Evidence of meeting #20 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
An hon. member
I don't see that as a point of order.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
It's a point of clarification.
Okay. It was discussed at the last meeting, and because the committee does not.... We do meet on the 17th. We have Mr. Nicholson, the justice minister, appearing before us.
The motion passed. Madam Freeman's motion was that those people appear before the committee on or before the 16th--next Wednesday. Since the committee doesn't meet Wednesday, the immediately preceding meeting of the committee would be on the Tuesday.
If they don't appear on Tuesday, then they will not have appeared before the committee, even if they wanted to, because we don't meet on the Wednesday. I don't know why it's the 16th, but if they don't appear on Tuesday, there's no way they could satisfy the motion and we could finalize the motion on the Tuesday. Nothing will change on Wednesday because we don't meet, unless the committee would like to arrange a meeting on the Wednesday and see if they would come.
That's just an explanation. We talked about this at the last meeting, that we will not be able to finalize our report until Tuesday to see whether or not either of the two witnesses appear.
Mr. Poilievre has the floor. He has proposed an amendment that Mr. Walsh be replaced by Mr. Baird.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC
Mr. Chair, you did not rule on whether Mr. Poilievre's amendment was in order. You did not say whether it was in order or not. To my mind, it is entirely out of order because it completely eliminates the witness we want to hear from.
I think Mr. Poilievre should move a new motion to have the minister appear. But his motion should be ruled out of order because it completely eliminates the other motion; it does not amend it.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, I think I addressed that in my comments, in saying that he could make another motion, or his amendment could be after Mr. Walsh and Mr. Baird. So that would be an amendment.
It's moot. By virtue of that, I called for debate. I believe, sir, that his motion is in order, but it's only because he would have to make an argument that the substitute would be able to satisfy or advise the committee with regard to some of the consequences—and probably in the context of a government policy statement.
Mr. Poilievre.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The amendment is based on hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition, and I cite as my source for the argument the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the second edition, 2009, edited by Audrey O'Brien and Marc Bosc. The name Audrey O'Brien is very well-known and held in extremely high regard around the parliamentary precinct. She continues to be a servant of Parliament to this day, and, I might add, with the unanimous confidence of parliamentarians.
From page 32, chapter 1, entitled “Parliamentary Institutions”, and subtitled “Responsible Government and Ministerial Responsibility”, I quote:
In a general sense, responsible government means that a government must be responsive to its citizens, that it must operate responsibly (that is, be well organized in developing and implementing policy) and that its Ministers must be accountable or responsible to Parliament.
And it goes on:
In terms of ministerial responsibility, Ministers have both individual and collective responsibilities to Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
No, this is entirely pertinent to the witness I wish to call.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, I understand.
I want you to understand that although your amendment changed the name, the end of the motion still reads, “to explain the consequences of the witnesses' failure to appear before the Committee”. The argument should not be anything to do with policy of the government, etc., but should be with regard to why your proposed witness would be able to do what has been asked for by the motion.
I suggest to you, sir, that to go outside of the expertise to explain to this committee the legal ramifications would not be in order. It would not be relevant to the debate on the amendment to the motion as presented. Okay?
It's just to caution you that you're straying beyond the scope of the motion.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My comments will continue to focus on the conduct of political staff members and the importance of ministerial responsibility for that conduct. That is entirely pertinent to this motion, and if committee members disagree, they will discard my arguments.
I'm going to quote continually the rules as they are written:
The individual or personal responsibility of the Minister derives from a time when in practice and not just in theory the Crown governed; Ministers merely advised the Sovereign and were responsible to the Sovereign for their advice. The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates;
It's worth reading that again:
The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates; individual ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts.
Again:
Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of the Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts.
We are Parliament in this committee, and it is ministers who are accountable to Parliament, according to the rules.
Ministers exercise power and are constitutionally responsible for the provision and conduct of government; Parliament holds them personally responsible for it.
The principle of collective ministerial responsibility, which is of a much more recent vintage, evolved when Ministers replaced the Sovereign as the decision-makers of government. Ministers are expected to take responsibility for, and defend, all Cabinet decisions. The principle provides stability within the framework of ministerial government by uniting the responsibilities of the individual Ministers under the collective responsibility of the Crown.
That latter point explains why Minister Baird is here to explain the conduct of a member of the Prime Minister's Office. Under the principle of collective responsibility, he, as a minister, a servant, is responsible in our system for defending the conduct of subordinates in this government. He has been so designated by the Prime Minister, who makes those designations by historic convention.
This is the foundation of our democratic system of government, Mr. Chair. It is not something that can be thrown away at a whim or dispensed with when a coalition of parties, through their numbers, seeks to undermine it in order to score a few short-term and myopic political points.
In the aftermath of the 2008 election, the coalition parties attempted to reverse the results of that vote. Now we are seeing them attempt to reverse the results of roughly 300 years of parliamentary tradition and replace it with a kangaroo court that would intimidate political staff members, whose responsibilities to this House flow through the ministers--
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Turn the mike off.
Mr. Poilievre, I've been really patient. But when someone starts to reflect and judge us as a group, time and time again, as a kangaroo court, it's unacceptable and unparliamentary. I've heard enough from you, sir. I've heard enough of your argument, and we need to move on. It's my decision that we are moving on to the next person.
