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.