Industry Committee on May 22nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Good Wednesday afternoon to you all, colleagues.

Welcome to meeting number 124 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the Standing Orders and the order of reference of Monday, April 24, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-27, Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022. Today we will continue clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventive measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents. All earpieces have been replaced by a model which greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose that you will find on the table, as indicated. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. As you can see, the room layout has been adjusted to prevent this type of incident. These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your co-operation.

Without further ado, I would like to welcome the witnesses, who come from the Department of Industry. We have Samir Chhabra, director general, strategy and innovation policy sector; and Runa Angus, senior director, strategy and innovation policy sector. Welcome to you both, and thank you for agreeing to join us.

(Clause 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

As I remember, we were discussing Mr. Garon's subamendment to amendment CPC-7 at the last meeting, and Mr. Van Bynen had the floor.

I believe Mr. Van Bynen was done with his remarks. Were you done, Mr. Van Bynen?

The list is open.

I recognize Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here again. I'm sure it will be very good, even though our regular, Mr. Schaan, is not here. We'll muddle through, I'm sure.

Just for the record, over the last week we've had a lot of conversations about the CPC-7 amendment and the subamendment from Mr. Garon, and what we could do going forward to find a way to make this work for all sides. I think we have a compromise. It involves, from our perspective, supporting Mr. Garon's subamendment to CPC-7. If we get through that positively, I would then propose a new subamendment that I think will add some language, soften it up and make sure it works for everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

Yes, I agree that there have been some really good conversations, so I'm hoping we're at a point whereby.... I feel that what Mr. Perkins has drafted and circulated is where we want to end up. I know we are in consideration of Mr. Garon's subamendment.

I think what we agreed on in conversations before the committee meeting was.... Procedurally, I'm not sure what the best way is to move forward, but perhaps we can vote in support of Mr. Garon's subamendment, and then I understand Mr. Perkins will introduce a subamendment to that.

I would just say, obviously, there's a bit of a leap of faith in how things will proceed, but as long as committee members are clear that that's the way we will proceed, we will land on the wording that Mr. Perkins has circulated, which includes the word “may”. I think that's really significant. Based on the testimony we had from our officials, that word makes a big difference in how the law will be interpreted. I think it's important that that's where we land.

As long as that's where we're all in agreement to land, I have no issue with moving forward and voting in support of Mr. Garon's subamendment and then voting in support of the changes Mr. Perkins has put forward.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull.

I appreciate the co-operative work that was accomplished by members during this last constituency week.

I see no other speakers. Is there consensus to adopt the subamendment by Monsieur Garon, with the understanding that the amendment will be subamended?

(Subamendment agreed to)

Thank you very much, colleagues.

We're now back to CPC-7 as amended.

I'll recognize Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

As a follow-up to what Mr. Turnbull and I just said—and thank you, Mr. Garon, for your amendment—I would like to propose another subamendment to CPC-7, which was originally proposed by Mr. Vis.

It has been circulated. In a minute, I'll read it with the additional words we've just passed.

Just to remind those who may be watching, we're dealing with the definitions section of the bill, and we're adding the definition for the word “sensitive”.

It says:

Sensitive, in relation to information, includes any information about an individual for which the individual generally has a high expectation of privacy, which—

Then we add the word “may” and change the word “includes” to “include”, so it's “which may include, but is not limited to” all the following that's already in the motion: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and then (f) changes the word “security”, since that's not a Canadian term, to “social insurance”, so it substitutes “insurance” for “security”. Then (g) deletes the word “or” and after (h) there is a new (i), as we discussed, I think, in our last meeting:

(i) geolocation data revealing an individual's location (de nature sensible).

I will leave that as moved.

I will say that during the break we had a consultation with the current and past privacy commissioners, and they're both comfortable with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's great.

Mr. Perkins, I think the French version of the subamendment is a bit of a problem.

I think there is a bit of an issue with the French version.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'm still learning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Well, I'm sorry to say that it shows—no pun intended.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

The subamendment reads: “en matière de protection de la vie privée, lesquels peuvent comprendre, qui comprend notamment et sans limite”. The words “qui comprend” should be deleted. The text would then read as follows: “lesquels peuvent comprendre, notamment et sans limite”. I think that more accurately reflects the English version.

Mr. Vis, the French version reads as follows: “une attente élevée en matière de protection de la vie privée, lesquels peuvent comprendre, qui comprend notamment et sans limite”. So there's a repetition that makes no sense. The version that Mr. Perkins poses reads: “qui comprend notamment et sans limite”. The sentence should therefore read: “lesquels peuvent comprendre, notamment et sans limite : a) Son origine…”.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Far be it from me, in my—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I see Mr. Garon and Mr. Généreux seem to agree on that.

At the end—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

The word “ou” should be added following point h).

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, that's true.

An “ou” is missing after point h). I'll discuss that with the legislative advisers.

As for point i), “des données de géolocalisation révélant l'endroit où il se trouve”, it's a bit odd as well.

Mr. Garon, I'm looking at you because the English text reads as follows:

“geolocation data revealing an individual's location”.

The translation is as follows: “les données de géolocalisation révélant l'endroit où il se trouve”. Should it instead read, “où un individu se trouve” or “où l'individu se trouve”?

[An hon. member]

No, it's fine the way it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It seems that “où il se trouve” is correct, but I think both previous changes are appropriate, particularly the addition of “ou”.

In any case, I leave it up to you.

Has everyone heard the subamendment proposed by Mr. Perkins?

Mr. Vis, are you...?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Oh, no. I'm just missing my headset. I was looking for a headset.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay.

Are there any comments on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Perkins?

Everyone has heard the subamendment, so is there consensus to adopt it?

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I was just wondering whether we could get a brief description from the officials on this for the record. We were lobbied heavily on this, and perhaps a slightly better explanation for changing it might be worthwhile, even for the record, if that's possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Sure thing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Can you update the public in terms of what this means as far as the amendment that's been changed and presented, especially in describing the “may”, which I think is probably the most germane with that?

[Samir Chhabra, Director General, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

I understand that the modifications being proposed through this subamendment would add to the definition of sensitive information, as follows:

Sensitive, in relation to information, includes any information about an individual for which the individual generally has a high expectation of privacy, which may include but is not limited to:

Then it provides the list of items, (a) to (i).

Our interpretation of this is that it provides directional guidance to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner about information that would generally be considered sensitive but leaves open the possibility for the Privacy Commissioner to identify, on a contextual basis, information that could be sensitive in a different context that the committee may not have identified on this list.

It also leaves open the possibility that some of these categories of information in accordance with, for example, the Supreme Court decision that we briefed this committee on some weeks ago, RBC v. Trang, would leave opportunities for the OPC or the courts to undertake a contextual analysis that would determine that in some instances—likely rare instances—things like financial data may not be sensitive.

That would be the ultimate effect as we read it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That then deals with the concern that's being expressed that.... I forget the term they use, but fatigue or something like that was used in terms of.... Consent fatigue, yes.

I want to thank the mover of the...first of all, the Bloc, and then the Conservatives for...and I guess the government too—everybody who is getting to this. It provides the Privacy Commissioner with some empowerment when necessary, but, at the same time, we get to that issue. A lot of people raised those concerns.