Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 1st, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff and Mr. Dufresne.

Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move a motion that was sent to the committee in both official languages.

Considering that the Privacy Act hasn't been reviewed since 1983, Considering that the ETHI committee asked for a review in its previous reports, That the committee ask the Government of Canada to review the Privacy Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

The motion is in order. That said, I see only one problem: The committee does not have the power to ask the government to do something; it can simply make a recommendation. I would suggest replacing the word “ask” with “recommend”.

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

“Recommend” is fine, but it must be noted that we have already made this recommendation. We are simply reiterating it. So I do not see a problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Mr. Dufresne, could you please stay while we discuss the motion.

Does anyone wish to comment on Mr. Villemure's motion?

Ms. Khalid, I see your hand up. Go ahead, please.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Some of colleagues are online, and I'm wondering if I can take a two-minute suspension to confer with them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm just confirming with the clerk that the motion has been sent to everyone's emails.

I will allow a quick two-minute suspension so that you can discuss it, if no one minds.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're back from our suspension. As I mentioned, the email has been sent on the proposed motion from Monsieur Villemure.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff, on the motion.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

As the committee knows, the government is currently reviewing the Privacy Act.

My question for the member is this: Why would we pass a motion on this as opposed to including it in the report? We just started the study today. I'm wondering if he could maybe let us know why this wouldn't just be a recommendation of the report we're going to do on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, I think that's a fair question. Mr. Villemure and I had a sidebar on the exact same issue, but I will let Mr. Villemure explain.

Mr. Villemure, please explain your position to Ms. Damoff and to the committee.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The committee has requested a review of the Privacy Act on numerous occasions. Treasury Board announced a review of the act in 2021. As part of that review, I believe every Canadian is being consulted individually, which is time-consuming. The committee has already made various recommendations. Mr. Dufresne is with us this morning and I believe he has told us a million times that a review is needed. So we have to emphasize the need to discuss this again because it seems that the recommendation has not been taken seriously.

It's like anything else: Repetition eventually becomes untenable. We have seen built‑in tools. There have been other studies about privacy. Every time, a review of the act was recommended. All of this will ultimately lead to something.

I think the committee is in agreement since we have heard the same testimony. The commissioner who is present and his predecessor told us the same thing: There is cause for concern. AI will completely change the situation. Even if the tool changes and the 1983 act remains in effect, the rest of the world has changed.

After making the first recommendation in two reports, we have to support the motion in the public interest. I want to stress that again.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure.

Ms. Damoff, go ahead.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you for that, I do appreciate it. The government does take it seriously. That's why the review's going on, but I appreciate the honourable member's desire to get this out there and make the point, and also the knowledge he brings on this issue.

Thank you for that.

Do we need to amend the motion, though, Chair, based on what you said just before?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think Mr. Villemure has already indicated that.

That's right.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

How does it read now?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're changing “ask” to “recommend” because, as I said earlier, the committee does not have the authority to ask the government. We can recommend to the government, and I think that's what Mr. Villemure's intention is here.

I see Mr. Erskine-Smith.

Go ahead, please, on the motion.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I'm not opposed to the government's reviewing the act. I think I was part of the ethics committee when we recommended this in the first Parliament I was part of in 2015-19.

However, to Mr. Villemure, I'd ask this: Isn't this a bit of a moot point and a waste of time? Isn't the government just going to come back and say what they said in response to the last report we're reviewing? Wouldn't it be more effective to put it, consistent with the evidence of the commissioner, in a short report and hammer home that we've done this many times, cite those many times, and say that we're asking for it to be updated, not only reviewed? It seems like this is a weaker version of what we could potentially do.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I appreciate that, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

If this motion is adopted, this can be a motion that goes into the minutes of this committee's report and then of course, as we deal with the draft report after all the witnesses are done, it can be prominent and prevalent in that report. In the meantime, this is what Mr. Villemure has proposed and what we're dealing with right now.

I appreciate your input on that, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

Do we have a consensus on Mr. Villemure's motion as amended?

[Voices]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Thank you again for your patience, Mr. Dufresne and Ms. Ives.

Monsieur Villemure, you have the floor for six minutes.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, colleagues.

Commissioner, I would like you to talk to us about the impact of AI on privacy and whether this is something that should be considered in the case of the 13 departments and agencies that are being investigated currently.

[Philippe Dufresne]

AI is a key element that affects the privacy of Canadians and people around the world. This summer, my G7 counterparts and I issued a resolution at our annual meeting reiterating the importance of protecting privacy. We reiterated the importance of implementing current legislation and the need to modernize that legislation and consider the effects of AI from the outset.

In October, my provincial and territorial counterparts and I also issued a statement. On December 7, we held a symposium here in Ottawa with our counterparts from other countries, and issued a statement about AI based on Canada's privacy principles. We also stated our expectations, specifically regarding legal authority, appropriate objectives, necessity and proportionality, accountability and limits of use. We applied that lens to AI.

With regard to the tools under discussion today, I have not been told that this involves AI, but that is a possibility we must certainly bear in mind. With regard to employment, the resolution issued by the Global Privacy Assembly last fall referred specifically to the use of AI in employment matters, including staff management and recruitment.

I cannot go into any details, but right now we are looking into a complaint against OpenAI to determine whether the company is in violation of the act with ChatGPT. We are also considering what to recommend if it is in violation.

There are also all the issues relating to the data that is used to train AI. What is protected and what are the limits? The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development conducted a study on AI with G7 ministers, and the three greatest risks identified were disinformation or misinformation, the effects on copyright, and the effects on privacy. So this is a very important issue.

Last week, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada announced its three strategic priorities. The first is optimizing and modernizing the office's structure to ensure we have the maximum impact. The second is ensuring that technology respects privacy and that people can utilize it but with guidelines. The third is protecting children's privacy, another extremely important element. In addition, the CEOs of social media companies appeared before the U.S. Congress this week to talk about their impact on children. These priorities are at the heart of our work.

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

Over and above your three priorities, would you say the Office of the Commissioner is currently equipped to assess the impact of AI on privacy?

[Philippe Dufresne]

We are well equipped to do so. We have a technology laboratory, but we have more work to do. It is an evolving situation and the organizations we regulate definitely have more resources than we do. We have to continue in this direction and we will focus on it.

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

You mentioned ChatGPT, which is generative AI. Have you seen a different effect on privacy since the emergence of generative AI or, rather, has it simply accelerated the current effect?