We know that the carbon tax is impacting vulnerable Canadians by raising the cost of basic goods like gas, home heating and groceries. The Liberal government has admitted that it's doubling down on their carbon tax plan, including quadrupling the carbon tax on Canadians. The temporary pause the Liberal government has announced for the carbon tax on home heating oil won't help 97% of Canadians. The committee needs to study how proceeding with the government's carbon tax policy adds costs to the lives of the most vulnerable.

This is relevant to this committee specifically, because the mandate of this committee talks about studies that this committee can do and should prioritize. In our mandate, it includes income security and disability issues. The carbon tax affects income security by raising the price of basic necessities. As well, the carbon tax increasing costs impacts the most vulnerable in our society, especially persons with disabilities. We heard a lot of testimony at this committee during the Canada Disability Benefit Act legislation, where persons with disabilities were finding it hard to pay for basic necessities. We even heard of people considering medical assistance in dying, MAID, because they couldn't afford to live. All of that testimony was actually before the most recent carbon tax increase that happened this summer.

I have moved this motion. I hope the committee will support it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

Just for the benefit of witnesses, a member of the committee has moved a motion, which is the prerogative of the committee member. We have to deal with it before we get back to the continuation of the testimony on the study we're doing.

It's my understanding that the motion is in order.

Go ahead, Mr. Coteau and then Mr. Fragiskatos.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Can I say one thing, Mr. Chair? Maybe we can get an indication of how long this debate is going to be. I just don't know if it's going to take a long time.

The witnesses are very busy people. I don't want them to have to be here for 15 minutes to half an hour, and then we don't have the opportunity to finish what we're doing.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Mr. Chair, we should just go to a vote.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

I cannot answer that. That's totally the prerogative of the committee.

The discussion is on the motion that is now before the committee. It is in order.

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead with discussion on the motion.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, just out of respect for our colleague Ms. Chabot, she had stepped out. I think she knows where we're at, but I wonder if you could just make it clear that a motion has been presented.

It's just so that we're on the same page. She was away.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Yes.

Committee members, Mrs. Gray has moved a motion. I will ask the clerk to read the motion as currently on the floor for debate.

5:35 p.m.

The Clerk

The motion is as follows:

The committee immediately undertake a five meeting review on the disproportionate impact the carbon tax has on low income individuals.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

I have just a quick comment, Mr. Chair.

This issue, along with others relating to the carbon tax, has been debated at length in the House of Commons. It will continue to be debated at length in the House at other committees that are the relevant committees. Because of that, I think we should allow those conversations to continue in those relevant forums.

For that reason, our side will not be supporting Mrs. Gray's motion.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Seeing no further—

Ms. Zarrillo, go ahead on the motion.

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I actually appreciate the comments around the mandate of this committee.

We do know that many families are struggling and many people are struggling, and the Canada disability benefit is something we'd all like to see advanced much more quickly.

I want to discuss something. In March of this year I brought forward a motion that I didn't table. I just sent it out to committee. Really, I'm interested in tax credits. What are the tax credits like? How can we increase income for people?

I know that one thing for sure is that seniors and persons with disabilities often don't file their taxes. They don't get their taxes in on time, and then they lose their GIS and they lose some of their income supports and entitlements. I found out over the past two years that there are students coming out of school who don't understand what entitlements they have and what income supports they have.

Although I'm all for trying to understand how we can increase income for people, I'm concerned that this one is narrow in its scope, that it's just looking at the carbon tax. It's too wide of a scope. I would like this committee to sit together. Maybe we can have a discussion about really taking a look at income supports that vulnerable people need, income supports for vulnerable people that they haven't accessed, entitlements that they're allowed and that they deserve but that they haven't been able to access because of different barriers and maybe even because they haven't filed their taxes.

Something I am thinking about is automatic tax filing. It would be a great opportunity to increase income.

Although I like the spirit of it, I think we need to have a wider discussion about how we support vulnerable people in this country.

I'll just leave it there.

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

Madame Chabot, go ahead on the motion.

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand what my colleague from the NDP Ms. Zarrillo is saying. However, Ms. Gray's motion as presented asks that our committee undertake a study on the carbon tax. Our committee connects with low-income people, while other committees make connections in other areas.

I disagree with Ms. Gray's motion. The considerations around the pros and cons of the carbon tax have been widely debated. I don't believe it's relevant for our committee to discuss it.

Thank you.

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

I see no further discussion.

Mr. Clerk, could we have a recorded vote on the motion presently before the committee?

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We will return to the witness testimony.

Ms. Gray, you have four and a half minutes.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That was really unfortunate, considering how much people are hurting, but I'll go into the questions I have for the witnesses here today.

I have the same question for both of the witnesses. I'm wondering if I can get your feedback. The U.S. has just released their AI rules. I'm wondering if you have had an opportunity to go through those. Specifically, do you believe there's a benefit to having Canada potentially harmonize our rules with the AI rules that the U.S. is using and perhaps other countries, like those in the EU, are using? I'm wondering if you can comment on that.

Maybe we'll start with Mr. Frank.

5:40 p.m.

Professor, Department of Informatics and Networked Systems, University of Pittsburgh, As an Individual

Morgan Frank

Sure. Thank you.

It's a good question. I haven't reviewed all of the details of the Biden administration executive order. I know there's a lot of concern there about jobs, about data privacy and about IP and ownership. I think there is a big risk that each county having its own regulations on each of these dimensions would create a real problem so that no country's regulations would end up being effective.

The thing about AI is that it's digital, so it's easy to ship data from one country to anywhere else in the world, to use that in an AI system and to ship the results or even the code base for the AI itself. It's easy to share across borders.

I would expect that it would be much more effective if countries could collaborate to agree on a standardized set of regulations along all the dimensions they think are of concern.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. McKelvey to answer that as well.

November 8th, 2023 / 5:40 p.m.

Prof. Fenwick McKelvey

Yes, I've been able to review it briefly, but not in complete depth. I'd say that it certainly demonstrates the clear gaps that I see in Canada's approach to the artificial intelligence and data act. You see much more fulsome treatment of potential harms and willingness to engage in the sector-specific issues around artificial intelligence. I think it's a document worth studying just to demonstrate the complexity of the challenges facing regulators and legislators...and then in comparison to AIDA.

I would agree with Dr. Frank that there is probably a need for a harmonized approach. Canada is quite active in that to some degree, whether it's participating in a global partnership on AI or in some of its bilateral agreements with France or the United Kingdom. I think there is a debate that Canada is going to have to position itself where it's at least working—and I know there are efforts to talk about treaties with the EU around AI—in parallel with the United States.

The one thing I would say is that with Bill C-27 and Quebec's Law 25, I think there is a big test about GDPR compliance. Really, what should be front and centre when we are talking about our legislative agenda for AI is understanding it in relationship to the movement that's happening in Europe around the AI act, and I think to a lesser degree with the United States, although I commend what that order has been able to accomplish.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Great. Thank you.

You answered part of the next question that I was going to ask.

I'll pose this to Mr. Frank, then.

When we're looking at future trade negotiations, how do you see that this might fit in? Are there any trade issues that we should be aware of now—anti-competitive effects for Canada?

You only have a minute to respond, so what are your thoughts on that?

5:45 p.m.

Professor, Department of Informatics and Networked Systems, University of Pittsburgh, As an Individual

Morgan Frank

Quickly I'll say that there is a concern about a consolidation of power right now: There are just a handful of companies that are able to build these highly powerful AI systems.

On the other hand, in trade negotiations, one thing I'm concerned about is that the data from one population can be used to train software in another country.

Coming up with ways that allow for people to be a connected global society but also protect the interests of a population from misuse by a firm somewhere else with a different set of rules will be an important issue to address moving forward.

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, you have five minutes, please.

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for an excellent and illuminating conversation on an important topic.

Professor Frank, we talk about the impact of AI on workers and the labour force. How will we measure that impact on workers, and how do we need to think about how we're going to measure the impact across various sectors?

5:45 p.m.

Professor, Department of Informatics and Networked Systems, University of Pittsburgh, As an Individual

Morgan Frank

I love this question. I spend a lot of time researching this question.

What you'll find from research on automation is a lot of use of the word “exposure”. Workers are exposed or tasks are exposed to AI. There is not a lot of commitment to what “exposure” means. That is because some workers are freed up by technology to do other things that complement AI, so they become more productive and more valuable with AI. In an extreme case, where many tasks are automated by AI, then you can be completely substituted for, and that would be a negative outcome for the worker.

I think we need to be more specific than just saying that a worker or a task is exposed moving forward. The way to do that is to get data on how skill sets shift in response to the introduction of AI. When a new tool is introduced, in a dream world, we would have data that reflects what every worker is doing all the time.

Of course, there are a lot of privacy concerns with that, but for the sake of conversation, let's just imagine that world. We would have very good information on what changes when a worker is introduced to a new tool. You can even imagine having these little natural experiments, where there's randomization in who does and does not have access to a technology. You could start to get at the causal impact of technology shifts.

That would be the ideal. I think there are some things that are a few steps away from the ideal that would also be very useful.

I'm much more familiar with the labour statistics we get in the U.S. than in Canada. Those of you who read my brief probably picked that up very quickly.

Very important labour dynamics like job separation rates or unemployment are not typically described by industry, firm or job title. Clearly getting at those concepts at the more granular level would be much closer to the consequences in shifts of skill and would allow for more proactive policy interventions—not just from AI but from any labour disruption moving forward.