Bill C-27

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

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.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Going down that vein, in terms of comparing pieces of legislation in different jurisdictions, how would you characterize the framework in Europe—the GDPR—versus what's contained in Bill C-27 with relevance to the impact on innovation and the economy?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for their testimony on a very important piece of legislation.

If I may, I'll go to Mr. Goldfarb for the first question.

Mr. Goldfarb, you mentioned in your remarks that “Canada is a leader in AI research” and that AI and data-focused tools are promising for economic growth but obviously must be utilized. In that vein, you published an article in September 2023 called “The Economics of Digital Privacy”. I was wondering if you could elaborate in terms of how Bill C-27 would impact innovation, and thus productivity, and thus our standard of living through Canadian businesses and the economy, please.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Okay.

The U.K. model for privacy includes, as I believe the law in California does, certain thresholds. I believe the spirit of the law implies that children at different stages are able to make different types of decisions.

How would you see that type of prescriptive language being included in Bill C-27, which is before us today?

[Luk Arbuckle, Chief Methodologist and Privacy Officer, IQVIA Solutions Canada Inc.]

Thank you.

I'm very pleased to have been invited to participate in the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology on Bill C‑27. I hope to be able to answer your questions on privacy and artificial intelligence services and technologies.

Although my opening remarks will be in English, please know that I will be pleased to answer your questions in either French or English.

My name is Luk Arbuckle. I am chief methodologist and privacy officer at Privacy Analytics, an Ottawa-based IQVIA company employing over 100 privacy experts.

My role at Privacy Analytics is to ensure that our company and our global clients are aligned on the practical applications of privacy-enhancing technologies and to inform our practices based on current guidance and emerging methods. I also provide guidance on the practice and risks of applying artificial intelligence in real-life applications. My role has been largely informed by my time as director of technology analysis at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, when I also drafted guidance on anonymization for the office.

Privacy Analytics operates as an independent entity within the global IQVIA group of companies, so that we can provide both IQVIA and our global clients with services and technology for the safe and responsible use and sharing of data. The Privacy Analytics platform has been deployed globally to protect the privacy of close to one billion patients. For example, our software has enabled safe research that improves cancer outcomes for patients through the European oncology evidence network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology's CancerLinQ. We have also worked with multiple government agencies in Canada, Europe, the United States and globally to implement safe data access models that enable faster data access, promote research and innovation and implement data-driven decision-making.

It is against this backdrop that I wish to provide comments today. In particular, I will provide a perspective on the importance of health data and analytics for Canadians. Health care-related research is increasingly driven by analyses that draw from real-world evidence to reveal the effectiveness of treatments beyond the clinical trial phase. The success of that approach is predicated on the availability of the necessary data from various sources within the relevant health care system and on the ability to analyze data across different health care systems.

For Canada to take part in this new frontier of health care research, it is important that we prioritize a responsible data access model that strikes the appropriate balance between privacy and having useful data for the intended purposes. We also need a data protection framework that allows for efficient and effective data sharing and collaboration with stakeholders from all over the world, including the United States and Europe. As COVID-19 has shown, it is crucial that Canada stays active and competitive in life sciences. This means developing an approach to privacy that supports local research and innovation and allows health care research in Canada to align with efforts outside of the country.

I will only summarize three recommendations in my introductory remarks and invite you to consult IQVIA's full-length comment document on Bill C-27 for additional comments and details.

Recommendation one is to consider a reasonableness component within the definition of “anonymize”. The use of anonymized data in health care analytics is a key element in the research and innovation activities that help drive Canada's health care future. Canada's diverse group of health care stakeholders use anonymized information to identify inefficiencies and allocate resources more effectively, to speed up the development and approval of new treatments and to understand the needs of patients and health care professionals. Such uses of anonymized information contribute to better health outcomes and other notable benefits.

Including a reasonableness component within the bill's definition of anonymization would align better to other Canadian frameworks, such as Quebec's law 25 and Ontario's PHIPA. A reasonableness approach would also align better to the growing consensus in the academic and technical literature regarding the need for a realistic framing of risk in describing anonymized information. Take, for example, the risk-based international standard for an anonymization framework, technically known as ISO 27559. This technical standard was developed by experts from around the world and is consistent with the draft guidance I produced while at the OPC.

Recommendation two is to consider expanding the consent exception for “socially beneficial purposes” to include private sector organizations. A more principled approach would be to enable responsible data sharing between a broader range of actors while also mandating adequate oversight and data protection best practices.

Recommendation three is to consider a consent exception for external research, analysis and development purposes. Removing the internal qualifier would be a more beneficial approach, as it aligns with existing guidance and would enable a more useful model for health care research and innovation.

With that, I would like to thank the committee again for your time and for the opportunity to speak with you today. I strongly believe that it is possible to safely and responsibly use and share data in ways that protect privacy while driving innovation for the benefit of Canadians. I look forward to the continued discussions.

I will remain at your disposal during the discussion.

Thank you for your attention.

[Antoine Guilmain, Counsel and Co-Leader, National Cyber Security and Data Protection Practice Group, Gowling WLG, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you for inviting me to comment on Bill C‑27.

Although I'll be testifying in English today, I'll answer your questions in either French or English.

I'm co-leader of the national cybersecurity and data protection group at Gowling WLG. I'm a practising lawyer called to the bars of Quebec and Paris. My evidence today represents my own views. I'm here as an individual, not representing my law firm, clients or any third parties.

Much of my legal career has focused on comparative analysis of legal regimes across the globe, advising clients on their compliance obligations in the jurisdictions in which I am qualified to practice.

Bill C-27 presents a tremendous opportunity to modernize Canada's federal privacy regime. It is possible, and indeed essential, that Canada protects the rights and interests of the public while facilitating competition, investment and ambitious innovation.

Many of the proposals in the bill are highly impactful, but I will focus my comments today on the consumer privacy protection act and two areas in particular that I consider to be of great importance. First are lessons learned from Quebec's law 25.

The majority of the provisions under law 25 came into force in September 2023. Over the last summer, Gowling WLG, in collaboration with the Interactive Advertising Bureau of Canada, conducted a readiness survey of over 100 organizations regarding this new law. The results of the survey were clear. Industry was ill-prepared for such an implementation. Specifically, 69% of the respondents expressed a need for greater clarity, and 52% indicated that they lacked sufficient resources. This also highlights that the compliance burden for SMEs is especially high.

There are four specific learnings from Law 25 that I wish to highlight today.

First, Bill C-27 should not exceed standards set by the EU general data protection regulation. For example, legitimate interest is a flexible legal basis for processing, but it must always be justified and documented in a separate assessment under the GDPR and under other global laws. A similar standard could apply in Bill C-27.

Second, Bill C-27 should not rely on future regulations to substantiate each requirement. This is a recipe for delays and uncertainty. For example, in Quebec, anonymization is currently regarded by the regulator as impossible because the regulations are not yet in place.

Third, Bill C-27's timeline for implementation should be sufficiently long. Based on experience from law 25, implementation should be at least 36 months after the bill becomes law.

Finally, Bill C-27 should be aligned with law 25 on key concepts, including around the legal bases for processing data and legitimate business exceptions. This is especially important when it comes to children's privacy.

I'm a father of two young children, so protecting children in the digital economy is important to me personally, and it's a subject that I engage with regularly in the course of my work. I believe amendments to Bill C-27 are necessary to ensure that minors' data is reasonably, meaningfully and consistently protected.

I wish to highlight four key topics for consideration.

First, as opposed to the GDPR, Bill C-27 lacks a threshold for determining when services are intended to target children. Practically, organizations will not be able to remain age-blind and will therefore have to ask the age of users each time they engage with them, to the potential detriment of user privacy interests and data minimization.

Alternative legal bases for processing should be available, depending on the maturity process of the individual. Specifically, legal capacity should be a baseline for assessing legitimate bases as opposed to the age of majority alone.

The process for collecting parental consent can be extremely complicated. Bill C-27 should set a specific age at which parental consent is required. Under 14 years of age seems the most reasonable standard.

Finally, the concept of the best interest of the child should be positioned as a key determinant of how minors' personal information should be treated, rather than relying primarily on the concept of express consent.

With the chair's permission, I would be pleased to submit a copy of the survey report for the committee's consideration, as well as a short written brief in French and English on the issues I've addressed in my opening remarks.

I wish to thank Michael Walsh for his assistance in preparing this material.

Thank you. I look forward to answering the committee's questions.

[Michelle Gordon, Lawyer and Founder, GEM Privacy Consulting, As an Individual]

Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee for its important review of Bill C-27.

I'm a privacy lawyer and consultant based in Toronto. Having worked in the privacy field for over 15 years while raising three sons, I have a passion for children's privacy, and I will focus my remarks on this area today.

My interest in privacy law was sparked when I was a law student down the street at the University of Ottawa, where I did research with Professor Michael Geist and the late Professor Ian Kerr at the time when PIPEDA was a new bill being debated similarly to today's. When Professor Geist appeared here a few weeks ago, he reflected on his first appearance before committee to discuss PIPEDA, noting that it was important to get it right, rather than to get it fast. When Professor Kerr appeared in 2017 to discuss PIPEDA reform, he stated that, at the time, “the dominant metaphor was George Orwell's 1984, 'Big Brother is Watching You'”, noting that technological developments in the years since PIPEDA go well beyond watching.

Both professors Geist and Kerr were right, especially in the context of children's privacy. Given that children are inundated with emerging technologies well beyond Orwell's 1984—from AI tools to ed tech, virtual reality and our current reality of watching war and its accompanying hatred unfold on social media—it is more important than ever to get it right when it comes to children's privacy.

When Bill C-11 was introduced in late 2020, it didn't address children at all. As I argued in a Policy Options article in 2021, this was a missed opportunity, given that the amount of online activity for children was at an all-time high during the pandemic.

I commend the legislators for addressing children's privacy in Bill C-27 by stating that “information of minors is considered to be sensitive” and by including language that could provide minors with a more direct route to delete their personal information, otherwise known as the right to be forgotten. I also understand that Minister Champagne proposes further amendments to include stronger protections for minors.

However, as the first witness stated, I think there is more the law can do to get it right for children's privacy. I will focus on two points: first, creating clear definitions, and second, looking to leading jurisdictions for guidance.

First, the law should define the terms “minor” and “sensitive”. Without these definitions, businesses, which already have the upper hand in this law, are left to decide what is sensitive and appropriate for minors. The CPPA should follow the lead of other leading privacy laws. The California Consumer Privacy Act, the U.S. COPPA, the EU's GDPR and Quebec's law 25 all establish a minimum age for consent ranging from 13 to 16.

Further, the law should explicitly define the term “sensitive”. The current wording recognizes that minors' data is sensitive, which means that other provisions in the statute have to interpret the treatment of sensitive information through a contextual analysis, whether it be for safeguarding, consent or retention. Similar to Quebec's law 25, the law should define “sensitive” and provide non-exhaustive examples of sensitive data so that businesses, regulators and courts will have more guidance in applying the legislative framework.

Second, I recommend that you consider revising the law—as an amendment or regulation—in order to align the CPPA with leading jurisdictions, namely the age-appropriate design code legislation in the U.K. and California. Both of these demonstrate a more prescriptive approach to regulating the personal information of children.

The California kids code requires businesses to prioritize the privacy of children by default and in the design of their products. For example, default settings on apps and platforms for users under 18 must be set to the highest privacy level. This is something that could be considered in the CPPA as well.

Further, the California code establishes a level of fiduciary care for platforms such that, if a conflict of interest arises between what is best for the platform and what is best for a user under 18, the children's best interest must come first. This is consistent with the recommendation of former commissioner Therrien and others in these hearings about including language around the “best interest of the child” in the legislation.

The CPPA should contemplate requirements for how businesses use children's data, considering the child's best interest. For example, use of children's data could be limited to those actions necessary to provide an age-appropriate service.

As I argued in my Policy Options article in January 2023, we need a collaborative approach that includes lawmakers and policy-makers from all levels of government, coordination with global privacy laws, engagement with parents and coordination with educators. For this approach to work, the law needs to strike the balance between privacy and innovation. We want laws that are flexible enough to last so that technology can evolve, new business ideas can succeed, and children can be innovators while growing up in a world that recognizes their special needs and rights.

[Professor Avi Goldfarb, Professor of Marketing and Rotman Chair, Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you for your kind invitation to appear before the committee and discuss Bill C-27.

I'm a professor of marketing at the University of Toronto, where I hold the Rotman chair in artificial intelligence and health care. My research focuses on the economics of information technology, including several papers on privacy regulation and on artificial intelligence.

Canada is a leader in AI research. Many of the core technologies underlying the recent excitement about AI were developed right here at Canadian universities. At the same time, our productivity is lacking. My research has shown that AI and related data-focused tools are particularly promising technologies for accelerating innovation, productivity and economic growth. In my view, a big worry for the Canadian economy going forward is that we do not have enough AI, and so our standard of living, including our ability to fund health care and education, would stagnate. It would be a shame if Canada's research success did not lead to applications that increase Canadian prosperity.

This act is a careful attempt to ensure that Canadians benefit from AI and related data-focused technologies while protecting privacy and reducing the potential for these technologies to harm individuals.

Next, I'll provide specific comments on AI regulation in part 3 and on privacy regulation in part 1. I have specific comments [Technical difficulty—Editor] intelligence and data act.

First, the act correctly recognizes that there is always a human or a team of humans behind decisions enabled by AI. In part 1, proposed subsection 5(2) is commendable for noting that “a person is responsible for an artificial intelligence system”. Proposed sections 7 through 9 make these responsibilities clear. In my experience, such clarity about the role of humans in AI systems is both unusual and commendable.

Second, the act constructively defines explainability and transparency in part 1, proposed sections 11 and 12. By making it clear how and why the high-impact system is being used rather than focusing on the inner workings of the algorithm, it will provide useful information without forcing potentially misleading oversimplification of how the algorithms work.

Third, while the details of the act itself implicitly recognize the role of AI in Canadian prosperity, the preamble to the AI and data act does not recognize that technological progress is fundamental to our prosperity, and instead focuses only on regulation and harms.

Fourth, there are two sections of the act that might create incentives not to adopt beneficial AI because the liability is not explicitly benchmarked around some human performance level [Technical difficulty—Editor] and safety.

In part 1 of the AI act, proposed subsection 5(1) examines bias. The bias definition suggests that any bias would be prohibited. AI systems will almost surely be imperfect, because they're likely to be trained on imperfect and biased human decisions. Therefore, this definition of biased output incentivizes the continued use of biased human decision-making processes over potentially less biased but auditable AI-supported decisions.

In part 2 of the AI act, proposed paragraph 39(a) examines physical and psychological harm or physical damage. As with bias, the benchmark seems to be perfection. For example, autonomous vehicles will almost surely cause serious physical harm and substantial property damage, because vehicles are dangerous. If the autonomous vehicle system, however, generates much less harm than the current human driving systems, then it would be beneficial to enable its adoption.

The fifth comment on the AI and data act is about the definition of an AI system in proposed section 2 of the AI act: “the use of a genetic algorithm, a neural network, machine learning or other technique in order to generate content or make decisions, recommendations, or predictions.” This definition is overly broad. It includes regression analysis and could even be interpreted to include the calculation of averages. For example, if an employer receives thousands of applications for a job, calculates the average score on some standardized test and uses that score to autonomously select above-average applications to be sent to a human resource worker for further examination, that scoring rule would be an AI system, as I understand it, under the current definition.

I have two specific comments about the consumer privacy protection act.

First, the purpose of the act in proposed section 5 clearly lays out the often competing goals of protecting privacy while facilitating economic activity. While I do understand the wishful thinking that there would be no trade-offs between privacy and innovation, research has consistently documented such trade-offs. Privacy is not free, but it is valuable. Individuals care about their privacy. In protecting privacy, this act will require companies [Technical difficulty—Editor] on legal expertise for interpretation. Such expertise is readily available for large, established companies, but onerous for small businesses and start-ups. In the implementation by the commissioner, some direction to reduce any unnecessary burden on small businesses and start-ups would be constructive.

Proposed subsection 15(5) makes the cost of an audit payable by the person audited even if the Privacy Commissioner does not bring a successful case. This creates a large burden on small and new businesses if they get audited unnecessarily.

To conclude, while I have specific suggestions to clarify the language of the act, in my view Bill C-27 is a careful attempt to ensure that Canadians benefit from AI and related data-focused technologies while protecting privacy and reducing the potential of these technologies to harm individuals.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss my research. I look forward to hearing your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to meeting No. 98 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.

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'd like to welcome our witnesses today. We have Michael Beauvais, a doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, by videoconference; Avi Goldfarb, a professor of marketing and the Rotman chair at the University of Toronto Rotman School of Management; Michelle Gordon, lawyer and founder of GEM Privacy Consulting; Antoine Guilmain, counsel and co‑leader of National Cyber Security and Data Protection Practice Group at Gowling WLG; and Luk Arbuckle, chief methodologist and privacy officer at IQVIA Solutions Canada Inc.

Each of you will have five minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you all for taking the time to join us in this study this afternoon. Without further ado, I'll give the floor to Mr. Beauvais for five minutes.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is very proactive on many files.

However, as the saying goes, the longer we wait, the worse things get. That is what happened with the Competition Act. The government could have taken action years ago. If it had, we would not be stuck with these huge monopolies, especially in the grocery sector, that have pushed prices up with margins that benefit them, rather than producers or processors, and that have doubled prices for consumers.

The same goes for telecommunications, gasoline and banks. Costs have gone up because this government did not act in time. It waited too long to introduce Bill C-27. It also waited too long to introduce the bill to amend the Copyright Act.

When will the government take action? Can the minister assert his legislative power to ensure that these files actually get debated? Right now, it seems to me that there is no movement on his side.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Listen, I don't want to be here. I don't want to have to deal with this issue. I wish it wasn't happening. The reality is that the importance of this is not just for the Windsor area. It's also for the Volkswagen plant. It's also for Quebec, later on, and British Columbia. This is about getting it right. We're doing a massive subsidization for the right reason: to keep up with our challenges from the United States and the challenges of an industry that's transitioning. I'd rather have Canadians trained through this process, so they can be used as specialists in the future.

Like the member from Windsor—Tecumseh, I worked on the shop floor at the Windsor assembly plant. I worked in the tool and die industry and as a job developer for persons with disabilities, placing people in these shops. I know the jobs and how important they are.

There's a serious issue here with regard to the investment we're making and the lack of training opportunities in place. We've had 18 months to get this right. Now we have to get it right. It's falling on the surface here because we haven't put in the time and work necessary. I'd like to know whether anybody knows about the specifics of the jobs we can't actually fill and accommodate. I think it was Mr. Williams who referred to one position that was there, a clerical position. I'd even challenge some of the technical positions.

Lee in Windsor has been building automotive components and vehicles for over 100 years. Facts be told, quite frankly, originally Jim Flaherty was opposed to an intervention on the GM and Chrysler issues of the day. He said he didn't want to “pick winners and losers”. However, the evidence was put in front of him, and he changed. He deserves a lot of credit.

In fact, we made money in the past by doing auto investment for Chrysler in 1985. We invested to save Chrysler at that point in time, and it paid dividends back to taxpayers. I'm not afraid of bringing out some of the highlights in terms of why the investment makes sense and why we have to be in the game, for so many different reasons. If we're going to be in the game and put taxpayers' money on the line, there's every expectation it should be based on transparency and measurables. We've had the Parliamentary Budget Officer in front of us talking about some of those things.

I don't see this as a Conservative witch hunt with regard to a particular issue. I see this as a factual thing we have to bring forward, because it's going to have a pattern that will come after that. Again, would I like to be doing Bill C-27? Absolutely. Do I want to have to deal with this? No, I don't, but the reality is that we don't have a national auto policy that is transparent. We go from Hail Mary pass to Hail Mary pass at the last minute on these deals every single time. That's why people have concerns. I have every confidence that when we shed light on the importance of these jobs and on the importance of the workers who will get these jobs—if they're Canadians—the value will be there for the rest of Canada.

Yes, it's going to be a very difficult thing to go through in some respects, because company officials and others will have to come forward and talk about different things. At the same time, it's responsible of us. We don't need to make other communities go through what we're going through right now. It's not fun for me, as the member for Windsor West—who represents three-fifths of the city of Windsor and comes from an auto tradition—to go through this. However, I still believe in the industry. I believe in the people. I believe in what we're doing. If we can make it better for the other developments and economic investments we're doing, we're all better off at the end of the day, and we're doing our jobs as parliamentarians. Sometimes doing your job is not comfortable. It's not something you want to do, but you have to fight for it.

I'll finish with this: We had to do the same thing with the Gordie Howe bridge. We were building a new bridge in my riding. For years, we were told we couldn't do it and shouldn't do it. It was often put into politics. We faced off against an American billionaire. We faced off against the OMERS company pension fund. We defeated bad proposals to get the right thing done after a lot of work and effort. Do you know what? I'd rather put in some work and effort here, for a few meetings, to make this better for everybody. I'm not afraid to speak about the value of investing in the people of Windsor—Tecumseh and Essex county at any point in time.

We need the support, because it's not our fault that the United States is poaching manufacturing jobs. That's what they've been going after. At the same time, I can't turn my back on my responsibility as a parliamentarian to make sure taxpayers' dollars are being spent in the best way possible.

That's the balance, and that's the balance that I see in the motion that we're looking at and in what we're trying to do. Again, would I rather be doing something else? I would, 100%. Why am I here? It's because we have poor planning and a poor commitment to making sure that taxpayers understand what their dollars are going for.

That's why the NDP has always consistently called for a national auto policy that's also been crafted by the workers. When we get to that point and that day, maybe we won't have meetings like this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Vis. I know you don't have the floor either, but I appreciate your response. Maybe when you get the floor, you can respond.

I was on that committee, and it's my experience that Conservatives are being inconsistent with the arguments they have made on other committees.

We also know that this particular conversation isn't really about temporary foreign workers at all, because only one has been approved so far. What's interesting, though, is that one of the facts you've conveniently left out of your arguments is that an article today on the CBC has basically elucidated a fact about the trade agreement under Stephen Harper. When your current leader was in power as the employment minister—or I think it was just before that—there was a trade agreement negotiated with South Korea that included labour mobility provisions, which essentially opened the door for South Koreans to work in Canada under those labour mobility provisions. The free trade agreement that the Conservatives set up actually allows individuals to do that.

Now, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, because I think what you need to understand, as my colleague PS Kusmierczyk said very eloquently, is that a battery manufacturing facility in Canada, the first of its kind, is going to require some specialized skill sets to get it up and running.

I think that's common sense. Conservatives talk about common sense. Where's their common sense today? Do you not understand—

That's through you, Chair. I mean to be respectful.

I think common sense says that when you haven't run one of these facilities, you're going to probably have some intercompany transfers at the beginning to help to install equipment and train local workers to run that facility. I think that's what we're seeing here.

The key here is that the job numbers that have been quoted are solid. There are 2,300 local jobs during the construction phase and 2,500 local jobs in the operational phase of the facility. Those are significant numbers of local jobs. We've heard Mr. Kusmierczyk speak to how important that is to his community, how much that represents a truly substantial growth in the local economy and gives people hope.

I think we have been saying all along during our mandate as the governing party that really building the economy of the future.... I get it that Conservatives don't agree on this. They don't see the economy of the future as fighting climate change and drawing in local jobs and investment. In fact, I keep hearing that they don't want direct foreign investment.

We heard today—we heard the finance minister repeat this, and the minister for innovation repeated it as well—that Canada is number one in the world in foreign direct investment when you adjust per capita. It's number three when you don't make that adjustment, but we're number one when you adjust it per capita.

I don't understand why the Conservatives want to kick up dirt on this and try to create the misperception that somehow this is bad for Canada or local jobs. This is not bad for local jobs. I think we know that it's good for local jobs.

The other point that I'll make is that a tweet is not a report. I find it strange that this Standing Order 106(4) emergency debate is the result of a tweet from the Windsor police department. My dad was a detective and inspector for Peel Regional Police, so I don't have anything against police. I would just say that it doesn't make sense to me that you would consider that as factual, versus the very clear job numbers that our government has provided.

I guess the only other thing I want to say is that it feels that Conservatives are opposed to everything. They're opposed to the offshore wind industry in Atlantic Canada. They're blocking the sustainable jobs act, which puts workers at the centre of the energy transition. They're opposed to legislation banning replacement workers, and we saw today in the House that they're opposed to a free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

I don't understand they can oppose all of these things so frequently, things that are good for workers and good for our country, things that bring in investment and are part of that vision of building a stronger, sustainable economy that is prosperous and creates all kinds of good-paying jobs.

I wish we could get to a point here, based on facts, and understand that the work of Bill C-27 that this committee has before it is imperative to getting the legislation through. I just hope we can come to our senses here.

Thanks, Chair.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have quite a few things to say, but I appreciate the debate.

We're in a situation here on the day of the fall economic statement, which is fine. Members have chosen to call a meeting under Standing Order 106(4), which is normally meant to apply to an emergency meeting. Obviously there are enough members who feel that this an urgent debate that should take precedence over government legislation, which is Bill C-27, which I think we've all agreed is a really high priority for this committee.

I have quite a few concerns with some of the assertions that members opposite have made, which I don't feel are factual, and I will say why.

This feels to me like another delay tactic on Bill C-27, which I think again we have all....

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee members, for responding and coming today. I know that some would probably like to be in the chamber right now, but there we go.

For those who are watching us right now, and not the Minister of Finance , perhaps I could start by explaining what we're doing here. It is that we—a number of the opposition members—moved a motion or sent a letter requesting that we have a special meeting to discuss the media reports, which came out late last week, that up to 1,600 jobs at Stellantis, the new EV plant in Windsor, would be filled by residents of South Korea.

I know that some claim that this is not the case, but for some strange reason, the ambassador from South Korea actually thinks it's the case, since the ambassador for South Korea held a number of meetings in Windsor with Windsor officials, saying that they needed to find accommodations in Windsor for 1,600 people from South Korea who are coming to work at the battery plant.

Obviously, this is a great concern. It's a great concern because I go back to the original announcement of the EV battery plant for Stellantis in Windsor. I believe it was back in March. The first one was before President Biden brought out the IRA. It was an agreement from, I believe, the federal government to pay about half a billion dollars of the construction costs of this new plant, under the strategic investment fund, the SIF program of ISED. At that time, the Minister of Industry said that this was great news for Canadian jobs.

Subsequent to that, when the IRA came in from President Biden, the government signed another contract with Volkswagen, as we all know, in southwestern Ontario. This was a contract of $778 million in federal government subsidy to subsidize the building of that plant, and another $15 billion of subsidy for the battery assembly—not manufacturing. These are assembly plants.

Just so people are clear, these are assembly plants that right now are not manufacturing batteries but are actually assembling batteries for EVs. Right now in the world, 80% of the parts for EV batteries are manufactured in China. These parts will be coming over to Canada and will be put into this plant to be assembled into batteries, which would then go, in most cases, into the U.S., where the cars will be assembled.

Contrary to assertions that the minister made today and that others have made, the Conservatives actually have not said whether we support or don't support these, because we haven't seen the contracts. It's hard to make a judgment on whether or not we have a good deal when you haven't seen the contracts, particularly contracts that require $15 billion in taxpayer subsidies.

In essence, what we have is a secret contract that has some sort of job commitments in it, but clearly not job commitments that require Canadians to be hired, since the ambassador from Korea is saying that they're going to bring in 1,600 people from South Korea to assemble the batteries—primarily manufactured in China and assembled here—to go to the U.S. to be assembled in vehicles that will be put together in the U.S., with presumably most of them sold in the U.S.

In the absence of having the details of that contract, it's impossible for taxpayers to understand whether or not there is a contract that compels Stellantis and their subsidiary, now in Windsor, to actually hire Canadians. One would think that if you're going to give that level of subsidy, you would actually put into the contract that the job commitments are for Canadian jobs.

We are here now to discuss doing an urgent meeting, or several meetings, as I think we need, to get to the bottom of this issue of why a contract was signed that allows a Korean car company to bring in workers from South Korea, as the ambassador from South Korea has said publicly they will do, rather than hiring Canadians

With that, Mr. Chair, just to frame the discussion, I'd like to move a study motion, if I could. I believe the clerk has a copy of it, and I'll read the motion:

Given that the Government of Canada gave a multi-billion dollar subsidy for an EV battery manufacturing facility in Windsor, Ontario, and that in recent days it has been revealed that as many as 1600 jobs will be going to foreign workers instead of Canadian workers, the committee undertake a 6 meeting investigation to determine how the Government of Canada structured a deal that prioritizes foreign workers over Canadian jobs and paycheques, and that the committee hears testimony from: the Minister of Industry, for 2 hours, the Minister of Finance, for 2 hours,

—who has obviously been very vocal on this—

the Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada, the Mayor of Windsor, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Officials from the Department of Industry, the CEO of NextStar, Danis Lee, Unifor national president Lana Payne and all other witnesses deemed relevant by the committee, and the committee order the full unredacted contract with Stellantis—LG regarding NextStar EV battery manufacturing facility in Windsor, Ontario, all documents related to government funding and Canadian job creation at the proposed factory, the Labour Market Impact Assessment application from Stellantis and the government’s response, and that these documents be produced within seven days of this motion being adopted.

For the purpose of framing the debate—and I'm sure there will be some discussion from various parties on elements of that—we are putting it on the table as a starting point, as we always do in this committee, as a collegial committee, to discuss how we can go about discussing this urgent thing. I don't think it can wait until the new year or after we are done Bill C-27, which won't be until the new year, because this issue is happening now.

There are 130 people, according to the public reports, now working on this project. The company itself and Minister Wilkinson, in fact, have said that 100 of the people who are already working on this project are from South Korea. Most of the employees to date are not South Koreans who are residents of Canada; they are South Koreans who have come here from South Korea as the starting point of this 1,600-person hiring that the ambassador of South Korea says that Stellantis is doing.

I know there's a speaking list. I'll leave it at that for now, Mr. Chair, and turn it over to others who want to make an intervention.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You mentioned that Bill C-27 is the status quo, and I appreciate that. It's basically making them use plain English, but it's still putting the onus on the person rather than the corporation.

Will more legislation be needed to properly regulate social media platforms, in your opinion?

[Sharon Polsky]

One of the things we see in existing Canadian and foreign legislation is consent that has no granularity. You have to consent to the organization collecting information from you and about you. It'll be shared with its business partners and affiliates. You don't know who those are, where in the world they are or what they're going to do with it.

Bill C-27 maintains the status quo, except it's going to have to be in simple, non-legalese English. It doesn't change anything. It's not granular. We need granularity.

Actually, the Quebec government has a new piece of legislation that was enacted about a year ago. The consent portion of it came into effect in September this year. It is better. It's not what it needs to be. It still gives the organizations the reins.

We need to turn it around so that the organizations are compelled to comply with legislation and be rated on their compliance by an independent organization that creates a publicly available index, if you will. We can then all go to this index and determine whether or not we want to deal with an organization based on its compliance with the legislation. It is then up to us to give our consent.