First of all, I certainly welcome the motion that my colleague has put forward, because it addresses some of the concerns we have seen evolving in recent years, as I said in my earlier remarks.
I commend your ruling on this motion, Chair. It really goes to how we are just starting to understand the implications of what it means when....
We think of Elections Canada and the admirable work it does, and how probably as recently as 10 to 15 years ago—maybe a little bit earlier—there was the move from paper-based documentation, which had its own issues, to computerized lists and then to lists that would be kept.... Forgive me if I don't always use the right lingo. This is something that is a learning curve for me as well.
I remember feeling very secure about any data that I had on my computer when I was working as a professional. Then all of a sudden, because we had moved to networks or cloud-based technology, we were warned about holding information that wasn't properly secured by password. Chair, I'm of that early generation that thought “12345” was a pretty good password, but that quickly stopped being the case, right? My children, who are in IT, certainly don't want to hear me speaking now. I have changed it since then, so not to worry, but there is indeed vulnerability of information.
I had the opportunity on the ethics committee in the last Parliament that did the study on Cambridge Analytica to also participate as a substitute when they were looking at the confidentiality and security of client information. The witness the day that I was there was from Equifax. That I could speak to, because I had experience with Equifax when it was basically a telephone service that was sharing credit information about clients and then issuing reports, and we were disturbed at that time.
Yes, it was back in the eighties, but we moved on to the nineties—