Industry Committee on April 17th, 2024

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

That'll be for the next time.

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

All right.

We're obviously given all kinds of examples of the ability to make decisions. We're told about the laws of Utah and Texas, a state that incidentally has abolished abortion, thus denying women's rights. People cite legislation on the age of consent in certain American states where young people can go and get shot at in Afghanistan at the age of 18 but can't buy a beer when they go home.

In many respects, this is a value judgment issue. I'm not saying that as a joke. We're trying to determine who should be considered a minor in the context of the disclosure of personal information. Incidentally, for your information, I would remind the NDP and my friend Mr. Masse that they've introduced a bill in the House that would allow people to vote starting at the age of 16.

Here's the question we need to ask ourselves: Until what age should parents have full authority regarding the disclosure of personal information on the Internet, social media and elsewhere?

We also have to take into account the fact that there are clauses further on in the bill providing that the minimum age may be redefined, and I know you want to propose amendments regarding that. I know you discussed the age of majority that should be set in the bill, which you think should be 18, and that this will be reflected in subsequent amendments.

The compromise made in Quebec was to set the minimum age at 14. That's obviously under the Quebec law, and, as you know, we support the National Assembly's consensus. However, we nevertheless believe that was reasonable because we're not talking here about buying alcohol and driving a motor vehicle. We're talking about disclosing information on social media and the use of commercial products. The latter do present a risk, but they're virtually essential to socialization today.

Without wanting to criticize what's being presented here, I think it's entirely reasonable to set the age at 14. I'm more convinced that 18 is too high. That's where I stand so far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I would add an example to your list, Mr. Garon. In Quebec, an 18-year-old can purchase a 40-ounce bottle of absinthe but can't buy a joint at the Société québécoise du cannabis. That's another incongruity.

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

With your permission, I'd like to add something.

This discussion turns on the issue of when a person is capable of forming a free and informed judgment about the disclosure of personal information.

I think most people 40, 50 or 55 years of age have the same problem as 15-year-olds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

I now give the floor to Mr. Turnbull. Then it will be Mr. Masse's turn.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

I was going to move a similar subamendment to the definition of “minor”. I didn't quite have the treatise to read into the record that Mr. Vis had—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

—but I wanted to express some rationale as to why setting the age of a minor and defining it in the context of the bill would be a good move. I will just say that from our side, we fully support the amendment he offered.

With regard to Mr. Garon's points, we intend to work on a capability test and on including that in the bill. I think it would modify it slightly and give some ability for minors who are under 18 to exercise their rights over their personal information, if they have the capability of doing so.

Mr. Garon, you and I actually had a conversation about this prior to getting into clause-by-clause. It was brief, I know, but I think it might help you feel more comfortable if “minor” is defined as 18. That's not to say that it's perfectly aligned with your perspective, but we're all having a little bit of water with our wine in this process, I'm sure. I will just say that I respect your point of view, but we will be supporting the definition of under 18 for minors.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Masse, go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, this is a tough one. We do believe in voting at age 16, so when I saw 14, that was closer to what I was comfortable with.

Can we get a practical example of something that would alter between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old, in this case, in terms of control over their lives?

[Mark Schaan]

I would point to two things that I think are important. One is that under this definition of “minor”, minors' information under the act, as we've now identified through the amendments, will be defined as “sensitive” information, which means that it requires a duty of care and a greater level of protection.

However, I would draw members' attention to page 6 of the bill, under “Authorized representatives”. The relevant part here is proposed paragraph 4(a):

4. The rights and recourses provided under this Act may be exercised

(a) on behalf of a minor by a parent, guardian or tutor, unless the minor wishes to personally exercise those rights and recourses and is capable of doing so;

The capability test is one that's been established in other courts of law in terms of an assessment as to whether or not that individual would be able to exercise those rights on their own behalf. It's not ruling out the possibility that individuals under the age of 18 would have some oversight of their own personal information, but it is suggesting that for those under 18 information should be deemed sensitive, for which there is an allowance for a parent, guardian or a capable minor.

I think an example, when it comes to ages, particularly in the zone of 14 to 18, would be a ninth grader, potentially, who might have posted embarrassing information online that they regret. They would not have the right to have the information deleted if we actually set the test at 14, because of the nature of it. Older teenagers who may have less capability to understand their privacy information, and the implications from a privacy perspective of their actions, would not have the same protections as younger teens because it's not deemed sensitive and it hasn't necessarily afforded them the same rights under the law.

I think that's really what we're getting at here in changing it from 14 to 18. It's not ruling out autonomous action by those under 18; it's suggesting that the information of those under 18 is sensitive and that it requires a duty of care.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

I actually really appreciate Mr. Vis bringing this forward.

What about the 17-year-olds living on their own? Let's say they were in an abusive home and are now on their own. How much more difficult would it be for them to have that decision-making process, if there is, still, technically, another person being their parent or guardian? They may not even be living in the same place, for a variety of good or bad reasons.

[Mark Schaan]

Again, I would just go back to the “Authorized representatives” piece, where the rights and recourses of the act are afforded “on behalf of a minor by a parent, guardian or tutor, unless the minor wishes....” In your case, if those 17-year-olds had sought out their own autonomous path, and are capable of doing so, they can exercise the rights and recourses and the fundamental right to privacy on their own behalf, under the guise of the law, without needing to pursue the role of the guardian.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I appreciate this. To be clear, there wouldn't be an extra step that those persons would have to take. They wouldn't have to go to court. They wouldn't have to prove that they're independent. How would that happen? Could there be a legal contestation of that from a parent or guardian above that age to block them?

[Mark Schaan]

The only time that might arise is when the commercial entity holding this information receives a request or, potentially, has instructions given on the treatment of the personal information, and they themselves, potentially, get conflicting instructions.

Let's imagine that someone has.... The law is clear that minors capable of exercising their own authority have the capacity to make those instructions to those in possession of their personal information. It would only be if the receiving institution, the commercial entity, was somehow unconvinced of the capability of those individuals and sought, potentially, to have that clarified.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Schaan.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I will have a few more questions, when we start up again. I appreciate the answers, though. They're very helpful, but there are still a few things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You answered my question, Mr. Masse. I thought we could put it to a vote before we adjourned, but if you still have more questions, we'll bring it up on Monday, when we come back from the break.

I want to thank the witnesses for taking part in our study.

The meeting is adjourned.