EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics NUMBER 032 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Friday, April 23, 2021 Le vendredi 23 avril 2021 Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE April 23, 2021 Committee NUMBER 032 NUMBER 032 NUMÉRO 032 32 23 04 2021 2021/04/23 13:05:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de l'accès à l'information, de la protection des renseignements personnels et de l'éthique Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics ETHI Chair Mr. Chris Warkentin 2 43 PUBLIC PART ONLY -

PARTIE PUBLIQUE SEULEMENT

(1420) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC)) :

We're going to call this meeting back to order. This is the 32nd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We are resuming our meeting. We were in camera, and we're now in public. I would remind members that the meeting will be televised and will be available on the House of Commons website for this portion of the meeting.

Mr. Greg Fergus (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.) :

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Recognizing a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

Mr. Greg Fergus :

I would like to ask you and the clerk, because you just said that we are resuming the meeting, and the meeting was in camera. Is this, Mr. Chair or Madam Clerk, a new meeting?

The Chair :

This is not a new meeting. This is the resumption of the meeting, the continuation. This is simply moving from in camera to a public meeting.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.) :

Mr. Chair, point of order.

The Chair :

On a point of order, go ahead, Ms. Shanahan.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

Can you please then clarify the speaking order for us? My understanding was that when we move from an in camera meeting to a public meeting, it is indeed a new meeting.

The Chair :

It isn't a new meeting. We do have a bit of a challenge right now, because my entire speaking order was lost when we did move from that meeting to this one. I'll just go through what I have now. Members have indicated those who would like to speak. I have Mr. Barrett, Mr. Fergus, Mr. Bachrach, Mrs. Shanahan, Monsieur Fortin, Monsieur Gourde, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Carrie, and Ms. Lattanzio on the speaking list. We'll go to Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion put forward by Mr. Fortin is very straightforward. It is that the committee report to the House that witnesses did not appear, witnesses ordered by the House of Commons to appear at this committee. Those witnesses, Rick Theis, Amitpal Singh and Ben Chin, by order of the House were to appear at this committee or to have the Prime Minister appear in their place. There is also an order for the production of documents from PCO in the form of a due diligence report ordered by this committee. This, of course, relates to the committee study on pandemic spending and conflicts of interest.

We began the pursuit of this study in October of last year. We are now at a point where we're dealing with a motion to simply report to the House that the witnesses were not released, because the committee did not release the witnesses, that we note that the witnesses were absent, and that we note that individuals, ministers of the government, did write to this committee and then make their letters public, and that they had instructed the witnesses not to appear. Those are facts. This motion gives us the opportunity to report this to the House, and then the House will deal with it.

The committee will move on to deal with what it's going to deal with. I've said before and I'll say again that after so many months of dealing with this issue, the committee ought to conclude this study and report to the House. If we dispense with this motion that is based on facts and then let the House deal with that, then we can address the study that we have undertaken over the last several months. Final documents are in translation. Then we can conclude that study.

I would note that on the business calendar for the House of Commons, we have, I think, 13 days of time scheduled for this committee before the end of the session. That leaves us with quite a challenge, when we look at the number of things that members of this committee have asked to study and also the obligations that the committee has with respect to the commissioners who would come before the committee on estimates, and studies that the committee has agreed to undertake, including that on facial recognition. As well, we have an open study on the protection of privacy with respect to MindGeek and Pornhub.

We have a number of things for this committee to do. This motion is very straightforward. We've talked about it at length. It's frustrating that we're at a point now where, after it took months for us to even get the motion passed to begin this study, we're now going to, on the tail end, not be able to conclude that study. Not only that, but the committee won't even report to the House that the witnesses who were ordered to appear didn't appear. That's frustrating. It's dysfunction. Now it's time to complete our work. This motion is very straightforward. I will be supporting this motion. It's Friday afternoon.

It's 2:30 eastern time. The committee is supposed to be done at three o'clock. We addressed business that was to be addressed in camera. Now, we have half an hour. We have a full speakers list. I would be very interested in hearing from speakers from other parties whether they would be willing to move to a vote on this motion so that we could then give instructions to our Library of Parliament analysts, so that we could conclude our study into conflict of interest with respect to pandemic spending.

While we wait, we could give them provisional instructions, interim instructions, wait to receive the rest of the documents from translation that we're expecting, and then be able to conclude that study without hearing from further witnesses.

(1425) We have an opportunity here. We're at a bit of a crossroads. Members from the government side, the Liberals, have an opportunity today to say, let's vote on this thing and let the House deal with it. Then we can give instructions to the analysts instead of just filibustering, running the clock, and then, when people run up against other commitments, having to adjourn the meeting and pick up the filibuster on Monday morning instead of doing many of the other important things the committee could be doing.

Chair, I'd ask if you could canvass members of the committee, perhaps informally, to see if there's any interest in concluding discussion on this today. If there is, when those folks speak, they could make their points in a succinct fashion and we could bring this matter to a vote. I would note, Chair, that this motion has been debated at multiple meetings since the start of this month. We'll be moving into a new month next week. It would be great if we could put this to rest.

The Chair :

Before I move to Mr. Fergus, I will check. Is there a willingness by committee members to move to a vote? I see several heads indicating no. We'll turn to Mr. Fergus now.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Greg Fergus :

Thank you very much once again, Mr. Chair. I'd like to take this opportunity to come out publicly in opposition to this motion. I certainly have issues with the motion, particularly with its conclusion. I heard my colleague Mr. Barrett's comments. I certainly understand that he wants to go directly to closing the debate on this motion. Frankly, I must say that we've had several opportunities to conclude this debate. Since January, Mr. Barrett has repeatedly introduced new motions rather than concluding debate. Whatever the case may be, we're talking about the motion.

The part that I greatly object to is the conclusion, the last sentence, or rather the end, where the facts are at issue. Some parts are not factually accurate, contrary to what Mr. Fortin said. Here is the part of the conclusion in question: “That the Committee report these events to the House of Commons in order to express its dissatisfaction.” I don't agree with the last part, that is, “its dissatisfaction”. I think it's a shame that my colleague Mr. Fortin won't remove that part. We can let the members in the House of Commons think about how they will interpret it.

On this committee and on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in particular, whenever possible, we try to produce unanimous reports or obtain the broadest possible consensus. It's unfortunate in this case that no effort is being made to do that. We have several studies under way. As we all know, last Monday we talked about Pornhub. Several motions were made in committee to ensure that we can complete our study on that subject, sufficiently and thoroughly.

(1430) Once again, we find ourselves here with individuals who are going to talk to each other to do, not shenanigans—that's too strong a term—but petty politics. That's not the priority for Canadians. I believe all Canadians who are watching are well aware that the study we began earlier this week on Pornhub is about something worrisome. Witnesses have raised some points about things that are happening on the Internet and they are scaring Canadians. Yet we keep arguing about a motion that doesn't have consensus.

Even though nearly half the committee members are not in favour of this motion, we are continuing to talk about it, and that's a shame. Instead, we could continue our study on an issue that resonates with all committee members. No member of this committee is opposed to conducting a study of MindGeek and Pornhub, because it's clear that none of them want to see these businesses continue doing what they are doing, where people are involved in nefarious activities. I know very well that all of my colleagues, whether they are in the Conservative Party, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois, agree on that issue.

Instead of focusing our attention on issues that could quickly garner unanimous support, we've decided to play petty politics that divide us. Sometimes I feel it's important to look past our petty personal interests and focus our energy on important issues. I am not referring to the discussions we had in camera, but I know we all agree on MindGeek and Pornhub. No one would dare support those businesses, I'm sure. All of my colleagues are honourable and they fully support the idea of seeking justice for victims with respect to the distribution of non-consensual material.

(1435) I see no point in revisiting a motion that doesn't have consensus and only divides the committee. We know that the outcome of the vote will be five to five and we will put the chair in the difficult position of having to come down on one side or the other. That's not a good thing. We can do better and we should do better. We can seek consensus, and it's within our grasp, it's right here. I think it's a disgrace that this committee is playing political games like this in order to please whoever, instead of really improving the situation for women.

It's often women who are the victims of businesses like Pornhub and MindGeek. It doesn't make sense. We can do better. I don't want to insult anyone, but we could do better. When I look at my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord's motion, I see a conclusion that seeks to divide rather than unite. I may be told that consensus has been reached, but it's never consensus when you have half the votes plus one. I don't suppose my friend from the Bloc Québécois would say that the 1995 referendum result was a consensus; you can't talk about a consensus when the majority is 50% plus one. The same is true of Mr. Fortin's motion.

The outcome of the vote on this motion can't be considered a consensus. It doesn't make sense and doesn't meet the definition of consensus. I feel we've reached a point where we should set the motion aside. Otherwise, we should take out the parts that tend to divide the committee. Another option might be to replace the language in the parts that don't have consensus with more fact-based language. In my view, that's what we should do. Another part of this motion that baffles me are points 5 and 6. We found some things in there that are just plain wrong.

It states, “...after having ordered him not to appear before the committee...” That is not factual. A member asked the minister who came to testify on behalf of the government if an order had been given, and the minister said no, no order had been given. It was a question of ministerial accountability.

(1440) The type of language used in points 5 and 6 only seeks to get people all riled up by playing political games, when factual language should have been used instead. That's why I certainly can't support it. This is not a consensus-building motion, and it's not factual. It doesn't describe what actually occurred. I object to it primarily because the more we debate it, the more we are missing the opportunity to make headway on issues that will enjoy unanimous support on this committee, which would improve the lives of women who are victims of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

That's what is important. That's what is going to improve people's lives. It boggles my mind that we're not taking the opportunity that is right in front of us to head in that direction. I don't understand why the committee members, with 50% plus one, would make any other choice.

I'd like to know if each of my colleagues is willing to look these women directly in the eye and tell them they had a choice to move forward to protect them and give them a sense of justice about the horrible situations they experienced, but instead decided to set that aside to engage in a little political jousting to satisfy the hardcore members of their party. It's really shameful. We should choose the first scenario. We should look these women in the eye and tell them that we have set aside partisanship to stand up for them and find solutions.

If we can't protect them because the damage is already done, we can at least protect others before they also fall victim to these wrongdoings. It's disappointing. I can't fathom why they want to do this. We should do better.

(1445) Point 6 of the motion, which, again, is not based on fact, states that “ Minister Fortier also ordered witnesses Amitpal Singh and Ben Chin not to appear before the Committee”. Does the response given by Ms. Fortier and recorded in the minutes lead us to come to that conclusion? The answer is no. Do you know why? Because we didn't even give her a chance to say a word to the committee. At least we had the courtesy to let Minister Rodriguez come and testify. However, we didn't give Ms. Fortier the opportunity. On two occasions, the committee refused to hear her in committee.

I repeat, we can't come to a conclusion like that. To say the least, it's a hasty conclusion that makes no sense. I don't understand why the committee would want to support Mr. Fortin's motion, or even spend its valuable time debating it, instead of studying the case of women who have experienced terrible situations as a result of images being shared without their consent, a matter that reverberated all the way to the House of Commons recently. It's not right. I'm also surprised to see the member of a party that claims to be socially democratic introduce such a motion.

Of all the motions that could have been presented to the committee, I feel this isn't the best choice. It's a missed opportunity and I find that disappointing. I will leave it to my hon. colleague to talk to his women constituents and explain his decision. As I said, it's mostly women who are being victimized by the distribution of these non-consensual images on the Web. I will give my colleague a chance to explain his decision to those women.

(1450) Of course, this motion contains some facts. It's not all bad, but there is a difference between stating facts and colouring the debate. Unfortunately, the latter approach was chosen, not the former, and parts of this motion are flat-out wrong. In conclusion, a proposal could have been made to achieve greater consensus. Our colleagues who are not on this committee are busy with their own committees, work and responsibilities on other issues. They expect us to give them the straight goods when this committee reports. However, we aren't doing that.

What they are getting is far from accurate and they are being misled. However, we have time to set things straight. I hope my colleague Mr. Fortin will take the opportunity to correct his own motion so that we can pass a factual motion.

(1455) Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I am recognizing the point of order, Monsieur Fortin.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

I am going to jump at the offer from our colleague Mr. Fergus to correct what is wrong with my motion. I've heard his very brief speech about my motion. He feels that it contains a falsehood, because apparently the witnesses were never ordered not to appear, so—

[ English ]

The Chair :

Monsieur Fortin, pardon me, but this sounds like debate. It doesn't sound like a point of order. I know Mr. Fergus would like to hear from Monsieur Fortin, but Mr. Fergus, you'll have to cede the floor before we can get through the speaking order to get to Monsieur Fortin. Mr. Fergus, it's back to you.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Greg Fergus :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll be waiting with great anticipation for Mr. Fortin's response, as he seems to want to finally correct his motion. Should he even wish to consult with me in advance, he can always reach me by email. I would be happy to work with him to come up with a truly consensus-based motion. We could always move in that direction. I urge him to do that. I'd like to continue my critique of this motion. Last Monday, I didn't want to repeat myself when I talked about the importance of ministerial solidarity, when a minister speaks for the government.

Whether it is the Prime Minister, who is primus inter pares , or one of his ministers, everyone speaks for the government. That is a basic principle. Ministerial accountability ensures that when a minister's agent or deputy takes action, the minister is responsible for those actions and is going to be accountable for the behaviour of those under their responsibility. It's an important message, and one that we should consider and pass on to our colleagues. It's very important to emphasize these principles. It's quite important that I say it's the reason why I can't support the motion.

However, if my colleague wants to respond to my invitation, my email inbox is open. I look forward to receiving good news from my hon. colleague that we will be able to work in this manner. I believe that I will come to my conclusion. It's not because we're approaching 3 o'clock, but because I'd like to hear from my colleague Mr. Fortin as well as my other colleagues, particularly those in the opposition parties, to see if we can find a way to come to, not a split vote or a 50% plus one majority, but rather a motion that has solid support from the committee to continue its important work.

So I will yield the floor. I also thank all my colleagues for allowing me to speak.

(1500) [ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Bachrach, we'll turn to you.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Mr. Fergus for his long remarks. Noting the clock and out of respect for the House staff who support the committee, I believe it would be in order to adjourn.

The Chair :

Is that a motion to adjourn, Mr. Bachrach?

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

That is not a debatable motion. We'll move to a vote. Madam Clerk, if you'll go through the roll call—

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

Mr. Chair, I just have a question for clarification.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Monsieur Fortin.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not trying to argue, but I would just like to get a clarification. I understand that we're considering adjourning the meeting. At the next meeting, are we going to pick up where we left off and keep the current speaking order? Is that right? Are we instead going to reset and talk about anything again? I'd like to know if we can pick up where we are now at the next meeting.

[ English ]

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Mr. Chair, it was meant to be a motion to suspend, not to adjourn. Sorry if I misspoke.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

Oh, okay.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Okay. There is a motion to suspend the meeting—

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

Point of order, Chair.

The Chair :

On a point of order, Ms. Shanahan.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

Don't we need unanimous consent if we're going to be changing the motion? I call the vote on the motion on the floor.

The Chair :

Madam Shanahan, that's not your role, but I appreciate your intervention. Mr. Bachrach, I just want clarification as to what exactly you're moving in terms of your motion. I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. I do apologize if I did that. Mr. Bachrach, let's be clear on what you intended.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

My apologies. I would just point out that since we convened this public meeting, unless I'm mistaken, we've heard from only one member of the committee, and the goal of this meeting is to move forward with the committee's business—

(1505) Mr. Greg Fergus :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, that's actually not accurate.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

My apologies if I misspoke, Mr. Fergus, but it does seem that we've heard a fair bit from Mr. Fergus, and if we're able to move to a vote on the motion that we were discussing, Mr. Fortin's motion, I think that would be a productive use of our time. However, recognizing that under these unique circumstances when we're meeting together in a virtual format, and I know that the House resources are extremely stretched at this time, and recognizing that the scheduled time for the meeting ended five minutes ago, my intention was simply to suspend the meeting so that we could pick up and discuss Mr. Fortin's motion at the next opportunity when the House resources are available to us.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) :

Mr. Chair—

The Chair :

This is a motion to suspend. We'll move to a motion on suspension. Let's—

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry.

The Chair :

I'm getting some questions. Madam Lattanzio, is this a point of order?

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

This is a point of clarification.

The Chair :

Yes.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

I understood very clearly from my colleague that it was a motion to adjourn. Then I understand that's a non-debatable motion. Can we proceed in that fashion, Mr. Chair? Then, depending on what the vote is, we can—

The Chair :

Ms. Lattanzio, I will look back in the blues at a later date, but I worry that I put words into my colleague's mouth when I was seeking clarification. I have allowed him to clarify, instead of my clarifying what his position was, and so I will review that. I felt that it would be abundantly clear what his intention was, so—

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Shall we suspend until you have the opportunity to look into the matter, Mr. Chair, before we start voting on something that perhaps we're not supposed to be voting on? We'll give you that opportunity to do so, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

I'm going to allow the member to clarify, once and for all, what his intention was with this motion. Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

As I just stated very clearly, my intention was to suspend the meeting. I apologize if the word that I used.... I think I was fairly clear in the lead-up to my remarks that the intention was to recognize the clock and to respect the resources of the House that are made available to us. Now it seems as though this argument that is occurring is on a fairly pedantic point of procedure and the intention that my intention should be reflected in the motion. That said, if you will give me the floor afterwards, we could vote on a motion to adjourn, as Ms. Lattanzio has suggested. If that motion was defeated, I would make a motion to suspend. I offer that as a compromise.

The Chair :

Okay. I'm probably more confused than I was to begin with here, but it seems as though there is a desire to move forward with the vote to adjourn the meeting, and if not, then we will continue with the speaking order as we have it laid out. Madam Clerk, will you now move to the vote on the motion to adjourn the meeting?

Mr. Greg Fergus :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Mr. Fergus, I will make this very clear. What we are voting on is the—

Mr. Greg Fergus :

No, I was going to just suggest this. Mr. Bachrach has offered an option. We don't want to waste anybody's time. I'm sorry he used the wrong word, but he did and so be it. Let's just go straight to his desire to move to suspend.

The Chair :

That was what I was hoping we would get to. Mr. Bachrach was offering another option. I think Mr. Fergus is right that if we're going to get there anyway, let's move there with what he intended and where we'll probably end up. This is a motion to suspend the meeting until the next scheduled meeting time. (Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

(1510) The meeting is suspended. [ The meeting was suspended at 3:10 p.m., Friday, April 23 ] [ The meeting resumed at 11:03 a.m., Monday, April 26 ]

(8300) Colleagues, I'm going to call this meeting back to order. We are resuming meeting number 32 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. As you know, on Friday, April 23, 2021, the meeting was suspended, so we're simply returning to where we left off. Colleagues, as a reminder, we are in the midst of a debate on Monsieur Fortin's motion of April 8 that was circulated earlier in this meeting, which started on Friday technically, so we're going to resume where we left off in the order of speakers. Monsieur Fortin will be first, followed by Monsieur Gourde, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Carrie, Ms. Lattanzio and then Mr. Dong, followed by—

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

I recognize Mrs. Shanahan on a point of order.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

I believe I was next on the speaking list. I did not have the opportunity to speak.

The Chair :

No, I was able to capture the speaking list as it was on Friday's meeting, and so I do have it. I can assure you that you are on the speaking list now. Your hand has been raised. Once we've completed this list, we'll move on to today's list, which is Mr. Barrett, then Mrs. Shanahan—

(8305) Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

I'm sorry, Chair, I respectfully ask that you—

The Chair :

Do you have a point of order, Mrs. Shanahan?

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

I have a point of order, yes.

The Chair :

I'm recognizing you on a point of order, Mrs. Shanahan.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

I would like you to review the speaking order with the clerk if need be, because I was immediately after Mr. Bachrach, and we recall that—

The Chair :

That's not a point of order. I have read out the speaking order, and we'll continue. Monsieur Fortin, we'll begin with you.

Mr. Han Dong (Don Valley North, Lib.) :

Mr. Chair, could you repeat the speaking order again? I missed it.

The Chair :

Is that a point of order, Mr. Dong?

Mr. Han Dong :

It's a point of privilege.

The Chair :

Mr. Dong, do you have a point of privilege?

Mr. Han Dong :

No, I have a point of order. I want you to repeat the speaking order, if you could.

The Chair :

I'd be happy to, Mr. Dong. It's Monsieur Fortin, Monsieur Gourde, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Carrie, Ms. Lattanzio, Mr. Dong, followed by Mr. Barrett, Mrs. Shanahan, and then we'll continue down the line. I'll go back to you, Monsieur Fortin.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I listened closely last week to our colleague Mr. Fergus when he shared with us the significant number of matters that the committee must address. I agree with him. I feel there are important issues, and I'm amazed—I would even say astounded—at the amount of time we're spending on such a simple motion. When I was drafting it, I felt like we were not even going to discuss it before we passed it, and now we are spending hours and hours discussing it. I agree with what Mr. Fergus said, that one of those important topics is the women who were called in for the Pornhub matter.

The people we need to hear from on that need to be heard. It's an important issue. I'm really sad to see the amount of time we're wasting on something as trivial as this motion. It's trivial, but important. I will come back to the motion. It simply says that, almost a month ago, on March 25, the House ordered that three witnesses be called and heard at our committee, and that a due diligence report be produced for us. The three witnesses did not appear and the due diligence report was not produced. It was all orchestrated by the government. I am stating fact, contrary to what my Liberal colleague was saying.

These are facts. I want to remind you of the following: Mr. Fergus told us that was wrong, because the motion points out that these individuals received an order. Point 5 of the motion reads: “The Committee noted...” There is no discussion or

interpretation here. I've tried to stick to the facts. “... that Minister Pablo Rodriguez appeared on March 29, 2021, instead of Rick Theis...” Listen, we were all there. That is what happened. It's a fact. I will continue with the quote. “... after having ordered him not to appear before the Committee...” This is where our colleague, Mr. Fergus, told me it was wrong. I invite Mr. Fergus and the entire committee to reread the email we all received from Mr. Rodriguez on March 28, in which he wrote in the second-last paragraph, “Accordingly, Mr.

Rick Theis, Director of Policy to to the Prime Minister, has been instructed to not appear before the committee. In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Monday, March 29th.” I didn't make it up. It came from Mr. Rodriguez, who told us that Rick Theis was instructed not to obey the order from the House. I don't want to judge Mr. Rodriguez and I don't want to judge Mr. Theis, but we have a job to do as a committee. We have to follow up with the House; they issued an order, and we have to show them what happened.

Point 6 of the motion refers to the letter dated March 30, 2021, that Minister Mona Fortier addressed to you, Mr. Chair. The final paragraph of that letter states: “Accordingly, Mr. Amitpal Singh has been instructed [we're no longer talking about an instruction, it's an order] not to appear before the committee. In his place [again], I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Wednesday, 31 March, 2021.” Two ministers, Ms. Fortier and Mr.

Rodriguez, confirmed that they do not care about the order from the House and the order from the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. They are confirming that it doesn't apply to them and that they are in charge, not you, Mr. Chair, and not the House of Commons. They are confirming to us that these individuals have no authority and no power. The real power in Ottawa is held by Pablo Rodriguez and Mona Fortier. That bothers me. I have said it before and I will say it again. That bothers me.

(8310) It's a major affront to democracy and to the authority of the House, and it's unacceptable in a democratic Parliament. However, that is my opinion, and I will repeat it in the House if given the opportunity. As a committee member, I am simply and dispassionately saying that we need to report to the House. If you read the motion again, you will see that there is no emotion in it. Believe me, I was feeling quite a bit more than you could detect from reading the motion. The motion contains no emotion or opinion. It simply states what we have seen and indicates to the House that we are dissatisfied with it.

Admittedly, expressing dissatisfaction is not a very optimistic reaction. It's fairly neutral. The House will do what it wants with it. I feel it should react, but we will see what happens in due course. You know as well as I do that it's pretty hard to predict what the House will do. However, it's our job to note that these witnesses have been summoned and have not appeared, and to report it to the House. The rest is up to the House of Commons.

I could quibble all day about these matters, and I know that some of my colleagues will be happy to spend the remaining time expressing views different from mine on the issue. I know I can't do it, but if I could, I would simply ask for a vote so that we could vote on this motion, move forward and get on with the important things. We owe it to the people of Quebec and Canada to do an efficient job. Right now, we're not being efficient because we're wasting our time on simple things like this. I will stop there. I'm asking the committee to report back to the House and work on all of the key issues that concern it.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fortin. I'm going to poll the room, because I think there is an effort by many members of the committee to ensure this gets to a vote so that we can move on to important business. Is there support to move to a vote now? I'm getting a lot of yeas and a lot of nays, but we do require unanimous consent in order to move to a vote if there is somebody still on the speaking list. I see several members indicating by their motions that they're not in support of that, so we'll move to Mr. Gourde.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Jacques Gourde :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been a long time since I had the opportunity to speak to the committee. I feel like I'm sitting at a desk full of files that have been started, but will never be resolved, despite all the work that has been done in that direction. It's really sad. I have been involved in parliamentary committees for 15 years. I've seen some difficult and complicated situations at times, but at least we've always been able to vote, and that was even if it took an hour, 10 hours or 40 hours to express the various points of view on a motion.

We are adults, and we need to understand that we are going to have to vote on this motion. It would be very unfortunate to waste all the meetings of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics until June because we disagree on the motion. You can express dissatisfaction by voting against the motion and you can express agreement by voting for the motion, but it's our duty to vote on this motion. It's also our duty to do so as quickly as possible, because we're paid by the taxpayers, and they need us to work.

They understand that we may disagree, but sooner or later they are going to demand that we vote and finish the work that is important to us. I understand Mr. Fortin's frustration very well and I will not take half an hour to express that I also want us to vote and get to work. That's our goal and it's our job to finish what we started. If we don't, we will unfortunately lose all the testimony and all the work we have started, it will die on the Order Paper. We're going to go down in history as an excessively lazy committee, and frankly, that is heartbreaking. We could have changed some people's lives.

However, right now, we're not making much of a difference because of the personal pride of some, and that really saddens me. I will now give the floor to those who like to talk a lot.

(8315) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. We're going to turn to Mr. Sorbara.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.) :

Good morning, everyone. Again, happy Monday. I think this is the first time in a number of days that I've had an opportunity to speak during the committee's proceedings. Obviously, I have a lot of thoughts on the work the committee has been doing in discussing Mr. Fortin's motion, which is in front of the committee, but also on the committee's direction overall. I understand MP Gourde's sentiments. I have a lot of respect for MP Gourde in terms of his role as an MP but also for his work, more importantly. I do know that he's an individual with a lot of integrity. I agree with Mr.

Gourde's suggestion that the committee has a lot of work ahead of it. The committee definitely has a mandate to do the good work that our constituents sent us here to do, and to do the good work of all Canadians and for all Canadians, of course. We've spent a lot of time discussing Mr. Fortin's motion. Perhaps I will take a step back to how we arrived at Mr. Fortin's motion in terms of the proceedings during this committee and also testimony during the finance committee over the last, I would say, almost year, or eight or nine months. I look at Mr. Fortin's motion, and I don't see....

First of all, as we've stated a number of times, and as has been set by the precedent of the former government, ministers do need to appear, but not ministerial staff. I think that needs to be pointed out. Second, on point 6—and I know Mr. Fortin pointed out point 5 on his motion— Minister Fortier “also ordered witnesses Amitpal Singh and Ben Chin not to appear before the Committee, as mentioned in her letters to the Chair dated March 30 and April 7, 2021.” I don't know where that came from. If I am missing something, then please, someone, do point that out to me.

At this moment in time, I'm not too sure—and I cannot confirm from the information that I've received and the information that probably all of us on committee have received—that Minister Fortier , in any sort of way, told anyone not to appear. She appeared here as a minister. She appeared as a minister of the Crown to answer questions. The opposition or the other parties decided not to ask the minister questions, and that was their prerogative. I believe the meeting was ended, so I'm not too sure about the nature of that. I'm just looking at my notes.

Again, it's the responsibility of the ministers to appear here before our committee, not the individuals representing individual offices. I'm not too sure what Mr. Fortin's intention is with this motion. Is it to provide information to the House that ministers appeared in lieu of their staff or staff members? We know that has been done in other governments. Is it that ministerial responsibility is the correct thing? Is it that we're being prevented from finalizing the report on this study that we've undertaken and that we're close to concluding?

I personally have invested a lot of time in looking at the other studies the committee has been and will be tasked with. Obviously, there is the MindGeek/Pornhub study, which is an ongoing, very important study for our committee. I understand that in the province of Quebec there are even heightened sensitivities that are important to that study. I know that many, if not all, Quebeckers, much like all Ontarians here in Ontario, want us to resume that study, want us to make recommendations, and also want us to ensure that we hear from the other individuals on that study.

(8320) Then we obviously have to return to Bill C-11 as well. That's where I stand. With regard to Mr. Fortin's motion, if we were to proceed to being able to write a report and put our recommendations down, why couldn't this motion be amended—these are just my humble thoughts—and looked at in the light? If Mr. Fortin wanted to have this appear in the appendix of the report, for example, it could be something very simple on the fact that the ministers were able to appear here. I'm not saying that I'm putting forward an amendment. I'm just speaking my thoughts.

In the testimony that I've been privy to or had the privilege to see, we've had the Kielburgers show up for seven hours. We've had Katie Telford show up for several hours. We've had the Prime Minister show up for several hours. We've had witnesses come back to us. We asked questions. We've received literally thousands of documents on this study. We need to finalize this. I agree with Mr. Gourde. We need to move on. I don't think any one of us wants to be debating Mr. Fortin's motion until the end of June. I don't think that's really the will of the committee.

At the same time, I do have significant concerns with Mr. Fortin's motion. In my mind, I can't see why some sort of conversation can't take place. The ministers of the Crown came to this committee and appeared on behalf of the government. Minister Rodriguez answered several questions from our committee for an extended period of time. Minister Fortier was ready to answer further questions from the committee, but then the committee chose not to; the committee was closed and that was it. This government followed the precedent set by the prior government in terms of having ministers appear.

I think that was the right thing to do. I think that ultimately ministers are accountable. I know on my team I express all the time that for everything that happens with regard to my being a member of Parliament, I have to be accountable. I have to be accountable for whatever happens in my office and be knowledgeable of it. That's the way I operate, and I think that's the right way to operate organizationally for any such entity. Again, to Mr. Fortin, I look at this committee, and I've read, understood and heard all the conversation taking place with all our colleagues.

In terms of the words, “That the Committee report these events to the House of Commons in order to express its dissatisfaction”, I don't see why it couldn't just be that this be reported in the appendix of the report, if that was the committee's will. I think that's something we need to examine. I think that's an alternative. Because we've had so much testimony at this committee, as I stated.... Mr. Chair, I don't want to be verbose this morning. I don't want to repeat myself. We have a lot of work in front of us. There's stuff on the notice paper in the House of Commons.

There's the budget, which we know is going to assist all our residents. I don't want to veer into the budget, obviously, because that's not part of today's motion. We have a lot of work to do as parliamentarians in the coming weeks. We're obviously still in the third wave of the pandemic here in Ontario. We need to ensure that we get the support out to all our businesses, workers and employees. Quebec is facing another wave, as is B.C., as is Nova Scotia now and many other provinces. We know we have a lot of work to do. Part of that is the study in front of us, which is the WE study, if I can refer to it as that.

(8325) I think if it's something I do wish to put forward and maybe we can get the language to you, Chair, I could put forward an amendment to Mr. Fortin's motion. We'll see if we can arrive at a way to proceed forward. I want to gather my thoughts before succinctly thinking about where I want to get to. Gathering our thoughts is how we as a committee can move forward. We do know, again, that we have spent endless hours on this study. I think about how we even got to this point, where a note was sent in.... Over the weekend I was looking at my LinkedIn account.

I think I have over 2,000 contacts over LinkedIn, and I receive notes from a number of people. Also, we all work with stakeholders and stakeholders reach out to us. I know, for example, to the chair and to my Conservative colleagues, that MP Baldinelli and I and others have worked extensively with the wine industry—and I'll take this back to the conversation at hand, Chair. We've been able to work with the wine industry to ensure that we have a prosperous wine sector and there is something in the budget there.

We only did that in interacting with the representatives from that sector and reaching out to the various ministers' offices to raise issues. That's part and parcel of our job. Again, on this one here, a LinkedIn note that was sent said, “Thank you for hearing me out. Thank you for our conversation.” That was the catalyst for the various individuals to say, “Oh my God. Something untoward happened.” Well, not really. We all deal with stakeholders all the time and we all deal with entities that reach out to us to inform us.

I'm sure, Chair, many of your members from the beautiful provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan deal with the beef farmers, dairy farmers or chicken farmers or whoever else in the agricultural sector for lentils, barley, or wheat. That was the catalyst for how we got to this motion and why these individuals appeared and why specifically Ben Chin was asked to appear, because there was a LinkedIn note. Funnily enough, on Saturday I was reaching out to the residents of my riding and asking them how they were doing and I was looking at my LinkedIn account and that's how Ben Chin was asked to appear.

That's how Ben Chin's name is now in this motion that Mr. Fortin presented to us. I agree with Mr. Gourde's comments. We need to move on. We need to finalize this study. I do agree. At the same time, I think, as a committee, unfortunately, we've become potentially and possibly bogged down in looking at this motion and saying, (

a) what purpose does this motion serve, and (

b) how does this motion relate to the study at hand? I'm having a hard time with that, Mr. Fortin. I do respect every MP equally and try to cordially always have a great working relationship with all MPs on all sides of the aisle and of all political views, even my colleague on public accounts, MP Green , whom I may differ vociferously with on many, many things in terms of policy, but obviously always in respectful disagreement. I'm looking at this motion, MP Fortin, to maybe break the logjam.

We're going to look at it from other points of view in due order so we can complete this study and then move on to a further study. We need to wrap this up and get to the MindGeek/Pornhub study. I know that the individuals in that study, the individuals we had, have reached out to me personally and so they really would like to continue to present. They would love that opportunity, of course.

(8330) On this study here, on WE, we've exhausted our time. We need to wrap this study up, but we need to do things, I think, in a manner that's prudent and a manner that obviously reflects the will of this honourable committee and my honourable colleagues.

The reason, if I can even take a big step back, is that in the motion here, the idea of calling parliamentary staffers, bringing them in or not, and any government of any stripe saying no, which the Conservatives did in the prior Parliament because of ministerial accountability, and then getting to the point where this is reported back to the House could potentially be repeated in a future government. The ministers are accountable and do appear.

Questions aren't asked, because the parties say, “I don't want the minister to be here; I want this or that particular staffer.” Again, I go back to the fact that Ben Chin's name is here because someone, the Kielburgers, sent a note to him saying, “Thank you very much”, just saying thank you. Well, now we need Ben to appear here for six hours to ask him every question under the sun, and we want to go into that fishing expedition. I think that's what really sort of got to me, because, since we are parliamentarians, many people reach out to us.

MPs from various parties reach out to me as the parliamentary secretary to the national revenue minister. A member from Mr. Johns' New Democratic Party, the honourable member for Windsor has reached out to me several times on various issues dealing with international taxation issuance. We've collaborated very effectively on that issue and other issues relating to Canada and the U.S.

It's at the point that I think we'd be having Ben Chin or this individual or this staffer come in because a note was sent, when there was really nothing wrong with that, with just saying, “Thank you for listening to us.” I get the fact, and believe me when I say that transparency and accountability are two pillars within my DNA. I say that in terms of democracy and in terms of any committee's operations and in terms of how we operate as a society, a civil society. Transparency and accountability are the only things that count for me at all levels.

For me, transparency and accountability start with the ministers, and that's where they end, with the ministers. That's the only place we can go and the only thing we can do. It's just so important that we focus on that. That is why the original motion to call these parliamentarians—I was offside—and then the motion now to report this back to the House is something that has left me—and Mr. Fortin used this word “dissatisfaction” at the end of the motion.

I'm actually dissatisfied with the original motion, and now with this motion I'm dissatisfied because it points us in the direction, in terms of the accountability and transparency, of saying the staffers should be responsible, not the ministers. The minister should be responsible. I have a wonderful team that works for me. I think one of them is on the committee right now.

At the end of the day, they do great work for me and they work extremely hard, but at the same time I think—our office is not open, but somebody's knocking at the door and I cannot answer that—we need to ensure that the accountability stops with the ministers. That's been my point of view all the time. I believe it was former House leader Jay Hill— I think it was him and if I'm mistaken then please correct the record on that—and I think it was even John Baird who appeared before a committee, and I think that is something that we really need to think about.

That's why I think this motion here, going to that point and saying, “We're going to report to the House that these parliamentary staffers did not appear”, is a very, very dangerous thing. I think that's something on which we need to have a collective rethink and so forth. I understand it is at the will of any member to put forward a motion and they can do so. I think the original idea of bringing these parliamentary staffers—and, remember, I always go back to the catalyst being a thank you email on LinkedIn. Actually, the way LinkedIn accounts work, it's actually already set up.

When you log in and you respond to somebody, it's already set up; you don't have to type it. It's just there. It's there: “Thank you for reaching out” or “Thank you for...” or “Congrats”. It's actually quite easily set up. I know I have received emails from individuals from literally all over the world, usually from Europe or here in North America, that say “Let's connect”, “Thanks for connecting, Francesco”, “Hopefully we can work together”, “Hope you're enjoying...”, “Hope you're well”, “Great initiative on the part of the government”, or even questions relating to initiatives.

I receive those all the time, probably 10 to 15 messages a day. That's why I'm saying that to specifically single out Ben in that email between folks.... That's what LinkedIn accounts are. That's why we're here today. That's why we're here on this motion.

(8335) Again, Mr. Fortin, I respect the work you do. I respect your advocacy and so forth, but at the same time, I think we need to come to a conclusion on this study, because I want to move on. I definitely want to move on to the MindGeek/Pornhub study. I have 45 briefs that my team and I are going through at this moment, making recommendations, because we know how important that is. We know how important that is to all Canadians. We know how important that is with the presence of MindGeek/Pornhub in the greater Montreal area, in Quebec, la belle province.

We know how important that all is, but we also know how important it is to conclude this study with this motion currently in front of us. We know how it is so important to get this done. Like I said, my thoughts continue to percolate in terms of putting forward something that I hope we can work with. If we were to present this scenario, if we presented a report and when we concluded the report, we can conclude it with—

An hon. member: [ Inaudible—Editor ]

Mr. Francesco Sorbara: Oh, I think somebody just spoke. Can I proceed? I'm looking at my screen and I see two folks whose mikes aren't muted. At the best of times we're not perfect on that, and even after a year, I'm still not perfect at that. I don't think any of us are. I'm still percolating with the fact that maybe there's a compromise or a conclusion we can reach together with folks, so we can say we understand the various parties' views on calling parliamentary staffers. Our view is that ministers need to held accountable.

In fact, the Conservatives' view is the same thing, that ministers should be held accountable. At the same time, being able to look at Mr. Fortin's motion and say that—I'm still percolating on this, much like I could probably have another coffee at this point—we could potentially put this into the appendix of the report, where this could be noted, I think could be something we could work with. I keep thinking back on how that would work and whether that could potentially be a way to go. I've just been writing this down to make sure I can come up with it.

I want to make sure that if I do, we can go down this path and potentially talk about this, and gather my esteemed colleagues' views on this. This is, I believe, week two or three of the five-week sitting period before the week in May when we get to be back in our constituencies.

I hope that we can further speak as to how we proceed in terms of wrapping up this study, getting it so that the analysts can proceed to writing up their thoughts, and us, each individual MP, being able to proceed and provide our thoughts, so as a team, a collective team, we can reach some sort of conclusion with regard to the study that this motion is in reference to and so forth. I know that MP Johns is here covering his esteemed colleague from northern Ontario, MP Angus, and I welcome him this morning.

I don't want to say that I feel bad for you coming here this morning, but nonetheless it's always nice to see you, Gordon. I always enjoy your company and having a conversation. I think at the same time, we have received further documents with regard to WE and the goings-on there. We've received some pictures and so forth. That's important. At the same time, we want to reach a conclusion. That is something we all want to get to. I don't think any one of us at this point in time does not want to conclude this study and move on to the other studies at hand and get these things wrapped up.

(8340) I believe one of my colleagues mentioned that we don't want to be talking about this in June; we don't. More news has transpired today with regard to our other study that we've been looking at in reference to Pornhub and MindGeek. I think it's important that we get to that study to get things firmed up, because that study is very important to our constituents. If I could rank the importance of this study here it pales in comparison to ensuring that non-consensual images are not utilized on the Internet, in reference to where we are with Mr. Fortin's motion.

In terms of the news coming out from Montreal this morning, the executive's home is no longer standing as some sort of fire happened from a cause unknown at this point. It behooves the committee that we wrap up this motion and this study and proceed to the Pornhub/MindGeek study. I think it's of significant importance and I think we need to continue making that point.

In fact, going back to the representatives who were here from the study in the prior meeting with regard to their reappointments, this morning La Presse has a story on Pornhub where the title is [ Translation ] “J'ai voulu mourir”. [ English ] I believe this means, “I want to die”. There is publication [ Translation ] [ Inaudible—Editor ] without consent on Pornhub. [ English ] Again, Caroline Touzin from La Presse this morning has put up an

article on Pornhub and MindGeek. I know how important this is to the people in la belle province and all Canadians. I'm looking at the article. It describes an adolescent named [ Translation ] Catherine, victim of sexual exploitation, young adult; she became an escort. [ English ] She talks about her suffering with addiction and—

(8345) [ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I recognize your point of order, Mr. Fortin.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Fortin :

With all due respect to Mr. Sorbara, what he's talking about is very important. Actually, it's what we want to talk about, but right now we're on a motion and I believe we're not dealing with the motion anymore. So we need to get this motion dealt with before we talk about Pornhub. Again, not because it's not important, but it's not what we're talking about right now.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fortin. Mr. Sorbara, I was sensing that you were getting completely off-topic. I'll encourage you to get on to the subject we are discussing. I do believe that you, as well as other committee members, have expressed the desire to move on, get to a vote and complete this so we can get on with other work. Mr. Fergus.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Greg Fergus :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I understand your position very well. When we're talking about a motion, we have to remain relevant. I believe Mr. Sorbara was making the distinction, as I understand it, that talking about something other than the committee's priority comes at a cost. That is the only reason he was saying that.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I agree with Mr. Fergus, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Fortin. I think there's a solution to this. It is clear to me, as the chair, that we're not going to come to a consensus with regard to where we're headed. My suggestion now is to move immediately to a vote on the motion to allow committee members to determine whether we support it or we don't. We can then determine what to consider next as a committee with regard to future business. Is there a willingness to move to a vote on the motion? I'm getting several thumbs up. Ms. Shanahan and Mr. Sorbara oppose it. Mr. Fortin and Mr. Carrie support it. Mr. Fergus opposes it.

Mr. Dong isn't indicating one way or another. Mr. Barrett supports it. As Mr. Gourde and Mr. Johns are both supportive of it.... As you can see, colleagues, we are a divided group. I keep hearing members of the committee urging me to allow things to move along, but as you can see, I'm in a position where I cannot move things along until the speaking order has been exhausted. Ms. Shanahan.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

I have a point of order, Chair. I was first on the speakers list here today from a meeting that was suspended from last Friday. I had many points that I wanted to make on this motion. You declined to allow me to speak, and now you're naming members on their vote whether to continue or not continue a discussion on something that we don't agree with. I'm sorry, but you refused me the option to speak.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Shanahan. You haven't been refused. You are on the speaking order. You will get a chance to speak if your colleagues allow you to do that. As long as other members are ahead of you on the speaking order, they do have the floor until such time as they give it up. I think it's important because members of all parties had indicated to me that they wanted to move this along. As the chair, I think it's important for me to explain why we can't move forward. The reason we can't move forward is that the members on the speaking order want to continue to speak.

When I've offered the opportunity to move to a vote, to move this along expeditiously, members, as I've point out, are divided on the issue, so I'm unable to do that.

(8350) We have Mr. Dong on a point of order.

Mr. Han Dong :

I have a lot of respect for you, Chair. It's not an easy job. Respectfully, I want to point out that committee members like Mr. Barrett, Monsieur Fortin—I can name a few others, including on our side—Mr. Fergus.... Today we hear from Mr. Sorbara, who has spoken at length several times on this motion. I have not had a chance to speak to this motion. That's why I think I need to be heard. That's the expectation of my constituents. That's why I think we should continue on the debate. That's why I'm not—

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Dong. I appreciate that. Members have a right to hold the floor as long as they want once they've been given the floor. Out of common courtesy to people like Mr. Dong, who has not had an opportunity yet to speak on this motion, I would encourage members to make their points and then cede the floor to their colleagues. I am sensing a growing frustration, as has been demonstrated through the interventions by other members, that they haven't had an opportunity to speak. Mr. Sorbara, I will turn it back to you. I will encourage you that your colleagues.... As Mr. Dong has indicated, he is frustrated that he is unable to get the floor. Mr. Dong has a point of order.

Mr. Han Dong :

Thank you, Chair. My frustration was not the fact that my colleagues have expressed their points of view. I'm waiting patiently for my turn. My point of order is that I've tried to explain the reason I'm not ready to move to a vote—

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Dong. I think there is only one way we can move to a vote, and that's when we exhaust the speaking order. These continued delays will simply drag out the length of time until we can get to a vote. I'm taking note of people's frustrations that they haven't been able to speak. As this continues, we're not able to get on to other committee business. Everybody who has spoken has urged the committee members to move forward, but I'm explaining that there is only one solution to that: we make our points as quickly as possible, allow the speaking order to be exhausted and allow for a vote to happen. Mr. Sorbara, we'll return to you.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Thank you, Chair. I wish to welcome MP Angus back to the committee this morning. It's great to see you, MP Angus. Your honourable colleague, Mr. Johns, did a spectacular job in representing you and the New Democratic Party this morning here on committee.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Thank you so much for that. Did I miss anything, or is this just a replay of last week?

The Chair :

Order, folks. Mr. Sorbara, we'll return to you for your final points, and then we'll move on to the next members on the speakers list, which include Mr. Carrie, Ms. Lattanzio, Mr. Dong, and then continue to Mr. Barrett, Ms. Shanahan, and on we go.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Chair, to reach unanimity within the esteemed colleagues who are gathered here this morning on this access to information, privacy and ethics committee—because we are a very multi-faceted committee—motions can be withdrawn, motions can be amended. Motions need to be debated, and that's what we are doing here with MP Fortin's motion. To recap, Mr. Angus, I'll give you the 30-second, Coles Notes version. I'm in full favour of transparency and accountability with respect to all motions, and this motion even more so. We did have ministers appear in front of committee.

(8355) The Chair :

I'm recognizing your point of order, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Chair, you will know that the rules of relevance and repetition are important. While the intention may be good, there is no need for any speaker to recount their own points back to the committee. It is in fact out of order for that to occur.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Mr. Sorbara is aware of that. I know that he is an experienced parliamentarian, so I will encourage him to resist the temptation to repeat himself. Mr. Sorbara, we'll go back to you for your final points.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Thank you, Chair, for your intervention. To be very frank, I sat on the finance committee for many years with your esteemed and honourable colleague from Carleton. I know that our side, when Pierre had the floor, was always respectful to him. I know that you're doing the same here in a very tough situation as well, so I want to say thank you for that. I do hope we can reach a conclusion where we look at Mr. Fortin's motion and can finally have an opportunity to reach some sort of consensus.

My thinking process today is that if we're able to put this motion, when we do this study...to put it in the appendix of the motion, where it is cited, it may well be a reasonable thing to do in terms of answering the wishes of some of the committee members and us being able to cross that bridge together. At the same time, it recognizes the fact that when it comes to accountability, accountability is in line with ministerial accountability. I go back to that over and over again.

If somebody directed someone to do something in life, or not directed someone not to do something in life, the buck stops with the minister and the ministers in any government. That's been my point all along with this. Again, to MP Angus, not for repetition, my comment was that over the weekend—I don't want to repeat this, but I will repeat this—I used my LinkedIn account comprehensively. The reason that one of the member's staffers appears on the original ask to come and speak, and appears on this one here, is that a message was sent to LinkedIn. I send messages. They're always actually predone.

That's one of the options with LinkedIn, and I understand that. To me, that was sort of disappointing, especially with all the evidence we were presented with and all the other documents that were presented and continue to be presented and continue to be received by this committee with regard to the organization we dealt with, and the seven hours of testimony that was provided by the brothers. That's where I'm at. I don't want to belabour this point. I would love just to wrap up at this point and then move the discussion on to the next member. I count seven hands up from members who wish to speak to this.

It's 11:58 a.m., and I have spoken for a considerable amount of time. I have given my humble thoughts on where we can get to a point where we can move on. As a member of Parliament for my riding, representing the wonderful constituents who I have the privilege of representing, I would like to move on and wrap this study up as soon as possible. I would like to move on to what I think is the more pressing issue at hand, which is the Pornhub and MindGeek study. I think that has galvanized.... MP Angus, you may not have seen the

article in La Presse this morning from another individual with regard to non-consensual images. The

article that's out this morning is with regard to a fire that happened at Montreal at the executive's home. That's not to take away from this motion, but in my humble thoughts, I would love to move on to the other folks. I don't want to belabour the point, to MP Warkentin and to MP Barrett, and I'm glad you had some time this weekend to spend time with your kids. I also have an eight-year-old. It was cold, but we still went to the park and—

(8400) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara. You can maybe catch up later on, just for the sake of committee members.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

I will do that. I'm almost—

The Chair :

I do have Mr. Carrie. I do have Ms. Lattanzio and Mr. Dong.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Chair, I still do have the floor. I will stop—

The Chair :

I'll allow you to finish, but you were getting into personal discussions there. I'm happy to have that happen, but it would probably be best, for the sake of the committee, for that to happen at a future time.

Mr. Francesco Sorbara :

Absolutely. We want to use the committee's time in the most judicious and diligent manner for the matters at hand, and the matter at hand is the Fortin motion. I will sign off.

I will turn it over to the next speaker and just say that I do hope that by the end of this meeting we can come to a position where the committee is able to vote on something that's in front of us, something we can agree to, and we can get to that vote, and also move on to wrapping this study up and making the recommendations we feel necessary with regard to the study this motion is in reference to, and then also move on, more importantly, I think, to the Pornhub/MindGeek study. I'll stop there, Chair.

It is 12 o'clock, and I thank my honourable colleagues for listening to my humble thoughts for the last half an hour or so.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara. I will just remind committee members that the only way we can proceed to vote on anything is if we dispose of this motion first, so if the intent is to get that done before the end of the meeting, this motion has to be disposed of before we can move on to anything else. Mr. Carrie, we'll turn to you.

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank my Liberal colleague. I think he's sincere that he'd like to see if we can get moving forward. I would like to point out that only the Liberals are opposing this motion and only the Liberals are filibustering it. There's one way we could break this logjam. We could go right into a vote. I can agree with the member that, ultimately, the minister should be held accountable, but if we look back at the original motion, the Prime Minister was able to come, and he refused that as well.

If we're looking at this issue, we've had ministers of the Crown tell other individuals to defy an order of the House. I think what Mr. Fortin put together here is not only factual but quite reasonable for us to report back to the House. I do want to thank my Liberal colleague Mr. Sorbara, because I think I have a solution. He brought up two specific points with the motion he was having challenges with. One was why should we report this back to the House. I could tell him quite clearly that we should because there was an order of the House, and it needs to be reported back to the House because that was the order.

The other thing he said was that he saw no evidence that a minister told an individual not to come before this House. Mr. Chair, maybe we would could send it over to our Liberal colleagues. I know Mr. Fergus said a similar thing. I actually have the letter from Minister Fortier right in front of me. The second-last line, before “Yours sincerely”—and I'm going to quote her letter so my Liberal colleagues can hear it—reads:

Accordingly, Mr. Ben Chin has been instructed to not appear before the committee. In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Thursday, 8 April 2021.

There we have it, right there. As the Liberals are percolating, and I think everybody on this committee is percolating, Mr. Chair, now that I've actually answered those two questions for the Liberals, if you poll the committee not only will you get the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc in agreement to report this very factual motion back to the House, but now that I've answered his two questions, I think we will be able to get unanimous consent for that. I'm not going to get into other comments I could get into right now, but, Mr. Chair, if you could do that, I think I've answered both his questions quite clearly. If that's what he was asking us to do, we've resolved the issue.

(8405) The Chair :

Again, I'll poll committee members. I'm still getting at least a couple of members saying they're not prepared to move to a vote. I'll go to the next person on the list. Ms. Lattanzio.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, as a member of this committee, understand that my colleagues want to cut this speech, this debate, short. However, as parliamentarians, we all have the right to express ourselves and give our opinion on every issue and every motion. So I'm taking the opportunity this morning to speak to Mr. Fortin's motion. I have a couple of points I'd like to share with my colleagues. This morning and since last week, some of us have been saying that this motion is simple and that we have other priorities. We are being very wasteful.

We agree that the motion is simple precisely because it is simply not accurate. So I'm going to give you my thoughts and my perspective. Simply put, this motion does not report the facts, as my colleagues have already said. It states that an order was issued by the House for individuals to come and testify, and that a certain decision was made. My colleague whom I see in front of me has spoken to me about this as well. This is the wording of point 5:

The Committee noted that Minister Pablo Rodriguez appeared on March 29, 2021, instead of Rick Theis, after having ordered him not to appear before the Committee, as mentioned in his letter to the Chair received by Committee members on March 28, 2021;

The very wording of the motion emphasizes that Minister Pablo Rodriguez allegedly asked the witness Rick Theis not to appear. The wording of this paragraph misleads the members because we have no proof of what is being claimed. Even if we did, and I'm not saying we do, the letter from Minister Rodriguez, which my colleague Mr. Fortin quoted earlier, states this:

Accordingly, Mr. Rick Theis, Director of Policy to the Prime Minister, has been instructed to not appear before the Committee.

I draw your attention to the next sentence:

In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Monday, March 29th.

So there was never a failure to appear, as my colleague has argued in very technical jargon before the committee. My colleagues have clearly explained to you that the witnesses who were called are employees and they're not responsible for reporting on the actions of ministers. So ministers can come and testify before committees. Second, in his motion, Mr. Fortin states that if the three witnesses named in the motion do not appear, the Prime Minister can appear for them. Once again, the Prime Minister, being a minister, also has the option of delegating his representation to other ministers.

The cabinet is responsible for decisions made by the ministers. So we can see that there was no failure to appear. I understand my colleagues' insistence that the three witnesses appear, but it's simply not true that there was a failure to appear. I insist on that. It's crystal clear.

(8410) Two ministers took the time to respond to the request and come forward to testify about the facts of the case. I'm going to make an analogy. When we sue a business, what do we do if we want to hear testimony? We can subpoena employees, but at the end of the day, who is accountable? It's the manager, the person in charge, the president of the company, Mr. Chair. They are responsible for their employees' actions. They must appear, whether before an administrative tribunal, a court or committees, to relate the facts on the subject of the dispute.

I am using the analogy to show my colleagues that we must be reasonable. This is the same process that was followed before this committee. What did we do, Mr. Chair? We have the audacity to say that we're not satisfied with the process. The same is true of point 6. I will repeat the wording of that point:

The Committee noted that Minister Mona Fortier also ordered witnesses Amitpal Singh and Ben Chin not to appear before the Committee, as mentioned in her letters to the Chair dated March 30 and April 7, 2021.

I am referring to the two letters from Minister Fortier , dated March 30 and April 7. In them, she concludes that “Accordingly, Mr. Amitpal Singh has been instructed to not appear before the committee.” Once again, I emphasize, she continues as follows: “I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Wednesday, 31 March 2021.” In her April 7 letter about the witness Ben Chin, the honourable Ms. Fortier once again states: “Accordingly, Mr. Ben Chin has been instructed to not appear before the committee.

In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Thursday, 8 April 2021.” Before we even try to figure out what happened when we had the two ministers before us, I'd like to—

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm recognizing Mr. Carrie on a point of order.

Mr. Colin Carrie :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I was just listening to the translation. It appears that the member is saying that Minister Fortier did not instruct Mr. Chin to come, but then she read from Minister Fortier's letter that actually said, in the translation, exactly what the letter says: that he was instructed not to come. So—

The Chair :

That sounds a lot like a point of debate. It doesn't sound like a point of order. Was there another intervention there? Not seeing it, we'll turn back to Ms. Lattanzio.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am just reading how the letters are worded, colleague. Before I even get back to what happened in committee regarding the testimony of the two ministers, I'd like to digress for a moment to answer the following question. What led us to this motion from Mr. Fortin? Remember that in testimony before the committee, there was actually an exchange of messages between Ben Chin and WE Charity that took place on LinkedIn. The question that came up was whether or not Mr. Chin had responded to the message that was sent.

The thought was that there had to be information and that we needed to dig around, go deeper, explore the issue and make inquiries to find out what had occurred. I remember very well what I said at the time. Some members had said it as well. I mentioned that we had received 5,000 pages of documents over the summer about what had happened with WE Charity. If we had bothered to look at the documents, we would have seen that there was no correspondence following the message sent through LinkedIn, as I mentioned earlier. Let's back up a bit.

We found that there had been only one message, and no further communication after that. Minister Pablo Rodriguez did tell us that. At the end of the minister's testimony, our colleague Elizabeth May had even concluded by saying that, had she learned this information in the House, the outcome might have been different. We have an obligation to report the facts as they are and the responsibility to act with transparency. I would be hard pressed to relate facts that did not occur as stated in the motion, because that appearance before the committee took place.

In all honesty, I must tell you that I didn't attend the committee meeting on March 31, but I was present on March 29 and April 8. I did, however, look at the minutes to see what happened on March 31. We had taken a long time to decide whether we would hear the testimony of Minister Pablo Rodriguez. I don't know how much time we spent on that, but we even debated whether we would hear him. We ended up hearing his testimony. Then the committee came back to the issue of the other two witnesses.

This surprised me a little, because in the discussion between committee members and the witness Ben Chin, I was under the impression that Ben Chin was the only one involved.

(8415) How did the other two witnesses' names get added to the motion? I still have no idea. I am talking about Amitpal Singh and— I am sorry, Mr. Chair. I am getting lost in my papers.

(8420) Mr. Greg Fergus :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Fergus, you have a point of order.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Greg Fergus :

I believe my colleague is looking for the name Rick Theis.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Yes, that's right. It's not like that name has never come up before. How did those two witnesses end up on the list? I am surprised, but that is what the House asked for. They were added to the list further to testimony provided before the committee in relation to a single witness, Ben Chin. In summer 2020, a news conference was held about everything that had happened in the WE Charity matter. I am going to quickly go over what happened. In March, the matter was reopened and a motion was introduced in the House to obtain information.

People wanted that information so badly that they subpoenaed witnesses to appear before the committee. There is no point repeating the ministerial accountability argument and the fact that, according to House tradition, ministers appear in relation to all matters pertaining to decision-making and accountability. However, employees are always left out. I want to refer back to the minutes of the March 31 meeting. At the very end of that meeting, our colleague Mr. Barrett spoke, and I don't know how long that went on.

I unfortunately only have the English version, but here's what he said: [ English ] “That being said, while I believe that we need to examine the motion that Monsieur Fortin has put forward, I move that the meeting be adjourned.”

The Chair :

There is a motion to adjourn the meeting, colleagues, and that is not a debatable motion, and so—

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

I know that—

The Chair :

Pardon me, Ms. Lattanzio, were you moving a motion to adjourn the meeting?

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

No.

The Chair :

Okay.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

No. I'm citing from the minutes of the meeting of March 31. So, I'm just citing our colleague, sorry, I'm not—

The Chair :

Very good.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

I have a point of order, Chair, just while we have that—

The Chair :

I am recognizing a point of order by Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Chair, I'm looking for your guidance. Is it in order for members to read back transcripts of previous meetings? I'm just not sure that it's a standard practice of ours to be quoting other members of the committee back to each other. I'm just looking to see if that's consistent with the rules in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice .

The Chair :

I think I'll allow it as long as it's not repetition of the same. It is in some respects repetition but not at the same meeting of the same points, so I'll allow it. As a reminder to all colleagues, especially those who have intervened, Mr. Dong has indicated that he would like an opportunity to speak, and he hasn't yet. Ms. Lattanzio, I know that you probably have a few things left to complete but you do have colleagues who are desperately waiting to get on the record as well.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

I understand that, Mr. Chair, but I'd like to seize the opportunity to speak on this issue as I've not had—

The Chair :

On a point of order, Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong :

I'm patiently waiting, I'm not desperately waiting.

The Chair :

I shouldn't have pointed out you directly, but I'm getting texts from others as well who are hoping to move to a vote and to be able to move on to the important work of this committee and to allow this motion to be disposed of. Ms. Lattanzio, we'll come to you.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. [ Translation ] I was talking about the March 31 meeting. I was quoting the motion put forward by my colleague to close the debate on Minister Fortier 's testimony. I clearly remember that it was a constituency week, so goodness knows we would have had the time to look into it and the luxury of asking the minister all the questions we wanted to ask her for as long as we wanted. However, as I understand it, the meeting was adjourned. The debate was not suspended. Members could have easily suspended the debate, but they chose to adjourn the meeting. So Minister Fortier's testimony ended there.

Now, my colleague Mr. Fortin's motion is proposing “that the Committee report these events to the House of Commons in order to express its dissatisfaction”. I'm having trouble following. That's a bold statement, given that the ministers came before the committee and we had the opportunity to ask them questions to our hearts' content. For whatever reason, rather than suspend the debate, the committee decided to close it. Moreover, colleagues, on March 31, as I understand it, when Minister Fortier appeared before the committee, we even debated whether or not we should hear her.

In the end, it was decided we would hear her, but finally the debate was closed. Let's move on to the April 8 meeting. That time, I was present. Once again, the honourable Minister Mona Fortier appeared. So there was no failure to appear; she was indeed present. We had another debate to decide whether we would hear her and whether she was the right witness. We had to go through what ministerial accountability means, and finally we had a debate and the members then wondered what to do. Once again, it was not deemed appropriate to hear from Minister Mona Fortier.

No questions were asked of her, no requests for information or documents were made to her, and once again, the debate was closed. We have a responsibility to report the facts as they happened. We say there is dissatisfaction. I am watching the committee and I know we have some very important work to do. I do not want to minimize my colleague's motion, but my colleague Mr. Sorbara talked about the importance of the Pornhub and MindGeek matter in Quebec. I know that my colleague Ms. Gaudreau is also very sensitive to the issue. It's very important work, and we were just about to complete it last week.

However, this committee's work was set aside to debate this motion once again. People are waiting on us. We really need to move this study forward, and this time the world is watching. They want to see how Canada will resolve this very important issue.

(8425) What do we do? We set it aside to come back to this motion. Where is the urgency to discuss a motion for which the committee has received witnesses? Still, the committee members decided to say thanks, but no thanks.

(8430) We're using up time today, and now we're saying that it's wasteful. I agree: it is a waste of time to come back to a motion asking for information, testimony, when the members of this committee saw fit not to hear someone because they were not the right witness. We didn't want to listen, we didn't want to hear it. What we wanted was to report this to the House so that there would be consequences. On the question of how to reach consensus, this morning, and even last week, I believe my colleagues reached out so that we could make some headway.

As a new parliamentarian, I'm looking forward to doing reports and studies. I sit on another committee where we are close to finishing a report. It's what Canadians expect from us, including a study report on MindGeek and Pornhub. We have a responsibility to study the topics put forward and do the work related to them. Unfortunately, for some time now, I've been noticing that we're wasting time here. This morning and last week, we tried to reach out to see how we could align this motion, the wording or whatever it is so that we could reach a consensus and move forward. We're at an impasse on this committee. Mr.

Sorbara has reached out. Mr. Fergus has reached out as well. On another committee, I had introduced a motion to allow us to do a lot of studies. We had a lot of work to do and we were looking to see if we could do two studies at once. We have two hours of meetings, Mr. Chair, and a lot of work. Maybe it would make sense to spend the first hour of the meeting on one motion and the second hour on another motion? Would my colleagues all agree to that? It would allow us to move forward with our business. At this point, we're using all the time we have been allotted, but we're unable to move forward.

We always hit roadblocks on this committee. I want us to move forward, I want this committee to have time to consider all the motions that come before it, but you have to have good time management, and unfortunately we do not. It's simple. It's crystal clear: the members want to finish the committee's work and hear from witnesses about MindGeek and Pornhub. Unfortunately, we went to the trouble of starting a meeting in camera and then making motions and meeting in public, and we're debating a motion that is unrelated to committee business. I would suggest to my colleague Mr.

Fortin that he reconsider the wording and even the substance of his motion, and withdraw the motion to give the committee an opportunity to begin its study of MindGeek and Pornhub, as well as the work it needs to do on other issues that have been raised. Mr. Fortin wants to report a problem to the House; I understand that. He wants to report to the House that one of its orders was not obeyed, which the House absolutely needs to know. However, if that report is made, it must necessarily relate what happened before the committee.

Witnesses who appear before committees relate facts and share their knowledge or expertise. I have a hard time envisioning a committee reporting something that did not happen before it. I can't imagine us reporting back to the House that witnesses came forward to represent someone, but it was decided that they were not the right witnesses, that we didn't want to hear them, and, because of that, we're dissatisfied. Sometimes you make your own bed, and you have to lie in it.

Again, I'm reaching out to my colleague, and I'm telling him that at this point, he should withdraw his motion and introduce another motion that reflects everything that actually happened before the committee. I've seen the way members have voted so far on the committee. I don't want to presume the outcome of the vote, because until you vote you don't know the outcome. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to pass this motion and report it to the House and to the Speaker, as the motion calls for. We have work to do. I respect each of my colleagues, and I know that most of them have more experience than I do.

I see you and hear you with great interest, but we have a responsibility, a duty even, to relate exactly what happened before this committee. Unfortunately, the motion we are considering does not reflect what happened before the committee. For these reasons, I would ask my colleague Mr. Fortin to withdraw the current version of his motion. Perhaps we could then consider another motion that would state what actually happened before the committee. The motion itself is simple, but it does not, in my view, represent the facts about what occurred.

(8435) [ English ]

The Chair :

I'm recognizing a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Yes. We've heard for the last 20, 30 or 40 minutes from Madam Lattanzio that she doesn't like the motion and she wants it withdrawn. She just keeps repeating it. Is she asking formally so we can vote or turn it over to Mr. Fortin? She keeps telling us the same story. She doesn't like the motion and she wants it withdrawn and then she starts over again and tells us the same story. I think she's using this to waste our time.

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Mr. Chair, I have a question of privilege.

The Chair :

Pardon me, before we take a question of privilege we do have a point of order. I'm going to recognize that there has been some repetition. Obviously, the member has been encouraged to make new points, not to repeat old points. We will make an effort to deal with the broader issue. So far, Madam Lattanzio has not indicated if she is formally asking for something to be withdrawn so I don't think we can move to a vote or seek unanimous consent on that. Madam Lattanzio, if you would like to move to have the motion withdrawn, there will have to be unanimous consent to do that. Please go ahead on the question of privilege, Madam Lattanzio.

(8440) Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

I'm being told or I'm being accused that I do not like the motion. What I'm saying is, and I'm going to say it in English so there's clarity about it and it's well understood—

The Chair :

This sounds like a point of debate. I'll let you have the floor and then move into the points of debate if you're seeking some clarification with regards to how your words have been interpreted. I'm reminding you, Madam Lattanzio, that we do have a lengthy speaking list. I'll move back to you.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Mr. Chair, I'm not saying that I do not like the motion. I'm not saying I like it either. What I'm trying to say is that the content of the motion does not relate the facts as they unfolded before us. That's why I disagree with the wording of the motion. My colleague says I don't like the motion, but that's not the point. The motion simply does not relate the facts on what took place before us. I apologize for repeating the message, but I feel I need to do so to make it crystal clear to everyone. I believe some of my colleagues didn't catch what I said, and I am sorry about that. I want to emphasize that this motion is simply not a—

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm recognizing a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

I'm very sorry that I reminded Madam Lattanzio about not repeating because it's given her a chance to repeat the same talking points again and again. She's interfering with our work. We have better things to do. Is she asking to have that motion withdrawn? Otherwise, could she give the floor to someone who has something new to say?

The Chair :

I'd like to remind you, Madam Lattanzio, that even if you think it would be helpful to repeat yourself, the rules don't allow for that. So I would discourage you from repeating what has already been said. There is a growing frustration, and I can feel it from all sides, with regards to the committee as to how we move forward. There are only two ways we can move forward from where we're currently at. One option is that there is unanimous consent for the motion to be withdrawn. I'm getting some heads shaking against that option.

If that's not an option, then the only way to move forward would be for us to have a vote on the motion so we can dispose of it and then move on to another issue. I want to remind colleagues that there is an impatience in everybody's comments; there is a desire to move on. Those are the only two options allowed to committee members. Either we have unanimous consent for the motion to be withdrawn or we get to a vote so we can dispose of it one way or another. Ms. Lattanzio, we will return to you for your final comments.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very pleased that all members understood my opposition to the motion this time. I'm not making a request of my colleague. I'm simply inviting him to reconsider his motion. It's not my place to put forward this motion. I'm giving him the opportunity to reflect on it. What he does with his motion is up to him. At this point, the only thing I can suggest to the committee is to close the debate on the motion, because most of us have expressed our views. This would give our colleague Mr. Fortin some time to rephrase or withdraw his motion. I am therefore asking that the debate be closed, Mr. Chair.

(8445) [ English ]

The Chair :

I think I'm seeking some clarification, Madame Lattanzio. There seems to be some confusion with regards to what you just proposed. Mr. Fortin is not able to withdraw his motion without unanimous consent of the committee. Even if that were desired I'm getting an indication that is not an option. Are you seeking to move to a vote with regards to Mr. Fortin's motion?

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

I'm seeking to adjourn debate on Mr. Fortin's motion.

The Chair :

Okay. You're seeking. You've moved a motion to—

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

Adjourn.

The Chair :

—adjourn debate. Let's move to a roll call on that, Madam Clerk.

Mr. Han Dong :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

This is not a debatable motion, but we'll move...

Mr. Han Dong :

I'm not debating that. It's a point of clarification.

The Chair :

There is no ability for point of clarification, Mr. Dong. I do apologize. Madam Clerk, the vote has been called.

Mr. Han Dong :

I just want to understand the process a little. As how many....

Mr. Charlie Angus :

You're interrupting the vote. You don't have the right to do that.

The Chair :

Order, colleagues. Madam Clerk, let's continue with the vote.

Mr. Han Dong :

Chair, I raised a point of order.

The Chair :

Mr. Dong, there is no point of order. It's a non-debatable motion. We're moving to the vote, Madam Clerk. (Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5) We will continue with the debate on the motion. Ms. Lattanzio, did you have any final comments?

[ Translation ]

Ms. Patricia Lattanzio :

At this point, I would invite my colleague Mr. Fortin to reconsider his motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. I'm turning to Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong :

Thank you very much, Chair. I see the growing list of members who want to speak to this motion, so I think we will hear the debate for a little longer. I'm very pleased to have a chance to speak to this motion, as I haven't had a chance yet. My honourable colleagues on the committee would all agree that, although we may disagree on certain things, especially when it comes to this very important study, we all agree that a member's right to speak—a member's privilege—should be respected. That's a very important point for all parliamentarians.

Chair, one benefit for me listening to all my members is that I listen to their points and make observations. The one observation I can share with you is the consistency in inconsistency that I've been witnessing here. Whether it's the government members today or a government member in the past, there is evidence of records being pulled out out, showing that when members were in government in the past—a previous government—their positions change. I understand that. I will be very mindful to what I say today so it won't be used later on against me.

I'm actually looking at this motion as part of the larger motion to study the procurement policies of the government. In fact, I should share with you that going back to the very early debate of the study, I had questions on whether or not it was appropriate to do a study that parallels the commissioner's investigation, because we know there is an ongoing investigation on what we are talking about.

We've heard from witnesses—people like the former integrity commissioner and other professionals—who warned us, basically, of the dangers of contamination between this study and the finding of the actual investigation that's taking place. We debate that; we spend a lot of time debating the merits of the study—the details of it. We debate amendments, and we move forward. It's been a long time. I see that there was a big change to the membership of this committee, but Monsieur Gourde, Mrs. Shanahan and I have been sitting through these debates on this study entirely.

For the benefit of the viewers today—some may get confused on what we are talking about, why there is such a difference in positions on what seems to be a detailed part of this overall study—I can share with you that, after we had extensive debate on whether or not this study was appropriate, we moved on. The members of this committee moved on. We debated on the witnesses when we invited them. What I observed, again patiently sitting and listening to members and witnesses, is that that there were a lot of people affected by this study.

We heard from the witness from Speakers' Spotlight on how their employees were affected, to a point that they were receiving threats and it was affecting their families' daily routine. That is sort of the negative outcome of this study. I want to make sure that we pay attention to this. Then we entered the debate on whether or not financial information of a public office holder's relative should be shared publicly. After 5,000 pages being released by the government, we had extensive debate on this. We had amendments, we had votes, we had change of votes.

We had a long history of looking into the details of this study.

(8450) I want to just point out that at the end of the day, we're studying the procurement policy and procedures to make sure the integrity of the government process is upheld. In this case, however, there was not a single cent of public dollars transferred to WE Charity. We are doing this work to prevent incidents in the future. It is for all good reasons, and I understand that. We called witness after witness. To be honest, Chair, when we were listening to the testimony of the Kielburger brothers, I honestly thought I saw the light at the end of the tunnel.

I thought that was the last stage of this study and that we were all ready to complete this study that has been dragging on. It's been stalling a lot of other important work of the committee. Then the honourable member for Carleton was subbed into the committee and asked a question on something that was already in the public. In August of 2020 it was reported that there was an exchange on LinkedIn between the Kielburger brothers and Ben Chin. It wasn't news. We had had almost eight months. If we had thought that was important, that a simple reply was important, we could have called a meeting a long time ago.

We could have talked about this a long time ago. No, it came out of this questioning by the member for Carleton of the Kielburger brothers. There was an “aha” moment, which I still have difficulty understanding. What was so aha about it? We heard Mr. Sorbara call this study a “fishing expedition”. I think at that time it felt as though there was a fishing expedition. You go on a trip hoping to catch a bass and you catch a perch—aha! There must be something else we want to dig into. That started a whole new

chapter of this never-ending study. I respectfully ask the members to go back to the original motive and the intent of this study. Ask yourself what we are doing here. We had the study on MindGeek and Pornhub, and it was going well. It was so important that we thought to interrupt this study to allow us to invite the witnesses from Stella and whatnot. Chair, are you taking a picture of me?

(8455) The Chair :

No, I'm taking a picture of the speaking order.

Mr. Han Dong :

Okay. Sorry about that, Chair. Yes, we all agreed to interrupt the study briefly to hear from these witnesses. Then I heard the motion to extend the hours so more witnesses could come forward to give us a comprehensive view on the Pornhub study, because we have the power to recommend, through the House, to the government, the actions that need to be taken to protect vulnerable youth especially, but at the same time respect people's right to privacy, to expression and the right to work. We have to keep that balance, so I thought that testimony was very important.

We are again talking about Monsieur Fortin's motion. It has brought us right back into this extensive debate on a motion on a study that is looking at money that was never spent by the government. I want to respectfully ask members to just keep your priorities. I looked at all these...whether it's face recognition, whether it's.... These are more urgent and should be in a higher position on our priority list of the committee. Obviously we're in a deadlock, as cited by Ms. Lattanzio. You said there are two options, and one is for Mr.

Fortin to withdraw the motion, to vote on the motion; and the other is to suspend it or adjourn the debate and then move on to perhaps another study and park this for a little while. Let our caucus and colleagues work out the difference. Maybe they're more brilliant than we are. Maybe they can work out the difference and find a common ground. Give them some time to work it out but not stall the work of the committee, and we can move on to something that's more urgently needed. When I talk about facial recognition—and Mr. Angus and Mr.

Fergus would agree with me—I heard from my community that there is a lot of interest in this. However, the window of opportunity is closing. We are losing a very important, precious opportunity to do a sound study and review of what's going on right now. I don't want to go on and on and repeat myself, but I sincerely ask members to look at this motion and understand that this is an outcome or part of an outcome of a very random impression.

I can't help but suspect that the opposition, whether they're Conservative, whether the Bloc caucus, has any interest to completing this study, because as I said from the beginning, going back to last year until now, there has been concession after concession after concession from the Liberal caucus. We agreed to look at these documents and we had a huge debate on this. What happened? Those documents were released to the members. Did any new evidence come out of our ability to look at other family members' financial situations? No. There was no new information.

Was this questioning of staff based on new information? No, it wasn't. It was based on old news, from August of last year. You can't blame me for suspecting that the opposition has no intention.... When I say “opposition”, of course I don't mean everybody, but I ask whether the leadership of the Conservative caucus, of the Bloc caucus, have any interest to complete this study? We can vote on this motion, and is that the end of it? I really have to doubt it, because based on what I've seen, there is no interest. There is only interest to drag this on and to stop the important work of the committee.

Of course, I hear members on the committee talk about how much they want to move into other important studies, but I can't see it.

(8500) Rationally, I'm judging by what I'm hearing and the actions that have taken place in the last eight, nine or 10 months, and I can't come to a conclusion that there is interest in wrapping up this study. There I've said it. That's just my observation. It may be unfair, but I'm still waiting for that gesture to assure me that there is that interest in moving on. Through you, Chair, to my honourable colleagues, please give me that gesture. We've been very close to the end many times. We've been given the gestures, and we've believed them. We took a dive.

We said, “Let's do it.” Then with a random question by the member for Carleton , everything is back in the circle again and we're just chasing our tails. With that, I will cede the floor. I don't want to unnecessarily extend the conversation. If I see another point that I want to debate, I'll come back, but with that I will cede the floor to my honourable colleagues. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you. Moving on with the debate, we'll move to Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Thanks, Chair. I'm not sure how many meetings the members of the Liberal Party are going to want to drag this motion out over. It's very clear that they believe that because they get their say, they're going to get their way. They were very happy, when they had a majority, to impose their majority on parliamentarians, but now that they're in a minority, we have a situation in which a majority of members of the House of Commons voted to have witnesses appear at this committee.

There was an order of the House issued, and then this committee received correspondence from two ministers saying that they instructed people not to come to committee. We've heard the quotes from those letters. It's very clear in the letter from the government House leader and from the Minister for Middle-Class Prosperity that instruction had been given. We've heard about ministerial accountability. These ministers are responsible for their staff. They're responsible for giving that instruction. Frankly, it's crystal clear in the letters. From Ms. Fortier's letter dated March 30:

Mr Amitpal Singh has been instructed to not appear before the committee.

In the letter from the government House leader , it's very clear again:

Mr. Rick Theis, Director of Policy to the Prime Minister, has been instructed to not appear before the committee.

Those are directions given by ministers. The motion we're dealing with today lays that out very clearly. If members of the Liberal Party are not happy with the motion, they of course get their say in the meetings, but then they have to vote. It has to come to a vote. I appreciate that that can be inconvenient. We keep hearing that this is the result of a fishing expedition. This is a report back to the House. Blocking that vote from happening is not only delaying all of the other work from happening; it's part of an effort to cover up corruption in the Liberal government. That's very clear. We heard that the Liberals don't understand why we're dealing with this in May—

(8505) Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

I'm recognizing a point of order. Ms. Shanahan.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

Mr. Chair, I object to the use of unparliamentary language.

The Chair :

I didn't hear unparliamentary language.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

It was the word “corruption".

The Chair :

I don't know if members were being called corrupt. I think there's a distinction there. Thank you. Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Chair, I object to corruption in government. While I didn't call individual members corrupt, I do encourage them to appeal to their conscience and to their better angels when dealing with corruption. If just the sound of the word is so offensive, my goodness, I would hope that their actions would speak louder than those words and that they would look to take positive steps to demonstrate to Canadians that they can have confidence in their institutions, which is of course what's being undermined with this whole process, this non-stop filibuster.

As I was saying, we heard from the Liberal members that they don't understand what's changed since August. I'll tell you what changed: to cover up corruption, Parliament shut down in August; there were filibusters across this committee, more than 20 meetings' worth of filibusters. It's very clear that the Liberals want to continue to block this report from going to the House. They can disagree with it, and they can speak with their votes when they do that. It's plain for everyone to see that there's no desire to move on to the other business. We hear people swinging for the fences.

The Liberals are hoping that by not saying that the NDP are looking for this to happen, that maybe the NDP will go the other way. I have to tell you that I've heard very clearly from all opposition members that they want to report to the House, that their votes, the votes of opposition members, to have this issue—

Mr. Han Dong :

I have a point of clarification, Chair—

The Chair :

That's not in order, Mr. Dong. You've had your time. There is no such thing as a point of clarification. Mr. Barrett will continue.

Mr. Han Dong :

I'm sorry, I have a point of order.

The Chair :

I recognize a point of order, Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong :

Sorry, Mr. Barrett. I don't mean to rudely interrupt you, but I think you were speaking on behalf of an NDP member, who is in another caucus. I don't know—

An hon. member: What are you saying?

Mr. Charlie Angus :

That's my point of order. I would ask both Conservatives and Liberals not to speak in my name. We will make our decision when we—

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Han Dong :

I feel sorry—

The Chair :

Mr. Dong, I'll continue to chair this meeting and I appreciate your efforts to do so but I will continue my work. Mr. Barrett, you have the floor.

Mr. Michael Barrett :

I listened intently to Mr. Dong when he was speaking, and don't let the facts get in the way of a filibuster. Saying that no money went from the government to WE Charity is patently false. In fact, the Government of Canada gave it $30 million, which WE Charity failed to repay over a series of months.

It wasn't until public pressure, it wasn't until this bad deal for taxpayers, this insider arrangement whereby we had the Prime Minister give a half billion dollar agreement to an organization that gave his family members half a million dollars, until opposition members dragged that into the daylight that we saw calls for it to be repaid and the need for a study. This resulted in a parliamentary shutdown and filibusters across the committee, including this. Look, if the Liberals want to continue this filibuster for many meetings....

I can't speak for, nor would I ever look to speak for other members of the opposition. They are very capable of doing that, and I hope they have the opportunity to do that in further meetings when we continue to be filibustered by this attempt to cover up corruption. Chair, if we're going to continue this for many meetings, I would move that we suspend this meeting now and continue the Liberal filibuster of corruption at the next meeting.

The Chair :

I believe that was a motion to suspend the meeting. We'll move to a vote. It's a non-debatable motion. Madam Clerk, if you will, do the roll call. (Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(8510) Colleagues, the meeting is suspended. [ The meeting was suspended at 1:10 p.m., Monday, April 26 ] [ The meeting resumed at 1:01 p.m., Friday, April 30 ] We're going to call this meeting to order. This is the continuation of the 32nd meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. As you know, the meeting—

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

Thank you, Chair. I have a point of order.

The Chair :

I am recognizing a point of order by Ms. Shanahan.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

I beg your pardon, but I just want to confirm that this is indeed a continuation of the meeting that was suspended Monday—

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Shanahan.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

—and ask you to confirm that I'm first on the speaking order for today, as you said last—

The Chair :

I thank you for the interruption, but I was just getting there. To get back onto script, this is a continuation of the meeting that was suspended on Monday, April 26. We are picking up where we left off. The speaking order as we left it is Ms. Shanahan, followed by Mr. Sorbara, followed by Mr. Fergus, followed by Monsieur Fortin, followed by Dr. Carrie, followed by Mr. Dong and then Mr. Angus. I will pick up additional speakers as they show up on my screen. With that said, I think everyone is aware that this is a continuation of the meeting of April 26 and that we are debating Monsieur Fortin's motion of April 8.

I will turn to Ms. Shanahan as our first speaker. Ms. Shanahan, go ahead, please.

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan :

Thank you very much, Chair. Again, I do beg your pardon, but having been inadvertently, I'm sure, left off the list when we met Monday this week, I just wanted to be sure that indeed I would have this opportunity to speak to Mr. Fortin's motion, because I do indeed have a lot I want to speak to on that.