Bill C-11 (Historical)

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020

An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Consumer Privacy Protection Act to protect the personal information of individuals while recognizing the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. In consequence, it repeals Part 1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and changes the short title of that Act to the Electronic Documents Act. It also makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 enacts the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, which establishes an administrative tribunal to hear appeals of certain decisions made by the Privacy Commissioner under the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and to impose penalties for the contravention of certain provisions of that Act. It also makes a related amendment to the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act.

Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2020

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that strengthening privacy protections is a good thing. However, we are concerned about the massive number of fraud cases related to CERB. That is a government issue, but Bill C-11 does not apply to the government.

Does the minister not think this bill should also apply to the federal government? If not, what does the federal government plan to do to improve identity checks when people apply for programs?

Many members of the House have had to help distressed constituents who were the victims of fraud.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner indicated that there are concerns about Bill C-11's new commercial activity definition and consent rules. The concern is that it would open up the door to new commercial uses of personal information without consent. There seems to be an approach that people are suggesting, and it is to restore the language that was in place previously. Would the minister support such an amendment?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that Jim Balsillie noted with regard to this bill that “the privacy bill fails to curtail [the] surveillance economy or protect Canadians” and that “The government's proposed legislation would not curb the mass surveillance or behaviour manipulation the tech industry currently engages in with impunity.” In fact, he specifically says that Bill C-11 demonstrates that the Liberal government is not fully aware of the power of the data economy and the impact it has on the lives of Canadians.

This is considered a fundamental flaw in the bill. What can we do in order to address this issue?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to continue second reading of Bill C-11, the digital charter implementation act, 2020. I am proud because our government set out to deliver an ambitious and comprehensive reform of Canada's framework for protecting the privacy of Canadians while fostering innovation amongst Canadian businesses.

That is exactly what we have done. There are strong imperatives for advancing this important package of reforms to our framework for privacy protection. Canadians deserve and expect strong protections, just as businesses deserve and expect clear rules of the road so that they can confidently deliver the products and services consumers want in an increasingly digital society.

Prior to my time in government, I spent 20 years in the business world. I know how critical trust and confidence can be in business: trust between manufacturers and their suppliers, between exporters and importers, and between businesses and consumers.

In today's digital economy, protecting personal information is key to earning and maintaining that trust.

In that spirit, Bill C-11 includes robust privacy protections for Canadians, and rightly so.

Harsh penalties could be imposed for violations. This new law will also provide a solid framework for businesses seeking to prosper in the digital economy. These businesses will be well placed to earn and keep their customers' trust, without compromising their ability to innovate and meet the demands of an increasingly well-informed customer base.

Bill C-11 seeks to strike the right balance between these imperatives and the need to boost Canadians' confidence in the digital economy.

There are important reasons to move forward with this legislation, and I hope all of my colleagues in the House will be supportive.

As we have noted in the previous debate and members are well aware, the consumer privacy protection act proposed in Bill C-11 would serve to bring Canada in line with other international jurisdictions. In particular, the CPPA would support interoperability of Canada's privacy regime with that of the European Union, a very important partner for Canada. I will speak more about the importance of that in a moment.

This bill would also support a strong and coherent national framework for privacy so that Canadians and businesses would know what to expect from coast to coast to coast. We are not alone in seeing the urgency of modernizing and strengthening privacy laws in the current environment. The provinces do, too. While Quebec continues to advance proposed new provincial legislation, Ontario and British Columbia are also considering new legislation or substantive amendments to their existing provincial laws.

Moving forward with our legislation now allows us to continue to provide leadership in this area and ensure a harmonized approach to privacy protection across our nation. This is really crucial for business and to encourage investment in Canada. It is also crucial to ensuring that all Canadians can have an equivalent level of privacy protection, wherever they decide to conduct business.

The past year has clearly demonstrated how fundamental digital and data-driven technologies have become in our economy and our society at large. Never before, as a society, have we been more reliant on secure, efficient and accessible technologies as a means of conducting a range of everyday activities.

As I noted previously, the foundation for such a robust digital and data-driven economy is trust.

Canadians have been clear in saying they want strong legal protections for their personal information, backed up by meaningful enforcement and oversight. They have indicated to us these principles are essential to their participation in the digital economy. Businesses also recognize this, and are seeking clear and consistent rules in this area.

Our previous legislation has served us well for almost 20 years, but the digital economy, as we all know, is constantly evolving and we must evolve with it. A modern privacy framework will set the right foundation not only for a post-pandemic recovery, but for many years to come.

I noted how important privacy protection is to the various levels of government, including the provinces and our international partners. The federal private sector privacy law is based on one key objective: bringing in national guidelines for organizations that do most of their business on the Internet, a global network that knows no borders.

We want to build a strong, innovative national economy. In order to get there, privacy rules have to be harmonized at the national level. Businesses and consumers are counting on the leadership of the federal government to set national standards in this area.

In the past few years, a parliamentary committee has examined the private sector privacy law, and I thank the committee for its work. During its study, many business representatives and experts underscored the importance of maintaining adequate protection under the European Union General Data Protection Regulation. We must ensure the free flow of data from the European Union to Canada. The same goes for data from the United Kingdom, whose data protection system is comparable to that of the European Union.

The European Commission clearly indicated that Canada had to make changes to its privacy protection regime to retain its preferred status. As a former minister of international trade and minister of foreign affairs, I can say that this is of crucial importance to Canada.

I am convinced that the proposed reforms to the personal information protection legislation for the private sector will help us attain this objective without giving up our singularly Canadian perspective.

My department's mandate for economic growth and development has required that we consider many factors when determining how to modernize and strengthen a privacy law that applies to the marketplace. One of the goals of Bill C-11 is for businesses to understand their obligations so they can build strong privacy protections from the outset in their business. Our current law and the new law that is proposed apply across sectors, businesses and activities. This means the bill must meet a diverse range of needs and be equally easy to follow for any line of work, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. To achieve this we must first provide businesses with certainty and clarity regarding their obligations. That is why we are proposing to change the way the law is drafted.

PIPEDA, the framework that has been routinely referred to by the acronym, was based on a series of principles. The new law has translated these principles into clear legal requirements. We have also clarified the application of the act in a number of key areas.

Second, we must help businesses better understand how these obligations concretely apply to their activities and operations. The consumer privacy protection act would provide businesses with the opportunity to consult the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada without fear of repercussions. Businesses would be able to fully understand the requirements and to comply before problems arose. The bill includes a framework for the recognition of codes of conduct and certification programs. These provisions will specify how the law applies in particular sectors or areas.

These measures are especially important for our small business owners. They need to be able to focus on what matters most: quality products, good customer service and growing their businesses, while having confidence that they are following the rules. We also need to make sure that we do not add unnecessary administrative burdens, particularly on those who may not have the time or resources to invest in complex legal analysis and advice.

Our approach ensures that fundamental protections are established and enforced in a way that is fair and accessible to all businesses, no matter their size. We must provide sufficient incentives for compliance to ensure a level playing field across the marketplace. In recent years, the Privacy Commissioner has called for a stronger enforcement regime under the private sector privacy law. Bill C-11 responds to this.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada is at the heart of the Canadian privacy regime. The commissioner and his office help businesses understand the act and intervene to protect Canadians in the event of a breach. It stands to reason that the new legislation enhances the role and powers of the commissioner.

The commissioner already plays an education role, which will continue and be strengthened under the new regime. The commissioner will retain his key research and guidance role, as well as being assigned the new task of reviewing organizational privacy practices. The commissioner will also review and approve codes of practice and certification programs. This will give organizations and individuals confidence that personal information is being managed in strict compliance with the law.

Clear guidelines help to protect personal information and prevent breaches. This clarity is essential to the proper functioning of the privacy framework. The bill sets out harsh financial penalties for companies that break the law. The fines and administrative financial penalties are a clear demonstration of the government's commitment to ensuring the protection of Canadians' personal information.

That being said, such sanctions should only be imposed following fair and accessible proceedings. That is precisely why Bill C-11 also creates a tribunal to decide on these matters. This means that companies will not have to appear before the Federal Court of Canada. The tribunal will allow all parties to pursue remedies at a lower cost and in a more accessible manner. Over time, the tribunal will also develop a body of privacy jurisprudence.

Let me summarize the approach that the government has taken in modernizing our private sector privacy law. Bill C-11 acknowledges the strengths of our existing law, referred to as PIPEDA, in particular its non-prescriptive, flexible and balanced approach to privacy protection. It reinforces individuals' control over their personal information where it matters most, and it enables innovation.

Moreover, it introduces serious financial consequences for the most egregious behaviour. It ensures procedural fairness and recognizes the role of the federal government in regulating the economy, while respecting the important role that provincial governments also play in private sector privacy regulation. This is the continuation of a made-in-Canada approach that recognizes both the right to privacy and the needs of organizations to use personal information for appropriate purposes.

I am confident Canadians will agree that the law offers them the protection they are seeking, together with all the benefits that a growing digital economy can bring. I am happy to take questions from my colleagues.

The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question.

This afternoon, we will obviously continue the debate on the opposition motion. We will proceed to the supply votes a little later this evening.

Tomorrow morning, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response, and then in the afternoon, we will study Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I would also like to wish all hon. colleagues a productive and safe two weeks working in their constituencies.

Obviously, members have a lot of work to do in their ridings, but I hope they will take some time for themselves and spend some time with their families. That is important.

Opposition Motion—Long-Term Care

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that I want to speak on this item, and not only in my new role. I and several of my colleagues have been discussing the conditions in long-term care homes and are outraged by them. My riding in particular was hit very hard, with over 70 residents passing away from COVID in the first wave at Orchard Villa, and we saw, even after the second wave, a continuation of our community members getting sick and dying.

We also saw the horrible conditions. My riding was one of the ridings that had the Canadian Armed Forces in their long-term care homes, and we had to read about the unbelievably deplorable conditions that our community members and elders had been left in. Families were feeling helpless and hopeless about being able to provide their family members with care and to be able to be there with them.

We had been advocating support for provinces and territories and for national standards in long-term care and talking about those needs, and those are things I continue to advocate to this day. I was really pleased, along with my colleagues, when I saw the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne recognize and acknowledge moving forward with national standards on long-term care, and then that was backed up again in the fall economic statement by providing a $1-billion safe long-term care fund.

Unfortunately, opposition members have been holding up Bill C-14—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I'm sensitive to the questions about what we're going to be doing next as a committee. As I previously stated, I think that the items dealt with in this motion can be resolved inside of a week. We dedicated the equivalent of 20 meetings to not doing anything except live through a filibuster. With respect, then, given the amount of time the committee has not been doing other things, it's not reasonable to say that the opposition is looking to rag the puck. These are germane questions.

The issue of the message with Mr. Chin reignites the questions that were raised about the origins of the Canada student service grant.

Mr. Theis and Mr. Singh were both revealed in the document release from last summer to have had contact. Mr. Theis was sent a message by Mr. Craig Kielburger with information about a suite of options with respect to programs that they could choose from. That was last May. The same is true of communication between Mr. Singh and the WE organization. Now we have the question about Mr. Chin and the WE organization.

We're not, then, starting the study over again; we're looking to resolve these questions. That can be done in one day. It could be done Friday of this week. We could have that response from PCO. It was offered many months ago, so I expect that it is prepared.

There have been some unexpected changes, particularly with respect to Mr. Shugart's legitimate absence from his role. Give them a couple of days to get that together. The document would have been created last spring, if it was created, so they could furnish the committee with it. The same is true of Mr. Lee's fulsome responses, following the letter that the committee has instructed the chair to write.

Concerning the question about Bill C-11, the committee hasn't received Bill C-11 from the House. Once that happens, there will be some urgency there, but there are other matters that the committee has expressed an interest in dealing with, and we can do so. As I said before, we could be moving ahead with those as early as next week, should we resolve this matter this week.

Ms. Lattanzio asked whether there would be a commitment that there would be no further questions. Well, sometimes the work we do causes more questions to be asked, but my intention is that we wrap this up, and I think that we can wrap it up with hearing from these witnesses and getting the information we're requesting. Then we can provide instructions to the analysts. I think that's very reasonable.

As to the clarification that can be provided by these individuals to the committee in answer to the questions, yes, sure we could write a letter. If we're doing this in the interest of saving time, however, and are writing letters to three different individuals, and then they write back to us, and on and on, we're not going to have this wrapped up in short order. We'll be dealing with it in June. That is not an outcome I would prefer, and I expect, based on the comments of my colleagues opposite, it's not the outcome that they prefer.

The most expeditious way for us to dispose of this study on pandemic spending and potential conflicts of interest is to just call the witnesses, as we normally do. We made an exception to this practice by writing letters with respect to an individual who is on medical leave. Now I think we should return to business as normal: we call the witnesses. That is why those witnesses specifically are being referred to.

We're not looking to have people reappear, we're not asking for the Prime Minister to come to this committee, and we're not asking for his chief of staff. We're looking for three very specific people based on correspondence and communication, and the evidence of that communication contradicts what we heard previously or evidence in other committees. The multiple communications between Mr. Singh and the WE organization, the communications between Mr. Theis and one of the founders of the WE organization, and the question with respect to Mr. Chin, if he's appearing and has no other information to offer, would be a pretty quick panel for us to dispose of.

We can do that and in the interest of time we can vote on this now. We can give our instructions to the chair and we will be off to the races and hopefully concluding this work, reporting it to the House and moving on to the many other important subjects this committee has decided it would undertake.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, my colleague, Parliamentary Secretary Fergus actually stated what I was going to say in reference to MP Angus' earlier comments about landing on a spot that we can move forward from to tackle Bill C-11, which I know is important to many colleagues, and to finish up the MindGeek/Pornhub study we're doing.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks for everybody's work on this and getting to a point where we need to get to in order to move on to Bill C-11 and, actually, to be very blunt, to move back to the Pornhub/MindGeek study we are doing that is receiving a lot of attention from concerned Canadians. I think it behooves us to, as quickly as possible and as prudently as possible, get back to those very urgent matters for my constituents and for yours as well.

On this motion that's been put forward this morning, I would like to move a subamendment. I'm going to ask the clerk that the following be struck and that the following be inserted.

In terms of the material, I would like to see struck the following:

and in light of revelations stemming from Craig and Mark Kielburger’s testimony of March 15, 2021, the Committee do call for Ben Chin, Rick Theis, and Amitpal Singh to appear before the Committee at a date and time determined by the Chair but no later than one week following the adoption of this motion.

In place of that, I would like to have the following inserted: “and that the clerk write to Mr. Ben Chin and ask him to provide in writing that the only communication he had with the Kielburgers was the already public LinkedIn communication, and the clerk write to Mr. Shugart to determine when the document he agreed to provide to the committee will be forthcoming.”

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, and thank you to my colleague for this motion.

I'm certainly interested in it if there's a due diligence report. I don't have a problem looking at it. The issue of due diligence is something that has been important from the get-go.

As for Mr. Shugart, he is off. He is, I believe, taking medical treatments, and I don't think it's fair to ask him to come back. Mr. Shugart did testify last summer. He testified for a good period of time. I was at those hearings. If we asked him now, I don't believe Mr. Shugart would give us anything different than what he gave us then. I don't believe there is anyone else at Privy Council who has stepped in to replace him who would be helpful, because it was under Mr. Shugart's watch. If there's an issue of a due diligence report, I'd say let's just add it to the list.

I hope we can get these things settled, my friends, because we know the Liberals are going to be bringing out Bill C-11, which will upend all our other work. That's going to be coming soon. We also have to finish the Pornhub study. There are a lot of people watching that. We have agreed to the facial recognition study, which I think we need to get to.

I'm really adamant that we have to get this WE report to Parliament. We've been on this for a long time. If there are other documents that could add to it, I think it's time that we actually moved on it. As much as I appreciate Monsieur Fortin's intervention, I don't see that this is an emergency issue that suddenly came up out of nowhere, because it's testimony from eight or nine months ago. If there's a report, I'll take it, but I'm not interested in having Mr. Shugart come at this time.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Gentlemen, I have a number of questions for you. I have taken a breath and I am fully aware, as a legislator, that we have a huge responsibility when it comes to protecting personal information.

Bill C-11, which seeks to protect digital privacy, will be before the House shortly. While we have good intentions, fraud is on the rise. In the Internet age, there is clearly a loss of control. This is our job. I'm going to stop lecturing and I'm going to ask you some questions.

Here's what I understand. An individual who wants to do business can use your system and share content using Viewshare mode. The more views there are, the more revenue they will get. So they can upload content to the site, but that content can be removed quickly, at least that's the way it used to work. In the meantime, some individuals may have already downloaded the content, and may be able to edit it under a false name. For some reason, your high-tech Safeguard system cannot identify those individuals. If that content has been viewed a number of times, it could end up on the platform, even if it has been removed, for any reason that does not comply with the conditions.

Am I to understand that uploading and downloading is a big problem with your model?

Broadcasting Act

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

Madam Speaker, I know that local content is a big concern all across the country. I think I addressed that well in my speech, particularly the tone and thrust of our content, as well as the perspective from which it is being brought to us.

I know that my hon. colleague shares my concern around just who is bringing this content to us and what kind of content is being produced. That is an important piece. At the ethics committee right now we are having the executives of Pornhub show up, and in the managing of that content I would like to ensure that the privacy of individuals is protected. I know that the government has introduced Bill C-11 as well for that, and I look forward to seeing how these two bills interplay to protect Canadians online.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, have a very merry Christmas.

There is no agreement in regard to virtual meetings, so our next meeting will be when the House sits again.

Take the time to have some rest. Obviously, we're going to have some back-and-forth emails in regard to the upcoming Bill C-11. I welcome that as well.

Be safe and spend some time with your family, at least as far as the local laws permit. We'll see you back in 2021.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you so much.

I thank my colleague for stepping forward with this motion. I had been looking at this issue as something that we maybe would have looked at under Bill C-11 in terms of privacy rights.

The shocking news that we've seen—and shocking news internationally that has come out—is that Canada is home to a company that has been accused of hosting child pornography, revenge porn and non-consensual acts that have destroyed lives. It is something our committee needs to take very seriously. I think we need to bring in the owners of Pornhub.

I think we need to find a way to allow some of the survivors of this horrific abuse to speak to us if they're willing. If that's the case—and we don't have to debate that now—perhaps we could provide a safe forum where they could testify if they don't want to testify in public, so that they could provide that testimony to us. We should make that offer so that we know what the real-life impacts are.

Another issue that concerns me, a broader issue that Mr. Erskine-Smith and I dealt with to some degree in the last Parliament, is the safe harbour provisions. The safe harbour provisions allow large tech giants to be legally absolved from some content that is extremely destructive. In the past, we dealt with content that was extremist, racist and violent, content that has led to people being hurt and killed in other jurisdictions, but under the safe harbour provisions, you have to go after the person who posted it, which is not always easy.

If we had no safe harbour provisions for sites that post sexual violence and attacks on children and they were liable, that content would be down immediately, and it wouldn't get up there to begin with.

I think our committee can look at this issue. I don't think it needs to be a big study. I think we need a study that reports to Parliament. We could do this in a couple of meetings. Urgency is important. We need to vote on it today so that we're ready in February to deal with it. I would like to suggest two meetings and then a report. We could have more meetings if needed.

This is the kind of thing that our committee needs to be able to report on to Parliament with recommendations that we can move on very quickly.

As for Mr. Erskine-Smith's other suggestion about January, I certainly am very interested in talking about witnesses for Bill C-11, because I think this is going to be a very important study. I'll make myself available as long as we're not.... Maybe more informally, as a subcommittee, we could just talk through some of this and find a way to get ourselves oriented for February.

Those are my comments. However, I'm definitely ready to vote on this motion now.