Industry Committee on Oct. 31st, 2023

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's very clear. Thank you, Mr. Balsillie.

Ms. Vipond, could you provide your perspective on that as well, please?

[Siobhán Vipond]

Yes. For us, there has to be an ability for checks and balances. As we've said before, it needs to exist outside of that process.

Then, overall, when we're just looking at who has a say in the decision-making, we're always going to go back to that. We're not there yet. We need to have more social dialogue before we get to the point of looking past that point.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I'll just stick with you for one last question very quickly.

Why should directors and officers be held personally liable for violations of their businesses?

[Siobhán Vipond]

It's because people make decisions, and those decisions have impacts. This idea that you are suddenly not responsible for what happens alleviates a chain of responsibility that needs to exist. We see this when we're looking at almost all labour law, where, if you make decisions in a workplace, that has an effect. If you make decisions that are going to have an effect, you should be liable or you should be responsible for those decisions. That's why we're advocating for that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses. Welcome to the great Liberal darkness club. This makes me feel like a dog chasing its tail. I use that metaphor because I just saw Ms. McPherson's dog on the screen.

We are all here to discuss a bill that, as Mr. Champagne announced to us three weeks ago, would be subject to eight amendments, some of which will be major.

Mr. Balsillie, earlier you said that Mr. Bains consulted you at the time about Bill C-11 and that you had made recommendations. The current minister, Mr. Champagne, tells us he has consulted 300 organizations and experts.

Ms. Vipond, you clearly weren't in the group. At any rate, many of the witnesses here probably weren't in the consulting group, since they're asking us today to hold more consultations and that they be permanent and ongoing depending on how the bill evolves.

Mr. Balsillie, almost all the comments you've made on this bill thus far have been negative. Can you see anything anywhere in this bill that might be positive, or do you think we should simply toss it out and start over?

Based on what we have before us today, I think we've confused “privacy” with “artificial intelligence”. These are two completely different things, but we're putting everything in the same basket.

We would've liked to hear what you had to say about artificial intelligence. I'm convinced you would have liked to talk to us about that at greater length as well. So allow me to give you the floor.

[Jim Balsillie]

Yes, I would like to put the sock on first with AI.

First of all, I said in my testimony that we should start over with AI. I agree.

Second, I think that the tribunal should be scrapped. There's no purpose for it other than to undermine the effective process. I do think that the privacy provisions can be fixed, but you have to fix them comprehensively. That's why I used the allegory of a bucket. If you leave one or two holes in a bucket, it's not a bucket, but you can patch all the holes. It is not a bargain to say, “I'll give you 10 holes to fix, but I'm going to leave 10 holes.” You can patch all the holes in the privacy act, but you must do it. There's no reason that I can see that's legitimate for the tribunal. I think that artificial intelligence is so central and so comprehensive that it has to be done right or it will be forever toxic.

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

I'd like to address the representatives of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

I'm a businessman. I have 40 employees in my various businesses, and we're awash in bureaucracy and red tape. Do you think that businesses with 100 employees or less, for example, a figure that appears in other bills, shouldn't be subject to the act or that they should be subject in a different way?

We know that small businesses are the economic backbone of this country. Should they be treated differently?

[Catherine Fortin LeFaivre]

That's a good question. We didn't address it in our remarks.

Are you referring to the bill as a whole or to the part concerning the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, or AIDA?

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

I'm thinking particularly of certain provisions that might force businesses to deal with a lot of red tape to comply with the act.

[Catherine Fortin LeFaivre]

We always take care to improve the process and help small businesses survive.

I'd like to put that question to our members, but I can tell you that, generally speaking, if we think a measure may help small businesses, then we support it.

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

Ms. Vipond, have you been consulted?

[Siobhán Vipond]

This is, I guess, part of that process, but we think there can be a more meaningful way to do things at the table because, as we said, we're very concerned that the design is going to undo and go against human rights if AI is—

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

My question is whether you've been consulted on this piece of legislation.

[Siobhán Vipond]

I guess we're here, but, yes, we think it could be more.

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

The minister says he has met with 300 organizations and individuals. You said you had three million members in various sectors across Canada, didn't you?

[Siobhán Vipond]

Yes.

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

But you were never consulted.

[Siobhán Vipond]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today. It's a very useful discussion.

Ms. Krugel from the banking association, maybe I'll start with you. I think the banks generally have a clear understanding of what the CPPA will look like federally. From your perspective, will this bill help raise the floor for businesses across the country?

[Lorraine Krugel]

We believe the CPPA takes what's best from PIPEDA and strengthens it.

We also think that it's very important that the federal law be a guiding principle when the provinces start their privacy reform. Obviously, Quebec has done theirs already, but we know there are other provinces that are looking to do their own thing. It would be very helpful to have consistency and interoperability, so it would be in the best interests of organizations of all sizes, and also consumers, to have a consistent experience across provinces and federally.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Do you think that's possible with the way the bill is already worded?

[Lorraine Krugel]

It would be, with some targeted amendments, which we have put out in our proposal.