Information & Ethics Committee on March 28th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you, Madam Clerk. I will vote in favour of the motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

I am going to go to Mr. Villemure next. He has a motion that he wishes to move. He tried to move his motion before, so I will go to him.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The notice of motion was sent to committee members last week. I think everyone got it. I'll read the motion, which is available in English and French in the digital binder.

That, in relation to the facial recognition study, a parliamentary delegation of the Committee visit the Palantir Technologies' facilities in Denver, Colorado and Palo Alto, California, and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee; That the Clerk of the Committee prepare a preliminary draft budget.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Thank you.

The motion is in order. Is there debate on the motion?

You still have the floor if you wish to continue debate, Monsieur Villemure. Otherwise, I will go to the speakers list, if others wish to speak to the motion.

Go ahead.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, last week, some of our witnesses, like Ms. Brandusescu, discussed how dangerous Palantir is. In my former life, I came into contact with representatives of Palantir. It's a military company serving the public. In the past it has been linked to abusive practices in civilian data use.

I think it would be good for the committee to learn a lot more about that, considering that Palantir hasn't responded to our invitations to be heard. So I think we should find out more about this company, even though I know very well that they will not disclose all the information to us. I think the committee has a duty to know more about Palantir because this company is still on the Government of Canada's list of suppliers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Is there any other debate before we go to the vote on Monsieur Villemure's motion?

I see none. We will proceed to the vote. Again, I'll do this in reverse since we're hybrid.

Does anyone object to Monsieur Villemure's motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Is there any other committee business? If not, we will change over to in camera and go ahead with commencing debate on the....

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the previous round of questioning I had paused my earphones and had tried to ask a question to read the body of the motion.

I think there has been some miscommunication in terms of what the final motion was and whether or not we had considered the amendments or the main.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Are you referring to the motion we just adopted from Mr. Villemure or the previous one?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It was the one prior to that.

In the same vein as Mr. Bains, as I was trying to chime back in, I had pressed.... This is a new Jabra headset that has a mute on the top.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Ms. Khalid withdrew her amendments. We voted on the main motion, which was adopted.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We didn't vote on the “(e)” and “(f)” options of that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

No, we did not. There were no amendments. She withdrew her amendments. We voted on the original motion.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That wasn't exactly clear from where I was.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

I tried to be as clear as I could. There was unanimous consent for her to withdraw her amendments.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want clarity from the clerk in terms of the motion that was passed, Mr. Chair, just so I'm clear. I don't think it had been read out in its entirety.

It is to not have a study at this committee. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

That's correct.

There is a study for the purpose of being able to report and include the study of the previous Parliament. That's a necessary component of being able to report back the existing study. The motion does not call—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just so I'm clear, how long does the government have to make a reply? Is it 90 days?

[The Clerk]

It's 120 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

We didn't amend the motion to include the 109. Ordinarily, if we had made that amendment, then they would have been required to table a response within 190 days. Of course, they can table a response at any time under the rubric of Routine Proceedings, but the motion as adopted would not force—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to figure it out for my own clarity. I'm very interested in these documents coming back, but I am unclear about when.

Is there a deadline for these documents to come back, yes or no?

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

If I understand the motion correctly, since the motion did not contain a specific request—that wasn't included in the motion—it would be 120 days, which is ordinarily when a response would be required if one were requested.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In theory, we're looking at the fall.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Yes, I would say so at this point. We're in the end of March.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pat Kelly]

Mr. Green, I'm going to suggest that if there is ever a doubt and you can't hear the proceedings—

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

I have a point of order.