Evidence of meeting #6 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'm terribly sorry, Mr. Chair. Once in a session would have been enough, but twice is completely unexpected.
Mr. Chair, let me start by saying that I seem to have missed some of the fireworks, as I had to leave the committee to give a speech to a digital conference. To my surprise, I see that once again the elements of a motion that had been defeated twice seem to have made their way back onto an amendment I had moved prior to (Technical difficulty—Editor) receive the support of a majority of the colleagues to go down that road. I'm a little disappointed that we now find ourselves—
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr Fergus, I'm sorry, but your Internet is cutting in and out, so maybe you could go back a couple of sentences to make sure we capture that. Your audio dropped out entirely for a couple of sentences.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate your patience, and I beg the patience of all my colleagues around the table.
I'll get straight to the point. I would like to make an amendment to the motion as it currently stands, Mr. Chair, and I do so with the intention of trying to move us into action, to not go down the same avenues we have gone down before, which have led us effectively to a stalemate, and to try to move us into making sure we can at least move on the issues on which I believe we all agree.
To that end, Mr. Chair, I would like to move that we delete the amendments that were proposed by my honourable colleague from the Bloc Québécois and replace them with the five points that follow.
Mr. Chair, let me just pull up the document that I was working on before Ms. Shanahan yielded the floor to me. I would like to add new clauses and renumber them accordingly, but I will use the numbering that I have in front of me.
My amendments are as follows: “(a) That 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; (b) that the committee investigate how this technology will impact the privacy, security and safety of children, seniors and vulnerable populations; (c) that the committee examine the impact of facial recognition technology on racialized communities; (d) that the study include how this technology may be used nefariously, such as a tool for criminal harassment or for other unlawful surveillance purposes; (e) that the committee investigate any possible link, formal or informal, between Canadian law enforcement agencies and private technology corporations and startups, including, but not limited to, Cleaview AI and Palantir; and (g) that the committee examine the impacts of facial recognition technology and the growing power of artificial intelligence.”
Those, Mr. Chair, would be my amendments to replace the amendments that were proposed by Madame Gaudreau.
Thank you, sir.
I will send this also to the clerk.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
We'll suspend for three minutes.
I do want to say to you, Mr. Fergus, that I did not recognize any aspect of it that's germane to the motion that's on the floor, but send it over and we will take a look at it. I will make a firm ruling on it in three minutes.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, the reason I think it is germane is that one of the two elements of Mr. Angus's motion deals with facial recognition technology. I just want to take this further in that investigation, sir.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Yes. That's why I said to send it over and we'll take a look at it.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Colleagues, we're back in session. Those who have turned off their video, etc., may want to reconnect.
The motion we have on the floor right now has to do with pandemic spending. That's the overall framework. There's really nothing here that would relate to the amendment at hand, so I will rule that amendment out of order right now.
We will return to debate on the motion.
Mr. Sorbara is next.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do find it disappointing that the committee is not able to return and focus the diligence and judiciousness of all members here in studying the matters that are impacting all Canadians.
I will go back to the amendment at hand that we're discussing, but there was a story over the weekend with regard to an entity collecting five million images of Canadians. I'm a big believer in privacy. I'm a big believer in transparency. I feel it is the duty of this committee, in the day we live in, to begin to study these issues that all Canadians face. They are very serious issues. They are very pertinent issues in terms of the day we live in and in terms of the technology that's being used. Canadians have a right to know that their privacy is being protected. I plead to the committee members to stop this fishing expedition, to stop wasting the time of the committee's resources, and to clearly get back on track in the mandate of the committee to look at privacy.
Mr. Chair, perhaps I could get a clarification from you and ask if someone could read the amendment that we're dealing with now. It may have been emailed, and I need to check my inbox. We did adjourn for the vote. Now we are back. I just want to make sure I am on the right page in terms of what debate we are referring to. Are we referencing debate on Madame Gaudreau's amendment or are we referencing debate on the amended motion?
Can you clarify that, please, sir? Then I would like to continue after you give that clarification.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Okay.
Mr. Chair, I have grave concerns on the amended motion, if I'm using the proper language. Again, I believe we have gone back full circle. If I can use a golfing analogy, I think we had a mulligan today. That is the only way I can reference it. I think it's not a good thing for this committee to have done in accepting Madame Gaudreau's amendment to Mr. Angus's motion. We had a mulligan today. Let's call a fact a fact. That's what occurred today. I wish to express that disappointment: We had a do-over.
I have great concerns on the privacy implications of the amended motion. I have to go back and look at this. I have to read it over again to see where I stand. I am not in favour of it currently and will most likely continue to be so. I will yield the floor to one of my colleagues so that I can look at this amended motion and come back with some more wisdom on why and where the committee should proceed, in my humble view, in terms of what we should be doing.
It's really disappointing, Chair.
I will stop there and yield to the next speaker.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I will recap the speakers list. We have Madam Lattanzio, Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Angus.
I think I've captured everybody, unless Madam Shanahan.... That's a new hand up, and Mr. Fergus, I see your hand up as well. Okay.
Go ahead, Madam Lattanzio.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come back on the decision that was rendered with regard to the amendments from Madame Gaudreau being reinstated into the main motion.
I think that to be patronized as a member of this committee about where this is all going and to have it suggested that challenging the chair wasn't the way to go.... Mr. Chair, I have respect for you. I accept the process, but I think that it is within my right to be able to challenge if I feel that a decision is not based on what is being presented. I think it is incumbent on all the members, not just me, to challenge if a decision is rendered that goes against what a member believes to be the right decision to be made.
I will tell you that this is not the first committee where this has occurred. I pulled out what transpired in the finance committee not too long ago when someone also challenged the chair. It was a colleague, MP Poilievre, who wanted to declare out of order a motion to bring forth the documentation from the previous session that had not moved or passed.
There was opposition over the ruling of the chair, even though the chair had taken the advice from the clerk. On October 8, 2020, the chair ruled that motion pertaining to privilege raised by Mr. Poilievre out of order, as it related to proceedings before the committee in a previous parliamentary session. The chair ruled that the debate on the motion moved by Julie Dzerowicz on October 8, 2020, regarding the pre-budget consultation would now resume, whereupon MP Pierre Poilievre appealed the decision of the chair. The question “Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?” was put, and the decision of the chair was overturned on the following recorded division: yeas 5, nays 6.
To have a member come in today and say that even if a chair consults, if it is his or her opinion that a decision warranting an amendment or declaring it receivable or not is fine, it is also fine for a member to be able to challenge it. I wanted to make that clear.
With regard to the amendments brought forward by my colleague Madame Gaudreau, these were the same three topics that a former colleague of hers of the same political stripe decided last week would not be part of the motion. That was voted down. Although Madame Gaudreau tells us that her vote was written in the sky, I can tell you quite frankly that I come to committee, I do my work, I listen to everybody and I don't pretend to know or guess or look at the sky to see how people are going to vote.
I think that when one person votes and I hear that vote, whether it be a yea or a nay, that's what I take as a vote. I don't think that we should guess or come to some hypothesis as to how one is going to vote or not vote.
That said, the decision on that was clearly made. To now bring it again into a motion.... I think committee members around this table showed goodwill on this motion—that is, the two paragraphs that were proposed by our colleague, Mr. Angus—and want to move forward with it. To me it showed we were moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, we are back at square one.
Comments are made; criticisms are made; judgments are passed, and at the end of the day I think that generally all of us have an interest in being able to move on and delve into the two paragraphs that were brought forward by our colleague Mr. Angus this morning. I think we had a consensus around the table, and to bring back something we have already decided on.... We've already made a decision on that. That we found a way to be able to amend a motion and to reintroduce those very topics does not make sense.
I too am going to yield the floor to the next speaker. I hope we can bring closure to this and move on.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's after 2 p.m. I'll take a few minutes.
Let's go back to square one. My colleagues have repeatedly said that, above all, we must ensure that everything was done properly. I'll let you analyze what happened a few seconds after my colleague, who so kindly replaced me at the previous meeting, made comments. Some technical issues arose and lasted a few minutes. My colleague didn't hear the interpretation. When this happens for the first time, you don't want to cause any upset. There are all kinds of reactions. I'm sure that you've experienced this before.
We're going around in circles. I was with you from the beginning to the end. I didn't miss anything. I was replaced for a few minutes. You were replaced. You know what I'm talking about. I know absolutely everything that happened.
I don't make assumptions. Every time I've spoken, I've clearly asked about the purpose of this ethics committee. An ethics committee must address conflict of interest and lobbying laws.
There are all kinds of reactions. People draw things out, they want to hide things, they say things aren't good, they wonder what to do, they start over. We must carefully consider this. What do you need to hide when everything seems right? If this isn't the case, reread and listen again to the comments. We spent several hours amending motions to reach an agreement.
I reread everything that you discussed all weekend. Where do you stand? I missed a few minutes of the meeting. When I came back, I told you that an error had been made and asked whether the vote could be negatived. We could already be somewhere else.
I'm very disappointed. From the beginning, as a member of the ethics committee, I've been reasonable. I've never dared talk about filibustering. However, I've always asked you why your comments were so long.
The facts are there. The people who are listening to us see things clearly. They're worried about their future and about what's coming. The end of the year is approaching and fraud is on the rise. Facial recognition is an extremely serious issue. We could already be working on it.
The clock is ticking. You refused to negative the vote. I'm now in a situation where it's almost the same thing. Let's not joke around. Technically, things should be fine. I'm asking you to act as good, non-partisan legislators. People want to know what's happening.
I'm ready to vote.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Is there a consensus now?
There's no consensus.
Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Chair, we're just about at question period. There's obviously not a will in the room to continue with the meeting, but the discussion has to continue. This vote needs to be resolved. The committee needs to do its work. Canadians need answers, but there won't be bells for our attendance at question period. There will actually be no bells for the votes that immediately follow. I just look to you, Chair, for a way to resolve our attendance here and then resume consideration of this question.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
