Information & Ethics Committee on April 23rd, 2021

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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.

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.

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

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

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

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.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a question of privilege.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

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.

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

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, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

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.

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

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—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

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

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

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, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

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.

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

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

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?

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay.

You're seeking.

You've moved a motion to—

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

Adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

—adjourn debate.

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

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

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

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

There is no ability for point of clarification, Mr. Dong. I do apologize.

Madam Clerk, the vote has been called.

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

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

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

You're interrupting the vote.

You don't have the right to do that.