Industry Committee on April 10th, 2024

[Mark Schaan]

I can't speak for the government. If the subamendment fails, I think we would simply note our considerations around interpretability and, as I've said, the other two clauses of the subamendment, which address issues that we think might either introduce non-neutral technology language or apply language to acts that are not actually the subject of the legislation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. We'll see when we get to that. We have a lot to think about for the short term.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.

The next speakers on my list are Mr. Généreux, Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Garon.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'm going to yield the floor to Mr. Garon out of a concern for fairness since we've taken up quite a bit of time. I want to make sure we can do a complete round. Then I'll speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I appreciate your generosity, Mr. Généreux, but I have to stick to the prepared list. I can give you the floor after Mr. Garon, if you skip your turn, but Mr. Turnbull is on the list too.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I could speak after Mr. Turnbull. That's not a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Fine.

We will go to Mr. Turnbull, followed by Mr. Garon.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Well, in the spirit of co-operation, I'll yield to Mr. Garon if you put me back on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

This is the best committee.

Mr. Garon.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, it seems to me that a lot of people have taken pity on me and want me to get my participation points; so I thank them for that.

I'm trying to understand something about the "best interests of the child". We have that in Quebec. Family law jurisprudence was mentioned. We have that in the civil law as well. It's very clearly defined and understood.

Am I to understand that, if we use the words "best interests of the child" in the act, one of the problems will be that 10 provinces interpret the notion differently?

[Mark Schaan]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for his question.

That's one of the aspects. As we understand it, the difference is that the entity or agency responsible for interpreting the notion of the "best interests of the child" is a work, undertaking or business. What guiding principles will influence the way that concept is interpreted in a commercial organization when it comes to using a child's personal information? That's why we've raised these aspects.

There's another factor. If the commercial organization abides by its province's interpretation, there may be differences as a result of the differences among the provincial statutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Some federal statutes are interpreted differently from province to province. I'm thinking, for example, of the Young Offenders Act, the application of which in Quebec reflects the fact that the provincial institutions that take rehabilitation into consideration are different. That's not really a problem.

I don't want to spend an hour talking about that, as some people are doing.

[Some voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Incidentally, I want to thank Mr. Généreux from the bottom of my heart for yielding the floor to me. I want to be sure he doesn't regret it too much. Oh, oh!

First, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada may issue opinions on whatever he wishes. Is he subject to any restrictions? If you include the notion of the best interests of the child, can the Privacy Commissioner of Canada decide to issue an opinion as to what that means?

That can be a yes‑or‑no question.

[Mark Schaan]

I think so, yes.

The Commissioner has previously exercised his authority to construe the Consumer Privacy Protection Act quite broadly. A former commissioner has also wielded his interpretation authority more liberally.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I understand, but that interpretation authority exists. The Commissioner can interpret it and issue opinions. The courts will also be called upon to interpret it and to issue opinions and guidelines. Consequently, they will also be able to assist Canadian and foreign businesses in complying with the act and the concept of the best interests of the child.

[Mark Schaan]

I'm going to address two points regarding those issues.

First, the department and I believe that the courts have the authority to do so. If a case reaches the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, for example, the court will then truly have the power to interpret the concept. That's not the problem. The problem is that commercial organizations will have to interpret it and implement the act first. It's ultimately possible—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I understand that, but how is that different from any other act?

We're drafting and voting on a bill here in Parliament; we're saying that it will contain interpretive concepts and that the courts will be asked to do the interpreting. If we refrain from legislating every time the courts fail to interpret a concept, then we should throw in the towel.

[Mark Schaan]

There are two important aspects here. First, one of the aims of this bill is to ensure that works, undertakings and businesses implement the act as effectively as possible. To enable them to do so, we need to use the clearest and simplest terms, concepts and rules.

Second, I want to make a brief comment about the courts, since you mentioned them. Sentencing authority is definitely one of their powers. However, if the facts are established by the Commissioner, the courts won't have authority to reconsider them.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

That confirms what I was thinking. I don't just want to question the officials; I also want to speak to my colleagues.

The impression that could give Quebeckers and others watching us—there must be a few—is that the act is designed to make life easier for foreign businesses. It suggests that we think Quebec's civil law and Canadian jurisprudence are too complicated and that it's better to yield to the dictates of democracy and the courts. California businesses want to sell products to our children, but it's so complicated for them to do so that we have to do everything in our power to pave the way. That's how it's going to be understood. We're giving the impression that the minister has decided to play along with those businesses and make every effort to facilitate matters for them.

Actually, this isn't the only place in the bill where you sense this intent to facilitate matters. There are the self-regulation issues in part 3, but I'll come back to them—I don't want the chair to rule me out of order. This isn't a blanket criticism of the entire bill, but I get the impression from reading it—and it contains a lot of positive elements—that we're trying to please big businesses.

My impression in this instance is that, if we don't adopt the Conservatives' amendment, we'll be disregarding the best interests of the child in order to please businesses, which I really find unpleasant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I hadn't been here continuously since we began studying this bill, my impression would be that you are industry witnesses, that you're trying to make sure the bill is as weak as possible and that you're trying to make life as easy as possible for yourselves. I let Mr. Garon speak before me because I was sure his comments would align with mine.

Our purpose here as parliamentarians is to make laws, not to please industry. We're here to protect Canadians. That's my perception, but I could be wrong. The Liberals have decided to introduce a subamendment to abolish a terminology that's recognized globally. The "best interests of the child" isn't a concept that we've invented; it's not some kind of political toy. It's recognized around the world, even in California and many American states.

I'm trying to understand the logic in all this, and I hope Mr. Turnbull will explain it to us. More than 50 amendments, moved by the Liberals, have been introduced in connection with this bill, which, I repeat, was also introduced by the Liberals. The bill would enact three new statutes.

Personally, I am 62 years old; the Internet came into our lives 30 years ago, in the fax machine era. We're now in the artificial intelligence era, and the risks that children face will increase by a factor of 10. We have a duty to ensure that children are protected.

I'm going to ask a relatively simple question. If we adopt this subamendment and don't include this line, do you sincerely think children will be less protected?

[Mark Schaan]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for his question.

I'm going to make a comment in French, but I'll clarify it in English.

I think that, if the subamendment is adopted, the best interests of the child will enjoy the same protection. That protection will be established in the bill.

Comments about the ease of implementation should be understood quite distinctly from the rising obligations being placed on commercial actors, which are replete throughout this bill. The CPPA definitively increases obligations, penalties and responsibilities for commercial actors for the use of personal information.

I comment on that only because comments were made about whether or not officials are appearing here on behalf of any other interests. I would like to be absolutely clear that a primary consideration for the departmental participation in the establishment of this law was to ensure the effective protection of the privacy of Canadians.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Schaan.

I don't want you to feel accused of anything. As my colleague Mr. Garon said earlier, I'm concerned about the perception people may have as they listen to us. We have 250 amendments to consider, and we're only on the second one after two meetings. We have to take this very seriously.

Since we began this study last fall, most witnesses have told us, first of all, that we should have introduced three bills instead of one, or at least two, in order to separate certain aspects. From the moment they're in the same bill, we have to take all aspects into consideration.

What I'm saying is that the "best interests of the child", a phrase recognized around the world, must be included in the bill, considering what the future will bring.

Once again, I hope Mr. Turnbull will explain to us why the Liberals absolutely want to delete it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

Mr. Turnbull.