Evidence of meeting #148 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 google.
A video is available from Parliament.
Public Policy and Government Relations Counsel, Google Canada
As I said previously, the specific requirements were simply something that we couldn't accommodate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Mr. Baylis, that finishes the combined time for you and Mr. Erskine-Smith.
We have somebody else, and then we're going to come back to you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
It looks as if that's what you're asking for.
We'll go next to Mr. Nater for five minutes.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's good to be here on this committee. I usually sit on the procedure and House affairs committee, so it's nice to be here for a bit of a change of scenery.
When it comes to YouTube, you have policies in place in terms of what can and cannot be shown on YouTube. Often, though, there are situations where some of the most viral videos, or those that approach that line and may not quite step over the line.... How do you determine how close to that line you get? What type of contextual analysis is there? What types of safeguards are in place to establish where that line is and when someone may get right up to that line without necessarily stepping over it? What types of procedures do you have in place?
Public Policy and Government Relations Counsel, Google Canada
Essentially, any video that gets identified as such, either through reporting or through our automated systems, which also, again, review the videos to detect for compliance, will go to manual review for a human analysis. We'll also basically examine it, saying, okay, this doesn't actually cross the line into actual hate speech that's inciting violence, but it's derogatory in some other way, and they will basically classify it in its borderline context.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I want to go back to Bill C-76 for a minute.
When we talk about technology, innovation, the digital economy, the first people I think of are not public servants at the Privy Council Office; they are not public servants at Elections Canada. When I think of the digital economy and things like that, I think of companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter—those that are innovating.
In your testimony, you mentioned that you weren't consulted by the drafters of the legislation. I find that troubling. Government is probably one of the worst offenders for keeping up with technology, especially when drafting legislation, when they're not consulting with those within the industry.
You mentioned that the decision not to advertise was largely a technical decision, based on the requirements of obtaining that by June 30, July 1. I can accept that, and I want to put on the record the reason why I accept that.
Elections Canada themselves said that the provisions in Bill C-76 ought to have been in law with royal assent by April 30, 2018. On April 30, 2018, the legislation was only just tabled in the House of Commons. It did not receive royal assent until December 2018.
If Google, YouTube, your private businesses decide tomorrow that you no longer want to stream cute cat videos, there is nothing that the Government of Canada can do force you to do so. I would assume it would be the same with any type of advertising. If you decide not to advertise for any reason outside of human rights violations, there is nothing requiring you to do that.
What I find fascinating, though—and it is more of a rant than a question—is that the Government of Canada, in their rush to implement this legislation at the very last minute of the time period they're able to do it within, never consulted with those who would be implementing a large portion of this legislation.
The changes were done in clause-by-clause. There were 200-plus amendments in clause-by-clause. I was part of those discussions. I missed a few of them for the birth of a child, but I was there for most of the discussions. Then, they were table-dropped at the very last minute, after the witnesses had the opportunity to discuss....
It's not a question, but you're welcome to comment on that. I am just incredulous that the government would rush this legislation—the very last possible period of time to have it implemented before the election—and then expect every private business to comply with the rules for which they have had no opportunity to, (a) be consulted or (b) make suggestions during the period that clause-by-clause happened.
I'd be happy if you have any comments on that.
Head, Public Policy and Government Relations, Google Canada
I can reply with an observation. We're having a conversation here where the discussion is effectively that one company has discussed how they may possibly implement this, based on a promise to do it by June 30, and how we have provided information on why we cannot introduce tools that reflect the obligations in the Elections Act as amended.
The reality, as you described it, is that many companies have many different products and services across this industry, whether it's with advertising or delivering news, and there are many different ways that they're interpreting the obligations and their capacity to meet the obligations. So far, we've had only one company that has said they in fact will be implementing a tool as described in the legislation.
I am not saying that as a defence; I am saying that as a reflection of the complexity issues. As you observed, it needs an intense amount of study and discussion to be able to roll out tools that are effective, and that have longevity and provide the information in a predictable and reliable way to users.
In no way do we want to be in a position where we're not doing that. Our business is to provide information and answers to questions from our users.
However, we are in an uncomfortable situation where we are complying with the legislation by not taking political advertising. The reality, as you said, is that with further consultation and a discussion of the amendments that Mr. Kee tabled, as well as broader consideration of the industry, from both our point of view as well as Canadian businesses and Canadian sites, there may have been a different conversation around the appropriate tool for Canadians that would deliver information to them during this electoral cycle.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer
Next up, we're going to go with a combination. We're going to go with Mr. Erskine-Smith first and then Mr. Baylis to finish. We have about four minutes left.
Go ahead, Mr. Erskine-Smith.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks very much.
First I want to ask about the review team. Obviously a lot depends upon the honesty of users, in a way. You had a certain experience in Washington state that was reported where political ads were placed in some instances.
What is the size of the team in Canada that will be reviewing this? How many staff—?
Public Policy and Government Relations Counsel, Google Canada
It will be a globally distributed team that will basically be ramped up as required to respond and enforce the ads policy.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Is there a number of staff that you've targeted?
Public Policy and Government Relations Counsel, Google Canada
Again, I don't know the specific number of staff: enough to comply with the policy.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Okay.
I ask about numbers, because with respect to trust and safety.... Again, this is from an article in Bloomberg. I understand that there were a modest number of staff—only 22, I think—who were to review content for trust and safety. That number is higher now.
What is the exact number of people who are now reviewing content for trust and safety?
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
So you've gone from 22 to over 10,000. That's great.
Maybe you could enlighten me.... In 2016, one of your employees proposed that content right up to that line ought not to be recommended. YouTube did not take that advice seriously and rejected that advice.
You said now that as of January of this year, they have accepted the advice. What changed?
Public Policy and Government Relations Counsel, Google Canada
Again, I wouldn't characterize it that way.
I think it's part of an ongoing development and evolution of the policies, and basically how we approach borderline, challenging, controversial, unauthoritative, low-quality content on the platform. There is currently an evolution in our approach with respect to this, and basically a deployment of additional technologies, especially through algorithms, etc., to try to make sure we're serving up authoritative and quality content to our users.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
So it's not perhaps because no one was paying attention previously and you were making lots of money, and now people are paying attention and there's negative press and you've decided to change your practices as a result.
Public Policy and Government Relations Counsel, Google Canada
I wouldn't agree with the interpretation.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I'm going to take a different tack now.
Google, my colleague said that you made $8 billion in last quarter. I looked it up. It's actually $8.5 billion in U.S. dollars, so congratulations. That's really good in Canadian dollars. You make it by selling advertisements, right? I like a certain music video or I like to read a certain journalist, so you show me that information and then you throw an ad up there and you make a lot of money on it. You make a tremendous amount of money.
That has worked very well for you. In fact, what has happened is that the journalist, the musician, photographer, writer, actor, the movie producer—all those people—make nothing. But that's okay. Even though that copyright is taken from them and they make nothing and you make all the money, that's okay. Why is it okay? As you well said, Mr. Kee, you're a platform not a publisher, and as long as you remain a platform, you have something called “safe harbour” which protects you.
What happens is that all of our artists, anybody who has anything copyrighted, a photojournalist.... It used to happen that they'd get an amazing picture, and they'd sell that picture and make a lot of money. Now you take that picture for free, but you didn't do anything. You show me the picture; you throw up an advertisement, and you make all the money. That's where all this content is coming from, and you don't pay for it and you don't want to.
The danger you have—why you don't want to do this—is that the minute you start controlling these ads, you move from being a platform to proof positive that you're a publisher. Once you're a publisher, you're subject to copyright and all that.
Is that not the real reason....? With this technical mumbo-jumbo you just fed me about how you can catch it instantaneously, stop it, but you can't get it on a database, is that not really that you're trying to protect this business model that allows you to make $8.5 billion U.S. in a quarter while all of these copyrighted people can't make a nickel? They've have been screaming to high hell that they can't make a nickel, and you're taking all that money. You just don't want to be a publisher, because once you're a publisher, you're no longer covered by safe harbour.
Isn't that the real reason?
Public Policy and Government Relations Counsel, Google Canada
There are several things there.
Number one, if that were the case, it's puzzling as to why we would take a decision that is costing us money, insofar as we're no longer earning revenue from a class of ads. More importantly, vis-à-vis our publisher partners, vis-à-vis YouTube creators, we operate under a partnership model where we actually share revenue. In the case of websites, for example, that use Google's infrastructure—which is what has generated our challenges for complying with Bill C-76, because they show Google ads against their content—they earn more than 70% of the revenue for every single ad that shows because they're the ones providing the content.