SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 259 - Nov/30/23

Nov/30/23 10:35:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, it is certainly a concern for folks in my riding as they have watched bank branches close and access to financial services get more difficult for those who care to do it in person. There are still a lot of people in Canada who want to have a direct face-to-face relationship with the people who are in charge of their savings. Postal banking would be a great way to do this. As I said, I am very proud of the credit union movement in Manitoba. I think it has showed that, if smaller financial institutions, such as credit unions, can have brick and mortar branches in our communities, sometimes more than one for the same credit union, it is certainly possible for the larger banks to do it, but it is something that should not fall through the cracks. I think that, through the infrastructure of Canada Post, we have an excellent opportunity to make sure that banking services are available in every community, in addition to whatever the private financial market, through credit unions, banks or others, would provide.

190 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Nov/30/23 10:35:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the NDP's support on our motion. Will the NDP join us in delivering more than just words and, in fact, deliver action in voting non-confidence if the government allow this merger?

37 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Nov/30/23 10:35:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the important issues at play in changes to the Competition Act, for example, if we look at the private member's bill of the NDP leader, the member for Burnaby South, is the question of killer acquisitions, which is when companies buy up smaller competitors before they get the market share to become competitors to the bigger players in the industry. We have a bank that is quite small compared to the big five, but it has shown that it is willing to price its products competitively, and Canadians can benefit from that if they so choose. They are going to have a better opportunity to benefit from that after new rules come in not requiring them to take a stress test when they transfer their mortgage. That will not help very much if the smaller player that is offering better rates disappears between now and when those measures come into effect. Absolutely, corporations, in the name of gathering up market shares and making bigger profits, do try to acquire and shut down smaller competitors that are undermining what otherwise is a pretty comfortable pricing environment for those bigger players. It is something that is not in the interests of Canadians. It is in the interests of those larger companies, which already have dominance within their market, and it is something that, as legislators for the public interest, we should be concerned about stopping, not encouraging.

240 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/30/23 11:18:53 a.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Nov/30/23 11:19:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the app did not provide any photo for the member for Drummond. Would you check into that please?

20 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/30/23 11:19:22 a.m.
Watch

The issue was resolved on the screen at the last minute. I thank the hon. member for raising this matter.

20 words

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

Nov/30/23 11:20:40 a.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 two pieces of legislation: (a) Bill C-27A, an Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, and an Act to enact the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, containing Part 1, Part 2, and the schedule, to section 2; and (b) Bill C-27B, an Act to enact the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, containing Part 3. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that we are not talking about housing, and about RBC and HSBC, in the House today. After eight years, this country is in the worst housing crisis we have ever had. We just have to talk to any constituent to see exactly what is happening. Before I get into that, I want to mention that I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill. When we talk about housing, it is absolute ludicrous that there are families right now that cannot afford the mortgage they do have, if they are so lucky to have a home, and also that those who are renting are finding that rents have doubled. We are hearing, across all of our communities, that homelessness has doubled. I met with the police chief and the mayor from my city last week, and we talked about detox centres. It is not only a housing crisis that has put people on the street; it is also a major drug, mental health and addictions crisis that is putting people into precarious situations. Oftentimes things are out of control and they cannot handle it. We had 66 overdoses in one week in Belleville, Ontario. It is just out of hand. Housing should be announced as a crisis in this country. At the end of the day, after four years of talking, and after eight years, housing is in such dire straits. Of course, we look to competition to be the answer for that. Every single government has brought that forward and talked about competition. However, it has really been just drip, drip, drip. There has been one little policy or one little change, but no major competition. For the most part, it would bring in consumer-led banking, which would mean that many companies, fintech companies, could provide different options for consumers. The second part of that would be to ensure that we really look at stopping major bad deals that have happened under the existing Competition Act. The speed of competition is really bad right now. There are major oligopolies in the banking sector. Six companies have 93% of all of the banking and 87% of all of the mortgages in Canada. The HSBC rates right now are 81 basis points lower than the RBC rates. This morning, HSBC is at 6.14% for a five-year variable mortgage rate, versus RBC at 6.95%. We can see what that means for competition. The Competition Bureau is really a policing agency that is not supposed to prosecute but is supposed to look at competition in terms of a law enforcement society. We have all watched Law and Order. I don't remember their names, but the two detectives are supposed to bring the culprits in, and then, of course, there is the judicial system to tackle that. The speed for competition law is about 100 kilometres an hour, when competition in housing should be a school zone; the speed should be 15 to 20 kilometres an hour so we look at slowing things down, blocking mergers such as HSBC's being bought by RBC, which would become the biggest bank in Canada by buying the seventh-biggest bank. My bill, the consumer-led banking bill, if it were to push the government to bring legislation to the House, would ensure that we change one thing in the Banking Act: to ensure that people's personal data, which should be theirs, could be shared, with their consent, with other banking institutions. Doing so would create real, meaningful competition in the banking sector. That is exactly what we are looking at with Bill C-27. Bill C-27 is about protecting data. It is looking at personal data for Canadians. I have spoken extensively about that in the House, about how our children's data is not protected right now. All of our children, at one point, have an iPad or an Amazon firestick, or they are on personal phones. Right now, data protection is so bad in Canada that all of that data can be scraped, and it is owned by companies, not by the children. It is sold to other companies. Of course, we have not talked about the Privacy Act in Canada's not having been updated since 1987, way before the iPod. It was way before the time when we had technology and the Internet, as explosive as it is, which puts our children's data at risk. However, the government, in its speed, in not adhering to speed signs, has sometimes been talking and making announcements as quickly as it can, and certainly not bringing action forward as quickly as it can. It has taken a year for the government to put Bill C-27, after its introduction in the House, into committee where it is now. The biggest problem with the legislation and the out-of-control speed of the government on announcements and on talking, not speed of action, was that the Liberals combined an AI bill with Bill C-27. The minister at the time said that this was because it was what the Liberals needed to do and that we would be the first jurisdiction across the world to do it. However, they were so speedy in announcing that they were doing it instead of doing it. They did not even do public consultation. We had no chance for public consultation when the AIDA was thrown into the act as the third section of Bill C-27. So far, we have had about nine or 10 committee meetings about Bill C-27. Every witness so far has basically said that the AIDA, the third section of the act, is terrible and it is weak. The bill would not do the things we need to do, because we did not have public consultation and did not look really prudently at legislation that should have had public consultation and public input that would have listened to the industry. AI in Canada is pretty scary because it is evolving quicker than we can look at it. It is not scary enough to say that we need to put in placeholder legislation and do something that is above that and different. No, it is scary enough that we have to do it right, which means that we slow it down. Just through testimony so far and because of the importance of the issue and how bad AIDA is, combined with the bill, we see that it will delay the better part of the bill, the first two parts of Bill C-27. The first two parts deal with updating privacy and the digital charter, but also with the tribunal. The tribunal, which is still up for discussion, is taking from the Competition Act a process by which, if a privacy commissioner made a ruling or recommendation against an individual or against a corporation, at the end of the day, that tribunal would allow the option for an individual to have a second reading. The problem is that the tribunal in the Competition Act is not all that great either, which we saw with the Rogers and Shaw merger. The Competition Tribunal was utilized to review a merger of Rogers and Shaw, which was rejected by the Competition Bureau. The make-up of the Competition Tribunal is supposed to be three experts in privacy law, only three, so there is a lot of debate on that. The first two parts of the bill are so complex. The third part throws the whole bill into a spin. The recommendation we are making is one we have made before. However, after hearing testimony in committee, we have recommended to separate the third part of the bill, which really needs to be scrapped because it is so weak. The recommendation about the bill would be to make it a separate vote. Probably the biggest argument for this is that it could save the first two parts of the bill, because we do need to update privacy legislation. With respect to the most important part, which is owning one's data, I am going to go back to why that is so important with competition in banking. Right now, the only way to get people's credit-card and banking-statement data, which is theirs, is a method called “screen scraping”, which means that people give their safe word to another institution so they can go into their bank account and see their information. This is wrong. The U.K. and Australia have outlawed that because it is absolutely wrong, but it is a practice we allow in Canada. Consumer-led banking would ensure that people own their data, and, on their consent, they move that data to new competitors. New competitors could then bank them and provide better service, lower cost and more competition in Canada. We have to separate the third part of the bill. AI is extremely scary. It is extremely important. I know that the next speaker is going to speak very profoundly on that. She is an expert on it.

1656 words

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

Nov/30/23 11:30:19 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, members who were listening to my colleague across the way's comments would hear possibly a bit of hypocrisy. When we think about it, the last time we had six major grocery giants in Canada, one of them, Shoppers Drug Mart, was consumed under Stephen Harper. Shoppers was providing competition to the big five, and Loblaws ultimately bought it out. I wonder whether my colleague across the way would agree that maybe Stephen Harper messed up in terms of competition on groceries by allowing Shoppers to be consumed by Loblaws. Does the member have an opinion on that aspect of the competition when he references competition here in Canada?

111 words

Mr. Ryan Williams

Nov/30/23 11:36:16 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work and for contributing to the debate. Bill C-27 has a lot of different aspects, but here are the worst parts of them. There is a provision called “legitimate interests”, which allows businesses to collect data, but there is no real definition as to what they can use that data for. It is so obscure that, right now, without a clear definition, we are not going to be able to get it through. There is no instance in the purpose clause or in the bill of privacy being a fundamental right, and that is something Conservatives have been fighting for. We are the only party, really, fighting to have that in. When it comes to AIDA, the third part we are trying to split off, when I asked witnesses at committee about three weeks ago to rate it from one to 10, one being bad and 10 being the best, six out of seven rated it a one out of 10. That piece, without public consultation, which did not happen, needs to go. It needs to be split off, and that is why we are asking for the motion.

201 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Nov/30/23 11:36:16 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad we are debating the motion today, because today is the one-year anniversary of the release of a generational, society-changing technology, and that, of course, is ChatGPT. I think I was the first legislator in the world to stand up in a parliament and say “Hey guys, have a look at this.” Since that time, over 80% of Fortune 500 companies are now integrating ChatGPT technology. Legislators around the world are trying to deal with the vast societal implications of the release of the technology. Also, the world is trying to grapple with the fact that the technology was released into the world without any sort of comprehensive regulations around the development of large language models and the large-scale deployment of this type of technology, and then without a lot of thought to use. The other thing is that, in the last year, we have had to build, internationally, parliamentary capacity for legislators both to understand the technical aspects of how artificial intelligence has the capacity to impact our society and to try to look at how our regulatory systems can meet the challenge. Our systems are notoriously non-nimble and slow, and this is why there should be no partisan divide on the fact that the motion should pass. The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act should be hived off. Without offence to the government, the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act was developed about a year or a year and a half prior to the deployment of ChatGPT. It is like developing regulations for scribes, putting them forward and debating regulations for scribes, after the printing press was deployed around the world. That is really the transformational change we are dealing with. Taking a partisan hat off, civil society, academia and industry all need to be consulted, and we need to go back to the drawing board on a lot of places in the bill. As my colleague for Bay of Quinte talked about, this is something that the Standing Committee on Industry has heard over and over again from every witness it has had. However, it is also important to split the bill to give the government an opportunity to better coordinate with other jurisdictions around the world that are trading partners with Canada, are already well ahead of us and are close to passing their own artificial intelligence regulations. For example, the European Union is already well down the path, as is the United States. Frankly, we also need to include the global south in the conversation. We need to be working with the global south, as it impacts the global south. I am pleased to announce that the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union successfully passed a motion at the IPU's last assembly in Rwanda a few week ago, and that Canada will be a co-rapporteur on the Standing Committee on Human Rights to develop a motion specifically to do this, to build capacity for parliamentarians around the world to learn about the impacts of artificial intelligence, to take that back to their respective political parties and legislatures and to ensure that all voices are being heard. This is one of the reasons we have to pass the motion before us today. I want to echo what my colleague for Bay of Quinte said. I think there is one testimony that sums up why AIDA has to be hived off so the privacy components of Bill C-27 can proceed. I will read from Barry Sookman, senior counsel at McCarthy Tétrault, who argued that AIDA fails to adequately shield the public from potential risks associated with high-impact AI systems. He also said that the centralized power that was envisioned in this pre-ChatGPT legislation undermines the structure of parliamentary sovereignty, adding that “AIDA sets a dangerous precedent”. These are Canadian legal experts who have made the argument that the implications of implementing under-considered legislation on an issue as impactful as artificial intelligence is extremely risky. Any flaw in AI regulation could affect millions of people, exposing companies to class action lawsuits of historic proportions. It could also expose the public, our constituents, to risks, because we have not thought this through. This issue is so huge. It has the capacity for so much societal transformation that the bill must be hived off. Members from all political parties need to be engaged in robust, fulsome debate with all aspects of Canadian society. They need to think about this in three silos. The first is the way that artificial intelligence is developed. It has come to light over the last year that ChatGPT was developed using extremely low-paid labour in the global south. These low-paid labourers were exposed to violent child pornography imagery to help train the large language model. There are no global regulations or standards around this. That needs to change. The other thing there is really no global standards for, certainly not in Canada, is the protection of intellectual property when it comes to training large language model systems. This is highly problematic. We are already seeing precedent-setting legal cases coming forward in other jurisdictions, which could have extreme impacts on Canadian businesses, the ownership of IP and also how we promulgate and respect our trade agreements with other partners. A lot of our trade agreements did not consider artificial intelligence. The second is the development of artificial intelligence. The fact that ChatGPT was released on the public, where a hundred million users are using this on such a regular basis without thought to what that means, is like releasing a pharmaceutical onto the public with no clinical trials, with no data. As a country, we need to think about how we research these products, how we allow research and innovation, but also we need to ensure that the societal impacts are thought about in an ethical framework prior to deployment. The last thing is that I want to encourage colleagues to join the parliamentary caucus on emerging technology. I have colleagues who are sitting here today who I know have such a heart for these issues. This debate has been in a non-partisan manner. It has been collaborative and it has been great. Just briefly, there is the impact of AI on democracy with deepfakes, with the spread of information, and on labour and the disruption of labour. Will we see AI replacement workers? Is that being considered in any legislation? These things need to be considered in an AI regulatory framework: cross-jurisdictional issues, the issues of human rights, the issues of autonomous weapons. I could go on and on, because the bill needs a separate vote. Probably, the government needs an opportunity to go back to the drawing board to internalize the situation. This needs to happen now, though. I think that this is a no-brainer. I think there is a lot of consensus in the House of Commons for that. I would like to see agreement in the House on this matter and it be put to a vote. With that, I move: That the debate be now adjourned.

1201 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Nov/30/23 11:36:16 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-27

Mr. Speaker, I want to refocus the discussion back on the matter at hand, which is splitting Bill C-27. I would like the member to comment on the inadequacy of the bill, the weakness that he has found in it and why it is so important that we get it split into proper components such we can debate them and have them voted on separately.

66 words

Mr. Ryan Williams

Nov/30/23 11:36:16 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the member talk positively about consumer-led banking, but I am extremely disappointed that, after speaking this morning, he voted with the government, as he often does, to shut down debate on the RBC and HSBC merger, which is going to hurt Canadians. RBC is trying to buy 800,000 mortgage holders, which is a great thing for RBC, because it would just take them out of the market and move them into its bank. However, the reality is that 10% of Vancouver mortgage holders and 5% of Toronto's mortgage holders, in the hottest and third-hottest housing markets in all of the world, are going to be gobbled up by RBC. There is an 85-basis-point difference in mortgage rates today between the two competitors. We are going to have more people who need help in Vancouver and Toronto. They will be falling behind and paying more. By the way, it is about $400 a month more on a $500,000 mortgage, which is low for a mortgage. We should have been allowed to debate this today. There should have been a vote to shut the merger down. I am disappointed in the member because he shut debate down.

209 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/30/23 11:36:16 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bay of Quinte for raising again today the issue of open banking. I think it is really important that Canadians own their own data. We see a problem in the financial sector where financial institutions put up barriers to Canadians' being able to share their own information about their own financial situation with other financial institutions in order to be able to compare apples to apples when it comes to shopping around for a better price. Of course, we see other instances, often in the medical system, for example, where patients are told that they do not own their information, and that if they want to transfer information from one health service provider to another, the information is proprietary to the offerer of the service. It can be quite costly, difficult and onerous to be able to procure one's own information and transfer it to another health care institution. I wonder whether the member would like to speak more generally to the kind of principles around consumers of various types of services being able to own their information and to make it easily portable for them so they can engage in the activity of trying to find the best service. This could be service either at the best price or even in the context of systems where they are not having to pay for those services but still want to be able to get better service by shopping around.

247 words

Mr. Ryan Williams

Nov/30/23 11:36:16 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about hypocrisy. The government has voted to shut down debate on competition in the banking sector in Canada today, and there is a housing crisis that is the largest and the worst in the whole world. Then again, the member likes to talk about Stephen Harper. The member must be so proud today that he was mentioned in The Globe and Mail editorial that talked about his party's obsession with Stephen Harper. Over here, we have our glasses of water, and every time Harper is mentioned, we drink. There is always lots of water to drink, because the member likes to blame everything on Stephen Harper. However, the reality is that there have been 12 mergers in competition, in banking and in telecom approved under the government's watch over the last eight years. This includes propane company mergers, Sobeys and IGA, and Sobeys and Farm Boy. The government, over the last eight years, has approved so many mergers. That is hypocrisy.

168 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/30/23 11:46:26 a.m.
Watch

The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

51 words