THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 29, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:18 p.m. [ET] to conduct clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5, An Act respecting the interoperability of health information technology and to prohibit data blocking by health information technology vendors and, in camera, to study a draft agenda.
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Senator Rosemary Moodie. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
We will now proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5, An Act respecting the interoperability of health information technology and to prohibit data blocking by health information technology vendors.
I would like to first welcome officials from Health Canada. Here with us in the room today to answer our technical questions is Elizabeth Toller, Director General, Health Care Strategies Directorate, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada; and Brett Taylor, Senior Policy Analyst, Health Care Strategies, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada. Welcome.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. As chair, I will call each clause successively in the order they appear in the bill. If, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure at all times that we have a clear understanding and the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in order of the lines of a clause. If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is, therefore, useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identifies to the committee other clauses in the bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making. Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one or ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have a question about the process or about the priority of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter of order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained. I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which, obviously, provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators, any tied vote negates the vote in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can move forward.
We will now move on to clause-by-clause consideration.
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5, An Act respecting the interoperability of health information technology and to prohibit data blocking by health information technology vendors?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Greenwood?
Senator Greenwood: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senators, I move:
That Bill S-5 be amended in the preamble,
(a) on page 1,
(i) by replacing line 29 with the following:
“Whereas Parliament wishes to promote coopera-”,
(ii) by replacing line 31 with the following:
“territorial governments, First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples and key”;
(b) on page 2, by adding the following before line 1:
“And whereas Parliament affirms that the collection, use, disclosure and governance of data under this Act as that data relates to First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples must be done in a manner that respects and advances Indigenous data sovereignty;”.
I would like to take a couple of minutes, Madam Chair, to discuss this amendment and the rationale for this amendment.
Part (a)(i) of my amendment is simply a formatting requirement that removes the word “and” originally at the beginning of line 29 to later in the preamble.
Part (a)(ii) of my amendment is in response to a recommendation from Leona Star, Director of Research, First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba, who called upon the committee to recognize the distinctions-based nature of data collection and amend the term “Indigenous Peoples” to “First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples.”
I also want to note that the term “Peoples” in my amendment has a capital “P.” This is because the language concerning Indigenous Peoples has evolved to recognize our collective nature and the multiple distinct societies within Canada. This language is also consistent with the language guides found on the Government of Canada’s writing portal.
Part (b) of my amendment was informed by testimony from multiple witnesses. The National Council of Indigenous Midwives and the Canadian Association of Midwives called for the inclusion of:
. . . explicit provisions recognizing and protecting Indigenous data sovereignty, consistent with the principles of First Nations, Métis and Inuit governance over their own data.
And that:
Without explicit, enforceable protections for Indigenous data sovereignty, any push to expand data sharing risks directly eroding Indigenous governance over health information.
Dr. Ivar Mendez, Professor of Neurosurgery and Director of the Virtual Health Hub at the University of Saskatchewan, told our committee that:
A strong advocacy for Indigenous data sovereignty, respect and protection of OCAP principles . . . must be explicit in the bill.
I am also thankful to Senator Senior for intuitively knowing what question I would ask government officials when I could not be present. Hiy hiy.
During that meeting, Elizabeth Toller, Director General, Health Care Strategies Directorate, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada, told our committee:
Bill S-5 does not create new authorities to collect or disclose personal health information. It does not compel sharing or override consent. Federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous privacy and governance rules continue to apply. The bill simply ensures interoperability isn’t the barrier when sharing is permitted and consented to. It respects Indigenous data sovereignty by focusing on vendor behaviour, not data custodianship. Regulations will be informed through distinctions-based engagement.
I take some relief about the department’s explanation without acknowledging that regulations will continue to be informed through distinctions-based engagement.
I also further acknowledge that, currently, there is no legislative framework for Indigenous data sovereignty and that creating such a framework within Bill S-5 may present a challenge.
This may mean that, in the future, Indigenous data sovereignty would be better addressed through stand-alone or codeveloped federal legislation.
That said, I believe that amending the preamble to affirm Parliament’s desire that any data concerning First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples be done so in a manner that respects and advances Indigenous data sovereignty. It is a workable compromise. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you. I open the floor now for questions and comments.
Senator Petitclerc: I do have a short question for Senator Greenwood, and maybe I would like to hear from the officials as well on that. Thank you, Senator Greenwood, for the amendments and the explanation.
My question is for the part replacing line 31. I see you’re replacing “Indigenous Peoples” with “First Nations, Inuit, Métis Peoples.” I want to understand. You did mention the recommendation.
I am also keeping in mind that we have the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. That was in 2024. I also know that we have An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. I want your input on how you came to make that choice.
I also would like to hear from the officials.
Senator Greenwood: In part, this comes from that whole understanding of distinctions-based where we have First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and, of course, there is also great variation and diversity within each of those. But those are constitutionally recognized, so First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Elizabeth Toller, Director General, Health Care Strategies Directorate, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada: It is nice to see everyone again.
We appreciate the intent of wanting to recognize this important commitment to Indigenous data sovereignty. I appreciate, Senator Greenwood, that you did mention that, to my knowledge, Indigenous data sovereignty has actually not been defined in Canadian law before. This would be precedent setting.
If there is willingness, and if you are going to put the amendment in, I would appreciate it if there were an opportunity to align the amendment a bit more closely with the purpose of the act because this act doesn’t actually govern the collection and disclosure of health data. It would, perhaps, be better to align it as the wording aligns it in the purpose statement, which is “. . . to enable easy, complete and secure access to and use and exchange of electronic health information . . .,” removing “collection, use, disclosure” and maintaining “governance of data under this Act.”
The other piece we wanted to clarify is just to ask that it must be done in a manner that respects Indigenous data sovereignty but removes the part on advance, because I feel that sets a bigger, practical challenge for us than what this bill could actually deliver. I’m hoping that could be considered a compromise.
I know I read this out. I could provide you with the optional language if you were willing to consider that. It would help keep it closer to the spirit of the purpose of the act.
The Chair: Would you like to respond, Senator Greenwood?
Senator Greenwood: I would like her to repeat that.
Ms. Toller: How about I read that? It is hard because I have to read it and note where we would delete. I will try to explain it as clearly as possible. I will read it as we would like it to sound if that is okay.
Senator Greenwood: Are you talking about above line 1, on page 2?
Brett Taylor, Senior Policy Analyst, Health Care Strategies, Health Policy Branch, Health Canada: The third amendment.
Ms. Toller: Yes.
Senator Greenwood: Yes.
Ms. Toller: We’re generally comfortable with spelling out First Nations and all that, but it does impact that third amendment. The third amendment, what we would prefer is:
And whereas Parliament affirms that the enabling of easy, complete and secure access to and use and exchange of electronic health information and governance of data under this Act as that data relates to First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples must be done in a manner that respects Indigenous data sovereignty.
The Chair: Before we move on, can I please ensure that we have captured that? No? We will need the language.
Let’s continue. Senator Greenwood.
Senator Greenwood: Yes.
The Chair: You would accept that change?
Senator Greenwood: I need to get it.
The Chair: Colleagues, I am going to suggest we deal with this.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you.
The Chair: We will now move in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Welcome back to the public portion of our committee meeting.
Senator Greenwood, would you like to make an intervention?
Senator Greenwood: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I ask for leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Chair: Senators, are we in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. We are in agreement, and thank you for considering an amendment today. Senators, if there is no further business, we will resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5 at tomorrow’s meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)