Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 31st, 2022

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

I will send that.

Nancy, can you just confirm your email again?

[The Clerk]

It's [e-mail].

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I would like to request a written copy of Mr. Fergus's motion, if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We are going to do our best to ensure that we first get it to the clerk in English, and we'll see if properly translated versions can be made readily available.

In the meantime, though, the motion is in order, having been delivered orally by Mr. Fergus.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll obviously wait for the French version.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Monsieur Villemure, we're going to endeavour to have live interpretation of the motion by the interpreters as soon as we have it. It may not be possible to send to any member, and there will be nothing that will come from the clerk in writing to all members unless it's fully translated, but we can have live interpretation by the interpreters as soon as that's available.

I'm now going to ask the clerk to read the motion with the proposed amendment by Mr. Fergus, and there will be live interpretation as the clerk reads this. I'm sure the clerk will read this very slowly. If we have to do this more than once, we will.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion, with the amendment from Mr. Fergus, in English, reads as follows:

That the Committee call upon the government to suspend the PHAC cellular data tender upon adoption of this motion, and that the tender shall not be reoffered until—

Now as amended:

—the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics reports to the House—

And the text of the amendment here:

—that it is satisfied that the privacy of Canadians will not be unduly affected,—

And back to the regular text of the motion:

—and that the Committee report back to the House on the adoption of this motion at the earliest opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Go ahead, Monsieur Villemure, on the motion, now with the proposed amendment from Mr. Fergus.

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

I can't support the motion until I read it in French. I heard the interpretation, and it seems fine to me. However, these are subtle and significant points. I'm not disagreeing outright, but I'd like to see the written version of the motion.

I want to remind you that we didn't ask that the tender be suspended to undermine the Public Health Agency of Canada, of course. We asked that the tender be suspended until we can confirm some information. We don't want to confirm the agency's stated purpose, which is to protect Canadians from COVID‑19. Of course, I agree with that purpose.

However, I find the data collection process unclear, non‑transparent, or at least incomplete. This morning, the data obtained by the parliamentary secretary arrived at the last minute. We didn't have time to study it properly. Nevertheless, I repeat that the purpose of the amendment isn't to undermine the agency, but to shed light on a significant issue.

In addition, after the last meeting, it was noted that the tender had been postponed to February 2. It has now been pushed back to February 4, the day after Mr. Duclos' appearance. I don't know whether it's a coincidence, but since we started speaking, the deadline for the tender has changed a few times.

I don't see any harm. However, I want to make sure that we have the opportunity to shed light on this and to get our report and recommendations to the House as soon as possible.

I'm bothered by the fact that the motion read out referred to reporting to the House. However, I didn't hear anything about recommendations, at least in the French version. That's why I want to read the motion in French. I want to be sure of the vote's purpose. This isn't about filibustering in any way, but rather about shedding light on the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Monsieur Villemure.

I'm going to pause before I go to Ms. Khalid, and ask the clerk if we might have an estimate on how long it may take to be able to distribute that.

[The Clerk]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I'll go to Ms. Khalid now.

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

Talking on the amendments, my personal preference would have been that we heard from the minister and from the Public Health Agency of Canada officials before really going into a deep dive into this motion and before making a final decision.

In terms of the amendments here, I see them as just adding more clarity. This is just a cleanup of the language, but the substance of what Mr. Villemure is asking is maintained.

I understand and respect how important that translation is in terms of how we understand and how we move forward as a committee. I would perhaps ask the committee, and I would love to hear the committee's viewpoints, especially Monsieur Villemure's, as to whether he feels we should delay this until we hear from the health minister and the officials, to see exactly how they can help us in what we are trying to achieve. I absolutely believe that Monsieur Villemure's intentions are very noble and that he is trying to do the right thing.

I feel that perhaps if we were guided by learning from the experts, the health officials and the minister, we could do better justice to what Monsieur Villemure is trying to achieve through this motion.

I put that out there, but I will just reiterate that in my opinion the amendments themselves just provide more clarity to the language of the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I also want to lend support to my colleague, Ms. Khalid.

Here's my concern. This is valuable data that public health is using to help manage the pandemic. I point to the letter from Adam van Koeverden, the parliamentary secretary for health, which he sent to committee members this morning.

He says that if the request for proposals is delayed, PHAC will lose access to this data as of March 20, 2022. He has given us very clear information that is being collected and distributed and opened to Canadians every week. We can see that it is disaggregated data that's not linked to any one particular person.

He goes on to say that this data will be used only for the purposes set out in the RFP. This is data that's being used for risk assessments, research to understand the value of mobility data in detecting future risk of infectious diseases, and weekly insights for provinces and territories to assist them in their public health response, as well as to keep Canadians informed about the COVID trends website and the WeatherCAN application.

I think these are important points. We have to make sure that Canadians' data is being protected and their privacy is being protected, but I just don't want us, in a knee-jerk reaction, to take away important tools that public health is using to manage the pandemic.

I just wanted to add those thoughts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Ms. Hepfner.

Before I go to Mr. Fergus, I understand that the amendment has now been circulated in writing in both official languages.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the clerk and all the people who were involved in the translation.

I want to apologize to my honourable colleague Mr. Villemure for not having prepared this document in both official languages. This is a failure on my part and I won't make the same mistake in the future.

You have all seen the amendments that the clerk emailed to us. You can see that, as Ms. Khalid and Ms. Hepfner said, I'm just trying to clarify Mr. Villemure's motion, not change it.

I want to specifically echo what he just said. He doesn't want to oppose anything merely on principle. He wants to get to the bottom of things. Once he's satisfied that the data is de‑identified, the committee should move on.

I move that the tender not be re‑offered until the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics reports to the House that it's satisfied that the privacy of Canadians won't be unduly affected, and that the committee report its findings to the House, and so on.

My goal is to clarify Mr. Villemure's intentions, which I believe represent the consensus of all committee members.

I want to hear my colleague's thoughts. I don't want to take any more time. I hope that he'll find that my remarks align with his intentions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

Mr. Villemure, you are next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fergus, thank you for your apology. It isn't a problem.

I'm pleased that the clerk's team was able to translate the motion quickly.

As I said earlier, Ms. Khalid, I'm obviously not against obtaining the data, or protecting the public. I gather that the amendment is meant to clarify the motion, not to make a major change.

However, I see that the word “recommendation” is missing in the new version. It talks about reporting, but not about making recommendations. This is probably an oversight on the part of my honourable colleague.

I also want to make a distinction. Initially, we were talking about suspending the tender for obtaining the data. In this case, we're talking about a data tender. It's likely the same thing, but I would strongly suggest that we add the words “obtaining” and “recommendation”. I think that this will put us on the same page.

If those words can be included in the motion, I think that this will align with the spirit of the motion. We'll see. I'd certainly like some clarification with regard to “unduly affected”. In my view, this judgment is sometimes very personal. I'm sure that our honourable colleague can clarify the meaning of “unduly affected”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Brassard is next, followed by Ms. Khalid.

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

On the amendment, I would agree with Mr. Villemure's assessment on some of the language that needs to be couched.

I'm looking at the amendment right now. Perhaps Mr. Fergus would consider importing Mr. Villemure's words of recommendation. The ultimate goal of what Mr. Villemure is proposing is that this committee be able to be satisfied that the privacy data of 33 million Canadians, which was collected without their knowledge, is protected, and that the proper security protocols and security measures are put in place. That's really the crux of what we're trying to accomplish here in this study.

As I mentioned in previous meetings, this wasn't known until this RFP, which would have expanded this program, was actually instituted or called for. Since then, since this RFP was put out, security experts, surveillance experts and privacy experts have universally been exposing cause for concern, so I won't be satisfied until I'm absolutely 100% certain that this information was disaggregated and depersonalized.

I'm sorry for being a skeptic, Mr. Chair, but I'm not going to take the government's word for it. I'm not going to take the Minister of Health's word for it. We proposed this study so that we could call in the companies that were collecting this data and so that we could call in the security and surveillance experts.

Over the course of the last couple of weeks, I have done a deep dive into this, and there are legitimate reasons to be concerned from a security standpoint, so I think that what Mr. Villemure proposes is a prudent move on the part of the committee.

I know there has been some mention of what Mr. van Koeverden sent out. I find it awfully curious that 45 minutes before this committee meeting started, we got a letter from the parliamentary secretary, saying everything was okay with our using this data.

I agree with Mr. Villemure and I think my colleagues on this side agree as well that we want the best results from a public health standpoint, but we also need to be bloody well assured that the privacy rights of Canadians are being protected. Until and unless we get to the point where we're satisfied, it is of concern to many Canadians, at least judging from the reactions I have received over the last couple of weeks, that their mobility data was being collected without their knowledge.

I will also note that in this BlueDot reference.... I've had to borrow Mr. Kurek's iPad here because I really needed to blow it up a bit more so I could see what these data sources are. For anybody who reads the appendix to this, it should actually not give them any satisfaction that their privacy and data were protected. It should give reasons for concern.

I want to be able to discuss with these privacy and security experts what the risk is to the privacy data of Canadians. I think it's prudent for us to send a message to the government that this RFP needs to be delayed.

Mr. Fergus is reaching the spirit of what Mr. Villemure is proposing, but we cannot have this privacy data collected until we are absolutely sure—and most important, until Canadians can be assured—that this privacy data is being protected in the proper way, with the proper security protocols and the proper security measures.

Just on the amendment, I think we are getting close to where we need to be on this, but we had better be sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Mr. Brassard.

Now we have Ms. Khalid.

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

Just to pick up on something that Monsieur Brassard said, I didn't see an appendix to this document at all, so I'm not really sure what he's referring to. Maybe I missed a piece here and there, but having reviewed this document, I see how that aggregated data is being used to really differentiate how people have been impacted by COVID.

Going back to the amendment and Monsieur Villemure's points, when Mr. Villemure presented his main motion, it was after a long and healthy discussion of a motion that had been presented by Monsieur Brassard. Here's what I find to be a little unclear, and perhaps Monsieur Villemure can clarify this for us. When we were discussing the full-on study, which we all agreed to and for which we will hopefully be getting to the witness list and study plans later on today, why was this motion not included, perhaps as part of that initial motion that we met on a 106(4) for? Based on that and my deduction and reasoning, the wording of Monsieur Villemure's motion talks about a report and findings and recommendations, and I'm not sure if we're trying to duplicate the work of the initial study, because it seems that there's a huge overlap between what we've already agreed to study and Monsieur Villemure's motion.

My interpretation of Monsieur Fergus's amendment is that it is really to provide that clarity, to say, okay, we have that study going on, but in the meantime, if we're going to suspend an RFP, then the way to see it to conclusion is to say, okay, the committee's satisfied or the committee's not satisfied. That satisfaction comes from the basis of what is going to be our long and healthy study into this whole issue.

I'm really hoping Monsieur Villemure can provide some clarification around what is the difference between the two. If we're talking about suspending RFPs while we're conducting this study, then for me the language as proposed by Mr. Fergus makes that so much more clear. If we're going back to the language of the main motion, then all we're talking about is that we're not specifying what report and what recommendations. We're just talking, in my interpretation, about what was the motion that was discussed and passed, and this seems to be an addendum, but it's a completely separate thing.

I again encourage members. Perhaps we do need to wait to hear from the health minister, from public health officials, to say we're going to have some clarity around what exactly the scope of the issue is and then come back to this motion. Alternatively, as members see fit, I think the language proposed by Mr. Fergus makes it more distinct and clear on the specific issue that Mr. Villemure has raised on his main motion, which is separate and distinct from a study we've already agreed to do.

We had a very long and healthy discussion among members about the importance of privacy and the importance of protection of data, and how we're all willing to go forward and embark on this study to ensure Canadians are protected. I turn to you, Monsieur Villemure, through the chair. Perhaps you can provide some clarity as to what that distinction is between this motion and the motion we've discussed before and these amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

Now we have Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to acknowledge Mr. Villemure's openness to considering my proposed amendments.

There's a difference between recommendations and the committee's satisfaction. If it isn't appropriate, we'll express our disagreement with the government's actions. I'm asking that we find a way to address the significant concerns raised in Mr. Villemure's motion. If I understood Mr. Brassard correctly, these concerns are shared by all committee members.

If the committee is satisfied that the data is de‑identified and that there isn't any impact on the personal data of Canadians, it should say so. We don't want to dwell on the review of the report. If we're satisfied, we should say so in the House of Commons. However, it goes both ways. If we aren't satisfied, we won't give our approval. That way, the government won't need to return to work on the issue.

Mr. Villemure is a philosopher and an ethics specialist. Could he explain the difference between... I don't see any difference between our proposals. My proposed amendment says that the committee needs the House of Commons' approval or non‑approval to determine what will be done.

I hope that the committee is satisfied with my proposal. I'm making it in good faith so that the work can move forward in an efficient manner.