Industry Committee on April 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 120 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Colleagues, I hope that you all had a good week in your constituencies.

Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.

As stated in the Speaker's press release sent to all members of Parliament today, Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent acoustic incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced with a model that significantly reduces the likelihood of an acoustic incident. The new earpieces are black, while the old ones were grey. Please use only the approved black earpieces. By default, all unused earpieces at the start of a meeting will be disconnected. When you aren't using your earpiece, please place it in the middle of the sticker on the table, face down, as shown in the image. Please refer to the cards on the table for guidelines on preventing acoustic incidents.

As you can see, the layout of the room has also been changed to increase the distance between the microphones and lower the risk of feedback caused by a nearby earpiece.

These measures are in place so that we can carry out our activities without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including and especially the interpreters, whose work we greatly appreciate.

Now, colleagues, here are a few things that I would like us to discuss at the end of the meeting.

Mainly, they include an invitation for the minister on Rio Tinto and the main estimates. However, we'll keep that towards the end.

Oh, you won't be here Rick. Okay. We can deal with it right now and try to get it out of the way.

However, I see Brian first.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'd be interested to know if we, as the industry committee, can actually put a question in to House of Commons.

The last time I asked for one of these earpieces, they were made in China. Maybe we should ask about these earpieces since we're talking about the quality of sound. They're the standard ones in the House of Commons. Perhaps, as the industry committee, we can ask specifically when these were manufactured, tested and delivered, and when the technology was provided for this. The piece I got in the House of Commons was created seven years ago. That's the manufacturing date, so perhaps that information might help our audio system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I have no objection to asking the Speaker for that information, and we can share it with the members.

Mr. Vis.

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

Unfortunately, I had to visit an audiologist two weeks ago here in Ottawa. The first thing they said to me was that we have to get rid of those horrible earpieces because they do so much damage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's especially for the interpreters who have to wear them day in and day out.

I'll ask the Speaker. I have no problem with that, and I see no objection. Thank you, Mr. Masse.

With regard to our scheduling issue, as you know, before the end of May—as we agreed at the steering committee—we are to have another hour with the minister on Rio Tinto. We also have to invite him before the end of May on the main estimates. The clerk has asked for the minister to appear on both of these subjects. However, the minister, based on his very busy schedule, is only available on May 8 for an hour with the committee. I am seeking the guidance of the committee as to whether we should invite him on the main estimates and open the floor to all subjects or have him specifically on Rio Tinto.

He's prepared to answer questions on both topics, but the time that he has to allocate to the committee is limited. I'm seeking guidance in terms of what I send out for the notice. I know it's not going to be satisfactory to members that we don't have the minister for one hour on Rio Tinto and for one hour on the main estimates. However, the most pressing one, to me, would be.... Well, actually, time is of the essence for both, but I would go with Rio Tinto. That's my personal opinion.

I see Rick Perkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it disappointing, because last year we gave the minister grace and didn't call him for estimates because of his travel schedule. He had lots of notice of this request, and lots of flexibility from this committee to get that done before they're reported back to Parliament—which is why they're the primary item that has to go, I think. There's no point in having the minister much after they're reported back to Parliament, so I ask that the minister reconsider and find two hours in his schedule—if it's not on that date, then at least two separate hours—to deal with both issues, as the committee requested.

He has found a lot of time to visit U.S. politicians and be all over the world, but he hasn't had time to come to committee, which personally, I think, is disrespectful to Parliament and the work of this committee. I think he owes it to us to come for two hours, whether it's all at once or split into two separate periods. I request that the committee go back to the minister and say that we prefer for him to come for two one-hour appearances, as we originally requested.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay, so in the meantime, given that we've agreed and out of courtesy for Jean-Denis—whose motion it was to do the two hours of Rio Tinto and we agreed to it—I would suggest that on May 8 we have the minister appear on Rio Tinto, and I will resubmit an invitation to the minister for main estimates.

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

Mr. Chair, what's the date that the estimates are reported back to the House?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It's the end of May.

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

It's the end of May, so we'd have to find another hour before the end of May.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

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

I have a great deal of respect for the minister, who obviously works extremely hard. However, in order to show respect for the procedure and for all the work that the committee must accomplish, he should at least come here for the two hours. He must appear if required to do so by the committee. I see no reason why he couldn't find two hours in his schedule. We see him making announcements all over the world. If he needs new batteries, we'll give him some. One thing is certain. He must appear if required to do so by the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I quite agree with you. That said, when the minister appears before the committee, I often have trouble getting him to leave, because he stays longer than planned.

We'll try to work with him to see what can be done. In any event, I suggest that we invite him to appear on May 8 to discuss Rio Tinto and that we invite him back to discuss the main estimates. Even if the minister were totally unavailable between now and the end of May and the committee had already reported to the House on the budget, the minister could come a bit later, in June, to discuss it.

Would anyone else like to comment?

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Just to speak briefly to this, the estimates are important too. As we're creating this Bill C-27 sausage, it's important to have the minister talk about the estimates because there's money in the budget related to Bill C-27, so the timing would be extra important this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Savard‑Tremblay, you have the floor.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

First, thank you for having me in this committee.

We're prepared to agree to this taking place over two meetings, if necessary, on two conditions. First, two hours must be spent on these issues, meaning one hour to discuss Rio Tinto and another hour to discuss the main estimates. For us, this is non‑negotiable. Of course, we must also take into account the deadline for the committee to report the main estimates to the House.

Two hours is the bare minimum for us, especially since the committee has already been flexible about the date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

In this case, the best solution would be to meet with the minister to discuss the main estimates on May 8, and then find a later date between now and the end of the session to discuss Rio Tinto. I think that this would suit everyone. If members of Parliament have urgent questions about Rio Tinto, the minister can still answer them, even though he'll be there to talk about the main estimates. That way, we still have an hour to discuss each topic.

That's what we'll do. Thank you, colleagues.

That brings us to our regularly scheduled programming on Bill C-27, and if I'm not mistaken we were on CPC-4.

Mr. Masse, the floor is yours on CPC-4.

(On clause 2)

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Resuming at where we were discussing the age of 18 or 14 with regard to consent and everything, maybe you can do a quick summary. My biggest concern, if we are going to go with 18, would be how somebody who is 14, 15, 16 or 17 can champion themselves in terms of their data versus a potential guardian or somebody else who might have a different set of opinions about how that person's data should be handled.

I'm looking at the process and how difficult it is for those individuals in that grey area, who perhaps would have to compete against somebody else who might have a different set of values or interests about the use of their data through the private sector, if that's something we could go to....

[Mark Schaan, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

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

I think it would be important to return to page 6 of the bill and clause 4 on “Authorized representatives”, where it clearly notes:

The rights and recourses provided under this Act may be exercised

—and then with the most important part here—

(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;

Essentially, the reversion is to the individual, so that 14-, 15- or 16-year-old who wants to steward their own personal information has the recourse to be able to do so, particularly if they're capable of being able to do so.

It would be the determination of the receiving entity, the commercial actor that would be receiving the personal information, that would need to essentially challenge the assumption of the capability of the individual, which, in the first instance, is probably not the natural recourse, because the individual whose data you're holding is telling you what they want to do with it, and your gut is to go with it, essentially. It would only be if there were any concerns about the potential capability of that individual that would require the corporation to potentially reconsider the determination as to whether or not that person should have recourse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's helpful.

Let's just walk through this process. Say, for example, that a 17-year-old wants to determine that. The company—let's say it's Microsoft or whatever—would then have to challenge the capabilities of the individual. They would have to abide by the wishes of the individual. You'd have to abide by the individual first, and then the company would have to challenge that. Would it go to the Privacy Commissioner to determine? I'm just looking for the practical path.

[Mark Schaan]

Essentially what would have to happen is that, first of all, an individual would be looking to actually direct the relationship of their data. By and large, what we're talking about here is recourse and rights. Let's imagine that it was the right to deletion or the right for data mobility. The company would be receiving direction from a 14-, 15-, 16- or 17-year-old in this particular case, who says, “I want you to do something with my information.”

In the vast majority of cases, those rights and recourses aren't the primary uses of personal information. It's usually the relationship to consent, and you've provided that essentially at outset. This would be wanting to do something with it afterwards. The process would likely be that the individual would seek, via direction to the organization, to say, “I want you to delete my information”, or “I want you to move my information”.

The company would receive that, and it would only be on some sort of expectation, or maybe belief, that the individual is incapable of being able to make that determination. My guess is that they would initially go back to the individual and indicate, “We're uncomfortable deleting your information because we're not sure you're capable of being able to make this determination.” Then they would need to be satisfied of the capability of the individual to be in line with the law.

The commissioner would only get involved if there were ever an investigation that was of the mind that said, “We believe that you failed to live up to the rights of this individual.” The commissioner would investigate the company's reliance on either an authorized entity or the individual as it relates to the determination made about the personal information.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

To conclude with this, I used to be an employment specialist for persons with disabilities, and there was the whole People First movement, because, for a lot of people, it had been determined that they weren't capable of certain things when they were capable. How would this apply with regard to persons with disabilities as well? That has tended to ebb and flow with societal standards, which at times have been rather poor in many respects. We've adjusted some, but it's still quite a bit of a challenge. How would it apply for persons with disabilities?

[Mark Schaan]

Mr. Chair, that's where the second portion of the “Authorized representatives” kicks in:

The rights and recourses provided under this Act may be exercised

(b) on behalf of an individual, other than a minor, under a legal incapacity by a person authorized by law to administer the affairs or property of that individual;

These would be legal determinations made on someone who has been determined by the courts to no longer be capable of managing their affairs and for which there would be an appointee who would be governed by that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, because, also, like I mentioned, there are persons with dementia and people living longer and so forth. There are other types of mental health challenges that are probably going to get more complicated or to at least be inclusive of mainstream society, because it's more than just persons with disabilities now. It's also persons who will develop memory issues. Okay, that part (b) will cover this.

I'm going to conclude with this. I have one last question, because originally the motion from the Conservatives was age 14. Then it was moved to age 18, and I understand the reasons for it, but there were a lot of other submissions for 14 that came in from us. Have I missed anything other than that in terms of other testimony that has come in to move it to 18? Or has it been still more soundly represented at 14?

[Mark Schaan]

I think the committee heard from a number of representatives. Fourteen was requested by a number of industry stakeholders. I think you've heard some testimony and some considerations from us as officials that the 15- to 18-year-old area still contains a lot of potentially sensitive information. By moving to 18, you essentially scope in a greater degree of information that is still likely to be sensitive in the same way that information for a minor under 14 would be.

I think the summary is probably the same. You've heard testimony to the effect of why 14 would be useful, particularly from industry, but I think there are also considerations that have been raised about that 15- to 18-year-old range, where it's highly likely that someone is still potentially consenting to information that they may still want rights and recourses to be able to effect as sensitive.