Dissenting Report of the New Democratic and Conservative Parties Breach of Personal Information Involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook

I. Introduction

In the course of the Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics’ study on the breach of personal information involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, the Committee heard from Jeff Silvester and Zack Massingham of AggregateIQ (AIQ), a political consulting firm based in Victoria, B.C.

It was the unanimous view of the Committee that this testimony was contradicted by evidence presented by other witnesses.

Mr. Massingham appeared to be reticent to answer in a fulsome manner during his initial appearance before the Committee, which prompted the Committee to issue a summons to appear again.

Mr. Massingham failed to appear again when summoned, which has raised serious questions about the ability of parliamentary committees to conduct their work unobstructed on behalf of Parliament and the people of Canada.

II. Background

In the gathering of evidence and testimony as part of this study, disturbing allegations were raised about the role of AIQ in democratic processes around the world. Testimony from witnesses directly contradicted statements that were made by Mr. Silvester and Mr. Massingham to our committee.

It is not the role of the committee to find fault with individuals, but to provide Parliament with a clear picture of the facts with possible recommendations for legislative changes. To this end, a summons was issued to Mr. Massingham to give him the opportunity to clarify their original testimony and to respond to the evidence from other witnesses.

In correspondence with Mr. Massingham’s counsel about a possible appearance before the Committee on June 12, 2018, the Committee was given evidence that he was unable to appear.

The Committee unanimously decided that the evidence presented to us was not sufficient to rescind the summons for June 12, and we expected his appearance on that day.

On June 12, Mr. Massingham failed to appear before the Committee. No explanation was sent.

III. Conclusion and Recommendations

The New Democratic and Conservative members of the Committee believe that Mr. Massingham’s failure to respond to the Committee’s summons is an impediment to the Committee’s ability to find fact and report our findings to the House of Commons.

In the opinion of the New Democratic and Conservative members of the Committee, allowing Mr. Massingham’s actions to stand unchallenged would set a lasting precedent that could undermine the ability of other Members of Parliament and Committees to gather witness testimony from witnesses on issues of national importance.

We believe that the Committee and its Chair have acted appropriately throughout this process towards Mr. Massingham and we have attempted to ensure that the Committee respect its mandate and limits. However, the issue of a witness who refuses a summons from committee requires guidance from the House of Commons.

Questions of privilege must be raised as soon as practicably possible after they arise to be in order before the House. The New Democratic and Conservative members feel strongly that it this refusal to respond to a summons by committee represents a prima facie breach of privilege of parliamentarians and a possible ruling of contempt against the House.

The members therefore recommend that the Chair of the Committee be directed to raise the breach with the House of Commons as soon as possible for the consideration of the Speaker.