No, but it's all part of one bill. It's all part of the same bill, Bill C-27.
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal
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.
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.
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.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
No, but it's all part of one bill. It's all part of the same bill, Bill C-27.
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
However, presumably the Department of Justice drafted this bill and this was the only schedule in the original Bill C-27. As such, it didn't need a number, or they would have numbered it. Now you're amending it for more precision to say it's schedule 1 for a reason, which is not that there isn't another schedule, but that you had already numbered the other schedule.
It's a simple question in the sense that you have one schedule in the bill that you're renumbering and you have another schedule that's new in an amendment you're proposing. You can't have two schedules that don't have numbers, so you've said in the opening of the bill that you're calling the one existing schedule schedule 1 because you have a future amendment.
Is that not the case?
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
I think that's a separate question about the consideration of this legal project, which is known as the digital charter implementation act, and the three bills contained within it. Notwithstanding that they're being contemplated and considered as one legal project, Bill C-27, they will become stand-alone legislation insomuch as the statutes of Canada will be amended to include a statute called the CPPA, a statute called the AIDA and a statute related to the tribunal.
I appreciate where you're coming from. In effect, once and if Bill C-27 passes, AIDA would become its own stand-alone piece of legislation. As well, the CPPA would become its own stand-alone piece of legislation.
The two schedules would not interact with one another. This is purely a recommendation made by the Department of Justice for the appropriate reading of the CPPA once it's promulgated.
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Clerk. According to the current schedule, one hour would be allocated to the Rio Tinto representatives on April 17. Another hour would then be allocated to the minister. This isn't confirmed, but it would be in addition to the main estimates sometime in May.
As I was saying, I would like to thank the witnesses for starting this process with us. As everyone knows, April and May are set aside for clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill C‑27. We'll be seeing each other often over the coming weeks.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which concerns the short title and the preamble, is postponed.
The chair calls clause 2.
(Clause 2)
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Masse.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
I'm glad to see that we are all in good spirits after two weeks in our constituencies. It fills me with hope as we embark on this journey to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-27.
Once again, I would like to welcome the witnesses, who are here to answer our questions throughout the process.
We're meeting with Mark Schaan, senior assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation policy sector in the Department of Industry; Samir Chhabra, director general, marketplace framework policy branch; and Runa Angus, senior director, strategy and innovation policy sector.
Mr. Garon, you have the floor.
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
First, I will point out to Mr. Masse that the labour force survey, the work that Statistics Canada does on understanding Canada's economy, goes far beyond the parameters of the census. I want the right data from the right people at the right committee to study the right problems that Canadians are raising with all of us right now.
It was during a period of time when Parliament wasn't sitting that the Bank of Canada made this announcement. I, as an opposition MP, have only so many tools at my disposal to raise the issues that the business community in Canada is very concerned about, and this is right at the top of the list. If I was not using my ability as an opposition member to raise a motion in committee with regard to a story that really has a lot of people concerned in Canada's business community, I wouldn't be doing my job effectively. They need to know that we're listening; my constituents need to know that I'm listening. The private sector doesn't get a lot of attention from this government right now. I have to do my job, and that's what I'm doing here in good faith, so I don't know why you're attacking me so strongly this morning. This was done in good faith, and I didn't want to do it in a way that would disrupt Bill C-27.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll try to keep this short. I'm also sure that the purpose of this motion is to delay our work. I even wondered whether to speak.
I have a question for everyone. What's the point of meeting as a subcommittee, planning, working diligently, agreeing on something, adopting a report and then completely contradicting what we unanimously adopted five minutes ago? There was filibustering for much of the meeting. What type of organization or committee does things of this nature? It makes no sense.
Honestly, I'm not sure that the Conservatives are all that interested in productivity. It's clearly a political ploy to make the news. Why weren't immigration policy experts proposed? We have a Canadian immigration policy, which aims to bring cheap labour and vulnerable people to Canada in large numbers. There isn't anything to challenge this. From an electoral standpoint, it helps the Conservatives and the Liberals. There isn't anything in this.
They weren't interested in productivity when it came to implementing policies that boosted oil exports from the west. I have an important point to make. When the Conservatives' policies are put in place, when more oil is exported, the Canadian dollar appreciates. This completely stifles Canada's industrial heartland in Quebec and Ontario.
We should be having these conversations long before the proposed conversations with the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the chief statistician. The Conservatives have shown little regard for them, as my colleagues said.
I would like us to remain consistent. At the last meeting, we could discuss other topics. We agreed on something. I'm a person who still believes that words have value. As a result, I think that we should continue our legislative work. Despite our disagreements on Bill C‑27, we should continue to work diligently, as quickly as possible.
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Good morning, Chair.
I'm happy to see everyone this morning. Happy Monday to everyone.
First, to my colleague MP Vis, I was very happy to hear you say “the independent Bank of Canada”. That was very important. I thank you for putting on the record that the Bank of Canada is independent. I know your Leader of the Opposition wanted at one time to fire the Bank of Canada governor, and said that publicly. I think the independence of the Bank of Canada is very important for institutional integrity for many reasons, so I'm glad you put that on the record, Brad.
I want to get clarification on whether these meetings would be in addition to the meetings on Bill C-27.
We all want to have a strong economy with strong growth, and to create good jobs. I think yesterday's announcement on the AI front was part of that endeavour, and it continues to be.
I'm going to stop there. I look forward to getting to Bill C-27 and doing clause-by-clause.
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Today's meeting is supposed to get into clause-by-clause analysis. Mr. Vis has brought this motion. I would note that we just unanimously passed the subcommittee report on agenda. We had a very productive meeting, which resulted in this report that we just passed unanimously. It has a schedule that outlines all of our meetings and how we'll spend them, and the priorities we've agreed to. I will say we came to a consensus on this through a very productive conversation.
Our committee schedule seems to be quite full. The Conservatives keep bringing up many other topics they would like to study. It's certainly their prerogative to do so, but there are only so many things you can fit into an agenda. We've all agreed that Bill C-27 and its clause-by-clause are the priority to get through.
I feel like these things keep being brought up in order to delay Bill C-27. I want to know whether the intention of this, Mr. Vis, is to delay getting to Bill C-27, or whether the Conservatives are legitimately interested in studying this. In that case, I would say the most appropriate time is when we finish Bill C-27 or the other items that we've come to agreement on. I'm not sure. It might be the fall by the time we actually get to something like this.
If the Conservatives want to replace this with one of their other priorities, which they've set out in our discussions...there are a number of them here. There are number five and number six, and number five was definitely a Conservative.... Maybe you want to substitute one of the other things to have a meeting on this topic.
I wonder if the Conservatives could clarify what the intention is here. Is it to delay Bill C-27, or is it to study this? Which other priority of theirs would they like to substitute this for?
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Briefly, to my colleague Mr. Masse regarding the information presented by Statistics Canada, this deserves to be raised at the industry committee. It's not every day the Bank of Canada talks about a crisis of productivity in this country. I know we're about to commence Bill C-27 amendments but I'm hoping, with the will of this committee, we can have extra meetings to discuss some very serious concerns raised by the business community in Canada and the independent Bank of Canada and to hear from Statistics Canada on the alarming trends they are outlining in their regular reporting to Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Friends and colleagues, welcome to meeting number 116 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.
I call this meeting to order.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.
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.
Before we start, colleagues, I would just like us to adopt the seventh report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, the steering committee, as we call it.
You've all received it, and I would seek your consent to adopt the steering committee's report.
Are there any comments on the steering committee report?
Apparently not.
Is there unanimous consent to adopt the subcommittee's report?
I'm getting nods. Wonderful.
Before we begin clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill C‑27, Mr. Vis would like to speak.
Mr. Vis, we're listening.
Anita Anand Liberal Oakville, ON
As I said, I spoke with Minister Virani. He's currently looking at the next steps for Bill C‑27. At the same time, I'll be issuing an amended version of our directive on privacy impact assessment.
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Well, first of all, I'm not sure that I've seen the motion in writing. It would be really helpful to have a copy of it. If the clerk has that, I would like to read it.
Obviously, ideologically, the Conservatives don't believe in climate change. They want to cut the rebates for Canadians. That seems to be something they're pushing as a false narrative constantly in denying the fact that eight out of 10 families get more money back than they pay, but that's beside the point.
I think we've all agreed to an agenda in our subcommittee meeting. The report was tabled in this committee as a whole. We all approved that unanimously, and we have a number of priorities that are set out in that agenda that do not include this particular study as the top priority. I think our agreement has been to follow through on that plan. We've seen the Conservatives time and time again try to insert additional studies into that agenda, which is fine—it's their prerogative to do so—but it seems like there's so many competing priorities they have that they can't pick which one they want to study first.
My sense is that we have to finish our work on Bill C-27, which is the top priority. I think all of us recognize the importance of that bill. We know that generally government legislation is supposed to take priority, although of course committees are masters of their own domain, but that has been our agreement. I think that quite rightfully we owe it to Canadians to update the privacy legislation, which is 20 years old, and to have a framework for regulating artificial intelligence. I think that that should be the top priority.
If, when that is complete, Conservatives want to change some of the other priorities that they've set out and prioritize this particular motion, then perhaps we can have that debate at that time, but for now I don't see how we can fit this in, and it doesn't make sense that this would somehow supervene the other priorities that have already been agreed to and identified with a set committee schedule that I think has to stay in place. We have witnesses lined up and committee meetings scheduled. We're all planning for those, and we have to get to clause-by-clause on Bill C-27.
Those are my perspectives. I'm sure other committee members will share theirs.
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
The important thing is that we not delay the study of Bill C‑27, but that we hear from these people in short order. I can accept that we meet the Rio Tinto people for an hour and the minister for an hour, but we'd prefer it to be during the same meeting. We can then assess the need for an additional meeting, but we have to respect the timetable we've given ourselves for studying Bill C-27. I therefore suggest that we convene all these people as soon as possible, ideally for April 8, when we return, which will also give them time to prepare.