Industry Committee on May 21st, 2020

[Colin McKay]

I think you hinted in your question that there are various levels in which YouTube videos are affected by a violation of our community guidelines. In some cases they're demonetized so you can't make advertising revenue from them. In other cases, they're rendered private so you can continue to share them but they're not surfaced in the search. Finally, there's a takedown. They receive notification by email that there's been a violation of the community guidelines and there's an opportunity to explain why that should be reversed.

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

It's fair to say I've given you a hard time in the past, wouldn't you say, Mr. McKay?

[Colin McKay]

We've had engaged conversations.

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

Let me be the first to then credit YouTube and Google for emphasizing science and not sensationalism when it comes to saving lives.

Mr. Johnson, you indicated you have seen research that a 60% to 80% adoption rate is critical for the efficacy of a proximity tracing application. I've seen the same research. Do you think we can plausibly get there with an app that is opt-in?

[Eric Johnson]

That is a really good question.

I can give you my personal perspective. It's just to give you some statistics out of the U.K. In the U.K., 80% of people have a phone. If you have to get to 80%, it's very, very difficult. I'm optimistic because I think the more contact tracing we can do...the openness that's been discussed and the consent.... As long as people are comfortable that they're not being tracked and their data is safe, I think there's hope, but it's a tough road, in my opinion.

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

If it is a matter of public health in relation to ensuring we are free from deadly viruses, is it inappropriate to have more mandatory rules?

[Eric Johnson]

Is that for me again?

That's a philosophical question. Certainly IBM doesn't have a position. I think we have to look to our health leaders. I can say that in British Columbia we all do what Dr. Bonnie Henry tells us to do. We're in. We're all in.

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

Maybe I'll put the same question to Mr. Perron in that case.

[François Perron]

Sorry, I have to rearrange the microphone.

Are you asking about the percentage of people who use a cell phone and the efficacy of an app? I'm sorry, but I missed that part of the question.

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

It's not the percentage. I have a minute left, so let me put it this way.

I don't know what it's like in Quebec, but in Ontario, children are required to have a vaccine for a number of different diseases to attend school. It seems odd that we wouldn't take a similar approach to saving lives in relation to a pandemic for an application on our phones so long as it is privacy preserving in every other possible way. For the DP3T standard except for voluntariness, it would mean having a data governance framework and data would be deleted at the end of this pandemic.

I wonder why, if a vaccine is not voluntary for kids attending school in Ontario, we are talking about voluntariness to such a great degree with respect to an application that could potentially save lives.

[François Perron]

Again, that's a very intriguing question.

As I see it, the current problem is that making the app mandatory would contravene a number of laws, specifically in relation to consent. Use of an application usually requires people's consent. What you're proposing, however, would require people to share their personal information. That strikes me as very difficult to do in a country like Canada.

In terms of how Quebec law pertains to public organizations, consent poses a problem there as well. As someone who's not a public health expert, I have a much harder time understanding how something like that could work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, Mr. Perron.

Ms. Gaudreau will start off the next round.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have two and a half minutes. Please go ahead.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A lot of things need to be considered. I'm pleased with the progress we've made since the last meeting.

We've heard that our data is more or less protected. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada reports that 30 million of 37 million Canadians have been the victims of a data breach. How is that possible?

Do we need to pull back quickly to make sure we, as lawmakers, are protecting the public? Do we need to rise above partisanship, put people first and save lives, by moving swiftly to change outdated laws to help our citizens?

I'd like to know your thoughts on that. I heard Mr. Perron comment at length on the subject.

[François Perron]

Would you like me to say more?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Go ahead, Mr. Perron.

[François Perron]

I think it's important to make clear that it's very hard to see any teeth in the existing legislation as it applies to the private sector, keeping in mind that I'm much more familiar with the framework for public institutions.

As things stand, it's very hard to assert the right to privacy, to be 100% sure that an individual will be notified if their personal information has been leaked or disclosed illegally. Many—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Perron. I have another question.

We are realizing that legislation doesn't keep pace with technology, and it's on us, as lawmakers, to correct that. You've appealed to us to act, so I thank you for that.

Actually, we know exactly what we have to do. First, we need to deal with legislation to give it more bite and assist you in your efforts. Then, we can turn swiftly to the matter of location tracking.

Am I wrong, Mr. Perron?

[François Perron]

It seems obvious to me that a clear legal framework is a must.

As you can tell, I'm fumbling a bit, but as long as that part isn't dealt with, having the right discussion around technology will be tough. That's a no-brainer.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Since I have a bit of time, I'd like to ask you about identity. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics talked about decorrelating the social insurance number to make it a digital identifier.

Where do you stand on that? Perhaps someone else could jump in quickly.

[François Perron]

If no one's going to answer, I will. One of the problems with a unique identifier issued by a single entity is that if that identity or identifier is revealed, made known or disclosed, the secret behind the information doesn't work anymore and you end up with the same problem you started with.

I don't think changing the nature of the social insurance number to make it some other type of number is a good idea. It would have absolutely no benefit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

It is now Mr. Masse's turn.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. McKay, I know the bleach example may seem a little radical, but how do you deal with, for example, President Trump, who says that you should take hydroxychloroquine? The FDA has said you shouldn't. What do you do in a circumstance like that? It's happening right now.

[Colin McKay]

It's a very difficult conversation to have because, obviously, in working as a platform we need to respect that there are authorities and elected leaders who are giving specific points of view.

What we try to do and what you will see on YouTube is that, if a video is dealing specifically with COVID-19, there will be an information panel below that video. In the case of Canada, it will point directly to Health Canada's site on COVID-19, where you'll see specific advice about treatments, social patterns and behaviours.

We are always in this push and pull where we need to recognize that there are leaders, and they have a right to communicate with their citizens.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. You'll be happy to know that I did google that while I was waiting for my turn here.

I want to follow up with something from yesterday which I thought was important. It was from the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. I do want your opinion on this.

What I found interesting about the testimony last night from Mr. Holland, which was good, was it showed that it considers itself—and probably is—the gold seal or standard of registering Internet sites using the .ca brand. I'm fairly naive in the sense that I thought that the Government of Canada.... When I hear “.ca” I think it really has some standards, but there is no follow up to the authenticity of the activity of those who actually have that brand later on. I wonder if you have any thoughts on that.

To me, part of cleaning up fraud, attacking fraud and preventing fraud is the preventative work. I just find it odd that you could then use a platform like yours later on to perhaps be the sounding board or the morphing of something that may be very real and true at first into fraud later on. Is there any involvement of Google with regard to screening any of that?

[Colin McKay]

I am parsing what you just said. In terms of domain registry and actual geographic location, that process involves CIRA in the first step, and then ICANN, the international registry, secondarily.

For most websites, I think what you first turn to is actual criminal law enforcement, especially in cases of fraud, physical harm or misrepresentation.