Industry committee  I'll turn to Ms. Angus.

Industry committee  We need to make it clearer that the Spencer test has exigent circumstances or reasonable law or information that would not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it actually ensured that it recognized that those were three mechanisms that law enforcement had to access in

Industry committee  I think it provides greater clarity as to the uses of personal information by law enforcement. I think it's important, though, that, as Ms. Angus noted, the Spencer test is not a cumulative one. Law enforcement does not need to meet all three aspects of the test. Law enforcement

Industry committee  In the IP case, they could not rely on any of the three, as I understand it, which is why it was seen to be personal information, because it was not understood to be foreseeable that.... It was that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their IP a

Industry committee  I want to thank the member for that question. I think our abiding consideration would be that we note and acknowledge the import of R. v. Spencer as a fundamental precept that needs to be understood as it relates to the ongoing interpretation and implementation of the CPPA, in m

Industry committee  No, I think jurisprudence is helpful. I would suggest that, if there is to be a legal definition of “lawful authority” added, it must conform to the legal test set out in Spencer.

Industry committee  I would defer to Ms. Angus to ensure the legal test established in Spencer is articulated.

Industry committee  To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Industry committee  I come from Winnipeg, but I'm not a Franco-Manitoban. I think amendments NDP-3 and CPC-2 mean the same thing.

Industry committee  We agree with the proposed definition. It's an improvement on the definition currently in the bill.

Industry committee  The English indicates that there is a risk of reidentification, which is what delineates between de-identified information and anonymized information. The English intent is to say “modify personal information so that an individual cannot be directly identified from it, though a r

Industry committee  Yes. That's a task for the jurilinguists. We have worked with the jurilinguists to ensure that the two interpretations of the law will be the same in both official languages.

Industry committee  I think the view was that the legal effect was understood, but we've come to view this as an important amendment that we've understood to now reflect the identical interpretation in both official languages.

Industry committee  The officials have several discussions with experts when drafting a bill. It's somewhat like what happens with amendments proposed during committee proceedings. Bills are drafted by experts from the House of Commons Procedural Services. Committee members thus receive a text draft

Industry committee  The jurilinguists haven't expressed any specific opinion about the definition. I think the Conservative Party's remarks are logical. The definition of the verb “dépersonnaliser” is accurate, and it reflects the English.