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.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Absolutely.
Mr. Poilievre was quite right at the time, but that might be less true today.
As I recall, at the time, when my hair was a little less grey, he defended the fact that the Prime Minister wasn't invited to committee meetings, as you pointed out, and he said it was not up for debate.
As you so eloquently put it, he went on to say that ministers are accountable to Parliament, to committees and ultimately to Canadians.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I could go on and on, but I'm almost at my last question.
I would once again like to quote Mr. Poilievre from the same day:
The committee should respect the centuries-old tradition that the minister is responsible and let him answer those questions.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
You're quite right.
In fact, the official opposition at the time, which was the Liberal Party of Canada, subsequently changed its position and agreed with the Conservative government on ministerial responsibility, and that is what we subsequently applied.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Minister, this is my last question.
Do you think political staffers should be intimidated by political posturing, political attacks from MPs for partisan purposes, rather than having these questions put to the ministers responsible?
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
No, absolutely not. I think we must protect the employees of all political parties, including Mr. Angus's party, Mr. Fortin's party, Mr. Warkentin's party and Elizabeth May's party.
These individuals come here to do their best and to serve Canada, certainly not to be pushed around and bullied before a committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
We'll turn to Monsieur Fortin, for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, it's important that we not confuse matters. Ministerial responsibility means that you, as ministers, are responsible for any mistakes that may be made by the employees who report to you, but that shouldn't prevent the committee from calling them to testify in order to establish the facts and determine what happened.
In your testimony, you said several times that you knew nothing and that we need facts. The only way to get the facts is to hear from the people personally involved. It's not a matter of bullying them, as you've been saying, but simply hearing from them.
That said, Minister, I would like to quote a passage from page 137 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice dealing with parliamentary privileges and immunities:
By virtue of the preamble and section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament has the ability to institute its own inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents, rights which are fundamental to its proper functioning. These rights are as old as Parliament itself.
Minister, can you comment on that?
Is Parliament's right to conduct inquiries and call witnesses more limited today than it was before this government came to power?
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
The previous government operated in exactly the same way, Mr. Fortin.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Perhaps the authors of the book, Mr. Bosc and Mr. Gagnon, need to be told that. In the 2017 edition, they seem to indicate that that is not the case. They say that, since 1867, under section 18 of the Constitution Act, Parliament has the right to require the attendance of witnesses. Perhaps you should tell them that you disagree with them, to avoid confusion.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I gave you concrete examples, for instance when the official opposition party at the time, the Liberal Party, in collaboration with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, invited several Conservative employees to appear, but the Conservatives refused to send them and sent ministers in their place.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I'm not talking about invitations. You're talking about invitations, and I agree with you on that. I'm talking about an order. Parliament has issued an order. It may have been appropriate to invite these witnesses, but that's another matter. Parliament saw fit, rightly or wrongly, to summon them by order last Thursday. Now you're saying that you told those witnesses not to follow the order. I think that runs counter to what is set out here in House of Commons Procedure and Practice in the chapter on privileges and immunities. I even wonder whether you're not in contempt of Parliament yourself, Minister. I'm really shocked to read that, but that's how I understand what I read.
What do you think? Doesn't that bother you?
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Coming back to what happened in 2010, it's not a question of....
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
No, it's very important. Those witnesses were summoned to appear. It wasn't an invitation. I just wanted to correct what you said.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Monsieur Fortin. Your time is up, but we'll allow the minister to answer the question.
Conservative
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As I was saying, this is all extremely important. Producing documents is vital. That's why I'm saying these documents must be produced, but we have to respect the fact that the public service, which is neutral and professional, prepares them.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
Again, thank you, Mr. Rodriguez, for making time....
You said before the meeting that you talked with Mr. Theis. Before the meeting, did you talk with Ms. Shanahan, Mr. Fergus, Mr. Sorbara, Mr. Dong or Ms. Lattanzio?