Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 24th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Madam Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I agree and—you read the other motion—I won't make any changes, but it goes in much the same direction. However, I do see that facial recognition is really an issue.

I'd still like to talk to you about my motion, and then maybe we can find something in common. So I'm in complete agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I want to thank my colleague for his comments on the work our previous committee did. I think the work of this committee has been recognized internationally. I was just in Washington at a meeting where people were talking about what this committee did. Facial recognition technology was the one next step, and many of the other jurisdictions around the world are still dealing with disinformation. They're still dealing with stuff that I think our committee has really gotten a handle on.

I think this is a major study, and I think we have to do it right. We may have to do it in sections, if that's needed, because we all have to be brought up to speed on AI and all that. I would suggest that we take a bit of time just to come up with a witness list that we're comfortable with and that we think would advise us and lay out the groundwork.

Then we may consider adding more witnesses. I don't think that in a study like this we should say that it's going have eight meetings and then come up with our witness list by Tuesday. This is something that is going to really open up a lot for us. I would suggest having an initial series of meetings based on some key people to come, and maybe then we could reconsider as to whether we've heard enough or we want to add.

Certainly, on the amendment, I'll say to my colleague that I'm sorry that I hadn't even put that in there, but this is fundamental in terms of how.... Also, on the biases, that's why I wanted to say “and the growing power of artificial intelligence”. It was the other element that our committee began to look at. The biases in AI are having huge civil rights impacts, because we have no ability to actually see inside the black boxes. To be able to look at this, I think, would be a very good study.

I don't think I need to add to the motion. I have said previously that I'm hoping we will invite all the officers of Parliament. I would like to invite Mr. Therrien very soon because he has already started an investigation. We don't want to be stepping on his toes. We want, I think, to respect what he's going to do and to hear from him. He may give us some advice on something that the committee could look at, because we will probably be looking in some comparable but different directions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Thank you.

Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

How is it structured? Perhaps this is a question for later, once the motion is adopted. How do we structure it to achieve Mr. Angus's suggestion—likely very necessary—to parcel it out or to do it over a longer period of time? It's a large study, as he described. It is a big issue and we have the capacity to move the needle on this. What's the precedent for addressing that? I guess that question is for you, Madam Chair, or for the clerk.

In my limited committee experience, we usually did one study at a time, with six meetings, and then the next study with four meetings and so on. We didn't do things concurrently or flex in and out. I'm just looking for a little information for my understanding, if you could indulge me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

After making a decision with regard to the studies that this committee will undertake, we will convene a meeting with the subcommittee members. At the subcommittee level, we will come to a decision with regard to.... Of course, every party is represented at the subcommittee, so that will be a collaborative process in order to determine the order of the studies, as well as the length of the studies.

Of course, if it is determined that the study should require more time down the road, Mr. Angus or another member of this committee could then make that request. If it is the will of the committee to do so, of course that study could be further extended at that time.

Mr. Angus.

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

I would like to suggest for going forward that we give ourselves until maybe coming back off the break, say, to have our initial witness list. That would allow all of us to do research and come back with a witness list. The witness list might be incredibly long, and we might decide to bring it down a bit, but in terms of having a big study, we have Madame Gaudreau's study and Madame Shanahan has some motions—whether or not we move forward—and we need to have the commissioners.

I would say that if we're going to have a block of time, let's come back in a week and have our witness lists. It's going to take a bit of time to get some of them in place, so we want to have some other things to keep the committee moving. Then we can decide, after six initial meetings or something, whether we're moving forward. I think we just keep looking. We will know if we've heard enough. I would say to give us till that first Monday back, and that's when our witness list has to be in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Fergus.

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

I would like to concede my point to Mr. Levitt, please, if that's possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Sure. Mr. Levitt.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

There are a couple of things. I absolutely agree with my honourable colleague's point regarding witnesses and that it may develop over time. There might be new angles that we find, and new witnesses. Certainly, keeping witness lists open is something we've done in Foreign Affairs on some of the larger studies. It means that there is the opportunity, if we discover a new area of interest, to continue to raise witnesses.

I also think that, given the complexity of this issue, it might benefit someone like me—and maybe other members too who aren't as familiar—to have the analysts do a broad scope document for us on some of the key issues as we are getting into this in the next week or so, if that experience is there. That would certainly be helpful to me, and probably to some other members too, to be able to get our bearings on this.

I just have one final point, which relates to the work done by the previous committee. I can think of no issue before us in Parliament that has more of a dynamic across jurisdictions than this one. It may be that this once again aligns with the idea of a super committee with colleagues in other jurisdictions. I'm not trying to overstep. I know we're getting this rolling, but I was just at the Munich Security Conference, and these sorts of issues are coming up all over the place. It may well be that in working with some of our like-minded allies in other jurisdictions—this is the Foreign Affairs voice in me coming out—this could have a very significant impact.

I leave it as a possibility and maybe something that we can think about as a committee as we're moving forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

At this point, I will take a vote on the amendment that was made. I will get the clerk to read out the motion with the amendment.

[The Clerk]

Moved by Mr. Angus:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics study the use or possible use of facial recognition technology by various levels of government in Canada, law enforcement agencies, private corporations and individuals; that the committee investigates how this technology will impact the privacy, security and safety of minor children and racialized communities; that the committee study includes how this technology may be used nefariously, such as a tool for criminal harassment or for other unlawful surveillance purposes; that the committee investigate any possible link, formal or informal, between Canadian law-enforcement agencies and private technology corporations or start-ups including, but not limited to Clearview AI and Palantir; and that the committee examines the impacts of facial recognition technology and the growing power of artificial intelligence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Do you want it read in French?

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

As for the translation, I would like to suggest “des communautés racisées” in French.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes, that's good in French.

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

So this should be “des communautés racisées”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

We'll vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

The motion as amended, then....

Mr. Angus.

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

Can I amend my own motion?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I haven't read the French, but I don't know if I need to say “minor children”. I don't think that children can be anything else but minor, so I think we should just.... One word is sufficient.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Your children are your children for all your life.

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

My mother tells me that, but....

[The Chair, Conservative, Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Angus, I don't believe that's a substantive amendment, so we can just accept that.

Mr. Kurek.