Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 31st, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Now we have Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I want to add to the discussion. We have other business we need to get to today. I'm really hoping we can find a collaborative way to get a clear direction forward so we can dig into the deep questions we need to on Thursday with the minister and with the experts, but also so that we can be satisfied with the current work being done to keep public health and safety and privacy issues for Canadians working hard as we move through the pandemic. It's a delicate balance we're in right now, with tremendous responsibility.

I'd like to refer back to the comments of my colleague Mr. Brassard. I'd like to turn to the data sample all of us have in front of us, which explicitly outlines what the data sources are in terms of disaggregated, anonymized mobile devices. It is very clear actually. BlueDot explains that it leverages anonymized population aggregated near-real-time mobile device location data to estimate dynamic changes in population mobility patterns, meaning not one person but many people across the country. The data used contains only unique device ID, and there is no information pertaining to users themselves.

I think this is a very important point. They've developed internal policies, on top of the privacy standards, to limit the access to these data and to create guardrails to safeguard the privacy of users. All analytics at the device level are rolled up into population-level units, which is how they're able to track the risks in relation to spread. This data is also related to geography and time periods containing fewer than five devices at a time. If there are more than that.... They're trying to suppress the individual data at every step along the way. I really think comments saying that there is universal concern about this and that there's a lack of transparency.... PHAC has published; there have been articles in the media—we discussed this in our previous meeting—and there has been an open discussion throughout the pandemic regarding how we use data in a responsible, private and safe way, such that it is disaggregated and anonymized, to ensure that we have the best real-time information on how best to protect Canadians as they wish to move across the country, whether it's for business or personal reasons, whether or not it's safe for them to go from region to region or area to area.

We want to make sure that, as we go into this deep dive with officials and with the minister, we are also recognizing the real-time safety concerns of Canadians. We want to do our work efficiently, both here in committee and in the House, and make sure the will of the committee is heard.

Other colleagues, such as Mr. Green, have other concerns that we need to put on the committee table. We need to get to the crux of this, of what will satisfy the committee with regard to the concerns that Mr. Villemure has raised, so that we can move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

I'm going to go to Mr. Green next. I can't always get the precise order. I had Mr. Green down first.

It's Mr. Green and then Mr. Villemure.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sure you can appreciate that I've been listening intently to all the interventions, and I have to say that I'm always amused at the suggestion that we rush on to other important points of work when the government side, I have to share, has been speaking for the majority of the time to this point.

I don't think the subamendment and the amendment are complicated. In fact, I think the idea of putting a pause on procurement while we wait to hear from the ministers in a lexical order makes sense. We would pause the procurement, we would do the study, we would listen to the experts and then we would form an opinion. To try to have them run together.... I'll note that had this not been flagged on whatever it was—Christmas Eve—and had we not had that emergency intervention, I believe there's a likelihood that the procurement would have gone forward without any scrutiny.

When I hear words like “anonymized”, I have to think that at some point in time the data is not anonymous. Rolling up information, I would suggest that, at points of the interception of this information, it is individualized. When I hear phrases like “trying to suppress [the] individual data”, I'm also.... These are all things that I think further my concerns. For me, I just want it to go on the record that my biggest concern overall, perhaps, is the commodification of personal information. It's not just about the processes through which we've gotten to this point, but the way in which we've allowed private corporations in the telecom cartel to take information that ought to be private and sell it. In this case it's sold to the government in this way, but there's a whole host of other ways in which private information is being bought and sold as a commodity, which I have a significant interest in.

I would agree. I don't think there's anything untoward about Mr. Fergus's subamendment. It states, as I understand it, that it is to the resolution of our committee work. To me, it feels a bit redundant to where Mr. Villemure's original amendment was, but I support both. I would just go on the record to state that I hope, given the feedback around the table of wanting to move forward on this work, this isn't something that we end up sitting through in a filibuster just to kind of grind it out, rather than moving forward on it. Hopefully, we'll get to a vote ASAP, and then we can get on to other business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Now I have Monsieur Villemure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I completely agree with Mr. Green on the data issue.

I want to talk about what the Public Health Agency of Canada gave us this morning, which Ms. Hepfner referred to. I have no trouble believing that this data is useful for public health. However, we're wondering not only about the process, but also about the fact that the data can be personalized before being anonymized.

I'll go back to the redundancy issue regarding the two amendments. As the saying goes, “whoever can do more can do less.” One is subordinate to the other and there's some overlap.

Personally, I didn't have time to carefully read the document that we received this morning, with 45 minutes' notice, from the parliamentary secretary. This bothers me. I hope that this practice won't be adopted for all documents sent out in the future.

Nevertheless, I'm still concerned about the use of the words “unduly affected” because the meaning is broad. In general, it's important to move forward. I would suggest adding the word “recommendations” to the motion, and removing or defining the words “unduly affected”, which are quite subjective, unless we agree on a definition.

Believe me, I'm not filibustering. Since coming to Parliament, I've learned about the need for clarity. That's what I'm trying to add. I appreciate Mr. Fergus's amendment, which I don't think conflicts with my motion. It tries to add details and clarity. I'm just proposing to clarify what Mr. Fergus is trying to clarify.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Before I go to the next speaker, Mr. Villemure, you've spoken about some possible changes, but I don't have a formal subamendment from you. If it is or was your intent to formulate something specific to be voted upon, I would invite you to do so. If not, we'll continue with the discussion on the amendment to the motion.

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

You'll have it in two minutes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

All right.

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

It's being written.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

In the meantime, I'm going to continue debate on the amendment and go to Mr. Kurek, who is in the room.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As has often become the case, I think, you have the members from the governing party who are quick to say that there's important work that needs to be accomplished, yet they seem to be the ones taking up the lion's share of the discussion.

Mr. Chair, I'll keep my comments very brief, and I hope we can then in short order get to a vote on both the amendment and the motion.

I certainly feel that it's important to press “pause” to ensure that Canadians can have confidence in their government and that their privacy is being respected. I appreciate the fact that Ms. Saks read into the record the appendix from some of the information that was shared with this committee this morning. I saw the letter from Mr. van Koeverden, and I had a chance to briefly go through the information from BlueDot. I have far more questions today than I did an hour before this meeting when preparing for further discussion. I think the fact that there's a private corporation that's been brought into the mix here simply begs more questions than there are answers.

Ms. Saks read in some of the information about how the data was handled. That's all fine and well, but I would encourage Ms. Saks and all members of this committee to chat with their constituents and see how they feel about their information being used in the way that she read into the record, and that has been outlined in the slide deck presented to us by the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Chair, I would simply say this: Canadians deserve answers on this. Certainly, I think it is only fair and right in the spirit of good governance and collaboration on this committee to simply say, “Let's pause this procurement,” so that Canadians can in fact have confidence at a time when there has been, certainly from what I'm hearing, an erosion of trust that has much to do with government, whether related to COVID response or otherwise.

I would encourage this committee to move forward. Let's get to the important work that has to be done. The Liberals seem to say that, and now is their opportunity to demonstrate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

We'll now hear from Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to tell Mr. Kurek that the door is already open. Everyone agrees that we should put this on hold. I don't understand why he keeps insisting that there's opposition or claiming that there's a straw man. Everyone agrees on this.

Second, I propose that we take a break while we wait for the text of Mr. Villemure's subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Mr. Fergus, did you want to get back in? Otherwise, I have no speakers.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thought that we were waiting for Mr. Villemure's subamendment. Is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'm informed by the clerk that we have written text.

Monsieur Villemure, you will need to formally make the motion for the subamendment. We've received the text of it, so I will call upon you to get into the record the subamendment that you wish to propose.

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

Mr. Chair, you're lucky to have the text of the subamendment. I personally haven't received it yet. Please wait a moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I understand that it comes from you. You're going to have to—

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

Right now, I have the French version, of course.

But there are two little things that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

That's—

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

First, I propose that the word “unduly” be removed.

I also propose that we add “that the committee make recommendations”, which was there initially and which was removed. That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

If I understand you correctly, and I don't see it in writing, your amendment is to delete the word “unduly” and replace it with....

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

I would delete “unduly”. There's no replacement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

That's all we're doing. That's the entire subamendment.