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.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member forRosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today on Bill C-27, which is 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.

The amendments are what I am particularly interested in today. As New Democrats, we will be supporting this at second reading. We support the need to modernize Canada's privacy laws and establishing rules around data governance and empowering the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to bring enforcement actions to protect consumers and citizens.

This bill takes some of those steps. However, there is a need to ensure that reforms are robust and effective. In my opinion, a long list of amendments will certainly be required to achieve these goals.

I am going to be referencing two important works that have been presented. One is from the Centre for Digital Rights, entitled “Not Fit For Purpose - Canada Deserves Much Better”. From the title, we can note that there are some concerns with this bill.

However, we recognize that this privacy legislation must be amended because there are already glaring shortfalls in PIPEDA, which urgently needs updating.

Technology continues to evolve, and data-driven business continues to move away from a service-oriented approach to one that relies on monetizing personal information through mass surveillance of individuals and groups. While these businesses find new ways to expand their surveillance and methods of monetizing our personal information, Canadians' privacy is increasingly put at risk.

The GDPR is the bar that is currently considered the adequate level of protection. However, if we were to do a little bit of comparing and contrasting, we would see that this bill tends to fall short of this level in terms of what the European Commission has done.

What this means for us is that the ability for personal data to flow to Canada without any further safeguards is at risk. There has also been pressure from industry and advocacy groups, the privacy commissioners of Canada and abroad, and privacy and data governance experts. In fact, in this particular bill, we think that the government side has fallen short in its engagement with people; I will get to that in a moment.

When we are in these technological environments, it is an ecosystem that goes well beyond our borders. We are talking about what it is like—

The House resumed from November 28, 2022, consideration of the motion that 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 be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's very sincere effort, I am sure, to lay that on the record. I am sure he is in shock that there was not unanimous consent. However, my hon. colleague can rest assured that, when it comes to climate change, we will not allow inaction to be the rule of the day and that we will absolutely continue to take action to make sure climate change does not ravage this planet.

I do want to pick up on the second-last comment that the hon. opposition House leader made, which were comments with respect to Family Day. I hope that he, and indeed all members in the House, take time with their families and with their constituents, and that they return to this place in good health.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-34 to amend the Investment Canada Act at second reading.

Upon our return on Monday, March 6, we will call Bill C-27 on the digital charter, at second reading.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill C-33 concerning the port system and railway safety.

Thursday will not only be the opportunity for my hon. colleague's favourite time of the week, another Thursday question, but we will also resume debate on Bill C-23 respecting historic places, at second reading.

On Friday, we will continue second reading debate of Bill C-26, the cybersecurity legislation.

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

Not to confuse everyone by bringing another bill in, because I think it's still important, but Bill C-27 is about our privacy legislation. I think we've heard some witnesses on the right to repair. There have been concerns or looking at the restrictions for privacy, especially around the data that sinkhole the system.

This is copyright law, so it's not privacy law, but is there anything we would be using, looking at Europe with the GDPR and the Americans with their state privacy law, in interoperability that would be interoperable with the Bill C-27 that we're bringing to Parliament?

[Simon Kennedy]

I think I can answer in two parts, and my colleague might want to elaborate a bit.

One is that support for the Canadian artificial intelligence community and for research in this space is a real priority. The government has the pan-Canadian strategy for artificial intelligence, which it announced a number of years ago, and we've announced—I guess it was last year, but it was relatively recently—the next phase of the pan-Canadian strategy.

In that renewal of the strategy, we put an increased emphasis on actually translating the intellectual property that is developed—the ideas and the IP developed by our researchers—into use in the Canadian economy and by Canadian organizations. There are all kinds of really great examples of that happening in real time in hospitals, businesses and so on.

We've also put a priority on making sure that our researchers have access to the specialized computing power that's needed. There's been an effort in the second phase of the strategy to adapt and focus on areas that were considered to be maybe areas that weren't as strong in the first version of the strategy.

Then, on the legislative and regulatory front, the government has tabled Bill C-27. There's a whole section of that legislation that is a new proposed law on artificial intelligence, basically to ensure that AI is used responsibly in the economy. We're looking forward to discussion at committee and more as that bill advances through the parliamentary process.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I appreciate that, but I'm just not satisfied as to our accountability levels here. I want us to have a national auto strategy.

I'll leave that behind for now. I want to get to something else. I do appreciate.... I know that's not the intent of these things, but it's a clear example of how disastrous the policy can be if it's not wielded properly. It may sound like $3 million is not a lot of money, but it is. When we export these jobs, it's really poor.

I want to switch channels a little bit. What are you doing internally with regard to retention of staff? I know this is totally different from where we were, but we're looking at challenges in all of the sector.

The minister has several fronts, Bill C-34, Bill C-27, a whole series of things. What are we doing internally to make sure that the public service has the skill sets necessary to help provide the proper information for the minister in the research? What are we doing for retention of individuals as we negotiate more new things than ever before?

I'll leave it there. That's my time. Thanks.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

At the end of the day, you have control of the House.

At any rate, I think it's important not to.... Nobody's being obstructionist on Bill C-27 here. There are a lot of concerns about the bill. I know the NDP split the bill, in terms of voting, because there are some new sections that are very important for us to go through. There's a lot of interest out there. We're getting a lot of contact at our members' offices.

I want to highlight, though, that it isn't us holding back that process.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

We need to work together. I'm saying that Bill C-27 is for Canada. It's not for members of Parliament.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

You're the busiest, by far, and that's a good thing.

I want to take one issue up, though. You left Bill C-27 in the hands of us, the members of Parliament. I want to correct the record here. Has your House leader asked for time for Bill C-27? My information is that your House leader has not. Bill C-27 cannot go back to the House of Commons, unless your party brings it there. You brought Bill C-34 instead.

Why won't your House leader bring Bill C-27 to the floor of the House of Commons, if you think it's so important, if you're going to lay the blame on committee and other members of Parliament?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'm delighted to hear you say that, Mr. Lemire. I have a lot of admiration and esteem for you as a colleague.

If you want to know why Bill C‑27 Is bogged down, then I think you need to look elsewhere, perhaps to your colleagues. We are certainly ready to move forward with the bill.

For Canadians listening today I should point out that Bill C‑27 is the Digital Charter Implementation Act. It includes some extremely important provisions. There is for example the entire part on the protection of children. Ever since the COVID‑19 crisis, children have been spending more and more time in virtual space. All elected representatives are responsible for moving forward quickly with the study of this bill, in order to provide better protection for our children, and as you were saying, to provide a framework for artificial intelligence. I would like artificial intelligence to work for people.

I am delighted to hear that the Bloc Québécois is prepared to support us. I trust that members of the other parties will follow suit, Conservatives and New Democrats alike.

We have an opportunity to adopt a bill that will give Canada a profile throughout the world. I was in fact speaking with my European friends recently, and they were saying that the bill that has just been tabled here was one of the most innovative in the world. I also think that companies would like to see our provisions aligned with those in Europe.

There is some urgency about taking action. I am pleased to hear that we'll have the support of the Bloc Québécois. I'll be asking our Conservative friends in a few moments, to see if they are prepared to lend their support as well.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming.

I noticed in your opening address and in your answers that you didn't talk to us about the predictability and stability of the supply chain, factors that are usually extremely prominent in the speeches you give, whether in Washington, Korea or Japan.

With respect to predictability, I see an issue here. We get the impression that you're putting a lot of things on the table in many different spheres, but in some instances, we are waiting for answers. One example of this is the transaction between Rogers and Shaw, and now Vidéotron. We're at a stage where action is needed, because the situation is creating tension and animosity. The Fox project is a particularly good illustration. Trying to find out how the fourth industry player might move in is making it difficult to achieve anything resembling candour. All we're getting is hearsay. I get the impression that the longer we wait, the more the debate becomes clouded. I would therefore like you to take a position on this transaction as quickly as possible.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about bills C‑27 and C‑34.

Why has the government not acted upon Bill C‑27 for some time now? I think you would get House approval to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. We'd like to study it in committee. There are some areas, such as data protection, for which you have done your homework and reached consensus. As for artificial intelligence, I think we might have quite a few questions to ask.

In any event, we'd like to ask you to put these bills back on the Order Paper.

Why is it taking so long?

Privacy

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑27 was supposed to tighten control over personal information, but it fails to address that practice and it does not recognize the fundamental right to privacy as recommended by the Privacy Commissioner.

Bill C‑27 does not require businesses to seek valid consent of clients before sharing their data. The simple act of requesting an electronic receipt does not constitute authorization to provide our personal data.

Will the government amend Bill C‑27 to protect client data rather than the right of businesses to share the data without consent?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you so much, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

As the New Democrat on this committee for 15 of my 20 years in Parliament, I've seen a lot of companies come and go. I've seen a lot of promises being made. I want to remind the public, in the process here, that having the tribunal panel was a political decision. It was made by legislation. It's not a pure system by any means; it's an appointed process.

To hammer that point through, under Bill C-27 this committee will also have to consider another tribunal creation, which could potentially undermine the Privacy Commissioner. I want to make it clear that upholding the tribunal's decision is not independent of politics in itself. It's shaded in its birth of being part of political decision-making. That's one reason I think the minister still has a lot of choices here.

I want to note a couple of quotes that I have here. Mr. Péladeau, in 2009 you said that in terms of spectrum, you didn't have any plan for now and you felt there's a great value that will become an even greater value.

In 2013, your colleague, Mr. Dépatie, said that as for the spectrum, Quebecor had acquired Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia and “could not pass up the opportunity” to acquire high-value spectrum at such an attractive price. That was a carve-out that was done specifically.

Lastly, another of your colleagues, Mr. Dion, said, “Today's licence acquisitions [in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta] continue our strategy of buying spectrum at advantageous prices, mainly to support Videotron's operations in Quebec.”

From that time period, you didn't provide a lot of rollout. Even ISED noted that you left 83% of rural residents in the area with no coverage.

During this process we've had COVID, where this is very serious for other businesses and also to the pocketbooks of people. Also, the areas of schools, business and telehealth were left without competition. They were left with higher prices, and sometimes they were left with no services.

My question to you is this. What makes us believe that now, at this point in time, you're actually going to be in the race and you're actually going to compete?

When there's no actual way for us to follow through with any type of punishment if you don't, what makes it comforting for those people who were left behind when Quebecor didn't act on the spectrum it acquired? More importantly, it actually acquired income and revenue from that spectrum that was provided for it.

It's a situation that I think is pretty serious. It's one that has to be answered to, because if we are going to have a disrupter—that's what the tribunal noted—it has to be one that will actually be in place and be forward-thinking.

Online News Act

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to wish everyone in this chamber and all of the people of Saskatoon a merry Christmas and a very happy new year.

This is the time of the year that many of us get to spend with family, friends and other loved ones. For some of us, it is truly a joyous season full of wonderment. For others, the holiday season reminds us of people lost and of relations lost. It is a hard time for those individuals.

As we all reflect on the past year and look forward to the next year, I want to offer these words of hope to all of the good folks throughout Saskatoon. May 2023 bring new beginnings, peace, good health and prosperity to members and their families.

As the member of Parliament representing the west side of Saskatoon, I will continue to work hard to raise up our city, our neighbourhoods and each of us to the best that we can be in 2023.

As we get into these last days of 2022, Bill C-18 has landed back in the House of Commons for its final round of debate before being shipped off to the other place. This legislation is one of three Internet censorship laws that the NDP-Liberal government has brought in since the last election.

Its goal is to ensure that voices other than its own, and news stories it does not like, are silenced in our democracy. I had the chance to speak to Bill C-11, which would have given almost dictator-like powers to a branch of the federal government to decide what people post on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and other Internet platforms.

If the content is not in line with the NDP-Liberal messaging of the day, algorithms would be manipulated to remove that content from one's feeds and searches. Members do not have to take my word for it. The head of that very government agency admitted as much to the Senate committee when it took up that legislation. What is worse, the NDP-Liberals just shrug their shoulders because that was the very point of the legislation.

This legislation, Bill C-18, is the second Internet censorship law that the NDP-Liberals are forcing down the throats of Canadians. Simply put, this law would force Facebook, Google and other Internet companies to prioritize CBC and other government-approved news outlets on our feed over the smaller alternative news media platforms that may be more critical of the NDP-Liberal view of the world.

The third piece of legislation currently before this Parliament is Bill C-27, which I hope to address in the new year. That legislation is the so-called digital privacy legislation, which is a laughable topic from an NDP-Liberal government that tracked millions of Canadian’s cell phones during the pandemic without their consent and has been responsible for the personal data of hundreds of thousands of Canadians ending up on the dark web.

The truth is that the Internet and social media are an integrated part of our lives today. Until now, they have been an unfettered part of our lives. Canadians use social media platforms to access and share a variety of different news articles and information among colleagues, family and friends. Canadians I talk to are very worried that these three laws will limit their ability to have open conversations online.

For legislation that is supposedly about promoting online news, the NDP-Liberals and their allies in the CBC and traditional media have been spreading a lot of misinformation about it. The current government wants to have Bill C-18 so it can use algorithms to keep information it does not like away from our feeds and Internet searches.

Bill C-18 essentially grants the government the ability to force online platforms, such as Facebook and Google, to sign deals under the duress of government penalty to promote government-approved content. These commercial agreements do not just have to be acceptable to the platform and the news organization but to the government as well.

The government agency in charge of implementing Bill C-18’s censorship provisions is called the CRTC, and it would oversee every step of this process to ensure they are satisfactory to the NDP-Liberals. Surprise, surprise, all nine members of the CRTC are appointed by the Liberal Minister of Heritage.

I am not the only one seeing past the government’s spin on this. Outside experts such as Michael Geist, who is the research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said this at the heritage committee in relation to Bill C-18, “Bill C-18’s dangerous approach…regulates which platforms must pay in order to permit expression from their users and dictates which sources are entitled to compensation.”

The former vice-chair of the CRTC, Peter Menzies, told the committee how the government can influence news companies:

You could end up with companies wishing to please the CRTC or the CRTC feeling pressure to make sure money in newsrooms is spent on certain topics, and they might be good topics, but it's frankly none of their business to have.... An independent press spends its money on whatever it wants.

Who are we to believe, the independent experts or the CBC, which is already in the pockets of the NDP-Liberal government?

A question that comes to mind is who benefits the most from this Internet censorship? It certainly is not the average everyday user of the Internet who is logging into their feed to keep up with the news. It is definitely not the independent journalists trying to make a living and provide accurate news. It could be no other than the legacy media, more specifically the folks at the CBC.

The CBC and other legacy news organizations have been complaining for years about their inability to keep up with the modern online news media. Then they proceeded to lobby the government for $600 million in bailouts. CBC, for example, rakes in $1.2 billion in federal funding and receives $250 million in combined TV and online advertising revenue, yet it still struggles to survive in the Canadian market, as it cannot keep up with the modern tech era.

This is where Bill C-18 comes to play. The government is looking to tip the scales further in CBC's favour. The government has decided that it is a bad look to continue giving more billion-dollar bailouts to the CBC, so now the government is forcing tech companies like Facebook and Google to make NDP-Liberal approved commercial deals to fund the legacy media.

Instead, the legacy media should be competing on the open market, as many independent journalists are doing as we speak. At the end of the day, online platforms and Canadian taxpayers should not be footing the bill if the legacy media is unable to keep up with the times.

Let us talk about how this legislation would affect the news Canadians access.

Bill C-18 would prohibit digital intermediary operators from giving what the CRTC determines as “preference” in news ranking. That sounds relatively fine, does it not? No, it is not. With this unclear language added into the bill, just about anyone could call up the CRTC to contest their ranking and be brought up to the top of any search engine or platform.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Trying to regulate content on the Internet will always introduce bias into the conversation. At best, it is an innocent hassle. At worst, it can be used by the government to suppress real information and control people. In my view, the risk of the worst case is not worth it. As they say, the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Let us talk about Google, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter and the Internet in general.

First let me say that Elon Musk's recent purchase of Twitter has shaken up Silicon Valley and the status quo in big tech quite a bit and has perhaps breathed some fresh air into what was becoming a stale industry. His commitment to free speech and his willingness to stand up to the powers that be show how big tech can directly influence elections or stay neutral, as they should.

Of course, in Canada, this legislation has the potential to tip the scales toward the NDP-Liberals during elections. Big tech recognizes that and they do not want to be tools of censorship in Canada or anywhere else.

Last spring, I met the executives of Google and it was an eye-opening experience. They are concerned. They worry that Bill C-18 does not have the tools to provide relief to smaller news outlets. After all, it was not the small independent news outlets that wanted this in the first place. It was the large media networks that lobbied for this to get done and that are now foaming at the mouth to get this legislation rammed through Parliament.

Members should not kid themselves. Google is not just afraid for its bottom line. It is a multi-billion dollar business and will absorb the costs associated with this legislation. Its real fear is about freedom of speech on the Internet. They may run worldwide organizations, but the Silicon Valley boys are still hackers at heart, living out of their mothers' basements playing Halo, sharing on Twitch and posting on Reddit. Google is concerned that the government is making it more difficult for Canadians to access quality information.

I also met with Amazon World Services in the summer, and we talked about a variety of issues related to this legislation. I can tell members that Google and Amazon do not just meet random opposition members from Saskatoon unless they have real concerns about where this country is going. It is Canadians who are the best judge of what content they want to consume, not some government bureaucrats.

We have seen Canadian content creators thrive in an open and competitive market, one being Hitesh Sharma, a Punjabi hip-hop artist from Saskatchewan who built up a large following on TikTok and later made it to the Junos. He did not need the CRTC to give him a path to fame.

It is very important that we allow our creators, whether they are influencers or media, to flourish against the top creators in the world. That is not to say we should not support our local media when we can, but we should recognize the talent we already have, all of whom have succeeded without the involvement of big government interference.

With Bill C-18, local Canadian content creators could be squeezed out of our newsfeeds and replaced with the CBC. I guess that is fine for the few people who tune into CBC on a regular basis, but for most people, especially younger people, the desire is for a free and open Internet where we can search for whatever we want, free of interference by government or anyone else. That is what Canadians want.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here today to speak to this topic.

First, I want to point out that committees are masters of their own proceedings, which I think is a really important point when we get into this. This is an Investment Canada Act issue. It is certainly an industry issue, specifically and mostly because there have been different times, as the previous member mentioned, when we have dealt with certain of these issues—the Neo Lithium issue, and other companies—and we just have not got it right.

Especially right now, with the government launching a new Indo-Pacific strategy, certainly, we have all heard reports of alleged Chinese police stations. We can go as far back as we want to. I have an office in an old Nortel building in Belleville. It used to be really big. I know that DND has one in Kanata. There's always talk about having to clean and the amount of bugs that have been in those buildings.

We've had interference for a long time, and whether this government is now making it known that it is more serious, or whether we're changing the strategy, certainly, when it comes to the Investment Canada Act and protecting our security, whether that be critical minerals or telecommunications as a whole, I think that all the members of this committee should warrant that at this point this needs to be studied. It is important to study this issue, not only because this was not from government or something that came out forthright that was discovered. It was from the press.

My colleague brought up the question of whether this was the only instance in which this is occurring. Certainly there was, in 2017, a government review of the approved sale of Vancouver-based Norsat International to Hytera. At that time, in 2017, MPs questioned that. We're now in 2022, almost 2023, almost six years later, and the same issues are there. To say that we have studied this....

Certainly, for two meetings, for two days, given the importance of the implications of this finding, given the importance of strengthening the Investment Canada Act, given the importance of protecting our information, our companies and our sovereignty in this country, it is certainly the right time for the industry committee to have those questions asked.

The government has already suspended the contract. There has already been action. Therefore, there should be full agreement that we can look into how this happened and how it cannot happen again, for a few reasons. The first is the importance of what is happening, and the significance of that to our nation. The second is the future of this committee, of company procurement, and making sure we strengthen the Investment Canada Act to make sure this doesn't happen again.

This is beyond the “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice”. This is happening three or four times. We certainly need to get to the bottom of it.

I don't see why, for two days, to bring the relevant witnesses to this committee and to have a report that goes to Parliament, at a time when we're trying to improve all the other bills.... My colleague mentioned C-27. Certainly, the government has talked about improving the Investment Canada Act. At a time when the Indo-Pacific strategy has been brought forward, although late, by the government, it certainly is the right time, in my mind, to spend two days.

Let's investigate what has happened. The company that lost out on that one bid is from Quebec. Why did a Canadian company lose out on that bid in the first place? As my colleague has mentioned, how much is it going to take to unravel what we've already implemented? Is the contract still in place? What is there? How do we go out and see that a new RFP is put forth that may benefit Quebec at the end of the day?

I think there are a lot of good reasons to go at this. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.