Industry committee  Yes. The current interpretation by both the OPC and the courts is that personal information as defined in PIPEDA currently, which is being ported to CPPA, includes inferred information.

Industry committee  That's correct. It takes the current legal and regulatory approach and ensures that it's legislated.

Industry committee  I think in the formulation in CPC-5 that's not necessary, because it still says, “about an...individual” and so—

Industry committee  I'll turn to my colleague, but you're right: Currently our worry about NDP-4 is that it would be seen as a closed list because it has “includes” and then lists things, as opposed to something like “includes but is not limited to”. I turn to Mr. Chhabra.

Industry committee  Right now, that work of the lengthy California description is being done by the word “about” in the current PIPEDA, and “about” has been sufficient, from a court perspective, to get at a wide range of inferred and direct information about individuals. It's how the court ruled on

Industry committee  No.

Industry committee  Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for his question. As we understand it, CPC-5 codifies the existing interpretation of “personal information” by the OPC—which, as the member has noted, has also been codified by the Supreme Court—that includes inferred information, so we see

Industry committee  “Inferred information”, as codified in this way, would be consistent with a number of international best practices on the understanding of personal information, including California, but also the EU's GDPR and Quebec's law 25.

Industry committee  Mr. Chair, I think this is one zone in which the devil will very much be in the details. I think we've had discussions at this committee before about exhaustive versus non-exhaustive lists, and where lists are indicative but not exclusive. Insofar as an amendment suggests what pe

Industry committee  In broad strokes, things that say “includes but are not limited to” can be helpful in some of those indications. However, I'd have to see the specific wording because the challenge is that you want to make sure you aren't narrowing or closing to just the things that you are then

Industry committee  Obviously, in our view, 14 isn't old enough. The personal information of teenagers aged 15 to 18 is also sensitive.

Industry committee  I gather that, if this amendment is adopted, the rights and remedies will fall to the parent or guardian when the minor child lacks the capacity or desire to exercise them. However, if the teenager has the capacity to do so, they can exercise their rights and remedies.

Industry committee  This term is widely used by the courts. There are precedent‑setting capacity tests to determine, based on certain factors, whether a person has a certain capacity.

Industry committee  A citizen's voting age is determined solely by a government decision. It isn't really related to the concept of the age of majority or minority. No section of the Canada Elections Act states that only adults can vote. The voting age is simply set at 18. In this context, the age o

Industry committee  At the international level, a number of approaches establish rights and responsibilities with regard to children's personal information. For example, the children's code in England sets the age of majority at 18. The Canadian bill is perfectly compatible with this approach. We m