Industry Committee on Oct. 31st, 2023

[Jim Balsillie]

Yes.

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

You said the government didn't have a strategy in the matter. Could you tell us more about that?

[Jim Balsillie]

Yes. I went to the government when they said they had the first national AI strategy, and they said there were no documents. That was reported in the news—in The Globe and Mail—in February.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Villemure.

I now yield the floor to Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for letting me join you at this committee today.

I have some questions for our guests from the Canadian Labour Congress, if I could.

First of all, there have been concerns raised about the risks and limitations of housing the AI and data commissioner in ISED. Could you elaborate on the problems and concerns of this model? Could you also perhaps comment on whether or not it would be more effective, transparent and accountable if the AI and data commissioner was completely independent and was an officer of Parliament, like the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

Thank you.

[Siobhán Vipond]

As we stated, currently, by housing it in the same place, we're asking for the promotion of AI to happen but also for the checks and balances to supposedly happen in the same place. We know that independence would offer an opportunity to ensure that we're meeting what should be the goals: What is the effect on Canadians? What is the effect on democracy?

It's not reasonable to expect that those whose job is actually to promote AI are able to put those checks and balances in place as well. We believe it absolutely should be housed separately.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Ms. Vipond.

It's nice to see you, by the way. I wish I were there to see you in person.

My next question is this. Since this bill was introduced, as it has progressed over the year it's been in the House, many issues have been raised about the consultations that have taken place. Specifically, concerns have been raised about the limits of the existing AI advisory council as a way to engage civil society on AI.

Could you elaborate on these limits and on what you would suggest would be a better model?

[Siobhán Vipond]

Absolutely. We are strong believers that social dialogue is our best position to make any decision. Getting to this point, where there hasn't been enough social dialogue—especially, for us, involving unions as part of that.... We have big concerns. What are we trying to protect?

Workers are excited about certain parts of AI, but they're also very concerned. The wrong type of design will send us down a road that could have huge impacts on people's jobs. Currently, we're not part of that dialogue in a way in which we can actually make sure that this is designed so that we are ensuring that this is an opportunity and that we are mitigating the risk to jobs and to workers.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

As the evaluation and analysis of this bill have progressed, questions about why we think government and Crown corporations should be included in the scope of the act have been raised. Perhaps you could just provide some of your thoughts on this and why you think, or possibly believe, that the government and Crown corporations should be included.

[Siobhán Vipond]

Absolutely. From a workers' point of view, by excluding Crown corporations and government, we've excluded a significant number of workers who are affected by AI. In a lot of good ways, Crown corporations and our government have invested in AI and are developing AI, but they are somehow not going to be part of the regulations or rules around that, or be part of the discussions we're having, and should be having, around this bill.

We strongly support all those workers who need to be included so that we can see that we are keeping checks and balances and there are mandatory rules and regulations around what's being done in terms of workplaces within the Crown corporations and the government.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

From your perspective, I'd like a little bit of insight on how AI regulation has been approached in Canada versus the United States, and which mechanisms and which things you prefer.

[Siobhán Vipond]

I think we're all aware of the executive order that came down yesterday. I think the beginning of that executive order from President Biden starts with the need to look at how Americans are affected. I think that's what we should be doing here in Canada. How are people being affected? That is the starting point. How are workers being affected?

Then, when you look further in terms of what the executive order in the United States is stating, it's also recognizing the impact on workers, the impact on unions and the role that unions should play in that discussion in terms of designing it. It's also laying out that there needs to be constant evaluation, whether it's around the impact on jobs or the impact on equity, which is all work that we believe should continue.

As we said at the beginning, we can design this so that we're having discussions and putting ourselves in a position of opportunity, or we can design this in a way where we're undermining the work that I think we need to be doing further. For us, there's not enough balance in terms of approaching this. It has to be about people. It has to be about workers. We have to ensure that workers are part of that discussion and respect the commitment we have in Canada to social dialogue.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You're over by five seconds, Ms. McPherson, but we'll get back to you.

I will now yield the floor to Mr. Vis, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses today.

I'm going to start with the Canadian Marketing Association.

Ms. Clodman, would you be comfortable collecting and using sensitive information of minors for a socially beneficial purpose, as defined in the legislation, without the proposed legislation defining what a minor is?

[Sara Clodman]

The Canadian Marketing Association has been a leader in developing rules and guidance for marketers when it comes to using children's information. We have rules that start at anyone under 13, and any use of their data would need the express consent of the parent.

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

How can a parent provide express consent for a child's information when that child might just simply agree to provide consent on a computer application without the parent's knowledge? How would a company differentiate between data collected in an inappropriate way, or in certain cases, as you mentioned, when the parent did provide that consent?

[Sara Clodman]

In the case of children, our view is that if it's a company that is dealing in an area where it knows it is specifically reaching children, it should set up a system to make sure it is getting the parental consent.

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

Thank you. That's very helpful.

Would you agree that we might consider looking at the U.K. model, which has tiered ages of consent? In fact, it has five different levels related to minors, indicating how information is collected in each of those circumstances.

You mentioned that 13 is a threshold age. Can we do a better job in Canada by including in this legislation a specific and detailed protocol that ensures children are not exploited online for commercial purposes?

[Sara Clodman]

If you're talking about an online harms type of thing, that would be different legislation.

This bill deals with privacy.

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

No, I am talking about commercial or business interests.

[Sara Clodman]

In terms of privacy, our code actually does have three steps, not five.

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

For this legislation, though, and not your code, do you believe we should enshrine very prescriptive language in this legislation to protect children?

[Sara Clodman]

That is something I'd have to take back to my membership in terms of how detailed it should be in the legislation.

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

Thank you for your time.

Mr. Balsillie, first off, thank you for your comments. I really do feel.... I am very concerned about this bill. I think it is broken, primarily because the minister came before our committee and said that he wanted to protect children but didn't define in the legislation what a fundamental right to privacy would be for a child, even though it's a second iteration of this bill itself. That's very problematic for me.

On page three of your report, “Not Fit For Purpose—Canada Deserves Much Better”, regarding this bill, it states, “Most importantly, it fails to address the reality that dominant data-driven enterprises have shifted away from a service-oriented business model towards one that relies on monetizing PI”.

I am so concerned about the mental health crisis you outlined with respect to youth and the vulnerability that children face every day when they go online, even in their own classroom, as was outlined in a Globe and Mail report last year.

Is there any circumstance...? Are we getting to the point that we need to put the hammer down as legislators and go really far in protecting children in this bill, because we have no idea what harms are going to come their way in the next 10-15 years?