Industry Committee on April 17th, 2024

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks as well to the witnesses for being with us.

Before we get into specifics, I have to admit my ignorance of the process involved in drafting and finalizing bills. For that reason, I'd like to ask you the two following questions.

Are they drafted first in one language or the other, or in both languages at the same time? For example, are they drafted in English and then translated into French?

And who does that work?

[Mark Schaan]

I want to thank the member for his question.

The drafting of bills is a collaborative effort involving the team members of the department concerned and lawyers from the Department of Justice. The process depends somewhat on the language of the experts in the room, but the bills are nevertheless drafted in both languages simultaneously.

We call in jurilinguists, who are trained to draft bills in both official languages. Then there's also a revision process in which an anglophone jurilinguist and a francophone jurilinguist ensure that the content of the two texts is identical and is up to legislative drafting standards.

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

I want to be sure I understand your answer.

So the bill is drafted by employees of the department in question; in this instance it's Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and employees of the Department of Justice. All these people work together to draft the bill in both official languages. However, as I understand it, the language in which it is first drafted depends on the language mainly used in the room. If there are more anglophones, they'll be drafted in English and then immediately translated into French.

Is that right?

[Mark Schaan]

Yes, that's exactly it. We establish a text in one language, and then there's the revision process to ensure that the content of the two texts is identical.

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

Now I'm going to talk about the amendment we're proposing.

I don't know if the linguists have considered the definition of the verb “de-identify” in English and the verb “dépersonnaliser” in French. If we were the only ones moving an amendment on this point, I think it might be because we're a bit too picky or demanding, but another party is calling for the same thing. Consequently, we have to try to come up with an equivalent definition of this idea in both languages.

Here's how the definitions in question are actually drafted.

de-identify means to modify personal information so that an individual cannot be directly identified from it, though a risk of the individual being identified remains.

In the French version, the meaning of the verb “dépersonnaliser” is as follows:

Modifier des renseignements personnels afin de réduire le risque, sans pour autant l'éliminer, qu'un individu puisse être identifié directement.

According to your interpretation, when reference is made, in the English version, to “someone who cannot be identified”, that's not the same thing as saying “réduire le risque”.

I don't know how you understand that or how the linguists understand it.

Which leads me to another question. You regularly testify before the committee, and you're involved in the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. The people from the Department of Justice are often mentioned since you've collaborated with them. However, no linguist has been invited to testify before the committee and share his or her expertise regarding the drafting of these definitions.

The bill is many pages long. Can there be any risk that these words may be interpreted differently in English and French elsewhere in the bill? I think that's a reasonable question.

I'm asking a really innocent question: Is it normal for the people who work on the bill to come solely from the Department of Industry and for there to be no one from the Department of Justice?

[Mark Schaan]

The officials have several discussions with experts when drafting a bill. It's somewhat like what happens with amendments proposed during committee proceedings. Bills are drafted by experts from the House of Commons Procedural Services. Committee members thus receive a text drafted by a legislative expert from the House of Commons, and this helps them promote their ideas.

Something quite similar takes place in the department. Its jurilinguistics service is responsible for conducting an important phase of a bill's revision, and this topic is discussed at length. Considerable effort is made to ensure that the two texts say exactly the same thing in both official languages.

Errors occur from time to time. To correct them…

I'll say this in English because I don't know the name of the statute in French. It's the statute amendment act, which allows for some of these corrections to be made. From time to time, there's been an error in the specific meaning.

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

In our opinion, and that of other people, including the Privacy Commissioner, there's a difference between the English and French versions of the definition of the verb “dépersonnaliser”.

Do you agree that a correction should obviously be made in this case?

Do you now think that a correction should be made to the text of the bill to ensure that the two definitions represent the same idea?

[Mark Schaan]

The jurilinguists haven't expressed any specific opinion about the definition. I think the Conservative Party's remarks are logical. The definition of the verb “dépersonnaliser” is accurate, and it reflects the English.

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

All right.

The Commissioner's submission on Bill C-27 reads as follows on pages 13 and 14: There appears to be a discrepancy between the French and English versions of the definition of “de-identify” under section 2 of the CPPA. The English version clearly states that de-identified information means that one cannot directly identify an individual from such information, but there is nevertheless a risk that re-identification could occur. In the French version, the wording appears to focus on lessening the risk of reidentification rather than clearly stating that the individual should not be directly identifiable despite the fact that such a risk cannot be completely eliminated. To avoid potential interpretive discrepancies, the French version of this definition should be modified to reflect the more rigorous meaning in the English version.

Do you share the Commissioner's view?

[Mark Schaan]

Are you asking me if I agree with him?

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

Yes, do you share the Commissioner's opinion that the two definitions aren't the same?

[Mark Schaan]

It's a good point of view, and I think it's a good amendment for that reason.

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

All right.

The purpose of our motion is to amend the French version of the definition of “dépersonnaliser” to ensure greater concordance between the two versions of the bill.

We propose, following the words “Modifier des renseignements personnels afin”, to delete the words “de réduire le risque, sans pour autant l'éliminer, qu'un individu ne puisse être identifié directement” and to replace them with the following, “qu'un individu ne puisse être identifié directement, sans pour autant en éliminer le risque.”

We believe that would be closer to the meaning of the English version.

What do you think?

[Mark Schaan]

We agree with the proposed definition. It's an improvement on the definition currently in the bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I unfortunately haven't read amendment NDP-3, but, as I understand it, it essentially means the same as amendment CPC-2.

We obviously recommend that the committee adopt our amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Seeing as how this is a French translation-related issue and my French language skills are not up to speed, I trust my colleagues. If committee members feel that this amendment is needed, I think we're prepared to support this amendment. I don't think it's a big issue for us. We felt that the definition that was included reflected a good translation, but I also recognize that other committee members may feel differently. I think we need to respect your point of view on this.

We're prepared to support it. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

As a French speaker, it's obvious to me that there is a difference between the French and English versions. The question is this: Which one needs to be modified to reflect which? Is it the French that needs to adapt to the English, or is it the English that needs to adapt to the French? There is a difference. The proposed change aligns with the English version better, I would say.

Mr. Perkins.

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

That's exactly what my starting point was going to be.

Mr. Schaan, I thought we asked this. I don't know which language the final draft of the bill was drafted in. If it was drafted in English, the government's intent presumably was what we're trying to do here in the English version, which is to make sure that there's no risk. Or is it the French version, which says that it's okay to have some risk? What was it originally? The intent is no risk. Is that right?

[Mark Schaan]

The English indicates that there is a risk of reidentification, which is what delineates between de-identified information and anonymized information. The English intent is to say “modify personal information so that an individual cannot be directly identified from it, though a risk of the individual being identified remains”, which is to distinguish it from anonymized information, where that reidentification is not reasonably foreseeable.

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

I'm working on my French. I haven't actually read the French version of this bill and done a comparison. We rely on the government to do that.

It worries me that this one version is one that the Privacy Commissioner raised. I don't think he raised any others. Maybe that means there aren't any others. Subsequent to seeing either our amendment or this being raised by the Privacy Commissioner, has the government gone back and done a clause-by-clause comparison to make sure that both the English and the French reflect the same thing, whatever the intent was?

[Mark Schaan]

Yes. That's a task for the jurilinguists. We have worked with the jurilinguists to ensure that the two interpretations of the law will be the same in both official languages.

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

So it's subsequent to that. I'm curious, then, why didn't the government propose a similar amendment? Since it was caught by the Privacy Commissioner, it should have been caught by the government.

[Mark Schaan]

I think the view was that the legal effect was understood, but we've come to view this as an important amendment that we've understood to now reflect the identical interpretation in both official languages.

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

I appreciate that, but it doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in the answer to the previous question, which was that it's been gone over to make sure that this has happened. I would have expected a government amendment to this along those lines as well, if that had been done.

I accept that you are supporting it. I sure hope we're not caught up in any of the other clauses of the 140-page bill and we don't have other ones that we've missed. You're assuring me that we don't.