Industry Committee on Sept. 26th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

My understanding is that usually these amendments are tabled at clause-by-clause. However, if it's the intention of the minister.... He's highlighted that he's open to amendments and that he intends to present amendments to the bill.

I will yield the floor to the minister to answer that question.

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

To the point of Mr. Masse, those are going to be tabled at clause-by-clause. That's the way I'm told this is normally done.

What I'm telling you is the direction, because this is my opportunity to be in front of you and say what we intend to do. Obviously, the legal text of it will be tabled in accordance with due procedure.

My appearing here without telling you what we have in mind for what we're going to be doing would have been counterproductive. This is because, for example, with privacy as a fundamental right, we could be discussing that for half an hour, but we agree. Therefore, that's already something.

There will be an opportunity for the committee at clause-by-clause to reflect on the exact text of it. I hope colleagues appreciate that I took it a step further to have a meaningful discussion. Let's highlight what we intend to do. At clause-by-clause, colleagues will have the opportunity to look at the legal text of it, which will reflect what I just said today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll go back to Madame Lapointe.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I will let the minister finish his answer regarding the consultations.

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

Yes, indeed, we were talking about the consultations. We can do two things at once.

We had a series of very important consultations. For members of the committee and people following the proceedings from home, I would remind you that we have not updated Canadian privacy legislation for 20 years. Just imagine. I'm not even sure that Google existed then. Today, people talk about the metaverse, but our act was created before Google. Just consider how much has changed since then: the way our data is shared, transferred and protected, who controls it, and how we protect our children in this environment.

I feel a sense of urgency, which I think my colleagues share. Action is needed urgently because the alternative is to stick with a legislative framework that is completely outdated and that does not reflect current realities.

During the pandemic, we all saw the negative effects on young people online. For example, this bill proposes that the parents of minors would have the right to ask platforms to delete their child's digital presence prior to the age of 18. What we want to do to protect children is fundamental. We have indeed heard from many people, and I am proud of what we as parliamentarians are doing today. I know the world, parents and young people are watching us, and I think we need to evolve with technology to protect the interests of Canadians.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Minister, in your opening statements, again, you talked about another area that you were looking to alter, which was to strengthen the Privacy Commissioner's ability to penalize companies that aren't compliant with Canadian privacy laws.

Can you tell us more about this proposed amendment and how you plan to incentivize companies to comply?

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

We heard from people that they wanted the Privacy Commissioner to have “more teeth”—I think that's the expression in English—with more power and abilities to make orders and to come forward with penalties. If companies do not comply—Mr. Perkins mentioned the possibility of companies not complying—you want to have a regulator out there that will be taking strong action.

We want, on the one hand, to have something on the books, but one thing is all about enforcement. We have a Privacy Commissioner who will now have.... Having talked to him, I can tell you he's pretty happy that we are modernizing the law. Not only did we do that, but we gave him the means to do that, because amending the law without new funding would have been, I think, disingenuous in helping to protect Canadians.

Our role as parliamentarians is to amend the law to give him more tools and more powers. For example, we talk about these consent agreements. You don't need to go to the full court system, but if there is a violation, he'll be able to issue orders and penalties. I think, at the end of the day, that's going to be more efficient.

You may recall, when we started with the first version, that the Privacy Commissioner had a number of amendments he wanted to see. I think we have reflected all of his amendments. The last time I spoke to him, he was in support of this bill, because he understood that we meant to give him all the powers needed for him to do his job.

If I were the Privacy Commissioner, what I would want now is the funding but also a new law that would give me the powers to do that. Imagine it: Our Privacy Commissioner today operates under a law that existed before Google, so he obviously doesn't have the tools needed.

This was something that was asked for. Members of the committee, if I recall, were also calling for the Privacy Commissioner to have substance and to have powers, and that's what we did, giving more power to do the job Canadians expect him or her to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We are finally here. Our first discussion about this bill was in January 2022. You introduced the bill in June 2022. In the meantime, we can say that your government has not been very proactive in raising this matter in the House, but here we are nonetheless.

My first question is very short, but we need a clear and specific commitment from you. I think you are familiar with bill 25 enacted by Quebec's National Assembly. You said there would be no duplication, so will Quebec be exempt from the parts of the federal bill pertaining to personal information?

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

We want our bill to be complementary. Since you referred to specific provisions, I will ask Mark Schaan to answer, since your question warrants a specific answer.

[Mark Schaan, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The legislation currently in force in Quebec is considered “essentially the same” as the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. That will continue to be the case with the Consumer Privacy Protection Act. The two privacy acts, for Quebec and for Canada, are therefore the same.

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

So the Quebec act could take precedence over the part of the act that you tabled pertaining to data protection. As minister, you have the power to acknowledge that, and that power will be highlighted.

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

We want the acts to be complementary. We do not want duplication. As our officials explained, we always have great respect for what is done at the provincial level, as long as the Quebec act serves the same purpose as the proposed federal legislation. If it achieves the same purpose, we will of course see the Quebec act in that way. Quebec is already a step ahead, in several respects.

I think it is important to have a federal framework with some coordination. Various stakeholders have pointed out that, without overarching federal legislation, there is a risk of having very different laws across Canada. For businesses, including Quebec businesses, that want to have operations in various provinces, it would be extremely complicated to comply with those laws. The goal is to establish federal legislation that would standardize privacy protection, while respecting provincial legislation.

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

In this regard, there is also international recognition. Bill 25 is compatible with European requirements. This is of course a key aspect and one of the reasons that this law must in principle be enacted very quickly. So we want to be sure that our businesses do not get mixed messages, which I think is your responsibility.

As to artificial intelligence, we will of course take the time to analyze the amendments you put forward today. In my opinion, a key point is whether this bill is considered a first step that could be updated later. Standards are effectively dictated by Europe and by other countries.

I really like the idea that Canada could be a leader at the forefront, and could highlight its own cultural distinctiveness and that of Quebec, especially with regard to our start-ups. There is still basic interoperability, as you said earlier. Does the legislative framework provide for future harmonization with European legislation or automatic updates of the Canadian act?

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

Absolutely.

You made that point very well and you are right. That is exactly our objective: even with respect to definitions, the Canadian act is aligned with the European legislation. We have spoken with our European counterparts and interoperability is essential. Our European colleagues are closely watching what is happening in Canada. I think the European framework will not be in place in the member countries before 2026, as I understand it, so Canada will indeed be the first country in the world to establish a legislative framework.

It will nevertheless be based on principles and will be an evolving framework. I would remind you that what has made it possible for the current privacy legislation to remain in force for 20 years is that it is based on principles. Very specific legislation runs the risk of being overtaken by technology. The idea of a framework, codes of conduct and regulations is what allows for evolution. The best example I can give to those who are listening is ChatGPT: Since the time we last met, the world of artificial intelligence has changed.

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

Does the bill include an automatic review clause? For example, will we in 2026 examine international legislation in order to bring Canadian law into line with it?

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

To my knowledge, unlike certain laws that provide for review every five years, there is no such specific provision in this bill, since it provides a flexible framework based on principles and is not prescriptive. That is also true of the current privacy act, which has been in effect for 20 years. That is why we are establishing this framework, and that is why the bill specifies which systems are high-impact. Since people said it was too vague, we added those details.

This framework will survive over time and we can see why that is necessary. Given the rapid pace of technological change, a framework is really what is needed. People in Europe, the United States and Japan are watching what we are doing. At the G7 meeting, Canada and France created the global partnership on AI. So people are very interested in what is happening in Canada, in France and in Europe, to get an overview of the issue and to see where the world is headed with respect to the regulation of artificial intelligence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Masse, the floor is yours.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, first of all, how many witnesses do we have scheduled right now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

As we discussed at the steering committee, we have about 13 meetings, so you could maybe count about four or five witnesses per meeting.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, so we have 13 meetings. I guess this is what I want to clarify, and I don't want to spend more of the time.... The point of order was on that.

Minister, you can, at the last minute, table specific amendments, but aside from that right now.... I like a lot of what you said here, and there's a ton of things I would like to know, but we don't have a copy of your speech. Is it the intent, then, of the government to have all those meetings and to have all those witnesses come to testify to us about the legislation that you have tabled, which is real, and then the concept is that they have to respond to your testimony here today?

We have asked all those groups to present us with their amendments before they sit down at this table, so my concern is that, if we don't have these specific legal amendments, we then have to go on the speculative assumption of what you said in the last several minutes to weed out all their concerns.

I think we have a huge firestorm that's going to be created here, because I know my phone is going to be ringing off the hook. How do they give a response to the ideas you've promised when we don't have the actual amendments? If we had those amendments right now, those groups and organizations that give us good testimony....

Just for the record, even on Bill C-34, we had to have several time outs because we had to deal with amendments that nobody quite understood the consequences of. Is that the plan? I really appreciate what you have come here with. There are specific things that you have said.... I couldn't even write them down; you talk as quickly as I do. Pat Martin used to say that there are no periods in my Hansards.

What I'm really worried about right here is how we go forward and when we are going to get these specific amendments, because we have to have our legal teams go through them—the Library of Parliament, our analysts and everyone else like that. How do we do that if we don't have anything more than ideas?

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

First of all, Mr. Masse, I will try to speak more slowly—and also for the interpreters. You remind me that I want to thank them because I tend to speak quickly. I'm not the only one, I guess, around here.

There are two things.

The first thing you were asking.... Listen, from the committee's perspective, I hope you appreciate that this was meant to be helpful. We thought that, if I came here and we talked for half an hour about, for example, recognizing that privacy is a fundamental right and we were already going to do that, it wouldn't really make sense. My thing was to be helpful.

I'm happy to put my remarks on the record. I was consulting, at the same time, with the officials on how quickly we can draft these amendments because in my testimony, hopefully, you get a sense of where we're going. I will do as much as I can with the officials to provide you with as much information as I can—even if it's not the full legal text of it—while respecting the procedure, and if the chair would allow for that. I am happy to give the speech, but I think the full amendments.... The intention was that they would come when you do clause-by-clause. People who come to testify should listen to me because, obviously, if they are going to testify on things we are already fixing, that would be helpful.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Not everybody's going to....

Here's what I went through with my bill. The Minister of Environment created some amendments, and it went to the Liberals. Then the Liberals—your own team—with the chair, ruled the government's own amendments out of order. That happens here.

The thing is this: I can take what you have put and maybe put it into ChatGPT and have it do the amendments for me—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

—but until we see....

That's why I just impress upon you and your team to get them because if they don't fit the legislation, or if there's a challenge with them technically, then we're going to be spinning in circles here. I would like to ask you questions about some of those things, but I want to go through this because I think it's more important for us to do legislation.