Information & Ethics Committee on April 16th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm going to call to order the 30th meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

We have Mr. Barrett on our speaking list.

I'll turn to you, Mr. Barrett.

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

Chair, I would move that we resume debate on MP Fortin's motion from April 8.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We have a speaking order here. We'll proceed now in that order. If anybody doesn't want to speak to the motion, please withdraw your hand.

We'll move to Ms. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Chair, I have to speak against this motion at this time. We were having a very productive committee business meeting just before this, where I think we all agreed that we have some important that we can get moving on. We know there are a number of outstanding issues regarding the pandemic spending motion, so this is not the time to be discussing this motion, which I think would preclude the work that we are doing and trying to complete as a committee.

I have to say again that when we look at the MindGeek study, we are very close to completing it. This is where we need to be spending our time right now, so that we can move forward on the additional witnesses we need to hear and we're able to move to the report-writing stage. We have limited time before us. I think this is where the committee needs to be spending its time.

Mr. Fortin's motion, which has come up before, is more appropriate at the report-writing stage of the pandemic study, and not at this time. I have to say that I cannot agree with this motion. I feel that it is unfortunate that we are precluding the work we're doing, not only on MindGeek, where, as we know, we had some 40 to 50 briefs from Canadians and advocates, from people who are active in this area and who are very interested in seeing the outcome of that study. This is something that we need to continue working forward on.

I do think that other motions for other studies, including the facial recognition study, which has been brought up by Mr. Angus—and I know that we have members on our side who are very interested in that study as well—bear some particular attention to see how we can fit that into the timeline we have before us.

It's regrettable, and I understand that. We've already spent some time studying the issues in Mr. Fortin's motion, but given what has happened with the study and the witnesses called to appear, we can't now devote time to this motion.

I'd also like a copy of Mr. Barrett's motion. When motions are only made verbally, sometimes we don't have all the elements in front of us. I would appreciate it if the clerk could give us a copy of Mr. Barrett's motion.

Perhaps, then, we could suspend for a few minutes while we get the exact wording of the motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Next in the speaking order we have Mr. Fergus.

I would just remind members that the earlier part of the meeting was in camera. Referencing things that happened in the in camera portion of the meeting may violate the provisions of the in camera requirements. That's just as a reminder to members.

Again, this is focused on debate with regard to resuming debate on Monsieur Fortin's motion of April 8.

Mr. Fergus, we'll turn to you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your help.

Mr. Chair, before I make my comments on the motion, could you clarify the answer to Ms. Shanahan's question? Will we receive a copy of Mr. Barrett's motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We could circulate Monsieur Fortin's motion again. I'll ask the clerk to do that. It has been done several times.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, that wasn't my question. I want to know if you're going to circulate Mr. Barrett's motion, which we are debating and which is different from Mr. Fortin's.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I apologize for the confusion.

Mr. Barrett simply moved a motion to resume debate on Monsieur Fortin's motion of April 8. We are currently debating Monsieur Fortin's motion of April 8. Once somebody moves to debate a motion that has already been debated by this committee, moving back to that debate can indeed be done by that other member. That is what has happened.

Just so it is clear, we are debating Monsieur Fortin's motion of April 8, which has been circulated several times to committee members.

That's where we find ourselves now, Mr. Fergus.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, that indeed was my question. We have a motion on the floor, and it's my understanding that it's Mr. Barrett's motion. We can't have a hanger-on of a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

No, we are not debating Mr. Barrett's motion. We are debating Monsieur Fortin's motion. Mr. Barrett was moving that we return to the debate on Monsieur Fortin's motion of April 8.

Mr. Fergus, on Mr. Fortin's—

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, my understanding of the vote that just took place was that the vote to move from committee business to a public session, as opposed to Mr.—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Dong, I couldn't speak, nor should any of us speak, to something that happened in camera.

Mr. Fergus, we'll return to you on the debate on Monsieur Fortin's motion of April 8.

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I'm not playing partisan games. I just want to get a better understanding. Perhaps I haven't had the opportunity to see this kind of situation before. Can you quote the Standing Order that gives us the freedom not to debate Mr. Barrett's motion, which he clearly said was a motion to resume debate, in relation to Mr. Fortin’s motion? I wasn't aware that it was automatic, because I thought it was a motion that was made. If that's not the case, is it possible to explain the situation to me before I make my comments, since I really thought it was Mr. Barrett's motion?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair., I think it was fairly straightforward, first, to move into public so we could continue debating Mr. Fortin's motion. Our colleague reminded us when we came back that this was what we were going to do.

I would say to Mr. Fergus that if he has a problem with that, he can challenge the chair, but I think you read the situation correctly.

We should either challenge the chair or carry on with the work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't want to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, that isn't a point of order, but I do appreciate the support.

We are proceeding with the motion of Mr. Fortin of April 8. As it is the right of members to challenge the chair, members are free to do that.

Mr. Fergus, we are continuing on the debate of Mr. Fortin's motion of April 8.

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

Mr. Chair, it's important not to put the cart before the horse.

We haven't yet completed the work that's before us. We haven't yet decided how we'll modify the report or what instructions we'll send to the analysts who will be responsible for writing the report. Nor have we read many of the documents, because we haven't yet received them. There are hundreds of pages that we haven't yet received in both official languages. It's strange that we're skipping all these stages to debate Mr. Fortin's motion. We can deal with Mr. Fortin's motion once we have all the documents and are ready to begin that debate.

I find this a little unusual. Before we begin debating a motion such as the one moved by Mr. Fortin, it's important that we've received all the documents, that we've studied them and that we've given instructions to the analysts.

Once all of this is done, we can draw a conclusion. However, by skipping these steps, we could make mistakes. Some of the information in the missing documents may give us an opportunity to reconsider Mr. Fortin's motion.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, regarding the question of relevance, the motion we are debating is Mr. Fortin's, which refers to the matter of witnesses failing to appear before the committee. It is not to report to the House on the study of conflict of interest and pandemic spending.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

We do give some latitude, but I would remind members we are debating the motion of Mr. Fortin of April 8. Mr. Barrett is correct that is in reference to the appearance of witnesses at our committee as prescribed by the House of Commons to this committee.

If it's helpful, the clerk is circulating the text of that motion as a reminder again to members as well.

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that I'm once again questioning the merits of this motion. Before our committee makes a recommendation to the House, whatever it may be, it's important that we have all the information we need to discuss, debate and reflect on it.

Once we have taken into account all the information available to us, we can debate Mr. Fortin's motion. Drawing premature conclusions doesn't help.

Madam Clerk, can you give us—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair. My apologies to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Fortin, do you have a point of order?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Yes. I'm told that only the audio is working on ParlVU. There's no video.

Is it possible to report the problem to the person responsible, Mr. Chair?