44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 20, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am following the debate.
If we look at Europe, it seems quite complicated to create a framework to govern artificial intelligence. However, I think we should draw inspiration from Europe's efforts. The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is certainly going to want more information about how the Europeans are going about it.
One thing is certain. I think what makes this so difficult is that the technology is evolving so fast. The part of Bill C-27 that deals with AI, as currently proposed, gives the government the freedom to do a lot through regulation, which is not necessarily ideal as far as I am concerned. However, when it comes to AI, I doubt that there is any other option. Today we are talking about ChatGPT, but I can almost guarantee that by next year, if not this summer, we will have moved on to something completely different.
The situation is changing so fast that I think we need to be very nimble in dealing with AI. I have heard the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill, whom I see eye to eye with on these issues, use the word nimble.
What I like about Bill C‑27 is that it creates the position of a commissioner who reports to the minister and who will look into these issues. I have long believed that we should have someone to oversee AI, someone to study all the new capabilities and the risks of accidents that this poses—because there are serious risks—and to be able to translate this into terms that the general public, legislators and the House can understand.
280 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I guess there are a few things that I would like to learn from my hon. colleague. We know that since the Liberals came into power, foreign tech giants have more than tripled their lobbying efforts in Ottawa, especially with the Liberal government, and Amazon, Google and Facebook have been a large part of that. I would love to hear his concerns or thoughts around that.
Bill C-27 does not explicitly apply to political parties. As we have seen in the past, and we just saw the Green Party have a breach, which was unfortunate, the possibility of privacy breaches and misuse exists in the political arena. Does my colleague agree that the bill should be amended to specifically include political parties?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a question that has come up many times, even when we look at PIPEDA historically. Why were political parties excluded? They seem to have fallen into a no man's land, in many respects, when it comes to privacy and data protection. I would be interested to know why and, if not, how we can work to better protect the data of Canadians when it comes to political parties. Definitely, it is a very worthwhile question that the member has raised.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 4:50:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 4:50:31 p.m.
- Watch
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the first question is on parts 1 and 2, including the schedule to clause 2 of the bill.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that parts 1 and 2, including the schedule to clause 2 of the bill be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The recorded division on parts 1 and 2, including the schedule to clause 2 of the bill stands deferred.
The next question is on part 3 of the bill.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that part 3 of the bill be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 4:51:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The recorded division on part 3 of the bill stands deferred.
Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the second reading stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, April 24, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 4:51:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so that we could begin the Private Members' Business hour.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 4:51:48 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be concurred in.
7 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 4:53:14 p.m.
- Watch
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 4:53:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that this carry on division.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a good day for Canadians because they are one step closer to knowing what Internet service they are actually paying for.
We all know the story, especially for those who live in rural Canada. Canadians across this country buy expensive Internet services only to realize that they do not receive the speeds that were advertised to them. This is because the government allows Internet companies to sell speeds that Canadians may never get.
The speeds that customers see when they go to purchase Internet are not guaranteed, and they are rarely minimum or average speeds. Instead, the government allows Internet companies to advertise maximum theoretical speeds. Such words as “up to” are used in these advertisements, leading consumers to believe that an Internet service is better than it is.
For example, when a Canadian goes to buy an Internet package, they may purchase download speeds of up to 50 megabits per second and upload speeds of 10 megabits per second. However, they may never get those speeds. A customer does not even know what speeds they are most likely to receive. Some may say that this is illegal; it is false advertising. However, it is not; the government allows it to happen. Bill C-288 addresses this by providing customers with accurate and transparent information. Simply put, it clarifies what an Internet service a customer is buying.
First, this legislation would mandate Internet companies to provide Canadians with typical download and upload speeds and not maximum theoretical speeds. No longer would Canadians be given best-case scenarios. Instead, they would have realistic expectations. This would allow them to make informed decisions about which service best fits their needs and budget.
Second, Bill C-288 would provide Canadians with quality metrics during peak usage times. It is no secret that service quality is better when no one is using the Internet, but we should face it: Most of us are online at the same time as everyone else. Knowing the Internet speed at 7 p.m. is more relevant than knowing the speed at 3 a.m.
The legislation would also initiate a process to allow industry, advocacy groups and the public to work together to develop a model that is in the public's best interest. The Telecommunications Act lacks a public interest component. Therefore, it is very important that any amendment to the Telecommunications Act stresses the importance of putting consumers first. Canadians need to trust the information given to them, and this collaborative approach will help build that trust.
Finally, thanks to a Conservative amendment at the Standing Committee on Industry, Bill C-288 was strengthened by ensuring that it would be properly enforced if passed into law. When Bill C-288 was at committee, no one opposed it. I want to share some of the testimony given by the experts who appeared at committee.
Dr. Reza Rajabiun, a competition policy and telecom strategy expert said: “[Bill C-288] has the potential to achieve its stated objectives of better informing consumers and promoting competition.”
Ms. Erin Knight, a senior campaigner for OpenMedia, was very direct in urging Parliament to pass this bill quickly. She stated:
When you sign up for an Internet plan, you deserve to know what you're paying for before you pay. This legislation will make it so. At the end of the day, it's about truth and transparency. If an Internet provider is advertising certain speeds, consumers have the right to know, before they buy, whether those speeds accurately reflect average performance.
Even the commissioner and CEO of the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services agreed that a problem exists with misleading speed claims. He said:
In our work, we regularly see complaints that arise when customers think they're buying something but wind up getting something different. Disclosure of service metrics might very well help to avoid this situation.
The commissioner, who rarely comments on public policy, went on to say:
...given the number of Internet service quality complaints that we see, it seems reasonable to conclude that making service metrics available to customers when they subscribe to an Internet service would be a step forward...
I know that some Internet companies have pushed back by claiming that Canadians are getting what they pay for. However, one visit to rural Canada would quickly tell a different story.
My message to the Internet service providers is this: If their service quality is, in fact, as good as they say it is, then they have nothing to worry about. I cannot imagine that Internet companies would be happy if the government allowed Canadians to pay up to the amount on their monthly bills.
Conservatives believe that more competition is needed in our telecom sector, and to improve competition, we must allow Canadians to compare accurate information because, if we make Internet companies disclose what they are selling, Canadians could make more informed decisions on what they want, and if Canadians can clearly see that one Internet service is better than another, they would take their money where they chose to. That would mean that Internet providers that sell poor quality services would be pressured to either upgrade their service or lower their prices.
In closing, I want to go back to the testimony from OpenMedia at the industry committee. Ms. Knight stated, “If we can't do this simple, uncontroversial, pro-consumer move that other countries have already done, I'll be deeply concerned about our ability as a country to make the changes we so desperately need.” I agree. If we cannot pass this simple, uncontroversial, pro-consumer bill, nothing will ever change under the government.
Let us face it. We have a long way to go, and there is a lot that still needs to change, when it comes to connectivity. It was just last month when Canada’s Auditor General confirmed that over a million Canadian households and over 50% of first nations communities still do not have access to high-speed Internet. I will let that sink in. Over one million households and 50% of first nations communities are still not connected. This is despite a government that gallivants across this country announcing billions of dollars with little to show for.
The Liberals say they are improving cellphone service, but if they travelled to rural Canada, they would quickly figure out how bad cellphone service really is. I wonder why, after eight years, Canadians still do not have cellphone coverage, despite the government claiming they do. Maybe it is because the Auditor General also revealed that the government has no targets or timelines for improving cellular services across Canada.
Can anyone believe that there are at least eight bureaucratic programs under the government for connectivity? There are eight bureaucratic programs chasing the same goal, but unable to achieve that one goal. Talk about government gatekeepers getting in the way.
Even when this bill passes, there is plenty more work needed to increase telecom competition, lower prices for consumers and improve connectivity for rural Canadians. This would be only one step in the right direction, but it would be a step that could give Canadians hope, and I am hopeful too, for a Conservative government that would find more solutions for Internet and cellphone users in Canada. Until then, let us do what we can and pass Bill C-288.
1254 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask the member what his thoughts are the legislation and how it ultimately got through the committee. The member made reference to the type of support it received from all sides of the House, which I see as a strong positive. I am anticipating that members in the House will even want to see it get through the third reading.
For me, it is all about consumer awareness and protection, and that is the reason I am supporting it. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts, specifically on why it is so important that, as a House, we recognize this as a consumer protection type of legislation.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is a great question. This is why this bill actually started. We realized that Canadian consumers were actually being sold, by Internet service providers, a false bill of goods, and it was legal. That had to change. How would we even know what we are buying?
Like I said in my speech, I cannot imagine someone saying they can pay for up to these theoretical speeds, if they want to buy them. This legislation really brought that to the attention of the whole House, which has obviously caught on to this. I think it would be a really good solution and a small step forward for Canadians buying Internet service.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this great bill forward. I was very proud to jointly second it.
He made a comment at the end of his speech that I would like to give him an opportunity to expand upon. It was about how important broadband Internet is and how little we have across Canada right now, especially in rural Canada. I know many parts of my riding do not have it. With the current federal government, the only way to get in contact with federal services is digitally, yet many of my constituents do not even have three megabits per second down and one up.
Could the member expand on why this is so important and why we need high-speed Internet as an essential service for all Canadians?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Internet is a reality of modern-day life, but as I said in my speech, can anyone imagine that 50% of first nations are still not covered? They still have no access to Internet. Despite all the billions of dollars that have been spent and all the toil that has gone on across government departments, they are still not connected, never mind the millions of rural homes that are not covered.
It is tremendously important that we address this bill and get it passed to take a small step forward in trying to connect all of Canada.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
