- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Louis-Hébert
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $113,755.58
- Government Page
- May/9/24 10:01:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, entitled “Main Estimates 2024-25”.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 2:47:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for 70 years, since 1954, the Carnaval de Québec has been delighting thousands of people in the Quebec City region, from throughout Quebec and around the world. It is an opportunity for people of all ages to make new memories and experience a sense of wonder, from the kids who meet the living snowman for the first time and discover his majestic palace, to their grandparents who rediscover him through their eyes.
It is an event that makes winter more enjoyable, or at least more tolerable, not to mention that it provides major economic benefits.
Can the Minister of Tourism tell us what our government is doing to ensure the growth of the Carnaval de Québec?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the parliamentary secretary. He is used to this, but I think he can make room for others.
I fully agree with my colleague on many things. We need more mental health resources and more access to care. There are several socio-economic factors that can exacerbate mental illness.
As far as today's bill is concerned, I would like us to look at things from another angle. Let us look at the genesis of what brought us to include mental illness as grounds to request medical assistance in dying. It came from a Senate amendment that, in my opinion, should not have been accepted by the government. I do not want to make any assumptions, but we are hearing rumours that senators might try to block what could be the will of the House to delay this for three years, as Bill C‑62 seeks to do.
What is my colleague's opinion about the role the Senate should play with respect to the House, whose members are duly elected to make decisions?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 9:45:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely want to thank my colleague for her speech. I believe that this is an issue where the debates are particularly instructive for members. We have been dealing with these matters in the House of Commons since 2016 and my position has changed over time, including on advance requests.
I think I still need to study the issue, but I understand that this can be useful in some cases. I have met people who could have used this. I have heard some very touching stories, even from people close to me, about people who could use this. However, on the subject of mental illness, my position has also crystallized. Many psychiatrists have told me that this track was not necessarily desirable, that it was far too difficult to gauge the irremediability of a mental illness.
My colleague mentioned the consensus in Quebec. Yes, there is one on advance requests. However, as far as mental illness as a sole reason for opening the door to medical assistance in dying goes, the National Assembly of Quebec did vote in Bill 11, in June 2023, as my colleague mentioned. It excludes mental illness because there is in fact no consensus within the medical community. Some members of that community shared their deep concerns with me about opening up MAID for this.
I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.
230 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 9:17:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a gripping topic. I think that very reasonable people can have different views.
My colleague just talked about Quebec, which is indeed one step ahead. However, let us not forget that in June 2023, the National Assembly voted in legislation that completely excluded medical assistance in dying for persons suffering solely from a mental illness, following testimony from psychiatrists from throughout Quebec. Psychiatrists from Université Laval in my riding shared with me their reservations about moving forward on this issue. In my view, what the government is suggesting today is to slow down because we are clearly not ready. There are so many questions that still need to be answered about opening up MAID for this specific category of patient.
Without being against MAID in general, I would like to know what she thinks about comparing what the government is doing and what the National Assembly of Quebec has decided.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is a colleague I have always enjoyed working with. I remember one of the very first files I was asked to work on as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health back in 2017 was his private member's bill, Bill C-211, on post-traumatic stress disorder, so I know it means a great deal to him, and I appreciate his speech.
I voted with our colleague from the other side to completely abandon the idea of opening MAID to people solely affected by mental illness. I have been convinced, through the discussions I have had with psychiatrists from across the country, that we are not ready nor is it desirable to go down that path for various reasons. One of them is that it is hard to say for certain that a mental illness is irremediable, but another aspect that moved me is that, if someone were to have access to that, theoretically, we would need to exhaust all possible treatment options. As we know, in this country, treatment options are sometimes, depending on the regions, hard to access, so I would like to have his comments on that.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, I also want to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for this very simple, well designed and precise bill, which addresses a rather important concern. It is important because symbols are important, even though I agree with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie that there are likely other issues that are of greater concern. There is the monetary system that puts wealth into the hands of a few, for instance, or inflation, which is affecting our constituents across the country.
We know, perhaps better than anyone, that here in politics symbols are very important. I think that oaths are important, that they should not be taken lightly and should not be taken grudgingly. I truly believe that no person duly elected by their constituents to represent them in the House should be reluctant to swear an oath to take their seat, reluctant to do it for various reasons. There may be various reasons to be reluctant to swear an oath to a foreign monarch, as one of my Bloc Québécois colleagues said. For various reasons, namely historic ones, there are some people here who will have a hard time swearing an oath to an institution that may leave a bad taste in their mouth. There are many different identities represented here in the House of Commons, much like the people we represent. I think that if we can find a way to take our seat by swearing an oath that respects the sensibilities of every individual while honouring the historic reality that my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche described so well by giving the option, that would be a good thing.
That is exactly the purpose of Bill C‑347. As I said, it offers a very elegant solution, the option to swear an oath of office that I will read as written in my colleague's bill, an oath that would be added to the one we swear now. It says that we will carry out our duties “in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution”. That, to me, is a much more inclusive oath.
There have been several attempts to change the oath of allegiance that members of Parliament must swear. As I was reading in Marc Bosc's green book, such attempts occurred in 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2002 and 2003. I think that my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche's Bill C‑347 offers a very simple and effective way to do this. That is what I want to focus on in my speech.
If we were to look into the origins of this obligation to take an oath to assume office and take our seat in Parliament, we would see that it dates to the 16th century. This oath was originally intended to exclude Roman Catholics, among others. Initially, the aim was to bar them from Parliament. It evolved over time to include more people or exclude others, but it is clear that, today, section 128 of the Constitution sets out the obligation for members and senators to take an oath. That oath can be found in the fifth schedule and reads as follows: “I, A.B., do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to [His Majesty King Charles III].”
Bill C-347 simply adds to section 128 another section that would allow elected members to take another oath, a solemn declaration. This other section states, “Notwithstanding subsection (1), every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada may take and subscribe the Oath of Office contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act instead of the Oath of Allegiance or may take and subscribe both.” That oath I just read would be added to the fifth schedule.
I was listening to my Conservative Party colleague talk about constitutionality, and I think that is the crux of the problem for those who may oppose this bill. We are not preventing anyone from swearing an oath to the monarchy. We are just offering another option for those who, like me, as a member from Quebec, are uncomfortable or have reservations about swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch. However, when it comes to amending the Constitution, we must refer to section 44, among others, which states, “Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.” That is exactly what this is about.
Now we have to check sections 41 and 42 to see if there is something there that could prevent this. I will spare my colleagues a reading of that long list. Bill C‑347 has no impact on section 42. There may be something in section 41.
According to section 41 of the Constitution, anything affecting “the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province” would require the unanimous consent of the legislative assemblies of each province, the House of Commons and the Senate. Is the office of the Queen or the Governor General affected by Bill C‑347? In my opinion, no. Nothing about the office of the Governor General will change. She must listen to an oath, and it is up to parliamentarians to decide which oath to swear. Oaths have certainly evolved over time to reflect society's values; that is key to our democracy. I think that Bill C‑347 adapts the oath to reflect Canada's values.
949 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/23 2:00:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today marks the 15th anniversary of Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper, which gave birth to the Bitcoin network, a fully decentralized peer-to-peer and permissionless way to exchange value.
In the words of Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, “the Bitcoin whitepaper is one of the most seminal works of computer science in the last...30 years. It's poetry.” In the words of SEC chairman Gary Gensler, “Satoshi's innovative potential to spur change...is worth pursuing...to lower economic rents...and promote economic inclusion.”
I could not agree more. In fact, over the last decade, we have seen Bitcoin empower the underbanked, as well as those living in oppressive regimes. Women, for instance, use Bitcoin all over the world to evade unjust restrictions on their financial freedoms. It has also helped thousands of families avoid the tragedy of currency debasement.
In full disclosure, while I do own Bitcoin, I am not advocating for anyone to buy it, but I do advocate for everyone to study it, progressives in particular, because, after all, Bitcoin was born in the midst of the great financial crisis as an alternative to big banks, greed and the system that never failed to bail them out. It stands for a truly progressive ideal. Today, let me thank Satoshi Nakamoto, whomever that may be, and wish a happy 15th anniversary to Bitcoin's white paper.
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/23 6:44:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will leave it to others to comment on the propriety of the procedure put forward by the Conservative Party, but, in essence, it is a very interesting question.
When it comes to public money, we must be as transparent as possible. Above all, we must ensure that the officers of Parliament, who are independent, have all the tools and information they need to shed light on what happened. When we learn, for one, that software developers report they were able to reproduce the application at a fraction of the cost that was charged to taxpayers, this shows, in my opinion, the clear need to shed light on this issue.
Does the member believe that sending this report back to committee with the proposed amendment will get to the bottom of what happened?
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:26:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank my colleague for her nuanced speech, nuance that is sorely lacking when we look at the state of public discourse on this unspeakable strategy that has unfolded in the Middle East since October 7.
I just want to make a few comments before asking my question. I think that my colleague is exactly right when she says that we must eliminate Hamas, of which far too many Israelis and Palestinians are victims. They have been stuck with this terrorist group for 17 years now without any opportunity to make a choice. The Palestinians are paying the price for this terrorist group, Hamas.
I also believe that she is exactly right when she says, in her response, that Israel has a heavy responsibility with respect to the methods it resorts to and that it must also respect international humanitarian law. We see that with 3,000 victims in Gaza and more than 1,000 Israeli victims: Violence breeds violence. I think we need to be careful to ensure that the actions that are taken do not further widen the gap that has been widening for decades.
I have a question for her. I will echo what Jean‑François Lépine said on the show Tout le monde en parle on Sunday evening. He said that if there is one thing that has come out of what is happening in Israel and Gaza, it is that the status quo cannot work. There needs to be a two-state solution, two viable states.
Does my colleague agree with that statement?
268 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:08:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and reiterate his unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist acts committed by Hamas, which have shocked the entire world. They certainly shocked me and shocked all Canadians. I also want to echo his call for the respect of international law and his empathy for the innocent people in Gaza and what they are going through right now, as well as for the innocent people of Israel. Unfortunately, violence begets violence. As we have heard in the debates this evening, in terms of respect for international law, these are extraordinary times.
Does my colleague not think that it is precisely in times of crisis, in difficult times, that we must be guided by our principles, especially principles as fundamental as respect for international law?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the following three reports of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.
I am tabling the 14th report, entitled “Domestic Manufacturing Capacity for a COVID‑19 Vaccine - Prevention is Better than Cure”, and the 15th report, entitled “Blockchain Technology: Cryptocurrencies and Beyond”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.
I also have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology concerning Bill C-42, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House with amendments.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the analysts, the interpreters and our clerk, and now our new clerk. Their work was instrumental in the committee's successful presentation and tabling of these three reports.
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 2:00:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I want to make it clear that I speak here today as the member for Louis-Hébert and not as a representative of the Canadian government, if ever there was any doubt.
A month ago, we highlighted World Press Freedom Day. As we all know, a free and independent press is a pillar of our democracy. However, there is one case that casts a long shadow on the ideals we purport to defend here in western democracies. I am talking about the case of Julian Assange.
Julian Assange is currently jailed in the United Kingdom, fighting extradition to the U.S., where he is being charged under the century-old Espionage Act and facing 175 years in prison on charges for publishing information of immense public interest that served to expose war crimes in Iraq, charges for doing exactly what quality and independent news organizations do every day, and what we expect them to do.
Whatever one thinks of Julian Assange, it is time for Canada to side with organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, and with news outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, EL PAÍS, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and to ask for these charges to be dropped, because they set a chilling precedent and because publishing is not a crime.
227 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/23 2:02:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening, I had the pleasure of once again attending the traditional SOPAR committee dinner at De Rochebelle high school.
The SOPAR committee is made up of dozens of young people who, year after year, without fail, dedicate themselves to raising funds to build wells in southern India. Through good times and bad, they have managed to build over 100 wells in the past 13 years.
I want to congratulate all of the young people, past and present, who helped achieve this feat. Their commitment does them credit. I congratulate them. I also want to underscore the inspired and inspiring work of the staff members who spent countless hours making this involvement possible. My thanks go out to Denys Parent, Nicole Lagacé, Manon Lapolice, Nicolas Blanchet and Marina Gonzalez.
Finally, I would like to say a special word about principal Daniel Lemelin, whose well-deserved retirement is fast approaching. Rochebelle has always had a special place in Daniel's heart, and he always managed to bring people together, whether they were students, teachers or parents.
Daniel reminded me last Thursday that once, in the long-distant past, when I was running for school council president, my campaign slogan was: “Rochebelle can do better”. I would have a hard time campaigning on that slogan all these years later, considering how Rochebelle has thrived under his caring leadership. I thank Daniel for everything and wish him a very happy retirement.
244 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/23 2:11:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House today in recognition of May as Brain Tumour Awareness Month. Every day, 27 Canadians receive life-altering news that they have a brain tumour. Brain tumours impact people of all ages, incomes, social backgrounds and, of course, political affiliation.
Just last year, our Liberal family tragically lost two young people who were in the prime of their lives and who are now survived by their spouses and children. I want to take a moment to recognize the courageous battles fought by both Andrew Boyle and Trevor Harrison, whose memories remain with us now and forever.
This month, as we spend time with our families, friends and constituents, let us work together to raise awareness and break down stigma.
Since we still do not know what causes brain tumours or how to cure them, it is essential that we promote testing and early treatment. Let us continue to work together for the good of those who have been diagnosed with a brain tumour and those who treat them.
I encourage everyone to contribute what they can by visiting braintumour.ca and by participating in the annual walk here in Ottawa in a few weeks.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a question that has come up many times, even when we look at PIPEDA historically. Why were political parties excluded? They seem to have fallen into a no man's land, in many respects, when it comes to privacy and data protection. I would be interested to know why and, if not, how we can work to better protect the data of Canadians when it comes to political parties. Definitely, it is a very worthwhile question that the member has raised.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am following the debate.
If we look at Europe, it seems quite complicated to create a framework to govern artificial intelligence. However, I think we should draw inspiration from Europe's efforts. The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is certainly going to want more information about how the Europeans are going about it.
One thing is certain. I think what makes this so difficult is that the technology is evolving so fast. The part of Bill C-27 that deals with AI, as currently proposed, gives the government the freedom to do a lot through regulation, which is not necessarily ideal as far as I am concerned. However, when it comes to AI, I doubt that there is any other option. Today we are talking about ChatGPT, but I can almost guarantee that by next year, if not this summer, we will have moved on to something completely different.
The situation is changing so fast that I think we need to be very nimble in dealing with AI. I have heard the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill, whom I see eye to eye with on these issues, use the word nimble.
What I like about Bill C‑27 is that it creates the position of a commissioner who reports to the minister and who will look into these issues. I have long believed that we should have someone to oversee AI, someone to study all the new capabilities and the risks of accidents that this poses—because there are serious risks—and to be able to translate this into terms that the general public, legislators and the House can understand.
280 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, from my understanding, the reason invoked by the government is some jurisdictional issues, but I am unclear, and that is one of the questions I will be more than happy if he asks in committee. If he does not, I will, to understand why it has not been enshrined. In my mind, it would be worthwhile having privacy as a fundamental right, enshrined not only in the preamble of the bill but also in clause 5, because it would give more weight to privacy when courts are asked to interpret this bill, which to me, as I have mentioned in my speech, is a fundamental right and a fundamental aspect of our democratic life.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before I start, I have to say that I have learned a lot listening to the interventions in this debate. I've just learned that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is subscribing to the feed of the hon. member who just spoke. I know he is a brilliant and knowledgeable man, so he must have other sources of information. That I can guarantee.
It is my pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022, which, as my colleagues know, contains three parts.
Part 1 enacts the consumer privacy protection act and replaces Part 1 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA. Part 2 establishes a personal information and data protection tribunal, which is a key component in the enforcement of the consumer privacy protection act. Finally, part 3, which has been the subject of more discussion this afternoon, enacts the artificial intelligence and data act, which lays the foundation for Canada's first regulations governing the development, deployment and design of artificial intelligence systems. I will come back to that a little later.
First of all, I implore the members of this House to support Bill C-27 and send it to committee for further study. In my view, Bill C-27, as it is currently drafted, is a big step in the right direction in terms of both privacy protection and artificial intelligence. Obviously, there are areas where the bill could be improved. I have great confidence in the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, which I have the honour of chairing. I know that it will study this bill carefully and come back to the House with amendments that will be useful and improve the two important areas protected by Bill C-27, namely privacy and the regulation of artificial intelligence. This will help foster innovation while ensuring that any risks associated with this new technology are well managed in Canada.
It is important for us to move forward and vote in favour of Bill C‑27, because the privacy legislation it replaces was enacted over 20 years ago. I am referring to PIPEDA, the law that caused me so many headaches when I was a young lawyer. Now, 20 years later, we all know that its approach to regulating privacy protection is a little outdated. With organizations growing ever more powerful and collecting ever more data using increasingly intrusive technologies, the time has come to modernize the protection of personal information in Canada. Our privacy is under attack.
In my opinion, privacy is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, just as philosopher Vladimir Jankélévitch saw courage as the cardinal virtue without which all other virtues grow dim or practically disappear. Courage is the impetus.
To me, privacy is kind of the same thing, because it leaves room for the inner life a person needs to feel free to express themselves, free to think and therefore be truly free. Jeremy Bentham understood that, as his panopticon concept shows. A panopticon is simple; it is a prison that, instead of being in the shape of a large rectangle with several cells lined up next to one another, where a guard comes by from time to time to check on the inmates, it is circular and has a central tower where a guard may observe the inmates. Knowing that they might be watched, the inmates will modify their behaviour and will be better behaved. The idea is that when we know that we might be monitored, we censor ourselves, which is what makes privacy so important. To me, that is what makes privacy one of the foundations of our democracy.
Bill C‑27 does not affect the public sector, the relationship between the government and citizens, or the Privacy Act. It targets the private sector, which in my opinion is just as important, given the rising power of some companies that are collecting more and more information about citizens all the time, as I mentioned. As we saw from what has come to light in the United States, in some cases, these companies have a suspiciously close relationship with the government. Take, for example, Edward Snowden's revelations and the “Twitter Files”. Given the amount of data they collect, they know their users so intimately, maybe even more intimately than the users know themselves, that studies show they even have the ability to change users' behaviour. For example, think about social media and the suggestions that are made. That can influence a person's ideology. It can also influence consumer choices.
For me, there is no doubt that we need to improve and increase the protection of personal information and privacy. There are some good things in Bill C‑27. I will start by talking about those things, and then I will move on to what could be improved.
First of all, I am very much in favour of the power given to Canadians under this legislation that allows them to delete their data. I think that is a must. I also welcome the power that Canadians will have to share their personal information among organizations, which could encourage competition.
In my view, it is commendable that the bill gives greater powers to the Privacy Commissioner, including the power to order organizations to stop collecting or using data. I think that reflects what we have heard from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, for example. I also welcome the fact that that office will have more flexibility to focus on its priorities or the priorities reported to it by Canadians.
I would also point out that the tougher penalties in the bill are good news. Finally, a key aspect worth mentioning is the protection of minors, as the bill makes their personal information de facto sensitive, which enhances their protection. I think that is very positive.
As for what could be improved and what should be noted and studied in committee, I believe that privacy protection should be set out as a fundamental human right, both in the preamble of the bill and in clause 5. I think that would send a clear message and have legal consequences. It would send a clear message to the courts having to address this issue and result in significant legal effects. I know that the government has raised jurisdictional issues regarding this issue, and so I would be interested in hearing more in committee.
I also think it would be worthwhile clarifying the provisions around consent. The proposed subsection 15(4) of the new act talks about plain language that an individual to whom the organization's activities are directed would reasonably be expected to understand. That is a change from the current version of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which refers to the user's understanding. I do not understand this change. I am not certain that it adds clarity to the consent to be obtained. I would like to hear more about that.
I am not convinced of the probity of implied consent, which is set out in subsection 15(5). In my opinion, it would be preferable to only have express consent, without which a company could invoke legitimate interest, as long as that legitimate interest is clearly defined in the legislation as being secondary to the interests and fundamental rights of individuals, a bit like we find in the European general data protection regulation.
Finally, I believe that the sensitive information referred to in the bill would benefit from being clarified and defined, in the absence of a very specific definition as seen in Quebec's Bill 25, which gives companies a lot of latitude to determine what they consider sensitive information. I think that Bill C‑27 would be improved by clarifying and defining the notion of sensitive information.
I would be curious to learn more in committee about the security safeguards, control over one's own personal data, the role and benefit of the tribunal being created, and how it would protect privacy. To be completely honest, I have not formed an opinion yet, but I am eager to find out more.
This leaves me far too little time to talk about artificial intelligence. However, that is what I wanted to talk about the most. Time flies when having fun. I will say a few words, if only to point out the staggering increase in AI over the past two years.
For the benefit of any lay people in the House, GPT‑3 was created in 2020. I am also a layperson, but I have benefited from the knowledge of experts like Jérémie Harris. I want to give a shout-out to him, because he organized a conference on Parliament Hill with me a few months ago to try to raise awareness about artificial intelligence. He explained to me that there was a revolution in the AI world two years ago. Instead of trying to connect artificial neurons, researchers realized that all they had to do was increase the number of artificial neurons to create ever more powerful neural networks. The speed of the increase has been staggering: GPT‑2 had 1.5 billion parameters, GPT‑3 had 175 billion parameters, and GPT‑4 has 100 trillion parameters. They are likely getting close to achieving human-level intelligence.
Everyone is talking about ChatGPT, but it is not the only AI out there. There is also Google's LaMDA, which is not public and which we know very little about. Blake Lemoine, one of the engineers who worked on it, was fired this summer because he said that he thought Google's LaMDA was sentient. That is one example, but there are also PaLM and Gato, which were developed by Google's DeepMind Lab. That is not to mention all the initiatives that we are not even aware of.
I think AI opens up a lot of opportunities, but it also comes with a lot of risk. When human intelligence can be so accurately mimicked and probably even surpassed one day in certain areas, that comes with national security and public safety risks.
That being said, I echo the call of many researchers, including Yoshua Bengio and others in the field, who are saying that we need to support the principle of Bill C-27, that the bill needs to be examined in committee and that Canada needs AI regulations.
1777 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in relation to Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair).
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendment.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in relation to Bill C-288, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act (transparent and accurate broadband services information).
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendment.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in relation to Bill C-294, an act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability).
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House also with amendment.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
