Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 1st, 2012

[Jane Tallim]

That's something that is germane, and I know you've heard a lot of testimony about how you almost have to be a legal professional to understand many of the privacy policies. There is best practice out there. Sara Grimes alluded to a few children's sites that do an exceptional job. I think that's part of it. I think it's about lauding the companies that are very respectful, that try to be transparent, that put things up very clearly and are easily understood, that only ask for the most necessary information.

It's a combination of educating parents and educating children as well, so that young people who are too young to really understand what the big picture is can have a trusted adult with them, to help them go through it and understand. We have no problems with children having fun online, and most do in commercial environments. They're being sold to one way or another. The important thing is for children to understand that these fun playgrounds are there because companies want to sell them things. They can still have fun, but it's about developing that understanding.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

You talked about the challenges of trying to get the same message out across the country. You talked about different standards in different provinces and different levels and ages of engagement.

What do you see as the federal role in this?

[Jane Tallim]

The federal role can provide leadership in supporting gatherings, events, facilitating opportunities for multiple stakeholders to come together and conceptualize what this framework might look like, what the needs are. What really is apparent in countries where they have digital literacy as a pillar in their national strategy is this notion that it's not just government led, it's not industry led, it's not just community led, that you really do have to bring multiple stakeholders together to work together.

[Matthew Johnson]

Another point where it is relevant is that educating young people is only half the job. The other half is educating parents and grandparents and the general public. That's definitely a role the federal government can play.

Our own research showed that one of the reasons parents and young people both tended to accept the idea of surveillance—even though young people were doing a lot of things to escape surveillance, they accepted the idea that they would be subject to it—was they all subscribed to a number of inaccurate notions about online risks. There was still a sense, even though this has been thoroughly debunked by research, that anyone online is constantly subject to the risk of assault by online predators.

Parents told us they felt a pressure to spy on their kids. If young people are being spied on by their parents, if they grow up their whole lives being spied on by their parents, by their schools, they're going to accept this as normal and they're not going to question corporate or other forms of surveillance. They're going to come to believe that surveillance is normal, and rather than use above-ground tools, the tools that are effective, they're going to use a variety of other tools that are less effective—and we know a few of them from our research—to try to subvert this surveillance rather than control their information.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Unfortunately, Mrs. Davidson's time is up.

We will now turn to the Hon. Geoff Regan for seven minutes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Professor Bennett, could you give us some examples? For instance, if you look at what's happening during the American election or if you look at examples from Canada, what are some things that you find troubling?

[Dr. Colin Bennett]

This is a question to be asking, yes.

One of the things that is currently occurring in the U.S. election cycle is the integration of different forms of data from different sources. The availability of personal data in the U.S. is far more extensive than it is here. The integration of marketing data, geo-demographic data, as well as the tracking of online behaviour, is becoming very extensive. It has allowed American political parties in a far more sophisticated way than before to segment the electorate, to divide up the electorate, and to target supporters and potential supporters according to increasingly precise demographic characteristics.

On the face of it, there's nothing in principle wrong with that, but the United States doesn't have any privacy protection rules anywhere near as strong as those in Canada. Yet in Canada, we have seen that political parties here have learned from time to time from their American counterparts.

I would raise the question about whether or not what has been going on in the U.S. might be seen here in the future and whether those kinds of practices are going to raise the concerns of Canadian citizens to the extent that it will be a far more high-profile issue than it is at the moment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'd like you to describe why those activities give you concern. Could you specify, for instance, in detail which of those most concern you and what it is about them that concerns you?

[Dr. Colin Bennett]

There's the lack of transparency. There's the use of tracking devices on websites, spyware that links personal characteristics and personal browsing behaviours to other features. Our privacy protection rules are based on a notion of transparency, consent, and notification when information is being captured about you.

As I've said, there are very few rules that apply in the U.S. Those kinds of practices challenge the basic notion that underpins the kind of privacy protection rules that underpin PIPEDA in Canada, and which suggest that when information is collected about you, you know who is collecting that information, what information it is, and the purposes for which it's going to be used. You have a right to see that information and to correct it if it's inaccurate. You have a right to control to whom that information is communicated.

Those fair information principles underpin our federal and provincial and public and private sector laws in Canada.

It is the lack of transparency, to answer your question more directly, that I think is the most troubling.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Would you make any distinction or draw the line in a different place when it comes to activities designed to get out the vote as opposed to activities designed to convert?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair. I know Mr. Regan is new to the committee today. He's visiting. This is a study on privacy and social media. It's not about political parties gathering votes or dealing with information or their own systems. This committee's done a really good job, I think, of having an excellent discussion on privacy and social media. I know Mr. Bennett is a guest, and I let him go on for quite some time in his testimony about political parties, but that is not what this is about.

I would ask you to direct Mr. Regan back to general issues around privacy and social media and not about voting, elections, and all that. It is not relevant to the study that we are doing.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Butt.

Do you have an answer, Mr. Regan?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

If you need an answer, I will say that I do not think this is a point of order.

Clearly this is related to issues of privacy and media. This is why the professor is here as the guest of the committee. If you're looking at the use of social media to collect information, why exclude political parties from that discussion? If you were going to exclude political parties from that discussion, why invite this witness?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you for your comments. This is not really a point of order but I appreciate your comments.

It is certainly better to stick to social media or to the subject matter of the study we are undertaking according to the committee's agenda for today. So it would be appreciated if members focused their comments as much as possible on social media.

Please, go on.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In relation, professor, to the use of social media in particular, would you like to answer my question?

[Dr. Colin Bennett]

Yes, of course.

Political parties use social networking. Political parties use social media. Political parties use social media in order to communicate with potential voters, donors, etc., but through that communication they are able to capture vast amounts of information about the individuals.

To clarify, I am certainly willing to speak more generally about the issue of social media and privacy. I have done other work on this. However, when I decided what to speak about here, I thought it was an opportunity to raise this issue, as I had done a study for the Privacy Commissioner of Canada on that question, and the issue of social networking and social media features prominently in that analysis.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm willing to answer any question about this issue. I'm also willing to answer questions more broadly about the subject of your committee, about Facebook, about Google, and about the issues concerning the protection of privacy more generally.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Tallim, you mentioned a group that has a national campaign that anyone can access and use. What struck me about it is that it's great for those parents who are looking for things to access or teachers looking for materials to help children or young people understand the issues at hand, but it doesn't necessarily offer it, in a sense, to that young person.

What else do we need to do to ensure that kids become aware of these issues? How do you ensure that it happens in classrooms and in homes across the country?

[Jane Tallim]

You've touched both elements. As we said, a comprehensive approach has a public education direction as well as school-based education.

To deal for a moment with the public education agenda, Go ON UK is just one example of a program that's intended to educate the general population. There are all sorts of support mechanisms within it to facilitate the general public in various community hubs, etc.

Canada actually had an excellent network for this type of public education through the community access program, which was disbanded in April this year. It's a bit of a shame because we had an excellent infrastructure that was already very engaged in the community. You didn't have to push out too much; people knew they were there and could go for education, instruction, help. They were particularly good at reaching a more vulnerable population as well.

Having those hubs is very important to the public education agenda. Consistency and leadership within the schools is also important, making sure, for example, that this education starts in the early years. There are provinces that certainly have outcomes and expectations for privacy education in their curricula, but they don't start until secondary school, and we all know that kids are online far before they hit middle school.

Having that consistency, having a framework that is pedagogically sound and is evidence based would be very helpful, and then supporting it with the necessary training for our educators.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Was it—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Unfortunately, Mr. Regan, your time is up.

Mr. Carmichael, please.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I too come from the grandparent wing of our table today, so let me start there. Ms. Tallim, maybe you could help me for context. Your associate spoke about grades 4 to 11. Do you have any grounding younger than that, within MediaSmarts?

[Jane Tallim]

Yes.

[Matthew Johnson]

Just to clarify, it's our research that is studying grades 4 to 11. There are a number of reasons for this. One is so that we can compare data with earlier surveys that covered that age range. But our resources cover the full K to 12 curriculum.

We've made an effort in the last few years to produce more digital literacy resources for younger children, because we know that young people are going online earlier and earlier. It's particularly true with the introduction of touch screen tablets, which are very kid-friendly. It's not at all unusual these days for parents to report that their kids are going online for the first time at the age of two.

We also know from our own research and research done around the world that the landscape online for young people is tremendously commercialized; that the majority of the sites most popular with young people are commercial sites. So it's really important that they develop these digital literacy skills as early as possible.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

To your point, I have watched grandchildren three, four, and five years old use their parents' iPads and navigate their way through various screens online. It's remarkable to watch. I'm guessing that from a digital literacy perspective, that generation is going to be far advanced, compared even with those who are just a generation ahead, in understanding how the technology works and in being able to navigate it.

The concern I have is the privacy issue. You talked earlier about some examples of best practices, whereby you can go through the privacy regs and accept, be it on a BlackBerry or whatever, the regulations as they exist. Kids at that young age have no idea of that. The concern is, how do you manage it? How do you monitor and control it so that the children aren't getting exposed to things and finding their way into things that they shouldn't be at extremely young ages? It goes from there.

I listened to you talk about the British and Australian models. Could you give us just a thumbnail on how it is that those are such good systems? Is there something there we should be looking to adopt?

[Jane Tallim]

I will start with the obvious. Considerable funding has been dedicated in these countries to promoting a digital agenda that facilitates digital literacy skills development. It's largely to—