Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the always hon. member for Windsor West.
I will begin by clearing the record right off the bat for the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I was actually proud to participate, as the NDP critic on the committee, in studying and drafting the access to information, privacy and ethics committee's facial recognition technology report called, “Facial Recognition Technology and The Growing Power of Artificial Intelligence”.
Today's concurrence motion on our standing committee report, although two years past, remains perhaps even more important today as the technology continues to surpass any legislative regulations and, in my opinion, ethical restrictions. This important and timely work addresses the critical issue of the use of facial recognition technology and its growing power, especially within law enforcement and other sectors of society.
As the ethics critic for the NDP, I believe that it is vitally important to scrutinize this technology through the lens of equity, accountability and human rights. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics produced this extensive report. Throughout our study, we heard the concerns of 33 witnesses, many of whom were raising alarm bells about the disproportionate harms inflicted on racialized communities and by the unchecked deployment of these technologies.
Let us start with the facts. Facial recognition technology systems are often powered by AI and are hailed for their ability to supposedly streamline processes, verify identities and assist in law enforcement operations. However, the evidence shows that this technology is far from neutral. As we heard from multiple witnesses, including privacy advocates and experts, facial recognition technology is riddled with algorithmic bias, and its misuse can have severe life-altering consequences for people who are already marginalized by society. Witnesses like Cynthia Khoo from the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law School, Angelina Wang and Christelle Tessono from Princeton University made it clear that facial recognition technology is 100 times more likely to misidentify Black and Asian individuals. For darker-skinned women, the misidentification rate can exceed one in three.
Now, the system works nearly perfectly for white men, but for racialized individuals, especially Black and indigenous people, it is a flawed and dangerous tool that amplifies the biases already present in our institutions. We have heard time and time again about cases in the United States where Black men were wrongfully arrested due to the errors of facial recognition. Robert Williams, Najeer Parks and Michael Oliver were all victims of a broken system that disproportionately criminalizes Black bodies. Although no such cases have yet to surface in Canada, we cannot ignore the very real possibility of this happening here. We know there is systemic racism within our own police forces, a fact acknowledged by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. So, the use of facial recognition technology, FRT, only serves to exacerbate the problem.
The committee also heard from civil liberties groups, like the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, ICLMG, that the use of this technology by law enforcement is not just flawed but fundamentally dangerous. We are seeing the potential for mass surveillance without public consent or adequate oversight. Tim McSorley of the ICLMG warned us that this is already happening. The RCMP admitted to using FRT tools like Clearview AI to track individuals without public knowledge or legal safeguards. This is surveillance of our most vulnerable communities under the guise of security, and it is unacceptable.
However, the harm does not stop at law enforcement. We must consider the broader societal implications. Facial recognition technology is not just about identifying criminals, it is also about tracking people in public spaces, at protests or even as they shop. This is a direct threat to fundamental rights, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the right to privacy. Let me be clear, those most affected by this are the very communities that are already subject to overpolicing: Black, indigenous and other racialized people.
Beyond this, we must acknowledge the wider context of how big tech companies, like Google, operate in these grey zones between public-facing ethics and the pursuit of profit through military contracts. Google's involvement in military projects, like Project Nimbus and Project Maven, facilitated through its venture capital firm, Google Ventures, is a stark example of this hidden agenda that is unfolding right now in the genocide in Gaza.
Project Nimbus, a cloud computing contract among Google, Amazon and the Israeli government, facilitates military operations. Critics argue that these operations contribute to surveillance and human rights violations, particularly in occupied Palestinian territories. They test it there, and then they export it around the world. Similarly, Project Maven was a highly controversial initiative in which Google partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense to develop AI technologies that improved drone targeting capabilities, technologies that have a devastating impact on civilian populations.
Although Google publicly distanced itself from Project Maven after internal protests, we know that the company's venture capital firm, Google Ventures, continues to invest in defence and AI companies with military applications. This allows Google to maintain financial stakes in military advancements even as it outwardly claims to step away from these projects. They include activities that are currently under ICJ investigation as war crimes by the Israeli government on the people of Palestine in Gaza and the West Bank. Former staffers who once worked on such military contracts as Maven continue to find themselves in start-ups funded by Google Ventures, ensuring that the ties between big tech and the military remain intact.
The use of drone technology and AI in warfare is expanding. We have seen military droned dogs that are armed and have the ability to track down people, including civilians. Therefore, Google's involvement in these venture capital activities demonstrates that these corporations are still very much engaged in these projects, although through more covert financial channels. While Alphabet may distance its brand from military contracts, it continues to benefit from and shape the future of warfare.
There is a revolving door between tech companies and the military-industrial complex, which is facilitated by investments from companies such as Google. This underscores the ethical concerns that we must address as a Parliament. The government's role in regulating these technologies is crucial. There are 18 recommendations that came out two years ago, and I challenge the hon. members from the Liberals side to stand up and actually talk about what meaningful action has happened over those two years.
This is crucial to protecting privacy and civil liberties. Not only that, but it is about preventing big tech from operating unchecked in areas that have profound implications for human rights. The report does not just outline the harms; it also provides a path forward, with several key recommendations that are necessary to mitigate these risks. I asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North to please refer to the recommendations and come ready to talk about them in a meaningful way.
To be clear, the committee has called for immediate action, including a federal moratorium on the use of facial recognition technologies by police and Canadian industries unless they consult with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and obtain judicial authorization. I would extend this even further to say that these moratoriums ought to include any type of technology, be it deemed primarily lethal or part of a lethal technology that could be used in conjunction with the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. Such technology needs to be subject to an immediate arms embargo.
Furthermore, we need stringent measures for transparency and accountability. An AI registry must be established in which all algorithmic tools and any entity operating in Canada are listed. Civil society must be actively involved in these discussions, particularly those representing marginalized groups. Witnesses such as Dr. Brenda McPhail from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association warned that, even if the technology were flawless and 100% accurate for every person, it would still pose a danger. This is because it would be perfect for the discriminatory gaze of law enforcement, making it easier to target racialized communities that already face systemic discrimination.
I will save the rest of my content for any interested or curious questions that might come my way.