Industry Committee on Oct. 17th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 89 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.

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.

I’d like to welcome our witnesses today. From the Department of Industry, we have Mark Schaan, senior assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation policy sector; Samir Chhabra, director general, marketplace framework policy branch; Runa Angus, senior director, strategy and innovation policy sector; and Surdas Mohit, director, strategy and innovation policy sector.

Thank you for appearing before the committee yet again in connection with our study of Bill C‑27. I expect we will probably ask you back, but since you were here with the minister for his recent appearance, there aren't any opening remarks. Without further ado, we will go straight to questions.

You may go ahead, Mr. Perkins. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to what almost seems like our weekly regular witnesses and officials. I appreciate that.

In the minister's opening testimony here in September on Bill C-27, he said, “we will propose an amendment to recognize a fundamental right to privacy for Canadians.”

In the letter that was sent to the committee in response to our production of documents resolution from about a week and a half ago, the details of number one on page 1 of the appendix of the letter are that they will amend clause 5 “to qualify the right to privacy as a fundamental right.” There's stuff in there about the preamble, but ultimately the preamble doesn't matter because it has no legal basis once the statute is passed.

Clause 5 of Bill C-27 reads, “The purpose of this Act is to establish...rules to govern the protection of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information”.

Can you tell me which words in that clause will change?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

Subject to the ultimate drafting decisions of the drafters, I think the intent is to ensure that the fundamental right is considered within that paragraph.

We look at the words, “The purpose of this Act is to establish...rules to govern the protection of personal information in a manner that recognizes the [fundamental] right of...individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information”. That is probably the likely location.

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

Then the rest of the paragraph in the clause is likely to stay the same.

[Mark Schaan]

The intent of the proposed position would be to explicitly recognize the fundamental right. Right now it notes the right of privacy, but it does not note the word “fundamental”.

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

If I were to abridge this, it actually balances. It says, “The purpose of this Act...and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information”. That clause sets out that it's basically balanced and that they're of equal importance. This is the most important clause in the bill because it sets out the purpose of the bill from a legal perspective.

The question I have is.... It will be a fundamental right, and combined—and of equal value—is the need for an organization's ability to use the information. These words matter in this very fundamental clause.

[Mark Schaan]

The degree to which the “and” is doing work in that paragraph is to note that it must respect the fundamental right of the privacy of individuals and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information, but not at the expense of the fundamental right of privacy of Canadians.

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

But those last words you just said are not being added to this.

[Mark Schaan]

No, but by nature of the fact that—

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

You can't say “the fundamental right” and “organization” and then “but not at the expense”, because it's not going to say “not at the expense”.

[Mark Schaan]

The words “that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances” are also at the end of the second sentence, and the “and” clearly notes the fact that it must meet both tests.

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

This goes to the main purpose of why we need these amendments. These are fundamental reasons why witnesses are going to come here and say whether or not clause 5 does what they think it should do.

For example, as you know, the Privacy Commissioner has made it very clear that clause 5 should make sure that this fundamental right is of paramount importance, of primary importance, not of equal importance to the needs of an organization. However, without the wording, it's difficult for us to know what the intent of the government is, because if it's just keeping the balance the same way as it is here, then that doesn't achieve the net end, in my view.

I'll move on to the second one in the minister's letter. It deals with children. Nowhere in this bill does it define what a minor is. The minister's letter talks about the preamble again, which is useless because it doesn't have any legal standing, but it does say that it's going to amend section 12, which deals with what express consent is, what the process for express consent is, and what the exceptions for express consent are, but it doesn't say what's going to be changed in section 12; it just says that section 12 is the focus. By the way, section 12 provides all the fence posts we need to protect information sensitive to children. Again, the minister's words in committee were very precise about this, and this is the reason we have an issue.

I'm not going to ask you to respond to that, because I have only a minute left and I do want to propose a motion. I believe it's a compromise motion, which I think we can distribute in both languages.

We could consider moving a motion right now on a point of privilege that the minister has not produced the documents required by the committee, which requires a certain process. I'm not going to move that at today's meeting.

As a compromise, I'm going to move the following motion:

That, in relation to its order of reference concerning 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, and given that

(i) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry gave evidence to the Committee on September 26, 2023, stating “I want to put on the table specifically what our government will propose to improve the bill. These are the amendments that we are proposing to the bill”,

(ii) in response to the Minister’s evidence, the Committee, on September 28, 2023, ordered the production of “the amendments discussed by the Minister in his opening remarks to the Committee on September 26, 2023”, and

(iii) the Minister’s response to the Committee’s Order refers to “highlighting...areas for amendments in my remarks”, includes an annex providing “detail related to the amendments we would propose”, suggests “Government members would propose amendments” and that “we are ready to work with committee members to develop amendments”, and asserts “My officials are currently working with the Department of Justice to draft these amendments”,

the Committee is deeply concerned about the contradictions in the Minister’s oral and written evidence to the Committee and, therefore,

(a) renews its invitation issued to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to appear before the Committee, for at least two hours, provided that if he does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this Committee be empowered to order his appearance from time to time;

(b) a summons do issue for the appearance of Simon Kennedy, Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, to appear before the Committee, for at least two hours, at a date and time determined by the Chair, but no later than October 19th;

(c) orders the Minister, his department and the Department of Justice to produce the draft texts of amendments to Bill C-27 discussed by the Minister, provided that these documents shall be deposited with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, no later than October 19th;

(d) orders the production of (i) the draft speaking notes recommended to the Minister’s office, for the Minister’s use before the Committee, by his department, and (ii) the final version of the speaking notes which the Minister relied upon during his appearance before the Committee, provided that these documents shall be deposited with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, prior to the Deputy Minister’s appearance on October 19th;

(e) orders the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to produce copies of the texts of any amendments to Bill C-27 drafted for members of the government party and consistent with the drafting instructions which the Minister provided to the Committee in response to the Committee’s Order, provided that these documents shall be deposited with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages but with the sponsoring member’s name and constituency redacted, within one week of the adoption of this motion; and

(f) directs that all further meetings in relation to Bill C-27 be postponed until such time as the witnesses mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) have appeared and the documents mentioned in paragraphs (c) to (e) have been produced.

It's a lot of wording. I don't know if you want me to speak to it or let it sit for a moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'll recognize Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we have some very important witnesses here today and I think we can hear from them on this important study. I know the minister has provided a substantive package of information, including documents. I consider it more detailed information than what you would receive in the legalese of actual amendments. The minister, in good faith, showed up at this committee and presented areas for an openness to amendments. We all got information at the same time.

In my view, we should adjourn debate on this matter and move on to questioning the witnesses.

I move to adjourn debate.

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

Mr. Chair, before you recognized Mr. Turnbull, I had asked you if I should speak to the motion now or let it sit, and then you recognized Mr. Turnbull.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I am sorry, Rick. I thought you were done.

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

No, that was just the motion. I asked if I could speak to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'm sorry, Rick. I didn't mean to do that.

I've recognized Mr. Turnbull and he's moved to adjourn debate, which calls for a vote.

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

I challenge the chair on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I don't think you can challenge the chair when there's a motion to adjourn debate.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It still needs to be voted on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It needs to go to a vote right away, but it's up to the committee if they want to hear more.

Mrs. Goodridge, I'm sorry, but a vote has been called so we're in the roll call.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Prior to the vote being called, I had my hand up, which was the precedent in many of the committees I've sat on up to this point. I was trying to get your attention, but I didn't want to shout, because that would be impolite, in my opinion.

I was trying to speak on a point of order to be called in regard to the fact that when Mr. Perkins was giving his speech—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just one second, please.

Mrs. Goodridge, I'm sorry, but at this point I have to.... It might have been my mistake not to recognize Mr. Perkins—I thought he was done with his intervention—but the fact of the matter is that I recognized Mr. Turnbull, so he had the floor and moved the motion to adjourn debate. It's now up to the committee to decide whether the committee wants to adjourn debate or not.

When that motion is on the table, it calls for a vote immediately. We'll deal with that vote, and then we can resume, depending on the results of the vote.