Information & Ethics Committee on May 10th, 2018

[Elizabeth Denham]

When I speak to the political parties, and we've talked to all the main political parties and the campaigns in the U.K., I think what they're looking for, although they know that more research and perhaps more specific targeting can be done to reach potential and existing supporters, it could be that technologies have got away on us.

The principles of the law, the accountabilities, and the transparency are still really important to maintain the trust and confidence of voters. Just because we have new research methods, or just because people are arguing that these are more effective ways to reach potential voters and supporters doesn't make it right.

We need to look at whether there are some red lines here for the kind of back room, back office data matching and profiling that is possible in today's world. Now is the time to do it, because if we don't get the public policy right now, then we risk losing the confidence and trust of people down the road as these techniques become more effective and more freely available.

One of the recommendations in my report is going to be for a very specific enforceable code of conduct in the use of data analytics in the political context.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Next up for five minutes, we have Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much for coming today.

Madam Denham, we had Mr. Massingham and Mr. Silvester come before our committee. Did you hear their testimony?

[Elizabeth Denham]

Yes, I did.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We were trying to determine the link between SCL and AggregateIQ. Mr. Massingham said there was absolutely no link, which seemed contrary to the documents we had obtained. Do you believe his testimony was forthcoming?

[Elizabeth Denham]

We have asked some very specific questions of AggregateIQ in the context of our investigation, and, as I said earlier to your colleague, and as I've said in public, we're still waiting for comprehensive answers.

We're also looking at a lot of material that has been provided to our investigation: witness statements, information from whistle-blowers, and documentation before us. That is one of the questions our investigation is focused on. We're hoping to get to the bottom of that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. McEvoy, you seemed to be very determined that political parties come under PIPEDA. We as politicians don't tend to talk about our data very much. We're very protective of it.

When I was elected, I found out that my main job is in my riding. We deal with immigration, with people coming to us with bankruptcies. People come to us with medical problems, deportation issues, child welfare. We gather an enormous amount of very personal information. Nobody trained my office on gathering it. We have a strict code. I assume most MPs' offices do. I've dealt with other offices in other parties about certain sensitive cases. It has always been very professional, but we gather that data to deal with constituents. We always have a separate file or a separate dataset for elections, but there's nothing to say that those couldn't be mixed up if we don't have certain laws or certain outliers. Do you believe it would be better to have the confidence of the people who come to us for service to know we are under a federal data law to protect privacy?

[Michael McEvoy]

It is important that Canadians understand that their data is being protected properly and appropriately.

I would draw something of a distinction. You talked about, essentially, the work you do for your constituents. In British Columbia that information would be, for the most part, exempt under freedom of information law.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes.

[Michael McEvoy]

What we're talking about here is political party activity and collection of data.

Maybe another way of answering your question, in thinking about this, is in British Columbia we have had occasion to investigate instances where, in the governing party's collecting information, there were allegations that it may have crossed a line, a grey zone, where that information moved, potentially or allegedly, from a government collection to party sources.

Without our ability to investigate parties, that investigation would have been stopped at that door, which I think would have been not just problematic in terms of our own investigation, but also in terms of the public understanding of what had truly happened to the information that was collected. Because we have a law that allows us to look at parties, we were able to look at that matter holistically and come to conclusions about what had actually happened to the data. I think that enhanced the public's confidence that data was being handled properly, and where it wasn't, that sanctions were available for our office to bring down.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, I think it's important. Again, certainly in the work that we do in our MPs' offices, we treat that data very.... It's sacred. I always say to my staff, whatever's said in here is like being in the confessional: it could never, ever be put out there. We need to have that confidence. People come to us and share very intimate details of their lives, and then three weeks later we're calling them on the phone, trying to get them to take an election sign. They have to know that we are not using their personal data to get those election signs, but that's an honour code.

Would it be better if we had a very clear legal code so that, in an age when people are losing trust in politicians, they could say that in Canada they can trust that when they come and they share data, that data they want to share with us politically is being shared and the data they don't want being shared is not being shared?

[Michael McEvoy]

That's an interesting example you raised. If there was an allegation that somehow the data was leaking to the political party, as you describe it, the ability of a regulator.... I think the public's confidence would be enhanced in the system if they knew that there was some ability to investigate that to determine whether or not the party had improperly collected information that they shouldn't have. Again, it's for legislators to determine where that oversight power would be in Canada. I know there are some constitutional, legal issues with the OPC. In British Columbia there are occasions where my office actually has carriage over certain matters that are not necessarily squarely within our statute but can be referred to our office for adjudication.

Similarly, on whether there is an appropriate place, an appropriate piece of legislation, where privacy and data protection as it applies to political parties...perhaps it's not PIPEDA, I don't know, and again, that's for legislators to determine. However, you have the Privacy Commissioner of Canada who could adjudicate those matters, potentially, because he is in a good place. He has the expertise. He has the staff. He has the investigatory capability to look at those kinds of issues.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

The last five minutes go to Mr. Baylis.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Denham, for being here.

Obviously, as Canadian legislators and Canadian citizens, we have a concern about AIQ. It starts there for us because we don't want people using Canada as a barrier to conduct illegal activities somewhere else. We've had them in front of our committee. As you've seen, we've come to the conclusion that they were not forthcoming with us. I could speculate that they might have even been purposely trying to mislead us. They're part of a group of companies. They're part of Cambridge Analytica, SCL.... They were at one time called SCL Canada.

Also, it starts with Aleksandr Kogan and Global Science Research. This is the person who amassed all this data. Has he broken any of your laws? Have you made any determination on that yet?

[Elizabeth Denham]

We are looking at Dr. Kogan. We are looking at his app. We are looking at the operation of it, his relationship with Cambridge Analytica, and what actually happened on the ground with that app.

Dr. Kogan has refused to speak to our investigation, so again, we are proceeding with other options in trying to get a statement from him. Again, we have enforcement tools. We have civil remedies that we can pursue, but it certainly is an important line of inquiry for our investigation in the U.K.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'm not surprised that Dr. Kogan is not co-operating. Let's assume Dr. Kogan has gone and taken this data. We would call this stealing, when you go in through the back door, take something that doesn't belong to you, and it's against the rules. I'm going to say Dr. Kogan has stolen this information.

The question becomes, why would Mr. Steve Bannon go all the way from the United States to Europe, to the U.K., and engage SCL and help start Cambridge Analytica? Did they have any specific abilities, or was it simply that they had access to this data?

Have you spoken to Mr. Bannon? Are you planning to speak to him as part of your investigation?

[Elizabeth Denham]

Again, I can't speak to that line of inquiry because of the ongoing nature of this investigation. I don't want to offer a hypothesis as to why the company was set up in this way. It certainly is a question that parliamentary committees on both sides of the Atlantic are asking, as well as attorneys general, and other regulatory bodies.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

It does seem very interesting because Facebook, Google, and a bunch of these very powerful, capable companies exist and work in the United States, but they felt it necessary to go to the U.K. The one place they show up is the one place that has access to this data that Mr. Kogan has put together, and he is refusing to co-operate on how he got it.

We come back to Mr. Kogan, who has been financed in the past, in my understanding, by the Russian government and arms of the Russian government. We see the Russian regime under Vladimir Putin interfering in elections. Is it possible that Mr. Bannon went there to test run on the Brexit vote what he was planning to do six or seven months later with the American election? Is this a possibility?

[Elizabeth Denham]

I can say the focus of our investigation is about the collection, use, and alleged misuse of personal data in the context of Cambridge Analytica and SCL Elections. It's for others to make those connections internationally.

We will get to the bottom of the questions we have in our specific lines of inquiry under the data protection law in the U.K.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

You have been very helpful, and we've been coordinating with the U.K.'s investigation as well. Has anybody from the American government contacted you to help coordinate what you're doing, and follow along the same lines as we are?

[Elizabeth Denham]

We have been in touch with our American counterparts in this inquiry. I have not been in touch with Congress or with politicians in this inquiry. That might be a question for Damian Collins and the DCMS committee in the U.K.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

It seems to me there have been players in the U.K. who have coordinated or worked with a hostile foreign power—and by that I mean by Mr. Vladimir Putin's regime—to actively undermine your democracy. In the old days we would call that treason, and these people would be dealt with accordingly.

If you find these links, is this something you are going to pass on to that level?

[Elizabeth Denham]

Under my law, I have the ability to pass information to other law enforcement authorities or regulatory authorities if I deem it to be in the public interest to do so.

For example, I have passed information to the U.K. Electoral Commission that I thought was relevant to their inquiries about campaign financing. I can do that. If I found other information that would be pertinent to a law enforcement investigation, then I have the ability, in my law, to share that information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Baylis.

Before we move in camera, I want to thank you for your co-operation from our committee's perspective and look forward to ongoing co-operation to that effect. We are also exploring all legal options for what this committee can pursue if problems arise from testimony at our committee.