Industry Committee on Sept. 26th, 2023

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

We will certainly—

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

Enough on that topic because I have another question for you.

You mentioned your two stepdaughters. You talked about children. In Canada, as you know, there are 13 different jurisdictions that grant children and young people different rights. How will you be able to balance all that so the act is tailored to young people? Protecting young people in the face of all these new technologies is also fundamental. You said that at the outset, and I agree. I definitely agree with you.

How can we tell young people in a certain province that they have the right to do certain things, while telling others in another province that they don't have that right? How will you deal with that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Please be brief, Mr. Minister.

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

I want to talk about children because that is a crucial subject for everyone listening today.

My goal is to give parents rights relating to their children. Mr. Généreux, I know you are a very good person. I find it shocking that a parent does not have the right to request that information about their child be deleted if they wish. That is a problem. We want to give parents new rights so they can better protect their child in their digital life. For that simple reason, all the members here today should agree on that point. There are many examples showing that children need to be protected when they are online. So we have strengthened this provision in order to better protect young people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

I'll now yield the floor to MP Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, Minister. It's great to have you here at committee.

Minister, in your comments, I found something very interesting that you stated. I believe the context was with regard to the AI portion. You said that this is not a prescriptive act but rather a framework.

Could you elaborate your thoughts on that? Why is it important that we have a framework as we move forward rather than a prescriptive act?

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

Particularly when it comes to artificial intelligence, we see, at the speed of change, that the only way forward is to have a framework as opposed to being prescriptive. You may see that other jurisdictions have decided to go in a different direction, but how can you ensure that you will be relevant six months or a year from now? I think ChatGPT highlighted that to the world. In a matter of months, we found ourselves with generative AI. Things that probably most of us did not initially believe were possible are now commonly used by students and by people around the world. I saw yesterday that there is a new addition for voice and images.

My point is that having a framework is what allows us to be relevant. We probably don't know initially where the technology is going to go, but I would say that we need to have guardrails. The best example.... I was with the chief science adviser of Canada—and colleagues should reflect on this—and when people were saying that AI will be what it wants to be, she said that the best analogy is what happened when people were talking about cloning. When we decided, as humanity, that we wouldn't clone another human, it wasn't that cloning became whatever cloning could be—because, potentially, you could do that. As the international community and as people, we said that would not allow that to happen.

We have a precedent in the history of mankind of saying, for technologies that could bring us to the wrong place, that we could put a stop on that. Cloning is the best example of humanity's deciding that we won't go there. AI is kind of the same thing. It's not just something that should float and go wherever it may go. We need to have a place where we say, as the people, that these are going to be the boundaries within which we can have creative and responsible innovation to help people in so many ways, but that there is going to be a line that should not be crossed because that would be detrimental to people.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for that.

I think the framework or a principle-based approach is definitely the way to go. Thank you for that explanation.

With regard to children, you mentioned that you're the stepfather of two children. My wife and I are raising three daughters. You know how much time they spend online on YouTube, Roblox and chatting with their friends. Protecting your children's data and, I would say, children's rights is something fundamental that we as MPs—all 338 of us—are seized with and are very concerned about. As you said, 20 years ago.... Technology between then and today—and even two years ago—has changed and evolved.

How important is this bill to ensure that children's data is protected as technology continues to evolve and, of course, becomes more sophisticated?

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

The fundamental principle behind this act is to give more power to the people with respect to their data generally. When it comes to children, it's even going a step beyond. The example was given of a teenager who opens an account at some stage in her life. You become an adult at a certain point and you want to have that account removed. I think it's just fundamental, in my view, that you should be able to do that and not have to fight with the different platforms to do that. You should have the right to do so.

At my age, I didn't have a digital time in my life when I was a kid because that came afterwards, but the kids of today have a digital life starting sometimes very early. For me it's shocking, honestly. I sit here as a Canadian and as a stepdad to two girls and I just say, “Really?” If I wanted to force Facebook to delete something from when she was a teenager, or if a friend did something, I don't have the right. There's something shocking about that in my mind. That's why I'm so passionate about this bill. We need to act to better protect our children.

Even if, as an adult, you want to move your data.... You talk about innovation. Having the bank able to move your data.... It's your data. What we're saying is that it's your data. The right to move it and to manage it is yours. It's not like the company.... Having more power over your data to have it be deleted or be moved, I think it's going to spur innovation. Imagine if you could ask a company, “Just move my data to this other provider, because this is what I want. It's my data.”

I think it's a step forward.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Minister. This is all the time we have. Thanks for joining us today to answer the members' questions.

Colleagues, we have a hard stop at six. I will very briefly suspend for the minister to leave. Then we have a few items of committee business and, if we have time, some questions for the officials until six.

The meeting is suspended. Thank you again, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Colleagues, we will resume.

I don't know if we'll get much time for questions for the officials, because first I would like to have consent to adopt the fifth report of the standing committee's subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Is it approved? You've all received a copy of the steering committee's report. Are there any comments or do I have unanimous consent to approve the steering committee's report?

I'm looking at you, Mr. Perkins, as well. Do we have consent?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

If there are no other items of business....

I see Mr. Lemire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would now like to move the motion that I gave notice of on September 19, 2023, and which I also submitted to the subcommittee, so it can be formally adopted by the committee. I will start reading it out and you can stop me when you wish, if you think I do not have to read the whole thing since you all received it by email.

It reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the modernization of the regulatory framework and the convergence of wired and wireless products to ensure that future decisions are informed by robust data and recommendations for the benefit of all consumers in terms of accessibility and affordability; that it examine this convergence with relevant stakeholders and what they can enable through technological advancements such as 5G, fibre optics, Wi‑Fi 6, and many others; that it examine the need for ubiquitous connectivity, necessary data transmission speeds, and innovative opportunities for businesses and consumers in Canada and internationally; that it scrutinize the operating costs of these technologies and the maintenance of so‑called critical infrastructure; that it examine [this is a government amendment] the need for resilience in the face of climate change; that it specifically investigate unused spectrum in more remote and rural areas as well as deployment targets; that it examine the need to expand mobile connectivity to improve public safety [this is another government amendment], particularly along roads and highways; that it examine telecommunications tower construction programs and infrastructure deployment financing; that the Committee allocate a minimum of 6 meetings for conducting this study and that it report its findings and recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That is indeed the motion you tabled a week ago. There was agreement to work on it with the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Turnbull, among other people. I think that has been done.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt this motion, knowing that we might not begin that study for some time, given the work involved in considering Bill C‑27?

Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion presented by Mr. Lemire?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, colleagues.

We now have only 10 more minutes with officials. It will depend on the committee's will.

You might be reinvited, though I'm sure that comes as no surprise to you, Mr. Schaan.

We'll use the time we have left. I would suggest we split the time to three minutes, three minutes, one and a half and one and a half.

Go ahead, Mr. Vis.

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

This is a friendly motion. Hearing from witnesses today is extremely important in the context of Bill C-27. I would like to move, and hopefully get unanimous consent, that we invite the officials back as soon as possible—at your discretion, Chair—to provide us the time we need to begin examining this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Is it the will of the committee to adopt this motion? I will work it out with the clerk and officials.

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

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

In this context, it is especially important for us to see the government's proposed amendments so we can ask questions about them. We need to get the amendments quickly because it will change the nature of our comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

The motion moved by Mr. Vis is intended to invite the officials back as soon as possible. I do not think it is in their prerogative to table these amendments. This was discussed with the minister, and I understand that he agreed to make the government's proposed amendments available as soon as possible. That is clearly his intention, but I cannot make a commitment on his behalf.

Therefore, on the motion by Mr. Vis with regard to the officials, do we have unanimous consent to reinvite our colleagues at the earliest convenience?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Vis, you still have a bit of time for your questions. You have about two minutes.

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

I'm going to turn my time over to Mr. Williams.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Williams.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions concern the added costs that there will be for businesses from privacy regulation, specifically for the cellphone industry. Have we looked generally at what the effects of the GDPR legislation have been for small businesses and, specifically, cellphone companies in Europe?

[Mark Schaan]

Thank you for the question.

There have been a number of studies on the impacts of the GDPR as a regulatory tool on overall industry. I'm not aware of one specific to the telecommunications industry, but I am aware of studies that have shown the disproportionate burden that has been faced by small and medium-sized enterprises, which was something that was very top of mind for us as we were contemplating the CPPA in order to ensure that we were very mindful of the impacts it could have on small business.

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

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you very much for that answer.

Mr. Chair, on this topic at hand, I know this committee is studying privacy, and we're going to be looking at AI and spending a lot of meetings on that. However, I am, and we are, very concerned about the cost of cellphones in general. I'm going to move a motion, Mr. Chair.

I move that this committee report to the House its disappointment with the government’s failure to reduce cellphone bills by 25%, as promised in 2019, while continuing to approve mergers of cellphone providers, and, further, that the committee report its concern about how some of the highest cellphone prices in the world are contributing to the cost of living crisis in general.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Williams just moved a motion.

Madam Clerk, I understand that it's been sent around to all MPs.

Would you mind, Mr. Williams, just repeating the motion?

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

Not at all.

I move that this committee report to the House its disappointment with the government’s failure to reduce cellphone bills by 25%, as promised in 2019, while continuing to approve mergers of cellphone providers, and, further, that the committee report its concern about how some of the highest cellphone prices in the world are contributing to the cost of living crisis in general.