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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Very well.

As I was saying, we are now continuing our review of Bill C‑27 where we left off. As you know, we were on amendment CPC-9.

Mr. Turnbull has the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Good afternoon and happy Monday, everyone.

I now call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 135 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Before we begin, I kindly ask all the participants here in Ottawa to read the guidelines on the use of microphones and earpieces. This is for everyone’s health and safety, especially our interpreters, to whom I extend my thanks, by the way.

I wish to remind you that, 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 would like to welcome back today Samir Chhabra, director general, Privacy and Data Protection Branch, who is—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

It's quite remarkable when you look at timelines. We look at the more recent scandals that have come through the SDTC in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

You go back to this one here, and the criminal conduct that we're looking at was between 2016 and 2018. This was obviously in the earlier days of the current government's administration. Just look at the way things have progressed.

This was a source of contracts of about $230,000, something like that. To me, that's a lot of money. To the taxpayers that's a lot of money. Then you look at how grand the scandals and the grifting have become when you start looking at the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being misappropriated through SDTC. It's absolutely remarkable just how brazen the insiders and folks well-connected to the Liberal government have become.

I think studying this one would be very important because I think it will give us a good snapshot of just how this has all gotten out of hand so quickly, because this was early in this government's administration. I think it's going to show us just exactly the way the snowball has really gained momentum, has gained size. When you look at just how many different ways the taxpayer is being fleeced these days, I think this is a good way to show how that started and how that began and how that overall sense of entitlement, I would say, seems to have permeated throughout the public service with Liberal insiders.

This is another urgent matter. We heard today that there are all sorts of urgent matters because there is no end to it with this government. I would implore colleagues to take serious consideration of this one. I think we should get on to this one as quickly as we can because, as we've heard, we're at a bit of an impasse here now with BillC-27, with the Liberals filibustering for several meetings on the current provision that we are at on the meeting.

It's helpful that for once somebody has been criminally charged. He actually pleaded guilty, which is good, but I think we still need to figure out how this happened, why there was not accountability within the ministry. There are a lot of angles we can take on this to try to figure out how this is happening and being allowed to happen. It continues to happen in greater amounts to this day.

I look forward to us hopefully getting onto this study and making sure that taxpayers know that we take seriously the stewardship of the money the government takes from them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We're still debating the motion. The amendment is still on the floor and is removing “within 14 days”.

I have no more speakers, so I will put the amendment to a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Okay. We're back to the motion as originally proposed by Mr. Perkins.

I have no more speakers, but I understand from the debate we've had that there is general consent, unanimous consent, on this motion. I see heads nodding.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we should be back to Bill C-27, but I see Mr. Perkins and Mr. Turnbull.

I saw Mr. Perkins first.

Mr. Perkins, the floor is yours.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Indeed, as my colleague Mr. Généreux said, I think the minister probably needs to recharge his batteries. I think an appearance before the committee might be a good opportunity for him to do so.

There are also a number of issues we want to discuss with him, such as Bill C‑27. In this regard, the minister has a parliamentary secretary who is doing an excellent job, but at this point, given the significant blockages we're experiencing, it might be appropriate to discuss this with the minister as well.

As a result, I'm going to vote in favour of this motion.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chair, I too would like to move a motion, notice of which was provided by Mr. Perkins on September 13:

That the committee invite the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to appear before the committee for no less than two hours, within 14 days of the adoption of this motion, in relation to his priorities for the return of Parliament and his mandate.

We know that the minister hasn't come to see us for some time. In addition, all kinds of things happened during the summer. We need only think of all the investments the government has made in the battery industry, Northvolt being a significant part of that. In light of the current difficulties, it might be interesting to have an update from the minister on his overall mandate, as well as on his expectations regarding Bill C‑27.

Earlier, Mr. Masse said that one option to consider might be to split up Bill C‑27 and send part of it to the Senate for consideration as quickly as possible, to move things forward. Everyone agrees that it's important a bill gets passed on both privacy and artificial intelligence. So we'd like to know how the minister can help us move this very important bill forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Before I turn it over to MP Perkins, even though my opinion is of no importance because I just channel the will of the committee, whatever happens with the amendment, Mr. Masse, I'm very sympathetic to this motion. I think Mr. Garon's suggestion to use that study occasionally to fill in the gaps when we are at a dead end on Bill C-27 is useful. Whatever happens, I think we'll get it going sooner rather than later.

Mr. Perkins, go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate those sentiments, but I'm going to support the amendment because I want to get something going. I am listening to both my colleagues. I believe they both want to get this work done. I think the motion leaves the chair with discretion about the amount of time, how we will coordinate Bill C-27 and what happens next. I have total confidence in the chair's ability to judge that. I support the motion because it doesn't tell the chair specifically how many meetings, how much time and so forth, but basically he's going to get the airplane off the runway. That's the way I view it.

I really do respect what we've heard from my two previous colleagues about this. Sending it to committee is not to defer it. It is the usual practice for this. I would just rather deal with this right now than schedule another meeting with interpreters and all the different stuff that goes on, and then leave it in the chair's hands in terms of getting something going within the next couple of weeks.

You won't hear me complaining. I'm not expecting that meeting to circumvent everything else that's taking place here when we do get to Bill C-27 and try to deal with the tribunal issue, which I think is really important. If we can resolve that somehow at this table, then I think, quite frankly, we should split Bill C-27 and send the privacy component off to the Senate, and then decide on the other AI stuff as we go forward, so that we can get them working on this bill. That's just my personal preference right now.

I'm going to support the amendment, but it's because I think the amendment is crafted in a way that gives the chair the ability to do the necessary scheduling. That way, we won't deviate entirely from our duty here, and then at the same time we will at least show Canadians.... It will be interesting to see the reaction from the credit card industry once they know we're zeroing in on this issue. I'm sure there's going to be some activity right away. Ironically, I have a meeting coming up after this with the bankers. I see some nods here. They're lobbying on the Hill.

At any rate, I think that in itself is really important: that they know the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP are serious about consumer debt and what's taking place.

For those reasons, I'll support the amendment and leave it in your capable hands to determine how we proceed with the business at this table.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I completely agree with the wording of the motion. The proposed topic of study is something Quebeckers care about. In fact, the Office de la protection du consommateur du Québec is responsible for some of the regulations. The Government of Quebec has already looked into the matter. I do think it's time for us to take on an initiative of this kind, so I commend my colleague Mr. Masse's initiative. It's very important.

However, I'm inclined to vote against the proposed amendment, for the following reason. As we've said before, time is getting tight. We may have to change our schedule if we want to do things properly. I'm wondering how we should do it. I'm not convinced that it's the right way to go introducing motions with a few days' notice, providing dates and saying that we must devote two meetings to it this week, next week or in two weeks. If we start operating this way, the deadlines will eventually pile up and it will be hard to control.

I'm opposed to the amendment for the following reason. I think that we will ultimately have to hold a subcommittee meeting to discuss the schedule, be honest with each other and agree on rules for carrying out our work. I'm open to that. I even think it's possible, depending on how our discussions go on Bill C‑27, that we will need a break to find solutions to certain issues. If so, this study could very well slip in as a solution, and even help us manage our time properly if we need to discuss Bill C‑27.

I really think we should have a subcommittee meeting in the near future to discuss the schedule. I don't want my colleague to think that I'm in no hurry to do the study he proposes in his motion. This is an important issue, but it's not appropriate to do it this way, squeeze it in on very short notice.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My concern with that 14 days is this. In case the current issue we are supposed to discuss today, Bill C-27, doesn't get done within 14 days, it will get further postponed.

Is there any way we can say this can be taken up 14 days after the conclusion of the current things the committee is dealing with?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have to say that I agree with my colleague, Mr. Arya, that this would probably not be the most productive use of the committee's time, given the fact that.... I know that the Conservatives have touted Futurpreneur. I have a long list of quotes that I've dug up very quickly. Many of the current sitting members on the Conservative benches have claimed and have given accolades to Futurpreneur for many years. I could read those into the record.

We've seen what the Conservative Party does on these fishing expeditions. I understand that sometimes they may be merited, and in those cases, I think you've often experienced that our party is willing to work with you and to undertake those studies. In this particular case, I don't think this is a good use of the committee's time, so we won't be supporting this.

I agree with my colleague, Mr. Garon, that really the committee is here today with our wonderful officials to work through Bill C-27, which we've all agreed, for quite some time, is a real priority for this committee. Obviously, government legislation generally takes priority. We know that committees are the masters of their own domains. We often say that, but we also all recognize that, as Ms. Rempel Garner said at the beginning of the meeting, it would be great to eventually study the AI portion of the bill. We have to get through a considerable number of amendments to get to that point, but I look forward to productively working through that process together.

I know we've reached a bit of an impasse on a key amendment, CPC-9, which I'm hoping to get back to today. I hope maybe we can get to a vote and move back to discussing Bill C-27.

Thank you.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion contains a number of things and, let's be honest right out of the gate, it seems to have, if not an objective, certainly the consequence of completely clogging up the committee's agenda for the next few weeks, and more particularly of preventing us from doing legislative work, which should be our priority now, based on my perception of what we need to do at committee, although we are sovereign.

Obviously, this program model to help and finance start-ups may be altogether acceptable. However, with this kind of model, public funds flow into organizations whose leaders are not necessarily subject to the Conflict of Interest Act. As a result, control over the use of public funds is lost or issues may become apparent once the money has disappeared or, at the very least, been misspent. This model has been criticized. That was the case at SDTC, Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Here we have another one. We should certainly reflect more deeply and completely on this long-standing practice by the federal government, on all sides of the House.

Despite all that, I get the impression that the purpose of the motion is to delay our work. I certainly don't want to judge the intent, but we will recall very recent cases where Conservative motions have resulted in witnesses appearing. Meetings were called in the middle of the summer under Standing Order 106(4). I know that made you very happy, Mr. Chair. We know you to be a patient man.

We propose studies of this kind and, in the end, we put anything and everything on trial rather than working on the purpose proposed in these motions, essentially because the political agenda is broader. I have a feeling that might be the intent of this motion. That's my impression, for what it's worth.

We see the Conservative strategy. For example, SDTC was raised again before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It may be relevant. However, we're seeing the same thing every time we talk about a program that funds small start-ups, particularly when it comes to businesses that could become green transition and environmental technology leaders. By putting the funding model on trial, even though the case may be legitimate, we're also putting these businesses on trial. In doing so, we're harming their reputation, freezing funding, and hindering the green transition, which the Conservatives are obviously not very fond of. That's what's in their platform, if they have one. That's theirs, and that's fine. At the end of the day, we're realizing that we end up putting these businesses on trial.

In Quebec, we have a bunch of businesses like this. We like to innovate. Long before the current government came to power, Quebec introduced an emissions trading system that makes the emergence of these types of technologies cost-effective.

Given the legislative agenda before us and the time available to us, I'm not sure this is the right time to hold this trial. We don't know how much time we have left to do our work.

I will now turn to Bill C‑27, and this is directly related to the motion before the committee. I will then speak to Mr. Masse's motion. The Conservative motion was clearly drafted in such a way that my NDP colleague would feel guilty voting against it. I'm glad he saw through that. We can consider his motion, which has merit.

Having said that, we've all had conversations about Bill C‑27. We don't all agree on the terms, the amendments and the details, but we do agree that parts of this bill are important. Quebec has passed Bill 25 and there may currently be inconsistencies between it and the federal bill. Some provinces are waiting to amend their personal data laws. I'm referring here to the first part of the bill. We've always said that we feel the bill should be split up so that we can pass it in chunks and ensure that we're acting in the public interest. I believe we need to continue to work out our differences and move this bill forward. I'm not saying it will be easy. However, if we start making a circus of motions and undertaking studies of all kinds for which the committee sets aside a Monday here and a Thursday there, a few months will certainly have passed without us being able to work on Bill C‑27. Since time is a very scarce resource here, I don't think this way of doing things would allow us to work in the public interest.

Given the content of this motion and the merits of all these motions, we will not support it.

With regard to my NDP colleague Mr. Masse's motion, I will be pleased to discuss it at greater length when we debate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 134 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I would like to apologize for being late. I had noted in my calendar that the meeting started at 8:30 a.m., but there's been a change. Our meetings now start at 8:15.

I would like to remind all members to please review the guidelines for the use of microphones and earpieces. These guidelines, which are on your desk, are intended to protect the health and safety of all participants, especially the interpreters.

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 the two witnesses from the Department of Industry, whom we are pleased to see again after the summer break. They are Samir Chhabra, director general, marketplace framework policy branch, and Runa Angus, senior director, strategy and innovation policy sector.

As you may recall, colleagues, at the end of our last meeting on Bill C‑27, we were on CPC‑9. Specifically, we were on the subamendment moved by Mr. Perkins.

I will now open the floor for discussion on this subamendment.

(On clause 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Wonderful, the motion passed unanimously. It’s a fine demonstration of consensus.

The meeting is drawing to a close. It’s already 6:26 p.m. Thank you, colleagues.

We will therefore see each other on Thursday morning to resume our study of Bill C-27.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm very happy to be here. I'm leaving the industry committee. I think we're on our 190th meeting on Bill C-27, so it's nice to be leaving that committee. I know it's good work, and we had a very collaborative and co-operative committee, and we're looking forward to that here in the international trade committee.

Madam Chair, thank you very much for convening this meeting. The members of the Conservative Party and the NDP, through Standing Order 106(4), sent a letter to the committee to have this meeting today.

What we feel right now is we're dealing with potentially the greatest trade crisis of our time. We have two fronts that are facing us right now.

On one hand, we have what seems to be a close relationship with the U.S. that is cooling. Everyone saw the announcement last week where the U.S. almost doubled the softwood lumber tariffs on Canada even though Canada really has had a great trading relationship for a long time—a trillion dollars' worth of trade across the border and about the largest trading relationship in the world. Of course, we had a $52-billion U.S. announcement for battery manufacturing and assembly in Canada, and those batteries are used in cars manufactured in the U.S.

When we talk about what's at stake here, it's jobs. Two million jobs are attributed to our trading relationship with the U.S., directly and indirectly. The auto industry is the specific one we're focused on that employs 500,000 people in Canada. It's an industry worth $18 billion to this country, and this industry right now is under threat.

That is because, on the other hand, we face a contentious relationship with China. We've had allegations of foreign interference. We've had unfair trade practices, and when we talk about EVs, aluminum and steel—and I'm still the competition critic—I can tell you right now that the way China subsidizes these industries, especially their EVs, their steel and their aluminum.... It's not just the subsidization; it's the questionable trade practices and the questionable labour standards that they have. This is a really big threat to that trillion-dollar trade relationship we have with the U.S., but specifically to the auto manufacturing relationship we have. The stakes really could not be higher for Canada's economic future.

We talk about the money invested, but we also talk about jobs. The Americans didn't hesitate to protect jobs and industries. Canadians right now have been waiting three months to hear whether Canada is going to mirror the tariffs that have been put on those industries, which the Americans announced back in May. The Americans didn't hesitate. By not matching tariffs, we risk being seen as a weak link in the North American supply chain, and hesitation drives away investment. Retaliation, of course, is something we look at, but it's not something we can avoid by being passive. In fact, our inaction invites further aggression from countries like China, which will see our delay as weakness and capitalize on it.

We're not going to be able to stop the number of cars coming in. Tariffs don't stop EVs from coming into Canada. They will certainly slow them down, though. We risk certain effects if these vehicles enter Canada and they find their way through a back door to the U.S. market; we will further aggravate that Canada-U.S. relationship. Canadians deserve to know why it's taking so long to protect their jobs and industries. It has been three months since the U.S. implemented these tariffs. How much longer will Canadians have to wait?

The government must explain why it's dragging its feet when our economic future is at stake. Regarding the consultation the government conducted, we've talked to quite a few of the stakeholder groups involved in the consultation, and it has been thorough, but it clearly hasn't been comprehensive enough. Certain stakeholders have stated that we haven't covered data, for instance, and the fact that these are vehicles are coming into Canada. The U.S. is conducting a comprehensive study right now. We were studying part of that in the industry committee with Bill C-27, including, with these vehicles, the data that Canadians will give them, where it's stored and what it's used for by state-owned China.

The second thing would be the unfair labour practices, and the third would be the broader economic impact. Canadians deserve nothing less than to study this trade crisis, and therefore, Madam Chair, I will read the following motion to the committee:

That, given the risk heavily-subsidized Chinese-made electric vehicles pose to the over 600,000 Canadian workers in the steel, aluminum, mining, and auto-manufacturing industries, as well as risk to the $52.4 billion of taxpayers' money the federal government has spent on corporate subsidies for the electric vehicle industry in Canada, the committee begin a study of at least 8 meetings into the impact of tariffs on local industry and use of trade remedies to protect against Chinese electric vehicles, with 4 meetings held before September 30, 2024, and that the meetings consist of:

One 2-hour meeting with the Honourable Mary Ng, Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade, and Economic Development, and officials from Global Affairs Canada on the issue of tariffs and impacts on local industry.

One 2-hour meeting with the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and officials from the Department of Finance.

One 2-hour meeting with the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and officials from the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.

One 2-hour meeting with the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and officials from the Department of Global Affairs.

At least four meetings with stakeholders deemed relevant to the subject.

that the committee request copies in both official languages, of all submissions made to the Federal Government's public consultation which ran from July 2nd to August 1st, 2024 on protecting Canadian workers and electric vehicle supply chains from unfair Chinese trade practices, that the copies be sent to the clerk for distribution to committee members prior to the commencing of the study, that the committee report its findings to the House, and that the committee immediately report to the House of Commons that the Government immediately match the United States' tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, steel, aluminum, critical minerals, and EV batteries and battery parts, and remove Chinese-made electric vehicles from all Federal electric vehicle subsidy and rebate programs.