Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2022

[Louis Audet Gosselin]

Yes, quickly...

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I'm sorry, but we're out of time on this round. We have to keep moving.

I will go directly to Mr. MacGregor.

Sir, you have a six-minute slot. The floor is yours.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

Mr. Rogers, your opening statement certainly gave us a lot to think about.

About the platforms that have policies against hate but are not enforcing it, we as a committee have had Stripe, GoFundMe and GiveSendGo appear as witnesses.

When GoFundMe was before our committee, they did state in their opening statement that “fundraising campaigns relating to misinformation, hate speech, violence and more are prohibited by [their] terms of service”. I pointed out to GoFundMe that there was a lot of misinformation associated with the convoy that came to Ottawa. It was quite evident that misinformation was surrounding the whole convoy as early as mid-January leading up to the illegal occupation of Ottawa, but they did not stop the fundraising for the convoy until, I believe, February 4.

Similarly, Stripe had an integral role, particularly with GiveSendGo, who took up the slack in fundraising for the illegal occupation after GoFundMe stopped it. GiveSendGo just simply didn't seem to really care about what they were fundraising for.

My question to you is this: What is it about companies and why are they not self-policing? Is it just that there is an obscene amount of money to be made? Are you getting any positive reaction from them when your organization points out what's going on with their platforms?

Can you illuminate a little bit more for us what's going on there?

[Dr. Daniel J. Rogers]

Yes, absolutely, and I don't think it's a monolithic answer. Certainly financial considerations are part of it, although one of the lessons I've learned in the last few years of doing this work is that it's only a part of it.

If you imagine the amount of money that GoFundMe was making off that convoy fundraiser itself, it was probably not very much. I would say that this probably goes more deeply to the culture of the tech industry, of being relatively anti-regulation and relatively pro-free speech, and there's sort of a cultural headwind to taking action.

Our experience has been that the response from different private companies really depends on the company and on the culture of that company. Some companies are adamantly opposed, some are very proactive partners of ours that are eager to work more proactively in enforcing and implementing policies and some fall in the middle. I think a lot of what you see is driven by public perception more than anything else.

The reason that GoFundMe didn't take action initially was probably that there wasn't a lot of public scrutiny, and thus not a lot of attention being paid. I think that is certainly a default position of most platforms. Unless there's public or journalistic interest in a particular problematic event happening on their platform, it tends to get ignored.

I'll also say as a more general rule that where we've seen more proactivity is where there's healthier competition. In the parts of the market—whether it's ad tech or other parts of the tech industry—where there's less competition and more of a monopolistic market structure, there tends to less interest in implementing a solution. Where there's more competition and more interest in running a cleaner platform, so to speak, relative to your competitors, there tends to be more proactive action. To us, that's also why antitrust actions are actually an important lever to pull in the tech reform conversation as it relates to disinformation, extremism and hate speech, in addition to the other ones that I've been talking about as well.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much for clearly outlining the challenges we have before us.

You mentioned that for a lot of these large tech companies—and you really listed the who's who of major tech companies— that have problems in carrying propaganda and selling some of this merchandise, the fact is that they're based in the United States and have U.S. laws applying to how they govern themselves. You mentioned their platform liability waiver.

What kind of challenge does that present to a country such as Canada, where the companies are not based in our country? How does the Canadian government face this challenge when it's dealing with foreign-based companies? To what extent is the global community of nations confronting this problem? What more should our country be doing to put this on the international spotlight to really get international partners to effectively deal with it?

[Dr. Daniel J. Rogers]

Yes, it's a fantastic question.

I will be honest: I'm not a lawyer so I don't know that I can give you a perfect answer. I don't know the details of how liability laws in Canada, say, would apply to platforms that are headquartered in the United States.

I would say that Canada can certainly join the EU and the rest of the world in leading the regulatory conversation with, in the EU, for example, the Digital Markets Act, the digital safety act, or, in the U.K., the online safety bill. These are examples of leading conversations. Also, then, there is providing international pressure to the United States to follow along and take legislative action as well. These are two things that can certainly help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I'm looking at the clock and the division of time. If I cut everybody's time in half in this coming round, we'll end within five minutes of being on time.

With that stricture, let me turn to Mr. Lloyd for two and a half minutes.

Go ahead.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for my two and a half minutes.

My question is for Mr. Gosselin.

Something you said really struck me: that one of the root causes is that people feel they no longer have a place in society. As an expert in the prevention of radicalization leading to violence, have you ever found that calling people names or labelling people has been an effective tool to prevent radicalization?

[Louis Audet Gosselin]

Indeed, the polarization of debates and discussions and labels or insults are often factors that will accentuate feelings of marginalization and exclusion. Of course, in citizen debates, the level of aggression can sometimes increase, and we recognize that some tense discussions must take place. However, in general, we call on people to distinguish between debates about ideas and attacks on individuals, so that people do not feel that their identity is under attack.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Absolutely. It is important to denounce hate, but for people in positions of authority, you would say it would be very irresponsible of them and contribute to radicalization by labelling people as “racist” or “misogynist”. You don't think that would do anything to help prevent radicalization, do you?

[Louis Audet Gosselin]

A balance needs to be found in political debates. On the one hand, we need to be able to say things as they are. There are racist or misogynistic people, for example, and it is necessary to name these things. On the other hand, we must do it in a relatively factual way. It's up to each person and each politician to determine their limits.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I absolutely agree. It's very important not to try to label entire groups. There are definitely individuals who do things that are heinous and that should be pointed out, but you would also agree that we need to reach out to these people to try to bring them back into the fold. Would you agree with bringing them back into society?

[Louis Audet Gosselin]

Yes, dialogue is always important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

It's going to have to be a yes or no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I heard a yes. Thank you.

We will move to Mr. Zuberi.

Mr. Zuberi, you have two and a half minutes. The floor is yours.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to address Mr. Audet Gosselin first.

Mr. Audet Gosselin, I've attended some of your briefings in the past as a stakeholder, so I have a lot of respect for the work that you do. On your website, you say that there are four types of radicalization: right-wing extremism, politico-religious extremism, left-wing extremism and single-cause extremism.

Can you tell us what percentage of your centre's resources are devoted to each of these categories?

[Louis Audet Gosselin]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

It's quite difficult to answer that, as I don't have access to the information gathered in the course of supporting the callers. It is confidential. We try to deal with all forms of extremism fairly, so to speak, taking the realities into account.

When our centre was set up, a lot of the concerns of the public and the people who were calling were related to jihadist movements. With the rise or affirmation of the far right, it has become more and more present in the last couple of years. There is a lot of talk about movements linked to conspiracy theories, which would be classified as single-issue extremism. We also know that, in the past, there have been very important extreme left-wing movements in Canada and elsewhere in the world, and that tomorrow there will be other movements. So we try to have a prevention framework that works for all ideologies. Radicalization is not just about one colour or one idea.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

For context, I'd like to point out that your centre started in the context of a very robust conversation around jihadi “extremism”, for lack of a better term. Is that correct? Therefore initially your work was focused around that, but I do believe you made a sincere and concerted effort to broaden and not to be pigeonholed in that way. Is that correct?

[Louis Audet Gosselin]

The centre was created in the context of young people wanting to leave the country to go to Syria. This was instrumental in convincing the authorities to create the centre. From the beginning, the centre wanted to make it clear that radicalization was not limited to jihadism or political Islam and that it extended to any ideology.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Madame Larouche, you have 1.25 minutes. Make the best of it you can.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Audet Gosselin, in conclusion, I will return to the question I asked you before.

In your opinion, what are the most important factors that we should remember, as a committee, in relation to the radicalization that has been observed since the beginning of the pandemic?

[Louis Audet Gosselin]

It has been mainly the anxiety related to the crisis. This has been exploited by certain ideological groups, who have pushed certain conspiracy theories and certain alternative ideas from a populist or anti-elite angle. This was the biggest factor, in addition to social isolation, that led many people to embrace extremist ideas during the pandemic.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Was there also some media disinformation that contributed to all this?

[Louis Audet Gosselin]

Indeed, disinformation adds to the radicalization or circulation of these ideas, but this is a much broader problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacGregor, you also have 1.25 minutes. Good luck.