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.

[Steve de Eyre]

I'd be happy to.

As I think I mentioned in my opening statement, I'm a father. We live in Oakville North—Burlington. This is something that's really important to me as my kids are coming of age and starting to explore online.

I think we've outlined a few times the settings that we have in place. One thing we may not have mentioned is that, if you're under 16, your videos will not be eligible for recommendation into the “for you” feed, so those will not come up for other users as they come out. We also work extensively with the non-profits that I've mentioned. They're doing some great work. Canada has some of the best non-profits in the world on these issues.

We've hosted sessions with Digital Moment, for example. They're based out of Montreal. We had a youth session at our office in Toronto, where they brought in a number of youth from the area to talk about algorithms, understand how algorithms work and what algorithm bias is. This is an industry issue. It's not unique to TikTok, but we know we are a popular platform and that we have responsibility and a role to play here.

Going to Madame Fortier's question about consent, we know this is something for young people that's in Bill C-27, which is something we're looking forward to being engaged on, especially as it's in committee now. We think there's definitely a role for government and a need to update Canada's privacy laws.

[Runa Angus]

Yes. Bill C‑27 also establishes a private right of action.

Obviously, regulatory recourse is available, going through the commissioner and so forth, but there are ways to initiate legal action against private organizations.

[Mark Schaan]

We had engagement with the Privacy Commissioner in the lead-up to the tabling of Bill C-27.

[Mark Schaan]

I have met with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner with respect to Bill C-27.

[Mark Schaan]

The privacy link between Bill C‑27 and the EU's regulation is important in a few ways. The bill lays out some important definitions and elements to support interoperability between the two pieces of legislation.

As far as alignment with the EU is concerned, we are engaged in an ongoing process with our EU counterparts. It began three years ago, and we are confident it will result in the right connections between the two pieces of legislation.

[Mark Schaan]

Thank you to the member for that great question.

The government announced consultations on the link between AI and copyright in order to bring needed clarity to the role of copyright in the age of AI and all sorts of new technologies. The aim is to ensure that creators in creative industries are fairly compensated. That's important because the most effective way to address those concerns is through the Copyright Act. That's why the government has launched another consultation on the issue.

Bill C‑27 would enact the artificial intelligence and data act, a law of general application addressing all uses of AI systems that have significant societal or economic impacts. That may include certain aspects of the creative sector, but the law was designed to take into account all the ways in which AI could harm society overall.

For that reason, consultations on the copyright framework are also taking place. You're right that copyright rules determine how creators are compensated.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When Minister Champagne was here, I asked him about Quebec's data protection law. In his letter, he mentions that a few provinces have privacy legislation that is substantially similar to PIPEDA, meaning that, in many circumstances, the provincial law applies instead of the federal law. The paragraph basically says that that will continue.

In the specific case of Quebec, it is anticipated that the designation of its provincial privacy regime as “substantially similar” will continue and that its law would apply instead of the consumer privacy protection act, or CPPA. I think that addresses the first issue related to law 25, which could indeed apply.

Currently, is a transition period anticipated? That's new information that came out the day after the minister appeared before the committee. Until Bill C‑27 is passed, will Quebec companies have some sort of transition period?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse. I appreciate that consensus-building effort.

It's removing (a), (b), (d) and (e), and it orders the minister's department and the Department of Justice to produce draft texts of amendments to Bill C-27 as discussed by the minister on September 26, pertaining to part 1 of the bill, provided that these documents shall be deposited with the clerk of the committee in both official language no later than October 20, which is this Friday.

That is the amendment proposed by Mr. Masse.

Is that correct, Mr. Masse?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think a number of messages have been conveyed throughout today's meeting. Obviously, we don't support the idea of gag orders. For the sake of credibility, it is paramount that the committee have this debate. This may be one of the most important debates of the next two decades. Bill C‑27's passage will have consequences that go beyond politics. That is why I would like us to begin examining its content as soon as possible.

However, I think the concerns raised by my Conservative and NDP colleagues are entirely legitimate. I urge the government members to provide the documents requested. I don't think we need a formal motion to obtain clarification. That would only delay what comes out of this work. Clarification and predictability, by the way, are keywords the minister uses to send the industry a message. That is the message we, as parliamentarians, need to hear. The industry needs to hear it, as do all the witnesses who come before the committee. I think the committee should receive the text of the amendments.

That said, I think the letter the minister sent is a worthwhile mea culpa. It recognizes aspects of his testimony that provide clarity, specifically in relation to the application of Quebec's law 25, which could take precedence over the Canadian data protection law. I encourage the committee to proceed with its work, and begin the study by hearing from witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just to be clear, before we vote, we're debating the amendment by Mr. Masse to remove section (a) of the motion entirely and modify section (e) to order the minister to produce the three amendments he referenced in his presentation before the committee on September 26 pertaining to Part 1 of Bill C-27.

Are there any comments on the amendment proposed by Mr. Masse? I see none.

Madam Clerk, I will ask for a vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Masse.

We have a tie. I'll vote against it.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

MP Masse, if I'm hearing you right, section (e) starts out with “orders the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to produce copies of the texts”, and then instead of “of any amendments to Bill C-27”, it would read, “of the three privacy amendments”.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be supporting the motion, but I have a couple of amendments.

Briefly, this is a train wreck for no reason. We had Bill C-27 tabled in the House of Commons. The reason it's tabled in the House of Commons and goes through first reading is so that we can have discussion and it can be publicly examined, not only by ordinary citizens but also by the groups that want to have input. That's why we have a process of debate. It took a long time to get out of the House, and it came here.

I won a prima facie case in the past because my ability as an MP was impeded by the actions of another government. It resulted in changes, to this day. This is how I view it: You had the minister come forward. He talked about amendments. There were going to be goals and objectives from those, which had to be clarified. After this was clarified, I had a point of privilege, and then it was admitted there weren't amendments. Government members went back to saying, “Tell me more about these amendments.” We're back to where we shouldn't have to be. I've heard nothing but shock from people who are interested in this bill. What is the government's agenda on this?

I think it is a fairly reasonable approach—and that is my appeal—to look at getting the three privacy ones in front of us. In fact, it should be separate legislation. However, the government created flawed legislation by putting three acts together when it probably shouldn't have done that. That was a critical error to begin with. This was raised, and it's probably one of the reasons why, structurally, we have issues right now. There's no reason we can't do some of these things separately. In fact, it would have been wiser and we would have actually gotten things through.

To me, the minister can't just come here and say, “Okay, we have eight specific amendments” and then not provide them—not for us, but for the other people coming here. We have groups and organizations paying lawyers to draft legalese and make submissions to us. They need to know what's in front of us. We don't have that anymore. That's terribly unfortunate. Having the background letter from the minister is fine, but I also want to go over a best practice.

I knew it was going to be bad when it began, because the minister.... A lot of times, ministers come to committees with prepared documents and table them for members to go through while they give their presentation. That's a fairly common practice. A minister will come with a preamble and even the material they will present. Not only did we not get that.... I asked for that. I made a joke about how we'd have to put that testimony into ChatGPT to create the amendments for the minister, because that's all we have to go by.

I want to see whether we can move forward with some consensus here.

I would like to amend the motion to have the three privacy amendments...and I would also like to make an amendment to drop section (f). The reason for dropping section (f) is that—I'll be quite frank—I don't need the minister to come here anymore. I just need his amendments so others can see them. I don't need to have another group of clown cars showing up and distracting us from the work we have to do. That's what this is about. For my part, I would like the three privacy amendments to be tabled, and I don't need the minister to come here anymore. I want to get on with the work here. I can't have people continuing to speculate about what they have to present in front of us. It continues to be like a dog chasing its own tail. That's what we're doing right now.

I'd like to amend section (e) for the three privacy amendments; it can just say “privacy amendments”. Then I'd like to drop section (f), because I don't need the minister to come here.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to what almost seems like our weekly regular witnesses and officials. I appreciate that.

In the minister's opening testimony here in September on Bill C-27, he said, “we will propose an amendment to recognize a fundamental right to privacy for Canadians.”

In the letter that was sent to the committee in response to our production of documents resolution from about a week and a half ago, the details of number one on page 1 of the appendix of the letter are that they will amend clause 5 “to qualify the right to privacy as a fundamental right.” There's stuff in there about the preamble, but ultimately the preamble doesn't matter because it has no legal basis once the statute is passed.

Clause 5 of Bill C-27 reads, “The purpose of this Act is to establish...rules to govern the protection of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information”.

Can you tell me which words in that clause will change?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 89 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. From the Department of Industry, we have Mark Schaan, senior assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation policy sector; Samir Chhabra, director general, marketplace framework policy branch; Runa Angus, senior director, strategy and innovation policy sector; and Surdas Mohit, director, strategy and innovation policy sector.

Thank you for appearing before the committee yet again in connection with our study of Bill C‑27. I expect we will probably ask you back, but since you were here with the minister for his recent appearance, there aren't any opening remarks. Without further ado, we will go straight to questions.

You may go ahead, Mr. Perkins. You have six minutes.

Copyright Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that is vital to residents of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Quebec, and that is Bill C‑244, which was introduced by the hon. member for Richmond Centre.

Bill C‑244 amends the Copyright Act in order to allow a person to circumvent a technological protection measure, or TPM, if the circumvention is solely for the purpose of diagnosing, maintaining or repairing a product.

This bill was examined at almost the same time as Bill C‑294 on interoperability. What is interesting is that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology was able to look at the issue from different angles and improve the bill's content to allow for the right to repair, to fight waste and to better protect the jobs of repair people, mechanics and technicians in the regions.

Over the past few years, it has become a lot more complicated to repair objects. Our vehicles are turning into motorized computers, and access to programming codes is needed to diagnose problems with them. Unfortunately, more and more manufacturers are refusing to share those codes or are charging independent mechanics exorbitant fees to get them, supposedly for security reasons. This situation is jeopardizing these small businesses and threatening their survival.

How are we to manage when our brand new smart phones get a cracked screen or some other defect? What do we do when our high-end, front-loading washing machine suddenly stops working? What about our three-year-old farm machinery in need of repair?

Let us consider Apple's policy on repairing its products, for example. All Apple products must be repaired at Apple stores, if the parts are available.

By patenting the majority of these parts, Apple holds on to its monopoly, while the electronic locks created by its operating software, protected under the Copyright Act, make counterfeiting liable to prosecution. For a resident of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the situation is even more troublesome considering that the region has no Apple store. To get the service they are entitled to as consumers, these residents have to ship their product by mail or travel more than 600 kilometres to a large urban centre. Incidentally, the situation is practically the same for passports. That needs to change.

Manufacturers are increasingly choosing the answer for us: toss it out and buy a new one. Tight grips on replacement parts, restrictive design, the use of digital locks and other legal protections have all contributed to the difficulty in repairing and maintaining the increasingly high-tech things that surround us.

Bill C-244 presents a solution to the calls from many individuals who support the right to repair in Quebec. Their message is consistent: The government must make legislative changes that will give us both the right and the ability to repair the objects we own without violating intellectual property laws and other laws.

Although the purpose of the Copyright Act is to protect creators and intellectual property, the way companies have been using it to impede repairs over the last few decades is harmful to society as a whole. It impedes the second-hand market and harms small businesses specializing in repairs.

By supporting this bill, the Bloc Québécois is also supporting Quebec's small businesses that are committed to becoming repair centres, mechanics, computer specialists and artisans who have acquired the skills to repair our everyday products. This industry plays a key role in our energy transition and supports jobs throughout Quebec. Even though repair people are becoming increasingly rare in our communities, this bill lends direct support to their work. It will provide a living for many Quebeckers.

It is not just consumer electronics that are under the microscope. The bill also targets industrial equipment, agricultural equipment, medical devices, electric cars and many other machines that are becoming notoriously difficult for independent technicians to repair and maintain. This increases businesses' operational costs, curtails market competition and discourages follow-on innovation.

The costs of our increasing inability to repair things go beyond pocketbook issues. It is imperative that we consider the environmental impact as well. My colleague from Repentigny will be happy to hear me mention this. The manufacture of new devices generates considerable electronic waste and consumes precious resources. It is therefore crucial to give consumers the right to repair their products. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a new law in Quebec that is along the same lines as this one. It reminds manufacturers that they have a role to play in this equation.

Quebec has passed a new law on planned obsolescence. We applaud the leadership of the Quebec National Assembly, which recently passed this legislation to ensure that these products operate properly and to prevent the sale of seriously defective vehicles, what we call lemons.

Let me get back to the shameful waste of raw materials. Extraction of raw materials, use of rare earth metals, lead soldering, shipping and packaging are just a few examples of the ecological toll imposed by the short lifespan of many modern devices and equipment. Electronics waste is now globally among the fastest-growing types of waste, increasing at a rate of 3% to 4% each year. As the global microchip shortage reveals, ostensibly every industry is now the electronics industry. The failure of one electronic part often renders things inoperative, making them all the more likely to end up in a landfill prematurely.

I strongly recommended to my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that we study the metals, plastics and electronics recycling ecosystems from a circular economy perspective, because the critical minerals in these electronics are important. We must stop them from ending up in landfills. This study will resume once our consideration of Bill C-27 is complete.

We need to address this shameful waste of resources to reduce our tonne of garbage. Quebeckers have had enough. I urge all parliamentarians to support this bill. By voting in favour of this bill, we are demonstrating our commitment to our local businesses, we are contributing to the fight against waste and we are meeting a fundamental need to repair for all our constituents. By supporting this bill, we are sending a strong, united message about our determination to promote a more sustainable and accessible future for all. This is an opportunity for us, as legislators, to make a positive difference in the lives of our constituents and to work in favour of an economy that is more environmentally friendly.

Let us make sure that the right to repair becomes a reality for everyone.