Evidence of meeting #109 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was scl.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
The next question is one that was in front of the U.K. committee. You noted that, and I quote, “If you can bill as several different companies but it is the same team working on it, the paperwork looks compliant even if the project is not.”
To your knowledge, were there any discussions between SCL and/or Cambridge Analytica with AIQ regarding the intentional flouting or circumvention of domestic laws or any sort of expenditure-related rules, and if so, what was the nature of those discussions?
As an Individual
What I can say is that work was performed in the United States by AggregateIQ, by SCL, and by Cambridge Analytica, and oftentimes those were for various PACs or campaigns or other electoral entities that were working in the same state, same region, or same electoral context. As to the specific discussions that AIQ has had with SCL, you'll have to ask AIQ.
One of my concerns was that the set-up of this arrangement would allow the various entities collectively to perform work that they otherwise would not be allowed to, had the regulator known that it was the same people just wearing different hats. The company SCL and Cambridge Analytica actually received legal advice on this and on other matters related to compliance in the United States. I'm not confident that they followed through with that advice.
AIQ's work in the United States potentially is questionable if they were, for example, sending non-American citizens down to advise or manage a campaign contrary to ethics rules and American law.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I have several other questions but I'm going to ask you a shorter question. Also, and this is from your testimony last week with Senator Whitehouse, you noted that the Ripon tool was created in order to use the data harvested by Aleksandr Kogan. Do you find it credible that AIQ wouldn't have been aware of the fact they were building this tool and for what purpose?
As an Individual
They were fully aware. They came to the U.K. all the time. I think they might have even met Aleksandr Kogan. I'm not sure exactly if they had or not. But I recall their being there when Aleksandr Kogan was in the office, also. I find it—
Liberal
As an Individual
I find it really difficult to believe that they went through an extensive contacting process, an extensive technical specification and did not understand the specification that they were co-writing.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Wylie.
I want to ask you about a conversation you claimed to have had with Jeff Silvester that he remembers differently, and you did swear under oath. I just want to make sure that what you said was accurate because you had stated in other testimony that, and I quote:
They [AIQ, Jeff Silvester] conceded to me, and this is a verbatim quote—and I stand by it; I remember Jeff Sylvester telling me...[that what they did] was “totally illegal”. [...] ...that AggregateIQ was just used as a...money-laundering vehicle.
Is that true? Did that conversation happen?
As an Individual
Yes. It happened in the spring of last year in Victoria, British Columbia. The words “totally illegal” I distinctly remember.
I stand by my recollection of that.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We asked Mr. Silvester about it. He said he was very surprised that you said that he said it was a misunderstanding, and that he wrote a text to you expressing that he thought it was a misunderstanding. Would that be true?
As an Individual
No, that's not true. I have all of the text messages from Jeff Silvester at that time. I absolutely do not recall his correcting his statement via text message.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Would you share those text messages with our committee? We're not interested in whether you talked about the Blue Jays or Liverpool, but whether or not he was concerned that he had been misrepresented to us is very important.
As an Individual
Sure, absolutely.
What I'll do is speak to my lawyers, and we'll find the best way to provide you with the information that you would like.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you very much.
Again, I'm concerned about the role of AIQ in various other roles with Cambridge Analytica. We asked about the murder video in Nigeria, and to AIQ's credit, it seemed that it was very upset when it received the murder video. Who gave AIQ the murder video?
As an Individual
The video that you're referring to is a video that shows people being dismembered. It has highly Islamophobic messaging in it. Cambridge Analytica—I believe actually via a contractor—created that video, and then sent it to AIQ for distribution. So, AIQ did not create the video. However, it—
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
No, and to AIQ's credit, it seemed very upset by that video. What surprised me was that Zack Massingham said at our committee that he didn't know that Cambridge Analytica existed during the Nigeria campaign, so he didn't understand how.... This made me wonder about who gave AIQ the video, if it came from Cambridge Analytica? How did he not know—
As an Individual
That cannot possibly be true. I'm sorry. That just can't be true. To not know who your largest client is.... I'm surprised that he said that.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I just want to get this on the record.
So, you're saying that it's absurd that in the Nigeria campaign, this video originated with Cambridge Analytica. It was handed to AIQ, but AIQ said that it didn't know that Cambridge Analytica existed.
As an Individual
Unless they're.... I don't know. Frankly, I'm shocked that he said that because it was the largest client of AIQ. I don't know how the CEO of a company doesn't know who its largest client is.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm just going to close this off because we have to go on. I'm worried about Mr. Massingham. Is he taking the fall for somebody? Why would someone totally misrepresent a simple fact like that?
