Evidence of meeting #116 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I can filibuster if you want.
The member on the opposite side likes to heckle in committee, which isn't the way it operates.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I agree with Mr. Perkins on this. I would appreciate no heckling at this committee. That is not how we do things.
Mr. Garon, you have a point of order.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I just want to share a regret, Mr. Chair.
Given our efficiency, I think that a motion on productivity would have been in order.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you for your witty remarks, which brighten up this tiresome meeting.
Mr. Perkins, you have the floor.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you.
Is there another country in the world, besides China, that has put a provision into its legislation that gives the government the power to moderate online AI content?
11:55 a.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
The provision in question—
11:55 a.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
—which is not related to the amendment that I believe is before the committee, sets out the types of high-impact AI systems that will be subject to regulation. The schedule does list a number of high-impact AI systems, including those that can influence behaviour as it relates to online recommendations. That type of artificial intelligence system is the subject of considerable amounts of activity in international fora.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Relevance is the point of order. This has nothing to do with the amendment we're focused on, which is the change of a number. It's the addition of a “1” to the schedule for ease of reading.
What I don't understand is why Mr. Perkins keeps asking questions about something that you have already indicated is 20 pages into the amendments we have and has to do with the AIDA portion of the bill. That's not the portion of the bill we're focusing on. This is the very first amendment, and this looks very much like a filibuster.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. I accept your point of order. I will ask members to stay relevant.
For clause 2, if we get through this amendment, we still have 155 other amendments to go through. That's just on clause 2. We need to move a little more swiftly, so I will ask members in their questions and comments to stay relevant to the amendment before the committee.
Do I have any other speakers? I have Mr. Masse—
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
You still have the floor, Mr. Perkins, but please stay relevant to G-1.
April 8th, 2024 / 11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
In the last Parliament, the government tried to legislate algorithms through Bill C-10. It then backed off and brought in Bill C-11 this time. It said, “Look at us. Aren't we being nice? We're going to tell people how to write their algorithms and not actually look at them.”
In this bill, you have schedule 2, which is numbered as schedule 2, and schedule 1, and I'd like to know—
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Mr. Perkins keeps referring to schedule 2, which is not in this amendment. The amendment specifically refers to schedule 1, so maybe he could refrain from referring to a schedule we're not debating.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
It's an administrative drafting convention that the government has introduced because it made a mistake in the drafting of this bill. It introduced a schedule 2, in the draft given to the committee in advance, as a draft amendment—one of the minister's eight after his appearance—and it has now introduced it formally through the clause-by-clause process.
It's very clear to most people that the drafting convention is you can't have a schedule 2 if there is no schedule 1. It just doesn't make sense. Therefore, the government drew the link by introducing this. That allows it to be relevant in the discussion, because I don't believe you can have the other amendment without this amendment.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
That's a good question to ask the officials, Mr. Perkins. I would ask you to stay on the numbering of the schedules, not the substance of the schedules. We will get to that if we ever get there.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Can you introduce a schedule 2 if you don't renumber the annex schedule as schedule 1?
11:55 a.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry
As noted, I think in all likelihood, if this does not get numbered as a schedule, it will have implications for the subsequent schedule. There would probably be a move to try to keep the two consistent, so this one would be referred to as an unnumbered schedule, as would the schedule referenced in the AIDA.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
That's the relevance. It has implications on schedule 2. That allows us in this instance today to ask about that schedule and make sure that we understand the impact of not having that change in schedule 1 done, and its implications on schedule 2 if it isn't in this bill the way it is.
I believe we get to ask questions on that, because the assistant deputy minister has, once again, just made the link between the two.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
If I understand you correctly, Mr. Schaan, what you're saying is that, basically, they would be named differently, provided this change in G-1 is adopted. However, the substance of them would not change.
It's about how they are labelled, so I would appreciate questions on the labelling of the scheduling, and not the substance of the labelling.
We will get there, Mr. Perkins—well, I'm not so sure we will get there, but I hope we will get there. It's in the plan.
Mr. Perkins.
Noon
Conservative
