Debates of May 21st, 2024

Industry and Technology

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this motion today. To remind everyone what it is about, we have a massive bill, as my colleague from Bay of Quinte said, that would, one, replace the entire Privacy Act with a brand new one for Canadians; two, create a new judicial tribunal to appeal decisions; and three, create something totally unrelated, the artificial intelligence and data act, the first such act.

Way back in October 2022, the House leader for the New Democratic Party moved a motion to split the vote, to have two separate votes on this bill, which we had at second reading: one vote on parts 1 and 2, the privacy and tribunal parts, and then a separate vote on the artificial intelligence part. In November, the Speaker ruled in favour of that and we were pleased to support that motion.

What we are asking for now is to go a step further and split the bill, because we had 21 meetings in committee with witnesses, we are in meeting nine or 10 of clause-by-clause, and we have had almost unanimous witness testimony asking for the bill to be split, and not only because it is a totally separate subject area. To remind everyone, the purpose section in part 1 of the bill, regarding the Privacy Act, says:

The purpose of this Act is to establish—in an era in which data is constantly flowing across borders and geographical boundaries and significant economic activity relies on the analysis, circulation and exchange of personal information—rules to govern the protection of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information....

However, the purpose section of part 3, the artificial intelligence and data act, says the following:

(a) to regulate international and interprovincial trade and commerce in artificial intelligence systems by establishing common requirements, applicable across Canada, for the design, development and use of those systems; and

(b) to prohibit certain conduct in relation to artificial intelligence systems that may result in serious harm to individuals or harm to their interests.

It is a very different piece of legislation bolted onto privacy legislation. I think that is why the Speaker rightly ruled that they are separate pieces of legislation and, therefore, should have separate votes.

Conservatives are proposing, after all this study, that the bills should be separated, and we are not alone in that. I will quote what some members in this House have said about separating the bills. The New Democratic Party member for Windsor West, who has been very active and proposed many valuable amendments to this bill in committee, said, “this is really three pieces of legislation that have been bundled up into one.... The first two parts of the act, concerning the consumer privacy protection act and the personal information and data protection tribunal act, do have enough common themes”, but he still thinks they should be separated. He went on to say, as he has said on many occasions, that the New Democrats agree with having the bill in committee, but they want separate voting, as the AI act is the first time that topic has been debated in the House “and it should be done differently.”

The member from the Bloc Québécois who has spoken on this, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, said, “this bill is important, but I would like to know if we should refer it to a committee to study it properly because it is really two bills in one. The first is on artificial intelligence, and the second on privacy protection.” I could go on. For example, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said in response to the Speaker's ruling, “The Speaker has now given a ruling that says we will be able to vote separately on the AI piece of the bill, but I do not think that is good enough. I do not know if the committee will be able to set aside witnesses and only look at the AI piece”.

The minister claimed he has done all the consultation and the artificial intelligence bill is a great bill. It turns out he did not have a single meeting on it before he tabled it in June 2022. He did not have a single meeting with any group, but then he bragged afterwards, because he had to put the toothpaste back in the tube, that he had 300 meetings after the bill was tabled. Let me tell members whom he had meetings with.

He said he had 300 meetings. He had five meetings with the AI advisory council; four with the Alliance for Privacy and Innovation in Canada; eight with Amazon; four with the Business Council of Canada; 12 with the Canadian Bankers Association, and maybe that is why we are hearing a big lobby on the filibuster right now on behalf of the Canadian Bankers Association in committee, four meetings where the Liberals have been speaking on behalf of big banks; five with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; and 12 with the Canadian Marketing Association, the people who send all that irritating stuff. I could go on. The list is here. There were 15 meetings with Microsoft. These are companies that are obviously very interested in protecting people's data and the use of artificial intelligence. It seems that for big businesses, after a bill is introduced, they can get time with the minister.

Now, not to be outdone, the committee has had a request that the bill be separated, signed by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Digital Public, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Open Media, the Privacy and Access Council of Canada, Tech Reset Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Centre for Digital Rights, the Centre for Free Expression, the Women's Legal Education & Action Fund, and then another 18 individuals.

The letter was sent to the chair of the industry committee, a very fine chair, by the way. It said:

This letter, submitted on behalf of the individuals and civil society organizations below, is a formal request for your Committee to recommend that AIDA be sent back to the drawing board for full public consultation prior to a substantial redrafting. Additionally, such consultation should not be led by ISED alone given that their stewardship to date has resulted in deeply-flawed legislation, flowing from a process biased heavily toward narrow industry interests.

We are also asking that your Committee split your hearings on AIDA—to have them exist distinctly and separately....

We have done this. It goes on to refer to the Speaker's ruling, saying:

As you know, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in his ruling of 28 November 2022, decided that the House would vote separately on Part 3 of Bill C-27 (AIDA). Subsequent to that ruling, the Committee Vice-Chair [referring to me] noted...that “we've chosen as a Committee to break up the witnesses,” and that “The details of AIDA will happen, and those witnesses will be at the back end of the witnesses.”

This was in the context of granting the Minister more time to produce his promised amendments on AIDA.

It goes on to ask for the bill to be split up. I do not have the time to read the whole letter, but it was interesting that when the minister led off the discussion in the committee, he said, essentially, that it is a flawed bill. He admitted it. His whole opening statement was about amending eight areas, or saying he was going to amend eight areas. It was very specific.

Then, when I and my other colleagues asked him to table those amendments, he refused. We actually had to fight, for four meetings, to get him to agree to table those amendments. We were about to embark on hearing from witnesses who were going to discuss a bill that was already out of date, and the minister was refusing to share what parts he thought were out of date and how he was going to amend it. He finally relented and put in eight draft amendments.

We held 21 meetings. Then, as my colleague from Bay of Quinte said, the Liberals proposed 55 amendments in clause-by-clause to their own bill. None of the witnesses in the 21 meetings that we had had a chance to comment on those 55 amendments. Thirty-eight of them are on artificial intelligence. The Liberals have made 38 amendments to the artificial intelligence bill that they introduced, when they said they were only going to make three or four. They hid all of those from the public, and now the public and the people in the industry have no ability to comment on them, because we are in clause-by-clause.

The minister's admission from the beginning that he had drafted a flawed bill, his admission that he had met with people only after the bill was tabled, his admission that he had basically met only with big business about the bill and his tabling of 55 amendments after we had heard from witnesses all speak to the fact that these are two separate bills on a flawed bill and need to be separated.

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

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. I came here believing that we would be debating budgetary measures on Bill C-69, something that Canadians are very much concerned about and would ultimately like to see passed.

I am wondering why it is that the Conservatives have now made the decision to try to have a discussion on an issue that we have already had a debate on. It is in the committee. Why not allow the committee to do the work and continue to do the work that it has been doing? There is nothing the member has said that previous governments have not done.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is that the budget has been widely panned by just about everybody in the country. I am surprised that the government wants to get on to debating it, since it has not actually tabled parts of the budget that it has talked about.

This is perhaps even more important to what happens to Canadians in the future than this flawed budget. It is about what is going to happen, how we regulate artificial intelligence, how it uses people's data and how we interact with it in the future. It is probably one of the most fundamental things. That is why Canadians want the bill separated. That is why it is vitally important that we do that now.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I remember that in 2018-19 the ethics committee, working across party lines, was attempting to bring forward to the House language to protect privacy rights in light of the Cambridge Analytica breach. One of the key elements that we had was the right not to be tracked. When my daughter goes on the Internet, why are they tracking her? Why is that phone tracking us? The ability to say no, to limit the amount of information, did not happen.

Then we had Clearview AI stealing people's images and selling them. The Privacy Commissioner stepped into the breach at that point, and yet he said that the Liberal government's privacy legislation at the time would undermine his ability to hold companies like Clearview to account.

Now we have AI. What we were dealing with in 2018 is like dealing with stagecoach robberies, given the speed of the ability to take information, to take our lives and to move them in ways we could not even conceive of, yet the Liberals are still puttering along with legislation. They have put it into what should be two separate bills that are really thought through. We are trying to just deal with one single bill.

I want to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks the danger to Canadian privacy is, with regard to the failure of the government to address the privacy rights of citizens and the right to privacy as a fundamental right.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is a question on which our side and the NDP have been in total agreement. We have worked hard in committee with the member for Windsor West to ensure that the bill has the fundamental right recognized up front. We have moved the preamble, which had no legal meaning, into the bill and changed it to make that part of it, as well as to define what a minor is and make the best interest of the child part of that. We have not gotten to the purpose section yet, where we will probably do that.

I know that the member spoke earlier about the Privacy Commissioner. In the committee, the Privacy Commissioner said that, to oversee this legislation, he would need a doubling of his budget. I see that, in this budget, there is not a penny more for the Privacy Commissioner. I guess the Liberals do not intend to have enforcement of the bill that they are trying to push through.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, with the challenge of dealing with a piece of legislation that is too complicated, and with two purposes, how do we deal in committee with legislation written this wrong?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. We struggled with it in committee. We took the privacy part first, the first part of the bill, and had it organized by subject areas, so some witnesses would come twice.

The problem we had was that by the time we got through that, the government decided that it wanted to limit the discussion on artificial intelligence, perhaps the most consequential part, and we ended up with only about eight meetings on artificial intelligence, which is wholly inadequate to deal with all the issues that have been raised. Of course, it makes it even more difficult when the minister does not share his amendments to that bill before we actually hear from those witnesses so that they can have input on the changes that the government wishes to make.

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

Madam Speaker, I move:

That the House do now proceed to the orders of the day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, we would request a vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #760

Committees of the House

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion carried.

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged by the budget implementation bill. There are many aspects of it that one could talk about.

I want to highlight something the Prime Minister highlighted just last week in Winnipeg North. We gathered at Elwick school and had a great elevation of an important issue, the national school food program. It is going to feed literally hundreds of thousands of children and ensure they have food in their stomachs while they are learning in the classroom.

Could the minister provide her thoughts on how such important budgetary measures are going to affect the lives of Canadians?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about the national school food program, which we estimate is going to lift 400,000 children out of poverty across this country. It is something we will work on with the provinces, territories and, of course, indigenous communities.

We know that developing brains need good nutrition, and Canada needs everyone to be able to reach their full potential. That is why it is important that we work in partnership with communities, school boards, provinces and territories to make sure that every child, no matter their income level, has a fair chance to get a good head start that day and be able to nourish their brains as they nourish their minds.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely disappointing to be sitting here and have the government decide, once again, to use the blunt force object that is time allocation rather than allowing a fulsome debate on the bill.

This is an implementation bill on a budget for which we have had countless constituent emails come to my office from people with very serious concerns. However, here the government is ramming this through again. It is very clear that it is afraid to hear what Canadians have to say on this.

Is the government concerned about the further inflationary spending that is being brought forward through the budget and what the impacts will be on Canadians?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague opposite speak about their concerns around the budget. In fact, the Conservative leader, without a second thought, said he would vote against the budget to support fairness for every generation. It includes many measures that the Conservative Party has been calling for, indeed, for example, more aggression on getting houses built across our country. The Canada housing plan would see 3.87 million new homes unlocked by 2031 and would ensure that the dream of home ownership is in reach for young Canadians, something that I know she and many members of the party opposite have spoken about in the House.

I would urge her to move this bill quickly to study. That is where we will be able to hear a variety of perspectives on this bill. We will be able to move more quickly to ensure that Canadians have what they need to have a fairness in their lives.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to be able to move legislation so that we can actually get something done. Canadians expect us to get something done here.

One of my concerns is that, in dealing with the issue of a national food program, a school nutrition program, if this passes, it is going to rob the Conservatives of their ability to stand up in the House. This morning, we heard the member for Peterborough going on about how concerned she was that children were not eating, although we have offered a national school program. She said that that it was just bureaucracy. That is what they think of feeding children; they called it “bureaucracy”.

I would like to ask the hon. member, the minister, about this. We are the only G7 country without a national nutrition program for school children, yet we have the Conservatives trying to block this. They are gaslighting people, and they actually claim that children are going hungry, while they will not let a program to feed children go ahead.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker. the hon. member noted that, in fact, we have a gap here in Canada, and that is feeding hungry children in school. We know that brains actually need that nourishment to develop and that Canada needs every ounce of potential if we are going to meet the challenging conditions of today and tomorrow.

We hear the members opposite in the Conservative Party speak about the need, on one hand, to take care of children and to take care of communities, but on the other hand, to not move forward quickly to ensure that programs are in place so that, no matter a person's income, they can access food, with dignity and with pride, in school, the way it should be.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Waterloo. They have brought many items to my attention and have raised many concerns. They want different levels of government to work together.

Within this budget implementation act, I understand there would be increased health care funding. There would be the national school food program that we have heard about. There would be funding for nearly four million homes. The region of Waterloo, within the riding of Waterloo, has received really good support through the housing accelerator fund. There would also be support for renters to ensure that they are able to understand their tenant rights so that they will not be put out of their homes.

Some constituents have also been raising the issue of free contraceptives. I know it is a hard conversation in this place, especially as the official opposition does not recognize that a woman should be able to have full control and decision-making over her body. It is unfortunate that we are still having that debate, but we know where Liberals stand.

I also know that this is about affordable dental care and much more.

I would like to hear from the minister as to what this budget implementation act would do when it comes to affordability and when it comes to making lives better for Canadians, especially for constituents within the riding of Waterloo.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her elocution of her constituents' concerns and of their thoughts. In fact, this entire budget is wrapped around the concept of fairness for every generation.

There are many exciting measures in the budget that would actually bring down the costs for Canadians, that would support Canadians, no matter what stage of life they are in, and, in fact, that would get us to a place where we have everybody reaching their full potential. There are things like expanding the Canada student loan forgiveness program so that pharmacists, dentists, dental hygienists, midwives, early childhood educators, teachers, social workers, personal support workers, physiotherapists and psychologists who choose to work in rural and remote communities could have any Canada student loan forgiven. That takes it a step beyond what we have already done, which is to remove interest on student loans, because the government is focused on making sure people reach their full potential.

The member opposite also spoke about contraceptives. In fact, we know that many people struggle with access to medication. That is why we are taking those next important steps on pharmacare, including the provision of diabetes medication and, importantly, contraceptive medication. We do believe, on this side of the House, that women should have the right to full autonomy over their bodies.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the budget and the BIA are increasing taxes on Canadians who cannot afford any more and on parents who cannot afford to put food on their tables to feed their children because taxes keep going up, in particular, the carbon tax. The reason we do not support the budget is that the NDP-Liberal government keeps increasing taxes on Canadians. Why is the government so bad at managing the calendar that it needs to limit debate on every single piece of legislation at every single stage?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would propose this question: Why are Conservatives so much in the way of actually making life more affordable for Canadians?

In the budget measures that we have proposed, there are many things the Conservatives themselves have called for that would make it more affordable for Canadians. In fact, we see a highlight of, yet again, misinformation that is being shared around the carbon tax when, in fact, eight out of 10 families get back more than they pay, and it is part of reducing emissions. I happened to overhear a conversation in this place earlier this morning. People were talking about the fear of the fires out west. We know we have to do more to protect the climate and to protect Canadians. The budget has measures for that, and we need to move quickly because Canadians are expecting us to work together on their behalf.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to just repeat that last question in a bit of a different way because, in this place, we should have a government and we should have a strong opposition who holds that government to account. Unfortunately, what we have is an official opposition who only gets in the way.

Every single time that we are trying to do something and actually get results, what do we hear from the Conservatives? We hear Conservatives yelling because they cannot handle hearing a woman ask a question, and then actually listen quietly. When the Conservatives want the floor, they want to be able to speak and to be listened to, but when it is their turn to listen, they do not want to listen. That is what is always really interesting about the Conservative way.

Why is it that every single time—