Evidence of meeting #10 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was palantir.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
My name was on the list, and then it went off, and then I had to put it back on. I'm going to accept the list, but I just think Mr. Dong's trying to jump the queue.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I agree that it was messy. I saw it flickering a couple of times. We are trying to do the best that we can here, colleagues, and I apologize. I cannot even guarantee that I have total accuracy. The only thing I can do is actually refresh everything, and then everybody would just have to race to the keyboard.
If you keep your comments brief, we can be as fair as possible, and we'll go through the list. My apologies; there was no attempt to short anybody. I'm just trying to deal with the technology that we have in front of us, colleagues.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
I feel that I must speak up on this because you have shown flexibility in accepting blue hands raised prior to gavelling in, for example. Given that we now have people in person and are using the hybrid system, I appreciate your flexibility and I count on your fairness in that regard. However, I have to agree with my colleague Mr. Dong, and I saw Mr. Angus's hand go up as well. I think, frankly, that Mr. Warkentin wasn't even on screen, so I think we would appreciate your fairness and flexibility in dealing with the speaking list. Could you name it now again?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Sure I could. It's Mr. Warkentin, Mr. Dong, Madam Shanahan, Mr. Angus and Mr. Fergus.
Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB
Thank you, Chair. I won't be long here.
I think that it's important for us to quickly proceed to a work plan for the motion we just passed. Obviously documents will come to us and we'll have the opportunity to see those documents, as was prescribed in the motion, but there are significant other elements that I think we need to proceed with in the interim.
There is the will of the committee to complete the WE study. There was significant work on that before prorogation, before the Prime Minister shut down Parliament and the investigation into this matter. Of course, we would like to expeditiously move on that. While the Liberal members may not want that, I think it's important for that to be resolved.
In conjunction with the documents coming forward, I guess I would seek the chair's direction in terms of submitting additional witnesses for the completion of the WE study. Then, as prescribed in Mr. Angus's motion, I think we could probably weave in other witnesses as they become available for some of the other elements as well.
I'd be very interested in other committee members' perspectives on how we should submit witnesses and what that all looks like, but I think it would be important for us to move expeditiously to complete the WE study. We will be submitting at least initial witnesses within a day, if that would be helpful to the chair and other committee members.
Conservative
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We have the long debate on the previous motion behind this. I would like to move on to something that I think is of importance. I think a lot of Canadians are wondering about it, and we must address their concern.
I talked about previously doing a bit of research and finding out that there were 14 opposition motions being considered and voted on. None of those motions were from the Liberal side. I'm going to give another try to moving a motion.
Conservative
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I know Mr. Dong continually wants to do his own projects, but we just voted on a motion and now we're talking about the business of that motion. We have a responsibility to pick our witnesses and talk about the scope of it. Mr. Dong can wait until we bring motions in committee business. That's how our committee works. It is completely inappropriate for him to once again try to hijack our work to do his own project.
I have motions that are waiting. Those motions will wait until we get to committee business. The work we're doing right now, as you instructed, is to get the parameters of this plan in place.
Liberal
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you.
I believe notice of this motion has been given to the committee. I move:
That the Committee study ways to further protect Canada’s democratic and electoral institutions from cyber and non-cyber interference. This includes studying how new domestic and international stakeholders, as well as other orders of government, can work together to strengthen Canada’s whole-of-society preparedness, resilience and civic engagement in the face of evolving threats to democracy.
The reason I want to move this motion is that we all believe that free and fair elections are the backbone of our country. Advancements in technology, especially online technology and technology to collect information and build a database, pose a serious concern and threat. I heard Mr. Angus speak about this early on today. I believe there are a lot of concerns and risks to Canadians' personal information. We've seen how in political campaigns, there is microtargeting of online advertising based on big data, but who's securing this data?
We've seen investigations out of B.C. into AggregateIQ. There was an article about it. Just to refresh the memory of members of this committee, the investigation was into how AggregateIQ failed to meet its obligation under Canadian privacy laws when it used and disclosed the personal information of millions of voters in British Columbia, the United States and the United Kingdom. It was conducted by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Well, there are two things.
One, I'm very shocked that Mr. Dong has just heard of AggregateIQ. The previous ethics committee did an entire report on it, so that work's already done. However, it was done within a very clear context of personal information. Mr. Dong's motion does not belong at our committee. When Minister Gould brought issues of electoral protection, she did not send that to the ethics committee; she sent it, I believe, probably to PROC. Electoral issues have nothing to do with our committee.
I know Mr. Dong is attempting to derail the WE study, but I would say that before we can even rule on his motion, he has to rewrite his motion so that it actually meets the parameters of our committee, because the motion as it is written is not within the purview of our committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
Once I get a copy of the motion, I'll be able to tell you whether it's admissible here, but I don't have a copy of it right now. Mr. Dong's still speaking to it. He does have a right to do that.
Go ahead, Mr. Dong.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Angus for his point. I think it's a valid point, which brings me to the second example I want to give.
In the 2018 provincial election in Ontario, there was a case in which the personal information of, I think, up to 60,000 Canadians was stolen and provided to a Brampton East candidate.
Conservative
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
With all due respect, I'd like to point out that we have spent almost 40 hours discussing this issue. To make up for all the time invested, I would like us, right now, to consider setting up the subcommittee so that it can begin working. Ultimately, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics will have to get on with its business. A number of notices of motion have been put forward about this.