All right. Of course, Madam Chair.
The government tells us it costs too much, and yet, in the latest budget, we see budget cuts of over $30 million for the Canadian Space Agency over the next few years. That means that fathers and mothers will lose their jobs; that means projects will be scrapped, too.
The Prime Minister, who is still a financial expert, recently told us that he and his government were proud that a Canadian astronaut had participated in a space mission. At the same time, however, they are cutting funding for the organization that made that astronaut's training possible. Do you see how inconsistent this is? They say the agency is important, but they're cutting its funding.
Personally, if I know that fruits and vegetables are good for my health, I eat them. I think it's as simple as that. It seems pretty simple, doesn't it? For example, when you want flowers to bloom in the garden, you water them. It's the same thing. Right now, the government isn't watering the Canadian Space Agency. What is it doing? It's making budget cuts. This doesn't just apply to the Canadian Space Agency, but to the entire government apparatus. However, when it comes time to tell us it has money for projects, it does.
Madam Chair, here's my response in conjunction with the motion: If it costs too much to access data to uncover the truth, I think it would be important, in the future, to develop solutions to ensure this doesn't happen again.
Here on the committee, we have two concrete examples.
First, there is the example of funding data from funding agencies, which was requested but denied due to a lack of funding. I know this because, once again, I was the one who moved this motion for access to the data. Look, accredited researchers couldn't access the data. We're not in North Korea; we're in Canada. Researchers can't access data on the funding granted to scientific projects by funding agencies. It's unbelievable that I have to tell you that. These researchers even came before the committee to tell us that, yes, they couldn't do their job as scientists because the government refused to give access to this data.
So I took up the cause and asked the government if it could provide the data. It refused, saying the data was too sensitive and privacy had to be protected. So I asked if, in this case, it could create a mechanism or a channel to provide access to the data. It said no, because after all, it didn't have the necessary software and systems. You see, it's always a never-ending cycle designed to wear us down and ensure we never manage to do our job, which is to hold the government to account.
Just imagine that the people who manage scientific research projects in Canada conduct self-evaluations of their projects, right within their own organizations. There's no external analysis. To put it simply, just so people understand, in Canada, it's as if a hockey team were appointing the referees. That's what's happening in research funding. The government, through its funding agencies, conducts its own internal analyses. It tells us to trust it, that it's public money and that we don't need access to the data. Personally, I'm concerned, because there's a lot of anxiety in the scientific community when it can't access this data.
Today, we have another example: artificial intelligence, which is supposedly a key priority for the government. It tells us this is a priority and that it will invest record amounts in it. However, it won't tell us who participated in its public consultation or how it was conducted.
First, were these people influenced to participate? Did people have direct ties to the government representatives to try to include certain things in this public consultation?
Also, I clearly remember what the minister in charge said when he came to testify before the committee. He told us that he was very proud of the public consultation because, in his opinion, it was the largest public consultation in Canadian history. When he mentioned that in committee, I was surprised. If he's telling us that this is his largest consultation, how is it that Canada wasn't better prepared?
First, we need to know who is participating.
Second, we need to know whether we're going to inform the public.
I understand that 11,000 participants is a lot of people. I understand that it can take time to collect the data and compile it all. I wonder: If the government is unable to provide us with this data so that we, as parliamentarians, can verify what was said, I wonder how we can do our jobs.
I would still like to mention the people who were very concerned about artificial intelligence and the strategy. As a member of Parliament, I can tell you that people wrote to us during our study on AI to express their concerns about how the federal government's new strategy would be unveiled and presented.
I recall that it happened rather quickly. Six months have passed since the consultations, which, it should be noted, were conducted on an accelerated timeline. That's another thing Minister Solomon had promised. It was, after all, a promise made by the government when the minister appeared before the committee. The minister also stated last fall that Canada could not afford to wait and that it had to act quickly. Let me tell you this: The minister himself apologized for this delay. It's pretty incredible, really. The government tells us it's in such a hurry to establish the strategy that it doesn't have time to inform the public and parliamentarians so that they know what will be included in this strategy.
The minister had also explained that, in his view, the impact of AI had supposedly evolved and that it would be necessary to continue meeting with groups and conducting consultations. He had also mentioned recent meetings with union leaders, environmentalists and young people. What also surprised me was that, even as the consultations were taking place, the minister was telling us that the strategy was about to become obsolete. He said that the sector had changed considerably, that the impact of artificial intelligence had also evolved.
The minister mentioned that the strategy was supposed to address the changing needs of the workforce. Personally, I'd like to know what was included in this strategy and who is seeking to influence the government's decisions right now.
A public consultation was therefore conducted, gathering over 11,000 comments, to which we have no access. This is the subject of the motion we are debating today.
The government also stated that it had analyzed those comments using artificial intelligence. The minister also mentioned that Canada would avoid over-indexing on warnings and regulation to ensure that the economy benefits from AI. He noted that the situation had evolved somewhat since the government announced its rushed consultation. So, by his own admission, things moved quickly. However, what isn't moving quickly are the government's actions. Let me remind you that, in the last Parliament, the government didn't even manage to pass its own bill to regulate AI.
Let's recap. We have a government that conducts a rushed consultation and isn't transparent about its actions or the data it collects. It says it wants to implement a strategy, but its strategy is lagging behind. Now it's telling us that, yes, ultimately, it developed its strategy with consultants, and perhaps by the time it launches its strategy, things will have evolved so much that the strategy will already be outdated.
The other inconsistency we see here on the part of the government is that it has not established a legislative framework for certain forms of AI. I even recall that, during the study we conducted here, we asked questions of the minister and the deputy minister. We asked them if we could shut down software that threatened people's safety tomorrow morning. They weren't able to answer that. That is concerning. We're told that artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that can stimulate economic development, but we're unable to stop it if it becomes harmful. I find that worrisome. Meanwhile, we're being asked not to worry and told that a strategy will be unveiled.
That's the way I look at it. I think it would be important for us, as parliamentarians, to understand this, and it's important for the general public to understand too. I think people have a right to know what happened. People paid for individuals to coordinate a public consultation, but they aren't allowed to know what happened during that public consultation.
I still remember the discussions we had in February, even before I introduced this motion. My colleagues in the government tried to convince me that everything was available online. I went online to check. An Excel spreadsheet—