Industry Committee on April 10th, 2024

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

Thanks to all my colleagues for a really robust debate and discussion on this. I appreciate all your comments. There have been some really thoughtful arguments and questions for the officials.

I'll start by saying that what we have expressed is, I think, a policy intent that is very much the same. Wanting to protect minors in a digital age, when they are vulnerable to having their personal information collected and used in ways that may not be in their best interests, is consistent with the overall objectives of the bill.

I think you have acknowledged that to some degree with some of the comments about deeming all minors' personal information as sensitive.

I think we are aligned. As the officials have said numerous times, the intent behind the subamendment was to try to provide interpretive clarity within the realm of commercial law. I understand that “best interest” is not a concept that's always known to companies. I think Mr. Schaan has made the point very clear.

At the same time, what we're debating here is the language in the preamble of the bill. In expressing the intent we all have, which I think we're aligned on, we should be able to compromise.

I'll ask Mr. Schaan a question. Tell me why you have a preamble in a bill. What is it really for? It's a very simple question, but I think it's fundamental to the debate we're having.

[Mark Schaan]

A preamble, obviously, is a precursor to the fundamental obligations that a piece of law contains. The piece of law will follow with specific obligations and enumerate them in a number of ways, but a preamble gives the overall ambition and lens to those seeking to understand what those obligations are.

It gives a sense of intent and it gives a clear notion of the ability to implement the obligations that then follow.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

In some ways, it just expresses the intent. Where we were coming from with this subamendment was to try to have consistency in the approach and language in the bill, but perhaps focusing more on the legal interpretation of it rather than just a policy intent.

Mr. Schaan, could you comment on that? Having the phrase “best interests” in the preamble doesn't necessarily have.... It is about the intent in some respects, and it does express the intent we share. We've heard that all around the table. It's just that it's also a legal term that exists in family law and doesn't exist in commercial law.

I understand how the legality of that term could impact what we want in the preamble if we're focusing on interpretive consistency and expressing it. However, if we take a step back from that, we recognize that the purpose of this bill, which all parliamentarians agree on, is to protect minors, in my view.

Could you comment? If the ambition or purpose of the bill were expressed in the preamble, including with “best interests”, it doesn't necessarily change the nature of the bill, other than the fact that it would then be interpreted as wanting to protect the best interests of children.

[Mark Schaan]

The considerations we were attempting to put forward were about the use of consistent language that would ensure the fundamental obligations that we see as important, which this law sets out, are followed through on. This would mean they're understood and can actually be lived out.

As for the possibility of ambition being expressed in a way that maybe isn't the exact way that it's understood in the specific obligations, it's a consideration around interpretability and legibility, but fundamentally the ambition that was proposed in the subamendment is the same.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That's helpful.

Lastly, I'll go to Mr. Généreux's points and some other points that were made, which you, Mr. Schaan, reacted to a bit with your remarks. Mr. Généreux said that it sounded like you're here on behalf of corporations or something—I've heard other comments like that—but from my perspective, our reason for being here and undertaking this really important work is very clearly to protect Canadians and children. It's also to ensure the interpretive clarity needed to allow us to live up to those obligations. That's actually in the best interests of children. If small and medium-size companies can't interpret this bill in a way that allows them to abide by it, and if there is ambiguity entrenched in it such that they can't possibly fulfill their obligations, they're going to need a court opinion or something else.

I just want to express the intent that I think we are aligned on. The ease of interpretation and the rise in obligations that you referred to are both parts of the same underlying objective and commitment. I want to leave it there.

I want to seek unanimous consent. I know procedure from being on the procedure and House affairs committee. I can't amend my own subamendment unless I have unanimous consent, but hear me out. In the spirit of compromise and collegiality and in the spirit of wanting to work constructively together, if you'll allow me, with unanimous consent, I'd like to revert to the original wording that was noted in part (b), which was, “Whereas the processing of personal information and data should respect minors’ privacy and their best interests”.

If we can agree on that change, I'd be happy to move it with unanimous consent, if the committee will humour me.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Can we take a moment to have a quick chat?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, of course. I'll briefly suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay, colleagues, I think we've reached consensus. Everyone heard what Mr. Turnbull seeks to accomplish with unanimous consent, which is to remove part (b) of his subamendment.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I can make sure everyone is clear on this.

I think you're right. It's to retract the change to what we had in our subamendment—which was under part (b)—and revert back to exactly the same wording the Conservative Party proposed. I'll read it to make sure everything is 100% clear. It would say, “Whereas the processing of personal information and data should respect minors’ privacy and their best interests”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We are continuing debate on the subamendment as amended. I have on my list—if you're done, Mr. Turnbull—Mr. Perkins, Mr. Généreux and Mr. Vis.

We're good to vote on the subamendment if there are no more comments.

Do I have unanimous consent on the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That brings us back to amendment CPC‑1 as amended.

Are there comments?

Shall CPC-1 carry as amended?

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next amendment I have on my list is NDP-1.

I don't know whether or not Mr. Masse wants to move it at this stage.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'll move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay, we'll go to Mr. Masse for NDP-1.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I thought we already addressed this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I checked earlier whether the two were dependent on one another or overlapping. We heard very clearly from the legislative clerk that they were not. However, I believe what we've just done in subamending and agreeing to CPC-1 has already dealt with NDP-1. Could we take a moment to verify that so we don't get snagged into debating something that is not needed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It is true that there is a lot in common with CPC-1, but the end is not exactly the same. If Mr. Masse wants to move it, it would be receivable.

Wait one second. I will just consult with the legislative clerks.

Colleagues, we have until 20 minutes to seven.

I gather that NDP-1 will not be moved because it has essentially been dealt with by the subamendment of MP Turnbull.

That brings us to NDP-2.

Just before it is moved, I'd just like to highlight that if NDP-2 were to be adopted, G-2 could not be proposed because there is a line conflict.

I'll let Mr. Masse speak to NDP-2.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'll read this for the people who are intently following along at home.

I move that Bill C-27, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 3 with the following: “modify personal information to ensure that no individual”.

I'll just speak briefly to it, and then others can ask questions.

This comes from the Privacy Commissioner. It's to strengthen the framework for de-identification and anonymized information. Basically, it's to protect and de-identify anonymized data, and it comes from the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Masse, for putting this forward.

Mr. Schaan, I'll start with you.

My understanding is that this specific amendment impacts the definition of anonymized information, and I believe it effectively removes “generally accepted best practices” as a concept from the definition of “anonymize”.

Could you clarify that for me?

[Mark Schaan]

That's right. Currently, the interpretation clause reads:

anonymize means to irreversibly and permanently modify personal information, in accordance with generally accepted best practices, to ensure that no individual can be identified from the information, whether directly or indirectly, by any means.

Right now, the NDP clause would remove “in accordance with generally accepted best practices”.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Having “generally accepted best practices” in there seems to me to be a pretty high bar and an important concept that would potentially allow for the evolution of best practices to be referenced in the bill.

In my work before I got into politics, I came from a world where promising practices and best practices were things we often talked about. They would emerge, specifically, in areas where technology or innovation was happening. It seemed to be fairly commonplace for fast-changing industries to evolve quite quickly, and sometimes promising practices were the precursor to eventually determining best practices.

Can you unpack for us the impact of taking that out? How would that impact the bill and the strength of the bill?

[Mark Schaan]

I'd raise two considerations.

One is that this would not be consistent with the definition that currently appears in Quebec's privacy law, which requires information to be anonymized according to generally accepted best practices. There would be a deviation between those two, which is not in and of itself necessarily.... They are separate statutes, but in terms of company obligations and how companies will be able to live up to both of those statutes, where consistency can be found, it can be very helpful.

The other is that “generally accepted best practices”, as you note, is a well-established construct that allows for standards and certifications to continue to keep pace with the movement of technology and the construct. It being absent suggests that you're held to a standard without the notion that you are, in fact, to draw upon the state of the art as it relates to the meeting of the obligation.