Evidence of meeting #37 for Science and Research in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON
We would rather not have to suspend. It took a lot of time to get the chief statistician on Thursday, and we'd like to speak to him.
We can continue this debate of this motion near the end of the Thursday meeting so we get some time with the chief statistician.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Either we vote it down or we continue with it. As long as I have two more speakers on the list, we cannot dispose of it until we vote on it and until the speaker's list is exhausted.
We have MP Baldinelli and MP Noormohamed on the list after MP Blanchette-Joncas.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Okay. We have MP Noormohamed on the list after MP Blanchette-Joncas, but all the members will not be able to stay beyond that. I just wanted to let everyone know so that everyone is aware of the situation.
Go ahead, MP Blanchette-Joncas.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Madam Chair, thank you for being so considerate of committee members and ensuring that they're in attendance when they ask to speak. I have noticed that that isn't the case for all members of this committee.
The brief I'm sharing goes on to say:
For example, AI hiring tools have been found to discriminate against women, Black and racialized people, older people and people with disabilities while AI surveillance and monitoring and automated decision-making tools in the workplace can intensify work, harm the health and safety of workers and erode the privacy rights of workers. These tools can discourage and penalize workers from taking breaks to which they are entitled, increase the speed of work and result in psychological harm and mental health problems for workers in cases of high demands and little control over the work process. Employment law used to […] for a reason. The balance of power shifts even further toward control and coercion when employers implement invasive AI algorithmic management and surveillance technology.
CUPE's brief also states:
We need to develop the data and research—both quantitative and qualitative—to understand these shifts in individual workplaces, sectors and the Canadian economy as a whole in order to understand the impact of AI on work. This data would support active government planning to address and mitigate negative impacts of AI on workers. Statistics Canada should collect data about the impact of AI on work and workers. This data should be supported by ongoing qualitative research funded by the federal government assessing the privacy, human rights, skills and training and physical and psychological health and safety impacts of AI on workers.
CUPE addresses another question: “How can Canada support workers affected by AI?”. Here's its answer:
A key question that workers will be looking for in the AI Strategy is whether their jobs are at risk of being eliminated and how they will be supported to learn new skills. They will be looking for the federal government to create and deepen social policy that ensures pathways and ladders to train and re-train in new jobs and to provide income support during transition periods. Workers should not pay the costs of technological changes. Governments must ensure our social safety net is strengthened to support this transformation through improved employment insurance benefits, targeted training and re-training programs and active labour market strategies. Workers also need governments to put in place laws and regulations to ensure AI does not result in the loss or deterioration of good jobs. The federal government should work with provincial governments to mandate transparency when AI systems are introduced in the workplace.
Transparency isn't something this government does.
Right now, workers are often not being informed about data collection or AI implementation in their workplace. Employers should be required to provide information to workers, unions and the public about the purpose of the system or data collection and the parameters, rules and instructions underlying the system. Federal and provincial laws should put in place restrictions and safeguards when algorithmic management systems are used, as these systems can lack transparency, explainability and fairness, be biased or discriminatory, and put the health and safety of workers at risk. Algorithmic management systems process employee data through opaque algorithms to hire, assign tasks, set schedules, assess performance, and recommend discipline or dismissal. Workers also need strong data protection and privacy laws that protect their dignity and autonomy in the workplace in an era of invasive bossware technology that can track their movement, emotions, tone of voice and output.
I will continue by citing another question raised in the same brief: “Who needs to be consulted in the AI Strategy who isn't already?” We cannot even know this, as members of Parliament. The government won't tell us who participated in the consultation or what was said. So we're left to rely on assumptions.
I'll read you the union's response:
The best way to build trust in AI is to ensure the breadth of voices that are affected by AI are involved in consultations on how Canada addresses AI. Though CUPE is pleased to have a staff member involved in the federal AI strategy task force, the overall representation skews toward industry and pro-industry researchers.
There is already a problem: a lack of representation within a group that the government itself created.
The union stated the following:
The federal government should ensure an array of unions are involved in consultations as workers in different sectors will be affected in disparate ways. For example, workers in the creative sectors are already being affected in distinct ways and require targeted measures to protect their rights and their jobs. A much wider array of civil society voices needs to be present, bringing unique knowledge on privacy, data rights, civil liberties, and human rights. Furthermore, researchers should be integrated who focus on the impact of AI on work, AI governance, bias and discrimination in AI systems, data protection and privacy. Consultation processes that lack broader representation will lack legitimacy and throw into question the authenticity federal government endeavours on AI.
Another angle is addressed in the questions: The issue of research and talent. The question is as follows:
How does Canada retain and grow its AI research edge? What are the promising areas that Canada should lean into, where it can lead the world? (i.e., promising domains for breakthroughs and first-mover advantage; strategic decisions on where to compete, collaborate or defer; balance between fundamental and applied research) Canada should focus on building AI for the common good that puts the needs of workers, communities, and the environment front and centre. The federal government should create a public sector AI innovation hub with researchers, universities, trade unions and government to conduct collaborative research for AI that meets public needs. This research and development should target problems that are identified at the workplace and community level. Canada should invest in research that augments workers, rather than replaces them, centring workers' voices in technology research, development and implementation. Involving workers in defining the problem or opportunity, designing the technical and work process features, educating and training the workforce tends to have better outcomes than more top-down approaches. It increases the likelihood that generative AI tools will be used effectively and improve the quality of workers' jobs. Furthermore, a survey in the United States found that workers who report having an influence on technology in the workplace are twice as likely to report job satisfaction.
You must admit this is interesting. We see that, on the one hand, technological tools can be useful to people, but, on the other hand, they can harm them. I'll continue along these lines:
Canada has an opportunity to lead research on addressing bias and discrimination in AI systems and building targeted AI systems that do not put strain on our energy system and do not drive up greenhouse gas emissions. Canada should invest in AI built on a privacy by design methodology which creates a proactive approach where privacy is embedded as a default setting. The Canadian government should also fund an ecosystem of research into the harms of AI on workers and the public. This research should cover job loss, working conditions, algorithmic management, bias and discrimination, surveillance and monitoring in the workplace and society, privacy and data rights and environmental harms. The research can feed back into a loop to ensure AI development and implementation helps humans, rather than harms them. This moment in time calls for true leadership that puts workers, communities and the environment at the centre of AI research rather than the profit interests of technology corporations.
Another important question is raised:
How can Canada strengthen coordination across academia, industry, government and defence to accelerate impactful AI research? (i.e., mechanisms for cross-sector collaboration; integration of public and private research efforts; industry-sponsored research while preserving academic independence) The Canadian government should establish roundtables where unions, researchers, post-secondary institutions and the federal, provincial and municipal governments meet to discuss AI research. CUPE has called for the federal government to create a Canadian Observatory on AI and Work to develop data and disseminate research on the impact of AI on work. This observatory should include academics, trade unions, civil society and government. As the union-led advisory table report made clear, outside Quebec there are few ongoing consultative bodies where workers, through unions, can systematically gather and share information, coordinate, and negotiate planning. Re-establishing sectoral partnership tables would help identify and address the needs of workers in different sectors and occupations in the context of technological change driven by AI. These tables can develop plans regarding recruitment, retention and succession planning and the employment, training, health and safety and human rights consequences of AI, automation and technological change in the workplace. Multidisciplinary tables should also be established to coordinate research on bias and discrimination and privacy and data rights. The Canadian government should be careful to limit the impact of profit and corporate interests on the research agenda for AI.
I will repeat that: “The Canadian government should be careful to limit the impact of profit and corporate interests on the research agenda for AI.” It is this influence that we are trying to learn more about today by requesting access to the public consultation documents. There may be people who have said things that the government will take into account, but which are not in the public interest. First, we want to know the identity of these people, to determine if they pose a threat to Canada. Second, we want to know if they are acting against the public interest.
In this same paragraph, it states: “Corporations can fund their own research without relying on public funding and resources.” That is the other very important point. As a parliamentarian, I am curious and would like to analyze the content of the comments from the organizations, individuals and companies that participated in the consultation, to determine who is attempting to influence the government to secure public funds for their own interests. However, today, the government is denying us that access. It tells us that the truth comes at too high a cost.
The other question addressed in the brief is: “What conditions are needed to ensure Canadian AI research remains globally competitive and ethically grounded?” Right from the start, we read the following:
(i.e., infrastructure, talent, and governance; ethical standards and risk mitigation; alignment of applied research with business and societal needs) There are a number of enablers to ensure Canada can be at the forefront of research on AI systems for the public good. The federal government will need to commit stable funding and create collaborative spaces and processes for research dissemination. CUPE has proposed that a public sector AI innovation hub be formed with representation from researchers, universities, trade unions and—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting, MP Blanchette-Joncas. We are at 6:25 right now. As previously said, we will suspend the meeting at 6:30, so please keep that in mind. We will resume on Thursday.
Go ahead, MP DeRidder.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Can we just go to a vote and not suspend? Is there agreement to do so?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
For the information of all members, we cannot go to the vote until we exhaust the speaking list. Only then can we go to the vote.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Can we see whether there's unanimous consent to exhaust the speaking list and go to a vote, so we don't suspend?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
No. MP Blanchette-Joncas has the floor. We cannot do that.
MP Blanchette-Joncas.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Madam Chair, thank you for reminding our colleagues, who are listening attentively, of this committee's rules and procedures.
So, I was mentioning this:
There are a number of enablers to ensure Canada can be at the forefront of research on AI systems for the public good. The federal government will need to commit stable funding and create collaborative spaces and processes for research dissemination. CUPE has proposed that a public sector AI innovation hub be formed with representation from researchers, universities, trade unions and government. A Canadian Observatory on AI and Work would coordinate and disseminate key research on the impact of AI on work. Sectoral tables would also be established to assess how AI is affecting at-risk workers and industries and put in place active labour market strategies to support workers.
I would like to address another issue raised in the brief:
What efforts are needed to attract, develop, and retain top AI talent across research, industry, and the public sector? (i.e., differentiated enablers for research vs. applied talent; domestic vs. global talent strategies; targeted attraction programs and priority domains; international collaboration opportunities) There is no doubt that a lot of AI talent would be drawn toward a public sector AI innovation hub that was leading in building AI for the public good. The federal government also has many IT specialists who could be supported to up-skill and develop AI development skills. These workers should be supported with targeted training and up-skilling education. By investing in its own workforce, the federal government would be building its internal capacity to develop worker-centred AI applications that can augment workers and result in better public services.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
There's too much noise. Please keep whispering on the side. We have MP Blanchette-Joncas speaking.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. You are calling out a lack of respect. First, I think this shows that my colleagues are not interested. Second, I think it's good that you're fulfilling your role. Thank you very much.
I was mentioning the importance of innovation hubs to stimulate artificial intelligence for the public good. I'll continue:
By investing in its own workforce, the federal government would be building its internal capacity to develop worker-centred AI applications that can augment workers and result in better public services. Researchers have identified that hollowed out public sector technology capacity—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting, MP Blanchette-Joncas.
Can I have the attention of all members?
It is 6:30. As I mentioned earlier, members have to leave. They have other commitments. I will suspend the meeting. We can get back to this same meeting on Thursday, May 28. We will have to cancel the briefing session with the chief statistician at Statistics Canada.
The meeting is suspended.
[The meeting was suspended at 6:41 p.m., Monday, May 25]
[The meeting resumed at 11 a.m., Thursday, May 28]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I call the meeting to order.
Good morning, everybody. Welcome back to meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, which was suspended on Monday, May 25.
We are resuming debate on the motion moved by MP Noormohamed. MP Blanchette-Joncas had the floor. He is not here. The next on the list was MP Noormohamed. He is not here. After that, it was MP McKelvie.
MP McKelvie, do you want to say something? You had your hand raised that day on Monday.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON
Madam Chair, I just have a point of clarification.
Our Bloc member is not here with us. Procedurally, would the Bloc representative who is subbing in for Maxime take his place?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
No, that doesn't happen. It is for the individual; it is not for the party.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON
Was it for a Bloc representative?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
There are no clear rules that it has to go to.... If that person is not here, it does not go to the party. As of now, there is no one on the speaking list. If those people are not here....
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON
That was the point of clarification that I was seeking.
Liberal
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
We have an amendment to the motion we were debating. Is everyone in agreement with the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
The budgets for some studies have been circulated to all the members. The committee must adopt draft study budgets. These draft study budgets were sent to the members on May 13.
The first one is a briefing session with the chief science adviser in the amount of $500. The second one is a briefing session with the president of the National Research Council in the amount of $500. We also have a briefing session with the president of the Canadian Space Agency in the amount of $500, and we have a briefing session with the chief statistician of Canada in the amount of $500.
There is a supplementary budget for the study on the implications of the Canada-China preliminary joint arrangement on Canada's electric vehicle sector. It's in the amount of $1,000, and the last one is the supplementary budget for the study on antimicrobial resistance in the amount of $500.
Is everyone in favour of these budgets?
