Comité sénatorial permanent des transports et communications (TRCM) – 14 septembre, 2022, 14 h – 16 h 30 (première rencontre)

Les commentaires des participants sont fournis dans la langue d’origine.

Rapport préparé par

Direction des Affaires parlementaires et du Cabinet
Patrimoine canadien

Sujet de la réunion

La teneur du projet C-11, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et apportant des modifications connexes et corrélatives à d’autres lois

Témoins :

14 h à 15 h

Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée du Canada

• Philippe Dufresne, commissaire à la protection de la vie privée du Canada
• Brent Homan, sous-commissaire, Secteur de la conformité

15 h à 16 h

Affaires mondiales Canada

• Darren Smith, directeur exécutif, Règlements et obstacles techniques
• Nolan Wiebe, agent principal de politique commerciale, Direction de la politique commerciale sur les services
• Isabelle Ranger, directrice, Direction de la politique commerciale sur les services

Ministère de la Justice Canada

• Raymond MacCallum, avocat général, Section des droits de la personne
• Tariq Qureshi, avocat-conseil, Services juridiques de Patrimoine canadien

16 h à 16 h 30

*Étude d’un projet d’ordre du jour (travaux futurs), à huis clos.

Sommaire

Commissariat à la protection de la vie privée du Canada : Philippe Dufresne; et Brent Homan

• Le Commissariat demeurera à la disposition des entreprises et du CRTC pour offrir son expertise réglementaire sur des questions concernant la protection de la vie privée dans ce contexte.
• Dans la mise en œuvre du projet de loi, il sera essentiel de s’assurer que les renseignements exigés sont dépersonnalisés ou anonymisés. Le Commissariat est prêt à fournir des conseils et l’orientation nécessaires à ce sujet.
• le Comité pourrait envisager une modification à l’article 3 de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, afin d’y ajouter la protection de la vie privée des personnes en tant qu’objectif de la politique à cet égard dans la Loi.
• European Union’s Digital Services Act was adopted by the European Parliament in July and will come into force in 2024. This act will require major online platforms to provide individuals with an option to turn off recommendations based on individual profile. Once in force, this act will provide an additional alternative to reduce the potential collection and use of personal information.
• I would reiterate my recommendation that the preparation of timely privacy impact assessments by public institutions be made a binding legal requirement in a modernized version of the Privacy Act.

Questions :

Leo Housakos (C)

• The government has said that it has no intention of regulating user-generated content, but there is clearly a sleight of hand at play here because when the CRTC commissioner appeared before our committee this past June, he was asked by Senator Wallin whether Bill C-11 was not regulating user content indirectly by compelling the platforms to do it. That specific question the commissioner responded to Senator Wallin, “you’re right.” Does this concern you, commissioner, and do you see any privacy consequences in such an indirect regulation of user-generated content?
  • Dufresne : These algorithms could use personal information, which is why I have stated that it is going to be important in how the CRTC exercises these powers, that these privacy considerations be taken before these orders are made.
• A key principle under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act is an organization may collect, use or disclose personal information only for the purpose that a reasonable person could consider are appropriate in the circumstances. But section 4.2(1) and (2) of Bill C-11 gives the CRTC the ability to scope end user-generated content at its discretion. The CRTC commissioner has confirmed that the regulation of user-generated content is within the scope of this legislation. Are you, commissioner, of the opinion that a reasonable person would consider the collection of this information appropriate? And what privacy risks do you see this creating for Canadians?
  • Dufresne : it will be important how these powers are exercised. The act specifies that the information provided to the CRTC should not be such that it can identify individuals. To us, that goes to notions of de-identification and anonymization.

Julie Miville-Dechêne (GSI)

• Êtes-vous favorable à l’idée que justement en Europe, on puisse donner la possibilité aux abonnés ou aux clients de désactiver les recommandations fondées sur le profilage individuel sur les plateformes dans les entreprises en ligne ?
  • Dufresne : C’est une approche qui vient favoriser la protection de la vie privée par rapport à cette information. Il sera important de considérer toutes les options possibles, mais celle-ci en est certainement une que nous avons apportée à l’attention du comité.
• Pensez-vous qu’il y a cette obligation d’obtenir des résultats, les futurs usagers de plateformes comme YouTube vont donner des informations liées à leur nationalité ou leur localisation géographique pour qu’on puisse mesurer d’où viennent les œuvres qui sont consultées ? Si oui, est-ce que cela fait partie des choses que vous trouvez risquées ou non ?
  • Dufresne : Je pense que cela va faire partie des considérations que devra prendre le CRTC et des représentations à faire au CRTC par rapport à quelles conditions il faut imposer et comment le faire. Je note que le projet de loi indique que cette information sur les cotes d’écoute ne devrait pas identifier les Canadiens.

Paula Simons (GSI)

• Do you think there are enough safeguards in Bill C-11 to protect us from the impacts of the extraordinary amount of data that these platforms are able to collect on us based upon our viewing habits and our likes and dislikes, and then they can build a profile based on all our clickages and time spent on platforms to better market us?
  • Dufresne : We are suggesting that given that these decisions will depend upon how the act is implemented and interpreted, we have proposed the inclusion of a clause to bring into the broadcasting policy the protection of the privacy of persons.
• Do you have draft language that you can share with us or is it more of a suggestion?
  • Dufresne : We have pointed to the language in the Telecommunications Act, which would include, in section 3 of this act, in the broadcasting policy, the protection of the privacy of persons.
• Bill C-11 does not include the capacity to turn off recommendations—would that be the appropriate place to put such a clause? If we did, would it undercut the whole concept of discoverability?
  • Dufresne : We provide that as an example of one privacy-enhancing tool that exists. It may not be appropriate in this instance, as you suggest. It might be at cross-purposes with the purpose of this act, which is why we highlight other privacy-enhancing measures, making sure that the information is de-identified and that the collection of information is as limited as possible to attain the objectives of Parliament, if that is Parliament’s decision in the end.

Pamela Wallin (GSC)

• Do you think the language as it exists in the Telecommunications Act could be taken as is and transported into this bill?
  • Dufresne : Denton : It would be an easy way of doing it because you have a model.
• When we did speak to the CRTC commissioner about all these matters—and there were contradictions obviously between him and the ministers and all of that—he basically said that he will hand the task of monitoring, censoring and perhaps even removing over to the platforms. It is one thing to put something into Bill C-11, but then how would those same privacy regulations be able to impact their activities?
  • Dufresne : The provisions of Bill C-11 will be governing what the CRTC can request, what it can obtain, what it can share and so on. The organizations will be governed by the conditions set by the CRTC and the privacy-enhancing measures that we would want to see in those. But they would remain governed by PIPEDA, the legislation that applies to private sector organizations.
• If someone is a small producer, a YouTube producer, who wants to be or does not want to be discovered as Canadian content, who will make that kind of assessment? And then, more importantly, to whom does the producer appeal if they disagree?
  • Dufresne : The process for the setting of these conditions is made by the CRTC, but there is a provision that the regulated entities and interested persons will have the opportunity to see the proposed conditions and to make representations on that basis.
• But we have heard from ministers and others that there may be content that they want to remove. It would be a much broader definition than just Canadian content; it is content that they might disagree with. How is that issue arbitrated?
  • Dufresne : My understanding is this would go through the CRTC, deciding what conditions will be imposed.
  • There is a process in this bill for us to be making representations to the CRTC, and so we would do so. We would recommend that this interpretive principle be put in the act and that privacy is part of the objective, so that that can be applied by the CRTC.
• But if I do not trust the “police” (CRTC) to police themselves, is there a mechanism for me to come through you as the Privacy Commissioner, if I even knew they were doing that to me?
  • Dufresne : If there are specific privacy concerns about activities of public institutions or private institutions, there is a process under privacy legislation to work through that.

Victor Oh (C)

• An article by the Centre for International Governance Innovation says that Bill C-11 should add a privacy clause to the broadcasting policy set out in section 3-1 of the Broadcasting Act, considering the data that TV set-top boxes, smart televisions and apps collect from their users. My question for you is, what sort of data do the set-top boxes, smart televisions and media streaming apps collect from their users?
  • Dufresne : Our recommendation from a privacy standpoint was to make sure that this information is de-identified, that you’re using the proper techniques so that you can get aggregated information that does not allow you to identify individuals.
  • Homan : we did kind of engage with the set-top box working group between 2015 and 2020 in order to provide them guidance. We didn’t have an opportunity to review a privacy impact assessment to see how it was finally arrived at, but they do have our guidelines and our guidance in that area.
• Would this be collected and forwarded to so-called big data information collectors? Are these data being collected and given to some so-called big data information?
  • Dufresne : we would have to look at an individual case situation to see that specific use and collection, but our position is collecting the minimum number of uses for the purpose of that activity and sharing to third parties is something that has to be regulated very carefully.

Bernadette Clement (GSI)

• I wonder about your role as the Privacy Commissioner in dealing with people who are not concerned about their privacy and what that means in the bigger picture of things.
  • Dufresne : This is something that I will want to work on in my term as Privacy Commissioner, to improve awareness of the importance of privacy.
• If people don’t turn off their recommendations, or if we don’t go the route of the European Union, you are talking about anonymization. Do we have the technology to do this? Are you comfortable? I know your colleague spoke a little bit to that, but are we there?
  • Dufresne : There are various tools that exist, and there is a debate as to whether you can ever make information impossible to reidentify. This is something that’s in Bill C-27, which is currently before the other place. There is discussion of deidentified information or anonymized information from our standpoint.
  • Homan : With respect to the decision whether or not to share, sometimes privacy is looked at as secrecy when really it can be about control.

Donna Dasko (GSI)

• What is it that’s different about this bill in terms of their ability to collect and use the data? What is different, and what is lacking?
  • Dufresne : What’s different here is that the bill gives the authority to the CRTC to require certain things to be done with respect to discoverability of Canadian programs. So that brings in the notion of algorithms. the implementation of those principles is going to be important so that, in fact, when specific tools are used that they successfully deidentify and anonymize, and that when those conditions are adopted that they are done in a privacy-protective manner. I have suggested adding this notion of privacy protection as one of the purposes of the broadcasting policy, pointing to the fact that that already exists in the Telecommunications Act.
• So essentially, your concern is about the discoverability components and how that would add to what the CRTC would be doing under this act?
  • Dufresne : Discoverability component, the use of algorithms.
• You mentioned the privacy language used by the European Union. How does this actually differ from the fact that right now Canadians can say that they don’t want to receive marketing material from private firms?
  • Dufresne : There is the anti-spam legislation—what we call CASL—that regulates that and provides for the inability to do so without the consent if individuals don’t want to receive this. Bill C-11, in fact, talks about that as well in terms of applying that to online streaming programs. So that exists.

Kim Pate (ISG)

• I’m curious as to whether you’ve looked at the impact and done an analysis on which companies are most objecting to this kind of approach, particularly from a profit motive perspective, and whether they are couching that as a privacy issue or whether they’re being clear that this is a marketing concern and a profit-making concern?
  • Dufresne : we’ve provided input in terms of the approach generally in terms of the audience measurements.
  • Homan : I would just point out that with respect to online undertakings, clearly they are commercial enterprises, and to that extent commercial enterprises are covered under PIPEDA. In terms of the activities of commercial enterprises, as is indicated under PIPEDA, we have jurisdiction where it is for a commercial activity. So all I would say is that those undertakings would still be covered. That said, obviously thought of in the context of what is required under Bill C-11.
• Have you done any comparison between legislation like Bill C-11 and the competition policies that are being brought in and which companies are raising issues with respect to both pieces of legislation?
  • Homan : We haven’t done any specific analysis that you’re talking about. What we have been seeing on a global level is a growing intersection of the regulatory spheres between privacy, consumer protection and competition. So more and more there is an opportunity, in fact, an advocated opportunity for collaboration between these regulatory entities to ensure that there is a more holistic outcome for Canadians.

Dennis Dawson (GPS)

• Est-ce que vous faites la distinction entre l’information qu’on prend sur des abonnements comme Amazon et Netflix, versus des postes qui sont basés sur la publicité tels que TikTok et YouTube ? Est-ce que vous faites une distinction sur l’utilisation et la collecte de cette information ? Ce sont deux systèmes qui cherchent de l’information pour deux raisons différentes. Quand on s’abonne à un service, on comprend qu’il y a toujours une petite ligne pointillée qui dit que vous acceptez telle ou telle condition. Il y a des services auxquels on s’inscrit suite à de la publicité. Y a-t-il une distinction dans la façon dont votre département étudie ces données ?
  • Dufresne : le projet de loi devant la Chambre, C-27, parle de ces éléments aussi. Nous regardons l’utilisation des algorithmes ici et nous appliquerions la même approche à savoir qu’il faut que cette information soit dépersonnalisée et anonymisée.

Leo Housakos (C)

• First, why would legislators give the benefit of the doubt to the CRTC and to the cabinet when it comes to tightening up privacy aspects of this bill? Second, what are your suggestions on what we need to do with this bill in to make it ironclad when it comes to Canadian citizens’ privacy? Third, do you have any concerns regarding this bill and how algorithms are being used and all this kind of new data, doxxing, for example, all these new terms I’m discovering on this study? How can we assure ourselves that the safety of marginalized Canadians will not be put at risk from all the mining that’s available on various platforms?
  • Dufresne : In terms of the last element of your question, just broadly, on the use of technology, generally, I would say that Bill C-27 is before the House and aims to modernize privacy legislation in the private sector generally, and it does broadly address artificial intelligence. In terms of recommendations for this piece of legislation, I flagged that there is a process for obtaining information.

I have suggested that, for greater clarity, an interpretive provision or a purpose provision highlighting protection of privacy as one of the broadcasting objectives would be beneficial.

Paula Simons (GSI)

• I don’t know if Bill C-11 is the appropriate place to be discussing issues that are better dealt with under the amendments to the Privacy Act, but what you can tell us about what we might do about the particular issue of children, not those just under 18 but sometimes those as young as 4, 5 and 6 who are using these platforms without a lot of adult supervision?
  • Dufresne : This is included as an element of Bill C-27 in terms of the Privacy Act modernization in terms of greater protection for minors. That bill was introduced in the other place on June 27 and will be making its way. There will be an opportunity to look at that. But, certainly, it is important to ensure that children and minors have sufficient protection in this context.

Julie Miville-Dechêne (GSI)

• Si le projet de loi C-27 parle de la protection accrue des enfants, ne faudrait-il pas que C-11 — qui est le véhicule principal par lequel on va réglementer les programmes — assure une protection accrue des enfants ?
• Par exemple, la pornographie est réservée aux adultes; or, il n’y a absolument aucune réglementation pour protéger les enfants dans les entreprises en ligne. Qu’en pensez-vous ?
  • Dufresne : Ce sont des considérations que vous pouvez soulever à titre de parlementaire pour ce qui est de la protection des mineurs ou du traitement de la pornographie. Mes observations seraient plutôt axées sur les aspects de vie privée en la matière et porteraient sur le fait d’utiliser le moins d’information possible pour des objectifs suffisamment importants.
• Le fait est que le vie privée des enfants et leur consentement ne sont pas considérés en ce moment. Est-ce que c’est quelque chose qu’on devrait corriger ?
  • Dufresne : ce qui est important, c’est que lorsque ces enjeux de vie privée se présentent dans les cas spécifiques auxquels on fait référence, les soumissions et les mécanismes appropriés soient mis en place.
• Je comprends que vous restez prudent, mais en même temps, ne faudrait-il pas connaître leur âge pour être en mesure de les protéger ?
  • Dufresne : C’est une question sur laquelle il faut se pencher quant à l’obtention de cette information et de façon à protéger la vie privée. On peut savoir si quelqu’un est mineur sans savoir sa date exacte d’anniversaire. Ils seront considérés dans le cadre des projets de loi C-27 et C-11. Ici, ce que nous mettons de l’avant, c’est la protection de la vie privée de façon large. Cela sera adapté au cas présent dans chaque instance.

Pamela Wallin (GSC)

• Are you concerned about that issue here when it comes to privacy and protection of those of us who use and read the internet and those who abuse and use the internet?
  • Dufresne : Insofar as the public institutions in Canada, they are governed by the Privacy Act, and we’ve called for modernization of that act to bring it with the times. I’ve recently called for a legal obligation for privacy impact assessments to be done before new tools are used by public institutions.
• One of the American experts that I’ve talked to in another context says we can’t control algorithms as there are too many of them; it’s impossible, and the best we can do in this particular age is to opt for transparency. Make sure we understand how each of these things work, make it public, and then we can decide whether we want to participate, whether I am going to use Google or not or any one of the other streaming services that have been referenced. Could we get to that point?
  • Dufresne : it does include transparency provisions, and there is also the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act that would regulate artificial decision making in terms of substantive outcomes in certain cases.
• I’m asking, though, also in the context of Bill C-11. We need that kind of transparency, because we are asking or accepting that government bodies will be regulating and making decisions. They have stated explicitly that they will ask the platforms to use their algorithms to provide them with information.
  • Dufresne : In Bill C-11 there are provisions for the publication of the CRTC’s proposed orders. There are sections in terms of providing information by the CRTC to Statistics Canada, to the minister, disclosing some of it publicly. There are restrictions in terms of confidential information. There are some elements where it’s in the public interest to do so or where it needs to be shared with the Competition Bureau, so there are some provisions that address that topic.

Jim Quinn (CSG)

• do you think that there should be some consideration given for a tribunal that you would find in other sectors of government so that there is recourse for people who have concerns to go to and not have to go through a regulator who seems to have a lot of power? Should there be some consideration in this initiative that would allow even yourself to go to a tribunal to express your concerns about privacy?
  • Dufresne : Our observations here are that it’s going to be important for the CRTC to have privacy in mind in making these decisions and hearing from us. To remove further doubt, we are proposing this principle of protecting privacy to be added to the Canadian Broadcasting Policy.
  • Homan : there will also be an ongoing opportunity, should our guidance and our views be sought to have those shared with the CRTC currently as well as in the future.

Leo Housakos (C)

• Has your office done any assessment in terms of where Canada under Bill C-11 would stand in comparison to other democracies around the world?
  • Dufresne : I’m not aware that we’ve done this comparative analysis, specifically.

Julie Miville-Dechêne (GSI)

• Pour éviter que j’aie à refaire la recherche que vous semblez avoir faite brillamment, pouvez-vous nous envoyer l’information que vous avez trouvée quant à l’exemple européen ?
  • Dufresne : oui

Sommaire

Affaires mondiales Canada : Darren Smith; Nolan Wiebe; et Isabelle Ranger

Ministère de la Justice Canada : Raymond MacCallum; et Tariq Qureshi

*Note that the following summary was provided by GAC*

In his opening remarks, Mr. Smith touched on the international trade dimensions of Bill C-11 and its impact on digital trade. He highlighted the growing shift to a digitally oriented economy and the need for Canada to be at the forefront when shaping rules and market access for cross-border trade of digital products, including through the use of WTO initiatives, modernized FTAs and digital trade specific agreements. Mr. Smith noted that when facilitating digital trade negotiating with our international trading partners that Canada embraces these new initiatives while safeguarding cultural policy practices.

Officials from the Department of Justice used their opening remarks to highlight the department’s role to ensure that legislation is not inconsistent with the Charter and assists ministers in tabling a Charter statement for every government bill. Officials highlighted that the framework introduced by C-11 could implicate section 2B of the charter which guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression but that conditions exist which argue for the compatibility of the proposed regulatory requirements within that article 2B. Justice officials noted that the CRTC will be subject to the Charter in its decisions to ensure balance between the objectives of the bill and protection of freedom of expression.

Overall, Senators were congenial in their approach asking constructive and information seeking questions on a variety of issues including obligations under CUSMA and other trade agreements, possible US retaliation efforts, the impact and role of minority communities and marginalized peoples, and the experiences of big media corporations’ comparative to individual creators.

Key Takeaways

• CUSMA and US concerns : Senator Housakos (CPC) highlighted the right for the US to levy retaliatory measures under CUSMA, inquiring if the US has expressed concerns about the bill and whether this could put other sectors of the Canadian economy at risk. Senator Housakos referred to reports of a meeting between International Trade Minister Mary Ng and US Trade Representative Katherine Tai whereby the latter expressed concerns about the bill and its impact on digital streaming services. Mr. Smith responded that the provisions of Bill C-11 are consistent with obligations under CUSMA and that there has been an engagement with US officials on the intention of the bill while also noting that the US has never retaliated against Canadian cultural programs.
• Senator Paula Simons (ISG) also focused on trade obligations under CUSMA citing concerns from mandatory carriage broadcasters such as OMNI and CPAC that they could lose this privilege due to violations under CUSMA. Senator Simons asked for more information on this point to which Mr. Smith indicated that he would consult PCH and follow up with a response in writing.
• Comparative analysis with trading partners : Several Senators, including Senator Pamela Wallin (CSG) focused on comparative analysis of the ideas and initiatives put forward by Bill C-11 in relation to Canada’s trading partners, including the G7, CUSMA, WTO and other agreements on this issue. Mr. Smith noted that international partners are aware of the ideas behind the legislation, with some jurisdictions addressing similar questions themselves, while remarking that the Canadian context is one which requires a balance between commercial imperatives and international trade obligations with regard to domestic policies
• Consulting minority communities : Senator Bernadette Clement (ISG) asked about the CRTC’s legal responsibilities to consult official language minority communities as part of this legislation depending on the interpretation of certain provisions. Senator Kim Pate (ISG) also touched on this issue but focused on cultural viewpoints for marginalized people, specifically indigenous communities and whether a legal duty exists to consult these groups and what measures have been taken to ensure this duty is met.
• Differing requirements between Canadian and Foreign Broadcasters : Both Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne (ISG) and Senator Donna Dasko (ISG) pointed to provisions in the bill which focus on diversity themes and creating a “level playing field” while arguing that the legislation does not accomplish this idea in that Canadian broadcasters face different requirements comparative to foreign streaming services and broadcasters. Senator Dasko asked whether legal challenges can be launched from those groups which feel they are not benefiting from a level playing field due to additional requirements. Alternatively, Senator Miville-Dechêne focused on the importance of not discriminating against Canadian and foreign broadcasters and whether a single equal approach would violate CUSMA’s cultural exemption clause leading to US response.
• Individual vs. Big Corporation Experience : Senators expressed concern about the legal processes available for companies and individuals to provide input and appeal while noting that big media companies have resources available to them that individual creators or smaller organizations do not. Senator Karen Sorenson (ISG) asked about the process for appealing CRTC decisions and any legal challenges the government may anticipate surrounding C-11 while Senator Wallin (CSG) raised concerns about the lack of resources available to smaller companies or individual users to make an appeal at the Federal Court of Appeals.

Prochaine réunion :

Il est prévu que le comité poursuivre l’étude du projet de loi C-11 le jeudi 15 septembre 2022.