Industry Committee on Nov. 9th, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Over the past few months, Ms. Piovesan, in our role as MPs, we've held a number of meetings with businesses that operate in Quebec, including small and medium-sized Quebec start-ups.

Since AIDA contains little in the way of details and imposes criminal liability on companies that use high-impact systems, in a podcast, you called Bill C‑27 an advanced draft. You raised the issue of the criminality component.

Can you explain what the bill is missing, and why that undermines how confident and comfortable businesses are operating both in Quebec and in Canada? How should Bill C‑27 be clarified to take it from a draft bill, as you put it, to a real one?

[Carole Piovesan]

If I've misunderstood anything, please let me know.

Number one, I am very empathetic to the concerns of small and medium-sized businesses when it comes to the level of compliance. That is part of the reason it is very important that we harmonize wherever possible, because part of the challenge with compliance is the degree to which there is nuance.

Let me just give you a very small example. Right now, if you look at AI law alone that is bubbling up in different jurisdictions, you have the EU, which has a robust law. Then you have Canada, and you have different jurisdictions as well. You have China, Singapore...a number are considering laws. Then, in the U.S. alone, there are 200 bills that were tabled from the city level to the federal level, so to the extent that we can minimize the complexity of compliance, we are far better off.

When it comes to the kinds of enforcement measures that you find in AIDA, one of the most striking to me is the criminality component, which I am most concerned about, because it does set us apart as an outlier. We don't see that in other laws around the world. I would recommend striking that, to be honest. Get rid of the criminality component, and really align AIDA, from an enforcement and a penalty perspective, as closely as possible with other leading jurisdictions.

I hope I fully answered your question.

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

Yes, absolutely.

I'd like to ask you another question out of curiosity.

In your opening remarks, you said the AI act had holes that needed to be plugged. Can you tell us how we should plug those holes?

What do you recommend to strengthen part III, the AI act?

[Carole Piovesan]

Most of the holes that need to be plugged are found in the minister's amendments, in the letter that was tabled by the minister and read together with the companion documents. If you were to take it all together and we were to see a bill that addresses all of those different points, my suspicion is that it would be a fairly good, fulsome bill. I haven't seen it, and I don't know, but I suspect that we would be in a position where we are much more comfortable with some of those gaping holes.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Piovesan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to continue with the criminality aspect.

I guess what you're proposing, then, is basically a fining system. Doesn't that sound a little weak, though, when you're dealing with personal privacy from individuals that could affect them quite significantly? What I worry about is that it sends the message that you can buy your way out of anything. Why wouldn't we want to have some criminality as part of it, especially when corporate responsibility is already weak in Canada?

[Carole Piovesan]

I'm not sure I fully align with that.

Where there is criminal activity, it's typically already covered in the Criminal Code. The issue with AIDA as it's currently constructed is that it is intended to be an accountability framework for high-impact systems. In this current construct, it sets Canada apart with the criminality component. If you are engaging in criminal activity, we already have a statute in place that covers that activity and provides the necessary oversight and actions that would be taken.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The fact that we would do this differently by ourselves.... Is that the only reason, or is...?

I'm not sure if you got a chance to look at what the Biden administration released and what they're doing. It seems to me that if you aren't going to take that out of a section, where else could we strengthen the corporate responsibility, then? If we take that out, do you have a suggestion as to what else could be added? I know that many organizations, individuals and privacy people have expectations for that. If they don't have that, do you have any suggestions on what we would counter with, to at least provide some substance to what they would lose?

[Carole Piovesan]

The Biden executive order is not law. We would have to actually see what the U.S. is capable of passing as law.

In the Canadian context, you have fines that are stricter than what you would find under the EU context, so you already have a significant deterrent, from the monetary perspective.

In terms of the level of criminality that I understand we are concerned about from the constituents you're speaking with, I would go back to the point that we have the Criminal Code in place, which would deter that behaviour already.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, thanks.

I know that my constituents at least are very disappointed with that in terms of corporate responsibility with respect to the environment, protection of privacy and consumers...so to me, it's something to think about. I do appreciate your testimony, because we're thinking long and hard on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

We now go to you, Mr. Généreux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses as well.

Today's discussion is fascinating. I am very interested in what you have to say.

Ms. Piovesan, if I understood correctly, you helped draft Bill C-11, the predecessor to the bill before us today, Bill C-27.

[Carole Piovesan]

Did I participate in the...?

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

Did you participate in the consultations or even in the drafting of the bill, itself?

[Carole Piovesan]

Okay.

I participated in the national consultations on data and digital literacy, I think it was, in 2018. I participated as an innovator—as one of the innovation leads.

I did not participate in the drafting of the digital charter, nor in the white paper to reform PIPEDA that came out at that time. I have not participated in the drafting of any of these laws, neither Bill C-11 nor Bill C-27.

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

I'm going to turn to the other witnesses now.

Did any of you participate in the consultations on Bill C-11 or the bill the committee is currently studying, Bill C-27? Please nod your head if you did.

I see that no one was consulted. All right.

In light of what we've seen since we began our study a few weeks ago, no one seems to have been consulted, but the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry says that 300 individuals and organizations were consulted after the bill was introduced. I'd like to find those individuals and organizations. I don't know where they are.

In a moment, I'll be giving notice of a motion, but I'd like to ask you a question, first, Ms. Piovesan.

Mr. Balsillie appeared before the committee, and I'm sure you read his remarks. He likened the bill to a bucket that has holes. What witnesses have told us so far seems to suggest that the bucket basically has no bottom. That's what it seems like.

You talked about the fact that the committee has heard opposing views from witnesses. Take the tribunal, for instance. Some suggested getting rid of it because we didn't need it, while others argued the opposite, that having a tribunal in the sector was important.

Given how far apart on the spectrum people's views are, do you think the bill should have been split from the beginning? We've heard from the start that the bill is almost monstrous, that it's too big, that the privacy piece and the AI piece should have been dealt with separately.

What do you think?

[Carole Piovesan]

I'm not sure I'm in the best position to comment on whether the two bills should be separated, but what I will say is that they are conceptually linked. Much of what goes into the AI bill does depend on the type of data that it relies upon, which then touches on part 1 of that bill. There are distinctions, for sure, and there are conceptual linkages that I think are important. I do appreciate that part 1 has been subject to substantially more consultation than part 3 has.

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

Mr. Young, you said earlier that Quebec's bill was superior to this bill, if I understood the gist of your comments correctly.

Is that true? Do you believe that?

[David Young]

I'm sorry. I'm listening, but could the translator repeat it? It was at low volume.

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

My understanding is that you spoke favourably about Quebec's bill. It's actually in force now, law 25, if I'm not mistaken.

Given the complimentary way you spoke about law 25, do you think it's a better bill than this one?

[David Young]

That's a good question.

I think it sets, largely, an excellent standard. That would be the way I would characterize it.

In comparison with this bill.... I think the bill could learn from Law 25 in a number of areas. Certainly, anonymization and de-identifying are one. There are others, and we haven't touched on those today, in which Quebec provides what I will call a higher standard, a more rigorous standard of privacy.

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

Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to give notice of a motion, if I may.

My apologies to the witnesses. This will take a few minutes.

That, in relation to Bill C‑27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, and given that, (i) the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Industry gave evidence to the Committee on September 26, 2023, stating “My office and department have had more than 300 meetings with academics, businesses and members of civil society regarding this bill.” the committee therefore requests, for the sake of transparency, that the minister’s office and department release the details pertaining to the more then 300 meetings held by his office and department with academics, businesses, and civil group, on Bill C‑27, broken down by each meeting, including, (a) names of any and all meeting attendees, including the name of representing organizations if applicable; (b) the title of each meeting and any agendas if applicable; (c) material submitted by the meeting attendees or organizations to the department or minister’s office, including but limited to amendment proposals, briefings, and or letters; and that such information be deposited to the clerk of the committee no later then November 20th, 2023, and be published on the committee website.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Are you putting the motion on notice, or are you moving the motion in order to debate it, Mr. Généreux?

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

I'm giving notice of the motion so that we can debate it at a later time.

Come to think of it, I think we're going to have to debate it now, since our next meeting isn't until November 20.