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 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.
:
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 “ 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 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.
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 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 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.
:
Good morning, everyone. Again, happy Monday.
I think this is the first time in a number of days that I've had an opportunity to speak during the committee's proceedings. Obviously, I have a lot of thoughts on the work the committee has been doing in discussing Mr. Fortin's motion, which is in front of the committee, but also on the committee's direction overall.
I understand MP Gourde's sentiments. I have a lot of respect for MP Gourde in terms of his role as an MP but also for his work, more importantly. I do know that he's an individual with a lot of integrity. I agree with Mr. Gourde's suggestion that the committee has a lot of work ahead of it. The committee definitely has a mandate to do the good work that our constituents sent us here to do, and to do the good work of all Canadians and for all Canadians, of course.
We've spent a lot of time discussing Mr. Fortin's motion. Perhaps I will take a step back to how we arrived at Mr. Fortin's motion in terms of the proceedings during this committee and also testimony during the finance committee over the last, I would say, almost year, or eight or nine months.
I look at Mr. Fortin's motion, and I don't see....
First of all, as we've stated a number of times, and as has been set by the precedent of the former government, ministers do need to appear, but not ministerial staff. I think that needs to be pointed out.
Second, on point 6—and I know Mr. Fortin pointed out point 5 on his motion— “also ordered witnesses Amitpal Singh and Ben Chin not to appear before the Committee, as mentioned in her letters to the Chair dated March 30 and April 7, 2021.”
I don't know where that came from. If I am missing something, then please, someone, do point that out to me. At this moment in time, I'm not too sure—and I cannot confirm from the information that I've received and the information that probably all of us on committee have received—that , in any sort of way, told anyone not to appear. She appeared here as a minister. She appeared as a minister of the Crown to answer questions. The opposition or the other parties decided not to ask the minister questions, and that was their prerogative. I believe the meeting was ended, so I'm not too sure about the nature of that.
I'm just looking at my notes. Again, it's the responsibility of the ministers to appear here before our committee, not the individuals representing individual offices.
I'm not too sure what Mr. Fortin's intention is with this motion. Is it to provide information to the House that ministers appeared in lieu of their staff or staff members? We know that has been done in other governments. Is it that ministerial responsibility is the correct thing? Is it that we're being prevented from finalizing the report on this study that we've undertaken and that we're close to concluding?
I personally have invested a lot of time in looking at the other studies the committee has been and will be tasked with. Obviously, there is the MindGeek/Pornhub study, which is an ongoing, very important study for our committee. I understand that in the province of Quebec there are even heightened sensitivities that are important to that study. I know that many, if not all, Quebeckers, much like all Ontarians here in Ontario, want us to resume that study, want us to make recommendations, and also want us to ensure that we hear from the other individuals on that study.
Then we obviously have to return to Bill as well.
That's where I stand.
With regard to Mr. Fortin's motion, if we were to proceed to being able to write a report and put our recommendations down, why couldn't this motion be amended—these are just my humble thoughts—and looked at in the light? If Mr. Fortin wanted to have this appear in the appendix of the report, for example, it could be something very simple on the fact that the ministers were able to appear here.
I'm not saying that I'm putting forward an amendment. I'm just speaking my thoughts.
In the testimony that I've been privy to or had the privilege to see, we've had the Kielburgers show up for seven hours. We've had Katie Telford show up for several hours. We've had the show up for several hours. We've had witnesses come back to us. We asked questions. We've received literally thousands of documents on this study.
We need to finalize this. I agree with Mr. Gourde. We need to move on. I don't think any one of us wants to be debating Mr. Fortin's motion until the end of June. I don't think that's really the will of the committee.
At the same time, I do have significant concerns with Mr. Fortin's motion. In my mind, I can't see why some sort of conversation can't take place.
The ministers of the Crown came to this committee and appeared on behalf of the government. answered several questions from our committee for an extended period of time. was ready to answer further questions from the committee, but then the committee chose not to; the committee was closed and that was it.
This government followed the precedent set by the prior government in terms of having ministers appear. I think that was the right thing to do. I think that ultimately ministers are accountable.
I know on my team I express all the time that for everything that happens with regard to my being a member of Parliament, I have to be accountable. I have to be accountable for whatever happens in my office and be knowledgeable of it. That's the way I operate, and I think that's the right way to operate organizationally for any such entity.
Again, to Mr. Fortin, I look at this committee, and I've read, understood and heard all the conversation taking place with all our colleagues. In terms of the words, “That the Committee report these events to the House of Commons in order to express its dissatisfaction”, I don't see why it couldn't just be that this be reported in the appendix of the report, if that was the committee's will.
I think that's something we need to examine. I think that's an alternative. Because we've had so much testimony at this committee, as I stated....
Mr. Chair, I don't want to be verbose this morning. I don't want to repeat myself. We have a lot of work in front of us. There's stuff on the notice paper in the House of Commons. There's the budget, which we know is going to assist all our residents. I don't want to veer into the budget, obviously, because that's not part of today's motion.
We have a lot of work to do as parliamentarians in the coming weeks. We're obviously still in the third wave of the pandemic here in Ontario. We need to ensure that we get the support out to all our businesses, workers and employees. Quebec is facing another wave, as is B.C., as is Nova Scotia now and many other provinces.
We know we have a lot of work to do. Part of that is the study in front of us, which is the WE study, if I can refer to it as that.
I think if it's something I do wish to put forward and maybe we can get the language to you, Chair, I could put forward an amendment to Mr. Fortin's motion. We'll see if we can arrive at a way to proceed forward. I want to gather my thoughts before succinctly thinking about where I want to get to.
Gathering our thoughts is how we as a committee can move forward. We do know, again, that we have spent endless hours on this study. I think about how we even got to this point, where a note was sent in.... Over the weekend I was looking at my LinkedIn account. I think I have over 2,000 contacts over LinkedIn, and I receive notes from a number of people. Also, we all work with stakeholders and stakeholders reach out to us.
I know, for example, to the chair and to my Conservative colleagues, that and I and others have worked extensively with the wine industry—and I'll take this back to the conversation at hand, Chair. We've been able to work with the wine industry to ensure that we have a prosperous wine sector and there is something in the budget there. We only did that in interacting with the representatives from that sector and reaching out to the various ministers' offices to raise issues. That's part and parcel of our job.
Again, on this one here, a LinkedIn note that was sent said, “Thank you for hearing me out. Thank you for our conversation.” That was the catalyst for the various individuals to say, “Oh my God. Something untoward happened.” Well, not really. We all deal with stakeholders all the time and we all deal with entities that reach out to us to inform us. I'm sure, Chair, many of your members from the beautiful provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan deal with the beef farmers, dairy farmers or chicken farmers or whoever else in the agricultural sector for lentils, barley, or wheat. That was the catalyst for how we got to this motion and why these individuals appeared and why specifically Ben Chin was asked to appear, because there was a LinkedIn note. Funnily enough, on Saturday I was reaching out to the residents of my riding and asking them how they were doing and I was looking at my LinkedIn account and that's how Ben Chin was asked to appear. That's how Ben Chin's name is now in this motion that Mr. Fortin presented to us.
I agree with Mr. Gourde's comments. We need to move on. We need to finalize this study. I do agree. At the same time, I think, as a committee, unfortunately, we've become potentially and possibly bogged down in looking at this motion and saying, (a) what purpose does this motion serve, and (b) how does this motion relate to the study at hand? I'm having a hard time with that, Mr. Fortin.
I do respect every MP equally and try to cordially always have a great working relationship with all MPs on all sides of the aisle and of all political views, even my colleague on public accounts, MP , whom I may differ vociferously with on many, many things in terms of policy, but obviously always in respectful disagreement.
I'm looking at this motion, MP Fortin, to maybe break the logjam. We're going to look at it from other points of view in due order so we can complete this study and then move on to a further study. We need to wrap this up and get to the MindGeek/Pornhub study. I know that the individuals in that study, the individuals we had, have reached out to me personally and so they really would like to continue to present. They would love that opportunity, of course.
On this study here, on WE, we've exhausted our time. We need to wrap this study up, but we need to do things, I think, in a manner that's prudent and a manner that obviously reflects the will of this honourable committee and my honourable colleagues.
The reason, if I can even take a big step back, is that in the motion here, the idea of calling parliamentary staffers, bringing them in or not, and any government of any stripe saying no, which the Conservatives did in the prior Parliament because of ministerial accountability, and then getting to the point where this is reported back to the House could potentially be repeated in a future government. The ministers are accountable and do appear. Questions aren't asked, because the parties say, “I don't want the minister to be here; I want this or that particular staffer.”
Again, I go back to the fact that Ben Chin's name is here because someone, the Kielburgers, sent a note to him saying, “Thank you very much”, just saying thank you. Well, now we need Ben to appear here for six hours to ask him every question under the sun, and we want to go into that fishing expedition.
I think that's what really sort of got to me, because, since we are parliamentarians, many people reach out to us. MPs from various parties reach out to me as the parliamentary secretary to the national revenue minister. A member from Mr. Johns' New Democratic Party, the honourable has reached out to me several times on various issues dealing with international taxation issuance. We've collaborated very effectively on that issue and other issues relating to Canada and the U.S.
It's at the point that I think we'd be having Ben Chin or this individual or this staffer come in because a note was sent, when there was really nothing wrong with that, with just saying, “Thank you for listening to us.”
I get the fact, and believe me when I say that transparency and accountability are two pillars within my DNA. I say that in terms of democracy and in terms of any committee's operations and in terms of how we operate as a society, a civil society. Transparency and accountability are the only things that count for me at all levels. For me, transparency and accountability start with the ministers, and that's where they end, with the ministers. That's the only place we can go and the only thing we can do.
It's just so important that we focus on that. That is why the original motion to call these parliamentarians—I was offside—and then the motion now to report this back to the House is something that has left me—and Mr. Fortin used this word “dissatisfaction” at the end of the motion. I'm actually dissatisfied with the original motion, and now with this motion I'm dissatisfied because it points us in the direction, in terms of the accountability and transparency, of saying the staffers should be responsible, not the ministers. The minister should be responsible.
I have a wonderful team that works for me. I think one of them is on the committee right now. At the end of the day, they do great work for me and they work extremely hard, but at the same time I think—our office is not open, but somebody's knocking at the door and I cannot answer that—we need to ensure that the accountability stops with the ministers. That's been my point of view all the time. I believe it was former House leader Jay Hill— I think it was him and if I'm mistaken then please correct the record on that—and I think it was even John Baird who appeared before a committee, and I think that is something that we really need to think about. That's why I think this motion here, going to that point and saying, “We're going to report to the House that these parliamentary staffers did not appear”, is a very, very dangerous thing. I think that's something on which we need to have a collective rethink and so forth.
I understand it is at the will of any member to put forward a motion and they can do so. I think the original idea of bringing these parliamentary staffers—and, remember, I always go back to the catalyst being a thank you email on LinkedIn. Actually, the way LinkedIn accounts work, it's actually already set up. When you log in and you respond to somebody, it's already set up; you don't have to type it. It's just there. It's there: “Thank you for reaching out” or “Thank you for...” or “Congrats”. It's actually quite easily set up. I know I have received emails from individuals from literally all over the world, usually from Europe or here in North America, that say “Let's connect”, “Thanks for connecting, Francesco”, “Hopefully we can work together”, “Hope you're enjoying...”, “Hope you're well”, “Great initiative on the part of the government”, or even questions relating to initiatives. I receive those all the time, probably 10 to 15 messages a day.
That's why I'm saying that to specifically single out Ben in that email between folks.... That's what LinkedIn accounts are. That's why we're here today. That's why we're here on this motion.
Again, Mr. Fortin, I respect the work you do. I respect your advocacy and so forth, but at the same time, I think we need to come to a conclusion on this study, because I want to move on. I definitely want to move on to the MindGeek/Pornhub study. I have 45 briefs that my team and I are going through at this moment, making recommendations, because we know how important that is.
We know how important that is to all Canadians. We know how important that is with the presence of MindGeek/Pornhub in the greater Montreal area, in Quebec, la belle province. We know how important that all is, but we also know how important it is to conclude this study with this motion currently in front of us. We know how it is so important to get this done.
Like I said, my thoughts continue to percolate in terms of putting forward something that I hope we can work with. If we were to present this scenario, if we presented a report and when we concluded the report, we can conclude it with—
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]
Mr. Francesco Sorbara: Oh, I think somebody just spoke.
Can I proceed? I'm looking at my screen and I see two folks whose mikes aren't muted. At the best of times we're not perfect on that, and even after a year, I'm still not perfect at that. I don't think any of us are.
I'm still percolating with the fact that maybe there's a compromise or a conclusion we can reach together with folks, so we can say we understand the various parties' views on calling parliamentary staffers. Our view is that ministers need to held accountable. In fact, the Conservatives' view is the same thing, that ministers should be held accountable.
At the same time, being able to look at Mr. Fortin's motion and say that—I'm still percolating on this, much like I could probably have another coffee at this point—we could potentially put this into the appendix of the report, where this could be noted, I think could be something we could work with. I keep thinking back on how that would work and whether that could potentially be a way to go.
I've just been writing this down to make sure I can come up with it. I want to make sure that if I do, we can go down this path and potentially talk about this, and gather my esteemed colleagues' views on this.
This is, I believe, week two or three of the five-week sitting period before the week in May when we get to be back in our constituencies. I hope that we can further speak as to how we proceed in terms of wrapping up this study, getting it so that the analysts can proceed to writing up their thoughts, and us, each individual MP, being able to proceed and provide our thoughts, so as a team, a collective team, we can reach some sort of conclusion with regard to the study that this motion is in reference to and so forth.
I know that MP Johns is here covering his esteemed colleague from northern Ontario, MP Angus, and I welcome him this morning.
I don't want to say that I feel bad for you coming here this morning, but nonetheless it's always nice to see you, Gordon. I always enjoy your company and having a conversation.
I think at the same time, we have received further documents with regard to WE and the goings-on there. We've received some pictures and so forth. That's important. At the same time, we want to reach a conclusion. That is something we all want to get to. I don't think any one of us at this point in time does not want to conclude this study and move on to the other studies at hand and get these things wrapped up.
I believe one of my colleagues mentioned that we don't want to be talking about this in June; we don't. More news has transpired today with regard to our other study that we've been looking at in reference to Pornhub and MindGeek. I think it's important that we get to that study to get things firmed up, because that study is very important to our constituents. If I could rank the importance of this study here it pales in comparison to ensuring that non-consensual images are not utilized on the Internet, in reference to where we are with Mr. Fortin's motion.
In terms of the news coming out from Montreal this morning, the executive's home is no longer standing as some sort of fire happened from a cause unknown at this point. It behooves the committee that we wrap up this motion and this study and proceed to the Pornhub/MindGeek study. I think it's of significant importance and I think we need to continue making that point.
In fact, going back to the representatives who were here from the study in the prior meeting with regard to their reappointments, this morning La Presse has a story on Pornhub where the title is
[Translation]
“J'ai voulu mourir”.
[English]
I believe this means, “I want to die”. There is publication
[Translation]
[Inaudible—Editor] without consent on Pornhub.
[English]
Again, Caroline Touzin from La Presse this morning has put up an article on Pornhub and MindGeek. I know how important this is to the people in la belle province and all Canadians.
I'm looking at the article. It describes an adolescent named
[Translation]
Catherine, victim of sexual exploitation, young adult; she became an escort.
[English]
She talks about her suffering with addiction and—
I, too, as a member of this committee, understand that my colleagues want to cut this speech, this debate, short.
However, as parliamentarians, we all have the right to express ourselves and give our opinion on every issue and every motion. So I'm taking the opportunity this morning to speak to Mr. Fortin's motion.
I have a couple of points I'd like to share with my colleagues. This morning and since last week, some of us have been saying that this motion is simple and that we have other priorities. We are being very wasteful. We agree that the motion is simple precisely because it is simply not accurate.
So I'm going to give you my thoughts and my perspective. Simply put, this motion does not report the facts, as my colleagues have already said. It states that an order was issued by the House for individuals to come and testify, and that a certain decision was made. My colleague whom I see in front of me has spoken to me about this as well. This is the wording of point 5:
The Committee noted that Minister Pablo Rodriguez appeared on March 29, 2021, instead of Rick Theis, after having ordered him not to appear before the Committee, as mentioned in his letter to the Chair received by Committee members on March 28, 2021;
The very wording of the motion emphasizes that Minister Pablo Rodriguez allegedly asked the witness Rick Theis not to appear. The wording of this paragraph misleads the members because we have no proof of what is being claimed. Even if we did, and I'm not saying we do, the letter from Minister Rodriguez, which my colleague Mr. Fortin quoted earlier, states this:
Accordingly, Mr. Rick Theis, Director of Policy to the Prime Minister, has been instructed to not appear before the Committee.
I draw your attention to the next sentence:
In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Monday, March 29th.
So there was never a failure to appear, as my colleague has argued in very technical jargon before the committee. My colleagues have clearly explained to you that the witnesses who were called are employees and they're not responsible for reporting on the actions of ministers. So ministers can come and testify before committees.
Second, in his motion, Mr. Fortin states that if the three witnesses named in the motion do not appear, the Prime Minister can appear for them. Once again, the Prime Minister, being a minister, also has the option of delegating his representation to other ministers. The cabinet is responsible for decisions made by the ministers.
So we can see that there was no failure to appear. I understand my colleagues' insistence that the three witnesses appear, but it's simply not true that there was a failure to appear. I insist on that. It's crystal clear.
Two ministers took the time to respond to the request and come forward to testify about the facts of the case.
I'm going to make an analogy. When we sue a business, what do we do if we want to hear testimony? We can subpoena employees, but at the end of the day, who is accountable? It's the manager, the person in charge, the president of the company, Mr. Chair. They are responsible for their employees' actions. They must appear, whether before an administrative tribunal, a court or committees, to relate the facts on the subject of the dispute.
I am using the analogy to show my colleagues that we must be reasonable. This is the same process that was followed before this committee. What did we do, Mr. Chair? We have the audacity to say that we're not satisfied with the process.
The same is true of point 6. I will repeat the wording of that point:
The Committee noted that Minister Mona Fortier also ordered witnesses Amitpal Singh and Ben Chin not to appear before the Committee, as mentioned in her letters to the Chair dated March 30 and April 7, 2021.
I am referring to the two letters from Minister , dated March 30 and April 7. In them, she concludes that “Accordingly, Mr. Amitpal Singh has been instructed to not appear before the committee.” Once again, I emphasize, she continues as follows: “I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Wednesday, 31 March 2021.”
In her April 7 letter about the witness Ben Chin, the honourable Ms. Fortier once again states: “Accordingly, Mr. Ben Chin has been instructed to not appear before the committee. In his place, I will attend the meeting on behalf of the government on Thursday, 8 April 2021.”
Before we even try to figure out what happened when we had the two ministers before us, I'd like to—
[Translation]
I was talking about the March 31 meeting. I was quoting the motion put forward by my colleague to close the debate on '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.
:
Thank you very much, Chair. I see the growing list of members who want to speak to this motion, so I think we will hear the debate for a little longer.
I'm very pleased to have a chance to speak to this motion, as I haven't had a chance yet.
My honourable colleagues on the committee would all agree that, although we may disagree on certain things, especially when it comes to this very important study, we all agree that a member's right to speak—a member's privilege—should be respected. That's a very important point for all parliamentarians.
Chair, one benefit for me listening to all my members is that I listen to their points and make observations. The one observation I can share with you is the consistency in inconsistency that I've been witnessing here. Whether it's the government members today or a government member in the past, there is evidence of records being pulled out out, showing that when members were in government in the past—a previous government—their positions change. I understand that. I will be very mindful to what I say today so it won't be used later on against me.
I'm actually looking at this motion as part of the larger motion to study the procurement policies of the government. In fact, I should share with you that going back to the very early debate of the study, I had questions on whether or not it was appropriate to do a study that parallels the commissioner's investigation, because we know there is an ongoing investigation on what we are talking about. We've heard from witnesses—people like the former integrity commissioner and other professionals—who warned us, basically, of the dangers of contamination between this study and the finding of the actual investigation that's taking place.
We debate that; we spend a lot of time debating the merits of the study—the details of it. We debate amendments, and we move forward. It's been a long time. I see that there was a big change to the membership of this committee, but Monsieur Gourde, Mrs. Shanahan and I have been sitting through these debates on this study entirely.
For the benefit of the viewers today—some may get confused on what we are talking about, why there is such a difference in positions on what seems to be a detailed part of this overall study—I can share with you that, after we had extensive debate on whether or not this study was appropriate, we moved on. The members of this committee moved on.
We debated on the witnesses when we invited them. What I observed, again patiently sitting and listening to members and witnesses, is that that there were a lot of people affected by this study. We heard from the witness from Speakers' Spotlight on how their employees were affected, to a point that they were receiving threats and it was affecting their families' daily routine. That is sort of the negative outcome of this study. I want to make sure that we pay attention to this.
Then we entered the debate on whether or not financial information of a public office holder's relative should be shared publicly. After 5,000 pages being released by the government, we had extensive debate on this. We had amendments, we had votes, we had change of votes. We had a long history of looking into the details of this study.
I want to just point out that at the end of the day, we're studying the procurement policy and procedures to make sure the integrity of the government process is upheld. In this case, however, there was not a single cent of public dollars transferred to WE Charity. We are doing this work to prevent incidents in the future. It is for all good reasons, and I understand that.
We called witness after witness. To be honest, Chair, when we were listening to the testimony of the Kielburger brothers, I honestly thought I saw the light at the end of the tunnel. I thought that was the last stage of this study and that we were all ready to complete this study that has been dragging on. It's been stalling a lot of other important work of the committee.
Then the honourable was subbed into the committee and asked a question on something that was already in the public. In August of 2020 it was reported that there was an exchange on LinkedIn between the Kielburger brothers and Ben Chin. It wasn't news. We had had almost eight months. If we had thought that was important, that a simple reply was important, we could have called a meeting a long time ago. We could have talked about this a long time ago. No, it came out of this questioning by the member for Carleton of the Kielburger brothers. There was an “aha” moment, which I still have difficulty understanding. What was so aha about it?
We heard Mr. Sorbara call this study a “fishing expedition”. I think at that time it felt as though there was a fishing expedition. You go on a trip hoping to catch a bass and you catch a perch—aha! There must be something else we want to dig into. That started a whole new chapter of this never-ending study.
I respectfully ask the members to go back to the original motive and the intent of this study. Ask yourself what we are doing here.
We had the study on MindGeek and Pornhub, and it was going well. It was so important that we thought to interrupt this study to allow us to invite the witnesses from Stella and whatnot.
Chair, are you taking a picture of me?
:
Okay. Sorry about that, Chair.
Yes, we all agreed to interrupt the study briefly to hear from these witnesses. Then I heard the motion to extend the hours so more witnesses could come forward to give us a comprehensive view on the Pornhub study, because we have the power to recommend, through the House, to the government, the actions that need to be taken to protect vulnerable youth especially, but at the same time respect people's right to privacy, to expression and the right to work. We have to keep that balance, so I thought that testimony was very important.
We are again talking about Monsieur Fortin's motion. It has brought us right back into this extensive debate on a motion on a study that is looking at money that was never spent by the government.
I want to respectfully ask members to just keep your priorities. I looked at all these...whether it's face recognition, whether it's.... These are more urgent and should be in a higher position on our priority list of the committee.
Obviously we're in a deadlock, as cited by Ms. Lattanzio.
You said there are two options, and one is for Mr. Fortin to withdraw the motion, to vote on the motion; and the other is to suspend it or adjourn the debate and then move on to perhaps another study and park this for a little while. Let our caucus and colleagues work out the difference. Maybe they're more brilliant than we are. Maybe they can work out the difference and find a common ground. Give them some time to work it out but not stall the work of the committee, and we can move on to something that's more urgently needed.
When I talk about facial recognition—and Mr. Angus and Mr. Fergus would agree with me—I heard from my community that there is a lot of interest in this. However, the window of opportunity is closing. We are losing a very important, precious opportunity to do a sound study and review of what's going on right now.
I don't want to go on and on and repeat myself, but I sincerely ask members to look at this motion and understand that this is an outcome or part of an outcome of a very random impression. I can't help but suspect that the opposition, whether they're Conservative, whether the Bloc caucus, has any interest to completing this study, because as I said from the beginning, going back to last year until now, there has been concession after concession after concession from the Liberal caucus.
We agreed to look at these documents and we had a huge debate on this. What happened? Those documents were released to the members. Did any new evidence come out of our ability to look at other family members' financial situations? No. There was no new information.
Was this questioning of staff based on new information? No, it wasn't. It was based on old news, from August of last year. You can't blame me for suspecting that the opposition has no intention.... When I say “opposition”, of course I don't mean everybody, but I ask whether the leadership of the Conservative caucus, of the Bloc caucus, have any interest to complete this study?
We can vote on this motion, and is that the end of it? I really have to doubt it, because based on what I've seen, there is no interest. There is only interest to drag this on and to stop the important work of the committee.
Of course, I hear members on the committee talk about how much they want to move into other important studies, but I can't see it.
Rationally, I'm judging by what I'm hearing and the actions that have taken place in the last eight, nine or 10 months, and I can't come to a conclusion that there is interest in wrapping up this study.
There I've said it. That's just my observation. It may be unfair, but I'm still waiting for that gesture to assure me that there is that interest in moving on.
Through you, Chair, to my honourable colleagues, please give me that gesture. We've been very close to the end many times. We've been given the gestures, and we've believed them. We took a dive. We said, “Let's do it.” Then with a random question by the , everything is back in the circle again and we're just chasing our tails.
With that, I will cede the floor. I don't want to unnecessarily extend the conversation. If I see another point that I want to debate, I'll come back, but with that I will cede the floor to my honourable colleagues.
Thank you.
I will return to the fact that it is the point number three in Mr. Fortin's motion that I am discussing right now. We have said in that point number three—and I'll say it in English—“That the Committee confirms that it has not released these witnesses from their obligation to appear”. I am right on that point, in that I am discussing the role of political staff vis-à-vis the minister.
It is not for political staff to be held responsible in this way, and it's not just me that has said it. Mr. Jay Hill also spoke at length about this.
Mr. Hill has some good quotes here: “The tyranny of the opposition has turned its attention to the men and women who make up our political staff. Men and women who did not sign up to be tried by a committee—to be humiliated and intimidated by members of parliament.” I really would like to have Mr. Hill in front of this committee.
[Translation]
He isn't the only one to have said so. A former clerk said this as well.
[English]
Former clerk Rob Walsh testified in 2010, at this very ethics committee apparently, on this same issue, that in regard to staff, “there would be limitations on the questions that could be asked” and that “there would be some questions that should properly be directed to the minister and not to the political staff person.”
That is why I object heartily to this point number three, and I think that is something which has been discussed already by some of my colleagues.
[Translation]
Mr. Fortin should reconsider his motion. He should take a hard look at some points. This is in line with the understanding of the roles and responsibilities of political staffers with respect to any decision of the government or cabinet.
[English]
The told our committee that a bedrock principle of Canada's form of responsible government is ministerial responsibility.
This is the exercise in transparency that has been done here. We have even gone a step further. Ministerial staff have no authority to make decisions on behalf of ministers. They report to and are accountable to ministers. Ministers are accountable for their actions to Parliament.
Pablo Rodriguez put forward a quote from former prime minister Stephen Harper, as he stated in “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers”, “Ministers are accountable to Parliament for [the exercise of their responsibilities], whether they are assigned by statute or otherwise.... Ministers are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their office.” Staff are not elected members of the House. They do not have the same rights and privileges as MPs, and calling staff to testify at committee is at odds with the long-standing principle of ministerial responsibility.
[Translation]
I know that this issue isn't important to the Bloc Québécois. We understand that. The Bloc members I know and now consider good friends tell me with pride that they will never form the government and that they have a special role. However, the Conservatives and NDP have the opportunity to form the government one day. We don't know what the future holds.
These traditions and principles are very important, and shouldn't be forgotten just to have a little partisan moment, a little “gotcha” moment, which doesn't exist anyway. Yet it keeps happening.
We know that the Hon. Pablo Rodriguez has appeared before our committee. We heard him speak to us about the case of Mr. Theis and the great concern of some members of the committee in this regard.
Mr. Rodriguez said:
In regard to the decisions on the WE Charity, our government has turned over 5,000 pages of documents to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. We did this in August of last year. Regarding Mr. Theis, as the documents show, he had one interaction with WE Charity, a phone call.
It's also very important to note, because it relates to what I said earlier about the employer‑employee relationship, that the employer is responsible for everything the employee does. The employer also has a duty to know, and that's what Mr. Rodriguez shared with us when he appeared before us on March 29 of this year. He told us that, as the documents showed, Mr. Theis had one interaction with the WE Charity, a phone call.
Mr. Rodriguez added:
In fact, this was disclosed by the Prime Minister's Office itself. This should come as no surprise to anyone, many months later. According to Mr. Theis, the call lasted for about 25 minutes. WE Charity raised their ongoing work with diversity, inclusion and youth on the Canada student summer grant, as well as a proposal for social entrepreneurship. Mr. Theis asked WE how their proposal on summer grants would ensure diversity of placements, and for their part at WE, the Kielburgers expressed concern that this type of program would need to get off the ground soon.
In the discussion, in that communication, at no point were expenses discussed. Also, at no point were any commitments or assurances or advice given by Mr. Theis to WE on any subject other than to contact the officials involved at Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.
So Mr. Theis did his job, which was to connect with the various stakeholders. With all that was going on at the time, I imagine there must have been dozens, if not hundreds, of stakeholders for all sorts of programs, and Mr. Kielburger was one of them. There was a 25‑minute call, during which it was suggested that the relevant officials in the Department of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth be consulted.
That was, roughly, the testimony we had, that day, from the Hon. . Members who are here will remember that this wasn't the only meeting, that there were two others, for two other employees. I think it was Mr. Singh who we were supposed to meet with first, and then Mr. Chin.
The same principle applied to the Hon. , when she came to testify. She was on screen on Zoom, and she was ready to testify along the same lines and take responsibility, as she should have. It's important to note, Mr. Chair, that you spoke to the members and that it was the members here who decided not to hear from Ms. Fortier.
That's unfortunate, because I think she was willing to tell us what she knew about the interactions of her two employees. Mr. Fortin continues to say that the committee has confirmed that the witnesses have not been released from their obligations to appear before the committee. According to Mr. Fortin, this was not enough.
Now, I want to continue on this principle of ministerial accountability. The fact that they are ministers isn't insignificant. Not just anyone can speak for anybody. As Mr. Rodriguez clearly stated, it was a decision. Also, I don't need to repeat what happened last year with the number of programs that proved necessary during the emergency period following the COVID‑19 crisis and the economic crisis. However, those who have worked in a large corporation can imagine how challenging it was for employees at all levels to continue working.
For that to happen, it was necessary to have direction and, I would even say, reassuring leadership for it to really work. The Government of Canada is arguably the largest employer in Canada. It is like a huge boat that had to be turned around at that point. It wasn't easy, but fortunately there are principles and traditions in Parliament. The situation wasn't the same as those we saw during other crises in the United States. At one point, according to a certain general, he was the one in charge.
It's not at all the same thing here. We really have a hierarchy to respect and a different way of working. It is the traditions of the Parliament that make the government, that is, it's the with all his ministers who lead.
As I mentioned earlier, committee members present today may have been around when Prime Minister Harper was having a difficult time. These political and partisan issues weren't just invented today. At that time, it was the government House leader, Jay Hill, who explained to the House why the Harper government wouldn't allow its political assistants to appear before committees.
[English]
As Mr. Hill said:
When ministers choose to appear before committees to account for their administration, they are the best source of accountability and they must be heard. Public servants and ministerial staff support the responsibility of their ministers. They do not supplant it. They cannot supplant it.
[Translation]
This statement is very important. Not only do ministers have to table a report or explain why they made a decision, but they should also be heard when they offer to testify before a parliamentary committee.
I find it regrettable that, when appeared before this committee, twice rather than once, the members refused to hear her testimony. There were partisan games being played at that time to do that. We could have heard her answers.
It's not just people in the Ottawa bubble who are interested in the principle of ministerial responsibility; there are certainly people who work in the field, academics, who have a lot to say about it. The Canadian public is concerned that if the government makes a bad decision, it will find a scapegoat, some poor employee somewhere, to cover it up.
It shouldn't be that way. It's up to the government, to the and his ministers—because he can delegate responsibilities—to make a decision. It's the principle of cabinet solidarity that my colleague Mr. Fergus mentioned a while back, which is very important.
I don't want to quote too many other people, but when I did my reading and research, there were questions from the public about this principle, this tradition of ministerial responsibility and accountability.
Dale Smith, among others, wrote:
[English]
The Conservatives are very much aware of this fact. They encountered these very same demands to have their own staffers appear during their time in government, and they also correctly asserted that ministers are the ones who should be appearing to answer questions, and not those staffers. It is a fundamental cornerstone of how our system works, but because our parties are more interested in scoring as many cheap political points as possible, they are deliberately ignoring—
I find it unfortunate that some of my colleagues think we should talk about something else. I, too, would have liked to talk about something else, but the motion before us is Mr. Fortin's. It still talks about point 3, which reads, “The Committee confirms that it has not released these witnesses from their obligation to appear”.
I would like to come back to Mr. Smith's comments.
[English]
“Apparently they”—politicians, I think of all stripes—“are not too concerned about the whiff of hypocrisy that surrounds these demands (possibly because that may require a dose of shame that pretty much every politician seems to be lacking in this day and age).”
[Translation]
He was quite honest when he made this comment. It's a way of telling the hon. members that they should be careful with the traditions of Parliament, that they don't belong to them, that they belong to the Canadian people and that their mission is to protect them.
[English]
We're just looking after these traditions and we try to act as best we can.
[Translation]
I'm far from an expert in this area. I did a little research. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat submitted a report to Parliament. I think it was in 2005. This report was an overview of the responsibilities of ministers, officials and senior staff. I'll read it to you.
[English]
There is, in “Overview of accountability in responsible government”, the following:
Any discussion of accountability in our constitutional system—the Westminister system of parliamentary democracy—must be informed by an understanding of how the system functions and why. Although the Westminister system developed incrementally, rooted in evolving democratic values rather than an abstract or static concepts, it has deep integrity, and the roles of different players complement each other in a fine balance.
[Translation]
That's what's very important. I feel fortunate to be a Quebecker and to have been educated in Quebec, especially for some of my studies. I studied our history, but also the evolution of our parliamentary system and the legislative system, which is different in every province. There is common law in the rest of Canada and the Civil Code in Quebec. What is interesting, as my colleagues from Quebec know very well, is that everything is written down in the Civil Code. That kind of system has a lot of value, but in the rest of Canada, as in our parliamentary system generally, it is really the evolution of traditions that allows us to keep up with our day‑to‑day affairs.
[English]
Ministers, who together as the ministry form the government of the day, exercise executive authority in this system.
[Translation]
It's very important to understand that it's the government, cabinet, that has this executive power.
[English]
These ministers, who act largely through the work of a non-partisan public service, are accountable to Parliament both individually and collectively. All accountabilities in Canadian government flow from ministers' individual and collective accountability to Parliament.
Although Parliament does not exercise executive authority, it is the principal guarantor of the government's accountability, scrutinizing the government's policies and actions and holding it to account.
[Translation]
I don't need to describe that to the opposition members; they do it very well.
[English]
Parliament has a spectrum of tools for doing this, ranging from its role in the passage of legislation to the review and approval of public expenditure to the interrogations of Question Period.
I'm going to come back to question period a little later.
But while the specific tool may vary, the environment remains constant—that of partisan politics. Parliament and its processes are inherently political.
And there is nothing wrong with that. It's exactly the nature of partisan politics that each party presents, to my mind, a different set of options and alternatives, a different vision to the Canadian people.
The political responsibility of ministers, or accountability to Parliament, is an important element of electoral democracy. However, political responsibility is not the mechanism that ensures accountability on the part of public servants—that mechanism is managerial.
[Translation]
Again, we're emphasizing the fact that it's very important for ministers and the government be responsible for managing the government as a whole.
[English]
Political responsibility is also not the means of determining civil or criminal liability for unlawful conduct—that is the justice system.
[Translation]
If employees commit a criminal offence, there is recourse through the justice system.
I'll wrap up by saying what I have to say about point 3. I'll read it:
3. The Committee confirms that it has not released these witnesses from their obligation to appear;
I think I made it clear that this committee really had no reason to compel these individuals, who are mere employees, to appear before it. I clearly explained that the government's obligation to answer questions was met by , who testified before the committee. Moreover, had the committee decided to allow her to testify, could have fulfilled that obligation. That's why I'm opposed to point 3 of the motion.
Some may think that the appearance of ministers isn't important. I'll read point 4.
4. The Committee also noted the absence of the Prime Minister, who was given the option of appearing in place of these witnesses in the motion of March 25, 2021;
Again, as I indicated in my speech today, the Prime Minister has every right to delegate responsibilities to ministers. In fact, he must, because he cannot do everything.
This is indicated on page 10 of the document published in 2015 by the Treasury Board Secretariat.
[English]
This speaks to the collective responsibility of cabinet. “Collective ministerial responsibility refers to the convention requiring coherence and discipline of the ministry in deciding policy, managing government operations, and speaking to Parliament with a single voice.”
[Translation]
We're not talking about the Prime Minister or the ministers, but all members of cabinet, who speak with one voice. I think it's a convention and not a rule, but if a cabinet minister ever disagrees with the decisions made by the Prime Minister, that person must simply resign. We see an example of this convention during question period. I'll talk about it later.
I noticed in the report that there was a reference to political staffers. I think this is interesting information for the members of the committee.
[English]
On minister’s exempt staff, it says:
One area that merits specific mention is the appropriate role of the minister’s office in communicating and transmitting instructions to the department. In Canada, political staff (also known as “exempt” staff), while partly occupied with parliamentary and constituency work, also play an important but limited role in the operation of the department. Gordon Robertson, a former clerk of the Privy Council, described the role of the Prime Minister’s Office, which can be extrapolated to all ministers’ offices, as partisan, politically oriented, yet operationally sensitive.
The role of political staff is to provide strategic, partisan advice....
Partisan here does have the meaning that we've all come to associate with it now:
[Translation]
partisan questions or comments.
[English]
It's about representing your party. It's about representing the party that is in power, that is in government. That's really the only way to be transparent. It would be very deceptive if a party ran on a certain platform, saying one thing, and then did something completely different. That is not what Canadians expect.
The report continues:
...partisan advice to the minister that complements the professional, expert, and non-partisan advice that comes from the deputy minister and the Public Service at large.
Exempt staff are not part of the executive.... Accordingly, exempt staff have no authority to give direction to public servants.... Exempt staff...transmit the minister’s instructions.... It should also be noted that the minister is accountable for anything done in his or her name by exempt staff.
It is therefore the minister who must be heard.
If anyone is interested, I found that on the website for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
[Translation]
I mentioned earlier that this evolution of parliamentary traditions was interesting. The way the Quebec government has adopted these same traditions by adapting them to the particular reality of Quebec is also very interesting. Its approach is often forward‑thinking and points in a new direction.
Just out of personal interest, I consulted the website of the Quebec National Assembly to see if these same principles were present in the Quebec government and, yes, they are. It includes the principle of individual ministerial responsibility: “Ministers are individually responsible for the management of their departments”.
Good afternoon, colleagues. We are obviously spending a lot of time looking at and speaking to Mr. Fortin's motion. I know that many of us would like to move on to other material. Obviously, we're looking at this motion, and there's a fundamental disagreement in terms of how we interpret rules and responsibilities in terms of where responsibility stops or ends. It's very apparent that for me personally, during this entire time that we've been looking at Mr. Fortin's motion....
With regard to this motion, obviously it applies to the matters at hand and our studying the subject matter with regard to the Canada student services grant and the events that have passed. We continue to spend an enormous amount of the committee's time on something that we could have quickly disposed of with unanimous consent by the committee—obviously, Mr. Fortin would have to ask for that—that the motion be withdrawn so that we could move on to other more pertinent and, I would say, more important topics at hand. A committee member could potentially offer up an amendment that we could debate and look at to maybe get to a point where an actual vote could take place.
Obviously, I would love to move on and get to another point, but I'm also very stuck on the fact that I do believe in ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister prior to the current Prime Minister commented on that. I think it's been read into the script. I was reading it. The former Right Honourable Stephen Harper said this at the time:
Mr. Speaker, our precedents and practices are very clear. It is ministers and the ministry at large who are responsible to the House and to its committees, not their staff members. The staff members are responsible to the ministers and the members for whom they work.
For me, it's very specific. I'm on that tangent and I don't see any other way of looking at the situation we're in with regard to the debate happening on the motion, dated March 25, from Mr. Fortin, the honourable member from Quebec. I can't see how we look at this....
Perhaps I can take a step back. I'm not speaking for the entire committee but from my interpretation of where we are. There's obviously a disagreement in how we look at and interpret the fifth point:
5. The Committee noted that Minister Pablo Rodriguez appeared on March 29, 2021, instead of Rick Theis, after having ordered him not to appear before the Committee, as mentioned in his letter to the Chair received by Committee members on March 28, 2021;
I think there's a fundamental disagreement here. No one was ordered “not to appear”. In fact, the individuals responsible appeared at committee. I think that distinction is very, very, very important.
I spoke last time to this idea that, as we've seen with other material, we can just keep adding people to speak. If we extend this, anybody who has worked in the Prime Minister's Office, or “a” Prime Minister's Office, according to this committee, should be called to committee for a study. We've seen this transpire now with this motion from Mr. Fortin, because this is based on events leading up to thereof, and invitations there offered, for individuals to appears at the standing committee. Then we received other material saying, well, this person should appear, and that person should appear—but, oh, we're not finished; we're going to invite another two or three people to appear.
We've done this, and it's sort of—I'll use the word mind-blowing, but at the same time it is sort of exhausting to have this happening.
I go back to my honourable colleague . If I can just make sure we understand, let me end my remarks with some wise words from that former Conservative minister, who I have quoted extensively today. He is right. He said this about the staff:
They bring to us many talents and I expect many of them, when they accepted their jobs, [they] never imagined that one of the skills required was to stand up to the interrogation of a bitterly partisan parliamentary committee.
As a result of the actions of the opposition today, like the approach of the Conservative government in 2010, I say here today that:
ministers will instruct their staff members not to appear when called before committees and the government will send ministers instead to account for their actions.
I think about that. To me, the staff member should not come to a committee to be interrogated. It has to be the members, and it goes to this committee and this motion that there's a fundamental disagreement. For me, the solution at hand is one of two avenues: that when Mr. Fortin has the floor—and I may be corrected in terms of parliamentary procedures—he offer the opportunity for his motion to be withdrawn and there is unanimous consent granted or that potentially there is an amendment offered whereby we can reach some sort of agreement to move forward. If not, in my view, if the motion were to pass, the precedent that would be setting would be very bad. I don't think I would be proud of it—that's for sure—and I don't think we, as a committee, are arguing that I would not be doing my job of representing my constituents and ultimately being responsible as a member of Parliament, and I use the analogy that I'm the one who is responsible for my office, rather than the employees who work in my office and so forth. That's the way I would look at that.
The calling of these witnesses, I think, was, as a matter of fact, not the route that I would have liked to see proceeded on unless it did occur and it was the will of the House that this happen, and I respect that.
Is there someone—Clerk, I just hear a little bit of noise. Maybe the floor is not on mute, so I'm hearing the floor. Excuse me.
With that, Chair, again I look at this motion and I know my honourable colleagues will also have their comments to make on it. This is just not in line with what we saw in prior governments. That's not saying it's a good or bad thing, but in this realm it would be a very unique precedent, and I can't accept that at all since ministerial accountability or responsibility is very important in the House of Commons every day. Question period is not for staffers. Question period is for ministers, and when they're unavailable, the parliamentary secretaries will answer their questions and so forth and will fill in.
We've also seen, in the studies by this committee, that individuals who have come to the committee have then faced unnecessary and unintended consequences, I would say, from MPs' actions. People were unfortunately harassed afterwards because they had come to this committee and so forth. That was very unfortunate to see.
Chair, when I continue to look at Mr. Fortin's motion and read it over—and obviously we have spent plenty of time on this—the same issues, which I would say are very important issues—keep coming up, namely, ministerial responsibility.
That, to me, is the fundamental premise of why, at this current juncture, I can't offer my support for Mr. Fortin's motion.
I am only one member of the committee, but it's my right to speak on it and offer my views on why I can't do that.
With that, Chair, can you provide me with the refreshed speaking list, please?
:
Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for your warning.
If at any point, you find that I'm repeating comments I've made in the past, I am open to that criticism. I don't think I've said a word so far that reiterates the arguments made. Like Mrs. Shanahan, I have re‑read the minutes, I have re‑read what I said. I hope to refine my arguments without repeating those already presented to the committee. That's why I wanted to be transparent with you about my intentions for today, because I think there's a lot to be said for that.
Mr. Chair, if I may, I'll continue my speech.
There is more than one way to dispose of this motion. We can vote on this one because we will get to the point where there will be no further arguments to present to the committee. We can withdraw the motion with the unanimous consent of the members. We can also adjourn the debate on this motion, which will allow us to move on. As my colleague Mr. Sorbara said, we can also make a motion to amend Mr. Fortin's motion, to make it stronger and more acceptable to the committee for consensus. These are ways of dealing with the issue.
I know that you would like to proceed directly to a vote and, on several occasions since the beginning of this debate, you have even informally polled members to see whether or not they were prepared to vote. Since several members have their hands up, have an interest in voting on this debate on Mr. Fortin's motion, and have the right to convey their views to other members, you have had to do this polling on several occasions without getting unanimous consent. That can be remedied by getting unanimous consent.
Mr. Chair, there are four major themes I want to raise today, and they are the substance, content, foundation—
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but I pressed a button that muted me, much to the delight of several of my colleagues, but the issue is now resolved.
I also want to continue along the same lines as Mr. Sorbara by using the arguments made on this issue by political parties other than mine in similar situations.
In closing, I would like to talk about the new form of accountability, not only in terms of ministers, but also in terms of members of the House of Commons. They have been duly elected to represent the will of their constituents or to present their views and bring something to the debate.
With respect to the motion of my dear colleague Mr. Fortin, I would like to point out that the last time I had the opportunity to speak to him, he very skilfully countered my arguments. I tip my hat to him. He did not respond to my argument about who represents… The motion that was adopted by the House of Commons had two objectives. Mr. Fortin keeps reminding us of that through his points of order. The motion in the House of Commons called for political assistants to appear before the committee or for the to testify on their behalf before the committee.
Mr. Fortin didn't answer this question. If the Prime Minister had appeared before the committee, he would have strictly adhered to the interpretation of the motion that was presented in and adopted by the House of Commons. It was adopted by a majority vote of the opposition parties.
He didn't answer the question. Who speaks for the Prime Minister? Ministers. Ministers speak for the government. That was something that was raised today by Mrs. Shanahan, and it was raised very briefly by Mr. Sorbara. I personally raised it, but I didn't raise it well enough, because my colleague Mr. Fortin didn't revisit the issue.
Who speaks for the government? The government stands in solidarity. Any member of the government can speak on behalf of the government. That's why, if it was acceptable to have the Prime Minister here, it's perfectly acceptable to have a member of the government here.
We heard Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. I remember that Mr. Barrett didn't even want to agree to have Mr. Rodriguez speak on behalf of the government, just as the Prime Minister would have spoken on behalf of his government. He said that committee members would listen to Mr. Rodriguez, but they still wanted to hear directly from political assistants. In doing so, it goes against the spirit and logic of the motion adopted by the House of Commons.
I think that's the key and the crux of what's happening here. I think it's unfortunate that no one really wants to respond to this situation. We've gone even further. Points 5 and 6 of Mr. Fortin's motion indicate that Ms. Fortier's appearance before this committee was not even accepted. This is another member speaking on behalf of the government, as the does. Given these two things, it is clear that we could not continue with our business.
We talked about what was presented in the past when a government was in the same situation. I would like to quote one person who said this:
Mr. Speaker, our precedents and practices are very clear. It is ministers and the ministry at large who are responsible to the House and to its committees, not their staff members. The staff members are responsible to the ministers and the members for whom they work.
Another time, he said:
Ministers are answerable—
I'm growing very concerned because I remember the last round of filibusters that sucked up the equivalent of 20 meetings. That's something I've never, ever seen before in my parliamentary career, where that much time of a committee that is supposed to do serious investigations could be so monkey wrenched.
I'm very concerned that we're in that situation again. It was a little over a week, maybe two weeks, that we met and all agreed that we were going to extend the Pornhub study by one meeting with witnesses, and then to report it to the House. In the middle of that meeting, Ms. Shanahan shut down the opportunity for those witnesses to speak by claiming she wanted many more witnesses. Now, Mr. Sorbara's saying how many more witnesses he wants to bring.
They're sending a message that they want to drag that study out, and I think they want to drag it out because it has become clear that the Liberal government is not interested in applying the legal codes that exist regarding Pornhub. I think that if we report that to the House, it will be problematic for the Attorney General, so they'll drag that out.
Regarding the WE study, I think we need to get this done. My Conservative colleague now wants to bring in Elder Marques. I have no interest in hearing from Elder Marques, but I feel I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, between the Liberals who want to drag one study out that we had all agreed should be done and my Conservative colleagues who want to continue to drag the WE study out.
We had all agreed that we were going to make a priority of the issue of facial recognition technology. I've pretty much given up on that as something my government colleagues are interested in following up because, with 12 meetings left, do they really want to report to the House the findings on the WE scandal? I don't think so. Do they really want us to report on the Pornhub study based on the evidence that we have? Apparently not. They want to drag that out as much as they can, so we're in a tough situation.
I would tell my colleagues that there's another issue that we have to look at. We spent months trying to get answers from the top executives at WE so that we could finish this study, and some of those answers were from Victor Li. As we now learn, according to his lawyer, it wasn't really Victor Li who actually answered those questions; it was the WE Charity that wrote those answers.
I don't know if my colleagues have bothered to read those answers that were recently given, but they're highly problematic. It really raises questions about the credibility of parliamentary committees if you have witnesses simply saying that it's none of our business how their financial dealings went and that they don't have to give us those answers.
This was about a $516 million deal with the Canadian people. It's a pretty straightforward thing that Parliament has a right to know. What due diligence was done? What was the capacity of this organization?
I see on the Canada summer student service grant that Victor Li's signature is on the agreement. Some of the questions were as follow.
What financial information was requested by the Government of Canada in their decision-making process for WE to be awarded the Canada summer service grant?
“I do not know”, he wrote.
What assurance did WE give the Government of Canada that it could handle the financial load of this fund?
“I do not know,” he wrote.
What payment software was in place for WE to pay students through the funds earned through the CSSG?
He wrote, “Our primary system was a national payroll provider.” He doesn't even say which one. “Our secondary service was working with one of Canada's largest financial institutions to deliver the funds.” He doesn't say who it is.
This is not a joke. We're talking about half a billion to a billion dollars of taxpayers' money.
What was the system that they were using? Who was their partner? We don't know.
Your signature is on the service contract to the Canada summer student service grant. Why was the contract retroactive to May 5?
He says, “I was not personally involved with the negotiations.”
What assurances were you given from May 5 onwards expenses would be covered though no contract was signed?
Again, he says, “I was not personally involved,” but the issue here is that according to WE's lawyer, “Because he”—Mr. Li—“is unable to review or access the company records, he asked WE Charity to help answer the committee's questions.”
Are we to believe that the WE Charity executive doesn't know who authorized the spending of money on May 5 when there was no contract signed?
I will be returning to this issue when we have the final documents all presented, but I think it's highly problematic for our committee, regardless of your political stripe, that you could be given such disregard in the answers on WE's corporate ownership.
Why were we asking these questions? We were asking questions about corporate ownership of WE because we wanted to be able to know how the money flows. That's a pretty straightforward question to ask. We still don't know.
One of the questions was, who is the registered owner of Araveli For Mamas corporation? He wrote, “I do not know.” That would be a WE executive saying they do not know. We have documents saying that this corporation was owned by Marc Kielburger. It's one of their flagship operations—a flagship operation selling bracelets—which they say is empowering women. If it's private company of Marc Kielburger, well, that certainly raises questions.
How many of the other WE companies are private or partly owned by the brothers or family members? He says that's outside the committee's mandate and refuses to answer. I think that's highly problematic. First of all, why are the WE executives deciding what's within our mandate to ask in terms of due diligence and funding? This is why we had to ask them back a couple of times. We were dealing with a signed agreement that would have given them $500 and some million in the first round, and maybe upwards of $900 million. We have a right, as parliamentarians, to know how the money flows, and to be told they don't know who runs these corporations, or they're not going to tell us, is not on in my books, not when we're dealing with a supposed charity that raises money in our kids' schools.
Again, Mr. Chair, I'm going to be returning to this, but I'm asking my colleagues to start reading up on these documents, because I think this is something we need to address. Regardless of what else happens at this committee, we need to be able to have a sense of whether we got clear and honest answers or whether we got played. As a parliamentarian, I don't like my committee time to be wasted by witnesses who are not going to give us answers.
We asked for a list of the schools that were built, because their lawyer wrote to us and said that WE built 1,500 schools. I believe they built 1,500 schools. I had no reason to doubt that, but then questions were raised. Questions were raised about donor manipulation. It would have been the best, simplest option for them to shut down all that concern by simply showing us the list: “Here are the 1,500 schools we built.” By the way, 1,500 schools is the equivalent of one school every five days for 20-some years. That's an incredible machine for building schools, yet they can't tell us where the schools are. I find that extraordinary.
If you're raising money, if you're out there and you're on the ground doing this, you would know where those schools are, yet they tell us that it would take too much time to find out.
I've spoken with people who are in the field working in international development. You know where your projects are; you have to know where your projects are. So on this question of the 1,500 schools, where are they? Who built them? Were they built? We know that some schools were built, and I'm not doubting that some schools were built. I'm not doubting that some really good work was done. I am questioning why a parliamentary committee can be told, “It would be too hard to find out where all our schools are.”
They said it would take them months. Well, we gave Mr. Li well over a month—a month and a half—to come up with this. The question of schools was well over four months in the public eye. I would think that if your business model is based on telling people that you build schools, you would have been able to supply that answer to Parliament right away. Instead we are told they can't tell us.
I'm going to be returning to this matter once we've seen all the documents. I want to make sure we know what's in every document and whether or not we were given the straight answers. I'm asking my colleagues to consider this as something bigger than our partisan interests. This is about the role of Parliament to get answers and to be able to report to Parliament.
With that, I would say that I think Mr. Fergus' motion is problematic, but I'm willing to vote on it. I'm asking my colleagues to stop these filibusters and let's get down to business. We have the WE report to finish. We have to [Technical difficulty--Editor].