Information & Ethics committee  Thanks for the question. Let me unpack it a little bit. You've talked, in a sense, both about data transfer and data localization, and they're different things. The issue of data localization is with regard to a country requiring businesses to store or retain personal information locally, ensuring that that information enjoys the protections that their national laws provide.

Information & Ethics committee  There are two things. First of all, data always moves easily. If we take it as nothing more than ease in moving the data, then the concern will be that the data will move and be transferred to the lowest-level jurisdiction for protection. I don't know that many Canadians would be comfortable if they were told that many of the protections they think they enjoy are lost because their data is being stored in a jurisdiction with no privacy protections at all, and it would be very difficult for a privacy commissioner to assert jurisdiction.

Information & Ethics committee  You talked about whether or not there ought to be specific protection for minors, and it's worth noting that in the United States there is. They did establish stronger privacy protection laws, specifically for those 13 years and under. There's a reasonable debate as to the effectiveness of those rules, but there was a recognition that they do require stronger protection.

Information & Ethics committee  Thanks. Good afternoon. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I appear here today in a personal capacity representing only my own views. There's a lot that I would like to discuss given more time: stronger enforcement through order-making power; the potential for Canada's anti-spam legislation to serve as a model, at least on the issues of tougher enforcement and consent standards; and the mounting concerns with how copyright rules may undermine privacy.

Canadian Heritage committee  To be honest, your question gives me almost a sense of déjà vu. I appeared before lots of committees when we were debating copyright for the better part of a decade. That question was essentially the same one that was being posed by the music industry or by the movie industry, something like, “Can't you do something about copyright to save us?”

Canadian Heritage committee  Thanks for the question. It's hard to know what I would have said about it when I was eight years old. I don't know if I'm sure what I would have said in protecting some of the Canadian institutions you're referring to. I think, though, that where we adopted more protectionist measures or measures that recognized a scarcity of either availability of, let's say, airwaves or things like that, important national policies and priorities needed to be reflected in the system when you had those limitations built in.

Canadian Heritage committee  No, as part of the 2012 reforms, I argued and I would continue to argue that, if anything, we need to move towards more of a fair-use model—the U.S. model—by removing the limitations. We have a series of purposes within the act—limited currently to eight—such as news reporting, research, and review, and we should use those to say “purposes such as” so that we would potentially open the door to other uses.

Canadian Heritage committee  I don't mean to sound flippant, but my solution would be to compete. Yes, there are large players that have come into the marketplace, but the notion that we're going to close up the Canadian Internet to Google and Facebook when a large part of what they're doing is actually driving traffic to Canadian sites strikes me as a bit of a non-starter.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thanks for the question. I'd start by noting that I don't think copyright really has anything to do with the viability of journalism. Indeed, one of the most essential exceptions within the Copyright Act is the one for news reporting. Frankly, if we don't have a robust fair dealing provision, one that incorporates a liberal approach with respect both to fair dealing and particularly to news reporting, the ability for reporters to use materials and reuse materials as part of their reportage could be severely compromised indeed.

Canadian Heritage committee  Sure, and I've seen some of those comments. I think we ought to distinguish between aggregators that take in that content for indexing purposes and then make snippets available and aggregators who take content and then simply repost, unchanged by and large, that same content. I don't think those who take those works for indexing purposes, for search purposes, but don't make available the full text and send the person who's searching for this material back to the originating source are violating copyright.

Canadian Heritage committee  Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning. As you heard, my name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. My areas of specialty are in digital policy, including e-commerce, privacy, and intellectual property.

Information & Ethics committee  David's answer is an excellent one. I think there's been a bit of a theme about the need for some amount of flexibility here. We've had it on a number of the kinds of issues where, once you start coming up with real-world examples or potential real-world examples, it starts getting more and more difficult to come down with a specific response.

Information & Ethics committee  I think it's a good point. It would make for a really interesting, lengthy discussion. Depending on where you go around the world, the perspective on the kinds of privacy protections you should have and the import of either the private sector side or the public sector side varies.

Information & Ethics committee  I'll start by saying that I think we do need to flesh out some of those issues. I think it's an important one, and I'm glad we've had the opportunity to talk about it. For some of the kinds of information we're talking about, consistent with some of the remarks David made at the very outset, there isn't a consent issue there.

Information & Ethics committee  I think the starting point is to not send your work emails through your own server at home. It feels a bit more like an access to information issue in many respects. The question of emails has been challenging, because of course we want government, the bureaucracy, and others to adopt efficient means of communication.