Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I listened closely last week to our colleague Mr. Fergus when he shared with us the significant number of matters that the committee must address. I agree with him. I feel there are important issues, and I'm amazed—I would even say astounded—at the amount of time we're spending on such a simple motion. When I was drafting it, I felt like we were not even going to discuss it before we passed it, and now we are spending hours and hours discussing it. I agree with what Mr. Fergus said, that one of those important topics is the women who were called in for the Pornhub matter. The people we need to hear from on that need to be heard. It's an important issue. I'm really sad to see the amount of time we're wasting on something as trivial as this motion. It's trivial, but important.
I will come back to the motion. It simply says that, almost a month ago, on March 25, the House ordered that three witnesses be called and heard at our committee, and that a due diligence report be produced for us. The three witnesses did not appear and the due diligence report was not produced. It was all orchestrated by the government. I am stating fact, contrary to what my Liberal colleague was saying. These are facts.
I want to remind you of the following: Mr. Fergus told us that was wrong, because the motion points out that these individuals received an order. Point 5 of the motion reads: “The Committee noted...”
There is no discussion or interpretation here. I've tried to stick to the facts.
“... that Minister Pablo Rodriguez appeared on March 29, 2021, instead of Rick Theis...”
Listen, we were all there. That is what happened. It's a fact. I will continue with the quote.
“... after having ordered him not to appear before the Committee...”
This is where our colleague, Mr. Fergus, told me it was wrong.
I invite Mr. Fergus and the entire committee to reread the email we all received from Mr. Rodriguez on March 28, in which he wrote in the second-last paragraph, “Accordingly, Mr. Rick Theis, Director of Policy to to the Prime Minister, has been instructed to not appear before the committee. In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Monday, March 29th.”
I didn't make it up. It came from Mr. Rodriguez, who told us that Rick Theis was instructed not to obey the order from the House. I don't want to judge Mr. Rodriguez and I don't want to judge Mr. Theis, but we have a job to do as a committee. We have to follow up with the House; they issued an order, and we have to show them what happened.
Point 6 of the motion refers to the letter dated March 30, 2021, that Minister Mona Fortier addressed to you, Mr. Chair. The final paragraph of that letter states: “Accordingly, Mr. Amitpal Singh has been instructed [we're no longer talking about an instruction, it's an order] not to appear before the committee. In his place [again], I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Wednesday, 31 March, 2021.”
Two ministers, Ms. Fortier and Mr. Rodriguez, confirmed that they do not care about the order from the House and the order from the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. They are confirming that it doesn't apply to them and that they are in charge, not you, Mr. Chair, and not the House of Commons. They are confirming to us that these individuals have no authority and no power. The real power in Ottawa is held by Pablo Rodriguez and Mona Fortier. That bothers me. I have said it before and I will say it again. That bothers me.
It's a major affront to democracy and to the authority of the House, and it's unacceptable in a democratic Parliament.
However, that is my opinion, and I will repeat it in the House if given the opportunity. As a committee member, I am simply and dispassionately saying that we need to report to the House. If you read the motion again, you will see that there is no emotion in it. Believe me, I was feeling quite a bit more than you could detect from reading the motion.
The motion contains no emotion or opinion. It simply states what we have seen and indicates to the House that we are dissatisfied with it. Admittedly, expressing dissatisfaction is not a very optimistic reaction. It's fairly neutral.
The House will do what it wants with it. I feel it should react, but we will see what happens in due course. You know as well as I do that it's pretty hard to predict what the House will do. However, it's our job to note that these witnesses have been summoned and have not appeared, and to report it to the House.
The rest is up to the House of Commons. I could quibble all day about these matters, and I know that some of my colleagues will be happy to spend the remaining time expressing views different from mine on the issue. I know I can't do it, but if I could, I would simply ask for a vote so that we could vote on this motion, move forward and get on with the important things. We owe it to the people of Quebec and Canada to do an efficient job. Right now, we're not being efficient because we're wasting our time on simple things like this.
I will stop there. I'm asking the committee to report back to the House and work on all of the key issues that concern it.