Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's very important that we are clear on terms and purpose and procedure, because I think it really helps us in moving forward efficiently with almost a laser focus on the motion that was brought forward.
We came here today on a Standing Order 106(4) meeting that Mr. Brassard brought forward on a specific issue, which was—let me be clear—the data that PHAC asked for and has been using to date. That is de-identified and aggregated mobility data—not mobile data, but mobility data—meaning where Canadians have been during lockdowns and where Canadians have been during different phases. This has been used by Toronto Public Health. It's been used by Surrey. It's been used by the City of Ottawa. Such private companies as Telus are using data for “social good”; that's how they coined it.
Now, each of these private contractors has an agreement with each cell user in terms of opting in and opting out. PHAC was explicitly clear that these private contractors had to have absolute clarity with users on what they are engaged in on their cellphones. As Mr. Villemure appropriately said earlier, all of us hit “agree” on our phones on various things on a daily basis without reading the fine print. That is an important discussion that we need to have, but that is not the motion that Mr. Brassard brought forward today.
What we were discussing today, and had unanimous consent on, was the data that PHAC is using, which is aggregated and de-identified data to understand the pathology of this pandemic, how it is spreading through our urban centres and how it is impacting the day-to-day lives of Canadians. That data, which is de-identified, aggregated and scrubbed before PHAC analysts look at it, is helping us understand how we move forward so that Canadians can be safe. To tie their hands from understanding how this....
We're in omicron, which is spreading like wildfire. How are we supposed to make good decisions, how are departments supposed to make good decisions, and how are local public health agencies who are also using this data able to make good decisions to understand the movement of this virus if they don't have access to de-identified, aggregated mobility data—not someone's telephone number, their address or where they live—on the general movements of how this virus is moving through communities, through neighbourhoods and through urban centres?
That was my understanding of why we came here today—the urgency to understand that the data is safe, has been procured properly and is being used with the utmost respect for privacy. Each and every one of those vendors is obligated under the current privacy acts that we have in force.
If there is a desire, as Mr. Villemure may have expressed, for us to have a more extensive discussion on those issues, we can have that, but that's not the reason we're here today. We're here today to ensure that the data that has been collected and the RFP that is currently going out respect all of the important tools and levers that we have to keep Canadians safe and also ensure their privacy.
I just want to make sure that we are working in apples to apples, not apples to oranges, and that we understand the process that brought us here today and the immediate and urgent work we need to do so that we have well-informed steps in the further work we need to do. I want to make sure that we're not muddying the waters with motions that don't speak to the clarity that we need to have as a committee and that Canadians are asking us to provide to them.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.