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.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Maybe move your microphone just a little bit closer to your mouth.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
It seems to me everyone can hear it other than Madame Shanahan.
Maybe there are technical issues on Madame Shanahan's end. You may want to look into that.
Monsieur Fortin.
2:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I was saying, this is quite an unusual situation because the reason we're meeting today is to hear from a witness who isn't here.
Secondly, the government House leader says he has things to tell us in connection with our study of the WE Charity scandal. I'd like to hear from him. I think my fellow committee members would too. We'll hear what Mr. Rodriguez has to say, which is fine.
However, there was an order, Mr. Chair. We're not talking about the committee inviting witnesses to appear. On Thursday, there was a debate in the House that lasted almost all day. It was about Mr. Barrett's motion to call certain witnesses. The motion was debated, amended and adopted on Thursday, March 25. The motion ordered Rick Theis to appear before this committee today at 2 p.m. He's not here.
The motion also stated that the Prime Minister could appear instead of Rick Theis, if he wanted. I gather the Prime Minister isn't here, unless he's hiding somewhere.
So, Mr. Chair, before we decide whether to hear from Mr. Rodriguez or anyone else, I'd like to move a motion. I move that the committee note the absence of the witness who was ordered by the House of Commons—
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Point of order. A motion cannot be moved during a point of order.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Pardon me, Madame Shanahan. I haven't recognized you yet, but I do understand that you have a point of order.
Madame Shanahan.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Mr. Chair, a motion cannot be moved during a point of order.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I think you were on the point of order, Madame Shanahan.
Currently we are having a debate with regard to whether or not we are going to hear this witness because that hasn't been approved by the committee members, so I will go back to Monsieur Fortin.
I thank you, Madame Shanahan, for all of your assistance, but if you would just text me with your suggestions, that may be more constructive.
Monsieur Fortin.
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, that wasn't a point of order. We are starting the debate.
With all due respect, Mr. Chair, the House instructed you to convene the committee for two hours today to hear from Rick Theis. You convened us in accordance with the House's instruction. We're here. Mr. Theis and the Prime Minister are not.
I therefore move that our committee immediately report to the House notifying it that the witness it ordered to appear today is not here, nor is the Prime Minister. I move that the House follow up as appropriate and make any decisions it deems necessary to excuse or sanction the witness's absence.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
That is a motion, and because it is with regard to the business we're debating, we'll move to a debate on that if anybody wants to intervene with regard to that, and then we'll move to a vote.
It is now debate on the motion, so we will work through the list I have now in front of me. If members had intended to speak about something else and not this, please let me know.
We'll turn to Madame Shanahan.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Mr. Chair, my hand was up from the beginning on the original point of order that Mr. Poilievre had brought up making a statement, which you had agreed with without discussing it with the rest of us, concerning the appearance of Mr. Rodriguez today. It was that we must respect the parliamentary institution, and part of that parliamentary institution is ministerial responsibility and accountability. What we have before us is a minister who is going to answer.
With respect to the motion to the order from the House, it is this minister who is going to answer the questions we have because this is in accordance with the principle of ministerial responsibility. Staffers are not elected. Staffers are not on the ballot. It is ministers who respond on behalf of the government.
I want to hear from Mr. Rodriguez, but before we do so I would like to address the—I don't know what it was—point of order, or intervention by Mr. Angus regarding Mr. Li.
I am shocked and, yet, maybe I shouldn't be because this is not the first time this has happened here in this meeting where aspersions are cast on a Canadian who is going about his business, who has been drawn into something that this committee is dealing with—
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Order.
I will go to the point of order, Mr. Angus, shortly, but right now we are debating Mr. Fortin's motion. I think the initial intervention spoke to that.
With regard to Mr. Li, that motion is not currently up for debate. There was notice that that motion would be coming forward, but because it doesn't relate to the business at hand, which is whether or not we will hear from Mr. Rodriguez and the witnesses at this meeting, I don't find it is in order to have that debate at this time. This is not a business meeting. This is a meeting with regard to one specific issue, and that's the witnesses we will hear from today.
Ms. Shanahan, if you want to return to the debate with regard to that, it would be fine, but we are discussing Monsieur Fortin's motion.
Mr. Angus, did you have a point of order?
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I'm raising questions about getting questions and answers. I'm doing this in seriousness. If Ms. Shanahan wants to fight and personally attack all members of the opposition, that may be her business. I don't think it's that wise, but—
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
On Mr. Fortin's motion, whether or not I agree with it, I'm willing to follow the rules, and I think you just made a wise ruling. We are focused on Mr. Fortin's motion and we get to debate that.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
That's not a point of order.
Ms. Shanahan, we will turn back to you.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I will fight on behalf of Canadians any day of the week, you can count on that, but I agree that the motion that is in front of us now concerns the appearance of Mr. Rodriguez in front of this committee in good faith. He is on the amended notice of meeting. He is in front of this committee, and he is expecting to speak to this committee. By that same usual practice of this committee and of other committees in the House, we are flexible when it comes to witnesses, and we certainly want to hear from the witnesses who can be of most use to the study that we have at hand.
In fact, when we talk about responsible government, we know that many on both sides of the House have spoken on the principle of Canada's form of responsible government, and that is that ministerial staff have no authority to make decisions on behalf of ministers. I believe Mr. Poilievre had something to say on this matter, as did former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They 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. This is not a new concept. This is from former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as stated in the document, “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers”.
This is the principle, and we've spoken about this before, Chair. This is a committee that, from its earliest days, has evolved and has learned how to work around and with these very difficult issues that we have before us. In so doing, I agree that this was an important principle when it was brought forward by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and it is a key principle today. In fact, it is a fundamental principle that we should be responsible for.
I take exception to the first remark made by Mr. Poilievre saying in some way that Mr. Rodriguez's appearance here today was just that he happened to be passing by, so he's here, but this has nothing to do with the matter before us. It has everything to do with the matter before us. I, for one, am looking forward to hearing Mr. Rodriguez speak and being able to ask questions of him. That is what I have to say on this motion.
As far as the motion itself goes, I would like to have it reread, but I am against the motion insofar as it casts aspersions upon the appearance of Mr. Rodriguez here today. It is done in good faith and in full adherence to the principle of ministerial accountability and, indeed, respects the wishes of the House. I would like to have it read out again.
Thank you.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I wonder if that has been provided to the clerk yet in writing. Do we have a written form of that? No.
Mr. Fortin, I'm wondering if you could provide that to the clerk in writing so that could be distributed.
We'll continue on with this debate until such time as that happens. We are now about half an hour into a three-hour meeting, so we have used a significant amount of time, but we will try to get that circulated in written form.
2:25 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, I just want to say that you should have received it already. I asked for it to be sent to you.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Can we suspend while we're waiting for it to come to us?
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We'll turn to Mr. Fergus now. We are now half an hour into a three-hour meeting. I do want to continue to get to the decision as to whether or not we'll hear our witness. Of course, if our witness does get to answer questions, he probably would like to do that sooner than later.
Mr. Fergus.