Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 13th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Ms. Saks.

Go ahead, Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thanks very much.

My colleagues have already made my points very clearly, so I'll keep it brief.

My concern about suspending the RFP is that we are still in a public health emergency, and the Public Health Agency is using this data right now to show whether the public health measures are working. This is data that's helping inform public health policy. This is something that could help us avert outbreaks.

My concern is while, yes, we have to make sure that Canadians' data privacy is being protected, at the same time, do we have any privacy concerns? There's no evidence that any Canadian's privacy has been compromised to date. This is information that companies are now collecting all over. This motion doesn't stop Google from collecting this information and publishing it. If you've gone on a public health website since December 2020, from what I understand, you can see this data that is being collected and given to public health agencies. I also want to make it clear that the Public Health Agency isn't collecting any data; it's taking information about where Canadians are moving.

That's why it's so important to be clear about the difference between mobility data and mobile data. “Mobile data” makes it sound like people's private information is being shared, and that's not what's happening here. We're getting information on where Canadians are moving, which is mobility data.

I just wanted to reiterate those points that my colleagues have already made very well and move on from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Ms. Hepfner.

Now I have Mr. Villemure.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A lot of the data we're talking about her was indeed available on Google, for example. Some governments, including Quebec's, have used Google data, among others. However, the government is not Google and we could level a lot of criticism on that organization. I repeat, in my opinion, Health Canada is looking to use the data in an acceptable way and its aim is true.

However, I have concerns about how it is being done. They are using a private company outside of government. I'm one of those people who hopes the pandemic will end sooner, and if Health Canada can help with that, that's obviously a good thing. On the other hand, I'm hearing about aggregated and de-identified data, while people are telling us that it's relatively easy to re-personalize the data.

Some things are hard to understand and I will go back to my initial statement. We need to understand the situation, that is, we need to see the big picture and allow Canadians to see it as well. Right now, we don't understand how the data is being used, and once data is leaked it's too late. In other words, the toothpaste is out of the tube. Just ask Edward Snowden.

I will sum up in a few words: I believe that Health Canada has a worthy objective and I don't want to cancel the request for proposals. However, I do believe that, in some cases, we need to take the time to look into the situation.

As Mr. Fergus said, if everything is in order, great. The goal is not to work against anyone. Having said that, I thought it was odd that the request for proposals was issued on December 17 and the closing date is January 21, when the House is not sitting. Mr. Brassard pointed out a coincidence earlier: the closing date for the tender was moved up yesterday. It's hard not to see a causal connection there.

Nonetheless, I won't make allegations or jump to hasty conclusions or conclusions that cannot be linked. I do, however, ask the committee to have the wisdom to consent to the motion, which will allow us to take our time and not be pressured by a timeline that we did not set ourselves.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Brassard has the floor.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The committee is facing a really fundamental question here as it relates to this RFP. We don't even know whether the collection of data in the past was done in a manner that was safe and secure to prevent the reidentification of Canadians' mobility data. We don't know that, and part of this committee's work is to get to the bottom of it.

I expect that we're going to be calling privacy and security experts. I know that there has been significant concern among those who know about this area. I'll admit I don't know that much—I'm learning a hell of a lot about it—but I understand how easy it is to reidentify the data that has been de-identified.

The Liberal members can say all they want about how it was safe and secure. We don't know. How can we move forward with an RFP on an issue when we have no clue whether it was done securely to protect the privacy of Canadians in the past?

The other thing that concerns me about this—and the commission has stated this publicly—is that the Privacy Commissioner's office wasn't even consulted. Now they are circling back with PHAC to find out whether it meets the criteria of being properly vetted from a safety and security standpoint to protect the privacy rights of Canadians.

I don't think it's unreasonable on the part of Mr. Villemure, who has expertise in this area, to request the government, on behalf of the committee, to hold off on this RFP until we get the answers we need to the questions about the data that was previously collected. Hold off until we and Canadians are confident that the data is going to be collected in a safe and secure manner, that it's not going to be reidentified and that it's not going to be used for nefarious reasons.

I completely agree with Mr. Villemure that this RFP needs to be stopped. They pushed the date back, curiously, as I said, a day before the committee meeting, but it needs to be put off until we and Canadians are confident that their data and their privacy are not going to be compromised as a result of this RFP. The only way we can do that is if we look back at what happened in the past, Mr. Chair.

I don't think it's an unreasonable request. I've quoted a few privacy and security experts in this country, including Dr. Cavoukian—I'm probably not saying her name right—the former Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. Security experts like David Lyon and others have all spoken out about their significant concerns over the collection of this data and the potential for it to be reidentified.

We're here to say that we support Mr. Villemure on his motion. It would be prudent for the committee to do the same thing, considering the circumstances we are dealing with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Brassard.

Now we have Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

While I really appreciate the conversation we've had over these past two hours on the importance of privacy and how data is used, I want to clarify a couple of things that Mr. Brassard has said.

First and foremost, he indicated that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was never engaged by PHAC. However, it is on the record that on April 22, 2020—which was two years ago—the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was engaged.

I was going to add him to my own list of preliminary witnesses. I found it very telling that we're having a conversation about privacy, ethics and the use of data. It was interesting that the Privacy Commissioner was not included on the list of witnesses that we had discussed already in our motion, but I hope we will include him and his office at a later time.

The second thing I want to highlight is that Canada, over the past couple of years, has done really well with our response to COVID. We've done that because we've had trust and faith in our public health officials. We've used science, we've used data and we've stayed away from conspiracy theories. We've tried to raise awareness to ensure that Canadians understand and appreciate exactly what is going on in their country around them and what kinds of health risks they face. When we say, “Oh, let's suspend this RFP”, knowing and understanding that this type of aggregated data collection is done by private companies, provinces and cities in the interest of moving forward in our dealing with the pandemic and with other similar issues as the years go on, I feel we are being very pre-emptive. We should have more faith in our officials.

The issues raised in the previous motion are absolutely valid. We need to make sure there is transparency in and accountability for how data is used in a bigger picture, but we need to do that in a responsible and reasonable way. The last thing we need to do is create fearmongering or confusion for Canadians about what exactly is going on.

It's been said a number of times by members from all sides that we don't read privacy statements or user agreements. We need to do better. As parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to take a reasonable approach in tackling this issue.

It was great to see that all members are in support of the motion that has been put forward, on which we've had a really good discussion. We really need to focus on that before we create doubt in our Public Health Agency of Canada, before we create doubt in how we've managed the pandemic and before we create doubt in what Canadians need to be afraid of now.

I really encourage members to reconsider what the impact of such a motion is going to be. Just from rereading the wording of the motion, I think that at the very least we can provide a bit more clarity as to what exactly Mr. Villemure is asking for in this motion.

I'll stop there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

I note that the time is now just past one o'clock and there is typically implied consent that the meeting will end at one o'clock. It's in the committee's hands. I see there are hands up to speak. If members wish to continue the meeting, we can. I don't know if I want to put this to a quick straw vote if we have a majority of members who wish to continue the meeting, or if the meeting should adjourn now at the time when there would ordinarily be implied consent to end it.

Perhaps I could have a show of hands from those who wish to continue the meeting.

Monsieur Villemure, I see your hand is up. It was up before, so I'm not sure if you wish to continue.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I wanted to suggest to the committee that we adjourn the meeting and resume debate on the motion on Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

To be clear, we don't have a meeting scheduled for Monday. It will be up to me as chair to determine when it will make the most sense to meet once we know the availability of witnesses. It will be my intention to meet as soon as possible with the witnesses who have already been requested and to quickly get more requests for witnesses.

To be clear, Mr. Villemure, do you wish to adjourn debate or do you wish to adjourn the meeting? In either case, there isn't a meeting scheduled for Monday, but if we adjourn the meeting, debate on this motion will commence at the next meeting, whenever it is called.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Debate on the motion would be suspended, not adjourned, and it would resume at the earliest opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Okay. If it's the will of the committee to adjourn now.... Ordinarily, we would adjourn at one o'clock. It's implied that we can do so, and I will adjourn the meeting if there's consensus to do so, but to be clear, this motion will be the first item of business at the next meeting, unless you vote to adjourn debate.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I want to suspend, not adjourn, debate. I move that both the meeting and debate be suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

One moment....

Okay, Mr. Villemure. If I understand you correctly, and sensing the will of the room by the absence of hands from Zoom participants and those in the room, I'm inclined to adjourn the meeting, in which case we can return to your motion at the next sitting of the committee.

I don't see any other discussion, so having said that, I will adjourn now.

The meeting is adjourned.