Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Mr. Fergus, if you feel that it would be beneficial at this time, you're welcome to make those comments.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Madam Chair, I just want to correct the situation because our remarks are recorded, and Canadians are listening to us.
Mr. Barrett's comments were absolutely correct, except that he forgot to mention one thing. There was goodwill around the table to satisfy Mr. Gourde, his colleague, who may be in a conflict of interest. It was goodwill on everyone's part, but especially on the part of Mr. Angus, who withdrew his motion to help our colleague Mr. Gourde.
It was important to mention, instead of giving the impression that there had been a partisan game going on here. There wasn't. We really wanted to help our colleague Mr. Gourde.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
If I've understood correctly what Mr. Angus said, there would be studies on this.
I'm wondering about the deployment of new solutions.
Certainly, at this point in time, in order to provide solutions to identity issues, we're going to have to review the studies, which I haven't seen, to see what we can deploy. What was done a year or a year and a half ago is different from what is being done now, in 2020.
That's my question.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Madam Chair, I would like to comment on Ms. Gaudreau's motion because, even though there have been previous studies, I think there have been so many changes in this area that we have to struggle to stay up to date.
I know my constituents are very concerned about protecting their identity, and this motion responds to that concern. In fact, one of my constituents, who is an expert in this field, described the whole system to me in detail.
I think that's where we're at and, if I'm not mistaken, it's even in the mandate letter of our Minister of Digital Government.
It's something concrete that can be added to this whole process.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
As I'm really going out of my way to be reasonable, which I'm not normally, is it possible to have our analysts present what we just did?
I know we're moving very fast, but we just did this study. If we get a review of this study, then we can ask questions and then we can decide whether there are areas that were overlooked. If Madame Gaudreau has other preoccupations that have not been considered, then we can say, okay, we could bring in some other witnesses or enlarge....
I don't feel that, within a year, it's worth repeating and starting from scratch. We should get a review of what was done and find out if there is a shortfall.
I'd be willing to support the motion based on looking at what we've done, whether there are shortfalls that we need to move on. How big that study is would be based on what we come up with after we get a briefing.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
In fact, I want to draw your attention to the terms: “reforming”; “system”; “identity”; and “SIN”. We've talked a lot about it, and there have been studies on it. It's called “deploying a new solution”. Right now, there is a scandal, and if there is a solution, we must act now.
I think that this wording prompts us to revise the studies, to add or update information and, for the time being, to concern ourselves with the identity of our fellow citizens.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Is there any further comment?
Seeing none, I will call the vote.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Sorry, Madam Chair, was the scope of the motion changed with Mr. Angus's suggestion, or was that just...?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
My understanding is that it was simply a comment, that there was no suggestion for amendment made.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
Since I had a motion pulled, I would move:
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; 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; that the committee examines the impacts of facial recognition technology and the growing power of artificial intelligence.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
In the spirit of co-operation that seems to be flying around the table, I think this is a most important study and an area that is moving so rapidly. The member across the way has raised the issue of the work done in the previous session of Parliament by this committee. That was groundbreaking, especially the work they did with other chambers internationally on a number of issues.
This issue is a defining issue of our time, and one that we should be taking up in this committee. I'm strongly supportive of the motion as laid out by my honourable colleague.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I would like to point out that I also agree with this proposal. I will go even further, and this is a little personal, Madam Chair.
There are some questions that could be proposed by Mr. Angus.
There are some very negative implications for racialized people with regard tofacial recognition. The algorithm used doesn't recognize the distinct faces of racialized people. So it would be important to add another part to our study, since there could be very serious consequences for racialized people because of these technologies.
I hope Mr. Angus will agree to a friendly amendment.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Mr. Fergus, just to be clear, is there a specific motion you would suggest in terms of wording?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
We would say, “security and safety of minor children and racialized communities”.