Industry committee  Again, this is not knowing what the initial service agreement was with the individual. When the information was actually collected, when the account for your four-year-old was first generated they had to tell you in plain language, which Bill C-27 will require, “This is what we'r

Industry committee  Continued guidance and jurisprudence help flesh out the responsibilities that will be borne out or that are being identified and adopted through this piece of legislation. By making the broad parameter that children's information or the information of those under the age of 18 is

Industry committee  We feel that the definition proposed in the bill already includes the notion of profiling, but it would not be a bad thing to add that concept to it. It would be all the more useful, since other amendments that the Conservatives wish to propose are based on the concept of profili

Industry committee  That's correct.

Industry committee  That's right.

Industry committee  We don't see any confusion. It adds an interpretation that already exists within the law, but is not at odds with the current interpretation.

Industry committee  That's correct.

Industry committee  Obviously, profiling as a function of taking personal information, automating that in some ways and then using that to market to an individual would require the individual to be informed of the fact that there's an automated decision-making system at play and also to know what pe

Industry committee  Although there is no definition of the term “profiling” in the bill, we feel that this concept is already included in the obligations and requirements for automated decision systems. However, if there was a desire to explicitly state that automated decisions include possible prof

Industry committee  Bill C‑27 gives individuals the right to request that personal information about them that is presented in a form that still makes it possible for them to be identified be deleted from a database. However, as we discussed in the beginning, if that information is anonymized, ther

Industry committee  That's a good question. As we were saying about the previous amendment, personal information refers not only to information used to identify an individual, but to all information that relates to that individual. So that really includes the concept of profiling. If information ab

Industry committee  Indeed. Unfortunately, the construction of NDP-4, as Mr. Chhabra says, uses “used to identify them”, as opposed to the current definition, which is “about” them. “About” does more than “used to identify” does. “About” suggests a generality around you, which is where inferred inf

Industry committee  CPC-5 avoids that challenge. NDP-5 also avoids that challenge. BQ-1 and NDP-4 shift the construction. BQ-1 introduces this construct of group rights, which I think would vastly alter the definition of “personal information” that is currently understood in our jurisdiction or othe

Industry committee  Amendments CPC-5 and NDP-5 both codify the inclusion of inferred information without breasting a definition of personal information being solely that which is used to identify, because, again, identification is only one half of the battle here. It's also the inference or the gene

Industry committee  I think they are both workable. We have amendment CPC-5 in front of us.