We did not hear from a single witness who disagreed or did not believe that the best interests of the child is a concept worthy of being in this legislation.
Throughout the initial Parliamentary debate and from everyone we've heard from so far, it's been very clear that in this changing and dangerous digital landscape, we have to protect children. In my meeting with the Privacy Commissioner yesterday, he very clearly stated that the adoption of this subamendment would reduce his ability to do his job and effectively enforce the protection of children's privacy rights.
I'll also mention that I reached out to Mr. Michael Beauvais. He was another witness. Along with Professor Leslie Regan Shade, he said in response to the proposed subamendment:
The overarching problem with the proposed sub-amendment is its narrowness. Children are citizens and are more than just economic actors. Not mentioning the best interests removes an important tool in the regulator's toolbox to develop guidelines or regulations dealing with minors. The proposed sub-amendment suggests that minors' information is only worthy of increased protection because of their “varying levels of capacity to understand how [their personal information] is used by organizations” and the use's long-term implications. It may lead to an interpretation that minors with “capacity” merit less robust protections. Even educated adults experience difficulties in understanding how organizations use their personal information, especially in “Big Data” contexts.
Moreover, focusing on children as participants in the digital economy—
This is per the department's views.
—takes too narrow a view. For example, the Bill would apply to indigenous bands regulated under the Indian Act. (This is currently the case with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act). While this is part of a broader issue, the draft language exacerbates the framing of individuals as consumers/economic actors.
Let me state very clearly the Conservatives' position. My job is to protect children. I believe that is the same objective of everyone around this committee table. I looked very closely at the subamendment, and I cannot in good faith support this measure in its current form. We have to include the language of the best interests of children. There is too much at stake that we don't understand.
I know that I've been going on for a while now. I will note, and I will re-emphasize, that in the first recommendation from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the commissioner requested that we put the preamble into the body of the bill. There were also concerns raised regarding the reference to artificial intelligence.
On Monday, we had some semantic arguments about schedule 1 and schedule 2. We're not going to repeat that. However, when this bill was created, it reminded me of my catechism class as a young man when we learned about the Holy Trinity: three in one, one in three, one being the same, consubstantial, begotten of the Father, not made. Francesco probably went to the same classes as I did.