Evidence of meeting #32 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
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.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
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?
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
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.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
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.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
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.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
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.
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.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
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.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
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—
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
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.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
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.
3 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
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.
3 p.m.
Conservative
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
That is not a debatable motion. We'll move to a vote.
Madam Clerk, if you'll go through the roll call—
3 p.m.
Bloc
3 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
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.