Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 30th, 2018

[Jesse Calvert]

I think generally the same would be said for the New Democratic Party. We also want to ensure that the data we have with respect to address and mailing information is as up-to-date as possible, and we purchase information from Canada Post to make sure that's the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, with my colleagues here, I ask that you don't target us individually for dragging your parties' representatives into the light of day. We're just doing our job here.

Mr. Fenrick, in 2012-13, leading up to the 2015 election, it was common wisdom, heard on the radio and media, that the Conservatives were really good at micro-targeting. New Democrats weren't so bad at it, but we were really trying to pick up our game. Liberals didn't really micro-target. They did one-inch wide advertising across the country. It was seen that this would be a problem for the Liberals in 2015. Then the election came, and you guys stomped us. Your micro-targeting was really good.

How did that transformation happen? Who oversaw the creation of a very impressive Liberal data machine for 2015?

[Michael Fenrick]

That's not something I can speak to directly, but I would be happy to give whatever information I can to the committee at a—

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

That's our leader calling. He didn't like that question.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

He wants me to ask it again. Sorry.

[Michael Fenrick]

My answer, Mr. Angus, is simply that I don't have that information available to me right now, but I'd be happy to identify that information for you at a future point.

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

Okay.

For the next election, it appears that your party will be working with Tom Pitfield and Data Sciences. He did work on the 2015.... What will the relationship be between Data Sciences and the Liberal Party, in terms of a digital strategy?

[Michael Fenrick]

I can speak generally. In terms of our involvement with any third party provider, we ensure that those third party providers are bound by privacy obligations similar to the ones we impose upon ourselves. We include, in agreements with third party providers, that their use of the data is similarly restricted in order to protect the privacy interests of the data holder or the personal information of those individuals.

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

Mr. Pitfield was pretty impressive in 2015. Is that why you're working with Data Sciences? Is it because of their expertise in doing this kind of electoral data running?

[Michael Fenrick]

I don't think I'm the appropriate person to answer that question.

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

Okay.

Mr. Bailey, one of the things we talked about this morning was protocols and limits to accessing databases. In 2011, when we had the Pierre Poutine scandal, apparently a young staffer was able to make calls based on the Conservative CIMS database.

How was it possible that someone, a young volunteer, was able to have access to the databases if we have protocols in place to limit access so that abuse doesn't happen?

[Trevor Bailey]

In 2011, the situation as described was in one riding. It was in the riding of Guelph. The young individual you identified was a member of the campaign in Guelph. He was a member of that team and thus did have access to the database for the region for which he was responsible, which was Guelph. The use of that data, particularly drawing non-supporter information with the purpose of deceiving those voters, was certainly a breach of privacy policy both then and now, as well as of Elections Canada law and significant laws.

We certainly were not pleased with that, and that is one of the reasons we now have a league-leading privacy policy. We have changed not only the policy. It's not just putting words to it. The ability to access data has changed significantly since that time, and I'm very confident in the processes we now have in place. The system at the time limited his access to only the region for which he had responsibility. That was one of the key limits at the time, but his access was approved by the campaign at that time, which was one of the checks against access.

It was a breach of our policy and a breach of Elections Canada law. We have evolved as an organization because of it, not just with respect to our policies but certainly with our procedures and the ability to access data. It has changed since 2011.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Calvert, part of the reason we have undertaken this study is the Cambridge Analytica scandal. It's not just a question of political parties having data, but to be able to micro-target the issue of manipulating voters online.

The question that's come up time and time again involves data points that are collected by parties, the psychographic modelling. Does the New Democratic Party have an identified number of points of information it would like per potential voter to know whether they're in our universe? How do you target voters? Are you using psychographic modelling or statistical modelling to identify where potential voters or non-voters are?

[Jesse Calvert]

Like all parties, we're trying to talk to the people who are most likely to care about the issues we care about. We're trying to identify the groups of people who are most interested in the issues we stand up and fight for every day. We use publicly available data to do this, but the data and information we use is not personal information. It's not personally identifiable information. It's information that's publicly available and speaks to trends and groups of individuals.

In the end, the goal of a political party is to engage Canadians in conversations, to learn more about them by asking good questions and to improve upon our policies by listening to those answers. That's what we try to do on a day-to-day basis, whether through our online outreach or through our door-to-door outreach. That's our mindset going into it.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Next up, for seven minutes, is Mr. Baylis.

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

Mr. Calvert, you said the NDP would be happy to be subject to PIPEDA laws.

Mr. Bailey, would the Conservative Party be happy to be subject to PIPEDA laws?

[Trevor Bailey]

Once again, I'll leave it up to Parliament and your committee to make a recommendation on that. My role with the party is to protect our lists and to follow our policies. I think we have a very good, leading privacy policy, but as for whether it should be in place, I leave that—

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

Mr. Fenrick, do you have a position on that?

[Michael Fenrick]

Certainly not as PIPEDA currently stands.... It just doesn't make sense in the particular context in which political activities are—

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

You feel that the penalties are too heavy. Do they compare to B.C.? In B.C., there hasn't been a great drop off—at least, I'm not aware of it—of volunteers because they are subject to the B.C. privacy laws. However, you think that PIPEDA laws are more strict than the B.C. laws. Is that your concern?

[Michael Fenrick]

I don't know the B.C. law in any sort of detail, but I do believe that the way that the penalties operate will be a disincentive to people's participating if PIPEDA were to be applied.

However, I think it's important to have the complete context before making that decision.

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

Okay, but the penalties are what you're saying might worry volunteers. That is what is bothering you about PIPEDA.