Evidence of meeting #26 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
—who's a remarkable staffer who's there for the right reasons.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
To be clear, you say that the PMO had nothing to do with giving this money over.
On May 5, Rick Theis, top adviser to Trudeau, talks to the WE organization, and on May 5, without even a contract being signed, the WE organization starts spending a half-billion dollar government grant. Big coincidence, right?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Poilievre, the agenda for the cabinet is set way before.... You were in cabinet.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Did Mr. Theis, the top adviser.... You said earlier that Mr. Theis, top Trudeau adviser, spoke to the Prime Minister about the WE program. Did he talk about the money that the Trudeau family had received from the WE organization in that conversation?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Poilievre. Your time is up.
We're going now to Ms. Shanahan.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you very much, Chair.
Before I continue, I just want to say a word about our conduct here at this committee and our treatment of witnesses. We have seen this before in this committee: that witnesses are browbeaten, that they are interrupted frequently and that aspersions are cast on their conduct and on their answers. This is unworthy of a parliamentary committee. We have seen this here and in other committees. It is badgering the witness and—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I would like to ask Mr. Rodriguez.... I have not browbeaten him or attacked him. I want Madame Shanahan to retract her comments. I think I treated Mr. Rodriguez with respect.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I'm not sure that is a point of order. It's a point of debate, obviously—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair, because indeed I did not mention the name of the member. He took it upon himself to think that I was referring to him.
What I am talking about is the general conduct at this committee in this meeting and other meetings.
I'd like to continue asking the minister questions, since he's here as a representative of the government.
I wonder if Minister Rodriguez could come back to what he was saying earlier in his testimony regarding page 30 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It had to do with the roles of ministers and their subordinates.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you, Mrs. Shanahan.
I see this as fundamental. One principle is clear, and that is the principle of ministerial responsibility.
We have staff working here to help us out. These employees work hard. In some cases, they've left very lucrative jobs or passed over other opportunities. They advise us, they help us and they serve the nation. That said, at the end of the day, they are here to advise us. Since ministers are the ones who make the decisions, they are accountable to Parliament, to committees and to the public at large. This is a fundamental principle, and I'm glad we're revisiting it.
If you don't mind, Mrs. Shanahan, I'd like to quote someone on this matter.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I'll do this in English. It says:
Mr. Chair, ministers are ultimately accountable and answerable to Parliament. Therefore, ministerial staff members will not appear when called before parliamentary committees. Instead, ministers will appear before a committee when required to account for staff members' actions. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of the minister, and ultimately that accountability lies with cabinet ministers.
That was from Mr. Poilievre in your committee a couple of years ago. It is the same person, same committee.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Excellent. Thank you for that.
I believe that you weren't given the opportunity to respond to Mr. Poilievre's previous question, so in the spirit of co-operation and collaboration, could you respond to it regarding the critical path?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Yes. I think it's very important, because Mr. Poilievre has been taking one document from here and one from there out of 5,000 pages. I don't even know what he's showing there. We have to be professional here and ask questions in a professional way.
He should have said that the critical path, in the document he was referring to, is something that happened after cabinet adoption. I understand from the question that he's trying to imply that those things happened before, but that's absolutely not the case. There was a critical path to get things out the door, but only after it was adopted by cabinet. This was done to make sure there was enough due diligence. The term “due diligence” here was the whole key of the document that Mr. Poilievre was referring to.