AIDA needs to be scrapped, civil society groups tell committee

A quartet of civil society groups appeared before the House of Commons Industry Committee Thursday afternoon as the MPs consider Bill C-27. The legislation would introduce a Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA), a Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act (PIDPTA) and an Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA). All five witnesses found fault with the bill, especially the AIDA section, which they said should be removed or considered as separate legislation. “C-27 needs overall tighter provisions to prioritize people’s fundamental rights, the CPPA needs to plug its gaps around information sensitivity and consent, and if AIDA is not to be outright scrapped, reset or just separated from this bill, it needs fundamental rethinking,” Daniel Konikoff interim director of the privacy, technology and surveillance program of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association told the panel. Much of what the groups testified to were expansions of remarks they made earlier in the day at a news conference on Parliament Hill. Tim McSorley national coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group pointed out that under the current clauses of the bill the personal information and data protection commissioner would report to the minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. He believes the proposed commissioner should be a Parliamentary appointment. “AIDA was developed without appropriate public consultation or debate. It fails to integrate appropriate human rights protection,” McSorley said. “It lacks fundamental definitions and egregiously it would create an AI and data commissioner operating at the discretion of the minister of innovation, resulting in a commissioner with no independence to enforce the provisions of AIDA, weak as they may be.” The executive director of OpenMedia, Matthew Hatfield, called on MPs to carve out AIDA and send it back to the minister for a redo. “I urge you to separate AIDA from C-27 and send it back for full public consultation. But if that isn’t in your power, at the very least, you cannot allow Canada to become an AI dumping ground,” he stated. Hatfield also called for the new commissioner to be a Parliamentary officer rather than a departmental employee. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre had two witnesses appearing before the committee, executive director John Lawford and staff lawyer Yuka Sai. They also turned thumbs down on the bill. “Artificial intelligence, AI, is simply rocket fuel for discrimination,” Sai said. “The AIDA portion of this bill lacks substance on bias, systemic harms, high-impact systems, government applicability and denies independent oversight.” Lawford feels that current legislation such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) can suffice until a better bill is introduced. “In conclusion, this bill should be wholly rejected. Consumers are infinitely better protected under PIPEDA,” he remarked. Sam Andrey, managing director of The Dais at Toronto Metropolitan University, concentrated on AIDA during his statement. AI poses risks of systemic discrimination, psychological harms and malicious use, he told the MPs. “The bill’s surprise introduction and lack of public consultation since have limited the ability of folks in civil society, experts, industry and equity deserving communities to engage with this important legislation,” he asserted. Sharon Polsky, president of the Privacy and Access Council of Canada, cautioned against taking a flawed legislative measure over a better one. “It’s understandable that there’s great support for Bill C-27 except that many of the people who support it don't like it,” she testified. “They figure, though, it’s taken 20 years to get this much and we can’t wait another 20 for something better to replace PIPEDA so they figure it’s better than nothing at all. With respect, we disagree.” The witnesses believe the carve outs for business to define what constitutes a breach of privacy are too broad. They would have the effect of letting the private sector decide when and where they have contravened the act. “Bill C-27 reverses 25 years of privacy law in Canada,” Lawford stated. “Businesses can now assume consent and consumers must prove abuse. If that sounds uncomfortable from an individual rights perspective, that’s because it is.” His colleague Yuka Sai reminded the committee of Telus Corp. mining data for use by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). The Civil Liberties Association’s Konikoff decried private interests being allowed to interpret violations of the law. He pointed to the widespread use of facial recognition technology. “Biometric data is perhaps the most vulnerable data we have and its abuse can be particularly devastating to members of equity seeking groups,” he said. “Look no further than the prevalence of facial recognition technology. Facial recognition is used everywhere from law enforcement to shopping malls.” The private sector has been worried about a chill on research if the bill passes. One witness dismissed that claim. “We’ve all heard industry’s threat that regulation will hamper innovation,” Polsky noted. “That red herring was invalidated when radio didn’t kill newspapers, TV didn’t kill radio and the internet didn’t kill either one.” She went on to state that organizations but not individuals would be held responsible for breaches of the act. That allows corporations to write off fines as a business expense. Polsky was also critical that the legislation defines Canadians as consumers rather than individuals with privacy rights, The panelists were dismayed that so many exemptions exist for national security divisions of the federal government, such as the RCMP, CSIS and CSE. This could lead to abuse, they warned. “While we support efforts to modernize Canadian privacy laws and establish AI regulations, the bill unfortunately contains multiple exemptions for national security purposes that are unacceptable and undermine bill C-27’s stated goal of protecting the rights and privacy of people in Canada,” McSorley stated. The provisions have a low threshold for determining what truly is a national security problem, he added. – Reporting by Paul Park at ppark@thewirereport.ca and editing by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca

AIDA needs to be scrapped, civil society groups tell committee

News | November 3, 2023

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

AIDA needs to be scrapped, civil society groups tell committee

News | November 3, 2023

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telesat deal good for Canada, Champagne tells INDU committee

Coordinated effort is ‘essential’ in tackling AI policy issues, says Canadian Digital Regulators Forum

Competition summit hears regulation, keeping talent at home are key to Canada’s standing on artificial intelligence

Online harms and more in focus as Parliament returns

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us