Information & Ethics Committee on May 28th, 2019

[Ellen Weintraub]

I'm always happy to get information from any source. That's why I'm here. It's a very educational event for me. As well, I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have.

[Keit Pentus-Rosimannus]

Do you see already that there are some things from the European Parliament elections that you can find useful?

[Ellen Weintraub]

We have not yet studied what went on in the European Parliament elections.

[Keit Pentus-Rosimannus]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

You're good? Thank you.

We're going to start the cycle again, just so you know. We'll start with Nate, and then we'll go to the next parliamentarian, so it will be Nate, Ian and James.

Go ahead, Nate.

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

Thanks very much.

I was in Brussels recently and met with the EU data protection supervisor. There is great co-operation among the privacy commissioners in the EU. There are conferences for privacy commissioners where you get together and discuss these issues as a matter of co-operation amongst regulators.

Is there the same level of co-operation, Ms. Weintraub, with respect to elections?

[Ellen Weintraub]

Our elections are run under our own unique rules. As I said before, I'm happy to have information from any source, but because our rules are different from other countries' rules, particularly when it comes to the transparency of money and politics and how we fund our elections, we kind of plow our own course.

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

When I suggested to a friend from Colorado and a friend from Mississippi that I wanted to get involved in politics and said that the cap in my local district was $100,000 Canadian, they laughed at me for a long time.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ellen Weintraub]

It's very different.

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

Before I move to Mr. Therrien, I completely respect that as an American you have stronger free speech rules than we have here in Canada. Still, when you say “arbiters of truth”, there are still standards councils and there are still, when it comes to broadcasters.... Surely, a broadcaster in an election.... Maybe I'm incorrect, but I would expect that there are standards councils and some ethics guidelines and some basic principles they would abide by, and they wouldn't just broadcast anything.

[Ellen Weintraub]

I think that's true of broadcasters, mostly out of a sense of professional responsibility. That is one of the conundrums that I think we all face. When we were living in a world where there was a small number of broadcasters and those were all professional journalists, and they had training and they exercised editorial control over what they were distributing and were doing a lot of fact-checking, that was a whole different world from the information that we get online, where everybody's a broadcaster, everyone is a content producer, and—

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

So sort of, right...? Because it's one thing for you and me to be friends on Facebook and you post something and I see it. It's a very different thing if the News Feed, the algorithm that Facebook employs, makes sure I see it because of a past history that I have online, or if the YouTube recommendation function ensures that I see a video that I wouldn't see otherwise because I didn't seek it out. Aren't they very akin to a broadcaster when they're employing algorithms to make sure I see something and they're increasing impressions and reach?

[Ellen Weintraub]

You're discussing an entirely different topic. I was talking about individuals who are putting their own content out there. The way the platforms are regulated under current United States law is that they don't have those same responsibilities as broadcasters under section 230 that—

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

If they took their corporate social responsibility seriously, as broadcasters do, presumably they would join a standards council or create one.

With respect to ad transparency, we recommended at this committee.... I mean, the honest ads act would be a good start, but I think it would just be a first step.

[Ellen Weintraub]

Absolutely.

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

Does it make sense to you that if I'm receiving an ad online, especially in an election, that I would be able to click through and see who paid for it, obviously, but also the demographics for which I've been targeted, as well as a selection criteria on the back end that the advertiser has selected, whether it's Facebook or Google or whatever it might be, for example, if it has been directed to a particular postal code, or if it's because I'm between the ages of 25 and 35? Do you agree that there should be more detailed transparency?

[Ellen Weintraub]

I do, but of course part of the problem with that, though, is that very few people would actually click through to find that information. One concern I have is that everybody says that as long as you can click through and find the information somewhere, that should be good enough. I think there has to be some information right on the face of the ad that tells you where it's coming from.

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

Right.

The last question I have is for Mr. Therrien.

We had a number of excellent witnesses last night and this morning who really highlighted the business model as the fundamental problem here, in that it encourages this never-ending accumulation of data.

I wonder if you have any comments on two ideas that I want to set out. One, how do we address that business model problem that was identified? Two, how do we address it in such a way that it also respects the real value of aggregate-level data in different ways?

If I look at Statistics Canada, for example, which publishes aggregate-level data, that is really helpful for informed public policy. When I use Google Maps on a daily basis, that is based upon user information that is fed into the system and, as a result, I don't need to know where I'm going all the time; I can use Google Maps. It's based on data that has been input, but in the public interest.

How do we address the business model but also protect the public interest use of aggregate-level data?

[Daniel Therrien]

I think an important part of the solution is to look at the purposes for which information is collected and used. It's one thing for an organization, a company, to collect and use data to provide a direct service to an individual. That is totally legitimate, and this is the type of practice that should be allowed. It's another for an organization to collect so much information, perhaps under the guise of some type of consent, that the end outcome is something very close to corporate surveillance.

I think it's important to distinguish between the two. There are a number of technical rules that are at play, but the idea that we should define privacy beyond mechanical issues like consent and so on and so forth and define it by regard to what is the right being protected, i.e., the freedom to engage in the digital economy without fear of being surveilled, is an important part of the solution.

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

I'm out of time, but I'll just say one final thing. When you think of privacy from a consumer protection perspective, it's a curious thing that when I buy a phone I don't have to read the terms and conditions. I know that if it's a defective phone I can take it back, because there are implied warranties that protect me, but for every app I use on my phone, in order to be protected, I have to read the terms and conditions. I think it's just a crazy thing.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Zimmer]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

I want to speak to the order of questions. This is what I have: Ian, James, David de Burgh Graham, Jo, Jacques, Charlie and Peter. To close out, we have Mr. Collins again, for some final words. That's what we have so far. If there is anybody else who wants to ask a question, please put your hand up. I'll try to get you added to that list, but it looks like we're tight for time.

Now we're going to Mr. Lucas for five minutes.

[Ian Lucas, Member, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, United Kingdom House of Commons]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was very struck by something that Jim Balsillie said this morning. He said that the online business model of the platforms “subverts choice”, and choice is what democracy is essentially about. It occurred to me—you might find this quite amusing—that in the United Kingdom, broadcasters aren't allowed to do political advertising. In other words, we don't have the wonderful advertisements that I've seen in the United States, and I'm sure in other jurisdictions.

Do you think there's a case for banning paid-for political advertising online on these platforms?

[Ellen Weintraub]

I don't see any way it would pass constitutional scrutiny on our Supreme Court.

[Ian Lucas]

That's in the United States?