Evidence of meeting #90 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was office.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Are you comfortable with how it's written right now, yes or no?
4:15 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
This section...I'm not comfortable with it. I'm recommending that it be modified so that the authority would be more narrow. As indicated in my submission, there's another section elsewhere in the act, which is highlighted in my submission, where, again, a whole activity can be removed altogether from the bill. The bill wouldn't apply at all. This is something that should be corrected to limit its scope.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you to Mr. Dufresne and his team for being here. I appreciate your testimony today. I always found you, earlier when I was on PROC and had the chance to work with you and your office, to be very helpful and very good at communicating. I thank you for that. I appreciate your expertise. You bring a lot to this conversation that's very important.
We want to strengthen this bill and to continue to see it get stronger throughout, hopefully, what will be a collaborative working relationship for all of us.
Certainly, one of the top concerns I have is the rights of children. I know that you've spoken to this and written about this. Many children today, as we know, are immersed in the digital world. I can speak from experience. My 11-year-old daughter hides devices and is on many apps and downloading things. There are pop-ups, and she sometimes purchases things. There's data being gathered about her preferences, and this really concerns me. I think it concerns a lot of Canadians with regard to children's data and protecting their right to privacy.
Are there currently laws in Canada that help protect children's privacy online? That's the first question, and I'll have another one about this in just a second.
4:20 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
On the current privacy legislation, we've provided guidance in terms of how to obtain meaningful consent. In that, we talk about some things that should be looked at in the context of children.
My federal, provincial and territorial colleagues and I have recently issued a statement, a resolution, on protecting young persons' privacy. It gives examples of things that should be done and should not be done with the data of children, nudges them not to make a bad decision, and recognizes that they are more vulnerable.
We can interpret the law, to some extent, to protect children, but we need to do more, and this bill has started to do so. There is now a recognition in the initial version of the bill, and I give credit to Minister Champagne on that. This was in the original Bill C-27 as tabled—the recognition that the information of minors would be deemed to be sensitive information. That has impacts in a number of areas, in terms of disposal rights, and so on.
We took that, and in our recommendations, we recommended going even further than that to highlight the best interest of the child in the preamble of the bill, so that if there is doubt, in terms of interpretation, you can look at that. The minister has signalled his agreement with that and has suggested going further to include the special situation of children in proposed section 12 on interpreting appropriate purposes. That is a further improvement that I would certainly support. We see comments like that in the European context with recital 38 to the GDPR, highlighting that children deserve special protection. UNICEF has said that.
We know that our kids are digital citizens. They're spending time online for all aspects of their lives, including school. We certainly saw it more during the pandemic. It's important that the legislation protects them appropriately and protects them as children. We need to protect the best interests of the child. We need children to be able to be children in that world, to be protected, and not to suffer consequences later on, when they're adults, for things they have done online. There are improvements there, and I certainly support them.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
When you say go further, I'm kind of interested. It's always a balancing act. Later, maybe we'll have a question about supporting innovation and balancing privacy rights. As we know with any of these tough issues and with emerging technologies, it's a balancing act. I'm interested. In your view, should there be an extra set of fines or penalties for violations of the sensitive information that's collected on children?
4:20 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
The sensitivity of information is an element that's going to be considered in the bill. It's going to be considered. I have to consider that in how I conduct myself. The sensitivity of information impacts the form of consent, impacts the retention periods and impacts the security safeguards. Certainly, it's something to be considered, and it should be relevant.
The proposal by the minister, which I support, to add the special situation of children to the appropriate purposes clause, proposed section 12, is important. I would add to that my recommendation today to make sure that if you breach the proposed section 12, and if you breach the appropriate purposes, including by treating children's information inappropriately, there would be fines available for that.
Beyond that, with respect to children, I'm not suggesting more than what has been suggested in the recent proposals by the minister.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you. I appreciate that.
The other thing that often comes up for me is thinking about how companies often collect information. We've heard stories about Tim Hortons collecting the location information of users of its app. I think it's concerning for many Canadians—to be tracked and not know how that information is going to be used. How could Bill C-27 prevent that from happening in the future?
4:25 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Bill C-27 needs to prevent that to the same extent that the current law prevents that. As you know, this was a matter that my office investigated. We made findings that Tim Hortons had breached privacy law by collecting more information than it needed and by not being transparent about what was being done with that information.
We see these situations, and we've made some recommendations and some findings. Bill C-27 will help more than the current law, because it will provide for more explicit obligations in terms of explaining consent—making consent something that is explained in a meaningful way for individuals to understand. There is also the possibility that my office can issue orders, and there is the possibility of fines.
I believe that, in the Tim Hortons situation, the organization followed the recommendations. In the Home Depot decision that I issued last year, finding a breach of privacy, the organization agreed with the recommendation. However, that's not always going to be the case, so there need to be these enforcement tools—hopefully not to use them but to reach those results faster and in a proactive way.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dufresne, can you speak to how the fast-moving nature of technology creates significant challenges for privacy and data security? Could you see a technology sandbox being introduced? What I mean is requiring companies to deploy a new program in an enclosed environment before it's made available to the public, to see whether privacy rules are up to snuff.
Is that a requirement the bill could include?
4:25 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes, absolutely. The use of sandboxes is good practice. Our British counterparts are very far along on that front. In the case of AI technologies, the industry gets to test out the data and methods in a secure environment.
It's clear that our office would have to be resourced to set up a sandbox. The bill doesn't go as far as establishing a sandbox, but it does require my office to provide the industry with advice as needed. That will be especially important for small and medium-sized businesses. Again, though, it will require capacity. The bill also calls on the commissioner's office to approve codes of practice and certification programs.
Those are all proactive and preventative measures. My recommendations on PIAs and privacy management programs are also prevention-oriented. That's the approach. Organizations have to do these things in the beginning and invest the necessary resources.
The OECD surveyed business leaders and legal experts to find out what challenges they were facing, challenges related not so much to AI, but, rather, to international trade. They said it was sometimes hard to know where to allocate resources because certain investments didn't yield any legal benefit or it was unclear.
Even if well-intentioned business leaders want to set up a sandbox, convincing shareholders to fund it is a challenge. Imposing a legal requirement on companies is helpful, because it sends the message that not only is it the right thing to do, but it's also required of them under the law. The same applies to PIAs.
By the way, I'm quite fond of the certification program provisions in Bill C-27. Europe has that mechanism, and what it basically does is encourage companies to develop the programs and seek the commissioner's approval. Doing this and following the process will help them when complaints arise, because it shows that they acted in good faith and were proactive. It could even lessen fines.
All of those measures encourage companies to move in the right direction. Incentives are extremely important. To encourage innovation and ensure that Canada is well positioned, we have to act on two fronts: impose fines in problematic cases, and reward and recognize good behaviour. They go hand in hand.
My office's mission is to promote and protect privacy rights, and I really appreciate that. It's about more than telling people they did something wrong after the fact. It's also about working alongside them to make sure things are done right from the start.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm curious as to how you think the Canadian model that's being proposed here measures against the American model. We're so tied with trade, and many of the companies are subsidiaries—one side or the other. I'm just curious as to whether you've had discussions with the United States. I know they don't have a privacy commission, but they have some other elements.
Could we perhaps have your thoughts on that?
4:30 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
We have a lot of discussions, in particular with the FTC in the U.S., which has jurisdiction for antitrust law. It is the equivalent of our Competition Bureau. Also, through that, it deals with privacy.
There's no national privacy legislation in the U.S. at the moment. There are proposals before Congress on this, but it's not moving forward. California has its own model, and they have some innovative mechanisms there to protect privacy. Nationally, there is no equivalent in the U.S.
We are in close discussions with those colleagues about AI. In fact, when I was in Japan last June, we issued a statement on generative AI. This was from all of the G7 commissioners for privacy, and for the U.S., that was the FTC. In that, we noted a few things. We noted that there are laws that apply to AI for privacy, and they need to be applied and they need to be respected. It also highlighted that we need to have privacy impact assessments. We need to have a culture of privacy when we're dealing with generative AI, because in many cases it is built on personal information.
There are a lot of exchanges that are going on in that space. I think the consensus is making sure that our citizens are aware that, yes, AI is moving at a fast pace, but we have privacy laws to protect citizens.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
There's nothing moving in the United States Congress right now. They can't agree on a lunch, let alone a Speaker, so there's not going to be a lot of movement there.
I guess what I worry about, though, in terms of the larger, broader picture, is the corporate influence on the United States' legislatures with some of the lobbying that can take place. We have a containment factor to a certain degree here, aside from persons being able to get some supports later on, but it's nothing near what the United States has. We just want to keep that in mind as we go forward with the United States.
You mentioned Japan. Very quickly, before I lose my time here, what about Europe? What are your connections there, and what is happening?
4:30 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes, we're working very closely with Europe, with the G7 and the community worldwide.
I was at a meeting of the Global Privacy Assembly just last week, talking about ethical uses of AI and highlighting the fact that we need proactive, strong privacy protections.
Going back to the collaboration with the G7 again, working very closely together, we issued a statement on AI. I was pleased to see the statement cited in the voluntary code issued by the Department of Industry to deal with AI, reminding organizations that we currently have laws that apply and that have to be respected.
However, in this new bill, that's why I am highlighting that we absolutely need to make sure that protective, proactive privacy assessments are there, and that they are a legal obligation. Right now, in the public sector, there's no obligation for privacy impact assessments. It's in a policy of Treasury Board. Often we'll see that if those impact assessments are done, they'll be done later. Therefore, it's important to have that legal obligation.
I can tell you that the international community is very much focused on AI, as are the G7 ministers. As you said, the debates are going on in the U.S., but certainly what is being highlighted and noted is that you cannot separate privacy from AI. To protect AI, to deal with AI, to have guardrails, you need strong privacy protections.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses, as well.
Mr. Dufresne, the Liberals' new privacy bill was introduced 18 months ago, but it sat on the shelf for a year before they brought it to the House for debate. If I understood correctly, you didn't have an opportunity to comment on the bill in your capacity as privacy commissioner, since you took office when the bill was introduced. Your office did, nevertheless, have a chance to provide feedback on the bill.
Today, you told us that you made 15 recommendations. The minister proposed eight amendments, which you are no more privy to than we are. Here we are, asking you questions about a version of the bill that is by no means the last.
As the committee's proceedings continue over the next few months, do you expect to be able to give us your view on future iterations of the bill containing the Liberals' amendments? Knowing your opinion of the bill would help us in our assessment, especially since this is clearly not the final version.
On top of that, what do you make of the fact that the minister acted on only half of your recommendations? He accepted only four or five of the 15 you made. Why do you think he didn't accept more of them?
4:35 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
I think you'd have to put your last question to the minister to find out why he accepted certain recommendations and not others. To be clear, he did say in his letter that he was open to looking at others, further to the committee's proceedings. Beyond that, I can't speculate.
As for providing additional opinions, I would be glad to help the committee however I can be of service, whether it's commenting on proposed amendments or meeting with the committee again, later in the study, to answer other questions. It would be my pleasure.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
It's been said over and over again: this is one of the most important bills that will ever be brought before the House of Commons. It deals with something that is vitally important, protecting the privacy of all Canadians.
We have met a number of times to discuss this issue. It's crazy that we don't have the text of the bill today and that you aren't able to comment on the proposed amendments. We received a letter, but it doesn't contain the actual provisions that will appear in the bill. As you well know, words are crucially important in this case, especially as they relate to your first recommendation to recognize the fundamental right to privacy. Initially, it was included in the preamble, but now it will appear in the bill.
4:35 p.m.
Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes.
