Evidence of meeting #34 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was glick.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jacob Glick  Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.
Alma Whitten  Engineering Lead for Privacy, Google Inc.
François Ramsay  Senior Vice-President, General Counsel, Secretary and Responsible for Privacy, Yellow Pages Group Co.
Martin Aubut  Senior Manager, Social Commerce, Yellow Pages Group Co.
Jacques Maziade  Clerk of the Committee, Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

4:05 p.m.

Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.

Jacob Glick

Just to be clear on what the Privacy Commissioner said, she raises this issue twice in her report, in paragraph 69, and then in her recommendations in paragraph 72. In paragraph 69, she says: “To this, I would like to add that not only privacy laws, but other applicable laws in the U.S. and in Canada, including laws of evidence, must also be taken into account in determining when to delete the Canadian payload data collected”.

Then she goes on to say--and this, I think, was the point the member raised, Mr. Chair--this in her recommendations: That Google delete the Canadian payload data it collected, to the extent that Google is allowed to do so under Canadian and U.S. law. If the Canadian payload data cannot immediately be deleted, the data needs to be properly safeguarded and access thereto is to be restricted.

What we're doing is precisely what the Privacy Commissioner asked, which is undertaking an analysis of both Canadian and U.S. law in terms of the laws of evidence and other applicable laws, to determine the extent to which it can be deleted. In the interim. we're doing precisely what she asked, which is maintaining the safeguards around the data and the protections for it.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Glick, what are those other applicable U.S. laws that are operative in this sort of situation?

4:05 p.m.

Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.

Jacob Glick

It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on that, because I'm not a U.S. lawyer.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Are you--

4:05 p.m.

Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.

Jacob Glick

But there's no mystery. In fairness, I don't want to leave you thinking that there's some mystery law here that hasn't been identified. It's precisely what the commissioner said in paragraph 69, which is simply the “applicable laws...including laws of evidence”.

Mr. Chair, members of this committee will be aware that there are, for example, pending lawsuits in the United States related to this issue, so we need to ensure that the laws of evidence are respected. It's not to say that any decisions have been made one way or the other. As I said in my opening, I think everyone here wants the exact same outcome, which is the deletion of all this data.

If I can say on a personal note--

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Thank you. Sorry, but I'd like to ask Dr. Whitten a question.

Dr. Whitten, can you tell us which countries where Google collected payload data have seen that payload data deleted at this point?

4:10 p.m.

Engineering Lead for Privacy, Google Inc.

Dr. Alma Whitten

I don't have the full list available in front of me, I regret. I know we have deleted it in several countries. Ireland, I believe, is one of the ones where we were able to quickly and simply delete it right away.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

In the situations where it was deleted right away, are those countries where the data was held within that country's borders and not held offshore someplace? Has that affected the ability of Google to delete the information quickly?

4:10 p.m.

Engineering Lead for Privacy, Google Inc.

Dr. Alma Whitten

I don't believe that has been an issue, but I would like to direct some of that question back to Mr. Glick, as I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, and that's a legal question.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

All right. Given the Ireland example, do you know if the information was held in Ireland or was held offshore, outside of Ireland?

4:10 p.m.

Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.

Jacob Glick

My understanding is that all the data was held in the same place, in fact, so this is--

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

So in that case, Mr. Glick, if all the data has been held in the United States and it has been deleted for some countries, wouldn't Google have already done the analysis about the applicable U.S. laws?

4:10 p.m.

Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.

Jacob Glick

Well, don't forget that the Irish data was deleted on the advice of the Irish data privacy commissioner in May, or around May I should say, as I don't know the precise date. We weren't asked to hold on to the data for any period, and that can affect the analysis as well, because none of these class action lawsuits, for example, were in process at that time. I'm not a U.S. lawyer, so it's really irresponsible of me to speculate on--

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

You are Google's Canadian lawyer, though, aren't you, in terms of this issue? You are working on the analysis of the Canadian data for Google, are you not?

4:10 p.m.

Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.

Jacob Glick

I'm Google's Canada policy counsel. In that role, I work on public policy issues relevant to Google here in Canada. Google is receiving other Canadian legal advice. To be clear, I'm not the person who advises Google specifically on the legal ramifications of what to do in Canada, although I am consulted on it.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

We're now going to go to Mr. Poilievre, for seven minutes.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Chair, before I begin, may I raise a point of order to clarify? Mr. Glick has raised the issue of his comments and the importance of prudence and making comments due to potential legal proceedings that could occur. I think he mentioned a potential class action lawsuit.

Can you clarify that nothing said here can be used in another tribunal and make precision for the fact that even though Mr. Glick and Dr. Whitten are not physically here, their comments are considered to have been made here in the context of a parliamentary organization, and therefore are given the standard parliamentary immunity?

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

Just let me just double-check something.

Just on that point, I can give you my understanding of parliamentary law, and of course when you get into these international situations, it does become somewhat complicated. But Mr. Poilievre accurately stated that anything that's said before a parliamentary committee, including this committee, is subject to parliamentary privilege and, as a result, cannot be used in any courts, tribunals, or evidence-gathering bodies in Canada. What the Chair is not totally clear on—and I'm not going to opine on it—is whether that parliamentary privilege, which is well known, extends to other international bodies, like the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't have a definitive answer.

I don't know that answer, but I can tell you assuredly that anything said here—and that would include anyone who is testifying before the committee via teleconference—cannot be used in any other court, or tribunal, or body, for that matter.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

In Canada.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

In Canada, yes.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

And we don't have an answer as to whether or not it would be admissible in foreign tribunals.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

I wouldn't be in a position to give you an opinion on that.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

All right.

If I could, I'll begin my questioning with the witness being aware of that ambiguity.

Mr. Glick, thank you for returning to our committee. On the question of the data elimination, you've indicated that data mistakenly acquired within the boundaries of Ireland has been deleted. Did I understand you correctly?

4:15 p.m.

Canada Policy Counsel, Google Inc.

Jacob Glick

That's my understanding.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

That was due to interactions that Google had with the Irish privacy commissioner?