THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, TRADE AND COMMERCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 8, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met with videoconference this day at 6:32 p.m. [ET], in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business); and in public to study Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization; and to study matters relating to banking, trade and commerce generally, as described in rule 12-7(8).
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are now back in public as we consider our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-6 here at the Banking Committee. I want to remind everyone that we have a series of officials who have joined us and will be listening in for this part, if anyone should have any comments or questions. That’s there. We will welcome everyone because there may be those joining us online as well. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
As I said, we’re going to begin our clause-by-clause study of Bill S-6.
I’ll remind senators that if at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to make sure we are all on the same page and have a common understanding.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that in committee the proper process is to vote against that clause as a standing part of the bill, so we have one such example of that.
It would be useful for this process if a senator moving an amendment would identify for the committee other clauses in this bill where the amendment could have an effect. I would like to remind senators, if there is any uncertainty as a result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route will be to request a roll call vote.
Senators are aware that a tied vote negates the motion in question. We have government officials joining us from various departments, and we could always go to them for clarification if need be.
Are there any questions or comments?
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceeds to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, thank you. Is it agreed that clauses be grouped according to the 10 parts of the bill as described in the Table of Provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Part 1, Innovation, Science and Economic Development, clauses 1 to 15, pages 1 to 6. Shall Part 1, entitled Innovation, Science and Economic Development, which contains clauses 1 to 15, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carry.
The Chair: I see nothing else there.
Part 2, Natural Resources, clauses 16 to 79 running from pages 6 to 31. Shall Part 2, entitled Natural Resources, which contains clauses 16 to 79, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed, okay.
Part 3, Environment and Climate Change, clauses 80 to 94, pages 32 to 36. Shall Part 3, entitled Environment and Climate Change, which contains clauses 80 to 94, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Part 4, Agricultural Products Marketing Act, clauses 95 to 101, appearing on pages 36 to 41.
Shall Part 4 carry?
Senator Massicotte: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Carried.
Part 5, Regulatory Measures Respecting Canadian Food Inspection Agency, clauses 102 to 131, pages 41 to 54. Shall Part 5, entitled Regulatory Measures Respecting Canadian Food Inspection Agency, containing clauses 102 to 131, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Part 6, Pest Control Products Act, clauses 132 through to 152, pages 54 to 73. Shall Part 6 entitled Pest Control Products Act carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Maybe just for the sake of clarity online, could we just have a show of hands if those would like this act to carry?
Senator Massicotte: Carry.
The Chair: Senator Ringuette carry, Senator Bellemare carry. And in the room here, carry?
An Hon. Senator: What was it before?
The Chair: Whether it should carry. Carry, carry, carry. Okay.
Senator Woo: I vote against Part 6.
The Chair: Yes, I understand.
Senator Woo: Okay.
The Chair: Did you want to speak to this?
Senator Woo: Yes.
The Chair: I mean, just by way of explanation as the vote has carried. Is there something you’d like to say?
Senator Woo: The vote has carried that we will go ahead with Part 6? Chair, I would ask that we restate the process, so everyone is clear and, if I may, provide an explanation so everyone understands where we are.
Colleagues, Part 6 is the item that we discussed at our last meeting of the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee brought to our attention by the chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee at which they recommended the removal of this part of the bill and to which the minister has also agreed.
I had indicated at the time that I would be voting against this section when we got to it at clause-by-clause consideration. Of course, you vote the way you see fit, but this has been the intention.
The Chair: This is the section that the government asked to be removed?
Senator Woo: Correct.
The Chair: Based on that, does anyone want to comment?
Senator Massicotte: As opposed to simply refusing the clause, why don’t you make an amendment to it?
The Chair: We discussed this at the beginning that rather than amending, which is taking it out, you either vote yea or nay to just remove it. That is the process. The government has asked that this be removed and the agriculture committee agreed. Then we were to vote on that if there was not a clear understanding of that. Then we will discuss.
Senator Marshall: When Senator Black testified before the committee, he said that the government had indicated it was going to withdraw that section. He also said that he was surprised by it.
It didn’t sound like it originated with him. It sounded like the flow of information was from the government to whoever, that they would be withdrawing that. I would think the same as Senator Massicotte, namely that there would be an amendment to remove that section. I think that’s what Senator Massicotte said.
The Chair: The protocol, as it has been explained to us, is that we would go for a “yea” or a “nay” vote rather than having a withdrawal or this is just a clause that is either accepted or rejected.
Kalina Waltos, Clerk of the Committee: You would vote against the part of the bill as carried.
The Chair: A positive vote would be to keep the clause in. A vote “no” would be to remove the clause.
Senator Marshall: Can we abstain?
The Chair: Yes you can; absolutely.
Senator C. Deacon: One other point of clarification, if I could. We did receive in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee — and I think it was confirmed by Senator Black — a letter from the Minister of Health requesting that this be withdrawn. The reason is that this amendment was made quite a ways prior to a new process they have instigated. It was explained to us and there was agreement in agriculture that this should occur. Just for the committee to be aware.
Senator Yussuff: I was filling in for a colleague. What has been said is true. What was not clear earlier on the vote, Madam Chair, is a vote against this section of the clause means we’re deleting —
The Chair: I’m having trouble hearing you.
Senator Yussuff: I said that I was at the Agriculture and Forestry Committee filling in for a colleague, so what is stated is true. The minister did make the request. The committee did not object to that, but it ultimately had to come back to us to take a formative position as to what should be done.
What was not clear at the beginning of the vote is if you vote against it, then it will be deleted from our recommendation. That was not clear. I wanted to clarify that.
The Chair: My apologies.
Senator Massicotte: If we’re going to vote against the clause in question to allow it to be removed, is that clause 6 only or is it something more specific than that?
The Chair: As it reads here, Part 6, clauses 132 through 152, found on pages 54 to 73.
Senator Massicotte: But to get to Senator Woo’s objectives, we have to say “no” to the specific section of the clause that he wants removed. It has to be very specific to that clause. We’re going to vote against it, which means it gets deleted, but we need to make sure we have the right reference to those specific paragraphs that Senator Woo wants deleted.
The Chair: Is there any question?
Senator Woo: We want to remove the entirety of Part 6. That is the question before us.
The Chair: That is 132 to 152.
Senator Bellemare: I propose that we go back and redo the vote because there is a misunderstanding.
Senator Massicotte: With leave, go back.
The Chair: All right, agreed.
Again, Part 6, Pest Control Products Act, clauses 132 to 152, on pages 54 to 152. How can I phrase this?
Senator Ringuette: All those in favour of the clause and all those against?
The Chair: Is it carried?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Great. It is defeated.
Senator Massicotte: Agreed.
The Chair: Yes. We’ve got it. Thank you very much.
Everyone is fine and heard that and is clear?
Part 7, Fisheries and Oceans, clauses 153 to 158, pages 74 to 75. Shall Part 7 entitled Fisheries and Oceans, which contains clauses 153 to 158, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed; okay. We’re seeing that everywhere.
Part 8, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, clauses 159 and 160, pages 75 through — well, they’re on two separate pages — 77.
Shall Part 8 entitled Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, which contains clauses 159 and 160, carry?
Senator Woo: Chair?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Woo: I would like to move two amendments. With your permission, I would like to read both because they are related. Again, with your permission, I’d like to provide a bit of an explanation for the amendments.
The Chair: I’m happy to do that in just one minute.
Why don’t we have your explanation because we are just dealing with what we saw. We can’t actually propose changes to what the other committees who have tabled their reports said in any way. Please go ahead.
Senator Woo: I’ll move the amendments.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Woo: On clause 159, page 76, I move:
That Bill S-6 be amended in clause 159, on page 76, by adding the following after line 1:
“and under a written agreement or arrangement that defines the elements of personal information, the purpose for disclosure, any limits on secondary use and onward transfer of personal information, and other relevant details, ”.
This amendment responds directly to the suggestion of the Privacy Commissioner that there be written agreements between IRCC and the partner organizations with which such information will be shared. This recommendation was also contained in the report of the Social Affairs Committee and presented by our colleague, Senator Omidvar.
Further to discussions I’ve had with the minister’s office, it is the view that, while these practices are already in place, there is no harm and, in fact, there is some benefit in spelling out this requirement.
Further, that the inclusion of these amendments shows the gratitude and appreciation of the department for the work that’s done by the Social Affairs Committee and our effort to try to improve the bill in whatever way possible.
The Chair: My concern is the one I noted, that this is a study undertaken by a different committee, not ours. Their report has already been tabled in the chamber. We’re getting into an area where, if the minister had testified to this, that would be on the record. I’m not sure how we go back and revise the comments and position of a committee that was reporting to us and has already tabled their report.
Senator Woo: Chair, we were not revising their report. We’re not contradicting the committee’s position. We received their testimony, and there was a little bit of discussion on it. I think it’s legitimate for this committee to make up its own mind as to what we heard from the chair and what we saw in the report. But this is a proposed amendment which one can vote for or against.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Yussuff: I think there is a letter from the minister in this regard, which is separate from the committee’s recommendation. If I’m right, I also thought there’s no dissent from SOCI in regard to the minister’s letter.
The Chair: Wasn’t it the Privacy Commissioner’s letter that he sent to them, but they were not able — he did not appear or would not appear, so they couldn’t question him on this issue, which was one of Senator Omidvar’s concerns that she raised with us.
Senator Yussuff: That’s just my point in regard to the letter.
Senator Massicotte: I have a technical question. Senator Woo, is there a copy in French of that amendment?
Senator Woo: Yes, there is. It has been sent to all of you by email, I believe, but I’m happy to read it to the best of my ability, if you would like me to?
Senator Massicotte: Can you do that in French?
Senator Woo: J’espère. Would you like me to do that?
Senator Massicotte: Whatever you wish. Sounds good.
[Translation]
Senator Woo: I propose the following amendment:
That Bill S-6 be amended in clause 160, on page 77, by replacing line 8 with the following:
“for the purposes of cooperation, where such disclosure would be made under a written agreement or arrangement that defines the elements of personal information, the purpose for disclosure, any limits on secondary use and onward transfer of personal information, and other relevant details.”.
[English]
Senator Massicotte: Well, you’ve got my vote. Very good.
Senator Woo: Chair, there is another amendment on —
The Chair: But we have to deal with them separately. I guess will go to our officials and ask for some comment. We have from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Kathryn Fredericks, Director of International and Intergovernmental Relations; and Anna Lillicrap, Counsel and Legal Services.
Is there some rationale for this that the committee itself missed, that the Social Affairs Committee missed or that they were not able to take witnesses or testimony? Would you each have a comment?
Kathryn Fredericks, Director, International and Intergovernmental Relations, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: My understanding is the Privacy Commissioner sent a letter, as you said; he wasn’t a live witness. I’m no expert on procedure, but we did receive a copy of that letter. I believe our minister was asked to present a view on whether it would be appropriate to propose an amendment that would address the Privacy Commissioner’s concern about having written agreements to guide the information exchange between the parties.
The Chair: But they did have the opportunity to do that at committee, correct?
Ms. Fredericks: I understand the Social Affairs Committee submitted their report on all of their findings, I believe referencing the Privacy Commissioner’s letter and the suggestion that was made there.
The Chair: What about Ms. Lillicrap? Is there any comment, or is Ms. Fredericks speaking on behalf of the department?
Anna Lillicrap, Counsel and Legal Services, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: I would just note that, from a legal perspective, there was no requirement in the previous draft for a written agreement or arrangement to be in place prior to disclosure. However, there is a government policy that does require a written agreement or arrangement to be in place prior to disclosure of personal information, so there was —
The Chair: If that is in place, is this redundant?
Ms. Lillicrap: There was or is currently a policy requirement. There is no current legislative requirement for such an agreement or arrangement to be in place prior to disclosure. So this proposed amendment would be introducing a legislative requirement for such an agreement or arrangement to be in place.
Senator Woo: Chair, I hope colleagues are not given the impression that there is some distance between the Social Affairs Committee and the Privacy Commissioner. You referred to the inability of the commissioner to testify and that there were some issues raised by SOCI. That does not apply to this particular issue. It applies to the question of the scope of information to be shared. In fact, SOCI is not only aligned with the Privacy Commissioner’s recommendation, but they say specifically — and I will read from the SOCI report:
Your committee received a letter from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada with his assessment of Part 8 of Bill S-6. In particular, your committee notes with interest the Privacy Commissioner’s perspective that disclosures of personal information under certain provisions of the Privacy Act be subject to written information-sharing agreements, which include a definition of the personal information to be shared as well as the specific purpose for sharing.
And I jump to the last paragraph of this section where the SOCI the report says:
Your committee therefore suggests that future consideration of Part 8 of Bill S-6 include how information-sharing agreements meeting the Privacy Commissioner’s standards be implemented.
My interpretation of this amendment from IRCC is that it seeks to conform to the recommendation put forward by the Privacy Commissioner and supported by our colleagues on Social Affairs.
The Chair: I guess I have a slightly different sense as I thought Senator Omidvar was saying that they did not have the chance to discuss it or question the person and that it should be maybe moved down the road, not added as an amendment here, or I think she might have said that.
Senator C. Deacon: Certainly, she may have, but I certainly [Technical difficulties] concern. I do still have the concern that we are being redundant. There is no question in that regard, but I do like that it appears the department has been responsive to a concern raised through their, I think, lax consultation. They did not go to privacy experts and outside of the departments they are working with and include others who have knowledge. We heard that they didn’t include immigration lawyers. They didn’t include privacy lawyers in their consultations leading up to Bill S-6. That created a bit of a problem that SOCI reported on.
They had one meeting, as I understand it, two panels, and they got this written testimony from the Privacy Commissioner because it wasn’t available. This seems to be the department being responsive to that issue, which I think was clearly identified to us. I’m hearing that in a way that makes sense to me.
The Chair: My concern that night, as we heard testimony from Senator Omidvar, was that this is obviously an issue they would like to pursue and they didn’t have the opportunity.
I agree with you that this is a speedy response. I’m just wondering whether we’re usurping the role of Social Affairs, who might want to examine this and see whether this answers their concerns. For those of us who are not experts or do not sit on that committee, I’m just a little concerned we’re pre-empting them; that’s all.
Senator C. Deacon: If they are concerned, could they deal with it at third reading?
The Chair: I’m sure they could, yes.
Senator Woo: I’m prepared to withdraw the amendment; it keeps the bill intact, unless — I think we are being very responsive to SOCI and I have no doubt that SOCI would like us to do this. I have no doubt about that. But if you’re raising questions, chair, and if others are raising questions about the suitability and appropriateness of our doing it, obviously not having the amendment keeps the bill intact.
I’m going to look around the room to see what the feeling is, but it would be just as easy for me to withdraw the amendment and keep the bill intact.
The Chair: That would give our colleagues a chance to respond at third reading if they feel strongly about this. We have questions, to continue on.
Senator Ringuette: Further to the discussion that we had with SOCI when they were in front of us, it is a given that the government would have a policy with regard to the privacy when they exchange information on a proposed immigration file between them and the provinces. There’s no doubt about that.
Now, for me, the fact that the minister wants to add that policy in a piece of legislation is an excellent idea because down the road this question will not have to be asked. It is going to be clear that it is in the legislation, and which is more than a policy. I would support this amendment.
Senator Marshall: The amendment can also be put in during third reading, could it not? That would give all the members of the Social Affairs Committee who may not support this — I expect they will, but that is also an option. The end result is to get the amendment in, so that would be an option.
Senator Woo: Likewise, it can also be removed at third reading, so it cuts both ways. Chair, I hope we can go to the question fairly soon, because we’re beginning to spin our wheels.
Senator Yussuff: Not to contradict; I think we’re all saying the same thing to a large extent. I want to thank Senator Woo for drafting the amendment.
It might be prudent, in the context of the committee’s diligent and hard work, that they introduce this at third reading, because it would confirm if they are thinking exactly as Senator Woo has said. More importantly, it doesn’t contradict the department; it just makes it the official rule of law for government to follow in the future.
So we can still do that, but it allows the committee to bring it forward. I want to thank Senator Woo for taking the time to draft it and bring it before us.
The Chair: Senator Woo, would you like to ask for leave to withdraw it, to have it dealt with?
Senator Woo: I’d like to put the question. I have a second motion.
The Chair: Yes. We have to do it one at a time.
It is moved by Honourable Senator Woo that Bill S-6 be amended in clause 159, on page 76, line — would you like me to read it again, everyone?
Senator Massicotte: It’s not necessary.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Let’s do a show of hands, then. In the room, those who are in agreement? We’ve got just three online? Okay. So it has been carried.
Shall clause 159, as amended, be carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Let us go to the second amendment.
Senator Woo: I move that:
That Bill S-6 be amended in clause 160, on page 77, by replacing line 8 with the following:
“for the purposes of cooperation, where such disclosure would be made under a written agreement or arrangement that defines the elements of personal information, the purpose for disclosure, any limits on secondary use and onward transfer of personal information, and other relevant details.”.
The Chair: Questions or comments? I will put this on the record first.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Woo that Bill S-6 be amended in clause 160, on page 77, at line 8 —
Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Smith. It’s just for consistency. It would be awkward if we did not pass this amendment, having passed the previous one.
The Chair: For what reason?
Senator Woo: Because it would be inconsistent, then. It’s a consequential amendment.
The Chair: Any other comments or questions?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We have agreement.
Shall clause 160, at page 77, line 8, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: No dissent there. Thank you.
We’re back to Part 8, Immigration and Refugees and Citizenship, clauses 159 and 160.
Shall Part 8, entitled “Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship,” which contains clause 159, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Part 9, the Customs Act, clauses 161 and 162, on page 77.
Shall Part 9, entitled “Customs Act,” which contains clauses 161 and 162, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Part 10, the Canada Transportation Act, clause 163, pages 78 to 79.
Shall Part 10, entitled “Canada Transportation Act,” which contains clause 163, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Schedule 1, page 80.
Shall Schedule 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Schedule 2, pages 81 to 95 — or, in French, pages 88 to 95.
Shall schedule 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Schedule 3, pages 96 to 102.
Shall schedule 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes as a result of the amendments adopted by the committee, including cross-references and renumbering of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: The rules allow us to go in camera to discuss the draft report, but we had a bit of that discussion beforehand. Are there any more comments or concerns about the observations that we discussed?
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended and with observations, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators. That is excellent.
We will go in camera now to discuss the interim report on crypto-currency and the interim report on business investment.
Thank you to all of the officials who stood by to help us.
(The committee continued in camera.)