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.

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

Well, I'm just going by what you're telling me. If you want to get the floor, you can get the floor. I know you'll put your hand up, MP Masse. If you want to start doing that stuff in public, we can, but you're the one who raised it in public and said that those...and flipped on some of the things we talked about. I don't appreciate that you are denying the conversations we had.

Anyway, at the end of the day, this isn't about you and it isn't about me. It's about the corruption that's gone on here and trying to get to the bottom of this in a timely manner. That was the simple request. It was to get to this in a timely manner. The timely manner is not two months from now when we have it before us now. The extra time was just to allow a little more flexibility than my original two weeks.

Some of the government members, but not all, have recognized that there is a problem here. Some members have said even today that there's a problem and they're willing to do it. Others have made different comments.

At the end of the day, our first business back, as I understand it, was not a steering committee or business meeting. It was the continuation of clause-by-clause on Bill C-27, the privacy bill. That's already on the schedule. I'm not sure what filibusters were referred to, because we had 21 hearings on Bill C-27, followed by 10 meetings so far on clause-by-clause on Bill C-27, which was where we were at the end of the day, and a bit of time on the NDP leader's private member's bill that had to be dealt with by this committee.

With that list since last fall, I haven't seen filibustering in this committee, except for the last five meetings on clause-by-clause, where the Liberals basically continued to talk about one amendment through five meetings. Maybe it's the Liberals you're referring to about the filibustering that was going on in committee, but it wasn't us over those 21 meetings, plus the six meetings for MP Singh's bill.

I'll leave it there.

Report Stage

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to celebrate my colleague from Halifax's career in federal politics. I really enjoyed working with him, particularly on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I believe it is possible to be friends with and trust the people with whom we work. I even believe that, together, we could have gotten Bill C-27 passed, if we still had similar responsibilities.

That being said, he talked about the many things that have been accomplished in Halifax, but he forgot one: Halifax hosted the Memorial Cup in 2019, which gave the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies the opportunity to win not one, but two cups, the President's Cup and the Memorial Cup, against the Mooseheads. Perhaps I should not mention that here. Perhaps now is not the time. I am sorry.

I really appreciate my colleague's ambition in running for mayor. I would like him to tell us what particular thing he is most proud of.

What is the greatest legacy he is leaving his city and this Parliament?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

There's no downside to making sure that this happens.

I'm kind of concerned that the Liberals, again, are counting on something that hasn't taken place, whereas this is going to ensure that there's consistency in this. We are facing right now the same situation with the Privacy Commissioner by creating a tribunal that the Liberals want. It's why they filibustered two days of this committee, not moving on Bill C-27 because of that. It was because we are at odds with regard to their creating a tribunal that could then cost Canadian taxpayers.

It's not just the Competition Bureau that lost in this case. It was Canadian taxpayers, who had to pay money out of their pockets to Rogers because the Competition Bureau didn't have the protection necessary to go at the case, and it's having a cooling effect out there. How many other large corporations, conglomerates and oligopolies are going to be allowed this type of exemption and be told that it's okay for them to go after the Competition Bureau in their rulings?

That's a cooling effect that's really hard, and it also takes resources away from the Competition Bureau. They're short $5 million from their funds right now to protect Canadians, because Rogers went after them on this specific case. It sends the message as well that we're going to pass this over and say, “Hey, it's okay. We're going to basically allow you to continue this type of behaviour, and we're going to green-light it.”

That's what this is about. It's fine if it is a little bit redundant with regard to what has taken place with another bill that's in another chamber that we can't guarantee will get done. The Liberals are going to oppose it for just that alone, not for the real reasons for doing that. That's fine. They can be on the public record for doing that, for giving them another pass. When they come here, it almost looks like an audition for them, looking at their board of directors, because we've seen the history of what's taken place when people leave here and where they go.

I can tell you this much, this at least is the most modest thing that has been proposed by a progressive bill, which is going to send a message to Canadian companies that they're not going to abuse our competition commissioner and the bureau anymore. I hope that this will get support to get done, because it is very much, at the very least, going to have the control that we have in this part here....

I'm not willing, but I guess the Liberals are willing to turn over the reins to the unelected Senate. With regard to this, I'm not willing to do so, because they could do an amendment on that bill that takes this out. We don't have the ability to know what they're going to do or when they're going to pass it. We would then have to deal with that back in the House of Commons as well. Maybe it's a precursor to this. Maybe it's their plan to take this out of Bill C-59 in the Senate bill and put in back in the House. That could be their strategy perhaps, because it doesn't make any sense for them to oppose what they put in the legislation before, which we can't control right now. However, we can do it at this moment and make sure that we send a strong signal to the Competition Bureau and the commissioner.

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

Yes.

I know that we've spent a lot of time on Bill C-27 for the last three or four months, and I know the committee is anxious to get to some of the other issues that are facing Canadians right now, specifically around the high cost of living, inflation, productivity, affordability, taxation and just the economy as a whole.

With all of that work and the fact that we still want to get back to Bill C-27 and get that finished in the fall, we are hoping we can still meet for a few meetings over the summer just to deal with some of these issues. I know that our member from Windsor also brought up, I think, a motion that he had on interprovincial trade and certain issues that we have that we want to bring the Competition Bureau back for, which I'm all for.

Therefore, we have a motion, Mr. Chair, that reads:

Given the large workload the committee has on the docket, the committee instructs the chair to book five meetings between July 8 and September 13, while the House is adjourned, to deal with unfinished business and pressing matters facing Canadians, such as regulatory barriers to competition, wireless telecommunications affordability, and examining the government's proposal to migrate Sustainable Development Technology Canada's funding into the National Research Council Canada.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm very interested to hear what Dr. Lilly and Mr. Heather just talked about regarding trade irritants. My concern, as we look into this review—I've called this out in other committees—is that we're going through a series of what I call “own goals” in Canada that will potentially frustrate it.

I want to ask both of you, Dr. Lilly and Mr. Heather, about the online streaming act, the DST and Bill C-27. If these all go through and are implemented, as it looks like the current government wants to do, will it make the CUSMA review easier or more complicated, in your view?

[Sean Heather, Senior Vice-President, International Regulatory Affairs and Antitrust, U.S. Chamber of Commerce]

Madam Chair, on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to be here to provide testimony to the standing committee as it evaluates actions ahead of the CUSMA review.

The chamber has a long-standing commitment to the North American economic relationship. No organization in the United States has been a more vocal advocate for a strong and mutually beneficial partnership with Canada and Mexico. We are guided by principle, not politics. We defend and promote free enterprise, free markets, rules-based trade and investment, and the rule of law.

The trilateral relationship goes beyond the impact of our $1.7-trillion annual three-way trade to include significant direct investment ties and highly integrated value chains that support millions of jobs across all three countries. Our three countries have the potential to expand this important relationship and work together to meet shared challenges, such as the diversification of semiconductor production, energy security, energy transition, food security and critical minerals.

CUSMA is intended to facilitate closer economic co-operation and provide legal certainty for cross-border trade and investment. The chamber calls on each of the three governments to address implementation and compliance issues and uphold the spirit and letter of the agreement. In short, we each must keep our word.

For example, the chamber has called for the U.S. government to uphold the dispute settlement panel ruling on automotive rules of origin published back in January 2023. As we aim to make North America the most competitive global platform for vehicle production, the future of the continent's automotive industry depends on the certainty provided by this agreement. In addition, maintaining our competitive edge also means avoiding the expansion of U.S.-driven buy American policies. In short, we need to recognize that in North America, we make things together.

At the same time, we appreciate the opportunity to highlight areas that require Canada to fulfill its CUSMA commitments. Canada is advancing an ambitious digital agenda. We are concerned that Canada is looking to bolster its competitiveness at times by targeting U.S. businesses. Such policies not only erode Canada's culture of innovation and competitiveness, but also undermine Canada's commitment to maintaining open and fair business climates.

First, I'd like to flag our concern with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's decision to impose an initial based contribution of 5% on U.S. streaming services. This decision fails to recognize the investments made by American streaming services in Canada's creative sector. Indeed, Americans can hardly turn their televisions on without seeing programs created here in Canada.

Consequently, Americans find it ironic that Bill C-11 specifically targets U.S. companies in a manner that may violate Canada's international trading obligations, including those under CUSMA. This action appears to contravene commitments that guarantee a minimal standard of treatment, require equal treatment of foreigners and local enterprises, and obligate Canada to refrain from imposing certain performance requirements on foreign direct investment.

Second, we have a deep concern over the potential for Canada to reintroduce its unilateral digital services tax by implementing Bill C-59. The DST is set to introduce discriminatory measures against U.S. companies, violating Canada's obligations under CUSMA and the WTO and contradicting Canada's commitment to the G20 OECD process. Adding to our concern is the fact that Canada's proposed DST is two and potentially three years retroactive. We would note that the Office of the United States Trade Representative has investigated several measures substantially similar to those proposed by Canada—including a French DST, on which the Canada version is modelled—and found them to be unreasonable or discriminatory and burdensome or restrictive to U.S. commerce and thus actionable under U.S. trade law.

Last, we have serious concerns with the artificial intelligence and data act, which is part of Bill C-27, currently being studied by your colleagues in the House of Commons industry committee. In its current draft, the bill is overly broad and restrictive, capturing a potentially endless number of low-risk use cases that risk putting Canada out of step with the U.S. and other important trading partners on AI regulation. If it moves forward, we are concerned that it will have an adverse effect on Canada's competitiveness, hinder AI development, limit business exploration and ultimately affect productivity and economic growth. During our visit to Ottawa this week, we'll be hosting an AI policy dialogue precisely to discuss some of the challenges and opportunities related to AI.

At the chamber, we are focused on keeping the 2026 CUSMA review in perspective. While the three trading partners are sovereign states, no one has identified a compelling reason to undertake a wide-ranging renegotiation of this agreement. Primarily, this upcoming review is an opportunity to ensure implementation and compliance with the existing commitments. Having said that, Canadian policies such as Bill C-11, the proposed DST, and Canada's approach to AI all have the potential to complicate this review. Perceptions that Canada is violating CUSMA commitments will serve to increase pressure to criticize the agreement during the review process.

In closing, the chamber stands ready to work with our partners in Canada to continue to build a strong North American partnership. We thank you for this opportunity to share our views at this hearing and look forward to your questions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for a great panel today.

I'd like to reiterate MP Généreux's comments about the staff today. It's been a really long year at the industry committee, but we've done a lot of great work for Canadians. I want to thank all the staff for their extended efforts, especially on Bill C-27.

I'll pose an open-ended question to the witnesses today.

There has been great discussion on Bill C-56, Bill C-352 and Bill C-59, but when we bring this to our communities and our constituencies, the number one thing I'm asked—and that I'm sure pretty much every politician in Canada is asked—is when we are going to see lower grocery prices.

With Bill C-56, Bill C-352 and Bill C-59, have we done enough to lower prices for Canadians so their paycheques will take them a bit further every month?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. We can follow up on this as well.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that things moved on as the bill was crafted and created, and that's normal in terms of processes here. It's the same with my position on the tribunal. Going through Bill C-27, I've kept myself open to creating a tribunal for part of it, but from the evidence that's been presented—and we around this table have never really dealt with tribunals before—I've come to some conclusions that give me great concern. Therefore, we left the door open for an amendment to the tribunal, but not to get rid of it. I mean, we could even get rid of the tribunal here, if this body actually chose to do so.

At any rate, that's kind of where we're at. We're in a work-in-progress environment here. I hope we can actually kind of continue to add on while we have the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Arya, we're out of time.

This brings our meeting to an end, but before we adjourn, I just want to thank Ms. Angus and Mr. Chhabra for joining us yet again.

You've been with us for the whole month of May, and this is technically our last meeting on Bill C-27 for some time. We're at CPC-9.

I hope that this summer will make us reflect on where we want to go with this bill. Thank you very much for your professionalism and for your time.

I would also like to thank Mr. Mark Schaan, who is not here today.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Samir Chhabra]

In fact, that is the design of the system that's proposed by Bill C-27 in the CPPA. It is, in fact, to have the commissioner have a stronger hand at that appeal process by virtue of the fact that the tribunal has to defer to the commissioner's findings of fact and the mix of the findings of fact and law.

That is an entirely different playing field from what you'd find at court. In that way, it is very much designed to ensure speed, as well as to provide the commissioner with a significantly stronger hand than if he or she were to take a case to court. Also, of course, the fact that the finding itself of the tribunal can't be appealed is another piece that creates a very significant backstop against a lengthy delay or overextended process.

[Runa Angus]

The de novo is from the Privacy Commissioner to the Federal Court, which is the case right now.

What we mean by de novo is that, because the Privacy Commissioner right now does not have any decision-making power—Bill C-27 contemplates that decision-making power—the court doesn't give any deference to the Privacy Commissioner's findings. It has to make its case like anyone else would have to make their case if they took a company or any other individual to court.

There is no deference provided. That's something that's changing under the process we've contemplated in Bill C-27, where the tribunal would have to provide deference to the commissioner on questions of fact and mixed fact and law. That's what the de novo is. It's really the court substituting its own analysis for the Privacy Commissioner's analysis.

[Runa Angus]

I just wanted to add perhaps some more context.

In the case of the Social Security Tribunal, that tribunal is supported by the administrative tribunals support service system, which we have contemplated would also support the tribunal that is contemplated under Bill C-27. Again, compared to the two years the OPC is currently facing, the Social Security Tribunal heard cases in 2021 to 2022, for example, in 43 days.

There is a very substantial difference between the time in which a specialized tribunal can hear a case as opposed to the courts. That's something that, as I mentioned earlier, the courts themselves have recognized.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back to everyone who is keeping tabs on Bill C-27.

For those listening at home, we're still working on the amendment on private right of action, an amendment that we're looking at to reinstate at least one line of that. I just wanted to make a few points that I was trying to end with at the last meeting, when we talked about why we believe the powers should be going to the Privacy Commissioner and what private right of action actually means in terms of taking away the tribunal and giving that power to the commissioner.

I believe it means an increased accountability for organizations. A private right of action would create a direct legal route for individuals to seek remedies for privacy violations, therefore increasing accountability of organizations, which is really important when we look at the Privacy Commissioner having that power but also at the ability of those individuals who are going through the Privacy Commissioner first to then take their own legal remedy against organizations that violate their privacy.

We talked about resource allocation for the Privacy Commissioner and the fact that perhaps the Privacy Commissioner would be overburdened. We all know what's happening with the Information Commissioner right now, who has asked for extra funding and is backlogged and is not getting that funding from the government. This would allow individuals to take legal action for privacy breaches and reduce the number of cases the Privacy Commissioner has, even though the commissioner should be getting more funding, depending on the caseload.

There's a deterrent effect in the possibility that facing private lawsuits would act as a deterrent for organizations considering lax data protection practices. The ability to have this through the Privacy Commissioner, of course, would be a deterrent.

On the empowerment of individuals, we've talked about making sure that privacy is a fundamental right. When you give this power to individuals, you're empowering individuals to take action and control their privacy rights, which I think is a very important part of this bill. We perhaps could have a faster resolution of complaints compared to administrative processes handled only or solely by the Privacy Commissioner's office or by the tribunal.

We think this will enhance privacy awareness. As individuals take legal action, it raises public awareness about privacy rights and the importance of data protection, the more that this gets into the hands of those individuals.

There could be a reduction in systemic violations. The threat of legal action from multiple individuals could encourage organizations to implement more robust privacy practices, reducing the likelihood of systemic privacy violations and reducing the overall burden on the Privacy Commissioner.

It goes on and on, but moreover, I think it's a complementary role. The private right to action serves as a complementary mechanism to the Privacy Commissioner's oversight, ensuring a more comprehensive and multi-faceted approach to privacy protection.

When we're looking at this, I think we all agree that this should be going first to the Privacy Commissioner, that the Privacy Commissioner should be the first step, but that private right of action is really important in giving that power to the Privacy Commissioner so the commissioner can handle and administer fines and we still have the option of the courts. Then we would find that the tribunal would be unneeded.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.

(Clause 2)

We now return to clause 2 of Bill C‑27 and amendment CPC‑9.

Mr. Williams, you have the floor to debate Mr. Perkins' subamendment.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm sorry I can't be with you all today in person, and I have to join remotely.

I just wanted to say I'm generally supportive of Mr. Garon's motion. The topic is an important one. Perhaps we can study it. We've certainly said all along that we would continue to work on and prioritize Bill C-27. I'm hoping we can agree to that. I know we're not debating it today, but I just wanted to signal to him that we're supportive of studying this, but would prefer to do so after Bill C-27, if possible.

Thank you.