Industry Committee on April 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Masse, and then to Ms. O'Connell.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Is there a document you have that tells us what the drafting convention is?

[Mark Schaan]

I am not in possession of that document, as I am not a drafter. I believe there are likely drafting conventions utilized by the Department of Justice, but I know they also evolve over time, and there's drafting...which is why they're conventions. I'm not at liberty to share a document.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I appreciate that, but we're continually hearing reference to a drafting convention like we're supposed to understand it, like it's a set of hockey rules that we would understand. I'm not aware that any drafting convention has ever been presented to me.

A lot of this bill is about trust, to be quite frank. If the general public wants to see the bill, it's right here. It's much smaller than the amendments in front of me to fix the bill, and we're supposed to follow drafting conventions that could have subsequent consequences for all of these amendments. However, we don't even know what the drafting conventions are.

Okay. I have no questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have to wonder whether that display from the Conservatives just now was a filibuster of this legislation.

I heard the earlier debate on the motion about giving attention to the private sector, and to sit here and listen for more than 15 minutes to a debate regarding—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'm sorry we're wasting your time.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Excuse me. I have the floor.

We're listening to a debate on whether to title something “Schedule 1”—not the details of the schedule but simply titling it “Schedule 1” versus “Schedule”—in a bill of significance dealing with the importance of AI and with privacy for Canadians. The Conservatives filibustering for this amount of time to debate whether or not to label something “Schedule 1” versus “Schedule” shows Canadians just how unserious they are in dealing with Canadians' privacy in this day and age of AI.

I strongly hope that if there's debate on the legislation and amendments, it's genuine and legitimate debate that will make the legislation better, not some sad display about “Schedule 1” versus “Schedule”, so that Canadians can have confidence that the parliamentarians sent here are actually doing work to benefit them, because that was, frankly, embarrassing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

For MPs around the table, in this committee we try to show some respect to other members, so when one member has the floor, I expect others to wait their turn to speak. I do it all the time myself.

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Perhaps I'll help the last member who spoke understand—who hasn't participated in the 21 meetings we've had so far on this bill—why this came up.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Please don't mansplain to me.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mansplain?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

She's an expert on Bill C-27.

Let me start by saying that I think, Mr. Schaan, they are linked. They're linked in the idea that one requires the other, in that one is one and two is two. This is important, just so you understand that, because of what schedule 2 says.

Perhaps I can enlighten the Liberal members who aren't aware of what schedule 2 says. Schedule 2 allows the government to moderate content Canadians can see online, and that's why these two are linked.

Let me quote directly from the amendment to schedule 2:

The use of an artificial intelligence system in

(a) moderating content that is found on an online communications platform, including a search engine or social media service; or

(b) prioritizing the presentation of such content.

To be clear, the government has given itself the ability, through this provision, which is linked to schedule 1 in the numbering, to regulate the design, function, presentation and use of AI systems on social media platforms as it relates to what content the government wants prioritized and moderated on social media platforms.

The minister's submission to the committee outlined that the purpose of the provision seeks to tackle the bias in AI. All AI, by the way, have biases. The powers provided to ISED in the regulation will allow it to go much beyond simply addressing the issue in AI systems. ISED has already confirmed this.

In speaking at the business leaders breakfast, hosted by McCarthy Tétrault advisers at the TD Bank tower in Toronto on November 7, 2023, Simon Kennedy, the deputy minister of ISED, told industry groups that the purpose of this provision in the minister's amendments to Bill C-27 seeks to tackle online misinformation. This could be accomplished through the minister's amendments to the AIDA, which are still very vague, and provide ISED with an incredible amount of power, including the legal authority to moderate online content to Canadians, as argued at this committee by Barry Sookman. Importantly, the provisions of the AIDA with regard to content moderation, as they relate to high-impact AI systems, have very few safeguards and are incredibly vague.

As Barry Sookman highlighted in his written submission to the committee, the provisions outlined in Bill C-27 will extend to “AI systems that filter, rank, or recommend content on platforms such as social media, search engines, or any digital service that curates or moderates”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, I'll just interrupt for one second.

I have 20 pages of amendments here. You're talking about the substance of schedule 2. We will be voting on schedule 2 at page 20 of this package.

If you can, just stick to G-1, which we're debating. Try to focus on the amendment before us. Then, when we get there, you'll have plenty of opportunity to talk about the amendment. We will get there at some point, but now we're on G-1.

I'll just ask members, in general, to try keep their comments to the amendment before us.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

The relevance is very clear. The relevance is that officials have agreed that schedule 1 should be called schedule 1 because there is a schedule 2 being presented in the bill, for convention of drafting instructions. That brings relevance to this question in this committee hearing.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order.

Mr. Perkins is putting words in the officials' mouths. They didn't say what he just said they said. Is he allowed to just say anything? We were just witnesses to what the officials said about schedule 1 being separate and being a drafting convention. Mr. Perkins is somehow suggesting that they've agreed to something they didn't state.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. I don't think that's necessarily a point of order.

I'll let Mr. Perkins continue.

If you can make sure that what you're saying—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It's a drafting convention because of schedule 2. That introduces schedule 2 as relevant to this particular amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'll let the officials answer, Mr. Perkins, but the substance of schedule 2 will be voted on when we get there. We're very far from that at this point.

Mr. Schaan, I don't know if you want to respond to Mr. Perkins.

[Mark Schaan]

I would just note again that schedule 1 and schedule 2 are numbered as such, but schedule 1 lives and breathes on its own and would still be, in drafting convention, referred to as schedule 1, as I understand it, notwithstanding that we will have a discussion about schedule 2, as you note, when we get to it.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Schedule 2 is introduced here because you're renumbering schedule 1. That was already part of the presentation. Otherwise, you wouldn't have called it schedule 2. You would have called it schedule 1.

[Mark Schaan]

We're calling it schedule 1 at the recommendation of the Department of Justice. There is a schedule 2 that will appear in the AIDA. As I understand it, we will discuss schedule 2 when we get to schedule 2.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That's the relevance, Mr. Chair. It's the fact that schedule 1 was being introduced as an amendment by the government because it's introducing another amendment, calling it schedule 2. Therefore, they have to number them for the clarity of this bill.

When you bring schedule 1 into it, that brings schedule 2, per the drafting convention rationale, into the discussion and allows us to discuss schedule 2 as part of where we are in these clause-by-clause hearings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, try to keep it relevant to G-1, which has been explained at length.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Well, the relevance to G-1 is that schedule 2 provides this extraordinary power in the scheduling, and without that—