Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am pleased to participate in this meeting with the members of the committee. I will give the English-speaking members time to put on their headsets, because I speak only in French.
I am pleased to be here with you to discuss the important motion proposed by our Liberal colleague, who is currently absent. I believe this motion was intended to overturn a motion by the Bloc Québécois that was, at its core, aimed at ensuring transparency and, above all, addressing a need expressed by numerous organizations that had written to Minister Joly last October.
I would like to clarify something. It is not only the Bloc Québécois that is asking how the consultation took place and who was consulted. This is also being asked by several university researchers and many people representing universities, public agencies or non-profit organizations for whom artificial intelligence is a subject of interest or an integral part of their mission.
I have before me five pages of names of organizations, researchers and scientists who want to understand where the government held consultations and whom it consulted. Among them, I will name a few.
These include, among others, Amnesty International Canada Francophone as well as the Alliance of Professional and Technical Staff in Health and Social Services of Quebec. I am familiar with this union because I used to be a social worker. It was the union that represented me at the Ministry of Health and Social Services. There is also the Movement for a Just Peace, the Quebec Network for Autonomous Community Action, McGill University and Concordia University.
There are therefore several researchers who want to understand how the government, which will soon be tabling its artificial intelligence strategy, conducted its consultations and whom it consulted. That was the purpose of the motion by my Bloc Québécois colleague, who is absent today.
I understand that there have been debates on the issue. I also know that my Liberal colleagues have proposed a motion that would overturn the motion put forward by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. We have given this some thought and have a compromise to propose to our colleagues across the way and to those to my right.
I therefore propose an amendment that reduces the amount of information we would like to have, but which gives the government a chance to demonstrate its commitment to transparency and to inform not only the members of the committee, but also members of civil society, about how it conducted the consultation.
I see that the text of the amendment, drafted in both official languages, is currently being distributed. If you’ll allow me, I’ll read it.
The amendment seeks to replace the text following the mention of the amount of $1,327,208.59 and the comma that follows, in Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed’s motion, with the following:
the committee limits the order for the production of documents adopted on February 12, 2026, to the transmission, within seven (7) days following the adoption of this motion, of the complete list of stakeholders who participated in the public consultation or targeted consultations related to the AI Strategy, including: (a) the respondent’s first and last name; (b) the respondent’s title or position, where applicable; (c) the name of the affiliated company, organization, or institution, where applicable; (d) the business number, where available; (e) the identification of any submissions received anonymously.
I believe that the amendment proposed to the motion under discussion today is reasonable and meets a basic need for transparency. I hope that my colleagues around the table—especially those on the other side—will agree, so that we can move forward and get off on the right foot during the committee’s work next week.
I am prepared to debate the amendment, unless there is consensus on it.