Quebec, Canada - Exemption for Data Held by Private Entities on Behalf of Public Bodies

The applicability factor in question is whether data protection laws apply to information held by private entities on behalf of public bodies. In Quebec, the "Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector (ARPPIPS)" addresses this factor explicitly, determining the scope of the law's applicability.

Text of Relevant Provisions

ARPPIPS Div.1(3)(2):

"3. This Act does not apply (2) to information held on behalf of a public body by a person other than a public body."

Original (French):

"3. La présente loi ne s'applique pas (2) aux renseignements détenus pour le compte d'un organisme public par une personne autre qu'un organisme public."

Analysis of Provisions

The ARPPIPS explicitly states in Division 1, section 3, point 2 that it does not apply to information held on behalf of a public body by a person other than a public body. This provision sets a clear boundary on the scope of the law's applicability by excluding certain data processing activities from its regulation.

Breakdown and Explanation

• "This Act does not apply (2) to information held on behalf of a public body by a person other than a public body."
  • The phrase "does not apply" signifies that the ARPPIPS deliberately excludes specific scenarios from its scope.
  • "information held on behalf of a public body" indicates that the data in question pertains to public bodies but is physically or administratively managed by another entity.
  • "by a person other than a public body" clarifies that this exclusion targets scenarios where private entities or non-public organizations hold the data on behalf of public bodies.

In the original French text, the structure and meaning are consistent with the English translation, ensuring no misinterpretation due to language differences.

Rationale

The rationale behind this exclusion is likely rooted in the division of regulatory responsibilities. Data held on behalf of public bodies often falls under different regulatory frameworks designed specifically for public sector data. By excluding such data from the ARPPIPS, lawmakers ensure that there is no overlap or conflict between public and private sector data protection regulations.

Implications

For Businesses

• Exemption for Service Providers: Private entities providing services to public bodies (e.g., IT services, data storage) are not subject to ARPPIPS for the data they hold on behalf of those public bodies.
• Regulatory Clarity: Companies can focus on complying with the appropriate regulations for public sector data, rather than navigating potentially conflicting private sector data protection laws.
• Scope Limitation: The ARPPIPS's exclusion simplifies the legal landscape for private entities managing public sector data, reducing their compliance burden.

Examples

• A private IT company contracted by a government department to manage its database would not need to comply with ARPPIPS for this specific data.
• A private health clinic storing patient records on behalf of a public health agency would also be exempt from ARPPIPS in this context.

This clear delineation helps maintain a structured and coherent approach to data protection, ensuring that data held on behalf of public bodies is regulated under the most appropriate legal framework.