces in affairs. Now we have the strategic partnership back, articulated by Minister Anand and the Prime Minister, as you said.
The Chinese interpretation of a strategic partnership goes along with the other stuff that the Prime Minister, in his meeting with the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, and that indeed Deputy Minister David Morrison in his speech to the celebration of China's National Day last September...which is that we are buying into the Chinese language about being pragmatic and constructive, as well as their other language about seeking common ground while setting aside differences.
By using this language, we're essentially saying that we're going to do Canada-China relations in the way China wants to do it. The idea of having a partnership with a country that the Commons, through a unanimous resolution, determined was engaged in genocide and facilitates third world dictatorships by providing them with Chinese surveillance technologies and all the other things China does—menacing Taiwan, the abrogation of the Hong Kong agreement and so on—is completely extraordinary to me. I mean, are we partners? I don't want to be partners. I don't feel that Canada should partner up with a regime whose values are so discordant with what makes our country great.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
To shift gears a bit, other than in the United States, the PRC has the largest number of accredited diplomats in Canada. The PRC's diplomatic presence is significantly larger than the presences of such countries as India, Japan, the United Kingdom and France. In fact, in 2023, for example, the PRC had 176 diplomats in Canada compared with 178 diplomats in the United States. By the way, the United States is the PRC's top trading partner and most popular immigration destination for PRC nationals. Still, they had only two more Chinese diplomats than Canada, notwithstanding that the United States is 10 times larger.
Should the size of the PRC's diplomatic mission in Canada be of concern? Why do you think the PRC has such a large diplomatic footprint in Canada?
Senior Fellow, Sinopsis, As an Individual
I mean, Japan has 40-some. India has 30-some. The U.S. has, as you said, 176. We don't have anything like that number of diplomats in China. Why isn't it reciprocal?
When they're accepted by Canada, diplomats are supposed to provide what diplomatic function they will be maintaining. The question is, are Chinese diplomats so inefficient that they need large numbers to engage in legitimate diplomatic function, or is it that about 70% of them are engaged in espionage, influence operations, harassment of Canadians of Chinese origin and other things that are not consistent with their diplomatic function? I would like to see their cohort cut down to the number they need to function in a diplomatic way.
In Ottawa, it's not just that former convent on St. Patrick Street. They have other buildings in our city to accommodate the large number of Chinese operatives, not to speak of proxies being run by Chinese diplomats in these so-called police stations, which are similarly engaged in activities that I believe are in violation of Canadian law. The perpetuators should be made accountable for that.
We're not expelling people who I believe CSIS knows are espionage agents. The only one we expelled was Zhao Wei after it was exposed in the press that this gentleman had been involved in activities to pressure the family of Michael Chong.
I just don't want any Chinese spies to be operating freely in our country. The fact that we don't expel any of them and that we don't make any of them a persona non grata or bring their proxies to Canadian courts to be made accountable for these alleged activities sends a signal to China that Canada is open territory for this kind of thing. It also sends a signal to the United States that Canada is open territory for Chinese infiltration: Can the United States trust us in important collaboration on security and military issues?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you for finishing your answer at exactly six minutes. That was exceptional work.
Mr. Louis, go ahead, please. You have six minutes.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you to our witnesses.
I'll focus my questions, from the top, on Mr. Brooking from the Atlantic Council, the director of strategy.
You had an article entitled “Deepfake video of Canadian Prime Minister reaches millions on TikTok, X”, and you noted that, both during and after the 2025 election campaign, a video circulated on social media of Prime Minister Carney “announcing controversial auto regulations”. Can you explain the relevance of that video? Specifically, where did it come from, what happened after it was published and how extensively was it amplified?
Director of Strategy and Resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council
Absolutely, I can. We do not know the exact origin of that video. As I alluded to in my earlier comments, its most likely origin is...focused on financial fraud. We know that the video spread rapidly. That was one of numerous examples, featuring primarily Prime Minister Carney but also other Canadian political figures, in which they were essentially.... There were AI voices and scripts being used to sell particular products and direct people to click on links to then go down rabbit holes for further fraud.
What struck us most, though, was just how widespread the sharing patterns around this content were, as well as the slowness, on the part of platforms, to limit the spread. They should have limited it either because it was a clear scam or because it was politically oriented, but this was not a factor in their content moderation decisions.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
The phrase that comes to mind is “trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube”. Once information is out, it's really difficult to contain. However, it sounds to me as though, if we could talk to the source—the social media platforms themselves—that would make more sense. I believe it was Mr. Bridgman who said that these are the consequences of their not being regulated. What pressures are being put on these social media platforms to regulate, specifically during elections?
I'll ask Mr. Brookings. I referenced Mr. Bridgman, but I'll get back to him. I'm sorry.
Director of Strategy and Resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council
I would say that this is an especially difficult question because Canada has placed pressure on the platforms. In fact, from our assessments in both 2019 and 2021, platforms were actually more keyed in, because of these pressures, to take proactive action—or at least quick action—when something was obviously undermining Canadian election integrity. It's my sense that the broader political conditions in 2025 made it so that some previous commitments, voluntary commitments that these platforms had made, were no longer in force. In that environment, one has to turn to law and statutory mechanisms to try to compel the same co-operation.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I will turn to Mr. Bridgman. To that point, there's legislation, regulation and enforcement—there's a balance of all three. We see it's not possible to move legislation as quickly as the manipulative digital tools that could affect our free elections.
You briefly mentioned the Canada Elections Act and possibly looking at that. Can you expand on what types of legislative changes can be used in such a fast-moving ecosystem?
Director, Media Ecosystem Observatory
I'm not an expert on the Canada Elections Act. I was specifically referring to influencers with regard to that, as well as speech and promotions during elections. There is what can be done in the immediate term, what can be done in the medium term and what can be done in the long term.
In the immediate term, this is a challenging environment. Platforms are currently under pressure in the United States to adhere to a “free speech first” approach, which they interpret as meaning the platform can do whatever it wants in terms of algorithmic amplification, and that is an extension of free speech. Whatever the algorithm decides is an extension of free speech. While I have trouble with this, it is the interpretation of the United States, which makes any unilateral action by Canada very difficult: To wit, we probably cannot engage super effectively in this unilaterally. We should instead look to other countries, to partnerships and to joint regimes that can encourage this degree of transparency.
I would suggest that our best ally in this is the European Union, with the DMA and the DSA. Its approach to mandating data transparency has really entered into a greater degree of force. Its approach to mandating data transparency, which has really entered into a greater degree of force, is not without issues. The EU is also undergoing geopolitical battles in relation to data access and attempting to ensure that these platforms maximize democratic values alongside social connectedness. That is certainly the approach Canada should take. I think the European Union would be willing to and supportive of trying to align there. In some ways, the online harms act was getting to some of this.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I'm pretty much out of time, so I just want to say thank you for this. It's very helpful.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you so much.
I'll now turn to Madame Normandin for three and a half minutes, please.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much.
My question is for both Mr. Bridgman and Mr. Burton. This may be the defeatist question of the day.
There has been a lot of discussion on the importance of passing legislation about platforms such as TikTok. However, aren't we tilting at windmills, given that there's still a critical mass of people who like those platforms, who are interested in them and who may not be that interested in the truth? If I may draw an analogy with the movie The Matrix, they prefer the blue pill to the red pill.
Every time we try to use legislation to regulate what happens on those platforms, aren't we wasting our time, unfortunately? Ultimately, there are human beings behind all this, and they may not want to know the truth.
Senior Fellow, Sinopsis, As an Individual
The thing is, the non-truth is more fun than the real truth. This stuff about Mr. Carney, etc., on TikTok is much more interesting than presumably the rather boring guy he probably is in real life, like me, so of course people like it.
The problem is, if we're going to get into a situation in which we know the stuff is not true and we don't care, is it the end of civilization as we know it? It's pretty disturbing when people don't want to have fact-based information at their disposal.
I hear you on this, and that does seem to be the trend, but I think it's incumbent on the government to do something about such things as TikTok. Providing a service that appeals to young people in the same way but doesn't send enormous amounts of data to China would be a good idea. So far, Canada has not been prepared to do that, although if I understand correctly, parliamentarians are not allowed to have TikTok on their official devices, so that's a good thing.
How can we go against young people who clearly are not interested in concerns about their personal data or the fact that the algorithm is subtly shaping their perception of the world in a way that is favourable to nondemocratic and autocratic forces and is supporting the agendas of billionaires and awful dictators around the world?