Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 13th, 2023

[Shane Huntley]

My understanding is that Project Maven did not go ahead.

What I would say is that, since that time, we have developed these AI principles, which specifically have undertakings that we are not pursuing—weapons or other technologies for that principal purpose and technologies for specific harm. Since that time, we've been very clear about how we are thinking about AI, and these AI principles underpin everything we do in the space, every product we provide and all of the development we do. These AI principles are the guiding light that we use.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, sir.

I want to thank all our witnesses for being here today as part of this study.

I am going to remind all of you that you will be receiving emails from the clerks with the questions that have been asked by the committee members for you to respond to. I'd like to impose a deadline for those responses of December 20 at 5 p.m. That's one week from today. You should be hearing from the clerk tomorrow at some point.

I'd like to remind members that if they do have questions for any of these witnesses, they should submit them to the clerk by 5 p.m. tomorrow. That way, we can give our witnesses enough opportunity to answer those questions within that week, until December 20.

Thank you, Meta, Google and X, for being here today.

I'm going to dismiss the witnesses, because I do have some committee business that I'd like to discuss. I remind all committee members that we will go in camera. There's an agreement among the parties that this concludes our social media study and that we are going to provide drafting directions to our analysts as well.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here. You are dismissed.

For the purposes of our committee, we haven't yet figured out what the dates of our meetings are going to be, but I did want to list where we are.

I apologize to all committee members. I wasn't able to be here on Monday, but we are working to have the commissioner of the RCMP and the staff sergeant appear as soon as possible when we get back. We're hoping for that to happen the week of the 29th. That is the motion related to SNC-Lavalin.

I remind the committee that the motion for spyware has been approved for up to six meetings. I remind the committee that SDTC is technically done, as far as this committee is concerned, so we are not expected to report to anyone in that motion. I just wanted to remind you of that.

On the draft report for the social media study, we are going to go in camera soon to provide drafting instructions to our analysts. We expect that we could have that report when we get back, so we will have to consider some meetings when we get back to deal with the draft of that report.

That's all I wanted to talk about.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Barrett.

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

What time are we done, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're done at 6:40, and we have to go in camera.

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

With respect to the schedule, you talked about the end of the SDTC study. I've sent a motion to the clerk that I'm going to put forward for the committee's consideration in light of testimony that we heard at another committee this week. I'll be brief in my presentation of it and give committee members an opportunity to consider it and respond.

That, given the testimony heard from the SDTC whistleblower on Monday December 11, 2023 before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, in which the individual states that the Minister of Industry lied before this committee regarding the government’s knowledge and handling of serious conflict of interest and misappropriation of taxpayer money, the committee immediately expand its study into SDTC for an additional six meetings, and that the committee hear testimony from the Minister of Industry, the SDTC whistleblower, Officials from the Privy Council Office, Industry Officials, Annette Verschuren, Leah Lawrence, Guy Ouimet, Andrée-Lise Méthot and all other witnesses deemed relevant to the committee’s study.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Are you giving notice, or are you moving the motion?

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

I'm moving the motion.

The clerk has it and is able to circulate it in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead.

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

Chair, this week we heard from the whistle-blower in another committee—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm wondering if we've been accorded the due time frame for notices. I understood that they need at least 48 hours. Is that correct?

This is not an at-hand motion based on any kind of debate we're currently involved in.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Let me double-check with the clerk and get back to you, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Green, we are in committee business, so I am going to rule the motion admissible at this point.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, is it that we don't need to provide notice of motion anymore? Can we table-drop, at any point in time, any motion that we see fit? Is that the ruling of the chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The fact that we're in committee business.... That is my ruling, Mr. Green. We are in committee business, so I'm going to allow this motion to stand.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, could the clerk reference the standing order that allows us to waive the notice of motion period? I understand that an at-hand motion related to a debate could be put at any time, but I always thought—and I'm happy to be corrected and learn something new here today—that a notice of motion time period is still required in order for the motion to be considered, prior to it being duly put.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Mr. Green.

I am going to refer to the clerk, at this point. Perhaps she can provide some guidance.

There's no specific reference, Mr. Green, to the Standing Orders. It's subject to the chair allowing the motion to be admitted as part of debate. I am determining that, because we are in committee business, I'm giving Mr. Barrett the opportunity to present this motion.

That's the ruling I am making.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll respect your decision, and I'll be sure to use this as an appropriate tool moving forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

Mr. Chair, at a standing committee this week, we had a whistle-blower raise $150 million in misappropriation and serious concerns about the testimony given by a minister of the Crown at this committee. I think it's important that the committee, when planning its agenda, give due regard to this.

Look, we had the former chair of that committee pop smoke and vanish mid-appearance at the industry committee yesterday. We had the chair and CEO both resign from this organization following their appearances at this committee. There have been an awful lot of developments since the motion was first moved, so I think it's important that we put some meetings on the schedule and follow up on the testimony we heard from the whistle-blower on Monday at the industry committee.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Ms. Fortier, you have the floor.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Can we go directly to the vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Sure. I don't have anybody else on the list, so—