Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 24th, 2020

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

Sorry, I misunderstood him. I would have had it further up, because I think we then go into law enforcement. So we're identifying who's affected; we're identifying who's using it; we're identifying, then, the need to compare facial recognition technology and AI.

I would have put it further up: “children, seniors, vulnerable populations; that the committee examine the impacts of facial recognition technology on racialized communities”. We can say “facial recognition technology and AI” or just “facial recognition technology”. It's a stand-alone bullet point, but it's not down at the end, because it just seems as though that becomes the focus, whereas we're saying this is one of the objectives we're going to look at.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I stand corrected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Okay. Are we clear on that amendment? Excellent.

We now move to a vote on accepting that amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Excellent. Thank you.

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

This is where we always get into trouble, right at this moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I would like to come back to the constructive suggestion of my colleague Mr. Levitt. We could ask the analysts to give us a summary of these files. I don't know what deadline we should set, but I'd like it to be reasonable. I know that the analysts are not necessarily experts in all areas and that they have to do research. We could give them until the end of the first week's break.

Should it be shorter?

I'm married to a former analyst. She left her position when I was elected. I'm familiar with the work they do, and we ask a lot of them. If we want a summary that makes sense, we have to give them some time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Sure.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I would like to know if we are leaving it in your hands to give instructions to the analysts. Is there a consensus, or do we have to move a motion, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I believe that a request can be made to the analysts.

The motion has not been moved. We have to bear that in mind.

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

I'm the only anarchist in the world who follows all the rules. Come on—we haven't gotten to the motion yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I do apologize. The motion has, in fact, been moved, but the motion has not been accepted. I will need to do that, and then, of course, we can discuss with the analysts what is possible in terms of further research and preparing this committee for that study.

Mr. Angus.

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

I move my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

I just wanted to make sure that you didn't have anything else that you wished to add.

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

I realize there are a lot of other things I think are really important, but I just want to get it voted on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Perfect. Thank you so much.

We now move to a vote on accepting the study as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Excellent. Thank you.

At this point, I'll pause for one moment here and discuss with the analysts what they think would be an appropriate time frame, so just give me one minute to suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

We're back. My apologies.

Come on back, Angus.

We do have a motion in front of us. We still need to vote on that motion.

No, sorry, we voted on that motion. It has been accepted for study. We have a suggestion, I should say, put forward by Mr. Fergus that the analysts do some research for us in order to prepare for this study.

I apologize. Thank you for bearing with me. Mr. Levitt has suggested that we ask the analysts to do some research for us.

The analysts have agreed. This is part of their mandate to help equip us as the committee.

I would suggest that we want the analysts to prioritize their time according to our priorities. I would suggest that we actually wait to direct the analysts until we know the order of study. Once we've determined how we are going to prioritize our list, then we can easily ask the analysts to do research for us and present us with reports accordingly. This would help them make the best use of their time, and it would ensure that we are prepared for studies accordingly, if you guys agree to that.

Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Just as a point of information, would this be the subcommittee? Would it meet during a meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

This is where we would go from here. At our next meeting, we will spend half the time coming back to committee business. Then we'll move forward from there. From there, the subcommittee will meet and order the studies. They will order them according to which one will be studied first, second, third, etc., as well as giving a time allocation.

The committee is going to need to assist the subcommittee with that by offering some insight in terms of witness lists. I would ask this committee, between now and our next meeting, to just start considering witnesses that you would bring forward for the studies that are already on the table. I'm not asking for a formal list at this point in time, but I am asking you to start considering the witnesses you might bring forward.

At the next meeting, I will be able to give you a timeline in terms of when those witnesses would be desired, to help equip the subcommittee going forward.

Seeing that it's 5:30, I will call this meeting adjourned.