Industry Committee on May 6th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 122 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

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

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 could cause injuries, I remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from the microphones at all times.

As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, 2024, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black, whereas the former earpieces were grey.

Please use only the approved black earpieces.

By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.

When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down, in the middle of the round sticker on the table, as indicated.

Also, please consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Finally, the room layout has been adjusted, as you have been able to see since last week, to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.

These measures are in place to ensure that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters, whom we thank.

I thank you all for your co-operation.

That said, we are holding a new meeting on Bill C‑27.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 24, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C‑27, An Act to Enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

With that, I would like to welcome back the witnesses who are joining us.

Joining us today by video conference from the Department of Industry is Mark Schaan, senior assistant deputy minister, and here, in Ottawa, we have Samir Chhabra and Runa Angus.

Thank you for being with us today.

Before I begin, I would like to add the following.

Colleagues, just to remind everyone of where we were, we're still on CPC-7.

(On clause 2)

There is a subamendment by the Bloc on the floor right now, which we were debating.

I will give the floor to Mr. Garon so that he can propose his subamendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the last meeting, we were at amendment CPC‑7, and we had moved a subamendment.

Near the end of the meeting, after debating the subamendment for a few minutes, we understood that deciding what we would include in the definition of the term “sensitive” posed a number of difficulties.

So I sent everyone a proposal that should enable us to obtain the unanimous consent needed to amend my subamendment.

I could read it to you if you like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

First, in order to withdraw Mr. Garon's subamendment that is currently being debated, the one that incorporated part of amendment NDP‑6, we need the unanimous consent of the committee members.

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

Allow me to ask a question. Is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You'll move your new subamendment afterwards. That will be simpler.

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

Can I move it immediately afterwards?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

If you wish.

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

If the committee members allow it, that would be a good way to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Do we have unanimous consent for Mr. Garon to withdraw his subamendment?

I see that everyone is in agreement.

(Subamendment withdrawn)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Garon, I give you the floor to move a new subamendment to amend amendment CPC‑7.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleagues for allowing this.

My subamendment would be as follows. Obviously, it is not in my party's nature to propose something in French only. However, to preserve the health of colleagues' ears, I will do so.

I move that motion CPC‑7, proposing to amend clause 2 of Bill C‑27 by adding after line 33 on page 5 a list of items, be amended as follows:

Sensitive, in relation to information, includes any information about an individual, for which, the individual generally has a high expectation of privacy, which includes but is not limited to: a) Their racial or ethnic origin; b) Their political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union or political membership, or political contribution history; c) Their sexual orientation or sexual habits; d) Genetic data or biometric data that can uniquely identify them; e) Their health condition, including any treatment or prescription on their medical record; f) Government identifiers, such as their social security, passport or driver’s license numbers; g) Their passwords; h) Their financial data.

I guess it would be appropriate to provide some explanations.

First of all, we had discussed whether or not to introduce a list. I know that the government was a bit cold to the idea of introducing a list, but the amendment it had moved did in fact contain a number of items that were not presented as a list. In our subamendment, we're presenting them as a list.

Then we thought there were two points that needed to be clarified. First, there was the contextual nature—that is to say the consideration of personal information. I think Mr. Schaan talked to us about that. On the first line, we indicate that the individual must have a high expectation of privacy, which is not exactly the definition set out by the Supreme Court. This means that, sooner or later, it will be possible for an interpretation to be provided by the commissioner and by various courts.

We know that the European Union has set the gold standard for privacy. So we drew inspiration from the European Union's list, which included genetic and biometric data. This is of the utmost importance to us.

Of course, we consulted a number of stakeholders in various places. Like the minister, we don't say whom we consulted. I hope everyone will agree with that. It is impossible to alter biometric or genetic data once it has been stolen. If your biometric data has been stolen, that's for life. That is why, for us, it is of the utmost importance that this data be considered sensitive.

We also added union membership, which we felt went hand in hand with political membership, another element covered by the European Union.

At the last meeting, the officials discussed the issue of sexual orientation or sexual habits. We know that this information is a source of potential discrimination. We checked what the European Union has done, and it also considers this information to be sensitive. Obviously, I know that officials have different opinions, with all due respect, but it seems that things are working well in Europe. The economy has not stopped.

The last thing I wanted to talk about was financial data. In the European Union, financial data is considered to be subject to a high expectation of privacy. I checked that with some of my French friends. In the European Union, the banking system is still working, and people are protected.

There is obviously information that can go from one bank to another. This is information that, in many respects, is not nominative and that, when transferred, does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Examples include tax evasion or foreign accounts. These are all things that are subject to international conventions, to exchanges of information for which we don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

There will be a debate, and I think it will be very interesting. I had some difficulty with the argument that the banking system was going to stop working and that the banks would no longer exchange information.

We have before us the budget implementation bill, which will deal with open banking. For Quebec, it is obviously unacceptable for the federal government to impose rules on Caisses Desjardins.

The fact remains that, in this context, the exchange of information will be governed by the open banking protocol. In the context of privacy, we think it is appropriate to specify that financial information is sensitive. Of course, we are open to discussion, but please know that we have given it a lot of thought and believe that it is very likely that there will be a consensus on this proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

The next speakers on the subamendment put forward by Mr. Garon are Mr. Masse and Mr. Albas.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

As a clarification to make sure I have this right—and I may need some discussion with the researchers—is it “trade union” or just “union”? It might be a translation issue. It pops out because a trade union is often for the building trades or an additional layer of the skilled trades, which could be different from other unions. I'm just curious about that change.

On the lack of “personal information”, I'm not sure whether we need the word “personal” in there or not. That's one big difference.

I appreciate this constructive approach to trying to find a way forward, but those were the two things I'm curious about and would like to get specifics on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse. That's a fair question.

On the question you're asking about trade unions, I note that in the original form of CPC-7, that was the language.

Is that a question for Mr. Schaan?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, but of course I'm always interested to hear Monsieur Garon's response too, in case he's done his research.

It's a question for both of them, quite frankly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Schaan or Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

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

The intent was to include membership in a union or union activism. So we are going to use an expression such as “trade union” or “labour union”.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. That's what I thought.

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

In case of doubt, the French version prevails.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I don't know if it should be “labour union” or “trade union”.

I don't know, Mr. Schaan, if you have a word to say.

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

I would just like to add one thing, Mr. Chair. In Canada, the statute that regulates the establishment of a union is the Trade Unions Act.

In federal parlance, the current incorporating statute for unions is the Trade Unions Act. I wouldn't have specifics as to whether or not using “trade union” rules out other unions, but certainly the Trade Unions Act extends well beyond the building trades.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much for that clarification, Mr. Schaan.

I have on my list Mr. Albas, Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Vis and Mr. Williams.

Mr. Albas, go ahead.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I have just a quick question.

I sit on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, so I always keep a keen eye on French and English translations. I was hoping the officials could clarify the last part of the first sentence.

In French, it says “qui comprend notamment et sans limite ”.

In English, it's “which includes but is not limited to”. Is that essentially the same thing?

I have a follow-up question for Mr. Garon.

[Mark Schaan]

Mr. Chair, I will let my colleagues answer that question.

[Runa Angus, Senior Director, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

I think the word “notamment” is fine. Indeed, “ notamment” is translated as “included”.