Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

Sponsor

Status

In committee (House), as of April 24, 2023

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-27.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

Part 1 enacts the Consumer Privacy Protection Act to govern the protection of personal information of individuals while taking into account the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. In consequence, it repeals Part 1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and changes the short title of that Act to the Electronic Documents Act . It also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 enacts the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act , which establishes an administrative tribunal to hear appeals of certain decisions made by the Privacy Commissioner under the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and to impose penalties for the contravention of certain provisions of that Act. It also makes a related amendment to the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act .
Part 3 enacts the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act to regulate international and interprovincial trade and commerce in artificial intelligence systems by requiring that certain persons adopt measures to mitigate risks of harm and biased output related to high-impact artificial intelligence systems. That Act provides for public reporting and authorizes the Minister to order the production of records related to artificial intelligence systems. That Act also establishes prohibitions related to the possession or use of illegally obtained personal information for the purpose of designing, developing, using or making available for use an artificial intelligence system and to the making available for use of an artificial intelligence system if its use causes serious harm to individuals.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

April 24, 2023 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts
April 24, 2023 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Do you think that the large number of interventions made by some groups, far more than others, could give the impression that industry players are trying to soften Bill C‑27, to make it more acceptable to them or easier to interpret and implement?

Are industry players looking to make their jobs easier at the expense of the real need to fundamentally protect privacy or children?

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to protect Canadians. Do you get the impression that these organizations want to water down the bill—if I can put it that way—to make it easier to interpret?

April 15th, 2024 / 11:40 a.m.


See context

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry

Mark Schaan

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are open to the idea of meeting with all stakeholders on Bill C‑27. We have received many requests for meetings, which I have accepted.

Obviously, my schedule is quite busy, especially because I come to testify before House committees, but members of my team are available to meet with those people.

I think there are two important parts to your question.

We met with representatives of the Canadian Marketing Association, as well as representatives of the Canadian Anonymization Network, CANON, a non-profit organization that brings together experts, other non-profit organizations and academics. That group has attended a number or conferences and meetings on the bill.

As I said, I accept any requests for a meeting to discuss the bill.

Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Okay.

Following consultations held after this bill was introduced, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry put forward a series of amendments last September. He told us that you had consulted about 300 individuals and groups.

In addition, during the consultations, people who were called to our committee meetings told us that their names were not on the list of those 300 individuals and groups. Some came to tell us that they had not been consulted or that they would have liked to be consulted, or that they would have liked to see much broader consultations. In fact, we have been told several times that the consultations on Bill C‑27 should have been much more extensive.

Now we have a series of amendments, including amendments NDP‑2 and G‑2, which again show that some people have tried to get you to change your perception of the bill or the way you're drafting the bill.

You met with some groups much more intensively than others, if I understood correctly. That is the case for representatives of the Canadian Anonymization of Data Network, CANON, whom you have apparently met with about 10 times.

Why has it been necessary to meet with representatives of this group more than 10 times since the bill's introduction and our analysis of it in committee?

April 15th, 2024 / 11:40 a.m.


See context

Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry

Mark Schaan

In collaboration with my colleagues from the Department of Justice, my team is responsible for the drafting of Bill C‑27, whose objectives were set by ministers and cabinets.

Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank the witnesses for being with us.

At the outset, madam, gentlemen, I would like to say that the series of questions I am going to ask you are not so much about the amendment itself as about the process that led to it.

I think we all agree that the definition of the verb “anonymize” in Bill C‑27 is a very important element for the future and for the interpretation that will be made of it going forward.

I absolutely do not want you to consider my series of questions as a form of judgment. I just want to understand the process.

Almost two years ago, the government introduced this bill, which is now being studied in committee. We analyzed it with the help of witnesses, and today we find ourselves with more than 50 amendments from the government.

Were you the ones who drafted the bill in the first place?

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 118 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. In addition, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 24, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C‑27, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

Today we are continuing clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill.

I'd like to welcome back the representatives from the Department of Industry and thank them for joining us again.

We have Mark Schaan, senior assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation policy sector; Samir Chhabra, director general, marketplace framework policy branch; and Runa Angus, senior director, strategy and innovation policy sector.

Colleagues, as you will recall, we were at amendment NDP‑2, which relates to clause 2.

(Clause 2)

Monsieur Williams, you had the floor when we were debating NDP-2. I'll give it back to you as we resume the clause-by-clause on Bill C-27.

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

I'll read this for the people who are intently following along at home.

I move that Bill C-27, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 3 with the following: “modify personal information to ensure that no individual”.

I'll just speak briefly to it, and then others can ask questions.

This comes from the Privacy Commissioner. It's to strengthen the framework for de-identification and anonymized information. Basically, it's to protect and de-identify anonymized data, and it comes from the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations.

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

What importance does California have in the development of technology that might be applicable to Bill C-27?

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our officials for being here today.

I'll start with my notes. In the last meeting, I did introduce Conservative amendment CPC-1, which would amend the preamble to include “fundamental right to privacy” and include text that would state, “the processing of personal information and data should respect minors’ privacy and their best interests”.

This subamendment clearly deletes the “best interests” clause. I will note in good faith that later on in the amendment process, there is universal agreement on the fundamental right to privacy. My real concern here is the second phrase that's being deleted: “respect minors’ privacy and their best interests”.

I put forward this amendment because it was one of the key recommendations tabled by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. In the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's submission, they recommended the following, in addition to putting in “fundamental right to privacy”, which I think there's unanimous agreement on at this committee:

The preamble should also reflect the importance of protecting children and minors. Jurisdictions around the world have recognized that children and minors may be impacted by technologies differently than adults, be at greater risk of being affected by privacy-related issues, and therefore require special protections.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner also said:

Updating the preamble in such a manner would encourage organizations to build privacy for children into products and services, from the start and by design. Since Canada’s privacy laws were designed to be technology neutral, this would help ensure that the best interests of children will be considered for new and emerging technologies, and for future uses of data.

It went on:

...adding the proposed language to the section that frames the legislation’s intent would help ensure that the best interests of children and minors are prioritized and consistently considered across all the related [bills].

I believe the law should recognize the rights of the child and the right to be a child. Taking into consideration the push-back on this language from the government—and some of the comments made by you, Mr. Schaan, at our last committee meeting—I hosted a meeting with the Privacy Commissioner yesterday to ask him to further emphasize the importance of including this language in Bill C-27. I will note that Mr. Masse joined me at that meeting. In having this important meeting, the commissioner gave some key insights as to why it is crucial to keep the “best interests of the child” language within the preamble.

Mr. Schaan, at the last committee meeting, we heard that the term “best interests of the child” was a subjective construct. After speaking with the leading experts in this field, I have to say that I don't agree with your interpretation and the way you phrased that term.

Can you provide us with the legal opinion that led to you making that statement on behalf of the department at the meeting?

Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON

Thank you, Chair.

It's good to be back, colleagues.

Thanks to the officials for being here. I know you'll spend some time with us over the next couple of months. We look forward to working with you and getting to know you better.

I had asked the officials numerous questions to set the stage for introducing a subamendment that, at least we think, is a bit of a compromise on the language and provides further clarity. It's taking out some language, and it's based on some arguments that were made last time. Hopefully, those clarifications were helpful for committee members.

This was drafted by my colleague Iqwinder, who is here. I am introducing it today because he was absent last time and I intended to do it then. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Gaheer for his work on this.

The subamendment is that CPC-1, which proposes to amend clause 2 of Bill C-27 by adding a preamble after line 7 on page 3, be amended as follows:

(a) replacing “Whereas Parliament recognizes the importance of the privacy and data protection principles contained in various international instruments;” with the following:

“Whereas Parliament recognizes the importance of privacy and data protection;”

(b) replacing “Whereas the processing of personal information and data should respect minors' privacy and their best interests;” with the following:

“Whereas minors actively take part in the digital and data-driven economy and their personal information is worthy of stronger protection given their varying levels of capacity to understand how it is used by organizations and the potential long-term implications of such use;”

(c) deleting the following:

“Whereas the design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence systems across provincial and international borders should be consistent with national and international standards to protect individuals from potential harm;”

(d) replacing “Whereas Parliament recognizes that artificial intelligence systems and other emerging technologies should uphold Canadian norms and values in line with the principles of international human rights law;” with the following:

“Whereas Parliament recognizes that emerging technologies should uphold Canadian norms and values in line with the principles of international human rights law;”

Thank you, Chair.

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 117 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Furthermore, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 24, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C‑27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

I would like to welcome our witnesses today and thank you all for being here.

From the Department of Industry, we have Mark Schaan, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector; Samir Chhabra, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch; and Runa Angus, Senior Director, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector. Thanks to all three of you for being with us again.

If memory serves, Mr. Turnbull had the floor at the end of our last meeting. And if I'm not mistaken, he was preparing to move a subamendment.

Mr. Turnbull.

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

I appreciate that, but of the 55 government amendments, there wasn't one proposed in this area.

Page 8 of the Privacy Commissioner's 2022 submission on this legislation says:

As the preamble would apply to all the Acts comprised in Bill C-27, including the CPPA and AIDA, adding the proposed language to the section that frames the legislation's intent would help ensure that the best interests of children and minors are prioritized and consistently considered across all [aspects of the act].

If the bill's preamble is amended in this manner, does it affect all aspects of the legislation, including the AIDA?

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Thank you to all committee members.

Today I am very pleased to speak about CPC-1.

Over the course of all our meetings, I really emphasized the need for a fundamental right to privacy, as many of you did, and the special rights we have the opportunity to put in place, not only to protect our freedoms and ensure fairness in the push for a just society, but to do so specifically for Canadian minors.

Let me break CPC-1 down for you. It essentially embeds the preamble into part 1 of the act and adds a crucial clause. It would read:

Whereas the protection of the fundamental right to privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information is essential to individual autonomy and dignity and to the full enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms in Canada....

Whereas the processing of personal...data should respect minors’ privacy and their best interests....

Why do these changes matter? The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has noted that, as Bill C-27 is currently drafted, the preamble of Bill C-27 appears only in the introductory text of the bill and not at the beginning of the CPPA or the AIDA. According to the Privacy Commissioner, once enacted, neither act will contain any mention of the preamble, which includes the bill's only mention of the fundamental right to privacy. While, yes, I understand that the preamble of an act is not legally binding, it does provide guidance to the courts with regard to the intention of our work in drafting this bill. When privacy interests and those of businesses are in conflict, the inclusion of the preamble will allow the courts to identify the intent of our work here at committee.

In addition to embedding the preamble in the act, this amendment would also make changes to the preamble's existing text. One, it would strengthen the recognition of a person's fundamental right to privacy in the existing text by making a specific reference to the right to privacy. Two, it would recognize that the processing of the personal information of minors should respect their best interests.

These amendments were recommended by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner as a means to strengthen privacy protection for all Canadians. More specifically, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, in the submission made on April 26, 2023, made it clear that the preamble of the bill must...and stated, “Privacy is both a fundamental right in itself, and is instrumental to the exercise of other rights.”

Also in this submission, the OPC makes recommendations and proposes amendments in the following five areas to advance this broader theme—privacy as a fundamental right, children's privacy and the rights of the child, appropriate purposes, administrative monetary penalties and disposal. It recommends that the preamble should “recognize that the processing of personal data should respect children’s privacy and the best interests of the child.”

The preamble of the bill would apply to the CPPA and the AIDA, which is why the OPC believes it is important that this amendment is included in the text of the bill. Its submission also stated:

As the preamble would apply to all the Acts comprised in Bill C-27, including the CPPA and AIDA, adding the proposed language to the section that frames the legislation’s intent would help ensure that the best interests of children and minors are prioritized and consistently considered across all the related Acts.

At meeting 87, on September 28, the Privacy Commissioner repeated what was voiced in the OPC submission. He said:

Under the theme of privacy as a fundamental right, I recommend strengthening the preamble and purpose clause to explicitly recognize privacy as a fundamental right, and highlight the need to protect children's privacy and the best interest of the child, so that these important principles inform the interpretation of all aspects of the legislation.

In addition to listening to the recommendations given by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, it is very important for us to listen to what other stakeholders said on this as well.

In meeting 99, on November 28, Elizabeth Denham, who is the chief strategy officer of the Information Accountability Foundation, came to voice her input. She's worked for decades as a privacy professional and worked for 15 years as an information rights regulator in 15 jurisdictions. She previously had a role as the information commissioner for the United Kingdom in 2016, where she brought into oversight the board that administered the general data protection regulation, an important part of EU privacy and human rights law, which was also raised consistently at our meetings.

While working as the U.K.'s information commissioner, she oversaw the creation of a children's appropriate design code, which has influenced the U.K.'s laws related to privacy. The GDPR's children's code of age-appropriate design assists organizations in creating digital services that cater to children's needs, respect their rights and foster their exploration and growth online. In later meetings, I will speak about this further, as we have an amendment that would create a similar code to protect children in Canada. That being said, I think it's important for us to recognize what the GDPR has done in explicitly emphasizing the language of the best interests of the child.

Furthermore, in meeting 99, Ms. Denham emphasized the importance of including “privacy as a fundamental right” and the best interests of the child in the preamble. Two of the leading experts globally, who both happen to be Canadian, are asking for this. Ms. Denham said:

Looking first at Canada's CPPA from a global perspective, I see a big missing piece, and the legislation's language, in my view, needs adjusting so that it explicitly declares privacy as a fundamental right for Canadians. Its absence really puts us behind nations who lead the way in privacy and data protection.

She also stated:

One of them needs to be a statement in the preamble or in the purpose statement that recognizes that companies need to provide services in the best interests of the child. That language comes out of the UN convention that I mentioned earlier. Canada is a signatory to that.

The best interests of the child—

During meeting 98, on November 23, we heard from Michael Beauvais, a doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto's faculty of law, who said:

...the best interests of the child should be included as a fundamental principle in the act. Doing so would make the child's interests a primary concern in all aspects of the proposed legislation. For example, the best interests of children should matter in specifying the purposes of data collection, use and disclosure, as well as data retention.

During meeting 92, on October 26, Vivek Krishnamurthy, associate professor of law at the University of Colorado law school, said:

Including language that says the best interests of the child need to be taken into consideration throughout the interpretation of the subsequent provisions means that if you're doing a legitimate interest analysis, that's going to impact that analysis by the company or other organization that's collecting and processing children's data.

During meeting 94, on November 2, interim director of the privacy, technology and surveillance program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Daniel Konikoff, alluded to the fact that the current legislation does not give people a fundamental right to privacy. He said:

First, Bill C-27 does not give fundamental rights their due and frequently puts them in second place, behind commercial interests. It has been said before but CCLA believes that it's worth emphasizing that Bill C-27 must be amended to recognize privacy as a human right, both in the CPPA and in AIDA, since privacy is something that should be respected at all points throughout data's life cycle.

The stakeholders and witnesses have been diligent in making the case for why we must include this critical amendment. As legislators who serve a democracy, it is crucial for us to draft legislation that listens to the voices of professionals in this field, and they have been very clear on this point.

I now want to further emphasize why it is important that this bill specify a fundamental right to privacy and a child's best interests in the preamble.

First, privacy has long been considered a fundamental right in Canada. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Privacy Act and territorial and provincial privacy legislation work together to protect Canadians' personal information held by governments or private institutions.

Recent trends and events have raised new concerns about whether personal information is adequately protected by governments and companies when this information travels outside of Canada's borders. With the increasing flow of computerized data across international borders, particularly to the United States, privacy concerns and the rights of Canadians to safeguard their personal information make it more important than ever to include the language of a fundamental right in the preamble of the bill.

In 1948, Canada signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is an integral part of protecting individual autonomy, dignity and the fundamental rights of people. We need to ensure that the text of this bill emphasizes this right, as article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Privacy is a fundamental right because it is intricately tied to our dignity and the enjoyment of other fundamental freedoms. Let me elaborate on this.

Privacy is not merely about keeping secrets. It's about control over our personal information. Our identities, beliefs and choices are deeply connected to the data we share. We heard that time and time again throughout all of our meetings.

Respecting privacy rights ensures that individuals maintain their dignity and autonomy. Think about some of the conversations we had during the meetings about what this would do to protect young people, who might make a really bad decision when they're young and online. We need to make sure that this law gets it right so that children have a right to have those bad decisions forgotten online and something is not following them throughout their entire careers and personal life. Essentially, it allows us to define who we are without undue interference, either intentionally or unintentionally.

In cases of conflict between private interests—such as convenience, business and security, as outlined in the bill—and public interest, privacy should always prevail. This balance acknowledges that, while innovation and security are essential, they must not come at the expense of individual privacy rights.

Privacy isn't an obstacle to progress. It is the catalyst that all of us have spoken so clearly on through this whole process. When people trust that their data is protected, they are more likely to engage in positive digital activities or even to use new technologies in a way that might help our economy, for example. Canada's innovation and competitiveness therefore rely on this amendment to provide a robust framework that encourages responsible data use.

Privacy will accelerate trust. When citizens feel their privacy is respected, they trust their institutions more. As digital citizens, we want to participate fully in society and the economy without compromising our fundamental privacy rights.

In summary, privacy is a fundamental right and is crucial for our digital age, which is why the preamble of the bill must highlight this right. It would ensure that we can benefit from technological advances while safeguarding our personal information and giving tools to the courts to make future decisions.

Secondly, I want to emphasize the importance of including the second half of the amendment, which states that “the processing of personal...data should respect minors' privacy and their best interests”. This line is vital at the beginning of the bill, as it sets a precedent and standard that should be followed throughout. This is especially important, as the bill proposes multiple clauses that are subject to a lot of regulation by the Department of Industry. By specifically indicating the precious needs of minors' data and in taking a nuanced approach that puts children first, we are putting protections that will hold future regulators and commissioners accountable to this fundamental concern, which we have all outlined during our meetings.

More specifically, the concept of the best interests of the child is, in fact, an international standard. It was first established in 1989, serving as a primary United Nations human rights treaty that focused on safeguarding children's rights. Article 3 states:

In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

This declaration underscores the universal recognition of the importance of prioritizing children's well-being and interests in all decision-making processes, particularly that, one, “the best interests of the child will be a primary consideration in all actions affecting children”; two, “there will be no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status”; three, states or parties that have signed it “recognize that every child has the inherent right to life and will ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child”; and four, “children will be assured the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with the child's age and level of maturity”.

Incorporating the best interests of the child into this legislative framework is not merely a legal obligation but a moral imperative for all of us. It reflects our commitment to nurturing environments where children can, where possible, thrive free from exploitation and harm, particularly in the digital realm, which we discussed at length. The digital landscape presents so many unique challenges and risks to our kids. We can get this done. With this robust safeguard, we can protect our kids. Embedding provisions that explicitly protect minors' privacy and prioritize their best interests within the legislative framework is essential.

Thank you so much.

Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON

Anyway, I think we're seeing the problem here.

Let me point this out. The government brought Bill C-27 through in June 2022. We waited a year—it was tabled before it was introduced. A bunch of amendments to this bill were brought.

Now we're debating the first amendment when we're not even sure there's going to be a schedule 2 or 3, and we're starting with that. I find that very problematic. It follows how this bill has been rolled out, introduced and debated as a whole. We sometimes have major issues with how we're bringing things through. I hope this is a learning experience for most people, but at this time, this is a bad way to bring an amendment forward to this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

She's an expert on Bill C-27.

Let me start by saying that I think, Mr. Schaan, they are linked. They're linked in the idea that one requires the other, in that one is one and two is two. This is important, just so you understand that, because of what schedule 2 says.

Perhaps I can enlighten the Liberal members who aren't aware of what schedule 2 says. Schedule 2 allows the government to moderate content Canadians can see online, and that's why these two are linked.

Let me quote directly from the amendment to schedule 2:

The use of an artificial intelligence system in

(a) moderating content that is found on an online communications platform, including a search engine or social media service; or

(b) prioritizing the presentation of such content.

To be clear, the government has given itself the ability, through this provision, which is linked to schedule 1 in the numbering, to regulate the design, function, presentation and use of AI systems on social media platforms as it relates to what content the government wants prioritized and moderated on social media platforms.

The minister's submission to the committee outlined that the purpose of the provision seeks to tackle the bias in AI. All AI, by the way, have biases. The powers provided to ISED in the regulation will allow it to go much beyond simply addressing the issue in AI systems. ISED has already confirmed this.

In speaking at the business leaders breakfast, hosted by McCarthy Tétrault advisers at the TD Bank tower in Toronto on November 7, 2023, Simon Kennedy, the deputy minister of ISED, told industry groups that the purpose of this provision in the minister's amendments to Bill C-27 seeks to tackle online misinformation. This could be accomplished through the minister's amendments to the AIDA, which are still very vague, and provide ISED with an incredible amount of power, including the legal authority to moderate online content to Canadians, as argued at this committee by Barry Sookman. Importantly, the provisions of the AIDA with regard to content moderation, as they relate to high-impact AI systems, have very few safeguards and are incredibly vague.

As Barry Sookman highlighted in his written submission to the committee, the provisions outlined in Bill C-27 will extend to “AI systems that filter, rank, or recommend content on platforms such as social media, search engines, or any digital service that curates or moderates”—