Evidence of meeting #141 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was waterfront.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
On a separate front, the waterfront itself, if we look at Toronto compared with Vancouver, say, I think Vancouver has a beautiful waterfront. I think Toronto's waterfront, as it's been developed so far, is just paved. It could have been anywhere in the city. There's no beauty of the water.
I know we've talked about that. What are your views, and how are you going to be looking after making it actually a waterfront property for people, parks and things like that? Could you speak to that?
4:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sidewalk Labs
Yes, absolutely.
We believe that the core principle upon which all of the planning we've engaged in, with Waterfront Toronto and with the city, is really about returning the waterfront to the people and creating this very dynamic community centred on the water. What you will see is dramatically more parkland in this site than you would, say, on the rest of the waterfront. We think the opportunity to actually create that is one of the primary assets that we're seeking to—
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sidewalk Labs
No, absolutely. In fact, one of the very early principles we established when we started Sidewalk Labs was that this place, wherever we did it—and this was before Toronto was even sort of on our radar screen—was that we would only be successful if this place, wherever we did it, was fully integrated into the surrounding metropolitan area. Also, significantly, it had to be completely porous—i.e., anyone could feel that they could actually come there. Ideally, anyone could feel that they could actually come and live there, in part because of the affordability approaches that we're taking. We actually do believe that, compared to the rest of the downtown core, this could be by far the most inclusive community in downtown.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Just before we continue, we have about half an hour left, and I only have three scheduled questioners, so if there are some people who still want to ask questions, they should just inform the chair, and we'll go all the way to 5:00 if that's the way the committee wants to go.
Following that, because our guests have to leave, we're going to go to some committee business, as we just have to discuss some things with regard to the international grand committee, so we'll go in camera for that at about 5:05.
We'll keep going, and next up for five minutes are Mr. Kent, Mr. Erskine-Smith and then Mr. Angus.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Chair, you asked us what we thought. I'd prefer to just end the round so we could get to committee business, because there's some other stuff that needs to get done this evening. I feel we're doing well if we finish the round and then go to committee business. I know my colleagues have a meeting to go to, as well.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Okay. I understand, but I'd prefer to ask the questions while the witnesses are here, from my perspective.
4:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
April 2nd, 2019 / 4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Doctoroff, I'd like to make it clear that, as a resident of the greater Toronto area and a politician from the GTA, when I first became conscious of the original Quayside project, I was excited about it. I was fascinated. I assumed there would be collateral benefit from even the 12-acre site.
I think in the months since, the controversy, the resignations—people like Ann Cavoukian, who resigned from the digital strategy advisory committee—the lack of information and the fact that information comes out with leaks from the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and others have sort of led me in some ways to agree. I've quoted this document before in committee, but Jim Balsillie said, “From the start, this project should have been debated publicly and involved experts in IP and data. Instead, Waterfront Toronto continues to weaponize ambiguity.” You, of course, are familiar with his closing paragraph, which I won't read in its entirety, but one of the key lines is that “Canadians...continue to be treated to glitzy images of pseudo-tech dystopia while foreign companies profit from the IP and data Canadian taxpayers fund and create.” I wonder if you could respond to Mr. Balsillie's quite passionate op ed contribution last year.
4:35 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sidewalk Labs
I will say a couple of things. The first one is that any project that seeks to break new ground and is particularly committed to reaching out and getting people's feedback before everything is clear is naturally going to be a recipient of concern and criticism. To be perfectly honest, we welcome the concern and criticism, because we believe very strongly that it makes us smarter and more sensitive and makes plans ultimately better.
I would completely disagree with the characterization of this dystopian place. I think you're going to find as we are finally able to put the entire plan together that it will be one of the most people-friendly, dynamic communities anywhere, and that people are going to be truly excited about the fact that it will be coming, hopefully, to their city.
As I said, we were given a challenge as part of the RFP process, and that was to break new ground to solve problems that we know virtually every major city in the world, especially Toronto, is increasingly facing. It's not easy to do that. We've been trying to play that out in public and get people's feedback, and that's a messy process. I do believe that what we're going to come back with will hopefully reignite that excitement you had.
I should also point out—and I'll go back to what we said in the opening statement—that we don't have a right to do anything. All we've been doing is putting together a plan that, in relevant parts, you, the provincial government, the city government and Waterfront Toronto, hopefully, with the opinion of the public, will have an opportunity to say meets those lofty objectives or it doesn't.
4:35 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sidewalk Labs
I actually have, not directly but indirectly, on a number of occasions, and he has expressed no interest in meeting with us.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
With regard to the de-identification of data that will be eventually collected by the Quayside project, you said that you guarantee you will de-identify data, that Sidewalk Toronto will, but you can't guarantee that third parties wouldn't. Why not?
4:35 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Sidewalk Labs
Let me clarify that. The reason is that what we have suggested through this civic data trust is that it be responsible for the management of urban data, not us. What we didn't want to do is bind that entity to a set of rules or principles. We think it will be up to that entity, which could be a public entity or it could be an independent entity with public representation, because we didn't think it would be appropriate for us to be the ones doing it.
4:35 p.m.
Head of Policy and Communications, Sidewalk Labs
Mr. Kent, if I may add as well, for context, our vision for this place is a thriving ecosystem where there are lots of companies doing lots of things. In fact, we aim to do, in some respects, the smallest amount possible that is necessary to catalyze that environment.
At the end of the day, what we're proposing is a governance regime that would apply to all actors in the space which we are not driving. We wouldn't have the the power to say, start-up A that comes to Quayside and sets up shop and has an innovative idea that the city is interested in.... We wouldn't have authority over that company in the first place, but we are proposing that there be a governance regime that would have authority over us and anyone else operating in the space.
I should say that we are making commitments about how we will conduct ourselves out of the gate. Of course, we would hope that the commitments we make and the impositions we take upon ourselves would become the rules of the road. That would be in our interest.
At the end of the day, we think the right thing to do here would be to have independent governance.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative