Information & Ethics Committee on March 22nd, 2021

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to have clarification from either Mr. Barrett or Mr. Fortin. Once we get this report, if the committee still wishes to vote for this amendment, will that satisfy the committee members? Or are we then to again engage in further...if we have any other questions, and subpoena other witnesses? Am I to understand that once we get the report, that will be it, and the committee members will be satisfied?

I need to have that answer, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Sorbara, we'll turn to you.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks for everybody's work on this and getting to a point where we need to get to in order to move on to Bill C-11 and, actually, to be very blunt, to move back to the Pornhub/MindGeek study we are doing that is receiving a lot of attention from concerned Canadians. I think it behooves us to, as quickly as possible and as prudently as possible, get back to those very urgent matters for my constituents and for yours as well.

On this motion that's been put forward this morning, I would like to move a subamendment. I'm going to ask the clerk that the following be struck and that the following be inserted.

In terms of the material, I would like to see struck the following:

and in light of revelations stemming from Craig and Mark Kielburger’s testimony of March 15, 2021, the Committee do call for Ben Chin, Rick Theis, and Amitpal Singh to appear before the Committee at a date and time determined by the Chair but no later than one week following the adoption of this motion.

In place of that, I would like to have the following inserted: “and that the clerk write to Mr. Ben Chin and ask him to provide in writing that the only communication he had with the Kielburgers was the already public LinkedIn communication, and the clerk write to Mr. Shugart to determine when the document he agreed to provide to the committee will be forthcoming.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

We'll get that in writing and distribute it to committee members.

I just want clarification. Were you seeking to have the clerk write, or the chair?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

The chair, with all due respect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

That's very good. I assumed that's what we were talking about.

We will suspend the meeting now and do the same thing over again.

Mr. Sorbara, if you could get that text to the clerk, that would be very helpful, and then we can debate the subamendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I was just about to send a text over to the clerk. I don't think my name was included on the last distribution list. It might have been just a simple error because I was away for the first part of the meeting. Could she just make sure that she includes my email address?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thanks, Mr. Fergus. We'll make sure that gets added.

We will suspend, and when it's distributed, we will call the meeting back to order.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Go ahead, Mr. Fortin.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like my address added to the distribution list as well. I didn't receive the most recent email.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We will do that as well.

The meeting is suspended, colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

We'll now debate on the subamendment.

We'll go to Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The first thing about the subamendment is this. Writing to Mr. Shugart to determine when the document he agreed to provide would be forthcoming.... I don't necessarily see that as relevant. We do want that document, period. I think we should just be asking for it.

The second thing is about having Mr. Chin in the original ask. There were three individuals who were asked to come and testify in front of the committee. I would say, Mr. Chair, that there's more than one way to correspond. There may be that one LinkedIn communication that was available, but there are text messages; there are phone calls. I think it's very important that we also hear from the people surrounding Mr. Chin and those people in power who may have had influence in this case. The subamendment here, I don't think really in the spirit of what was originally written, would provide the committee with what we would need to have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

My concern is that I find that the wording of this is presupposing an outcome already, in that it says that “the only communication he had with the Kielburgers was the already public LinkedIn communication”. We don't know if that was the only communication, so I think it's problematic.

I also agree with my colleague that the clerk's writing to Mr. Shugart to determine.... Mr. Shugart is off, so we don't want to be writing to Mr. Shugart. We want that document.

What we haven't discussed is the motion to have Mr. Ben Chin—Ben Chin we've talked about—or Rick Theis or Mr. Singh appear. I'm not sure why we're asking them at this point, but it is in the motion. If we're going to ask them, I would like to have reason to ask them. If my Liberal colleagues want to exclude them, I'd like to have reason to exclude them. We haven't actually discussed those other two.

Mr. Ben Chin appears to us because of the testimony from last week with Mr. Craig Kielburger. I have read many times the 5,000 pages of documents. I think there's a pretty clear pattern of how this deal developed. What struck me about the LinkedIn message and the response that we heard in the testimony is that I didn't find Mr. Kielburger's testimony credible. There may be other reasons that he contacted Mr. Ben Chin to sort of give him the big thumbs-up that they'd been awarded the contract. It might have been a case of his trying to procure further favours in the Prime Minister's Office further down the road, but I didn't think Craig Kielburger's response was credible, which is why Mr. Chin's name has been brought forward.

We haven't had a discussion on Mr. Rick Theis and whether he needs to appear.

Mr. Singh is in the documents—I think in reference to the April 20 meeting with Sofia Marquez—but I don't know what he offers to change what we already have in the documents.

I have a problem with the subamendment because it precludes the possibility that Mr. Chin may have had other conversations; that's problematic. It asks Mr. Shugart, who is not in a position to turn over those documents...and we need those documents. I'm still not sure where we're standing with Mr. Theis and Mr. Singh.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Fortin, we'll turn to you.

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

I raised my hand to speak about the previous motion. Time is flying.

With regard to the amendment, I understand our colleague's suggestion. However, his proposal significantly alters the text of the main motion. This isn't just a matter of obtaining the document or asking the witness to provide it. The proposal is to select only one of the three names put forward. He is also being asked to confirm that he hasn't had any discussions other than this one. That's a leading question.

This seems a little too simplistic to achieve the objective of the main motion. I would find it difficult to agree with this proposal regarding the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

The recorded vote is on the subamendment of Mr. Sorbara.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 5)

I will vote against the subamendment to allow for debate to continue.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Is there any debate with regard to the amendment on the motion?

Mr. Fergus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for having missed a good part of the debate. I have a couple of points to make about the amendment to the motion.

Based on what I'm reading here, the scope of the amendment certainly isn't broad enough. The only thing that came up after the Kielburger brothers' appearance concerns this LinkedIn message. Some people doubted that the correspondence between them and Mr. Chin was in fact limited to this communication that someone in their office sent proactively, according to their testimony. I want to be very clear about this.

However, no one has raised the issue regarding Mr. Theis and Mr. Singh. It seems almost contrived to me, because, honestly, their names were brought up in passing. I understand the importance of obtaining the document that will be provided by the Clerk of the Privy Council Office. That's fine. We should receive it with this due diligence report. I think that we can easily address the issue of the communication with Mr. Chin by simply writing him a letter. We know that there are very significant consequences for not telling the truth.

I believe that we're just trying to extend the debate unnecessarily. It would be good to do so if there were nothing else to discuss. However, we know that we must look at some very important matters. For example, we must finish the study on Pornhub and MindGeek. Also, I thought that we would finally be starting the debate on facial recognition. In my opinion, this is so important, especially for people with brown skin, like me. We know that these types of monitoring software are very inaccurate. We must pay attention to them. We've been waiting for over 13 months to start this debate.

We were coming to the end of the process and getting ready to roll up our sleeves to start preparing the WE Charity report and doing the necessary work. I think that we need to take action.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Angus, who said that we should provide reasons for not wanting staff and political assistants to appear before the committee.

I want to be very specific, clear and unambiguous about this. If we receive a letter from Mr. Chin, we don't need to hear from Mr. Theis and Mr. Singh. We know that the Prime Minister and Ms. Telford, his chief of staff, have already spoken to us about this matter.

In addition, no new issues related to political assistants or political staff have been raised, other than this LinkedIn message. That's why I think that we can resolve this issue quickly by writing to Mr. Chin and asking him to clarify the situation. This will ensure that we don't waste the committee's time.

Mr. Chair, I know that you can ensure that this letter includes a broad definition and that nothing is left out. I think that this is a better solution to the problem. If this issue doesn't get resolved or if other issues arise, we can make different decisions. However, I don't want the committee to waste its time on an issue that could be resolved by a simple and straightforward letter that you can write, Mr. Chair. In my opinion, this is very important.

The proposed solution should resolve the issue. I hope that it will meet the requirements of the opposition members, who are seeking the clarifications needed for our WE Charity report. This will give us the opportunity to quickly move on to other issues that require our attention. The clock is ticking and we need to get on with these issues.

I would like to hear what my colleagues on the other side have to say about this matter. I hope that my proposal will meet their needs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, my colleague, Parliamentary Secretary Fergus actually stated what I was going to say in reference to MP Angus' earlier comments about landing on a spot that we can move forward from to tackle Bill C-11, which I know is important to many colleagues, and to finish up the MindGeek/Pornhub study we're doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll turn to Mr. Barrett.