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.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
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.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
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.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
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)
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—
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
I beg your pardon, but I just want to confirm that this is indeed a continuation of the meeting that was suspended Monday—
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
—and ask you to confirm that I'm first on the speaking order for today, as you said last—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
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.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
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.
Before I get there, I just want to put on the record that I had put forward a motion to resume debate on my motion asking for the continuation of testimony, that this committee would hear further testimony on the MindGeek study. Why did I do that? Because it has come to our attention, with the very disturbing testimony that we have heard today, including that of Melissa Lukings and the representatives of Stella, that we are just at the tip of the iceberg as far as what constitutes non-consensual use of images and indeed what is seen on the Internet that is available publicly.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Ms. Shanahan didn't even give you the chance to introduce yourself and now she's changing the subject. The subject is Mr. Fortin's motion. We have to dispose of his motion before she starts to talk about issues that have nothing to do with the motion at hand.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Angus. I think that was a point of order with regard to relevance.
Ms. Shanahan, I will remind you that we are on Monsieur Fortin's motion. There was some discussion in our previous meeting that we would move on to other business. There was an expectation and a hope by all members, including members of your own caucus, that we would move on to other issues, as you are now indicating.
I will just remind colleagues that in order for us to move on to other subjects, we actually have to dispose of this motion first. I will remind everyone that we are debating Monsieur Fortin's motion and that in order to move on to other things, we have to dispose of this motion. The way we would do that is through a vote, and so I would encourage members to move to a vote if the desire is to move on to other business.
Ms. Shanahan.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair, and indeed I do have much to say about Mr. Fortin's motion. What I want to express here today is that on the scale of priorities, I find it very sad that this is where we're at in this committee.
It's not just me, Mr. Chair. We've heard some pretty disturbing testimony. Some of my constituents have told me what happened.
I want to thank all the members. We've heard some very stirring testimonies. Other people are starting to talk. A young woman in Quebec has spoken publicly.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Excuse me, Ms. Shanahan, I'm recognizing a point of order, but even before the point of order, I have cautioned you that we are on the subject of Monsieur Fortin's motion. If you'd like to debate other things, I'll have to move to the next speaker on Monsieur Fortin's motion so that we can dispose of that motion before we can move on to another issue.
Ms. Shanahan, I'll allow you to have the floor once I've recognized this point of order, but I would caution that you must return to the debate with regard to Monsieur Fortin's motion before we can move on to other business.
Monsieur Fortin.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
That's good, Mr. Chair. You laid out what I was going to say. So we are on the same page.
Thank you.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I think there has been some level of frustration that we haven't been able to focus, as committee members, on the issue at hand.
As has been expressed, including in your current speech, Ms. Shanahan, there's frustration that we can't move on to other issues. I would like to remind you and other members that the only way we can move on to those important issues is if we in fact vote on this motion.
Ms. Shanahan, I'll caution you to speak to the motion. If you have nothing to speak to with regard to the motion, I'd ask that you cede your time to the next person on the list. We have an extensive list of speakers that has developed.
Ms. Shanahan.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are here to discuss Mr. Fortin's motion. I find this motion very disturbing in that, once again, instead of listening to the victims, we're trying to create more victims. The motion wanted to call parliamentary staffers, political assistants, to testify before this committee, for no other reason than the fact that they did their job.
I want to focus on the points in Mr. Fortin's motion, among them point 3, which reads: “The Committee confirms that it has not released these witnesses from their obligation to appear”.
I find it quite distressing that this is coming from this committee, which has required innocent people to testify before. Be clear and honest. This is about what happened with the Canada student service grant program, which did not work, but now it's being made into a big deal for partisan gain. So this point makes it clear that some people here do not accept the fact that ministers responsible for these employees came before this committee.
I can tell you a lot about what we heard then. It was not enough for Mr. Fortin. He wants to add to it. He doesn't want to release these witnesses who are just employees. I find this unacceptable, especially from the Bloc Québécois, a party that claims to defend workers' rights. Like anyone else, these employees applied for a job and signed an employment contract requiring them to respect certain things and accept certain responsibilities. Can the Bloc Québécois admit that it is their employer, however, who is accountable for the major decisions made?
During my career, I've had the opportunity to be a union representative. I would never have agreed to an employee appearing before anyone regarding their employer's decisions and actions. I have a hard time understanding the Bloc's position on this issue. They don't even want to release these employees. Their request was made; they even gave these employees the option to answer certain questions in writing, if it was information—I know that certain kinds of information can be requested from employees sometimes—but that wasn't even accepted.
We want them to appear before the committee for any other reason. I think we want to try to intimidate these people by asking them questions and to build a story around the people who were just doing what they were supposed to do. A parliamentary committee may request, for example, that a public servant, who is an accounting officer for an organization, appear before the committee to answer questions about the management of a department. That falls under the responsibilities and roles of assistants, officials and ministers. Often when officials appear, they are with the minister.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, the intervention of our colleague Mrs. Shanahan is once again out of order.
The committee must not determine whether the witnesses should or shouldn't be summoned to appear and whether they should appear in writing or in person. That isn't the issue. The members of the House of Commons debated this on March 25. The purpose of the motion that is before us now is whether we are tabling a report in the House indicating that the order that was given was not complied with, period.
This order was given by the House on March 25, so it's too late to discuss the possibility of giving that order. My colleague's comments are out of order, and I think we should be content with determining whether or not to report to the House of Commons on the situation. That is all the motion is about.
