Michelle Rempel

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2023]

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.

[Canada Labour Code, November 27th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I was alarmed to hear that the government was spending billions of dollars on a plant in Ontario that would use over 900 workers from South Korea. These would essentially be replacement workers. This is after telling Canadians time and time again how many jobs this would create.

If the government is so supportive of labour in Canada, why is it essentially farming out jobs that should be going to Canadians and sticking Canadian taxpayers with the bill?

[Canada Labour Code, November 27th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, for a really long period of time, the screen actors guild's labour dispute with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers impacted the Canadian film industry in a major way. One of the major sticking points in negotiations was the use of artificial intelligence to act as replacement workers for many people in that situation.

Could the member comment on how the federal Liberal government's inability to articulate a strategic vision for artificial intelligence writ large in Canada, particularly with respect to the impact on labour in the future, could make this legislation moot?

[Foreign Affairs, November 24th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Hamas brutally raped, murdered and kidnapped Israeli women and desecrated their bodies, and has used Palestinian women as human shields, yet many international women's rights groups, like UN Women, are silent. Shame on them. These groups' refusals to denounce Hamas's violence against women is normalizing anti-Semitic violence around the world. It has to stop.

Will the government join me today in harshly denouncing UN Women's silence and publicly demand, on the eve of tomorrow's day, that it end it?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 20th, 2023]

With regard to any spending by any department, agency, or other government entity for receptions, trade shows, fairs or festivals held outside of Canada since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many receptions, trade shows, fairs or festivals held overseas has the government funded; (b) what are the names and dates of all international festivals, international fairs or trade shows held overseas that the government has spent money on; (c) what are the details of each event in (b), including, for each, the (i) total spendings by the federal government on the event, (ii) rationale for the funding, (iii) breakdown of what the funds were spent on; and (d) what was the total funding for festivals, international fairs or trade shows held overseas by the government since 2016, broken down by year?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 20th, 2023]

With regard to the use of facial recognition software by the government since November 4, 2015: (a) which departments, agencies, Crown corporations, or other government entities use facial recognition software, and, for each one that uses the software, what is the (i) stated purpose, (ii) scope of use; (b) what ethical implications and concerns has the government sought to mitigate in its use of facial recognition within any government department or agency; (c) how has the government sought to mitigate each of the implications and concerns in (b); and (d) what measures has the government put in place to address algorithmic issues and racial profiling in its use of facial recognition software?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 20th, 2023]

With regard to the government’s consultations on a generative artificial intelligence code of conduct since August 1, 2023: (a) how many consultations has the government held on this proposal; (b) how many stakeholders has the government consulted with on this proposal; (c) what are the details of the consultations, including, for each, the (i) names of the organizations consulted, (ii) date, (iii) outcome, recommendation or feedback; (d) what is the total cost of all consultations which have occurred to date; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by date and line item; (f) have any outside consultants or service providers been involved in the development of this policy and any related consultations, and, if so, what are the details of each consultant or service provider's involvement, including the (i) name of the individual or firm, (ii) contract value, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) description of the goods or services provided; (g) what are all specific concerns that have been raised to date in the consultations; (h) how many government employees or full-time equivalents have worked on the consultations; (i) what are the travel costs associated with the consultations incurred to date (i) in total, (ii) broken down by year and type of expense; and (j) what is the current status of this policy proposal?

[Carbon Pricing, November 3rd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the member for Edmonton Centre got that particular memo, because earlier this week, the member, whose constituents overwhelmingly use natural gas to heat their homes, suggested that his constituents, in fact all Canadians, should switch out their cleaner gas furnaces for expensive, dirty heating oil systems. I say, "wow".

I have a better idea. Will the member for Edmonton Centre get with the climate plan and vote in favour of our common-sense motion to axe the tax on all forms of home heating and provide the same tax relief that his party is giving to other parts of Canada?

[Carbon Pricing, November 3rd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member for Calgary Skyview should be fighting to get the same tax relief for home heating for Calgarians that his party divisively gave to other parts of the country. After eight years of the Liberal government, his constituents, who are next door to mine, are struggling to buy food and afford mortgage payments. On Monday, he has a choice to make.

Will he check the mail, stand up for the people of Calgary and vote in favour of our common-sense Conservative motion to axe the tax on all forms of home heating?

[Carbon Tax, November 3rd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, on the Liberal tax on home heating, inexplicably the member for Edmonton Centre suggested that his constituents should switch out their natural gas furnaces for expensive, higher-emitting heating oil systems.

The member for Calgary Skyview has done precious little to get Calgarians the same tax relief for home heating that his party has given to other parts of the country.

In debate here, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River defended the Liberal tax on home heating, even as people in his community are struggling to afford food and housing under eight years of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

These Liberals need to get their act together.

On Monday, the Liberals have the opportunity to admit the Liberal carbon tax is not worth the cost and vote in favour of our common-sense Conservative motion to axe the tax on all forms of home heating. Winter is coming, and Canadians in all parts of the country are watching. The Liberals should do the right thing, stand up for their constituents and vote in favour of this motion.