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.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses.

I was pleased to see Quebec hosting an important forum on framing artificial intelligence last week, with a number of players in attendance. Even though the data is lacking, we're starting to see some interesting impact studies. I wanted to point that out.

My first question is for you, Mr. McKelvey.

In your speech, you talked about Bill C‑27. I should point out that our committee is not studying this bill. Another committee is studying it. One of my colleagues told me that the committee had only reached data protection in its study of the bill. Therefore, the committee hasn't yet gotten into the real challenges posed by artificial intelligence.

You have made us aware that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities could study the effects of Bill C‑27. In your opinion, should the two committees do it simultaneously rather than one after the other? Can you tell us more about that?

[Professor Fenwick McKelvey, Associate Professor, Information and Communication Technology Policy, Concordia University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak here today.

I'm an associate professor in information and communication technology policy at Concordia University. My research addresses the intersection of algorithms and AI in relation to technology policy. I submit these comments today in my professional capacity, representing my views alone.

I'm speaking from the unceded indigenous lands of Tiohtià:ke or Montreal. The Kanienkehaka nation is recognized as the custodians of the lands and waters from which I join you today.

I want to begin by connecting this study to the broader legislative agenda and then providing some specific comments about the connections between foundational models trained off public data or other large datasets and the growing concentration in the AI industry.

Canada is presently undergoing major changes to its federal data and privacy law through C-27, which grants greater exemptions for data collection as classified for legitimate business purposes. These exemptions enable greater use of machine learning and other data-dependent classes of AI technologies, putting tremendous pressure on a late amendment, the artificial intelligence and data act, to mitigate high-risk applications and plausible harms. Labour, automation, workers' privacy and data rights should be important considerations for this bill as seen in the U.S. AI executive order. I would encourage this committee to study the effects of C-27 on workplace privacy and the consequences of a more permissive data environment.

As for the relationship between labour and artificial intelligence, I wish to make three major observations based on my review of the literature, and a few recommendations. First, AI will affect the labour force, and these effects will be unevenly distributed. Second, AI's effects are not simply about automation but about the quality of work. Third, the current arrangement of AI is concentrating power in a few technology firms.

I grew up in St. John, New Brunswick, under the shadow of global supply chains and a changing workforce. My friends all worked in call centres. Now these same jobs will be automated by chatbots, or at least assisted through generative AI. My own research has shown that a driving theme in discussing AI in telecommunication services focuses on automating customer contact.

I begin with call centres because, as we know through the work of Dr. Enda Brophy, that work is “female, precarious, and mobile.” The example serves as an important reminder that AI's effects may further marginalize workers targeted for automation.

AI's effects seem to already be affecting precarious outsourced workers, according to reporting from Rest of World. Understanding the intersectional effects of AI is critical to understanding its impact on workforce. We are only beginning to see how Canada will fit into these global shifts and how Canada might export more precarious jobs abroad as well as find new sources of job growth across its regions and sectors.

Finally, workers are increasingly finding themselves subjected to algorithmic management. Combined with a growing turn toward workplace surveillance, as being studied by Dr. Adam Molnar, there is an urgent need to understand and protect workers from invasive data-gathering that might reduce their workplace autonomy or even train less skilled workers or automated replacements. According to the OECD, workers subjected to algorithmic management have a larger reported feeling of a loss of autonomy.

All the promises of AI hinge on being able to do work more efficiently, but who benefits from this efficiency? OECD studies have found that “AI may also lead to a higher pace and intensity of work”. The impact seems obvious and well established by past studies of technology like the BlackBerry, which shifted workplace expectations and encouraged an always-on expectation of the worker. Other research suggests that AI has the biggest benefits for new employees. The presumed benefit is that this enables workers to make a contribution more quickly, but the risk is that AI contributes to a devaluing or deskilling of workers. These emphasize the need to consider AI's effects not just on jobs but on the quality of work itself.

The introduction of generative AI marks a change in how important office suites like Microsoft Office, Google Docs and Adobe Creative Cloud function in the workplace. My final comment here is less about AI's particular configuration now, but instead about a growing reliance on a few technology platforms that have become critical infrastructure for workplace productivity and are rapidly integrating generative AI functions. AI might lock in these firms' market power as their access to data and cloud computing might make it difficult to compete, as well as for workers to opt out of these products and services. Past examples demonstrate that communication technology favours monopolies without open standards or efforts to decentralize power.

I am happy to discuss remedies and solutions in the question and answer period, but I encourage the committee to do a few things.

One, investigate better protection of workers and workers' rights, including greater data protection and safeguards and enforcement against invasive workplace surveillance, especially to ensure workers can't train themselves out of a job.

Two, consider arbitration and greater support in bargaining power, especially for contracts between independent contractors and large technology firms.

Three, ensure that efficiency benefits are fairly distributed, such as considering a four-day workweek, raising minimum wage and ensuring a right to disconnect.

Thank you for the time and the opportunity to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Then I will call for a vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

We're still under Standing Order 106(4), even though the motion has been adopted to conduct this study.

As per the notice that I've sent and for which I've received absolutely no objection to by any member here, we were supposed to have one hour. Mr. Perkins told me that the 106(4) would take one hour. Then the rest would be committee business. I sent notice for the subcommittee to meet to discuss the rest of C-27 and how we would go forward with C-27.

Are we in agreement to adjourn the meeting and go to the subcommittee?

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

The clerk is just getting a proposed amendment to the main motion, which, essentially, changes the beginning part where it says two meetings. I don't think we want to hold separate meetings outside of this. It changes it to six hours over six meetings concurrent with Bill C-27, beginning on November 14.

The amendment is coming. You can always make amendments to the main motion.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think we can all agree that we want to stand up for the whistle-blowers. I think we can all agree that ethics is doing its job with conflict of interest breaches. Our job is to look at the program and the misuse of $150 million so far.

I think the way we're looking at it is that it has to be six hours because of the workers, because of the people who step forward, because of the whistle-blowers. We have to put that time in for them. Hopefully, we get the six meetings. I think that's important. If you look at the calendar, that will only take us to the break. It kind of fits within the schedule. It just means that the committee has to do three hours instead of two for six meetings. I don't think that's out of line. I think that still allows us to do Bill C-27. At the same time, it does the important work that this seems to be. I think six hours is even pretty low. That would only be three normal meetings.

I think we'll probably go against that amendment, just to make sure it is six. It needs to be six hours for the workers. I think that's just fair to them. They put a lot of work into these documents. I can tell you from past experience that any staff who puts their livelihood, quite frankly, on the line to be a whistle-blower has to be commended and protected. We also need to be doing work on their behalf.

Lastly, this is the committee. This minister is responsible to this committee and this committee only, so we should be studying that here—and thoroughly. That's what I think we intended with the first motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

There are a couple of things that come to mind.

First of all, it's not unusual for a same subject to be going concurrently through different committees, including this committee, because it is so overlapping. There are plenty of examples of that.

I was there, because Matthew was actually out of the country, so I happened to be the person who could fill in for him, and it worked out that way.

I'm not willing to cede this responsibility and the workers' lives, basically, to the ethics committee, when we're actually directly responsible for that agency in this chamber right here. I'm not willing to pass that up.

Ethics had its own thing going on. In fact, the meeting had to be suspended. Because of the conduct of certain members, the chair actually had to suspend the meeting. We don't have that problem here—thank goodness, Mr. Chair—but that's what actually took place at ethics. We had to actually cease operations because of the conduct of members there.

To me it's about my doing my job. Also, there's going to be a legislative change. The minister said we can't change the legislation, when the reality is that we can actually change it. If we change the legislation under this framework, it would come from this committee. It would come as a recommendation. It wouldn't come from ethics to change the legislation there, because it's a different set of responsibilities.

I'm not going to let those families down. I'm going to do what I have to do here to make sure that they are actually going to get the proper supports necessary, because they have to go in, again, every single day as this continues to go on, whether it's in public or behind the curtain. If it's not going to be behind the curtain, then I want to make sure that it's going to be done by members of this committee.

This issue was also brought up at science where it was turned down. This issue might go to environment. It might go to other committees. I know it's been shopped around quite a bit.

The bottom line is that I also don't want to have the professional public embarrassment of being part of a committee that turns its back on the responsibility we're mandated to do by virtue of being on this committee. That's what's being asked here—for us to actually turn our backs on our responsibilities and, just because it's convenient to let ethics do their own thing, we don't do our job here. That's critically important to understand.

I understand the importance of Bill C-27, but very few times has a committee basically stopped the sun and the earth from moving and put itself in a position where it can't do anything else, because of a bill.

By the way, the government never brought that bill into the chamber for the longest time, despite being urged to do so. On top of that, we had the minister here and a whole drama that continues to go on with amendments. It's actually led to a public campaign—if you check your emails right now—of people calling on us to stop Bill C-27. That's actually coming not just from ordinary citizens but from NGOs, the academic community and a whole host of different things. It's turned into a giant mess.

What I do know is that the individuals here in this issue are in our wheelhouse. I'm not willing to cede that. I'm not willing to cede that to the ethics committee, to the environment committee or to science committee. To me, it's very important that we do something on this, and for me it's about protecting the whistle-blowers and the workers. If we don't do anything and ethics muddles on this, those workers then have to wait for us to come back and revisit this to try to find another way back to the issue.

I really worry about that for their mental health and the way that they have to deal with this going to work every single day. In ethics they actually debated.... I had an amendment to give the chair some grace to scheduling when the whistle-blowers would come forward, because there were only two dates presented originally at that time. I amended that to give the chair more flexibility, because given my experience here, when you have that flexibility.... They only have one week. If something happens with the whistle-blowers...and it could be things that we don't imagine, where things at work turn because of all these public things that are going on right now and it becomes a different environment than is currently there.

For me, I don't want to let this be dragged out any further, but I also want to make sure that we don't end up basically passively supporting the lengthening of the duration of this, just because we don't do our jobs here, because we're willing to brush it off to ethics. It's a totally different environment.

I'm okay with the four or six hours, as long as we don't.... I'll be quite frank. If we have to do more for the workers, I'll be the one out there putting motions forward to actually increase the hearings. I'd rather not delay Bill C-27. I'd like to do whatever we can to keep going on that, despite all the failings of it, but don't use it as a shield to basically say we won't do our job here.

I'll support the time changes in the amendment to start, but I'll be the first to ask for more time, if necessary, to actually get to the bottom of this if we don't get protection for the workers.

That's what I want from the government. They have done some good things. The minister has done some positive things, but we still don't protect them, because we chose as Parliament to make them vulnerable to the situation. By the way, these boards and the CEO and the ones who have been.... These are political appointee positions.

That's kind of where I see things going. I appreciate that, and I'll end it there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

My intention is to avoid duplicating the work, for one, and, for another, to use our time wisely to study Bill C‑27 and to hear from witnesses.

Just as an aside, Mr. Chair, I'd like to share part of the actual definition of our committee: “The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology studies and reports on legislation, the activities and spending of Industry Canada and its portfolio members,” among other things.

Today's topic of discussion is squarely within our committee's purview. It is the very essence of our committee. The minister should be speaking to us. I think we need to demonstrate that diligence. However, if someone else does it, I think we can pick up where they leave off, take things a little further, and deal with issues relating to Industry Canada spending.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My sympathies to the translator who has a bad cold, it sounds like. I have been grappling with it for a couple of weeks. Hopefully you will deal with yours more quickly.

On the amendment, on the number of hours, I was trying to provide the committee with a couple of different options. Either we do separate meetings, or we just tag them on. The six meetings I was proposing were six meetings of an additional hour added to each of the existing Bill C-27 meetings. It's about six hours, which is not far off of what I think Mr. Lemire is proposing.

MP Turnbull, in response to the issue of delay, it's not a delay if it's an hour on the end of the existing meetings that we're already having on Bill C-27. I haven't proposed that we stop anything at all on Bill C-27. I agree with you, and I think we're all in agreement, that there's a need to do a thorough examination of what's been, so far, very fascinating testimony from witnesses on that important bill.

In terms of what's not clear to me, first of all, I don't think it's the same work as the ethics committee is doing. I attended just out of general interest. I wasn't invited to go. I just showed up to listen and see what the minister had to say. The line of questioning that I want to ask the minister about is very different from what the members of our side did on the ethics committee. Our work and our responsibility with regard to the estimates and the public accounting of the industry department and all of the billions of dollars it expends each year are different from the ethics committee's, so I think our look at it is a little different.

With regard to the amendment that's here, the only thing that I'm really concerned about is that I'm not clear on when we would start. I believe that we need to have the minister. I believe we need to have the chair. I believe we need to have the president of the SDTC, and I'm not sure that we can hold off to figure out what ethics is doing with the whistle-blowers. I don't even know if the whistle-blowers will agree to attend any committee, because the nature of whistle-blowing is that it's quiet and behind the scenes.

I think we can start our own work, which probably, given this timing since we're coming up to a constituency week next week, would probably not start until we return from the constituency break. I'm not suggesting that it would start this Thursday, and then we're on a riding break. It would probably be two weeks today, I guess, before we would start—at the end of that meeting.

Initially, my thought is that I would probably vote against this amendment if it means that we have to wait until the ethics committee has gone through a number of its witnesses before we do anything. I don't think we can wait. I think we need to get at it, start making the decisions and invite the minister and officials to come to the first meeting when we return from the constituency break, obviously pending his availability. He has a busy travel schedule.

I would think that we could do that, and we would do it over, let's say, six hours in six meetings for now. I think we can get what we need to get done. If there's a way to mash Mr. Lemire's motion together with ours to make sure that's clear, I just provided two options. We can do separate meetings, or we could do it at the end. I understand why it might have been a little confusing about which way to go. My personal preference is not to schedule more meetings. It's to add an hour on to each of the existing meetings we have and certainly not to substitute it for the work that we're already doing on Bill C-27.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It's okay. I appreciate that, Chair.

The point is this: If another committee or multiple other committees are doing this work, what is the need for this committee to have an emergency meeting to undertake this very same work, which is happening in other committees?

That's what I see, and I am not saying that this isn't an important issue, by the way. I agree that it's important, but why would we have three committees doing the same work in parallel? That seems like a waste of resources and time, and we have important government legislation that everybody has said is very important.

I would say that those are the key points I want to put on the record.

One other thing that I didn't mention is that the redacted report has been provided to committee members at the other committee, I believe at ethics, so they have a redacted copy of the report that has only confidential information taken out. That report has been made available to those committee members.

Key for me is how we ensure that we're not duplicating efforts, because I think we all agree that our time is valuable and that we want to do useful work. This study is being undertaken at ethics, which seems to me to be the most appropriate place for it to happen, to be honest. If members are talking about conflicts of interest, that relates to the ethics committee's work. It seems to me that we don't need three studies going on in parallel.

Maybe others want to comment on that, but I would say that I do appreciate Mr. Lemire's attempts at amending the motion, because I think it would hopefully enable us to alleviate delaying our work on Bill C-27, which I appreciate very much.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I can get you evidence of that if you dispute that, but that's my understanding.

There are two other committees at least that are looking into this, so I am wondering why it is that our committee.... I understand that as many committees as desire to do so can do this work, but, to me, we have important government legislation, Bill C-27, which we have all said is a priority for our country. It's legislation that hasn't been updated in 20 years, so I think we all agree that it's a high priority.

What are we trying to accomplish here by having another committee do the very same work that two other committees are already undertaking in Parliament?

What I would say is that this feels like there is a lot already being done. The government has been very transparent, open, diligent and willing to co-operate with the Auditor General, and it takes the matter seriously. We've said numerous times in the House of Commons.... I've answered many questions about this in the last few weeks and said that we really take the federal agencies and the standards of governance they uphold seriously and that they need to be held to the highest standard and held to account. We think, from our perspective, that we're doing that.

This feels like a bit of a delay tactic for Bill C-27. That's what I am going to say, because, for me, what is it that this committee is going to do over and above those other two committees that have already started to undertake this work? They've heard from key witnesses. Members from this committee have gone over and subbed in and participated in the ethics committee, just as of last night.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Perkins for requesting this meeting. In the interest of transparency, I should add that I would have been happy to add my name to the request had the French version been made available to me earlier. That would have made three parties and six members requesting this meeting to address a worrisome situation involving the use of public funds.

I support what my colleague said about protecting whistle-blowers. That is a crucial aspect of our democracy.

I'd like to propose an amendment to the motion. First, I'd like to suggest that we have two meetings, not six. If they are short, one-hour meetings, we can compromise. However, in the interest of saving time given our very full agenda with our study of Bill C‑27, I suggest changing the wording.

Instead of directing the committee to invite specific witnesses, we could propose that all information obtained in Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics meetings on this matter be shared with the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, including past and future testimony and, in particular, that of Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Mr. François‑Philippe Champagne. I would leave the other four points unchanged.

We can give ourselves the option of inviting witnesses back as needed and inviting any other relevant witness so we don't have to invite them all. The meeting could take place after the whistle-blowers testify at INDU so we can get the supplementary and complementary information that will make our study even more comprehensive because I think our committee is in the best position to study this kind of motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee members.

Maybe I could do a quick outline. This company, the SDTC, is actually set up at arm's length, as we know, from the government. It's not like a Crown corporation. It's a separate foundation that was set up in 2001.

About 10 or 12 years ago, it was a bit of a mess. The government of the day changed the board and brought in a board chair to clean it up, who hired a new president to try to clean it up, and it got a gold star from the Auditor General in 2017 for governance. In 2019, on a week's notice, the former minister of industry changed the board chair to the current chair, as well as a couple of members. The result of that was a restructuring of a number of the funds and the investment processes.

Now, in my view, the current chair should never have been appointed. She had a conflict of interest going into it in that SDTC had given her company a $9.5-million grant, which had to have continued follow-up from the company. This set a different tone for the organization about conflicts of interest.

As a result of that, a number of whistle-blowers came to the minister and to the Privy Council Office in January to outline a whole series of questionable transactions and relationships between the board and a number of the companies. It wasn't only companies receiving grants from this organization, but also companies that were hired from the outside to do evaluations of each grant proposal and their questionable relationships with board members.

As we know, when you sit on a corporate board—I've sat on private and Crown corporation boards—it's not just about a real conflict of interest; it's about the perceived conflicts of interest. Those are just as important in our business as well. It appears, from what has been reported on by whistle-blowers, that there are many instances not only of conflicts but of restructuring the funds outside of the mandate letter or the mandate agreement they have with the government.

The Liberal government, 35 months ago, gave this organization $750 million more of taxpayer money. The current minister became the minister one month after that, so he's been overseeing this organization for 34 months, yet was totally unaware of the governance changes and the investment process changes in this organization, to which his ministry had just given three-quarters of a billion dollars of taxpayer money.

The result of those whistle-blower comments.... I'll outline that those whistle-blowers are doing something unusual, because they're not protected by government whistle-blower policy, which is an issue. They have come out and put themselves on the line. They are not protected by the Government of Canada's whistle-blower policies.

Because these conflicts are so egregious, as the committee that's responsible for the reporting of the operations of the industry department—otherwise known as ISED—the minister, all its Crown corporations, its agencies and its financial estimates, which includes the financial accounting and public accounts of the expenditures of ISED and all its organizations, including SDTC, we need to take a look at this now.

It is true that the current minister, upon receiving this, asked for what is called a fact-finding report from Grant Thornton, which has been presented. A very narrow mandate was given to it. It was much narrower than the accusations that were made.

However, we also know from the media last week that a number of senior ISED officials called this the greatest scandal of taxpayer money we have had in the government—it may be $100 million or more of taxpayer money allocated in a conflict—since the sponsorship scandal of the Chrétien government.

I believe it's incumbent upon this committee to examine, as is our responsibility to Parliament, the expenditures, processes and impacts of all these management and governance changes at this organization for which the industry department is accountable.

I understand, Mr. Chair, that this requires a motion, which I would like to put forward now. I think the clerk has copies, if she would like to distribute them.

I can read this, and then we'll presumably have a bit of a discussion here in the committee about it.

I move that, in relation to the recent investigation and report on Sustainable Development Technology Canada, otherwise known as SDTC, showing a breach in conflict-of-interest rules and misuse of public funds, the committee undertake a study of up to six meetings to investigate these allegations; that the committee invite the following witnesses to appear before the committee: François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry; Doug McConnachie, chief financial officer and assistant deputy minister of corporate services at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Annette Verschuren, the current chair of SDTC; whistle-blowers who have come forward; and any other witnesses deemed relevant to the study put forward by parties—I would probably also put forward the president of SDTC as a witness we should hear from—and, subject to the approval of the recognized party whips and the availability of meeting time slots in the House of Commons, that the committee hold additional meetings and/or extend our current committee meetings by one hour on each allotted day for each meeting on this matter with the goal of not delaying the study of Bill C-27.

That's the motion. The idea is to give the committee two options. We could add additional meetings, which I know is more difficult, but I think from our whip's perspective, they would work to find the resources. The easier solution, since we meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays, is to add an hour to the meetings after the Bill C-27 testimony for the next number of meetings to consider this.

With that, I will turn it back to you, Mr. Chair, for others to comment.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak on Bill C-34.

Before I do, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the calamitous vote the Liberal members of this House took earlier today by excluding all Canadians from being treated fairly by pausing the carbon tax for Canadians all over the country. I come from Winnipeg, one of the coldest cities on the planet. Today, Liberal members from Winnipeg said no to Winnipeggers, while their Atlantic Canadian counterparts seem to be more effective than they are. They have the ear of the Prime Minister who I suppose was trying to save himself from his terrible polling results with this desperate measure by the government. However, at the end of the day the Liberals chose not to pause the carbon tax pain, which is really unfortunate for all Canadians.

As far as Bill C-34 is concerned, I want to say this. After eight years of the Prime Minister, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interests and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and the data of our citizens. The government is doing too little, too late to protect our national economic and security interests with this bill.

Since the Liberals came to power, business investment per employee in Canada has dropped 20%. At the same time, business investment per employee in the United States has increased 14%. Per capita growth is at the lowest level since the Great Depression some 90 years ago and Canada has the most at-risk mortgage default portfolio in the G7. According to the National Bank of Canada, for the first time ever, business investment is now lower in this country than housing investment. When we think about all the manufacturing, oil production and everything else, investment in those things is lower than it is in housing.

The goal of the Investment Canada Act is to deal with foreign investors controlling Canadian industry, trade and commerce. Foreign direct investment creates opportunities, stimulates economic development and introduces new ideas and innovation to Canada. For Canadians, this means more high-quality jobs and a stronger, more sustainable economy.

Billions of dollars of Canadian natural resources, ideas, IP and land are being controlled by foreign entities. Huawei, a state-owned enterprise that feeds intelligence directly to China, was still working with many Canadian universities as of this past summer.

Another example would be taxpayer-funded dollars at Dalhousie University that are funding Tesla intellectual property and research and that IP is all going back to California.

In 2017, the Liberal government allowed a telecom company from British Columbia called Norsat to be acquired by a company called Hytera, which is a Chinese-based state-owned company. Conservatives demanded at that time a full national security review. The Liberal minister of the day refused to do one and approved the acquisition.

This sort of lax attitude toward issues of national security is clearly a problem. After eight years of the Prime Minister, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interests and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and the data of our citizens.

The future of Canada needs to be protected in the airwaves, AI and quantum computing. It needs to be protected in our farms, food-processing plants, oceans and fisheries, as well as in developing Canadian LNG, which the world so desperately wants. The government is doing too little to protect our national economic and security interests with this bill. Canadians know the Liberals do not take sensitive transactions seriously and have failed to fully review transactions involving Chinese state-owned enterprises, putting the security of Canadians and the government at risk.

The minister is the minister of broken bills, which is why Conservatives are having to make more amendments to this piece of legislation. On his other bill, Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, after a year and a half he was forced to make amendments.

The Liberals missed the chance to think big and understand what is going on in the Canadian economy. This bill does not go far enough to address the risks faced by Canadians. That is why Conservatives worked to pass four significant amendments to ensure a rigorous review process—

[Tim McSorley]

I didn't raise the difference, because in fact it is the same. We simply believe that it shouldn't be continued under this new bill. We raised those concerns in the review, in the consultation around PIPEDA earlier, that this was already a problematic exception. We don't believe.... It's something that this committee could fix in moving forward with Bill C-27.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next question is for Mr. Lawford.

During certain testimonies and meetings with people in the industry, we heard a great deal of unease about the lack of detail in part 3 of Bill C‑27. I Am talking about the part that enacts the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, as well as the criminal liability it imposes on companies using high-impact AI systems.

To what extent do you think all this will need to be clarified, if we are to promote greater trust and ease among businesses, and SMEs in particular, while maintaining rigorous protection provisions? Where is the balance?