Information & Ethics Committee on April 2nd, 2019

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Kent.

Next up, for five minutes, is Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

I think part of the concern is this. I respect this commitment to de-identification and to the civic data trust, but you have to understand that when you tell me, a citizen of Toronto, that there are going to be sensors and cameras all over the place, I'm very worried about the prospect. You tell me that Google is involved, and I'm very worried about that prospect. When I know that Alphabet is involved, I worry about the prospect. I appreciate that, but I think knowing that, internalizing that and understanding when you talk about this...that is the basis of great concern.

I was recently in Brussels and met with the EU data protection supervisor. His deputy said—I think others have said the same—that we're so worried about Big Brother that we forgot about the companies that are “Little Sisters.” When we talk about cameras and sensors everywhere, that's what I would worry about.

I think you are right to say that ultimately this is up to a public-facing body to make a final decision; you're right to say openness and de-identification respecting personal privacy, and data protection.... Is there a sense of what privacy laws apply currently?

[Micah Lasher]

I think that obviously the Canadian laws.... PIPEDA is a relatively strong regime and is certainly one that we will scrupulously abide by.

I should be clear. We are not seeking in any way any exemptions from PIPEDA or any other relevant privacy laws in this space, and the governance regime we're proposing would be additive to that. I think the challenge is that PIPEDA and most privacy-related laws don't deal with non-personal information, as is the case with urban data. I think one of the things that we—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

When you say “non-personal,” is that because it's de-identified?

[Micah Lasher]

You could have data that is at its initiation non-personal, such as a pedestrian counter. There is, of course, the question of at what point the data.... There's data that starts out in no way being personal information, and then you have data this is personal, such as camera footage that is converted into line drawings that become de-identified, right? Certainly, in the case of aggregate non-personal information, that is not something that is strongly covered by existing privacy laws, and that is increasingly something that is at issue in cities—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

We have examples already. I rely upon Google maps—my sense of direction is terrible at the best of times—and that is built on open data from cities with respect to traffic patterns while I'm driving around in the city of Toronto. How is this different? Or is it just on a different scale and there are so many different players that you imagine being involved that the civic data trust, and not the City of Toronto, is the right place for openness and for defining and determining standards?

[Dan Doctoroff]

I don't think we're suggesting that it shouldn't be the City of Toronto. What we are suggesting is that having a mix of experience to make decisions about the types of data that really have never been thought about deeply before might be the best way to manage it effectively, taking into account the need to have a very strict privacy regime but at the same time not chilling innovation completely.

At the end of the day, that may not be the right choice. The city or others may choose to do it in a different way, which we're okay with. We just think that what the objectives are of finding that right balance are important and having multiple voices could be important to doing it correctly.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

My last question is a follow-up from the last question I had in the last round. In the materials, the two examples were pretty stark. It's Sidewalk as a sort of a subsidiary of a major company; they collect data through their sensors as proposed and approved by whatever data trust. That will be open for everybody. The smaller company, a sympathetic local small business, say, applies with a particular technology, and maybe that information won't be open right away because it's a start-up and they need to monetize. Is there any situation...or am I to take from this that Sidewalk Labs or any related company will not apply for proprietary—

[Dan Doctoroff]

I think the default is that it will be open. There may be situations where we have to invest an awful lot of money to create an application or use that we believe has value both in this place and potentially beyond, where we could also apply to the data trust—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

But you see that as an exceptional circumstance.

[Dan Doctoroff]

I do think of it generally as an exceptional circumstance. By default, we want urban data to be open, whether for us or for others. As we said, we also want it to be de-identified by default, but there may be situations where a case can be made that you don't ever get the value of it without having more restricted ownership—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That is made by a civic data trust in consultation with privacy regulators.

[Dan Doctoroff]

Not by us, that's exactly right.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

We have three folks left, starting with Mr. Angus. I'll give each person three minutes. That should take us close to 5 p.m.

Mr. Angus, you have three minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Brodhead, when you were with Infrastructure Canada, what was your contact with Waterfront Toronto?

[John Brodhead]

I had fairly frequent contact with them on a number of files. They had the Port Lands flood protection, so I had fairly regular contact with them in general.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Were you talking with them about the Toronto Expo bid?

[John Brodhead]

Not to my recollection.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I spoke with people who were involved in the Toronto Expo bid, and they said there was discussion about the possibility of using Waterfront, but after the new government came in, there was a real chill because the Prime Minister's Office was very much interested in the Google deal. That's what they told me, so I was wondering if you were involved in those discussions.

[John Brodhead]

No. I did meet with the Expo group, but there was no linkage between that and Quayside, as far as I know.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Doctoroff, you said that someone reached out. Was it Will Fleissig who reached out?

[Dan Doctoroff]

No. His name was Chris Glaisek, a senior staff person at Waterfront Toronto.

As I indicated before, Chris and I had worked together back in the late 1990s and early 2000s on the New York Olympic bid. Chris was one of the planners for that bid that I led.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Will Fleissig's office reached out in 2016.

[Micah Lasher]

It was in June. Chris Glaisek worked for Will Fleissig in June of 2016. This was the process. They had begun reaching out to companies in February 2016. We were about the 25th company that Waterfront reached out to in June of 2016.