SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

Jun/15/23 1:00:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. In relation to the parliamentary secretary to the House leader's last question, this particular parliamentary secretary, in fact the entire Liberal government, love to compare and contrast themselves to former prime minister Stephen Harper. Could my learned colleague share how differently Stephen Harper would have dealt with these obvious conflicts of interest and the deliberate misleading of the House? How would he have handled ministers with this information versus how the government is presently doing it?

85 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Jun/15/23 1:01:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with former prime minister Stephen Harper, ministerial accountability was alive and well in many regards on a couple fronts. There was a principled approach, unlike what we have seen in the last eight years. Just to conclude on the justice file, Stephen Harper brought forward about 80 justice bills in favour of being tough on crime and in favour of victims. I mentioned one of the bills today, and all of the bills the Liberals have brought forward are for the least restrictive environments for criminals. That is the reason the most vile killer in Canadian history has been moved. It is because of legislation like this. We saw it with bail reform. It has never been worse in this country. That is directly related to Bill C-75, also a 2019 Liberal bill. I am getting pretty sick and tired of these soft on crime Liberals. It is time for a Conservative government to clean up our streets and keep Canadians safe.

165 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Jun/15/23 1:02:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to be speaking to the travesty of justice and human rights committed by our current Minister of Public Safety. I am disappointed, but to be honest, I am not surprised. This minister has a track record of mishandling files, which is ultimately a disservice to justice in this country and to victims. This is why we are debating the amendment put forward by the Conservative Party today, ultimately recommending that the minister resign. Just so it is clear and on the record once again, our amendment to the motion includes: the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Monday, April 17, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Minister of Public Safety immediately resign given his total lack of consideration for victims of crime in his mishandling of the transfer to more cozy arrangements of one of the worst serial killers in Canadian history, that this unacceptable move has shocked the public and created new trauma for the families of the victims and that the Minister of Public Safety's office knew about this for three months prior to Paul Bernardo's transfer and instead of halting it, the information was hidden from the families. Obviously, I have made some very provocative statements, even in my opening couple of sentences, but I want to lay the groundwork for why I believe this. Let us go back to the minister's track record back in August 2021, when he was the minister of immigration. What happened then? We had the fall of Kabul. We had the fall of Afghanistan. Instead of the government dealing with that situation with the ministers of foreign affairs, immigration and national defence primarily focused on helping victims, the Afghans who had helped Canada, get to safety, what did they do? They called an election. It is unacceptable. This minister here was in that seat. He could have had a process in place, much like we have done in previous years, under the current and previous governments, so that, when we have a situation around the globe in which Canada could make a difference by allowing refugees and people at risk to get to Canada, we could do it. This is so fundamentally important and unfortunately something that the government is still not putting the adequate priority and focus on. It is allowing bureaucracy and staff to interfere with getting the job done. That is just one thing. That is the minister's background right off the get-go. He has now been the Minister of Public Safety since that last election. What did we see just in the last year alone on Bill C-21? Again, we saw a minister who is not focused on victims and justice but is instead focused on law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and farmers, despite him saying that, no, this was not what the bill was about. Lo and behold, there was a last-minute amendment put forth by the minister that exactly targeted the thousands and thousand of hunters, sport shooters and farmers across the country. That bill was not focused on addressing the root causes of the justice issues that allow for criminals, mass murderers, rapists, gangs, drug trafficking, etc. It was focused again on the wrong demographic. I am just using that to set the stage. We are now dealing with an amendment because we now have evidence that the minister and his office were aware three months prior to the general public becoming aware that Paul Bernardo, one of our most horrific serial killer and rapists, was being transferred out of a maximum security prison into a medium security prison. I want to set the stage because we are all victims of our life experiences. We live in a Westminster system of government that allows our democracy to work on a day-to-day basis because it is all about ministerial accountability. The buck stops with them. As for my comments on life experiences, as many members know, I come from a military background. There is a misperception out there that the military is all about following orders. That is not the case at all and is not how the military functions. Forming a plan begins from the ground up, from the lowest levels all the way to the highest levels, enabling the decision-makers to make the best decisions possible. When I served at the higher levels, whether as a chief of staff or a director, and we were planning for stuff and doing things, there was one common theme, and that was the daily briefs. It did not matter if it was on operations overseas or here at our Canadian Joint Operations Command, there were daily briefs and the staff's primary role was to flag issues of concern directly to the decision-makers, the commanders and people who are ultimately responsible for making decisions and providing guidance and direction. This was not being blocked by the gatekeepers or the staff, and it was brought to the person in charge. That is key to the way our whole democracy works. Members do not have to take my word for it. There was a CBC report that basically broke this news. I am going to read a bit from a CBC article that was just released, which states: The demand for [the Minister of Public Safety’s] exit was prompted by the CBC's report that staff in the minister's office were aware of Paul Bernardo's pending transfer as far back as March 2. Subsequent reporting confirmed that the Prime Minister's Office was also made aware in March and [the Prime Minister] was himself briefed on the transfer on May 29. According to the version of events, the minister's staff obviously did not think it was necessary to tell him about the transfer of one of Canada's most notorious murderers until May 30, a day after the move was made, and a day after the Prime Minister himself was briefed. The fact that they neglected to alert the minister about this impending transfer is puzzling in and of itself, and obviously an apparent failure at keeping him informed. However, what is more interesting is that the minister himself described it as a shocking event. How could he be so shocked when this was something his staff should have informed him of three months prior? The minister initially said it was the Correctional Service of Canada that did it, but he has now admitted that the information flowed in, he was not briefed, and could not have really done anything about it. Lo and behold, what has he done now? He has issued a new directive stipulating that he must be informed, something he should have done immediately. That is just common practice. Therefore, the issue I come back to is this: The minister needs to surround himself with competent staff and people who understand what is truly an important issue under his responsibility because that is how we protect our justice system and victims in this country. Ultimately, the minister needs to do the honourable thing and resign because that is truly the only option left. If he will not resign, the Prime Minister should fire him. Another thing the government should do is immediately implement the private member's motion that was put forward by the Conservative member for Niagara Falls, which enshrines into legislation, and I am paraphrasing, that when our most notorious murderers and criminals are found guilty, they must remain in a maximum-security prison.

1297 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/15/23 1:11:44 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time to put forthwith the question on the motion that is now before the House. The question is on the amendment. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried, carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

70 words

Division

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Jun/15/23 1:13:29 p.m.
Watch

We request a recorded division.

5 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/15/23 1:13:33 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

27 words

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

Jun/15/23 1:14:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

moved: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that, during its consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into three pieces of legislation: (a) Bill C-27A, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, containing Part 1 and the schedule to section 2; (b) Bill C-27B, An Act to enact the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, containing Part 2; and (c) Bill C-27C, An Act to enact the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, containing Part 3. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here today to speak on this motion. I will be splitting my time today with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets. Bill C-27 is a very important bill. We have talked about privacy legislation now for about eight or nine months. Our whole premise was that privacy always should be a fundamental right of Canadians. We talked about the limitations of this bill when the government announced it. That was missing from the bill. The bill was in three parts. The first part spoke to replacing the “PIP” in “PIPEDA”; the second part was announcing and debating the use of a tribunal; and the third part was about AI. This motion asks to split this bill into three parts so the committee can look at and vote on each part individually. If we talk about why that is needed at this point, it is very simple. The third part about AI part is the most flawed. When we look at the bill in its entirety and we have gone through debate, we certainly hope to have this bill go to the industry committee. The government delayed sending this to committee, but I am hoping it will be in committee in the early fall, and we want to debate, for the most part, the AI section. I stand today to shed light on a topic that has captured the imagination of many, and yet poses significant risk to our society: the dangers of artificial intelligence, or AI. While AI has the potential to revolutionize our world, we must also be aware of the dangers it presents and take proactive steps to mitigate them. For decades, AI and the imaginary and real threats it brings has been a subject of fascination in popular culture. I remember, as a child, watching a movie called WarGames. A teenager wanted to change his grades, he went into a computer to try to do that and the computer offered to play a game of nuclear annihilation. It ended up that the U.S.S.R., through this computer, was about to attack the U.S. NORAD thought it was happening, was ready to strike back and somehow the computer could not figure out what was right or wrong and the only way the student was able to figure it out was to play a game of tic-tac-toe that he found he could never win. At the end, after playing the nuclear game he could never win, he said he would play a nice game of chess because that is easier, someone wins, someone loses and it is safe. This was AI in 1984. My favourite movie with AI was The Matrix. In The Matrix, humans were batteries in the world, who were taken over and owned by machines until Neo saved them and gave them freedom. Another movie that I remember as a kid was Terminator 2, and we know how that one ended. It was pretty good. We are not sure if it has even ended yet. I think there is another one coming. Arnold Schwarzenegger is still alive. We find ourselves in a season of alarmism over artificial intelligence, with warnings from experts of the need to prioritize the mitigation of AI risks. One of the greatest concerns around AI is the potential loss of jobs as automation and intelligent machines rise. Has anyone ever heard of the Texas McDonald's that is run entirely without people? It is coming. They have figured out how to use robots and machines to eliminate staff positions. Even though it is not AI, all of us go to the grocery store now and can check out on our own. When we shop, we see lots of different ways, whether it is Amazon or others, that companies are using AI for robotics. We have heard of dark industrial storage where robots operate in the dark, moving products from exit to entrance, and people are not needed. It is a big problem for job losses. Another major risk of AI lies in the erosion of privacy and personal data security. As AI becomes more integrated in our lives, it gathers vast amounts of data about individuals, which can be used to manipulate behaviour, target individuals and our children with personalized advertisements, and infringe upon our civil liberties. The first part of Bill C-27 has to do with the third part, but is not the same. We must establish strong regulations and ethical guidelines to protect our privacy rights and prevent the misuse of personal data. Transparency and accountability should be at the forefront of AI development, ensuring that individuals have control over their own information. Moreover, the rapid advancement of AI brings with it the potential for unintended consequences. AI systems, while designed to learn and improve, can also develop biases. We saw in the ethics committee, with facial recognition technology, when we had experts come into the committee that, alarmingly, Black females were misidentified 34% of the time by computers. It was called “digital racism”. White males were misidentified only 1% of the time. Again, this is technology that we have allowed, in some instances, to be used by the RCMP and to be used by the forces. All experts asked for a moratorium on that technology, much the same as we are seeing with AI, because without proper oversight and diverse representation in the development of AI logarithms and algorithms, we risk entrenching society biases within these systems. It is imperative that we prioritize diversity and inclusion in AI development to ensure fairness and to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities. The security implications of AI cannot be overlooked either. As AI becomes more sophisticated, it could be weaponized or manipulated by malicious actors. Cyber-attacks exploiting AI vulnerabilities could lead to significant disruptions in critical systems, such as health care, transportation and defence. They say the greatest risk of war right now is not by sticks and stones, but by computers and joysticks and that AI could infiltrate our systems. One thing I was reading about the other week is the risk of a solar storm that could knock out all the technology, but AI and cybersecurity could do the same. Can members imagine what our world would be like if we did not have Internet for a day, weeks or a month? We certainly saw that with the Rogers outage last summer, but we can imagine if it was malicious in intent. Last, we must address the ethical dilemmas posed by AI. As AI systems become more autonomous, they raise complex questions about accountability and decision-making. We have heard about Tesla having automobiles that have gone off course, and the computer is making the life-or-death decision about where that car is going. The other day I heard a report about vehicles in L.A. that are autonomous and running by Tesla or by taxi, and that fire trucks and ambulances could not get by the vehicles, because the vehicles were programmed to stop and put their four-way lights on, so these fire trucks could not get past them due to AI decisions. They had to smash the windshields in order to get the vehicles out of the way, and they lost precious minutes getting to the scene of a fire. While AI holds immense potential to improve our lives, we must remain vigilant to the danger it presents. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the risks of job displacement, privacy breaches, bias, security threats or ethical concerns. It is our responsibility to shape the future of AI in a way that benefits all of humanity while mitigating its potential harms. We need to work together to foster a world where AI is harnessed for the greater good, ensuring that progress is made with compassion, fairness and responsible stewardship. Let us shift for a moment to the positive aspects of AI, and AI actually does exist for good. We have AI working right now with health care diagnostics. Algorithms are being developed to analyze medical images, such as X-rays and MRls, to assist doctors in diagnosing diseases like cancer, enabling earlier detection and improved treatment outcomes. We have disease prevention and prediction. AI models can analyze large datasets of patient information and genetic data to identify patterns and predict the likelihood of individuals getting certain diseases. There is environmental conservation. Al-powered systems are being used to monitor and analyze environmental data. I have heard of farmers who are using computer systems to monitor the nitrogen in soil, so they can monitor how much water and how much fertilizer they need to put in the soil, which is saving our environment. There is disaster response and management. AI is used to analyze social media posts and other data sources during natural disasters to provide real-time information, identify critical needs, and coordinate rescue and relief efforts. For education and personalized learning, AI is changing the way people are learning right now. The greatest thing we have is ChatGPT, and ChatGPT has revolutionized research. Of course we are looking at the possibility of jobs being lost. It has even helped me with my speech today. We have a lot of great things that are happening, and in the bill we certainly are going to be looking at how we change and monitor that. The bill should be split into three sections. We need to make sure we look at privacy as a fundamental human right for Bill C-27 as number one; the tribunal is number two; but AI is number three. We need to have as many witnesses as possible to make sure we get it right, and we need to work with our G7 partners to make sure we all look at AI and its benefits, its shortcomings and its benefits to society in Canada and the future.

1800 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 1:25:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting tactic. The Conservatives still do not want to talk about child care. I guess they have an objection to that. I think we could pass this historic legislation in about 25 minutes, but they are having an allergic reaction to yet another national program. It is somewhat unfortunate. The member wants to talk about AI and splitting a bill that is already in committee. I think the Speaker at one point made a ruling on it, but the Conservatives want to continue to kill time. I understand and appreciate that. This is how they feel they are being a good opposition party, though I might challenge that a bit. Does the member not recognize the legislation also talks about the protection of data? Data is so critically important. I am wondering to what degree the Conservative Party really recognizes that with technological changes, we need to modernize legislation. Bill C-27 deals with things like AI and other very important aspects of modernization through technology and data banks. We need to deal with that. When does the member believe the Conservatives will agree to see that sort of legislation pass? Is he and the Conservative regime thinking it should be happening sometime this year possibly, or will they want to continue to filibuster this into the months and years ahead? When would they like to see this type of legislation pass?

237 words

Mr. Ryan Williams

Jun/15/23 1:26:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we do talk about child care. This bill actually looks at protecting the privacy of our children. It is disappointing to hear we are not interested in one or the other. We are interested in all of this for our children and in privacy specifically, because children who are using tablets and cellphones are having their data scraped from the Internet and sold to companies. Sometimes their location is shared and it puts them in harm's way. This legislation looks at that. What the government has not done is recognize that privacy is a fundamental human right. The Conservatives have recognized that that is the case for this bill and certainly for our children. This bill is as important as anything else for our children and their futures, and we are certainly going to focus on that.

140 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Jun/15/23 1:27:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my good friend and colleague from Bay of Quinte to expand a bit on ChatGPT and the AI risks associated with it. We do recognize there is some great potential for AI. It can maybe help and streamline things, especially with data management and the sheer information overload that governments deal with. However, in particular I note the importance of guardrails and protection, because it is sort of the Wild West out there when we start talking about artificial intelligence.

87 words

Mr. Ryan Williams

Jun/15/23 1:28:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows ChatGPT. The member mentioned at one point that it helped write a question. It is phenomenal how quick it is and how it helps with research and advancement. I even had it help with my speech. However, there are certainly a lot of risks, and the technology falls short in several areas. Number one, it leaves the details for AI governance to future regulations, and the government has not even looked at them and studied them. We have a focus on addressing individual harm and excluding collective harms such as threats to democracy and the environment and the reinforcement of existing inequalities. Additionally, AIDA primarily applies to the private sector, leaving out high-impact government applications for AI. In short, we are really narrowly focused even in this bill. When we bring this bill to committee, we are going to bring in a massive number of witnesses to have great testimony. Certainly, when a Conservative government gets in power, we are going to table great legislation that not only maximizes AI for good but also protects Canadians from harms.

183 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/15/23 1:29:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the whole thing about the screen scraping of information. Screen scraping of information is not free. There is a value transfer that happens every time that occurs. I would like him to elaborate on where the value comes from, which is usually individual Canadians who have no idea about it, and where that value gets transferred to. Of course, when something gets transferred, that process is worth something and people pay for it. Can he elaborate on who those people are and how they are earning value off the backs of Canadians?

97 words

Mr. Ryan Williams

Jun/15/23 1:30:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, data is valuable. Right now we live in an economy based on a tangible old-style economy as well as in an intangible economy. That means data and intellectual property are very valuable to corporations. They are valuable to advertisers. I dare say they are valuable to the government. The government, of course, holds swaths of information. When we think about all the data out there, it is in every movement we make. Every time someone makes a sound, Siri asks, “What was that?” We see it every time we are doing something with our Apple watches. Our Apple watches even track our temperatures and track women who are going into a menstrual cycle in the U.S. It is very concerning. That data is worth something to everyone. It is a balance. We should look, first of all, at protecting people from harms, individuals, making sure we have fundamental human rights for individuals for privacy protection. Also, we should recognize that some companies need data for good, as I mentioned earlier regarding health research and development. We want to balance that. Data is valuable. Let us make sure we do it right and do it together.

201 words

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Jun/15/23 1:31:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27 Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 426, which deals with Bill C-27. For those watching who do not know Bill C-27, it is the government's piece of legislation to update our privacy laws and introduce a new act on artificial intelligence. As to the purpose of this motion, even though the bill went through second reading and is now awaiting study at the industry committee, we are asking that the bill be split in three, because it really is three separate bills. The first bill, as my colleague from Bay of Quinte just mentioned, is the part of the legislation that deals with updating the Privacy Act, including all of the privacy terms for protecting an individual's privacy and protecting the rights of others to use someone's privacy, that is, how they can or cannot use it. The second piece of the legislation would create a new agency called the privacy tribunal. It is really a separate piece of legislation. In fact, it is classified as a separate piece of legislation, an act within this act. Then the third piece is the artificial intelligence and data act. It really is three pieces of legislation in one bill, and that is why we have moved this motion asking that the bill be split in three. It is a massive 120-page piece of legislative change impacting every person and every business in this country. It deserves to be studied as three separate pieces, and members of the House of Commons deserve to vote separately on those three separate pieces of information. I will start with the first piece, which is the privacy piece. We talked at second reading about the difference between our views on the purpose of this bill, this act, and the government's views. The government made the claim that this bill was making greater steps toward protecting the personal information of the individual, yet that is not what the bill does. Clause 5 is the purpose section, the most important section of any bill that sets out what the legal structure or purpose of legislation is. It says that it tries to balance the protection of personal privacy with the rights of businesses to use people's data. It puts business interests on a par with individual privacy interests. As my colleague from Bay of Quinte just said and as I said in my second reading speech, that is a fundamental flaw of this bill. The Privacy Commissioner has already spoken out about it. There has been discussion about whether privacy is a fundamental human right. There is language on this in the preamble, but the preamble of the bill has virtually no legal impact. It says that privacy is among the fundamental rights people have, but it is not in the purpose section. We have been seeking and will be seeking a broad discussion at committee on that issue and the legal implication of it. The purpose section of the bill, clause 5, should say that the protection of personal privacy is a fundamental right. It is not balanced between business needs and individual needs but is a fundamental right. That is important not only for the reasons that I just outlined, but because further down, clause 18 of the privacy part of the bill creates a concept called “legitimate interest” for a business. Clause 17, just prior to that, lays out that there has to be the express consent of an individual for a business to use privacy data, but clause 18 goes on to say that there is a legitimate interest for the business to not care about an individual's express consent. In fact, it lets a company say that if something is in its legitimate interest as a company, even if it causes individuals harm, it is okay for it to use their data for something that they did not give permission for. It says that right in the legislation. This is a fundamental flaw of a bill that pretends to be protecting people's fundamental privacy rights. It in fact protects big corporate data and the right of big corporations to use our data however they wish. It does give additional power, which is needed, to the Privacy Commissioner in that, but the second part of the bill then takes it back with the creation of the privacy tribunal. Maybe the best explanations of the privacy tribunal is to compare it to and understand the way the Competition Act works. There are two aspects to how we decide competition issues and appeals. One is the Competition Bureau that looks at merges and acquisitions, and it says whether they are anti-competitive or not and will rule on that merger. Then there is a Competition Tribunal, like the privacy tribunal as proposed in the bill, which is the legal framework where the law gets done and the battle gets fought between the company that thinks it should do the merger and the Competition Bureau that thinks it should not. A classic example recently was the Rogers-Shaw takeover. Quite a bit of time was spent both through the Competition Bureau process and the Competition Tribunal process, which ruled whether that sale could happen and then whether an aspect of that sale, being the sale of Freedom Mobile to Vidéotron, could be done. The government wants to create that kind of process in the privacy law now. It is a separate act that creates this bureaucracy and this appeal mechanism, where six individuals will decide, as a privacy tribunal, whether a company has breached a person's privacy rights. However, out of the six individuals, only three of them need to any familiarity with privacy law. The others do not need any familiarity with privacy law, no familiarity with business, no familiarity with human rights, nothing. They do not need any other qualifications other than, perhaps in this case, they are a Liberal and are appointed to this board. I have discussed this with a number of law firms since the bill was tabled a year ago. These law firms have very different views about whether this speeds up or slows down the process of dealing with individual privacy law issues. We need to have a separate study within the committee on that aspect. In fact, I have been talking to the chair of the committee about that structure, trying to get the hearings to be set up in a way that looks at these three pieces separately. The third piece, which my colleague for Bay of Quinte spoke eloquently about, is on artificial intelligence. Remember, the first two parts of the bill are essentially a modest rewrite of a bill from the last Parliament, Bill C-11, when the government tried to amend these acts and then complained that the bill did not pass, because it called an early election. The Liberals could not figure out why it did not pass. However, the Liberals reintroduced the bill, but then they bolted on this other thing, which has absolutely nothing to do with the first two parts. The third part is called the “artificial intelligence act”, but it has nothing to do with the privacy of individuals and it has nothing to do with the appeal of a person's privacy. It is all about how to regulate this new industry, and it gets it wrong. The government is basically saying that its does not know what artificial intelligence is, which is not surprising for the Liberals, but it is going to regulate it. It is going to define it in regulation, and the minister is going to be in charge of defining it. The minister is going to be in charge of setting the rules on whether the law has been breached. The minister is also going to be in charge of fining someone who has breached the law of this thing the government cannot define. It is a total usurping of Parliament. The Liberals are saying that they do not know what it is, but we should trust them, that they will never have to come back to Parliament to deal with this again. We are asking the House to split the bill into three, because it really is three separate pieces of legislation. The government would have more success in its legislative agenda if it actually brought in these pieces properly, individually, rather than a mini-omnibus bill of different types of issues. Then they could be properly studied, properly amended, properly consulted on and properly dealt with by Parliament. The government is choosing not to do that, which is why it is having such poor legislative success in all of its efforts to date.

1473 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/15/23 1:41:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat comical to suggest that the government would have more success in its legislative process if we were to start breaking down our bills, putting in more pieces of legislation, when every opportunity the Conservatives get under the instruction of the current right-wing leader of the Conservative Party today is to filibuster and not let legislation pass. The member has to be kidding when he suggests that the government should be bringing in more legislation as opposed to focusing on the legislation we have before us today, which would have a profoundly positive impact on communities from every region of the country. Does the member not recognize that this is a modernization of legislation? How long will it take before the Conservatives understand that we need to pass legislation in order to better assist Canadians in everyday life?

143 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Jun/15/23 1:42:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it would help in passing that legislation if it were actually good legislation, as opposed to this legislation, which would put big corporate interests ahead of individual privacy. Why is the member for Winnipeg North so keen to make banks and big technology have the ability to use our individual data any way they want, even if it causes us harm? This is the legislation that the government put forward. The government is in the pocket of big, multinational companies, to give them access to our data to use it for things that we do not allow it to do. Why do the Liberals think that is good legislation? Maybe they are getting personal donations in their campaigns. I do not know. The issue is that this legislation is horribly flawed and it needs to be split into three pieces so it can be properly studied.

148 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/15/23 1:43:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are dealing with a stunt to delay the agenda. I will take this opportunity to add to the comments I made earlier this morning. When such schemes are used to delay the agenda, it is because the other side dropped the ball, as well. The government poorly managed its schedule and lacked respect for the opposition parties. There is a lack of dialogue. This morning, I asked the Conservatives to please ensure that we can work, and I take this opportunity to ask the same thing of the government. Can we get to work? I am calling for collaboration. Let us be serious. For how long will we have to deal with motions such as these? Of course, it is still an interesting topic. I understand my colleague's argument about dividing up the bill, but that is up to the committee, which is sovereign and can decide what it will do as part of its study. Does my colleague not believe that the Government Leader in the House of Commons should perhaps begin talking more often with Conservative and Bloc leaders so we can start moving forward and perhaps wrap things up at a reasonable time while getting real results for the ordinary people watching us?

212 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Jun/15/23 1:44:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. What the government thinks is manoeuvring is actually democracy in action, trying to prevent bad legislation from being put forward and passed. The member asked a great question about co-operation. The bill was introduced a year ago, and the government had eight months to put it on the floor. It chose not to put it up for second reading debate for about six months. The management of the calendar of the House of Commons is a responsibility, in co-operation and discussion with the opposition, but we cannot put government legislation on the floor. That is the job of the government House leader. The government House leader chose not to put the bill on the floor for discussion, chose never to talk about the bill in the House leaders meeting, and now the Liberals are surprised and shocked that somebody actually wants to have it discussed and split. Only Liberals would say that the last 10 days are when we should pass all the legislation that they could not bother putting on the agenda the rest of the year.

187 words

Agenda

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Jun/15/23 1:45:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his arguments to divide the bill. I particularly dislike Bill C-27 for the artificial intelligence act that is included in it. It essentially would exempt the government from any kind of serious harms and any designated provincial government, while saying to business and innovation that it would hang this threat of a criminal offence over their heads, but not telling them what this means. It is going to push our industry and innovation down to the United States, where there is no legislation. Does he believe this bill needs to have a full vetting, because generative artificial intelligence can be something that we can innovate in Canada? It is powerful. I would not say dangerous, but this kind of bill would push that activity to areas that are not regulated.

139 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Jun/15/23 1:46:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. This is critical legislation. On artificial intelligence, the U.S. and Great Britain are going in different directions than this version. They are allowing the subject matter experts, like their transportation departments that manage the automotive industry, to regulate artificial intelligence, not a grand central agency under the industry department, which is what this is. This bill would drive this important development of money, jobs and industry out of our country.

76 words