Industry Committee on Feb. 14th, 2024

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

That sounds good. Thank you.

Mr. Balsillie, I'm going to start with you.

Just as a broad topic of discussion, if AIDA didn't exist, if it didn't pass, if we didn't have this come through Parliament, what would that mean for Canada and the industry?

[Jim Balsillie]

No legislation is better than bad legislation; however, you do need to regulate this realm, and I think it needs to be done expeditiously but thoughtfully.

We will be harmed if we don't regulate this properly—privacy and algorithms together—but they need to be done so that they're effective and not just an exercise in theatre.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

In terms of what that regulation will mean, there was a first generation of AIDA. It did protect from high-impact AI. There were obviously different flaws with putting that power into the minister's office instead of having an independent commissioner.

Are there amendments that you could live with if we needed to have any regulation on AIDA as it stands?

[Jim Balsillie]

Sure, you could do a comprehensive set of amendments to make it proper, but you will always deal with the democratic integrity issue, and the first nations have said that they're going to litigate on Bill C-27 and AIDA. You're always going to have an integrity issue. You could do sufficient amendments to make it appropriate, from my point of view, but how do you have legitimacy from the stakeholders?

On the earlier comment, overwhelmingly the consultations were with industry after it was presented. It's a very dangerous move, and I don't see the math in it.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

To your point, we haven't had a lot of the businesses here in front of committee yet. We haven't heard from the industry as a whole, except for the big players. We've had Google, Meta and Amazon Web Services here.

With consultation, from what you've heard from members in your circle and groups, whom should we have in front of the committee to talk about the impact AI and the legislation will have on them?

[Jim Balsillie]

I think you need to have civil society properly represented.

You need to have those who reflect the domestic economy and not the foreign economy. Domestic companies that trade globally and will drive up our GDP per capita need to be weighted here, not those that drive up foreign countries' GDP per capita. Otherwise, you're just going to make foreign countries richer, and Canadians' security and social fabric weaker.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Canada seems to have missed the boat on AI. A lot of our IP has gone. I know you were part of another study that talked about IP commercialization. We've lost a lot of that. Your phrase is always that we should have planted a tree three years ago. If we plant one now, we may be able to hold on to that.

When it comes to AI and keeping IP in Canada, we think perhaps it's gone its way. What can we do with legislation that looks at building that back up over many years?

[Jim Balsillie]

I think there are many things that can be done.

First of all, if you look at the policy for Mila, in Quebec, for its AI institute, it says, “we do not write patents for anything we do, and we publish our research.”

You have to start saying these are critical assets that we need to appropriate for the benefit of Canada, because we have to get it through our heads that nobody's going to look after Canada but Canadians—economically, on security and socially. Our orientation for this intangibles world is not to corral those for our benefit. Nobody else follows our playbook. That's why our productivity and prosperity are eroding. It's a direct consequence of inattention to where the money is.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

The EU seems to have something in place. It seems the EU leads legislation when it comes to privacy. We talk about the GDPR as the gold standard.

Should we be looking at any parts of the EU's projected legislation to say, “We need that in Canada,” or should we be doing our own?

[Jim Balsillie]

Sure. The EU had comprehensive consultations on its Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act and the recent AI Act. I would encourage this committee to consider what the EU has done, both on the sovereign cloud, in Gaia-X, and on its high-performance computing environment, because Canada has some standing with the horizons project in that we could back into it. We could be part of a federated high-performance computing.

Again, you need to approach these things to say, “How can we leverage what we get, and get the benefit out of it?”, rather than inventing something and giving it away, or trying to spend on these investments that don't work out. I see it as mismanagement of the opportunities that we have or that we've built along the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you...

[Jim Balsillie]

You have to look at all of these things. Europe's doing all of these things. It has a very federated partnership approach. Canada has lots of linkages there, but we don't seem to be exploiting them.

We're neither fish nor fowl, which puts us in a very dangerous spot. If we double down on that approach—evidence the efforts to build a whole new supercomputer in one of the superclusters—I think it's very misguided, very premature and very dangerous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Balsillie.

We'll go back to Mr. Masse for two and a half minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We haven't heard the word “supercluster” around here very often lately. There's a study, as my colleague Mr. Williams says. We'll leave that be.

I want to ask Ms. Tessono a question.

At a couple of conferences in the United States this past summer for Canada-U.S. stuff, there were a couple of corporations that are doing data input for artificial intelligence right now. They admitted they have racial and other biases from their inputs, because they don't have the right people building the AI properly so that it's balanced, so it's also producing results that are not balanced.

I wonder if you have any commentary about that in Canada. These were some of the companies that were here the other week that presented at a couple of conferences in the U.S.

Do you have any thoughts on that? Our AI development right now is a bit behind with regard to equity and balance.

[Christelle Tessono]

I cannot speak to specific examples, but I will say that representation is certainly a problem across the AI life cycle—in the data collection, in the data creation, and all the way to how models are tested, on which groups they are tested and how they are deployed.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Balsillie, you made a distinction, which I do want to hear again in terms of a bit more development, regarding the individual right to object versus what's in the bill. I think that's one thing we're hearing quite a bit from groups and organizations. Can you highlight that struggle a little bit more?

[Jim Balsillie]

Yes. This idea that you have the right to see what they're doing, and contest it, is not there.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Right now collective action is not always what people want to do, or companies as well.

[Jim Balsillie]

The companies certainly don't want transparency. Why would they? They want it voluntary and opaque. How do you know what the problem is, and how do you contest it, even if you somehow find out—which you really can't, because they have no duty to notify?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Sorbara, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, everyone.

These are the last five minutes I'll be able to comment with regard to Bill C-27. Obviously, a lot of work has gone into this bill. I just want to say congratulations to everyone involved and to thank all the witnesses who have come. It is well needed. Artificial intelligence is impacting and will impact every single person in Canada and across the world, in their lives and their livelihoods, in everything we do, from using Google Maps to the health care sector and any other aspect of our daily lives.

I would say it is good, to use a very simple term, that our government is working with and consulting with and listening to a number of stakeholders, who came forth in the dozens to be heard on Bill C-27. Obviously, not everyone will agree on legislation. That is part of our democracy. That is an individual's right. I get that, having been in Parliament for a number of years. Not everyone agrees, but we must work, we must take action and we must legislate, because that's what we are—legislators.

Since joining this committee several months ago and coming on board and looking at the privacy aspects of the bill, which I think are parts 1 and 2, and then part 3 is AIDA, I know there is a lot of stuff in here. We know that other jurisdictions are moving, with Europe and the U.K. and the United States and us. I do agree on one aspect, that a voluntary code is good, but we need legislation. I think that's a part of capitalism. Voluntary codes for business are voluntary, but you need teeth. That's why you need to legislate.

I want to start off there and turn to the individual who works at the Mayo Clinic, because I believe one of the powerful tools of AI will be in the health care sector. As we move toward more specialized medicine and specialized screening and specialized diagnoses, AI will continue to play a greater role.

Mr. Malik, could you comment on AI's role within the health care sector from your point of view, please?

[Dr. Momin M. Malik]

Yes. Just to be clear, I am here as an individual and not on behalf of Mayo, although that is where I work.

My own view of this, from being on the inside, is that there is a lot more claim-making and hopes than tangible and concrete results. Sometimes, whatever ends up working is much more following the steps of biostatistical rigour, which have been known or worked out over the past 50, 60 or 70 years, to get to an effective intervention that improves things in some ways. A ton of things that people are proposing may or may not fit what the actual health care needs are.

I would say that more biostatistics, and thinking of that as what ought to transform health care rather than labelling it as AI, is maybe a more helpful frame. There are works about this. I'd have to look them up. For example, a paper found that a lot of the AI tools for COVID were totally useless in the end. I think that's the case in a lot of studies that go back and look at it: Here's the AI that has been claimed to do something, and here's what actually happened. There is also a report from Data & Society talking about a successful implementation that was as much about the qualitative aspect and stakeholder engagement as it was about the actual model.

I would say that is where I am working and that is what I am working towards, but I would offer a lot of caution within that rhetoric.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I just want to say thank you to the chair for being such a great chair. I will end it there.

How's that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's a good segue for me to say thank you to our witnesses.

This concludes our portion on Bill C-27, where we have heard from a lot of witnesses. That's going to instruct us as we go through clause-by-clause in April.

Colleagues, before we suspend, I want to let you know—and also for the people watching at home who might be tempted to submit to us a brief on Bill C-27—that we would like to receive that by March 1.

Colleagues, we need amendments, if possible, by March 14, so we have the time to study the amendments proposed and have discussions. If you can do it earlier, that would also be ideal.

I would also like to thank our analyst, Ms. Savoie, who is attending her last meeting with us today.

Thank you, Ms. Savoie.

Thank you, colleagues.

I want to thank the witnesses again.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting back to order.

We'll now to turn to the second portion of today's meeting. Pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 26, 2023, and the motion adopted on Monday, February 5, 2024, the committee is starting its study on the accessibility and affordability of wireless and broadband services in Canada.

I would like to welcome the witnesses to the first meeting of this study.

We're meeting with Pierre Karl Péladeau, president and chief executive officer of Quebecor. He is joined by Peggy Tabet, vice‑president of regulatory affairs.

We're also meeting with Jean‑François Lescadres, vice‑president of finance at Videotron.

Thank you for joining us.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Péladeau. You have five minutes.