Debates of Oct. 9th, 2024

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There is a lot of noise coming from the lobby. Can someone look into that?

The hon. member for Trois‑Rivières.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, there are many different uses. Did people consent to those uses? Did they consent to being in an ad when they were walking down the street? Did they consent to having their image captured as they were getting on a bus in Trois‑Rivières? Did they consent to their comings and goings being tracked? Did passengers arriving at Trudeau airport consent to being identified for their passport using facial recognition?

How is that data being used? Did people consent to that? Is that data protected? After the data leak at Desjardins, we have to wonder whether facial recognition data at risk too.

This is certainly something we need to work on. Unfortunately, the lack of regulations gives the bad guys a definite advantage. Those looking to sidestep regulations sometimes succeed, but it is complicated. However, if there are no regulations, then it is the wild west, really.

Let me give a few examples of the benefits that facial recognition technology has to offer. Daniel Therrien, the former privacy commissioner of Canada, said that facial recognition can be used to solve serious crimes, such as missing children cases. It can also be used for other compelling state purposes, such as in the border context to ensure that people of concern can be identified at the border while not impeding the flow of travellers to the country. Obviously, that is desirable. These kinds of uses are intended to protect us. I think we would all support them.

However, there are drawbacks, and they often concern mass surveillance. One thing is immediately obvious. Mass surveillance is definitely being done without a warrant. People are being surveilled at baseball games, on the bus and in the subway. Although the goal may be to identify a perpetrator, everyone is surveilled in the process. That is problematic.

As for the disadvantages, Patricia Kosseim, Ontario's information and privacy commissioner, told us that, with regard to facial recognition, the biggest concern of commissioners across Canada is mass surveillance, whether done by a third-party private sector company on behalf of the police or by the police service itself.

Assistant or deputy commissioners of the RCMP candidly told us that they were using facial recognition without a warrant and without letting the public know. Obviously, we can expect the RCMP to use facial recognition for legitimate, worthy reasons. However, the privacy commissioner also found that there had been serious and systemic failings to ensure compliance with the act before collecting personal information and before collecting information in general, for that matter.

I was talking about shopping malls a little earlier. I mentioned the buses in Trois‑Rivières because facial recognition is used on them too. I think we need to be careful, because on top of the inherent bias against Asian people and people of colour, for example, criminal bias exists as well. Poor-quality cameras can produce images that lead to a person being incorrectly identified. In short, facial recognition is not foolproof.

Now, our faces can be used for other purposes as well, including disinformation. We have started seeing videos on social media of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris kissing and partying together. They are public figures, but the same thing could happen to us. We could show up in a photo or video with someone who was never actually with us, doing something we never did.

We have to be careful. Disinformation is a serious problem today, one whose impact we often underestimate. All sorts of foreign actors can put information out there for all to see, thinking that they can convince people. Last week, I believe it was Tuesday, Communications Security Establishment Canada intercepted 6.6 billion attempts at disinformation in Canada. That is just another day at the office for the CSE.

The fact is that all of this information contributes to how we think. It may lead us to do things that we may not have done otherwise. That is a problem. Facial recognition is one many tools of disinformation.

There is another rather remarkable thing that is concerning. When it comes to the environment, we often hear talk of social licence. We need to be careful because social licence is a form of renunciation, for example, we would prefer A to B. Social licence does not necessarily equate to enthusiasm. However, there has never even been a debate about social licence or future social licence for facial recognition. It is assumed that, if we are in a public place, our face is part of the mosaic and that, if we did not want to be there, then we could just do nothing. In my previous career, people often told me that they had not done anything wrong and so it was no big deal if their image was being captured. I often answered those people by saying that, if they knew what could be done with those images, they might be more concerned. There are always malicious actors around, whether local or international.

The topic is not being discussed. We discussed it once with our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We discussed it with my hon. colleague from Barrie—Innisfil. However, these discussions have not necessarily filtered through to society as yet. Some groups have apprehensions, but no discussion is happening. Concerns are being raised, but that is not enough. Ultimately, we concluded that we should probably make a few recommendations. Given the total absence of any regulations, we had to at least come up with a few proposals that would make the use of facial recognition more transparent. I am going to quote a few of the 19 recommendations, including the first and foremost among them, which reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada amend...the Privacy Act to require a government institution to ensure that the practices [when using facial recognition]...are lawful.

We are talking about the Canada Border Services Agency, the passport office, a whole bunch of places like that. We figured that the Privacy Act had not been revised since before the Internet arrived on the scene, and that a little update would be in order. I am throwing this idea out to my colleagues on the other side of the House. All kinds of committee reports have been presented and, in its responses, the government often says that we have some good ideas. However, an intention without action is just an intention. It is worthless, even if it is a good one.

We also thought there should be clear sanctions for privacy violations committed by the police. After all, law enforcement agencies are among the biggest users of facial recognition. I am not blaming them; there are legitimate reasons for using it. However, when they do violate privacy, whether voluntarily or not, there should be clear sanctions. When an action has no consequences, people continue doing it because there is no cost, financial or otherwise. It becomes a habit.

The following is another one of our recommendations:

That the Government of Canada amend the Privacy Act to require that prior to the adoption, creation, or use of facial recognition technology, [the government] seek the advice...of the Privacy Commissioner...

The Privacy Commissioner needs to be consulted before a facial recognition tool is developed. This recommendation was made in 2022. In 2024, while Bill C‑27 is being studied in committee, people are still questioning whether Canadians need to be protected. It is right there, in black and white, in the report. We have to protect citizens because this data is not always used for legitimate reasons, and even if it is used legitimately, it is often used without a warrant. We have to be careful. I think this is a serious warning. To illustrate how important this is, the fact is that two years later, we are still talking about it. There have been no conclusions and, in fact, the situation has sometimes been trivialized.

I want to talk about another interesting recommendation. It is not often discussed. It is the right to be forgotten. Someone might want to be removed from the network. The European Union adopted a similar recommendation. The right to be forgotten is the possibility of contacting an agency that coordinates everything in order to allow an individual to not be automatically identified on social media or to be forgotten if they want to disappear. This may seem odd in a time of influencers who take selfies every four seconds, but a person may not want to be on the web for very legitimate reasons. We want the government to require “service providers, social media platforms and other online entities operating in Canada to delete all users’ personal information after a set period following users’ termination of use”. This could include responses to polls, text messages a person sends, or photos in which they are identified. We would like to make it possible for this to be deleted.

I will not quote the other 16 recommendations. By the very nature of the recommendations that were made following a lengthy consultation with the Privacy Commissioner, provincial commissioners and stakeholders who promote facial recognition, as well as those who criticize its use, there was unanimous agreement that something had to be done. As we know, nature abhors a vacuum, and where there is nothing, the nothing gets filled with something. It is frustrating.

Just before I close, I would like to quote a witness, Carole Piovesan, from INQ Law. She said that we need to be careful, that we need to increase transparency, but that, if we are going to do it, we need to do it “with a scalpel, not an axe”. The idea is to be aware of this relatively new technology, which, after two years, is no longer all that new. We can benefit from it, as I have just outlined, and we can guard against the harms, particularly the ones I mentioned.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think it is worth noting that Canada, among our peer nations and others, is doing exceptionally well with regard to the technological advancement of things like AI and facial recognition. Through that advancement there is a responsibility of the different stakeholders, in particular government, to look for ways in which we can actually ensure that our laws and regulations are of benefit and provide the type of assurances that Canadians want to see. It does not matter where one lives in Canada; it is just the general feeling, I believe, that a vast majority have.

I wonder whether my colleague could provide his thoughts on the importance of Bill C-27, which is unfortunately still at committee. I would have liked to have seen it taken out of committee months ago.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North, who always has such relevant questions. I like to hear him talk about responsibility. Responsibility is a very important concept in society. For the record, it comes from two Latin words, res, meaning “things” and spondere, meaning “to promise”. The responsible person is the one who can promise things. In this case, we are talking about the government.

Privacy commissioners have been stressing out for many years recommending that our privacy legislation be modernized or updated. Yes, there are interesting AI developers out there and leaders in certain types of facial recognition, but they are delinquent when it comes to protecting personal information. Bill C‑27 sets out some interesting improvements. However, if the bill had been split the right way from the start, the privacy part would have already been accepted.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for moving this motion in the House today.

The report in question was tabled in the House in 2022, but AI technology has come a long way since then. Canada may now be lagging behind when it comes to privacy laws.

One of the Privacy Commissioner's recommendations involved the need to update our privacy laws. He said that privacy is not recognized as a fundamental right in our legislation.

Does my colleague agree with me and with the Privacy Commissioner that the Privacy Act needs to be updated now?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which he chairs brilliantly.

It is interesting, because the Privacy Commissioner is proposing that privacy be considered a fundamental right, and I completely agree with that.

What struck me recently when I reread the 2022 report is that the recommendations that were made seemed quite far-reaching at the time. Today, these recommendations are less than the minimum required for living together. The government did not take any action and did not treat privacy as a fundamental right, and when it comes to protecting information, it is dead last. We therefore need to make a real change.

Bill C-27 does not treat privacy as a fundamental right.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate working with the hon. colleague. As an ethicist, he brings subject matter expertise that is often lacking in terms of the nuance of these critical discussions, particularly around technology that many of us have only really scratched the surface on. He will recall, in talking about the strength of the recommendations, two recommendations in particular. One was recommendation number 18, which was unanimously passed by the committee, that the Government of Canada impose a federal moratorium on the use of facial recognition technology by federal policing services and Canadian industries unless implemented in a confirmed consultation with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. What we came to find, and I am sure the hon. member will recall and perhaps can expand on this, is that this was the Wild West. Departments were using this technology without any kind of formal privacy impact assessments, there was no contemplation by the Privacy Commissioner.

Could he please reflect on the need, two years later, for the government to honour our committee's call for a moratorium on this technology?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Hamilton Centre is right about something. I will make an observation before answering his question.

This is a multi-party committee, and we have representatives from three parties here to discuss this report. That worries me a great deal, because the government party is not here. Recommendation 18, which called for a moratorium—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that we do not mention whether members are present or absent in the House.

The hon. member for Trois‑Rivières.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to refer to my colleagues who are here with me. We are capable of defending things.

As for the moratorium we were talking about, I remember the witnesses who came to tell us about their tragic stories and the injustices they suffered. I am repeating myself but, at the time, we thought we were taking the bull by the horns. However, we need to go even further than what is being presented now. We must act. We must try as best we can to correct the injustices that are still being committed today due to the lack of regulation.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the report presented by my colleague today is very important and thought provoking. I want to analyze it a bit further.

In 2023, during an interparliamentary exchange in Edinburgh, I had the pleasure of speaking with AI specialists who told us that it is critical that we create legislation and that even the major AI producers are asking for laws.

Image capture can now be coupled with AI and a desire to misinform the population for political purposes. Foreign interference is troubling, and I find myself wondering whether the combination of capturing images and using AI is facilitating foreign interference. Does this not become a direct threat to democracy? How can we quickly put an end to this threat?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will take advantage of my hon. colleague's question to seize on some of the many topics that she raised.

These include facial recognition, foreign interference, and disinformation. Recently, in committee, a witness told us something that stuck with me. He said that one country in the world is disinformation-proof, and that country is Finland. The Finns live next door to the Russian bear, and they are no strangers to disinformation.

In 2014, however, they made two decisions. They decided to have schools teach critical thinking so that people could make what I would call reasonably enlightened choices. They also decided to bolster independent media by strengthening their independence and freedom. The two conditions for countering disinformation were therefore education and strong media.

I am forced to concede that here, in Canada, these things are somewhat lacking. It saddens me, because I have not seen many places that teach critical thinking, even to young children. Right now, all we see are local media crumbling and collapsing. We have become fertile ground for disinformation, especially when it is spread by malicious foreign actors.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member did speak about having a rights-based approach to data, the idea of data sovereignty in an era of what is essentially data capitalism, the commodification of personal information for sale and profiting by private corporations.

I would like the hon. member perhaps to reflect upon the discourse we had at committee, particularly around the right to be forgotten, having individual privacy for consumers to be protected in law in order that they can erase information that might be present about them on the Internet.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, surveillance capitalism is one of the fastest-growing industries today. If our permission is not being sought to collect our data, then it should be. In any case, we should be able to be forgotten. That is not a bad thing. The right to be forgotten is an essential part of any future privacy legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on an issue that I know is very important to all Canadians. I wanted to make note of a couple of things before I really get under way. When we think of the Internet, I think that we need to put it into the perspective of how things have changed over time in a very significant way. I would suggest that applies more to the industry of technological changes related to the Internet and computers: it is virtually second to none, and it is something we all need to be much aware of. It is an issue our constituents are very concerned with. I think, at the end of the day, we need to recognize just how much things have changed and the importance of governments to show that not only do they understand the issue, but they also have taken tangible actions in order to address the many different concerns out there.

I will start off by saying there are a number of pieces of legislation that are all related to that technological change. If we canvass Canadians, we will find that there is a wide spectrum of ways they use the internet. There are many benefits to it, and there are many drawbacks.

The legislative agenda that we have put forward and advanced over the last number of years deals with both sides: How important it is to have a framework that enables us to protect, for example, the marketplace; and how important it is that we have laws that protect the victims of the abuse that takes place over the Internet.

I would like to cite three pieces of legislation and where they are at today. It is not necessarily because of the government's will to constantly push opposition members in trying to get through the legislation, but I believe that these are the types of legislation that a vast majority of Canadians would ultimately support. I can make reference to the issue of protection, for example. I think there have been four concurrence reports from the Conservative Party, this is either the second or third from the Bloc and I know the New Democrats have done a concurrence report. This is all during government business. Then we have had the issue of the matters of privilege. No Conservative is standing up saying, “Why are we doing these concurrence reports when we should be dealing with the privilege?” This is because the privilege is actually being used as a tool to prevent the discussion of legislation.

Why is that important to highlight right now? It is because one of the pieces of legislation we have been trying to push out of second reading is Bill C-63, the online harms act. That is a piece of legislation that ultimately protects individuals and our communities from inappropriate behaviour taking place on the Internet and creating victims. These are the types of things to which I question, what role does government have? This particular report raises a number of concerns on the impacts of AI and facial recognition. Imagine all the images on the Internet today that Canadians do not want on the Internet.

I am thinking of a breakup where one spouse is, without the consent of the ex, putting inappropriate pictures on the Internet. Bill C-63 is legislation that addresses an issue of that nature, yet it continues to be frustrated in terms of getting through the House of Commons on second reading. However, I know that a majority of members of Parliament who are sitting in the House of Commons actually support Bill C-63.

We have Bill C-26, which deals with the important issue of cybersecurity. When we think of cybersecurity, we can imagine the data banks out there collecting information and how critical that information is. We are defending and supporting Canadians, where we can, through issues related to privacy and the potential leak of data bank information.

There was a time when a data bank was paper-driven, and the shredders might have had good business at the time. I remember going into an embassy where I saw containers full of correspondence. Containers are disappearing as more and more things are becoming digital, and that applies in many different forms. In literally seconds, millions of data points can actually be lost and ultimately acquired by someone who might have malicious intent. However, we are still waiting for Bill C-26 to ultimately get that royal assent, not to mention Bill C-27.

Bill C-27 has a great deal to do with what we are talking about today. I think members need to fully understand, when we look at how important this issue is, that the last time we actually had a modernization of the acts that are in question, and I am referring to Bill C-27, was back in 2000, over 20 years ago, when iPhones did not exist. Can members imagine a time where iPhones did not exist? I can, and it really was not all that long ago.

When I was first elected, when I turned on the computer, the first thing I heard was a dial tone, a ding-dong, and then I was logged onto the Internet type of thing, and it took quite a while to get that connection. People used five-and-a-half-inch floppy disks. However, from 1995 to 2001, we really started to see an explosion of Internet advancement and technology, and it continues today.

Let us think about where the government has put its investments. It is not only toward protecting Canadians, but toward ensuring that communities have access to the Internet because of how critical it is to all of us.

We can look at one of the largest expenditures in my own province of Manitoba, which expanded broadband Internet into rural communities. It is being financed through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Ironically, it is the same Canada Infrastructure Bank that the Conservatives say is doing nothing and has no projects. The leader of the Conservative Party has said he is going to get rid of the Infrastructure Bank. However, in Manitoba, we have seen the Internet expand through the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

The Internet is an absolutely essential service today. Back in the late eighties and going into the nineties, some might have said it was an option. Today, it is not an option. The year 2000 was the last time the act was updated. For almost a decade, Stephen Harper chose to do absolutely nothing to protect individuals' identifications from being consumed through the Internet.

This government, for a number of years, has been looking at how we can modernize the protection of Canadians through the Internet and how we can maximize the benefits of the Internet, while minimizing harms to society. Those are the types of initiatives the Government of Canada has been taking to show, in a very real and tangible way, whether with legislative or budgetary measures, that it understands the technology. We are going to continue not only to be there but also to invest in it. It is one of the reasons that Canada virtually leads the rest of the world in many areas, especially on AI and facial recognition. It is because we understand, looking forward, the role that they are going to play.

That is why it is so important to bring forward legislation and, ultimately, look across the way. In a minority situation, we need a sense of co-operation coming from all opposition parties. It does not take a majority of members to prevent things from happening in the House. All it takes is one political party. Any political entity in the House that has 13 or 14 members can cause a great deal of frustration, even though a majority inside the House might want to see actions taken. In the last federal election, a minority government was elected, but that does not take responsibility away from all political parties to take the actions necessary to support what is in the best interests of Canadians.

That is why I am standing up to speak to the report, which had a lot of work. I was not at the committee, but I can assure everyone that a great deal of effort would have been put into coming up with the report.

Having read some of the comments provided by the minister's office in response to the report, obviously the government has taken the report very seriously. If members want to get an appreciation for the content of the report, I would encourage them to take a look at it. They should also look at the response the government has provided to the report. I suspect that if they were to take a look at the response, they would find that once again, much as in the many comments I have put on the record thus far, we have a government that understands the issue and the report and has taken action, not only today but previously, to deal with the concerns being raised.

All we need to do is take a look at Bill C-27. In his response, even the minister made reference to Bill C-27. If members are genuinely concerned about the report, they should be sympathetic to at least allowing Bill C-27 to get out of committee. Why would that not happen? I can assure members, contrary to what the member across the way said, that as a government, we are constantly listening to Canadians. That is why we will find within our measures, whether they are legislative or budget measures, the thoughts and ideas of the people of Canada being reflected.

The Speaker's constituents, my constituents and all of our constituents are genuinely concerned about what is happening on the Internet today. To amplify that fact and the need for change, I quickly made reference to the year 2000, when we last had legislation. We had a big gap when absolutely nothing was done. I call that the Stephen Harper era. Then we had a government replace that era and it immediately started to work with Canadians to get a better understanding of the types of legislation and regulations that are necessary.

The best example that I can come up with, because of the explosion of iPhones out there today, is the issue of Facebook and how many people participate in Facebook. How many people own an iPad or iPhone or are on Facebook, Instagram or the many other social media, which did not exist in 2000? None of them existed. If that is the case, as I stated, I think a good question to pose is why there is resistance to supporting what Canadians want to see. Why would anyone oppose the framework legislation that we are bringing forward that would protect the interests of Canadians?

As I said, it is not like the Internet is an option nowadays. Today, it is an essential service. People will go to the Internet for a wide spectrum of reasons, whether it is streaming a favourite show from the past or something more recent, or looking at issues related to health conditions. I am always amazed at how the general knowledge of the population continues to grow on health-related issues.

That area has great potential, and it will incorporate AI and facial recognition. Non-profit and private organizations and even governments will use the Internet as a tool to deliver health care services and provide health care advice. Many people are taking that up and looking into it. That is one of the reasons that people will be living longer lives in the future. It is endless. That is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are debating a report that was presented by the ethics committee on a study it did in 2022 about facial recognition and the advancement of artificial intelligence. One issue that has come up is that the technological advancements in AI are having an impact on the spread of disinformation and misinformation. They are also affecting and impacting the privacy rights of Canadians.

One thing the Privacy Commissioner has talked about frequently at the ethics committee is the need to update the Privacy Act to ensure that privacy is a fundamental right for all Canadians. I am wondering what the member's opinion is on that and whether the government has any plans to update the Privacy Act to recognize that privacy is a fundamental right.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and especially that it is coming from a Conservative member.

He is asking us what thoughts we have in regard to legislation. I made reference in my comments to Bill C-63, the online harms act. I made reference to Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity. I made reference to Bill C-27, which deals with updating a framework so that we have regulations that address many aspects of the report.

The biggest barrier is not a lack of ideas or legislation. The biggest barrier is, in fact, the Conservative Party of Canada, which continues to prevent legislation from ultimately becoming law. On the one hand, the Conservatives talk about the importance of privacy for Canadians and the importance of cyber-related issues, but when it comes time to advance legislation, they are found wanting. If my colleague believes that we should have legislation, I would encourage him to allow legislation to get through.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to take note of something in this debate and that is the fact that Canada is lagging behind when it comes to legislation to regulate AI.

Whether we like it or not, AI is advancing, progressing, and we do not have a regulatory or legislative framework. We cannot always blame someone else. This is our own fault because we have been slow to face these challenges.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted a study on the effects of AI on the labour market. It was very interesting. We heard from experts who said that such a framework was needed. In 2023, the European Union agreed on a legislative framework.

It is the government's responsibility to put forward ideas to ensure that these issues are resolved once and for all. The government needs to be proactive.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member to the extent that it is the responsibility of government. At the end of the day, what we have seen is a responsible government that has brought a number of legislative measures to the floor of the House of Commons. Once we bring them to the floor of the House of Commons, there is a responsibility of all members to recognize them.

The member says that we should have a framework. Bill C-27 is in part a framework that would allow for regulations. Those are the types of things we should be trying to get through the House of Commons so Canada, which does an incredible job on the responsible advancement of AI and facial recognition, would be allowed to continue to do so and so the government would be able to keep up with the advancement in a very responsible way.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the most asinine things about being in debates, particularly with the Liberal government, is that its members pretend they are not in power. They pretend they could get things done if only there were somebody who could take the 18 recommendations that were supported by its members. Two-thirds of them do not require legislation.

The hon. member has taken up all the time and has not allowed any of the backbenchers to speak. Hopefully he prepared for the debate. Which of the 18 recommendations has his government acted on over the last two years?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have news for the member opposite. He did not necessarily need to put that question to me; all he had to do was just read the response from the government. I did not write the response, but the member could read it. It is a 12-page response to the recommendations, and he would become much more familiar with the manner in which the government has taken action.

The member blindly made a statement that the recommendations do not require legislation, but there are certain aspects of the report that do require some changes. That is why I made the suggestion that we need to continue to advance and push important legislation, and I cited three examples of that. If the member had been listening to what I was saying, he might have been a little more supportive. I must thank the NDP members for the support they give us.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member, and again I must thank him for his diligence and his ability, quite frankly, to speak to the House on so many different matters that come before it.

This has all been litigated before. The ethics committee produced a report that was well thought out and well written. Why we have to rediscuss it escapes me. Maybe there are a few things the hon. member would like to put on record at this time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect there is no one in the chamber who has read all the reports. There are literally pages and pages of concurrence reports, hundreds of reports. There are actually more reports than there are sitting days left.

The issue is important, as are other issues raised through concurrence reports. There is no doubt they are important, but they are never important enough to raise on opposition days. The issues are raised only on government business days, which seems to be a way to prevent us from being able to talk about, for example, Bill C-63, the online harms act, which would advance something our constituents want.

My Conservative friends specifically, instead of playing party politics and trying to serve themselves, should be thinking about serving Canadians by dealing with the legislative agenda and allowing for it to move forward.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has been talking about Bill C-27 for a while now.

I have a simple question. This bill is not just about AI. It is also about a whole host of other things. However, the subject of AI is important enough to be examined on its own, in its entirety, seriously and without the distraction of other equally important subjects. Perhaps we should focus on one topic in particular and explore it in depth rather than just superficially. That would be a nice change.

Is the government prepared to implement a bill that would seriously consider artificial intelligence in terms of its current importance?