The Privacy Commissioner, along with every single territorial and provincial privacy commissioner in Canada, considered putting the best interests of young people at the forefront of this law. I'm at a loss as to why the department does not want to include the very language that our privacy commissioners at the provincial, territorial and federal levels of government have signed for and requested we add, which is from the documents they unanimously agreed to.
The document “Putting best interests of young people at the forefront of privacy and access to personal information” is about building in a child's right to privacy “by design”. It's about being “transparent”. It's about setting “privacy protective settings by default” and turning off “tracking and profiling”. It's about rejecting “deceptive practices”, limiting “the disclosure of personal information”, allowing for “deletion or deindexing and limiting retention” and facilitating “access to and correction of personal information”.
All of you can find this document on the Privacy Commissioner's website. It's right on there.
Again, I'm at a loss, from what I've heard today from the department officials, as to why they would say this is a subjective construct.
Ms. Denham, in response to the testimony from the last meeting, wrote to me. She is a former privacy commissioner of British Columbia and a former privacy commissioner of the U.K., where they embedded the best interests of the child into British statute law. She stated:
I remain supportive of the Conservative amendment in the preamble. “Best interests of the child” is a legal test [not a construct] used to decide what would best protect a child's physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and well being. It is defined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Canada is a signatory. But in Canadian provincial law—
I agree with this.
—it generally means decisions about the issues of the child related to guardianship, parental responsibilities, parenting time, when the child can decide something on their own, relating to the level/stage of maturity etc.
She goes on:
I think it is critically important that privacy as a fundamental right, and special protection for children and minors' rights, is referenced in the preamble. The Bill also mandates that children's data be considered sensitive data—and that is very important and impactful.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada recommended that we include the best interests of the child in the preamble, which he also recommended be included in the body of the bill. The former privacy commissioner of British Columbia, and one of the leading global experts, recommended that we do that as well.
They're not coming from nowhere on this. The OECD, in fact, which Canada is a signatory to, has a recommendation on children in the digital environment. Canada is a signatory to this document. I read it today during question period. It's actually called “OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment”. It's an OECD legal instrument document.
In the document, they speak about the best interests of the child. This is an international legal document that Canada has signed. The OECD, which Canada is a signatory to, recognizes that:
...the digital environment is a fundamental part of children’s daily lives and interactions in a number of contexts, including formal and informal education, formal and informal health services, recreation, entertainment, maintaining links to culture, socialising, expressing themselves and their identity through the creation of digital content, engagement with political issues, and as consumers....
They recognizes that:
...children’s capabilities vary by age, maturity, and circumstances, and that actions and policies for children in the digital environment should be age-appropriate, tailored to accommodate developmental differences, and reflect that children may experience different kinds of access to digital technologies based on their socio-cultural and socio-economic backgrounds and the level of parental, guardian, and carer engagement....
They also recognize that “safeguarding children’s privacy and protecting children’s personal data is vital for children’s well-being and autonomy and for meeting their needs in the digital environment”.
That document also references the UN's rights for children “in the digital environment”, which states, “The best interests of the child is a dynamic concept that requires an assessment appropriate to the specific context.”
What the subamendment doesn't accomplish is that it doesn't allow for that very specific language that is well defined in documents that Canada is a signatory to, including from the OECD and the G7, which I will get to, as well as various American state laws that I will touch upon.
The UN states, “States parties should ensure that, in all actions regarding the provision, regulation, design, management and use of the digital environment, the best interests of every child is a primary consideration.” Canada is a signatory to the document where they outline this.
I'll go back to the OECD for a second, for their guidelines for digital service providers:
The Guidelines aim to support Digital Service Providers, when they take actions that may directly or indirectly affect children in the digital environment, in determining how best to protect and respect the rights, safety, and interests of children, recognising that girls, children belonging to racial, ethnic and religious minorities, children with disabilities, and others belonging to disadvantaged groups may require additional support and protection.
That document also states, “Limit the collection of personal data and its subsequent use or disclosure to third parties to the fulfilment of the provision of the service in the child’s best interests”. Again, Canada is a signatory to that document.
Internationally, there was a resolution by data protection authorities from around the world on children's digital rights. That was signed by Canada's Privacy Commissioner as well. That states, “Affirming that in the implementation of policies relating to their rights in the digital environment, taking into account the evolving capacities of children and their best interests must be a primary consideration.”
I'll go on.
In France, a trading partner of Canada, their commission outlines it:
In order to support young people, parents and professionals develop a digital environment that is more respectful of children's best interests, the CNIL has published 8 recommendations stemming from a review conducted with all the stakeholders concerned.
France, in their laws, recognizes the best interests of the child. Also, Ireland's data commissioner has a core message that “the best interests of the child must always be a primary consideration”.
One that is very important is the G20 digital ministers' call for actors involved in the digital environment to “Uphold the child's best interests”. Canada is a signatory to the G20, which outlines that the best interests of the child in the digital environment must be taken into account in our policy development and our legal rules.
That's in response to what you just said.
For Mr. Schaan or any other department official, is California an important trading partner for Canada?
