Evidence of meeting #69 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was google.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Is conducting such tests, which block access to journalistic content and information, consistent with the company's claims that it supports a free and open Internet and the free flow of information, yes or no?
This is an easy question, actually. The answer doesn't suit you, but I think it's clear, Ms. Geremia. What is it?
2:50 p.m.
Vice President and Country Manager, Google Canada
We want to support journalism in Canada. We want to support open access to information—
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
All right, that's fine, Ms. Geremia. We've only got three minutes, and now we're being told stories again.
The answer, which common sense would dictate, is that if you promote the free flow of information, but you block access to that information, you are countering your own statements. It's that simple.
I have a few seconds left, so I'm going to go back over some points.
This committee has asked you to provide documents, which we have not received. All we have received are documents that are publicly available on the Google website. I expect, as do the rest of my colleagues on the committee, to receive all of the documents we have requested as soon as possible.
In addition, I asked you earlier to commit to notifying people who are the target of your random or targeted tests, present and future, to avoid situations that could become very unfortunate. I hope you don't wait for something dramatic to happen before you take action on the way you conduct your tests.
Finally, I hope you will take note of the questions, comments and reaction of Quebeckers and Canadians to what I consider to be an absolutely disloyal and not even subtle manoeuvre as a response to a bill prepared and studied by the elected representatives of this country. It is truly a very sad attitude, and I hope you will correct it without delay.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
Finally, we'll have Ms. Mathyssen for three minutes.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I just want to re-emphasize the difference here in the fact that Bill C-18 is not law, yet Google Canada has gone forward and, as Mr. Bittle clearly pointed out, limited specific information to specific people based on this random test.
It's been discussed, of course, before, by you, Ms. Geremia, that Google has quite a significant impact and quite a significant share in terms of how Canadians find out information and how they access news. Censorship of the specific news that people see cannot be minimized. Every single member of this committee has specifically said that.
As Mr. Champoux mentioned as well, it's very important that you take that back and that we see some changes in terms of how that testing is implicated.
I also never really got a response in terms of this randomization of your so-called testing. I find it very dangerous to try to call it that, because it's ultimately a minimization of what you're doing, but it could have implications for someone like a member of Parliament, and the limiting of a member of Parliament's access to information, as was somewhat seen here today, is a violation of their parliamentary privilege.
In terms of that testing, have you and your legal team entirely considered the implications of what you have done in terms of Canadian safety and in terms of that legal side of limiting information?
2:55 p.m.
Vice President and Country Manager, Google Canada
These are randomized tests, and Jason can speak to the detail.
March 10th, 2023 / 2:55 p.m.
Public Policy Manager, Google Canada
With respect to your specific question, as Sabrina has indicated, these are A/B tests whereby we're basically trying to ascertain what the product impact is. To be clear, this is our attempt to be responsible. This is why companies do A/B testing. They want to understand fully what the implications are before they deploy anything at scale.
With respect to your specific question, I'm not aware of whether or not there were specific considerations undertaken with respect to MPs' parliamentary privileges.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
In terms of the danger of limiting specific information on safety, on legal precedent, on what have you, do you not recognize the danger of the limiting of that information to specific people and trying to pass it off as a test?
2:55 p.m.
Public Policy Manager, Google Canada
Again, the important element to raise here is that product tests simply no longer service links to websites per se. Again, all of this information is still accessible by any other means, and this is normal course. This is generally how technology companies will test potential product implications, but certainly the seriousness with which this has been communicated to us is well taken, and we will definitely be taking that message back internally.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
That's excellent news, I think, for the end of this.
Thank you.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Ms. Mathyssen.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
I think you have been asked to produce certain things. Please remember that you need to send them to the clerk of the committee, and they will be distributed to the members so that we can receive the information we asked for.
Thank you for coming.
I now call this meeting adjourned.