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
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Given the fact that they also had their hands in the Brexit vote, it could also be a way of them...of a foreign entity pushing money into another country's domestic vote, through Brexit. Could you speak to that?
As an Individual
Yes. I think this is in part where a vulnerability has been exposed in a lot of countries' electoral laws. If you pass money into companies, and then those companies provide services for domestic clients, it's not always transparent where some of that money came from. More reporting mechanisms for companies that do engage in politics would be something to explore.
Conservative
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We've received a number of questions from citizens through OpenMedia. Many of them, I think, are questioning the bigger issues in terms of regulation and how we start to move towards what you call dealing with these tech giants, these utilities. I think one of the questions is staring us in the face. That is, how likely it is that Cambridge Analytica and SCL were the lone operators in this big field of election manipulation? Were there, and are there, other players out there that we should be aware of?
As an Individual
The way I look at it is, Cambridge Analytica is the canary in the coal mine. Cambridge Analytica is the beginning; it's not the end. What CA has exposed is how easy it is to misappropriate information, take funds from mysterious sources, and then go and interfere in elections, particularly in cyberspace. What it really shows is how the Internet and the growing digitization of society have opened up vulnerabilities in our election system.
Elections, historically, feel like a very domestic, insulated activity, because previously, if you were a foreign actor, you would have to physically come to a country to interfere. Now you don't. I think, moving forward, we need to look at cybersecurity as a priority for elections, and we have to understand that we may look at social media as domestic political players, as a communication space, as scoring points, or for messaging.
If you are a malicious foreign actor, you look at it as an information battlefield. You don't look at these people as voters; you look at them very much as targets for manipulation and targets for division. This is why transparency mechanisms or requirements for online platforms that do any advertising in the political space would be a really helpful first step. That would make it a lot more difficult for a country like Russia to start to interfere in elections, if it has to be done in public.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
It would be really helpful if you could send our committee some recommendations that we should be looking at. What really struck me was, when we had Facebook here, they seemed to have a very cavalier disregard for the damage that was done through the manipulation of their platform. I see Facebook as having a revolutionary, positive potential. Certainly in my region, it's been transformative in connecting isolated indigenous communities. When we asked questions on, for example, the horrific ethnic slaughter in Myanmar and Facebook's unwillingness to police its own network or to deal with the calls from UN NGOs, they shrugged.
How do we come up with better mechanisms to protect democratic elections and to respond to this kind of misuse of platforms by these third-party operators?
As an Individual
I think one of the biggest things that I've learned in this process is that I get a lot of the same questions and see a lot of the same problems with the different legislators and governments that I've been dealing with around the world. One of the things that I've also seen is how Mark Zuckerberg, for example, refuses to appear at any of the other committees or investigations around world, save for Congress and his very brief meeting, if you can call it that, at the European Parliament. This means that you've got largely American companies that are exerting huge amounts of influence on the democratic systems of countries all around the world.
I think a starting point would be different legislatures, different regulators, and different governments sitting down together and talking about how it is that the Internet is global and everybody has a stake in making sure that their democracies are intact. What is it about the Internet that needs to be looked at? What are the common questions that each country has? They should be working together on a common solution. I honestly think that it may require a multinational approach, particularly when you see how Mark Zuckerberg refuses to engage with most countries.
As an Individual
I think that it has to happen at an international level or across parliamentary level.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Finally, domestically, would you say that it would be in Canadians' interests to have Canadian political parties come under our privacy protection act so that there is more accountability for how political parties use this information?
As an Individual
The only issue that I think would need to really be carefully considered is, if you start to require political parties to have opt-in consent before they talk to voters, or if they receive some kind of opt-out, they can never engage that voter again, and you may create a situation where you have an election and you are unable to reach the entire electorate because of those barriers.
Our democratic process is a very special thing, and I think that there is value, sometimes, in one party approaching a voter who doesn't initially agree with them or doesn't even necessarily want to talk to them, because that's partly what debate and the political process is about; it's about challenging conversations. You can't have challenging conversations if we create rules that prevent political parties from engaging with the voters.
It's different for companies than with elections, but in particular with elections, I think that's a really important thing for people to think about, that it feels good to say we should have opt-in. If you don't want to talk to parties, they shouldn't have to bother you at the door, but sometimes, that's essential in maintaining our democratic process.
The only caution that I have there is just making sure that it's not so overly restrictive that five years down the road, parties can't engage with the electorate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Thank you.
I have a question for you, Mr. Wylie. I have a couple, actually.
We have to go to votes here in a few minutes. Are you able to stay to answer a few questions in camera when we come back?
As an Individual
Sure. I'm not sure what time it is at the moment, but I'm sure I can, yes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
We've already checked, and the building that you're in is going to be open to you, to be accessible to us, at least until 12:45 p.m. That already has been worked out, so you're free to stay.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Okay, I have a question for you, as chair, and then we're going to go to votes and then come back. We'll come back in camera.
Have you watched the testimony of Mr. Zack Massingham and Mr. Jeff Silvester when they appeared before our committee in Canada?
As an Individual
I've watched parts of it. I haven't seen the entire thing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Okay. Is it your opinion, in watching that testimony, that they were untruthful to our committee?
As an Individual
My impression was that there were answers that felt obfuscated or that were, as has been discussed now, so fantastical that they're hard to believe.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Okay.
Could we have unanimous consent to continue for about one minute, and then we'll come back in camera? Okay.
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Wylie. We trust that you'll be back when we come back. We're going to be back around 11:45. You can go and come back—that's fine.
As for the committee, we're going to be coming back to ask questions in camera. Is that clear, everybody?
We'll suspend just for a few minutes, and we'll see you when we get back, Mr. Wylie.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]