Industry Committee on Oct. 17th, 2023

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the conversations going on and the fact that amendments keep being made to this motion to try to find consensus. I think there is something critically important in that, and that's one of the values that we have when it comes to committee work, compared to what we sometimes see in the House.

It's critical that we have these amendments. I have been in and around politics for many years—not quite as long as Mr. Perkins, but a few years—and in many cases ministers come in and say that their bill is good but that they would welcome amendments. This deviated when the minister came in and stated outright that he planned on having amendments, which means there will be amendments that the government or government members will be putting forward. Not to have the exact text of those amendments before going into clause-by-clause seems absolutely asinine, because you might be arguing and having witnesses talk about what they think the best or the worst part of the bill is, and something that is amended will completely negate all of that or bring forward other pieces, so it is critically important that we have these actual conversations on the actual content the government plans on putting forward in the bill.

Yes, there will always be some amendments that might come up at some later point in time as witness testimony comes about, but if the government has intentions of having amendments before we even get to witness testimony, it is critical for the sake of efficiency that we actually have this. Otherwise we're going to be sitting here many years from now potentially still not having this bill passed because they will be going back and forth. I don't anticipate that the government would be welcome to go to clause-by-clause and then bring witnesses back, then go back to clause-by-clause and play that game back and forth, because that's not an efficient way of passing legislation.

I think this motion, as amended, strikes the right balance, and I would suggest that everyone vote in favour of it, including the government. This is a time to show that you guys mean business and want to see this bill pass or be the best it can possibly be.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

I'm looking to see if there are other speakers before we go to a vote.

I see Mr. Masse has his hand up, so I will yield the floor to Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to test the waters on one last attempt to build consensus.

The crux of this is just trying to get the three privacy amendments. I would just remove sections (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f).

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Section (f) has already been removed.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we have one done.

In section (c), just add “no later than October 20”, related specifically to amendments to section 1.

[A voice]

It's part 1.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It's part 1, yes. Thank you. I need my lawyer friends.

To summarize really quickly, we're dropping all of the other stuff that is orbiting around this and just saying that it's those three amendments for that. It gives our witnesses time on the weekend to have the three amendments that are related to the Privacy Commissioner. Then we can move on and go from there.

I think that's a very reasonable way. It allows the department and the minister just to focus on that. It gives them plenty of time. They don't have to worry about the other stuff that's in here. Some of the stuff is actually important. I give credit to the drafter of this.

I think if we're going to have some type of general sense of civility in the committee and the expectation that when you do present in front of us.... There's a precedent here. If we don't deal with this responsibly, we're telling anybody else who comes and sits in this chair that they can mislead us whenever they want. That's really what this is about at the end of the day. Their expectations should be measured in the same way we treat the minister. That's really what this is about. It's not personal to the minister. It's what we have to deal with and the fact of all the different people who will be sitting in those chairs.

If we're going to allow this to continue like this, we're wasting time. Also, we're setting a precedent that you don't have to come here and tell us the truth. It's not necessary. Do what you want when you sit there and there will be no consequences.

I'm hoping that maybe this is the final point to try to find some consensus and move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse. I appreciate that consensus-building effort.

It's removing (a), (b), (d) and (e), and it orders the minister's department and the Department of Justice to produce draft texts of amendments to Bill C-27 as discussed by the minister on September 26, pertaining to part 1 of the bill, provided that these documents shall be deposited with the clerk of the committee in both official language no later than October 20, which is this Friday.

That is the amendment proposed by Mr. Masse.

Is that correct, Mr. Masse?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, sir. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Are there comments on the amendment?

Mr. Perkins, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate MP Masse's desire to try to find a way to the crux of the issue, which I think he captured well, in addition to the specifics about the legal text. I am very concerned about what I believe to be—I'm assuming unintentional—misleading testimony by the minister at this committee. If we had just accepted it, it would have made it difficult for any of the witnesses who come. I think MP Masse makes a good point about every witness who comes here, particularly ministers of the Crown when it comes to their own legislation, because it changes the total tenor of what witnesses may or may not say about a bill that is outdated. I won't go over that again.

I certainly would like to get to the bottom of this issue, which would be driven by a discussion here in the committee with the deputy minister. This is essentially item (b), which would allow us to try to figure out.... I think there is a fundamental parliamentary principle we have to go by here.

We don't want to delay this, because we only have another half-hour left.

I would support what MP Masse suggests in the sentence—by the way, I think it's part 1, not section 1, just to be clear—in order to get to the crux of the issue, which is to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner.... I think we have the Privacy Commissioner on Thursday, and he won't have access to these if we wait until Friday, so I think we need to talk about when the Privacy Commissioner comes. We can do that separately off-line from here. I think the Privacy Commissioner should be able to comment on the amendments that are about the Privacy Commissioner and the powers of the Privacy Commissioner's office.

I understand that government members have suggested that we will probably have these amendments perhaps in the next few days anyway—the three, not the eight—so I think it would be great to have the Privacy Commissioner come and have a session with the officials on Thursday, but I'll leave that to the committee, Chair.

I would like to reserve as an element—not in this motion and not for now—that I think we need to have some sort of more formal discussion at some time in the future with the deputy minister to understand how we got into this situation with such a large parliamentary element at stake. I will leave that for another day.

We're trying to achieve a bunch of things in this and get to the root of that issue. Ultimately, what we're trying to do is make sure that the witnesses who are going to speak over the next number of meetings on privacy have a knowledgeable way to do that with the legal wording. If the government is able to ensure that we can get that by the end of the week, in the next few days, I think all will be well and we can get on with the study. I would hope our Bloc colleague would see the value of supporting that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We have the amendment by Mr. Masse.

Is it clear to everyone what the terms of the amendment are?

If there are no other comments, I'm going to ask the clerk to proceed with the vote on Mr. Masse's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment worked, so the motion is amended.

Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.

That brings us back to the text of the motion as amended.

The only part that remains of the lettered parts is part (c), which is “orders the Minister, his department and the Department of Justice to produce the draft texts of amendments to Bill C-27 discussed by the Minister pertaining to part 1, in both official languages, no later than October 20.”

That is the motion, basically, plus all the wording before it, the preamble.

Are there any more comments? Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to go to a vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

The motion passes unanimously. Thank you everyone.

The witnesses are still with us. I want to thank them for their impressive display of patience, which has been tested over and over again.

Without further ado, we go to Ms. Lapointe for six minutes.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their patience.

It's my understanding that we haven't looked at, or made changes to, privacy laws for over 20 years, so this is very important work that will touch all Canadians.

When the minister was here, he mentioned in his remarks that there were more than 300 meetings with stakeholders to listen to the concerns about the bill. Can you tell us what you heard during those meetings and how it influenced the proposed amendments the minister outlined in his speech?

[Mark Schaan]

I'd like to thank the member for her question, Mr. Chair.

I think we heard a number of important elements that both make up the basis of what the minister spoke to and also reinforce important parts of the bill. What we heard through the dialogue with stakeholders was a commitment that privacy legislation is important to modernize and that we absolutely need to bring it up to fit for purpose in the digital era.

We heard some very particular aspects from stakeholders that I think are a reflection of what was at the heart of some of what was discussed in the remarks.

One, we heard very clearly from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner that enshrining the fundamental right to privacy is a very important element in ensuring that the foundations of our private sector privacy law are rooted in individuals' ability to enjoy privacy in their ongoing commercial relationships with industry.

Second, we heard a number of elements related to the enforcement powers. We heard a lot of recognition of the very important work that the bill was already doing with respect to bringing enforcement powers into a modern era. The enforcement mechanisms under PIPEDA, as they currently stand, lack a lot of the capacities for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to meaningfully engage in enforcement activity. There is no capacity, necessarily, for meaningful penalties. There's no capacity for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to issue orders or to suspend activities related to the collection and use of personal information when there are actual harms occurring. All of that was reinforced in many of the stakeholder discussions.

It was also reinforced that there need to be important guardrails, fairness and due diligence around the use of that enforcement power. Many people underscored the value of a tribunal, which would be a check, in some ways, on what are extraordinary powers now being afforded to the Privacy Commissioner.

With the amendments related to consent or compliance agreements, the notion was that, in many cases, you might be able to get to the heart of an issue between the industrial player and the Privacy Commissioner without actually having to go to the tribunal to pursue an administrative monetary penalty. Providing that additional flexibility to come to a common agreement is an important element that could be added in.

So, we have the fundamental right of privacy, the checks and balances around meaningful enforcement, the new capacities for the Privacy Commissioner around that effective enforcement, and then some definitional work. People dug in, not surprisingly, in the many meetings—many of which were with a lot of technical experts and specialists—and spoke to the fact that we need to be very clear about things like de-identified information and about the definitions in a number of spaces, and I think you'll find that those are important aspects that we've introduced in this bill.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

This committee will have the Privacy Commissioner appear on Thursday, and it's my understanding that he has made some recommendations. I recall there may have been 50. Can you tell us if or how you've responded to the recommendations?

[Mark Schaan]

I'd like to thank the member for her question, Mr. Chair.

We took the recommendations and the feedback of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner extraordinarily to heart. It was a foundational element of our work to consider, both coming into the bill and also what was shared in terms of ways in which the bill may need to shift to reflect the important powers.

When you go through the list of the Privacy Commissioner's desires for what would improve the overall outcomes, we've tried to meaningfully address those. The big ask around a fundamental right to privacy, the capacity to reach a compliance agreement, and having a rigorous, emboldened enforcement actor, all of that is very much at the heart of what we were up to.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I'll go back to the consultations very quickly.

Can you tell me if you've had consultations since the bill was written?

[Mark Schaan]

Just as a quick refresher, the government had already begun this effort, in some ways, with the consultations that we led on the overall development of the innovation and skills plan. That identified data and digital as an important pillar of work related to the functioning of the modern economy, so a secondary public, open consultation on data and digital was held on specific pillars, one related to privacy and trust. That netted a significant amount of feedback, which then resulted in the digital charter and its 10 principles.

When the digital charter was released, a subsequent consultation was held on specific proposals related to the modernization of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA. That feedback then informed what ultimately became the bill—first Bill C-11, and then this bill.

Since this bill was tabled, in June 2022, we've had more than 300 discussions with key stakeholders across the continuum to make sure that we are continuing to understand their understanding of the bill and also things related to it that they think are important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When Minister Champagne was here, I asked him about Quebec's data protection law. In his letter, he mentions that a few provinces have privacy legislation that is substantially similar to PIPEDA, meaning that, in many circumstances, the provincial law applies instead of the federal law. The paragraph basically says that that will continue.

In the specific case of Quebec, it is anticipated that the designation of its provincial privacy regime as “substantially similar” will continue and that its law would apply instead of the consumer privacy protection act, or CPPA. I think that addresses the first issue related to law 25, which could indeed apply.

Currently, is a transition period anticipated? That's new information that came out the day after the minister appeared before the committee. Until Bill C‑27 is passed, will Quebec companies have some sort of transition period?

[Mark Schaan]

I'd like to thank the member for his question.

I want to stress two things before I answer the question.

Under the new legislation, Quebec's law and other provincial laws deemed substantially similar to this one will have vested rights, so to speak. Quebec's law will replace the new act for activities within the province. The act provides the authority to make regulations, in co-operation with the provinces, regarding the need for a stronger regime in the future.

Bill C‑27 provides that substantially similar legislation will continue to apply until the designation is otherwise defined under a new regime. That means the status of Quebec's law will not be impacted until consultations are held and new regulations regarding the definition of substantially similar legislation are made.

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

That is clear.

Switching topics, I want to discuss copyright, especially as it pertains to AI.

The government pledged to ensure a modern and innovative market. Copyright in the AI realm opens the door to infinite possibilities and tremendous concerns.

How committed are you to protecting creators? Protecting them means making sure they receive fair compensation. Can creators count on the government to make sure that the Copyright Act will also be applied fairly and that they will receive fair compensation? The government announced something along those lines in budget 2022.

Can we expect an updated Copyright Act, one that puts fair compensation for authors at the fore?

[Mark Schaan]

Thank you to the member for that great question.

The government announced consultations on the link between AI and copyright in order to bring needed clarity to the role of copyright in the age of AI and all sorts of new technologies. The aim is to ensure that creators in creative industries are fairly compensated. That's important because the most effective way to address those concerns is through the Copyright Act. That's why the government has launched another consultation on the issue.

Bill C‑27 would enact the artificial intelligence and data act, a law of general application addressing all uses of AI systems that have significant societal or economic impacts. That may include certain aspects of the creative sector, but the law was designed to take into account all the ways in which AI could harm society overall.

For that reason, consultations on the copyright framework are also taking place. You're right that copyright rules determine how creators are compensated.

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

Minister Champagne said he wants to achieve alignment with Europe's General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR.

What best practices would you say the European Union, or EU, follows? Are you drawing on some of them? Is there a working group looking into that? Are there talks going on?