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.

Industry and Technology

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of what the Prime Minister has said to me, which is that he wants me to reflect the ideas, thoughts and concerns of the people of Winnipeg North. Whether it is here on the floor of the House of Commons, at the national Liberal caucus or even, very rarely but at times, at the standing committees, Liberal members of the caucus really believe it is important that we take the ideas and thoughts of our constituents to Ottawa. Then, when we present legislation or budgets, or when discussions take place at our standing committees or within our caucus, they are a true reflection of what Canadians, as a whole, are thinking and want the government to take action on. That is why we see legislation like Bill C-27.

I can tell the members opposite that Canadians are very much concerned about identity theft through the Internet. They are very much concerned about privacy. They want to know that the government is going to protect their privacy. That is why we are enhancing the Privacy Commissioner's abilities, with respect to the amounts of fines or the types of things the Privacy Commissioner would be able to conduct. This would provide assurance to Canadians that, even if the Conservatives are more concerned about playing games and filibustering, whether on the floor of the House or at our standing committees, we will continue to take actions to support Canadians.

Just last week, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry announced the launch of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute. That is to bolster Canada's capacity to address AI safety risks, further positioning the country as a leader in the safe, responsible development and adoption of AI technology. Although we have a legislative responsibility we are advancing, we are also prepared to put in budgetary dollars to ensure the interests of Canadians, first and foremost, are being protected. While the Conservative Party is more focused on being obstructionist and making character assassinations, we have consistently supported Canadians, whether through budgetary or legislative measures, and ensured that issues of concern to them are, in fact, being reflected in Ottawa.

If we look at the advancement in the Internet and the issues that have come out of that, that is why, as a government, we have brought forward not one but several pieces of legislation to protect children and protect our economy. I think of the business transactions that take place every day. Protecting the interests of Canadians is a priority with this government, such as advancing the issue of AI and its use in a positive way, looking at ways we can ensure a heightened sense of safety on the Internet and looking at Internet security as a priority. By providing the funds and the legislative measures that establish a framework, it will make a difference. We want Canadians to know that, as a government, we are there to protect their interests when it comes to the information that is gathered on the Internet and the very real cyber threats out there. We will be there, today and tomorrow, to protect those—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important issue about the Internet, and threats on the Internet, in a number of ways. He spent a great deal of his time focused on Bill C-27, and understandably so since that is what the motion is about. The government has taken a very holistic approach in dealing with all aspects of the Internet in the form of legislation and regulations.

Quite often in legislation, we see a framework that is absolutely essential to support healthy and strong regulations that, ultimately, protect the interests of Canadians. It has been somewhat frustrating, as the member was frustrated when talking about what is taking place in committees; on the floor of the House of Commons, it has also been frustrating. The member referred to Bill C-27 being held up in committee, but he tried to put the blame on the government.

One of the biggest differences between the government today and the government while Stephen Harper was prime minister is that we are very open to ideas, constructive criticism, and looking at ways we can improve legislation. That means we have been open to amendments and changes. There have been a number of recommendations, but there was also an extensive filibuster on Bill C-27. It was not just government members but opposition members, much like we see filibusters taking place now on other aspects of the safety of Canadians.

For seven or eight weeks now, there has been a Conservative filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons, and there are other pieces of legislation dealing with the Internet that the Conservatives continue to filibuster. I am referring to Bill C-63, which deals with things such as intimate images being spread on the Internet without consent and child exploitation. We are talking about serious issues facing Canadians, including Bill C-63, that we cannot even get to committee because the Conservative Party has made the decision to filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons.

When the member opposite talks about Bill C-27, I can assure the member that the government is very keen on the legislation. We do not see how Canadians would benefit by splitting the legislation because both aspects are really important to Canadians. We should look at where it can be improved and we are open to that. We have clearly demonstrated that, but we need a higher sense of co-operation, whether dealing with Bill C-63 in the chamber or Bill C-27 at committee. Bill C-26 deals with cybersecurity. As I said, the government is very aware of what is happening on the Internet and our responsibility as legislators to advance legislation that helps establish a framework that will protect the interests of Canadians.

Earlier, I referred to a trip I took to the Philippines in the last five days. One of the companies we visited was a Canadian company, Open Text, that employs 1,500-plus people. We sat in a room that had this huge monitor of the world, and Open Text talked about how threats to infrastructure and to individuals occur every second. We are talking about a trillion type of number when it comes to computer threats occurring on a monthly basis. Open Text can tell where they are coming from and where they are going. It was a very interesting presentation.

No government has invested more in issues around AI than this government has, recognizing the potential good but also the extreme harm out there. We can think about different types of data banks. There are government data banks, such as Canada Revenue at the national level and health care records at the provincial level. There are the Tim Hortons, the private companies, and the data they acquire in their applications. The amount of information about Canadian individuals on the Internet is incredible. Technology has changed the lives of each and every one of us, whether we know it or not.

We can take a look at the number of cameras on our public streets, in malls and so on. We can think of the number of interactions we have on a daily or weekly basis, whether that is banking, which contains very sensitive information, or medical reports—

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑27 proposes industry self-regulation. That is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse. Bill C‑27 also calls for as much alignment with European legislation as possible, which is not happening even though it is the gold standard.

To me, this bill looks like a rough draft cobbled together by novices. It does not seem up to the task of protecting the basic right to privacy, which is what matters most right now.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Windsor West, for raising this issue in the House. I want to acknowledge how very patient he has been.

When I was on the Standing Committee on Industry a year ago, we were talking about this issue. We were working on it. We could already see the bill's shortcomings. Basically, the bill was outdated as soon as it was introduced. Why? It is because ChatGPT showed up right afterward.

Here is my question for my colleague. Why did the government not introduce a new version of the digital charter bill, Bill C‑27, since it was already obsolete when we studied it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member is raising an issue on which, I would suggest, the government has been fairly aggressive. It has addressed a number of different issues related to the Internet, cybersecurity, protecting Canadians' data, AI and so forth.

He is referring to one piece of legislation. I think that there is a great deal of merit in terms of looking at it with a holistic approach. Given what we have witnessed over the last number of months, in terms of the House, we have an opportunity to at least make headway in areas that Bill C-27 is proposing. If we were to split the bill, it could ultimately prevent one aspect from being able to pass, even if it is just setting a framework.

Does he believe that this would be advantageous for Canadians?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that, during its consideration of 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, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation:

(a) Bill C-27A, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and An Act to enact the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, containing Part 1, Part 2 and the schedule to section 2; and

(b) ) Bill C-27B, An Act to enact the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, containing Part 3.

Mr. Speaker, as New Democrats, we are taking this opportunity to try to rescue part of a bill to protect Canadians' privacy as the Conservatives and Liberals have been warring over a number of different things. We have an important piece of legislation that has been drafted poorly but can be recovered. We are going to focus on this Parliament being able to rescue tens of thousands of dollars, having multiple meetings with witnesses and a variety of organizations, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others, that would not seem to be naturally in the NDP camp, but are on this issue.

It is important to note that the petty politics going on by the Liberals and Conservatives on this are at the expense of the privacy of Canadians. Specifically, I am talking about Bill C-27, which goes back to 2020 with regards to Bill C-11. It re-emerged in 2022 in this chamber, in November, when the Liberals tabled 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.

The Liberals drafted a bill that was so encompassing and so problematic because they were willing to compromise personal privacy rights for the consumer industry, big tech and other businesses at the expense of individual Canadians' privacy. However, we called them out on that. We have this motion in front of us today because the member for New Westminster—Burnaby stood in this chamber and helped separate the actual bill to make sure that the privacy component of this, which should have been done separately, can still get done.

As Parliament winds down, not only this session but potentially a future session, we still have time to protect Canadians' privacy. The Liberals and Conservatives have no interest in this whatsoever. They would rather play their own games and sacrifice the privacy of Canadians.

The bill was so poorly drafted that when I first saw it, I went to the minister back in 2022 and asked him to separate the bill, saying that he did not have to compromise Canadians' privacy for consumer interests. The Liberals knew that, because their lobbyists, their friends, their CEOs and the big tech, all those elements were chirping in the minister's ear, basically giving him the political support to go ahead with this. When I said to the minister, “Separate the bill, and let's do the privacy component first”, the Liberals basically said that they could not do it, they did not want to do it. We proved that wrong in this chamber by separating the bill in a previous debate.

Here we are now, as New Democrats, understanding there are dozens of organizations calling for the personal protection of privacy, including the Privacy Commissioner, to get this done and to not waste the work that is now being compromised by the games going on by the official opposition and the Liberals.

Again, this bill was drafted so poorly. When bills go to committee, they usually have maybe a dozen, at the most, amendments. Of those amendments, there are usually a few that are very significant to the bill and others that could be on language. I believe this bill had over 240 amendments to correct the problems with the bill.

We had debates here in the House of Commons and we referred the bill to committee. The minister showed up, after doing a lot of prancing around Canada about how great the legislation was, talking about the importance of artificial intelligence and how Canada has to deal with it, which we do agree with. However, the reality is that he did not care at all, and neither did the Liberals, about the privacy element.

In fact, we saw elements of the bill do the same thing to the Privacy Commissioner. This has been taking place in the Competition Bureau. I am referring to the Shaw-Rogers takeover. We saw the debacle that played out, because New Democrats were the ones that opposed that. We have seen that it has not lowered prices, only laid off workers. It has led to non-disclosure clauses from the people who got fired from Rogers. The Liberals did not care at all and created a tribunal over the top of the Privacy Commissioner.

That is important, because the tribunal, for doing its job, was actually sued by Rogers. Rogers took it to court to do due diligence, but the tribunal, which has people appointed from Liberals and Conservatives, then taxed our own Competition Bureau $10 million to pay for the legal costs for Rogers for just doing its job.

We did not want the same thing, we do not want the Privacy Commissioner being overridden by political appointees of Liberals and Conservatives. The history that I have seen here in this place, over the two decades I have been here, is one of constant appointments of either the blue or the red team to different positions of power, with no oversight and no accountability, leading to decisions against the public.

The bill came back to committee. I do not even know how many witnesses we had, off the top of my head, but we went for a long period of time and heard how badly the legislation was drafted. Some were so desperate to have anything that they would take anything, and they admitted that the bill was basically a piece of garbage. They basically said they would just take anything other than nothing, but most of those times, that was from the interests tied to businesses and consumer rights for industries versus those concerned with Canadians' personal privacy and protection. We heard that constantly, as the committee wound through all the different witnesses.

The minister came to us at the very beginning of all those witnesses and said he had some amendments, but it turned out those amendments were just ideas. They were not in any legislative format that we could deal with. They were not in any legal terms. He did not have the House of Commons or his department draft them. They were basically a set of ideas and propositions that did not even make any sense, in terms of the legislation. I do not think the minister even understood, and probably does not to this day, the amendments.

We got through the entire process. We fought over these amendments and what the minister really meant. Was he willing to compromise on the Privacy Commissioner and trying not to neuter it? Was he willing to do the right things to fix some of the elements of AI that people are concerned about? I kept on asking witness after witness whether they thought we should split this bill, and the resounding answer was “yes,” even from those who want to get the AI stuff done, and that there was no need to put the Privacy Commissioner in there.

Again, I go back to the roots of this legislation. The roots of this were to address the undermining of personal privacy of Canadians at the expense of businesses being able to access their data information and not be updated. We have an open hole right now. We have all this work that has been done, but we are going to propose to send it back to committee with this motion to try to deal with it and see if this House can actually get something done for Canadians. We spent a lot of time and money on this. There are some really significant issues here, and we are doing this because we have been in consultation with many groups and organizations that still want to see our privacy protected.

We got to clause-by-clause, and we went through over 200 amendments, as I mentioned. We found that there are some elements there that we could actually work with, at least as the opposition members. To give credit to the Conservatives, the Bloc and ourselves, there were some elements that we could actually agree upon and work with, and the government altered some of its stuff, too, but we were still stuck in a myriad of problems.

The situation became so bad that the Liberals began to filibuster their own bill in committee, because they did not know what to do. The minister then said he would come back with further amendments, and we have not seen them to date. I raised this most recently a couple of weeks ago as we tried to plan out our session, and we still have not had the Liberals bring back any of those amendments. They are on the record promising them. They said that they were going to happen, but we still have not been able to get over this tribunal issue. The tribunal issue is something important that we can get done.

Hence, we are going to split this bill, or see if there is interest in the House to do it, to see if we can rescue part of this legislation. I think it is important to note that, when we look at some of the issues here, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has raised concerns about this. It has some of the best capabilities of understanding legislation and it understands that we must protect the privacy component. Unlike the United States, we do have a Privacy Commissioner, and that is very important when dealing with artificial intelligence. It cannot actually be different.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada also expressed misgivings and reservations about the bill's structuring and proposed measures for digital privacy in AI. Governments could benefit from them being addressed separately, as these are distinct areas that require separate attention.

Again, we have that component that can go forward with support from the Privacy Commissioner. It is indifferent to how legislation should be brought through the House of Commons, but at the same time it recognizes this is not the only way to do this. The minister did not have to throw everything he could into a bill to diminish privacy rights to distract Canadians, and that is really what this was about.

We should never even have started on the AI component without finishing the privacy component. This could have been done ages ago, and it should have been done ages ago. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic is calling for separation of the bill, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that privacy laws and AI regulations receive individual, dedicated scrutiny, especially given their different implications for society and households. These organizations, among others, are also very much interested in moving it forward.

I mentioned the Canadian Chamber of Commerce as well. It sent in support, believing that the legislation has to be separated. I had a chance to meet with the members recently on a number of different issues, including border issues. They are really well aware. I know the previous debate was partially about CBSA officers. I am on the front line; I have 40% of Canada's daily trade go through my riding to the United States. The New Democratic Party has been supporting getting the training centre and improving the mandate of CBSA officers. This includes being able to seize illegal and counterfeit goods and materials, which they cannot do so readily right now, as well as ensuring that the 1932 order in council has been rescinded and, most importantly, giving the push to get 1,100 frontline border officers and sniffer dogs.

Those who were doing the examination are hired back by the Liberals after they were cut by the Conservatives. Under COVID, we had two tranches of not hiring workers. They are short 2,000 to 3,000 workers right now. The Conservatives and Liberals pushed for apps like ArriveCAN to take over the workers on the border. They went to more automation.

We believe the solution is right in front of us, and that is workers on the front line. Bring back the sniffer dogs. Bring back the workers who were fired and put them on the border where they should be. This is also a way to help stop drugs, paraphernalia, car smuggling and all that from coming into Canada.

We can look at a number of different things. I want to go back to and talk about how the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is actually calling for this bill because it understands there is a difference when it comes to artificial intelligence and the privacy elements.

It is important, not only to individuals but also to companies to understand how to protect Canadians' rules. There are many Canadian companies that want to follow rules, protect privacy and do the right thing. Those companies should be rewarded versus some of the larger ones we have seen, like Meta, Facebook and so forth. These companies have used loopholes to expose people in their privacy or use it to their advantage to manipulate them, and are getting rewarded for it and do not have to pay the consequences of not respecting privacy or the provisions under data protection.

In fact, it was the New Democratic Party that put forth the first legislation on a digital bill of rights. We did this several years ago on everything from net neutrality to the right to be forgotten with regard to getting information scrubbed from the Internet, as well as a series of things to protect personal privacy. I know this very well coming from the automotive capital of Canada because we saw what took place with vehicles. They now gain information about drivers and how that is sold, how it is distributed and so forth, versus even actually selling the cars at times. This data can be more valuable than making the vehicle. This is one of the reasons we have had a focus on this for a long period of time, and we believe the privacy element should not be abandoned by the misfortune in the House.

There are a number of different organizations that are also concerned with this. In an article for The Hill Times, Andrew Clement says, “the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act needs a reset.” The author states that AIDA was written “too hastily”, noting that it “skipped...the normal public consultation” process and was introduced alongside the digital charter implementation act, whereas it should have been “separated from the rest of Bill C-27 for substantial reworking.”

The author suggested redrafting AIDA, which should include genuine public consultation; looking to the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act; and engaging community advocates, researchers, lawyers, and representatives of at-risk populations. The reason I gave that reference is that this was the due diligence and why the minister laid an egg with this bill. It was basically broken upon delivery as well because he did not do the work that was necessary beforehand, consulting all the different organizations. What we had is what Ottawa loves. Ottawa loves this so much. Ottawa has the back room scurrying with all the lobbyists who go to the Conservatives and Liberals. They all get paid for this. They are lawyers or representatives, who are getting the meetings and all those different things. Can we guess who the mass majority of them are? They are Liberals and Conservatives. They get all these appointments. They get all this lobbying going on; then, instead of having public consultations, which we think would have been important, they start to steer their influence if they can.

Canadians care about privacy. Members can look at the B.C. civil liberties union and others across the country, including some good protection in Quebec, which is better than in other parts of Canada. We need to give them credit for that. On top of that, that interest is well respected, not only here but also across the world.

Interestingly enough, on April 24, a joint letter was sent to the minister; it was also sent to the rest of us in turn, as well as to the official opposition. It was a joint call for AIDA to be sent back for meaningful public consultations and redrafting. Nothing has happened since then, aside from more debacle. These groups and organizations are calling for something the NDP has been asking about for a long period of time, in terms of why the government is putting privacy rights at the expense of artificial intelligence rights for businesses and corporations. I asked about that, especially when I had the first meeting with the minister.

These organizations include Amnesty International, the Canadian section; the BC Civil Liberties Association; the Canadian Arab Federation; the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council; the Centre for Digital Rights; the Centre for Free Expression; the communications program of Glendon College, York University; Digital Public; Fédération nationale des enseignantes et enseignants du Québec; the Firearms Institute for Rational Education; International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group; Inter Pares; Just Peace Advocates; Macdonald-Laurier Institute; Mines Action Canada; the National Union of Public and General Employees; NSTP Consulting corporation; OpenMedia; the Privacy and Access Council of Canada; Response Marketing Association; Rideau Institute of International Affairs; and Tech Reset Canada.

Then there is a whole series of other individuals who would add another 34 names that I could actually put down here. I will not read them all because there are just too many. However, reading out the names of those different organizations tells us that there is a general consensus that the legislation is a complete and utter disaster the way it is. What we can do now is what New Democrats have called for in a motion, which is to separate them as follows:

(a) Bill C-27A, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and An Act to enact the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, containing Part 1, Part 2 and the schedule to section 2; and

(b) Bill C-27B, An Act to enact the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, containing Part 3.

That way, we can actually do the job that is necessary.

This is crucial because Canada has fallen farther behind. I know that the Liberals are all excited about creating another digital group and committee, which the minister announced, because we cannot get this through committee if there is no interest. Again, I remind the chamber that, the last we saw of this, the Liberals were in committee filibustering to talk out the clock before we broke session. They would not even come with their own committee recommendations or amendments. They talked the clock out on themselves for the last two meetings that we had because they did not know what to do. We are still waiting, to this day, for those amendments to come forward.

As I wrap up my speech, I want to thank all the interested parties out there. Canada has an opportunity with artificial intelligence; Canada could actually be a leading component for good on this in the world. However, we have to do this with the right protections in place and the right way of doing things. The first thing is to protect our privacy elements with the Privacy Commissioner and update, and the second part is to get it on to the business of order.

International Trade

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we just need to get the documents that we have been asking for; we can then move ahead. It is as simple as that. Second to that, if the government wants to, if it has legislation that is sitting on the shelf or whatever, there are certain components that it can actually release to the public. If it cannot physically table it here entirely, it can still table a lot of the different information about that legislation. It may not get here into the chamber right now, but it could actually get us ready to roll on this.

I could also bring up the fact that, if the legislation is in good order, we could actually have our critics work on it so that we could pass it expeditiously in the House. The government can do a lot of things, but I do not believe that the legislation is drafted and available. I have been waiting in the industry committee for amendments on Bill C-27 for almost half a year now, and we are still waiting for those amendments on its own government legislation.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Madam Speaker, in fact, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who just spoke, has a private member's bill that is before the House as well, Bill C-412 which would do a better job of amending the Criminal Code to go after child predators.

What the Liberals are trying to do in Bill C-63 is create a new bureaucracy that would not be accountable to Canadians. From what we have seen with Bill C-27, I do not necessarily believe that the expertise in the Department of Industry is sufficient to manage the issues. The protection of children needs to be under the Criminal Code first and foremost, not under new regulatory bodies.

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree with my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill that indeed we need an election right now.

With regard to the attempt by the government to update our laws with respect to personal privacy and its application with all forms of technology, the government has been very irresponsible with respect to the legislation in its attempt to update our laws. In fact, this is about the third iteration of the bill. Even since it was tabled by the government, the government brought forward special amendments during the committee process that completely changed the nature of the legislation because it just happened to miss things.

It is not every day that there are, as with Bill C-27, independent academics who come out against the government on its failure to consult appropriately with a broad set of stakeholders across Canada, including in the human rights space, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby was outlining, where the technologies are going to seriously impact the lives and well-being of children especially.

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging that I agree that racialized people, especially vulnerable children and women, are impacted by artificial intelligence the most. That is a fact; I believe that. The best way to protect these people is not to amend the human rights report, as per the committee's recommendation, but to enshrine the protections in Bill C-27, which is at committee right now, to ensure that they are in place to help people as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, that is exactly it. We have to look very closely at Bill C-27 to update Canada's privacy laws to account for the revolutionary technological advancements that are taking place before our eyes today. Make no mistake, the period that we are living in right now and the technological advancements that were clearly articulated to the industry committee here in Parliament are equivalent to one of the greatest leaps in technology ever witnessed by mankind.

We do need to ensure, in Bill C-27, that these rights are protected. It was Conservatives who were pushing to ensure that privacy is seen as a fundamental human right.

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

Madam Speaker, we all are aware that, when a privilege motion comes before the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Commons rules that there has been a breach of Parliament's powers, no other business can come before the House of Commons. If, indeed, the member was so concerned about the passage of Bill C-63 through the House of Commons, the government would do what Canadians want and hand over the documents pertaining to the green slush fund from the former Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

Let me remind the House that it was, in fact, our current industry minister who suspended SDTC, and it was our Auditor General who clearly found close to $400 million in misspent funds and 180 cases of conflict of interest.

Furthermore, pertaining to Bill C-27, the government decided not to continue the legislative review of that legislation when the House returned in September. Instead, it decided to start a study on Interac fees. That is on the parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry for not managing the legislative calendar appropriately and putting Bill C-27 on the side. This was done because they were worried about the amendments that all the other parties of the House of Commons deemed appropriate, but that were not deemed appropriate by the minister and the backroom lobbyists who are informing his position.

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

Madam Speaker, in a rapidly evolving technological environment, it is important, more than ever, that we ensure children are protected. The report tabled by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Facial Recognition Technology and the Growing Power of Artificial Intelligence”, looks at the benefits and risks of facial recognition and use in specific contexts, such as law enforcement, as well as exploring AI governance issues.

It is important we study this technology cautiously, as there are many benefits that will come from this type of innovation, but we must make sure this technology is used in a responsible way that protects the rights of all Canadians and, I would add, especially children. Throughout my time as a member of the industry committee, I have championed the inclusion of the best interests of the child in amendments to legislation of the Digital Charter Implementation Act, Bill C-27, which includes the government's proposed legislation on artificial intelligence, as well.

Nowhere in this bill was the term “minor” defined. The Liberals rushed to get this bill to committee and failed to include separate protections for children's privacy that would have demonstrated their commitment to putting children first. We all know stories about the damages social media platforms and AI have already done to our children and youth. Conservatives will fight for stronger privacy protection for children and find a balance to still be innovative with this technology, so it is used appropriately.

In addition to inserting the best interests of the child, Conservatives have also pushed to insert a children's code into Bill C-27, modelled after the U.K. Children's code. This amendment would empower the Governor in Council to introduce a code of practice for organizations, including businesses, to follow through regulation for online services related to children's online activity.

The U.K. Children's code has become an international standard for jurisdictions around the world in creating legislation, yet the Liberals failed to include it when drafting legislation that pertains to children's privacy. Many stakeholders and witnesses emphasized the need for a children's code to be included in the bill, but the government did not meet with any of these stakeholders before tabling it. Children must be put first when it comes to creating legislation around facial recognition technology and artificial intelligence.

This was outlined by the report tabled by the ethics committee, with the Human Rights Commission, indicating that the legal framework for police use of facial recognition technology should take a human rights-based approach that integrates protection for children and youth. This has indeed come up in respect to the recommendation in the report, and I would note it is actually the Conservatives fighting against the New Democrats and the Liberals to enshrine these very important rights for the protection of children to uphold their right to privacy.

These types of amendments to bills demand a holistic approach to a child's development, ensuring their rights cannot be overridden by the commercial interests of a company, especially. However, the potential benefits of facial recognition technology and AI are substantial. The report outlined that these technologies can assist law enforcement in locating missing children and combatting serious crimes. As Daniel Therrien, former privacy commissioner of Canada, pointed out, facial recognition technology can serve “compelling state purposes”, including safeguarding our communities and ensuring public safety. It can also be a powerful tool in urgent situations, identifying individuals who pose threats or finding those who are lost or in danger.

However, these advantages must be weighed against the significant risks that cannot be overlooked. The same technologies that can find missing children also risk infringing upon their privacy and civil liberties.

Kristen Thomasen, law professor at the University of British Columbia, noted, while facial recognition technology can be touted as a protective measure for marginalized groups, “the erosion of privacy as a social good” ultimately harms everyone, especially “women and children”.

As we enhance surveillance capabilities, we risk consolidating an environment of constant observation that stifles individual freedoms. Moreover, as we consider the integration of AI into the lives of children, we must recognize the profound potential for manipulation and deception.

By their very nature, children are often at a distinct disadvantage when navigating AI systems. Their cognitive and emotional development leaves them particularly vulnerable to influences that they might not fully understand. AI tools, including AI companions, smart toys and even educational applications, can unwittingly lead children to disclose sensitive or personal information. Such disclosures can expose them to risks of exploitation, harm and even predatory behaviours by adults. Children may not grasp the implication of sharing personal information, and AI systems designed to learn from interactions can inadvertently manipulate their responses or choices, leading to harmful outcomes.

For example, a recent tragedy just came out of the U.S. in which a 14-year-old boy, Sewell Setzer, committed suicide after speaking with a chatbot on Character.AI. His mother is now suing the company. She wrote that AI can “trick customers into handing over their most private thoughts and feelings.”

The implications of deepfake technology further amplify these concerns. Deepfakes are highly convincing but entirely fabricated images or videos, placing children in situations they never experienced. Such manipulations can depict minors in inappropriate contexts or lead to false narratives that can damage their reputation and emotional well-being.

As technology becomes more accessible, children may find themselves targeted by malicious actors who use these tools to exploit their innocence. To combat these dangers, it is crucial that we act swiftly and decisively to develop comprehensive policies and laws that prioritize the protection of children over commercial interests while still fostering an environment where innovation can take place.

A legislative framework should clearly delineate the appropriate contexts in which facial recognition technology and AI can be employed for legitimate purposes while firmly prohibiting any uses that could infringe upon the rights of children and other vulnerable populations. This is why I want to re-emphasize the importance of including a children's code when regulating facial recognition technology and artificial intelligence.

In industry meeting 99 on November 28, 2023, Elizabeth Denham, chief strategy officer of the Information Accountability Foundation, came to input her opinions on Bill C-27. While working for five years as the U.K. Information Commissioner, she oversaw the creation of the U.K. Children's Code, and the design of that code has influenced laws and guidance all around the world.

The code assists organizations in creating digital services that cater, first and foremost, to children's needs. It is also important to note that, when we discuss a children's code, we should take into account the fact that children are biologically and psychologically different and distinct from adults.

Protecting children in the digital world means allowing them to be children in that world, with appropriate protections for their safety and their reputations, both today and tomorrow, when they enter adulthood. Numerous stakeholder groups, such as the Centre for Digital Rights, and witnesses, such as the former U.K. privacy commissioner, have advocated for a comprehensive code of practice to be created when it comes to regulations and laws related to children's privacy.

More specifically, a children's code would be developed through a consultation process that, at minimum, included the Privacy Commissioner, parental rights groups and children. It would be developed with the best interests of the children over commercial interests in the same space. A children's code would ensure that the following standards must be included when it is developed: data protection impact assessments, transparency, the detrimental use of data, default settings, data minimization, data sharing, geolocation, parental controls, profiling, nudge techniques, connected toys and other devices, and online tools, to name a few.

In conclusion, as we embrace the transformative potential of facial recognition technology and artificial intelligence, we must remain vigilant in prioritizing our children's best interests. The balance between harnessing innovation and safeguarding rights is delicate, but it is a responsibility we cannot afford to neglect. Here on the Conservative side, as these bills come before parliamentary committees, first and foremost, we want to see children go above commercial interests in all cases.

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

Madam Speaker, with privacy as a fundamental human right baked into Bill C-27 and our privacy laws, this is where it is supposed to reside, and I know my colleague and the NDP have supported that at committee.

More importantly, what I am really concerned about is that in this report on facial recognition technology, which his party supported, a moratorium was supposed to be levied on the use of this technology until we get the Privacy Act finalized. The government has not done that. Maybe of all the other reasons to bring down the government, this is the reason we bring down this government.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for giving a great speech. It seems like nine years ago that we sat on the ethics committee, but I think it was only three years ago. We use the number nine a lot in the House.

Today, I want to speak about why nations fail. To quote Acemoglu and Robinson, “Nations fail today because their extractive economic institutions do not create the incentives needed for people to save, invest, and innovate.” As a whole, that also includes privacy: the right of businesses to operate and the freedom of citizens to operate.

We can go all the way back to something I am very fascinated with. North America and South America were founded around the same time, but how did North America end up becoming so rich and wealthy and South America did not? It comes down to those same pillars. We allowed freedom to operate. We allowed freedom for patents to be developed, especially in the Industrial Revolution. We allowed people the freedom to have their own land, to have privacy on their own land and to own businesses with patents, allowing privacy for those businesses to operate, to get investments and capital and to grow.

What we saw from that was a tremendous amount of wealth, more wealth than the world had ever seen. It formed a capitalist society that allowed wealth to be owned by individuals. People who used to be poor became wealthy, and that allowed a nation like Canada to have socialist capitalism. With this tremendous amount of wealth, there was the ability to have socialist programs like a universal health care system.

When we do not follow the narrow corridor, and it is a very narrow corridor, not only with liberty but also with capitalism and socialism, and we stick with the fundamentals of privacy, investment, free capital and patents, we lose the wealth of the nation. With that, the citizens suffer.

After nine years, we are seeing that reality here in Canada. We have the worst housing crisis this country has ever faced. Rents have doubled. Mortgage payments have doubled. The amount needed for a down payment has doubled. Nine million Canadians are now food insecure. That is one-third of Canadians, and that number in the U.S. is barely 13%.

We see the problem with businesses fleeing this country. We talk a lot about what that means for AI and having great ideas. We also talk about IP, the currency of innovation. When we look at what happens in Canada, the numbers are startling. Canada files 40,000 patents annually compared to the 374,000 the U.S. files, and only 13 out of 100 patents are owned by Canadians. That means we give away over 87% of our patents to foreign nations; we give that data away.

When we look at what that means for the Americans, we see they generate 12 million jobs and $2 trillion from patents and IP. Of course, AI is among that. In Canada, that number is less. The best way to look at it is by using GDP per capita or income per capita. The GDP per capita for Canada is $53,000, compared to $80,000 for the U.S., more than a 36% difference. We have seen less capital and less ability to invest, save and innovate.

We can couple that with the problems with the business investment and productivity we have seen in Canada and the lack of privacy. Of course, the government has tried, but as with a lot of things, it has tried and failed. It presented Bill C-11 before the last Parliament and could not get it through. In this Parliament, it submitted Bill C-27, and at the last minute, it threw AI legislation in it called the AIDA. What happened at committee? I know the Conservatives get blamed for this, but at committee, the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP all came together to say this bill was terrible in the way it was presented. Even the Liberals were filibustering it in committee at one point.

We need these bills to work. The Conservatives have been steadfast that privacy is a fundamental human right, and not only privacy for individuals in Canada but privacy for our children. We know the results of not having the right legislation come forward and not having privacy protection in Canada. We saw it at the ethics committee two years ago when we faced the daunting speculation of privacy in facial recognition technology.

This technology was misused. A company called Clearview AI scraped images off the Internet, and we know how many images are on the Internet. It scraped everyone's face off the Internet and sold those images, which should not be owned by anyone.

Privacy is a fundamental right. However, the thing we have come to also understand about AI, which was discussed at committee but was not in the legislation, is that it should never be able to use someone's face or likeness without their permission. Those are the biggest problems we are having. The biggest thumbprint we have, the most unique thing about us, is our face. Our colleague from the NDP brought this up, but the main point that came up at committee about facial recognition technology was this: When this technology was used by the RCMP and our police forces in Canada in terms of marginalized and minority groups in Canada, Black women and Black men, the technology misread their face and misidentified them 30% of the time. That is terrible.

Technology is supposed to make things better, and we could not believe what we were hearing. Police representatives were at this committee multiple times and testified that it misidentified these groups 30% of the time. That is a failure; it is ridiculous. This is something that should not be used. We went through all the reports on ethics and brought the final report to Parliament two years ago, in October 2022, with the recommendation to outlaw this technology until it gets better.

Here we are today, two years later, and this technology has not been outlawed. It has been in place for two years since the ethics committee found that there were these breaches. It is terrible that these breaches have been happening for so long. Today, as we stand in Parliament, facial recognition technology, which we call digital racism, is still allowed to be used in this country.

Again, it follows the bigger problems we have with the government, and not only with the recommendations that come from committee. The government always talks about filibustering. These are recommendations in a report that could have been done without Parliament's consent, because it was enacted by Parliament and came to the House to begin with. Here we are two years later, and that has not happened.

Let us talk about all the other things that have not happened either. With respect to privacy, Bill C-27 is still in committee based on, again, the fact that the Liberals are filibustering their own bill. It is just terrible and needs to be redone. I think we all agree on the first part of PIPEDA and how that is going to be done. The Liberals do not, but we agree that the tribunal should be eliminated and that more power should go to the Privacy Commissioner. Again, those privacy breaches and the rights should be governed by the Privacy Commissioner as a whole.

We looked at the proposed AIDA as a whole. AIDA was riddled with delays and inefficient guidance. It failed to provide the necessary oversight, allowing technologies such as facial recognition to remain largely unregulated. It was supposed to be prioritized legislation, yet it was wrong. The industry minister brought the legislation to the committee, and three months later, he brought 60 different amendments to his own bill. We had never even heard of that before, and it certainly was not a good bill.

I want to talk briefly about what is happening because we do not get privacy investment right in Canada. This is going to have long-term impacts. The capital gains tax hike is expected to reduce Canada's capital stock by $127 billion, resulting in 414,000 fewer jobs and a $90-billion drop in GDP. We cannot afford to lose control of our most valuable ideas or allow unchecked technologies to undermine our freedoms. Nations fail today because their extractive economic institutions do not create the incentives needed for people to save, to invest and to innovate.

The consequences are already visible. Nine million Canadians are food insecure. Two million Canadians are visiting food banks, and this rate is 36% higher than that in the United States. It is time to reverse course. Let us regain control over our privacy. Let us make sure we give those fundamentals back to save, innovate and invest back into Canadian businesses. Let us bring home capitalism once again, where people can make a good wage, have a good job and bring home savings for them and their families.