Debates of Nov. 28th, 2022

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Halifax for his speech. I am sure he will work hard in committee to defend the integrity of this bill. He can count on the Bloc Québécois's support for the principle of the bill.

The Chair delivered a ruling earlier this afternoon about how Bill C-27 should be divided into two parts. I would like to hear his comments on that. What impact will that have on the bill? Does he think that will jeopardize certain aspects of Bill C-27? What will be the consequences?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

For clarification, I would point out that Bill C-27 has not been divided and only the vote will be done separately.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent work on the industry committee. We accomplish good things there together, and there are many more to come.

This ruling was handed down today by the Speaker. We are going to figure out what it means. In terms of process, there may be some implications. Whatever the process implications are, I do not think it impacts the content and the imperative that we move ahead with updating our digital privacy laws in Canada.

I look forward to working with him and all members of the industry committee to get this across the finish line.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-27 does not explicitly apply to political parties, and in the past we have seen the possibility of privacy breaches and misuse in the political arena.

Should the bill be amended to specifically include political parties?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, the content of the bill has been driven by past consultations on its previous iteration in 2020. It has been driven by discussions with industry partners and with social and civil society groups.

We are very confident that the contents of the bill, as it stands now, will address the gaps and how out of date it is. I believe the concerns around political parties are covered under the Elections Modernization Act, which we passed in the previous Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I know it is very important, when we look at different aspects of the bill, for it to be balanced, as the member has mentioned, between business, ethics and consumer protection. We believe in privacy as a fundamental human right.

One of the definitions he talked about was de-identification versus anonymization. De-identification was used in ethics. We studied the Telus data for good program, whereby data was just given from Telus to consumers to the government during COVID. De-identification means that the risk of the individual being identified remains, whereas anonymization means that information is scrapped.

Can the member comment on whether he sees anonymization being used more than de-identification?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, my view on this is that we need to give Canadian creators and innovators every advantage we can to innovate and keep Canada in a competitive position, while at the same time protecting the privacy of Canadians and individuals. There is absolutely a balance there, and we have to find where that line is. I look forward to the good work ahead on the industry committee, where we can help to find that balance.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that I am standing today, as any day that I am on Parliament Hill, on the Algonquin land of the Anishinabe peoples. I say a large meegwetch to them.

I am speaking today, as we all are, to Bill C-27, which is really three bills in one. My other parliamentary colleagues have already canvassed the bare outline of this, in that we are looking at three bills: an act to create a consumer privacy protection act; a personal information and data protection tribunal act, which largely replaces some of what there was already in PIPEDA in the past; and a brand new artificial intelligence and data act.

I want to start with the artificial intelligence and data act because it is the part with which all of us are least familiar. Much of what we see in this bill was previously before Parliament in last session's Bill C-11. There is a lot to dig into and understand here.

As I was reading through the whole concept of what kinds of harms are done by artificial intelligence, I found myself thinking back to a novel that came out in 1949. The kind of technology described in George Orwell's book, famously called 1984, was unthinkable then. The dystopian visions of great writers like George Orwell or Margaret Atwood are hard to imagine. I will never forget the scene in the opening of The Handmaid's Tale, where a woman goes into a store and her debit card is taken from her. At that moment, we did not have debit cards. Margaret Atwood had to describe this futuristic concept of a piece of plastic that gave us access to our banks without using cash. No one had heard of it then.

There are words from George Orwell, written in 1949, about the ways in which artificial intelligence and new technologies could really cause harm in a dystopian sense. In 1984, he writes, “It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away.”

More recently, there is the song by The Police and written by Sting and others. I will never forget that once I went to a session on rights to privacy being under assault and a British jurist brought with him for his opening of the speech, “Every breath you take, And every move you make, Every bond you break, Every step you take, I'll be watching you.”

We live in a time when artificial intelligence can be enormously invasive of our privacy with things like visual recognition systems, as the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was just speaking to. These are things that, for someone like me born in 1954, are all rather new, but they are new for people born in 1990 too. It is very new technology and bringing in legislation to control it is equally new and challenging for us as parliamentarians. The whole notion that we are going to be able to spot the ways in which artificial intelligence can affect our democracy is something that will take time.

We talk about harms from this kind of technology, from capturing algorithms, from invading our spaces. We do not have to look any farther than the way Cambridge Analytica was used by the Brexit forces in the U.K. to harness a public outrage against something based on a pile of disinformation, by targeting individuals and collecting their data. That kind of Cambridge Analytica concern also gets into part 1 and part 2 of this bill. We really do need to figure out how to control the digital tech giants harvesting our information.

As an example used earlier today in debate, there is the idea that big digital giants and large corporations can profit from data without the consent of Canadians who may have put a family photo on social media, never knowing that their privacy has been invaded and their personal information and photos have been used for profit without their permission. In this sense, I am going to flag that in the context of the artificial intelligence and data act, I hope we will be taking the time necessary to hear witnesses specifically on this.

We have developed a pattern in recent years, which is to say the last decade or so, of having three or four witnesses appear on panels. All of us in this place know that committees are trying to hear from a lot of people and receive a lot of evidence. It will do us a disservice in our dive into the artificial intelligence and data act if we combine panels of people who are experts on PIPEDA and people who are experts on other aspects of this bill, with panels on artificial intelligence and data.

The committees that study this bill will control their own process. Committees are the masters of their own process, but I would urge the government, the Liberal legislative managers of this piece of legislation, Bill C-27, to follow the lead of the Speaker's ruling earlier today. If we are going to vote on the artificial intelligence act as a separate piece when we come to vote, we could at least make an effort to ensure that the concentrated effort of committee members and hearing witness testimony is not diluted through several different pieces of legislation and panels with three or four witnesses.

Members' questions will inevitably and invariably go to one or two. In this format of panels and pushing witnesses through quickly, we lose a lot of content. Compared with when I worked in government back in the 1980s, which I know seems like the dark ages and no one in this room was on committees in those days, committees would hear from a witness who could speak for 15 minutes and then we would have the rest of an hour to ask that one witness questions. Now that we are into something as complicated as this area, I would urge the committee to give it that kind of attention or to ask the government to send part 3, the artificial intelligence and data act, to a different committee, so that the study can be thorough and we can educate ourselves as to the unintended consequences that will inevitably occur if we go too fast.

Turning to the parts of the bill that deal with privacy, I want to put on the record again a question that was raised just moments ago about whether privacy legislation should apply to political parties in Canada. At the moment, it does not. Political parties are exempted from the kinds of privacy protections that other organizations, NGOs and corporations must use to protect the privacy information of their customers, consumers and citizens.

The Green Party of Canada believes it is essential that political parties be added to the list of organizations that have an obligation to protect the privacy of Canadians.

I will say quickly that I tend to agree with the first analysis of one of the NGOs that are very concerned with privacy information. OpenMedia, in an article by Brian Stewart, says very clearly that this legislation could actually make things worse for some privacy protections. They give the efforts of Bill C-27's consumer privacy protection act and its personal information and data protection tribunal act a grade of D. In other words, it passes but just barely. There will be many witnesses.

I can certainly confirm that, as a Green Party member of Parliament in this place, I will be bringing amendments forward, assuming this bill gets through second reading, which I think we can assume, and ends up at committee.

In the time remaining, I want to emphasize that Canada is aware that privacy is a fundamental human right. It is part of the UN declaration on the rights of individuals. I echo some of the sentiments from the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman in asking why we are looking at consumer privacy. Maybe we should change that word to Canadians' rights and privacy.

I also agree with many members who have spoken today about the problems of subclause 18(3) and the number of exemptions along with the question of what is a “legitimate” reason that people's privacy can be invaded. That should be further clarified. I find “a reasonable person would expect the collection or use for such an activity” to be fine, but the exemptions seem overly broad.

If I dive into anything else I will go over my allotted time.

This is important legislation. We must protect the privacy of Canadians. I think we will call on all parties in this place to set aside partisanship and make an honest effort to review it. That is not to delay it but to make an honest effort to review the bill before it leaves this place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was in response to a question by the leader of the Green Party that a member of the Conservative Party responded by implying that the best thing we could do would be to defeat the legislation and send it back to the drawing board. I do not believe that would be the position of the leader of the Green Party, but I do have a question for her.

I can appreciate there is a fear factor. We want to be cautious as we move forward, and what I suggested before in my question is that it seems to me there is a great deal of interest on all sides of the House to get into the nuts and bolts of the legislation. Given the limited time for debate in the House, would it not be better to see the legislation go before a committee because a committee has a lot more time to get into the details of the legislation?

After all, we would still have all of third reading and so forth. That is why I made reference to whether we should be looking at trying to get this legislation through second reading before the end of the year, given the importance of the issue.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary will not be the least bit surprised that I hope his government will not use time allocation again to reduce the time available for debate, and I likewise would urge all parties in this place to ensure everyone who speaks to the legislation has really studied it, knows it well and is prepared to speak to it without notes. I think that would speed along the process of second reading.

There are also concerns with the legislation that I have not referenced yet, but I see an hon. colleague in this place who is certainly as concerned as I am about the rights to children's privacy. We have to be very concerned with the invasive use of images and the right of individuals to be able to get what is now called either erasure or the right to be forgotten.

However, I agree with the hon. member. I would like to see the bill go to committee. I will vote for it, but I have a lot of concerns.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her engagement. In light of what we have seen in the last two and a half years with the government engaging in serious violations of Canadians' privacy and personal freedom rights, and given the fact it allowed the Public Health Agency of Canada, without judicial authority or approval, to track Canadians on Canadian soil, does the member think the legislation would prevent future episodes of that kind of thing from happening to Canadian citizens?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague from Provencher and I disagree on some aspects of the facts around the Public Health Agency, but I know there certainly are concerns. I have agreed in this place before that, if an app is tracking personal information, whether it is a Tim Hortons or, worse, the government, we need to pay close attention to that. I think the legislation would make positive steps forward to prevent that, but I do not think we can say with confidence that the legislation absolutely would ensure it never happens again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. She talked about the importance of data protection.

This bill is aimed at the private sector, but it does not address the public sector, even though the government itself has failed to protect data, as in the case of CERB fraud.

Should the bill also regulate government data to ensure that the public interest is protected?

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As he said so well, recent examples of fraud show that we must address these issues. We must protect the privacy rights of Canadians and Quebeckers. We must do more with this bill.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about rights, and I agree with her that privacy rights are an important part of the digital age. Like other rights, we must be clear where we stand on them.

I am wondering if the member agrees with me in questioning whether making it easier for the Facebooks and the Googles of the world to use Canadians' personal information in ways that have nothing to do with their services in the guise of helping small business is the right place to stand. That is certainly one of concerns I have.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think history will look back at the Googles and Facebooks of this world and put them in a category with evil flesh merchants of times gone by. They are appalling, and they get away with murder. They get away with stealing our privacy for their profit.

All of these so-called platforms should be treated as publishers so that common law could deal with them, and they could not be anonymously destroying people's lives. People would know who said what. The publisher would be held to account and could be sued for abuses, which are spread, and for disinformation.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, whom I commend for his hard work.

Today, I am pleased to speak to a bill that is as necessary as it is complex. As written, the bill has some grey areas, some things the Bloc Québécois has reservations about, but we do think it has a lot of potential.

Bill C‑27 enacts the consumer privacy protection act. Sponsored by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, the bill is at second reading. It would create three different acts: the consumer privacy protection act, the personal information and data protection tribunal act, and the artificial intelligence and data act. That last one is very interesting.

In essence, Bill C‑27 seeks to strengthen the protection of anonymity and privacy. Now that digital technology is omnipresent in our lives, it is harder than ever to make sure our privacy and personal information are protected.

Until now, organizations of every kind have taken advantage of the absence of a legal consumer protection framework. In Canada, personal information is a commodity without a legal owner.

Just look at the Cambridge Analytica scandal during the 2016 U.S. election. Bill C‑27 aims to change this sorry state of affairs, which is threatening our democracy, our privacy and social peace. The bill not only limits and restricts the excessive freedom enjoyed by organizations that collect and share our data, but it also gives them responsibilities. In short, it puts the individual and the idea of consent back at the centre of reflections on digital exchanges, and that is significant.

The Bloc Québécois supports this bill because it partially fills a legal void in Canada. I say “in Canada” because the Quebec National Assembly passed Law 25 on the protection of personal information way back in September 2021. It is a well-written law. Bill C‑27 is actually largely modelled after it, and we are very proud of that.

Given that the protection of personal information is a shared jurisdiction, it is vital to the Bloc Québécois that Bill C‑27 not take precedence over Quebec law. This does not seem to be the case at this time, but it will be up to the committee to verify this and ensure that it does not.

Speaking of the committee stage, many grey areas still need to be clarified. According to Daniel Therrien, a former privacy commissioner of Canada, Bill C-27 is too timid in its current form.

I myself have thought of something that could be studied at the committee stage, and that is image copyright. Since we are speaking about consent, the protection of anonymity, personal data and the need to adapt our legal framework to the digital era, I believe that it would be highly relevant to address this subject.

Just like the digital world, the world of photography has changed a great deal over the past 20 years. Thanks to smartphones, and the fact that just about everybody owns one, or even two, more and more photos are being taken. According to some estimates, more than three billion photographs are taken every day around the world. An image is a form of personal information. The use and sharing of images are intrinsically linked to the principle of consent. If no consent is obtained, that is a breach of privacy.

I believe that our current interpretation of image copyright is too strict, and this is detrimental to street photography and photojournalism. My father, Antoine Desilets, a photojournalist, was also a street photographer in his own way. Street photography is generally defined as photography done outdoors whose main subjects are people in spontaneous situations and in public places such as streets, parks, beaches and protests.

A good example of this kind of photography is the famous photograph The Kiss by the Hôtel de Ville, taken by the renowned French photographer Robert Doisneau. That shot has actually been the subject of multiple lawsuits, with every Dick and Jane claiming to be one of the two main figures in the picture.

Let me tell a little story from closer to home. In 1987, a Quebec photographer and friend by the name of Gilbert Duclos took a picture of a woman in the street. After the photograph was published in a magazine, the woman decided to sue Gilbert Duclos. She claimed that she was being mocked by her friends and felt that she had been wronged.

After a two-year legal saga that reached the Supreme Court, the woman won. For more than three decades, that decision, known as the Duclos decision, has been a precedent.

The debate was recently reignited by the case of a veiled woman and her husband who were photographed at a flea market in Sainte‑Foy. Since the photograph had been published without their consent, the photographer was forced to pay $3,500 to each of the two people in the photograph, even though the individuals were veiled. There is no doubt that the Duclos decision was used to bolster the plaintiffs' case.

Today, it is very easy to take a photographer to court and win. This means that many photojournalists and street photographers get sued, so unfortunately, they have to practise a form of self-censorship to protect themselves and the newspapers they work for. I believe this self-censorship has grave consequences for the arts, journalism and archive building. As it happens, on October 1, a group of 12 street photographers, led by the esteemed Jean Lauzon, published a book entitled Le droit à l'image as a commentary on this very issue.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the committee that will study Bill C-27 will have to take its time and question all the experts it needs to consult in order to come up with an ironclad law. I have a suggestion. Since we are discussing consent, privacy, the right to anonymity and personal data in the digital age, why not invite experts such as Jean Lauzon to help us understand how to modernize image copyright?

Also, when does an image of an individual taken in a public space become private? Once again, there is the need for oral or written consent on the one hand, and perhaps the definition of the concept of a subject on the other. There is a whole host of factors to consider.

For the rest, I am in favour of Bill C‑27 because it gives hope that we are going to begin to plug the gaping hole that our data is currently circulating in, allowing it to be sold and exploited.

It will be especially important to ensure that the Quebec legislation takes precedence over the Canadian legislation, as is customary in matters of shared jurisdiction.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a fascinating issue, which is the capturing of images and how one would protect the privacy of the individual, especially when it is in a public setting. I think that could be applied in many different ways. It would be interesting to see how that sort of a discussion would, in fact, take place at a standing committee.

The member is right in the sense that the legislation is not that far off. I do not know all of the details of it, obviously, but I am led to believe that Quebec has done some fabulous work on this issue. I wonder if he could provide any insights into how the Quebec legislature dealt with the capturing of images and the public versus privacy issue.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question.

The Quebec legislation does not go quite that far, but the issue remains. The jurisprudence dates back to 1987, after all.

When my colleague refers to photos taken in public, the definition of the words “public” and “private” is not clear. I might be in the street kissing my mistress. That is my private life, but at a location that, within the meaning of the current federal legislation, is a public place.

There is a host of concepts of the kind that ought to be delineated and more precisely defined in order to bring some much-needed clarity to the whole issue. It is really too bad that Mr. Duclos is still burdened by this jurisprudence.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, would the member agree that the creation of two new categories of data exempt from privacy measures is a worrisome gesture by the Liberals and could be a gift to the very technology giants to which they have such close ties?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague is always full of surprises.

Basically, I think this bill is relevant. Overall, it is relevant. In this day and age and in light of the current context, this bill is pretty much a necessity.

I am concerned about how the bill will be dealt with in committee. When it comes to bills like this one, the committee has an extremely important role to play. Beyond the wording of the bill, it is the work that is done in committee that will be critical for the future.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House and the member to subclause 15(6) of the bill, which states, “It is not appropriate to rely on an individual’s implied consent if their personal information is collected or used for an activity described in subsection 18(2) or (3).”

If we look at clause 18, it states that one can use a person's implied consent when collecting information. It is fascinating to me that this bill says, on the one hand, that one cannot use implied consent, but then the exemptions part says one can rely on implied consent. What are we trying to do with this bill? It is really muddying the waters for me, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague has a comment about that.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there will be more to come on that.

In the case of photographs, it is not easy to define what implied consent involves. In some situations, implied consent from the subject may be a look that says that they consent. It may also involve asking the subject if they agree to be photographed. In other cases, it may involve written consent.

That is why I think it is extremely important and relevant for the committee to do an exemplary job, and not just with regard to photography, which is part of who I am. In order to do that, the committee needs to invite all kinds of experts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill after my colleague from Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles, whom I would like to congratulate. I am also pleased to be following my colleague from Trois‑Rivières, an ethics expert who enlightened us on the potential impact of this bill and the dangers involved.

Unfortunately, very few people are interested in this type of bill, and yet, in the digital age, we cannot afford not to regulate the use of personal information. We cannot deny the fact that the digital shift has exploded in Quebec and elsewhere over the last decade, and it has greatly changed our lifestyles.

It is impressive to see which path companies have chosen during the pandemic, and I think it is a timely discussion to have today. However, I would like to draw attention to the new part of the bill that deals with artificial intelligence. I think it deserves serious consideration.

Part 3 of the bill raises many questions, and opinions from experts in the field of artificial intelligence are mixed. The use of artificial intelligence is a rapidly growing field that risks expanding beyond our control and jurisdiction if we do not begin to regulate the practice and define certain concepts.

Recent developments in AI in general and deep learning in particular have led to the creation of autonomous intelligent agents, which are essentially robots capable of deciding what to do without third-party intervention. These agents' autonomy raises new questions about civil liability, so we have to think about criminal provisions that would apply if someone were put in a dangerous situation, for example.

How should we approach this, and what legal status are we granting them? What legislative framework is the best fit for these autonomous agents?

At this point, we think some important definitions are missing. The law clerks who are examining the bill's provisions from a legal standpoint told us that again today. What is a high-risk intelligence system? What is a high-impact system?

The algorithms produced in applications that use artificial intelligence enable artificial beings to create goods or services or to generate predictions or results. If we compare them to human beings and use the existing framework, how will we interpret the notions of independence and unpredictability attributable to these artificial beings? The experts will help us understand all that.

Quite a few goods already exist that have a layer of artificial intelligence built into them, and 90% of those goods should not pose a problem. Experts at Meta have even said that this technology has reached its limits, because the data to train an algorithm is insufficient in quantity and lacks depth.

Let us get back to the main problem we have with Bill C‑27. Until the department clarifies its thinking on what constitutes a high-impact system, it will be difficult to assess the scope of part 3. Let us assume that everything can be considered high risk. This would mean that many companies would be accountable. If we had greater accountability, the Googles of this world might be the only ones that could risk using artificial intelligence.

The bill does not need to cover everything a machine can do for us or everything software can do once it is developed and generates predictions and results like a calculator.

If we compare it to the European legislation, we note that the latter is currently targeting employment discrimination systems, systems that would determine whether or not a permit to study there can be granted. That is essentially the limit of what the machine can do in our place.

Although the law in this document concerning artificial intelligence is far from being exhaustive, I believe it is important that we start somewhere. By starting here, with a framework, we can lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive law.

My speech this evening will help my colleagues better understand what needs to be clarified as soon as possible so we can have an important discussion about how to regulate the applications that use artificial intelligence and how to process these systems' data.

First, we will have to implement regulations for international and interprovincial exchanges for artificial intelligence systems by establishing Canada-wide requirements for the design, development and use of AI systems. Next, we must prohibit certain uses of AI that may adversely affect individuals.

The legislation is very clear on many other aspects, including on the fact that there would be a requirement to name a person responsible for artificial intelligence within organizations that use this technology. The responsibilities are fairly extensive.

In addition to the artificial intelligence and data act, which is in part 3, Bill C‑27 also includes, in part 1, the consumer privacy protection act, as well as the amendments to the former legislation. Part 2 of the bill enacts the personal information and data protection tribunal act, while part 4 includes the coming into force provisions of the bill.

As my colleagues explained, the other sections of the bill contain a lot of useful elements, such as the creation of a tribunal and penalties. One of the acts enacted by Bill C‑27 establishes a tribunal to process complaints under litigation when it comes to the use of private data. In case of non-compliance, the legislation provides for heavy penalties of up to 3% of a multinational's gross global revenue. There are provisions that are more in favour of citizens when a company misuses digital data.

Yes, this bill does have its weaknesses. I believe those weaknesses can be addressed in committee, but they may require the introduction of new legislative measures. Public services, however, are not covered by this bill. Data in the public sector requires a greater degree of protection; this bill covers only the private sector. Take, for example, CERB fraud and the CRA. In 2020, hackers fraudulently claimed $2,000 monthly payments and altered the direct deposit information for nearly 13,000 accounts.

The government can do more to tackle fraud. Unfortunately, this bill offers no relief or recourse to those whose information has already been compromised. There are digital records of nearly every important detail about our lives—financial, medical and education information, for example—all of which are easy targets for those who want to take advantage. It has been this way for a while, and it is only going to get worse when quantum computers arrive in the very near future.

This means that we must find and develop better means of online identity verification. We must have more rigorous methods, whether we are changing our requirements for passwords, for biometrics or for voice recognition.

Recently, at the sectoral committee, we heard about how easy it is for fraudsters to call telecommunication centres and pass themselves off as someone else to access their information. We must improve identity verification methods, and we must find a way to help those who are already victims of fraud. We must do so by amending Bill C-27 or introducing an additional legislative measure.

Since this is a fairly complex bill, it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, where we will have the opportunity to hear from experts in the field. At this step, I would like to recognize the leadership of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and his team. We have been reassured by the answers we have received.

Since Quebec already has data protection legislation—Bill 64, which became law 25—we want to understand when the federal act will apply and whether the changes we requested to Bill C-11, introduced in the previous Parliament, were incorporated into this bill. I want to say that we are satisfied with the answers we have received so far.

We will do our due diligence because this bill includes a number of amendments. Obviously, the devil is in the details. During the technical briefings held by the department since Bill C-27 was published, we asked how much time businesses would have to adjust their ways of doing things and comply with the legislation.

We expect that there will be a significant transition period between the time when Bill C-27 is passed and when it comes into force. Since the bill provides for a lot more penalties, the government will likely hold consultations and hearings to get input from stakeholders.

In closing, I would like to say that I have just come back from Tokyo, where I accompanied the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence Summit, where Quebec and France took the lead. The first summit was held in 2020. I would like to list some important values that were mentioned at this summit that deserve consideration and action: responsible development, ethics, the fight against misinformation and propaganda, trust, education, control, consent, transparency, portability, interoperability, strict enforcement and accountability. These are all values that must accompany open data and ecosystems.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the member and the many others who are, in essence, saying that Bill C-27 is a substantive piece of legislation that is ultimately designed to ensure privacy for Canadians.

As I made reference to earlier, I think we could look at how effective the legislation of the Quebec legislation has been, which was passed just over a year ago, and what the response has been to it. I understand that was what the member was saying. Taking into consideration AI, the tribunal, digital and just how much the digital economy has grown, 20 years ago is the last time we have seen any sort of substantive changes to our privacy legislation.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to why it is important that we update and modernize. After all, 20 years ago, we did not even have iPhones.