Information & Ethics Committee on March 8th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Very good. Nobody else is indicating....

Mr. Fortin, I guess we'll let you have the last word.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that I understand the members' argument about the need to do things efficiently during a meeting and to propose amendments orally. I don't disagree with that. I see their point.

Yes, this is a bilingual country, but it's also important to recognize the reality. Mr. Gourde and I are the only French speakers taking part in today's meeting. Mr. Fergus is fluent in both languages, but that isn't the case for everyone.

You need to understand that it's not just about pieces of legislation. The fact of the matter is that French-speaking members are victims of their language, victims because they speak French. It's fine when members propose simple amendments like the ones this morning, but substantive motions tend to be complicated. Language is nuanced, so when a motion is written in both official languages, it ensures committee members have a solid understanding of what they are voting on. I really cannot see why anyone would object to having to put forward a substantive motion in both official languages.

I know members who do not speak English, so when someone proposes a substantive motion that is five, six or 10 lines long and it is simply translated by the interpreters, problems can arise, especially given the issues we have with sound from time to time. I've had an experience where an English-speaking member moved a motion in good faith, but the interpreter rendered the exact opposite of what was in the motion. I was about to vote against the motion when the clerk told me that he was going to translate it himself and send it to me in writing. Naturally, that completely changed my vote.

We claim to have a bilingual Parliament, so we should act as though we do. As a francophone, I want my English-speaking counterparts to have a written version of what I've put forward so they fully understand what I mean. That way, the committee can engage in an intelligent debate. Members always have pros and cons to bring to the table, and that enriches the debate.

It is somewhat surprising that members would want to prevent someone from having a clear understanding of something that is being proposed. I repeat, I am referring mainly to substantive motions.

You were opposed to my motion when it came to amendments, so I'm fine with amending the motion. I'll leave it there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Just to be clear, colleagues, we're voting on the motion unamended—as the text was presented and circulated in both official languages.

We'll turn to the clerk now for the roll call vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, I think that addresses everything we had on the agenda or that needed to be addressed today—

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

I have one other point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I just want to know whether it needs a second vote or not. I had brought forward the motion that we had already voted on—on the facial recognition study—that has been put aside because of all the other things like the WE scandal.

I'm suggesting that we bring it forward because we are finishing up soon, I believe, the Pornhub study. We are going to be sending directions to the analysts to start preparing the WE report. We are waiting on a government bill on privacy. I was thinking that in the meantime we could start to work on facial recognition. We could start to draw the witnesses and it would give us some work that we can do in between these other big projects that are nearing completion.

I don't know if we need to have a vote, or if this is something we voted on, but I'm willing to have a second vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

It has been approved as a study of this committee, but you are correct that the timing hasn't been fully agreed upon. We've been having to juggle a couple of hearings, two different studies already. Certainly, I'd be interested to hear committee members with regard to this.

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just like to say this.

It's about time.

We need to do the study as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the clock is already ticking.

Companies put this type of software development on hold when the pandemic began, but I am very worried that the work will resume. No authority in the world has properly regulated the use of the technology.

Mr. Angus's motion received unanimous support when it was first proposed, in early 2020, pre-pandemic. It's high time we get on with it. This is a hugely important issue, especially for racialized populations, since the software has a harder time recognizing their faces, as we know.

I hope we can begin our study post-haste.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Dong, we'll turn to you.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I agree with Mr. Fergus that this is a very important study for the racialized population in our country. I want to thank Mr. Angus for bringing this up again.

I believe this was passed in the last Parliament, but I don't recall that we actually voted on this motion to study it during this Parliament. I brought it up during the WE Charity debate and tried to move this forward. It was accepted, but it never received a debate.

I don't recall that it was ever voted on. I want to check with the clerk, through you, Chair, just to see if there is a record that this was voted on, passed and ready for study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

My recollection is that it was agreed to move forward with the study. It seems that there is a general agreement to work on this study as we complete these other studies and fill in the dates that are available and begin that process.

I don't think we need to go to a vote, because there has been agreement in the past to move into the study and certainly there seems to be agreement today. What we would need is for members to begin the process of supplying witnesses. I would ask any member who has witnesses with regard to this study, but also any witnesses that members believe are necessary to complete either of the other two studies, to get those in to the clerk as soon as possible. Then we can have discussions with regard to any of those witnesses as a subcommittee or as a committee at the next opportunity when we have committee business, which I imagine will be sometime soon.

We'll turn to Mr. Fergus now.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like some clarification.

Mr. Angus asked whether we needed a motion to proceed with the study now.

Can we all agree that this will be our next topic of study and that the committee will not put the study on the back burner, except to fulfill its duty to consider government bills?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We're just double-checking the minutes to ensure that this was actually passed at an earlier meeting. My recollection is that it was, but if it wasn't, I believe there's consent. I'm getting the sense that it's the will of the committee. We could move another motion, but certainly I think there's agreement right this minute to proceed with that motion at this time.

I'm taking direction from the committee in that form.

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

Mr. Chair, I have language that I could read for the motion, if people want to be official about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Why don't we do that, then?

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

Okay.

I'll read this in:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), the committee 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 investigate how this technology will impact the privacy, security and safety of children, seniors and vulnerable populations; that the committee examine the impact of facial recognition technology on racialized communities; and that the study include 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; that the committee examine the impacts of facial recognition technology and the growing power of artificial intelligence.

That was the motion I brought to update from last October. The original motion, I believe, talked about Clearview AI, which is no longer in Canada.

Those would be the general parameters of the study. If we vote on this, I would be prepared to start setting some witnesses for us to start to look at this as we finalize the other studies we have before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay.

Committee members, I know that this motion was circulated in the past. I'm not sure everybody has it at the moment. I will ask the clerk to see if she can locate the translated version of that motion and circulate it to members now to ensure that everybody does have a copy of it in both official languages.

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

Mr. Chair, can we take a two-minute break, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Let's do that.

I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'll call this meeting back to order.

I think everyone has had an opportunity to see the translated motion. I have Mr. Sorbara on the speaking list.

We'll turn to you, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Chair, I'm obviously very, very “for” this. When the Privacy Commissioner released their report a few months ago, I think it was, I read it. I took the time. There were lots of things in there I wanted to ask questions about in terms of what road we're going down as a society. So I'm in favour of this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Not having any additional speakers, we'll move to a vote.

(Motion agreed to)

Very good.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

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

First of all, I would like to thank all my colleagues for showing that we can all work together on such important issues. I think this facial recognition technology study will be very important for Canadians, as well as internationally, potentially.

Mr. Chair, I just want to bring something to your attention. As we have been trying to get testimony from the Kielburger brothers and as they have defied our Parliament, saying they will ignore a legal summons, it has been brought to my attention that they're running Facebook ads today. The Facebook ads are being paid to say, “Forensic analysis exonerates WE Charity”. It's put out by a group called FriendsofWE.org, which I believe is paid for by the Stillman foundation. This is the Stillman foundation that, as we know, paid for full-page ads while our committee was unable to do our work. The Stillmans who were the key people put by the Kielburgers...to deal with our witness Reed Cowan.

I think it is an incredible act of arrogance and complete disregard for democratic rights, particularly on behalf of a group of people who have received the Order of Canada, that they would be running Facebook ads patting themselves on the back while showing such contempt for Parliament.

I would just like to have that on the record, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

That is unsettling.

Is there anybody else who has any final comments with regard to committee business?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.