Information & Ethics Committee on May 28th, 2019

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Actually, Mr. Chan....

Mr. Chan, the priority goes to members of the committee, so if you wish to keep speaking, you need to hear.

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

Mark Zuckerberg has also said the future is private. Interestingly, of course though, it used to be Facebook privacy policy in 2004 that it did not and would not use cookies to collect private information from any user. That changed in 2007. Initially Facebook gave users the ability to prohibit the collection of their personal information from third parties, and that was again changed.

When Mr. Zuckerberg says the future is private, does he mean the future is going back to our past, when we cared about privacy before profits?

[Kevin Chan]

I think we are undertaking a significant effort to reimagine what communications services will look like online. I think there have been a lot of interesting things written, not just by folks at the company but around the world. We do see a trend line such that people are increasingly focused on one-to-one communications. Those are, by definition, private, but what it does raise, sir, in terms of public policy questions is a very interesting balance between privacy and lawful access to information and questions of encryption. These are tight tensions. I think they've been raised previously, including in previous parliaments of Canada, and we look forward to engaging on those questions.

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

With regard to engaging on those questions, GDPR has been adopted by the EU. We've recommended, at this committee, that Canada go further initially.

Facebook made $22 billion last year. Alphabet made $30 billion last year. Previously, you've used millions of those dollars to lobby against GDPR. Now you agree that's a standard that ought to be in place or that similar standards ought to be in place.

I'd like a simple yes-or-no answer, Mr. Chan and Mr. Slater.

[Kevin Chan]

Yes, we fully support GDPR.

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

Mr. Slater.

[Colin McKay, Head, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google Canada]

If you don't mind, Mr. Erskine-Smith, I'll respond as the privacy expert.

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

Sure.

[Colin McKay]

Yes.

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

Mr. McNamee was here and he suggested that perhaps consent shouldn't be the only rule in play and that in certain instances we should simply ban certain practices. He used web tracking.

When was the last time that Google read my emails to target me with ads? How many years ago was it?

[Colin McKay]

We stopped using your Gmail content for advertising in 2017. That was specific to you. That information was never shared externally.

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

Is that something that we could consider banning so that individuals could never consent to having their emails read to be targeted for advertising? Would you be comfortable with that?

[Kevin Chan]

It's certainly the practice that we have now. I hesitate at the word “ban” because there's a broad range of services that might be used in that specific context that make sense.

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

The German competition authority, in February of this year, said:

In view of Facebook’s superior market power, an obligatory tick on the box to agree to the company’s terms of use is not an adequate basis for such intensive data processing. The only choice the user has is...to accept the comprehensive combination of data or to refrain from using the social network. In such a difficult situation the user’s choice cannot be referred to as voluntary consent.

Mr. Chan and Mr. Slater, do you think that privacy is a key consideration in competition and merger decisions, and should competition authorities around the world take privacy issues into account?

[Kevin Chan]

I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question just to make sure I understand?

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

Do you agree that competition authorities around the world should be looking at privacy—just as they currently look at price—and data collection of our personal information as a key consideration in competition law and when looking at mergers and acquisitions?

[Kevin Chan]

That's a very interesting question of public policy. I think, presumably, certain—

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

It could just be a yes or no.

[Kevin Chan]

These are complex issues, sir, as you can appreciate, and if you would allow me, I would just like to say a few more words with regard to this because it is complicated.

I think it's clear that competition policies and privacy policies are quite different. I suspect that data protection authorities around the world would have very different views about whether or not it is appropriate to pour concepts from other realms into data protection law.

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

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that since we currently protect consumers on price, shouldn't we protect consumers on privacy? We have a German competition authority suggesting that we should do so.

[Kevin Chan]

I see. I'm sorry. I understand more clearly what you're saying.

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

I did read a quote directly from the German competition authority.

[Kevin Chan]

You're absolutely right that data protection...that we should treat privacy as a foundational cornerstone of the digital economy.

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

Of competition law....

[Kevin Chan]

I believe that these are two very distinct and separate things. It wouldn't just be me. I think that if you talk to competition authorities and data protection authorities, they might very much arrive at similar views.