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

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Egmont.

It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to the consumer privacy protection act and explain why this reform is important for enhancing the protection of our personal information.

When we talk about consumers, we are talking about all of us. All Canadians deserve the peace of mind of knowing that their personal information is protected.

As the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has said, the pandemic has accelerated the digitization of our lives, which inevitably increases risks to our privacy and the security of our data. This has raised serious concerns about our personal freedoms, our societal values, the public good, and the compliance and oversight measures required to manage this public health crisis.

Clearly, this crisis has laid bare the need for a certain use of available data, including personal information. In this context, we have seen many different approaches around the world. Different countries have deployed an array of technologies to support their efforts.

In some cases, their approach has focused on collecting location data for contact tracing or population monitoring or even for tracking an individual's movements. In other cases, telecom service providers have given the government location data from their network. On that, let me make it clear that our approach, Canada's approach, does not use those types of technologies.

This federal government will always defend our privacy and our personal data. Many stakeholders and experts have noted the potential impacts on the right to privacy arising from technologies being used elsewhere around the world. We heard those concerns, and that is why our Canadian approach does not involve these types of technologies.

For example, in the case of the COVID Alert app, our government worked with a variety of partners to support public health efforts to limit the spread of the virus, while also making sure we protected Canadians' privacy. The application was designed with this very objective in mind. As we have said before, the app has no way of knowing one's location, name, address, contacts or other information. In fact, following a review of the app, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner fully supported it.

I hope that this dispels any lingering myths about the app, and as we are very much still in the midst of this pandemic with rising community cases throughout the country, I would like to take this moment to encourage everybody to download the COVID Alert app.

Bill C-11, before us today, would create a strong framework for the protection of personal information in the private sector. The new consumer privacy protection act would impose requirements for obtaining individuals' consent to collect and use their data. Consent must be granted prior to data collection, and consent forms must be written in plain language that absolutely everybody can understand.

While this is extremely important, I know from my own experience, the experience of my friends and speaking to my constituents, and surely this is the case for many Canadians across the country, that not everybody reads the disclosure and consent page before clicking “I agree”. That is why we have proposed in this bill to legislate that organizations can only seek consent for data that are strictly necessary for their purposes. They can collect credit card information if they are selling something; they can collect an address if they will be delivering something.

Critically, this bill also would further empower consumers. It would give us the unfettered right to ask what information has been collected about us, how it has been used, whether it has been shared, and whether it has been sold. We, as consumers, would have the right to access the information that an organization might have on us and request its immediate deletion.

Another groundbreaking provision involves AI and algorithmic transparency. We are all familiar with these algorithms which make predictions and recommendations with the aim of influencing and impacting our decisions. Whether our experience is seeing advertising on Facebook or Google, which, very strangely, resembles some searches we recently did, or recommendations of videos on YouTube, for example, Canadians are constantly being fed information and suggested purchases based on algorithms that we know very little about.

Without going on too much of a tangent, I watched a few weeks ago a documentary called The Social Dilemma. I imagine many of us in this House who are interested in the topic of privacy protection and the Internet are familiar with the documentary. Let me say it scared the you-know-what out of me.

This bill would make it mandatory for companies to provide answers and an explanation, upon request, about how any predictions or recommendations targeted toward us were obtained. Legislating that right, providing that opportunity for consumers, is itself a deterrent for companies seeking to make use of algorithms for nefarious purposes. This is a critical step forward.

This bill deals with a very complex issue for individuals and consumers and for businesses. It recognizes individuals' right to privacy as well as the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of reasonable commercial activities.

Our privacy bill is flexible enough to allow companies to apply the general requirements to practices specific to their sector. However, I want to make it very clear that good intentions on the part of private-sector organizations are not enough.

We know that for the new protections included in the legislation to really be implemented, we need binding and effective mechanisms to protect the rights of Canadian consumers. That is why this bill includes serious penalties for those who try to get around it. We are talking about monetary penalties of up to $10 million, or 3% of global revenues, for large corporations that break the law. For more serious offences, fines up can go up to $25 million, or 5% of global revenues.

These measures would be among the toughest in the G7. Our government takes the privacy of Canadians very seriously, and the web giants must do the same. We have seen major innovations and digital solutions that not only serve the public interest, but also protect the privacy of our citizens.

The legislation would allow companies to innovate in a responsible manner and enable Canadians to have more control over their personal information. It is true that the digital environment presents many challenges, but we must not let that stop us. There are tremendous opportunities. Back home in Montreal, I am seeing the potential of AI and responsible data usage. I am thinking about Mila, Element AI, Hopper, AlayaCare and all the start-ups and small businesses that are opening every day in Mile End and Mile Ex. We must continue to encourage the development of this sector while ensuring that the public has confidence in the regulatory and legal framework governing these companies.

As legislators, we must give Canadians our assurance that their data is safe and their privacy is respected. This assurance is necessary not just to foster creativity and innovation, which are essential ingredients for building a strong economy, but also to give us all peace of mind.

The House resumed 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.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague said that she had some suggestions to improve Bill C-11. This is also the case for the Bloc Québécois.

On our side, we are very concerned about the issue of identity theft. There are ways to verify someone's identity. In Europe, mechanisms have been put in place. Here, however, the banks have no such obligations and, if it costs too much, they do nothing. We would like to see stricter regulations for banks and greater transparency.

Does the hon. member agree with what we are calling for?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.

Today we are discussing 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, which received first reading in the House on November 17.

I am aware of the importance of the issue addressed in the bill. It is 2020. Who would have thought that, in 2020, we would have to come to grips with technology in such a hurry because of a pandemic?

Technology was already evolving at a fast pace, but I can say that we have had to increase our knowledge at great speed. If someone had asked me three months ago if I was comfortable with teleconferencing, I would have said no, but today it is an everyday occurrence. It is important to address this issue.

I would like to remind the House that I represent the fantastic riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier in Quebec. In 2019, the personal data of 2.9 million Desjardins members were leaked. They were victims of identity theft. Their data were resold to people who wanted to use them to do business in the financial sector. Although the leak did not involve banking information, it still exposed the affected customers to identity theft.

On June 20, 2019, Desjardins revealed that the personal information of 40% of its members had been illegally shared outside the organization by an employee, who had since been fired, of course. On July 8, Quebec's Commission d'accès à l'information and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada announced that they were launching investigations. On July 15, Desjardins broadened its identity theft protection and offered protection to more than 4.2 million individual members and 300,000 corporate members. On November 1, it announced that all 4.2 million individual members had been affected by the data leak. About 173 of the 350,000 corporate members were also affected.

I will reveal that I am a Desjardins customer and that I was part of this group. Even before the pandemic, digital transactions were commonplace. The current context is speeding things up.

Today's bill comes from a good place, because we do need to keep up with the times, but will we be able to apply and enforce it? Are we not putting the cart before the horse? That is the problem with this bill.

Examples in my riding make me wonder. The government is trying to bring in legislation that would impose astronomical fines on non-compliant companies. The government is puffing out its chest, bragging that our country will be giving the biggest, juiciest, harshest and most lucrative fines, but will we be able to collect?

What do we want? We want to protect Canadians and provide them with the necessary tools. Would it not make more sense to invest in a service that gives these tools to our businesses, so they can help Canadians and consumers?

I have mixed feelings about this bill. It obviously comes from a good place, but are we taking the best possible measures to ensure solutions for the coming days, weeks and months? We need something concrete.

My constituents often tell me that I must find it hard to be a parliamentarian, because I am pragmatic. We need concrete solutions. The goal is laudable, but are we taking the right measures? I am not sure.

I hear from many businesses and citizens. They are still calling me to tell me they are having problems with Phoenix. They are federal employees who are having problems with their pay because of Phoenix. Phoenix is a problem that was never fixed. It has been around since the Liberal government's first term in 2015. It is now 2020, and nothing has been resolved.

I agree that we need to enact a law to protect personal information, but there may be other priorities. We are seeing it now with the Canada Revenue Agency. I have constituents calling my office to ask if I can help them, because the CRA is claiming it sent them money that they never received, which is a sign that they are victims of fraud and their identity has been stolen.

Should we be enacting a law to punish large companies when we cannot even solve the problem in our own backyard? I am aware of the importance of this bill, but I wonder whether we are taking the right measures.

I mentioned this earlier, but it is worth repeating: I am the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which is in the province of Quebec. Quebec has a program to help people who have a baby: The mother or the father is entitled to parental leave.

Here is another example that boggles the mind. One of my constituents meets all of the EI eligibility criteria, but his claim is being reviewed because there seems to be some problem factoring in the parental leave he took in 2019 and the Canada child benefit claim he submitted during the pandemic interfered with processing his claim.

That only happens in Quebec. The Liberal government seems unaware of the existence of provincial programs, and its Canada-wide employment insurance system prevents it from fixing the problem. In this case, is it because it is a Quebecker? Is it because he is a father? I am asking because I want to stress the importance of finding concrete solutions to systems before we consider a bill that will punish big corporations.

I completely agree that those who are at fault should be held responsible, should accept the consequences and should pay if they break the law. I completely agree with my colleagues on that point. However, I wanted to show how bizarre this situation is, a situation that puzzles me.

Clearly, we need to reflect on this and update the legislation, but is the version being introduced today the best one? I think we need to send this bill to committee for further study and consultation with specialists and experts. We did actually notice that there is only one expert regarding the tribunal.

I do not pretend to be such an expert. I am not computer savvy and, as I said six months or a year ago, I was unaware of my skills and adaptability to technology. Many members here in Parliament have managed to learn quickly, at lightning speed.

That is why we need to think about this bill and, as I said in my speech, not put the cart before the horse. We need to do things right to make sure that the bill really meets Canadians' needs. At the end of the day, the goal is the same: to protect society's interests and ensure that Canadians are respected and protected. We are all working toward this goal.

I will now happily answer my colleagues' questions. On that note, let us be vigilant, because fraud is always lurking around the corner.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Bill C-11 seems to apply only to private businesses, not to the federal government. We all saw many examples of this during the pandemic. I imagine that all members were informed of the cases of victims of fraud or identity theft reported to their riding offices.

It therefore seems to me that this bill could also be applied to the federal government. Before imposing these sorts of measures, which I agree are desperately needed, on private businesses, perhaps the government should have a look in its own backyard.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether his government plans to do that.

[William Amos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this Bill on consumer privacy protection.

The bill, which will replace the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, makes consumer protection a top priority to ensure that Canadians have confidence in the digital marketplace and trust that their personal data will be managed responsibly by the private sector.

It is so important, in an era of global online commerce, for Canada to be putting in place a privacy standard that offers consumers increased control over their personal information as they participate in the modern digital marketplace. The act also includes several important changes to enable and support innovation in an increasingly digital marketplace.

I am going to speak today about how our government is supporting business and protecting Canadians' privacy as they actively participate in the digital economy. Our government is working to establish an enhanced privacy framework where consumer protection is strengthened and where businesses are supported in their efforts to innovate in a rapidly changing digital landscape.

Bill C-11 marks all sorts of important changes to the privacy framework for Canadians, and it is long overdue. It sets out enhanced measures for Canadians to ensure that their personal information is protected, and it establishes new roles and new mechanisms for industry in a way that promotes innovation in a digital world.

We understand the need to ensure that Canadians’ privacy is protected. We must also ensure that Canadian businesses have access to the support they need to grow and compete in a global marketplace based on digital technologies and data.

These changes are taking place at a time of great upheaval, namely the rapid evolution of digital technologies. They are also taking place at a critical time for businesses, which must adapt and innovate in a digital world.

The current pandemic has made digital solutions essential to everyday life. At a time when physical distancing is so important, consumers want solutions that give them access to the products and services they need. Moreover, companies must continue to do business and develop. Digital solutions have helped many of them stay afloat.

However, we all recognize that new technologies provide businesses with huge amounts of personal information, the kind of data they need to make business decisions and offer clients new services.

We know that innovation and growth are critical, but we have to stand up for Canadians and ensure that this innovation in a digital world happens in a responsible way. Today I am going to outline some of the key elements of Bill C-11 that enable responsible innovation: innovation that is done right in a Canadian way.

One of the goals of our current law, PIPEDA, which Bill C-11 would supersede, has been ensuring that companies are able to handle personal information to meet their own legitimate business ends. The other is to ensure that companies do this in a privacy-protective way. To achieve this dual objective, PIPEDA's framework is principles-based and technology-neutral. The framework ensures that this law continues to apply, even as technology has undergone rapid change.

Bill C-11, the CPPA, retains this approach, continuing the success of a flexible and adaptive privacy law in the Canadian private sector context, but we have to recognize that “the times they are a-changin'.” To better reflect the realities of the digital economy, and the continued emergence of new big-data technologies and artificial intelligence, the CPPA would allow for a number of provisions that support industry going forward.

The bill would create a level playing field for companies of all sizes by reducing administrative burdens, which is critical for the vast number of small and medium-sized enterprises in Canada. It would introduce a new framework for personal information that is de-identified. It would establish new mechanisms, such as codes of practice and certification, with independent oversight by the office of the Privacy Commissioner, and it would address data for research purposes or purposes deemed to be socially beneficial.

I will outline how the bill would do all this.

The bill before us today includes a new exception to the requirement for consent regarding certain business activities. The objective is to allow Canadians to give meaningful consent by limiting it to specific activities that involve real choice. This is essential to prevent the use of blanket consent and lengthy contracts that—let us be honest—no one reads.

This will also reduce the administrative burden on businesses in cases where an individual’s consent may be less relevant. Let's consider the example of a third-party service provider that ships various goods. The customer wants the goods shipped, and the business should be able to meet that need. The bill should not add to the burden of providing that service.

The bill would provide for new regulations to be developed for prescribed business activities and would introduce the concept of legitimate interests in Canada's privacy framework. This is something that industry has asked for, we have consulted about and the government has answered in Bill C-11.

Second, we are better defining and clarifying how companies are to handle de-identified personal information: personal information that has been processed and altered to prevent any identification of a particular individual. The bill would allow organizations to de-identify personal information and use it for new research and development purposes. Businesses must undertake research and development to improve their products and offer customers the new and leading-edge services they are looking for. This provision would give businesses the flexibility they need to use de-identified data for these purposes, which would add value for customers and businesses alike.

The law would also allow organizations to use data for purposes of serving the public good, specifically by allowing companies to disclose de-identified data to public entities. Such disclosures would only be allowed when the personal information could not be traced back to particular individuals and when there was a socially beneficial purpose; that is, a purpose related to health, public infrastructure or even environmental protection. This kind of provision would protect individuals while ensuring we use all the tools at our disposal to address the biggest challenges of our time.

Included in the bill is a clear set of parameters for institutions, such as hospitals, universities and even libraries that would seek to receive personal information for a socially beneficial purpose. These parameters would help clarify the rules of the road in new and important fields.

These provisions would also permit organizations to share more data in a trustworthy fashion. They would allow the private sector to work with different levels of government and public institutions to carry out data-based initiatives in a privacy-protecting fashion. By taking this approach, the bill would accommodate emerging situations where collaboration between public and private sectors could have broad public benefits, while at the same time maintaining the trust and accountability that Canadians demand and deserve.

Third, the bill would provide the framework for codes of practice so businesses, especially those in specific industries or sectors of the economy, could proactively demonstrate compliance with the law. The bill would do this by introducing co-regulatory mechanisms into Canada's privacy landscape that would have businesses and the Privacy Commissioner working together. For example, there could be a code for de-identification.

I recognize my time is running short so I will simply mention that I would open the door to talking about the process the bill would provide for certification and certification bodies. I think this would be a very important provision that businesses across Canada would use regularly and that the Privacy Commissioner would have the opportunity to work on with businesses.

With that, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11. I look forward to taking the questions of my hon. colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope to see this legislation brought forth to, I believe, the ethics committee, where it would be sent from the House and we would see a vigorous debate on the bill.

I am very happy that for the first time since 2001, when PIPEDA was introduced, we are seeing the modernization of our privacy act, if I can use those terms. It is great to see because we know data, technology and the importance of data have grown exponentially throughout the years and even more so in our daily lives. We need to ensure laws are updated and revamped to protect Canadians. That is what we are doing with Bill C-11. I will be happy to see it go to committee, and as a member of that committee I will be involved in that vigorous debate.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope to see Bill C-11 come to committee in an appropriate fashion. We are having a vigorous debate here in the House on the merits of the bill, and when it comes to committee suggestions can be put forward.

What I am very happy to see in the current form of the bill is that we would have some of the highest fines in the G7 under the CPPA, which would be introduced with this bill and ensure organizations are maintaining and controlling the data of Canadians in an appropriate and safe manner. It is great to see the bill has highlighted the fines and penalties that could be instituted on organizations if they fail to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for his question.

COVID-19 has brought many things to the forefront, and data protection and identity protection are first and foremost. What Bill C-11 brings forth is the idea of consent and also the idea of data destruction. If someone is moving their information from one provider to another, they would be able to indicate to the first provider that they wished to have their data and personal information destroyed so it would not be leaked or hacked.

There are several protections built into this. Consent is one of them, and I am happy to see this. I am happy to see the update to a number of laws within Bill C-11 for the protection of data and information for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Pontiac.

I am pleased to rise today to speak about the digital charter implementation act, 2020.

Digital technology is changing our economy and our society. Data is now a resource that companies can use to be more productive, to develop better products and services, which has unleashed a digital revolution around the world and which is even more evident during this time of COVID-19.

At the same time, the rapid growth of data-driven industries and technologies is opening the doors to the potential of new and innovative uses of data to support the public good. Data drives the development of many of the algorithms and protected models that are key to our understanding of societal challenges. Examples include the use of data to support sound public health outcomes; enable smart city technologies, such as dynamic traffic management; and promote greater energy efficiency and sustainability through smart grid technologies.

In Canada, public discussions around socially beneficial uses of data have focused on the emerging concept of the smart city in light of waterfront Toronto development proposals and other smart city initiatives considered by federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments.

The COVID-19 pandemic has recentred the discussion on the role of private sector data and innovation in supporting public health objectives. We are witnessing the central role that data is playing in managing the pandemic. Not only is data critical for tracking current outbreaks or predicting future outbreaks, it has also been used to inform how our health professionals manage critical supplies and ensure they are deployed where they are most needed.

While data has proven to be of vital importance, stakeholders have identified the need for greater clarity around the legal frameworks governing data sharing between businesses and public sector institutions in the context of smart cities and public health.

At the same time, Canadians' concerns over the protection of privacy and democratic responsibility underscore the importance of defining the conditions necessary to establish a certain level of confidence in any new framework. Data sharing can lead to innovative solutions that benefit society.

However, Canadians need assurance that their privacy will be respected and that their data will not be misused. That is why the act to enact the consumer privacy protection act introduces a clear framework for privacy protection in data sharing for socially beneficial purposes.

Under Bill C-11, organizations will also be obliged to obtain consent before disclosing personal information to other organizations. This is in line with the existing act and with most of the legislation on privacy protection in the private sector.

However, in order to support responsible innovation, the bill makes one exception that will allow private sector organizations to disclose de-identified information to certain types of Canadian public institutions for socially beneficial purposes, without consent. This guarantees that businesses will be given the opportunity to participate in public sector initiatives that use data to contribute to the public good.

In addition, by abiding by this framework, private sector organizations can take part in these data sharing activities with full confidence that they are complying with the bill. At the same time, the bill underscores the importance of oversight by democratically responsible public authorities.

As I mentioned, information that is disclosed in this manner would have to be de-identified, ensuring that individuals' privacy is completely protected. What is more, the act would prohibit using that information later to try to reidentify the individual. This prohibition would be tied to significant fines.

This framework would allow Canadians to participate in initiatives directed at socially beneficial purposes without compromising their privacy. It would also ensure that Canadians benefit from the full power of data to create better solutions to some of the most complex policy challenges of our time.

The scope of socially beneficial purposes would focus on areas of public interest that provide broad public benefits supported by use cases and lessons learned that have been identified through years of engagement between government, business stakeholders and civil society organizations.

For example, ride-sharing and transportation service companies could potentially disclose de-identified aggregate data on the movement of their users to municipal authorities as modelling traffic patterns to help improve traffic flow, plan for better public transit initiatives and to improve road user safety.

The law would set clear parameters on which public institutions could receive information under the new consent exception, such as health care bodies, post-secondary institutions, public libraries and other public institutions or private organizations with the mandate to carry out a socially beneficial purpose. Many of these public institutions already have robust data governance systems in place to ensure the integrity of information and protection of privacy and would be ready to take on new responsibilities that would be in the public interest.

The framework for socially beneficial purposes would also cover situations where different levels of government direct public institutions or certain private sector partners to carry out data initiatives. As highlighted in the reports of our colleagues on the policy implications of connected and automated vehicles, this type of public-private sharing of information would be critical to ensuring the safety and security of technologies that would bring incredible benefits to all Canadians.

The approach proposed in the bill would ensure that the law would be adaptable as new use cases emerge and pave the way for innovative new uses of data that could provide broad public benefit while retaining trust and accountability.

Canadians can also rest assured that the new act will protect their information before and after they communicate with these institutions. All personal information transferred will first be de-identified, which will ensure that privacy is protected in these data sharing activities. The consumer privacy protection act also contains clear rules that will prevent the identification of this information, as well as severe penalties for organizations that break these rules.

The framework for socially beneficial purposes will allow innovative Canadian businesses and public organizations to take part in resolving the greatest social challenges in areas such as health and environmental protection. This could improve research on the pandemic, enhance environmental sustainability and conservation efforts, and make our roads safer for users.

These actions will be based on clear democratic responsibility and the protection of Canadians' privacy, and will maintain the flexibility needed for future innovative uses of data for socially beneficial purposes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to give my input on Bill C-11, the digital charter implementation bill. I am happy to give this input. It is a timely bill for Canadians because this bill is about access to people's information and, more important, how that information is monetized by others. At a time when big corporations around the world are earning billions of dollars very quickly from information, getting in front of this issue right now for Canadians is very important.

What is being sold? Canadian information is being sold. What do Canadians privately own of their own data? This is the question that should be addressed in this bill. The converse of this, of course, is the targeted marketing and what Canadians get from the fact that they are giving away their information so they are getting back more services that might be tailor-made to them. It is one of those areas where the intent of Canadians not to give away their data and the result of that data that they willingly gave away, in many instances can be very contradictory. Let us tell Canadians first, as my colleague said here earlier, that they are the product.

Phones are listening to us. Computers are listening to us. Sometimes, computers are watching us. Sometimes, when my sons at home have Siri on, they say, “Siri, turn on”. Siri comes on and I tell them, “Siri was listening the whole time because it just turned on when you told it to turn on.” A lot of information is being culled. We do not know which of that is resting with us, and which of that is public information to be monetized by somebody else.

When I read this bill, I saw a bureaucratic solution designed by bureaucrats for use by bureaucrats, with what will be minor effect for the Canadian population in general. As much as we would like to make sure that we actually do deal with the issue around Canadians' private information that is provided online, we do need to make sure that it applies consistently across our country. It is a bubble created by a bureaucracy, and that bubble is lacking any consequences for mistakes and those mistakes will happen within the bureaucracies of the Government of Canada. In essence, from the Government of Canada's level, everything in this bill shows a complete lack of accountability for the government about how it might misplace or misuse Canadians' data.

I recall, years ago, the government's approach to what was the no-call list. There was a lot of telemarketing going on at the time and the government came out with a solution. If people registered their phone number it would ensure they did not receive telemarketing. We all jumped on that because on our land lines at the time we were getting a lot of telemarketing. When that registration came up, of course my land line was registered and it said to put in my cellphone number too. I put in my cellphone number, and the next day I started receiving telemarketing on my cellphone where I never had before. What apparently happened is the Canadian government's site had been hacked and all that information was sold to telemarketers. It is a shame because it got no money for it. My information was given away for free and a whole bunch of telemarketers got something from the Government of Canada that was literally stolen from Canadians. Therefore, my data was somebody else's, without my consent, as a result of my contribution to the Government of Canada.

Consumer pricing protection is something that would fall in the same type of realm. How do we make the Government of Canada accountable for what might happen with the data that we willingly give the Government of Canada? Will there be fines? Do we actually tell the Government of Canada that if it does not protect this information the Canadian government is going to fine the Canadian government and therefore the taxpayers are going to have to contribute to the government's fining itself? It is a bit of an around-the-world kind of trip, much like quantitative easing.

The problem is, who has this information about me? I do not know, but the party I am forced to disclose the most information to, that I know about, is the Government of Canada.

Let us discuss how stopping that government body in charge of the information I provide is mishandled. That would be the Canada Revenue Agency more than anybody else. It has my financial information, all kinds of dates and my social insurance number. Frankly, having dealt with it for years, it is a disaster of an organization. It has the wrong information. It processes information badly. It is the worst organization to try and fix bad information. That is the Canadian government.

Let us look at what happened in the last handful of months here with the CERB. Data was pilfered and Canadian payments during a pandemic were misdirected. How much of the $400 billion spent is legitimate and how much is as a result of data hacks that went to the wrong entities? Canadians are paying for these mistakes. Canadians are paying now and Canadians are going to continue paying for generations.

The legislation looks like it is designed for large organizations. Let us start with banks. Banks are another organization that we provide a lot of information to and they have a lot of information about us because they handle our financial information. They know how much we are worth, they know how much we have on deposit and they know how much we owe on our mortgages. They are pretty deep as far as what they understand about us.

There are all kinds of small businesses here, as well, that we need to apply. I want to read from this legislation something that should scare any small business person. This is about privacy management programs as required under this legislation. It states:

Every organization must implement a privacy management program that includes the organization's policies, practices and procedures

It further states:

the organization must take into account the volume and sensitivity of the personal information under its control.

What does that mean and how do we interpret that? Further, an organization:

must ensure, by contract or otherwise, that the service provider provides substantially the same protection

They have to ensure something nebulous is provided by their service provider when forwarding information.

Let us get on the ground here. Someone can walk into a pharmacy and that pharmacy wants the Alberta health care number, which is private government information. The retailers want that information so they can continue to track certain things someone does. They know how much of a person's spending they have and they know how much they can market other products to that person if getting some kind of prescription. Government data is quickly translating over into retail data. That is not exactly something we want to provide.

I will go further here because seniors are the people most affected by this. There are so many seniors who are bearing the brunt of the pandemic. There are issues we go through as we age, including financial institutions, insurance companies and all service provides. Many take advantage of seniors in many respects because things get very complex. We want to make sure our seniors are taken care of in a system that continuously evolves, advances and gets more complex. That is something this legislation should take care of more than anything else.

I do not like being just critical. There are also good things in this legislation and I am going to point them out. The purposes of this legislation are that an organization must determine:

each of the purposes for which the information is to be collected, used or disclosed and record those purposes.

The information for consent is also required. Forms of consent are also defined within. The withdrawal of consent is there, as is the disclosure to cease that actual consent.

Another good thing is there is a period for retention and disposal of data that we provide organizations. An organization must not retain personal information for a period longer than necessary. These are very good advances in the legislation. I thank the drafters of the legislation for that.

I have questions on some of the other parts of this legislation as well. On the transfer of information to service providers, organizations may transfer an individual's information to a service provider without the client's knowledge or consent. They would still be monetizing data that gets collected by one retailer or provider and—

The House resumed 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.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-11.

We are surrounded by data that seems to be out of control, lost by corporations, sometimes stolen from governments. Data that we voluntarily give up about ourselves is being collected billions of bytes at a colossal rate. It has a tremendous impact on our privacy and what is being calculated or inferred about us in our daily lives, such if we have a good credit rating, or if we can buy a car or when we go for drinks with a colleague. All of this is very much apparent today, particularly during this health crisis when people are definitely at home and using the Internet to a greater extent.

Everything we do today has some impact on data. Whether we take an Uber or order a meal, that data is collected. Quite frankly, we need to ensure people's privacy is protected.

Why does privacy matter? It is a question that has arisen in the context of this global debate, made worse by this pandemic, where millions around the world have come to rely on computers to carry out a function for their very lives. When we hear arguments about Internet privacy. A lot of what we hear about this mass surveillance is that there is no real harm due to this large-scale invasion, that people have nothing to hide. Those engaging in bad acts have a reason to want to hide and care about their privacy.

This is presupposed on the assumption that there are good and bad people in the world. Bad people who plot to take down governments and plan public attacks are the people who have reason to care about their privacy. By contrast, there are good people, people who go to work, pay taxes, care for their children and use the Internet, not to plot civil destruction but to read the news and find recipes. These people are doing nothing wrong and have no reason to hide.

In a 2009 interview of the long-time CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, when asked about the different ways his company was causing the invasion of privacy for hundreds of millions of people around the world, he said, “If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.” There are many issues with this statement, one being that this is the very Eric Schmidt who blocked his employees at Google from speaking with the online Internet magazine CNET after it published an article full of personal private information, which was obtained exclusively through Google search and Google products.

A few short decades of the Internet, once held as an unparalleled tool of democracy liberalization, have been converted into an unparalleled zone of mass indiscriminate collection. Enter 2018, when the EU has set the global standard for privacy regulation with the flagship general data protection regulations, known as GDPR, signalling to Canada that our 1990s era of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act did not have the teeth to take on big tech.

Bill C-11 would bring in additional privacy regulations. Replacing PIPEDA with CCPA would provide an opportunity for greater detail within the law rather than just relying on the interpretations of the Privacy Commissioner. This is a good thing.

The structure will include a personal information and data protection tribunal that will play a key enforcement role by reviewing all commissioner decisions and issue penalties for non-compliance. There will be an expert tribunal composed of three to six members, but interestingly enough it says there may be only one expert, which may be a deficiency in the act.

What are these new privacy rights? One is data mobility. Subject to regulations, on the request of an individual, an organization must, as soon as feasible, disclose the personal information that is collected from an individual and to an organization designated by the individual. Data mobility is a fact of life and this is a good thing. What format that data will be transferred in will need to be discussed.

On algorithmic transparency, if the organization has used an automated decision process to make a prediction or recommendation, then the organization must, on the request of an individual, provide an explanation of the prediction, recommendation or decision and the personal information that was used to make the prediction. It seems like a reasonable intent and is something it should be able to do without giving up the code.

With respect to de-identification, the bill states:

An organization that de-identifies personal information must ensure that any technical and administrative measures applied to the information are proportionate to the purpose for which the information is de-identified...

Then there is the new enforcement. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada will have the order-making power that will enable the office to order compliance with the law and recommend significant penalties.

I should mention I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

In some cases, the recommended penalties are the highest in the G7, so they are significant. The expanded range of offences for contraventions of the law are a maximum fine of 5% for a global revenue of $25 million. There are administrative penalties as well.

One of the issues I see with this is that the legislation and penalties invoke fear, but there will be a question of whether there is adequate teeth for enforcement.

The law includes whistleblowing provisions that protect those who have disclosed alleged privacy non-compliance and a private right of action that will allow individuals to seek damages for loss or injury suffered through privacy violations.

There are new standards of consent. This has been a big issue for individuals. How many people have signed up to a site, with three pages of disclosure to which they are supposed to consent? I would argue that very few people will actually read that kind of detail. Therefore, there is an attempt within the legislation to use clear language and simplified consent. Given the depth of the legislation, that may be a difficult thing to achieve, but is a worthwhile goal.

Deceptive practices to obtain consent with false or misleading information renders the consent invalid and individuals can withdraw their consent at any time. There is the question of whether people are providing consent for multiple activities or just an individual activity. That should be clarified.

The realm of data is largely uncharted territory and we find ourselves asking the question of who owns our data. Our opinion is that people own their data and they should own their data.

The word “consent” is mentioned 108 times in the GDPR. In the first reading of Bill C-11, it was mentioned 118 times. This sounds great. Who could possibly be against the consent of data? Challenging consent seems counterintuitive in the world of privacy because it is so linked to us and our autonomy. However, it is both impractical and undesirable and serves to explain why our privacy law is in such a sorry state. It is imperative the legislation is written with as little room for interpretation as possible.

There are some standards within that bill. It states:

An organization may collect or use an individual’s personal information without their knowledge or consent if the collection or use is made for a business activity described in subsection (2)...

Under that subsection, it states:

(a) a reasonable person would expect such a collection or use for that activity; and

(b) the personal information is not collected or used for the purpose of influencing the individual’s behaviour or decisions.

The issue is this. If that is subject to interpretation, we could have a pretty broad interpretation of what it says. Hopefully this act, with the regulations that follow, will clearly define what is in and what is out.

At the end of the day, if we are using services, many services are disrupting, shaping and helping our lives in ways we could not have possibly imagined mere decades ago. Whether we like it or not, it is big tech that has provided these realities for us and the government should, as with any other key stakeholder, create meaningful, effective and collaborative policy but require consultation. It is one thing to consult in front, but now that we have legislation, we need to ensure we get it right. We need to ensure that industry, particularly small businesses, remain competitive. The bill is being sent for review to the privacy and ethics committee. There is a strong argument that industry committee should have a look at this bill as well.

Therefore, proper consultation must happen. There is nothing wrong with doing that. I hope the government will ensure the bill is properly consulted on.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond Hill.

I am speaking here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

At the outset, I want to thank the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and his team for bringing forward Bill C-11, an act to enact the consumer privacy protection act, CPPA, and the personal information and data protection tribunal act. These are important aspects as we, as a country, address the issues of privacy in relation to the enormous amount of information that is constantly gathered, and exists about all of us.

We are in an age when with a cellphone we have more information at our disposal than several libraries put together. We are able to access personal information about virtually anyone who has a public profile, and certainly about anyone who has created a profile in one of the major platforms, whether it be Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok or LinkedIn, and the list goes on.

These have posed obvious questions for all of us as policy-makers or even as individual consumers in terms of how this information is used, how it is reproduced, copied and misused. We have seen the worst of it over the years in platforms like Facebook where information may have been reused over and over again.

At the centre of this legislation are three major aspects. First and foremost is consumer control over individuals' personal information that is out there.

Second, it is about innovation. I know the previous speaker spoke about the balancing act that we need in order to ensure free speech and privacy.

The third element is to make sure that innovation continues. Innovation is absolutely important for a country like Canada. I know many innovators in my community who have done exceptionally well. I have spoken about many of them here. The University of Toronto Scarborough campus has a hub in which many local innovators have come forward and have developed in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park.

Members may know of the company, Knowledgehook. It is a company founded by my good friend Travis Ratnam. The company was just given additional funding of $20 million to expand the program. It is a platform that allows students and teachers to work together to use AI, devise curriculum and make sure that the weaknesses of each student are highlighted to the teachers so that the teachers can respond.

In all of these new forms of technology, there are questions of privacy. We worry about the relationship between, for example, companies gathering data for the purpose of insurance, whether health, life, or auto insurance, and the data that sometimes is readily captured in our day-to-day use.

All of these issues have become pronounced during COVID. We see that education, for example, is now online for many students whose parents choose to have their kids study from home via the Internet; or for many post-secondary students who are studying virtually. I always go back to the University of Toronto Scarborough campus, which is located in my riding, but there is also Centennial College, where most of the students are learning virtually. These again have complicated the challenges for ensuring that privacy is maintained.

The digital charter that is before us does really allow for consumers to have control over their personal information, and it allows for innovation and a strong enforcement oversight. Sadly, the enforcement aspect has been quite weak in Canada over the years. We do not have adequate enforcement. In fact, technology itself is hard to enforce, whether in Canada or other parts of the world.

The enforcement mechanism that is built into this legislation is critically important for us to look at. It is what makes this legislation accessible to individuals who may have a complaint. The enforcement mechanism looks to have individuals appointed through the order in council process.

I want to speak about the way our government, since taking office in 2015, has managed to put together proper processes to appoint individuals to these important bodies, including judiciary and administrative tribunals, but also other bodies that make critical decisions.

We are focused on ensuring a merit-based system that ensures the individual is fully qualified to make decisions on a particular issue. For me, my work on the Standing Committee on Immigration and Refugees was a great learning experience. I saw first-hand how the IRB was transformed from a patronage-based appointment process to one that is merit-based. We see decisions coming out of the IRB that are fully reflective of the quality of candidates we put on those boards.

When we look at appointments, it is meritocracy, but also diversity. We note that in previous governments, judicial appointments have often been focused on men. In fact, in the last several years, we have now achieved gender parity. We are looking at enhancing that and we are working toward greater diversity among other groups in Canada, including people with disabilities. I believe the enforcement mechanism is critical and we have taken concrete steps in that regard.

To note, there are monetary penalties that this tribunal could issue. For example, there is a penalty of 3% of global revenue or $10 million for non-compliant organizations. For a company like Facebook, Google or one of the major outfits, 3% of their global revenues is significant. The maximum penalty is 5% of global revenue or $25 million for certain types of contraventions.

The government and the Minister of Innovation have brought forward a very important piece of legislation. It appears to have the support of all parties. I am particularly impressed with the data protection tribunal act that is built into this bill and the mechanisms that allow for individuals to access the type of redress that is required.

I look forward to questions from my friends opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise again today to address Bill C-11. This bill, when printed, is nearly an inch thick. It is a monster bill for around here. It is a timely bill, as well. I am looking forward to delving into it. I have not had the opportunity to read through it in great detail to this point, but I want to speak to it.

This is a top-of-mind issue for many Canadians. One of the things I want to point out right off the top is that when someone is online and a virtual persona, if they think they are getting a free product, they are actually the product. That is the thing to remember and many folks do not seem to realize that. That is something I have not seen in this bill, which is important. I think it is missing from this bill, although this bill may not been seeking to address that specifically.

There could be some sort of public awareness campaign, much the same as we have done with cigarettes. In the past, the public was trained that if someone smoked cigarettes, they would get cancer. We could do this for online profiles and show the dangers and what is going on out there.

As well, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam mentioned what is actually happening with our data. We think we are filling out a fun game or personality test, but we are actually giving away data. It can be harvested commercially to send advertisements and promote certain products.

We continue to see more invasion of our privacy. I do not know about other members, but the thing that jumped out at me, during my first cursory read of this bill, was the term “algorithm transparency”. That is something I am really fascinated by.

On the weekend, my friend was telling me that he took his phone, laid it on the table and he and his friends talked about white rabbits for three to four minutes. They just said the words “white rabbits” often. Then they opened up his phone, went to Facebook and the advertisements he was getting were about white rabbits. Our phones are listening to us and there are algorithms that are promoting certain things.

We can probably turn that feature off and mute the microphones on our phones all the time if we know how to do that, if we care enough about it or are concerned about that kind of thing. There is a joke that the Chinese are listening to us. It is just an assumption that is being made. I do not think there is actually somebody listening on the other end, but there is an algorithm that is obviously listening to what we are saying and trying push products toward us that we are interested in.

The white rabbit story is interesting. It is not necessarily something that would come up in day-to-day discussions. However, I know that if we connect to someone else's WiFi then suddenly we start getting different advertisements. My cousin has a CNC plasma cutting table for cutting metal. It is really cool, but what is interesting is that when I go to his house and connect to his WiFi, which is also connected to that CNC plasma table, I start getting advertisements for CNC cutting tables. That is wild and fascinating. The algorithm transparency piece is one of the most fascinating pieces of this law.

Sometimes on Facebook, we get ads. We can click on the “X” to get rid of the ad. When an ad comes up, one wonders why they are seeing it. If I could get an answer for that, that would be amazing.

I am interested in that. What is being fed into the system that is promoting this particular ad to me? That is something I am really interested in knowing. At this point, there seems to be no recourse whatsoever to know why these ads show up. In my virtual personality that lives out on the Internet and in the data collected on me, what recent actions in particular have I undertaken that have driven this particular ad into my feed? I am fascinated to see if we are going to be able to bring that transparency with this bill. I am not necessarily convinced we will be able to do it, but I am fascinated by it.

The other piece I do not think this bill addresses at all is the question of social media platforms or Internet platforms being message boards or publishers. This continues to be a sticking point. There have been committee hearings with the major social media platforms, and we have seen countries around the world seek to grapple with this issue. This is precisely what governments ought to be doing.

What it means to govern and to legislate is to come up with a system that balances the interests of all people in a way of our choosing. That is what it means to be in a democracy. That is what it means to be governed by ourselves, so to speak. In many cases we see effective lobbying efforts by organized groups, and in particular commercial interests, that do not necessarily allow the government to get that balance right.

We see in the news how we grapple to enable this. Some large social media platforms have amassed a wealth that exceeds that of many nations. Some of the largest nations in the world are able to compete with this, but many smaller nations do not have the resource capacity many of these large media companies do, so there is tension there. I compliment this bill in that it is attempting to have that discussion.

Do I trust the Liberals to get it right? No, typically not, but I commend them for bringing this forward and beginning the conversation. This is going to be a long conversation. Like I said before, this bill is an inch thick.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge Park just made a comment. I do not quite know what he said, but I am sure he was complimenting me on my speech. I thank him and appreciate that.

Around algorithmic transparency, the piece that is really important, and that I do not think this bill quite grasps, is whether platforms are curating content, publishing it or choosing winners and losers. The algorithmic transparency of that is a big concern for me, and I know it is a big concern for many people across the country. It is interesting this is a concern for people both on the right and the left. It is a concern for all the political parties. It is a concern for ideological differences, and in general for what is curated and what is deemed to be on the platform.

This is also a concern for the platforms themselves, in that one particular message that comes from a platform can then become part of a mob mentality. People could then really go after it.

There is no protection, necessarily, for platforms because there is ambiguity about whether they are responsible for messages on the message board and, if they are, whether they are liable as a newspaper would be. That is the major challenge.

While I am not convinced, at this point, that we will get algorithmic transparency in that sense, it is important to be able to tell people, “This is our algorithm, this is how messages get on the board. We are not responsible for the messages and, therefore, this is how the system works.” There is no human input. It is just a sophisticated method of getting messages in front of people that they want to see, that they think are interesting and that they find helpful.

For the most part, I would say we are getting that right. Where there is some concern is about political messaging. We have already seen that Facebook has worked hard on that, but there is always a spectrum, I would say, of political messaging. There is explicit party messaging, which is relatively easy to monitor and manage, but then there is political messaging that goes farther afield. When it is a random, individual Canadian doing political messaging, how is that managed? That is when it will be really important for us to get the algorithmic transparency piece right.

There is another thing I am interested in seeing and have not seen. Part of the government's rollout on this bill has been pushing freedom from hate and from violent extremism. That is important to me. The managing of the Internet and platforms around violent and degrading sexually explicit material has been something I have worked on in this place. It was in 2017 that the House unanimously passed a motion for the government to study the impacts of violent and degrading sexually explicit material.

This was something that had not been studied since 1985. I was not even born in 1985, so that tells us it was a long time ago. The member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is shaking his head at me. I am not sure what that belies about me or him, but it was a while back, before I was born and before the Internet existed.

A study on the impacts of violent and degrading sexually explicit material was done in 1985. I remember distinctly, in 1991, going to my uncle's house. He had gotten the Internet. I had heard about it and said I wanted to see the Internet, so he showed me where the phone line plugged into the wall. I asked if that was it and he said we should look at it. He turned his computer on. It had a giant monitor and a big tower beside his desk that hummed. Members may remember the sound coming through the speaker of dial-up Internet. I remember, for the first time ever, seeing the Internet. We went to dogpile.com, which was an early search engine. That was the beginning of the Internet for me, in 1991.

Here we are nearly 30 years later, and we are still grappling with how to manage this. It is a public information highway. There are public highways all over the country, and the government manages a licensing system for folks who get to use the public highways and roads. There is no controversy around that. It seems like an effective way to manage it. Given that it is tangible and we can see it in front of us, that is a manageable thing. In reality, we are dealing with the information highway. Up to this point, there has been very little direction on the role of the government in managing the expectations of Canadians.

Many parents who I have talked to are looking for tools they can use to protect their children online, and they are not satisfied with being told they should just be better parents. They say they want help from the internet service providers. They want help from their government. They want the ability to have some recourse with these large platforms. I am interested to see that.

The government says the Internet should be free from hate and violent extremism. That is something that I support notionally. Video imaging is the area where I am most concerned. In the other direction, I am concerned about free speech, and particularly the use of words and typed messaging. That, I guess, is a little harder to manage. However, particularly with images and video content, I think there is a lot of room for the government to operate in, especially with the violent and extremely degrading sexually explicit material that we have seen since 2007.

Since then, we can chart the impacts of those on Canadian society on a number of different indicators, and they have gotten worse. We see this particularly with our children in terms of the loneliness index going up and the isolation index going up. All of these things are exacerbated by the COVID lockdowns.

These are all things that we need to ensure come into this. Freedom from hate and violent extremism is necessary, and we have to get that right. This is what governments are built for. This is what we need to do, and we have to get it right, so I am looking forward to continuing debate around that.

The last thing I want to point out, which I find to be a little interesting, and I am hoping for some answers on from the government side, is this bill, the procedure of the House and how this bill will roll out over time. I must say this bill was unceremoniously dumped on Parliament. I was not anticipating it. I have been working on these issues for a while, and it was not something that was clearly on my radar.

I had written to the Minister of Canadian Heritage around this issue, and I was wondering how he was going to manage it, because I do remember seeing in his mandate letter that he was to try to remove hate and violent extremism from Canada through the Internet. I had some ideas and concerns around that, so I had written to him about it. I did not receive any feedback back saying the bill is coming, so I was a little surprised that this bill came when it did.

The other thing that I am really looking for an answer on is why the rumour around here is that this bill will be going to the ethics committee. I am wondering why the bill is going to the ethics committee. This seems like a bill built for the industry committee. That is typically where this would be dealt with, so I am left wondering. The ethics committee is seized with a number of other issues, and I am wondering why this bill would be rumoured to be headed toward the ethics committee, when industry seems like the committee that would be more in tune with where we would like to go with this particular bill.

I am going to be continuing to monitor the debate around this bill. I am looking forward to having a robust debate. I know that, given the size of the bill, we will be discussing it for a while, whether in this place, in the other place or in the committee, as well as out there in the general public.

I know that this will be a hot topic of discussion. I look forward to continuing that debate, and I look forward to the questions.