Look, this is not about anything other than the words that were stated on the record specifically by the minister, specifically the words “amendments that we are proposing”.
In terms of the intent, we have to look at checks and balances. We need to have respect for the institution in this place and how committees work in Parliament. A bill is presented by the government. We respond to that bill. It comes to committee. We hear witness testimony. We debate that. We suggest amendments. Then we bring the bill back to the House for further debate.
When the minister comes here to state that he's already presented a bill but he's going to change that bill, specifically stating that he's making amendments and enjoining us to please listen carefully to his amendments but then doesn't supply those amendments, the committee is hamstrung. We don't know what those amendments are or where the context was, except for having good faith to just believe he did that because we suggested them.
I certainly saw that this week, having my private member's bill read into the record on June 8 and taken by the government into legislation. That's fine, because we're all here to provide good ideas, but at the end of the day, there's a process we have to follow. We have to respect the institution of the parliamentarians who sit here and work on behalf of those Canadians who are counting on us to create good legislation and be able to look after what is, as my colleague has stated, probably the most important legislation that Canada is seeing right now, specifically with the AI portion. This would be the first jurisdiction in the world to implement that.
I for one wanted to have a lot of testimony from Mr. Dufresne today. I wanted to hear what he had to say specific to privacy. As my colleague mentioned, it's privacy for all of us, specifically children. All of us with children are very concerned about the amount of data that's leaked and being sold right now on the Internet. We've talked about this for a long, long time.
When the minister comes and proposes, and says the word “amendments” and uses that specific context, and we don't even get the courtesy of seeing a paper version of prepared remarks or those specific amendments.... It's not just us at the table; it's the witnesses who are taking time out to be at committee and to have information before them to say whether they agree or disagree. We don't have the information and they don't have the information. That's the disrespect we've received, based on that wording and based on the context.
For us, that is why we want to see that information. Yes, we'll go to clause-by-clause consideration after hearing all witness testimony. We'll get this right at some time, but we need to have it right from the outset.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.