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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Pardon me.
Mr. Sorbara, in an effort to be helpful, I'm wondering if you could do me one further favour, which is to ask for unanimous consent to adjourn debate on the motion that was being debated and move to hear from Mr. Rodriguez.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Chair, thank you for asking me. I am one member of the committee. If it is the will of the committee, then the will of the committee will proceed. If it is not the will of the committee, then the will of the committee will not proceed.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Again, I ask for decorum from all members so we can have a productive meeting here with the witness who was provided, incorporating the fact of ministerial responsibility.
Thank you, Chair.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I don't want anyone engaging in systematic obstruction for whatever. In the interest of concluding debate, I'm prepared to accept Mr. Poilievre's proposal. I agree that we should debate my motion, which you all should have received, after we hear from Mr. Rodriguez, who is here with us. I'm not withdrawing my motion, but we'll vote on it after hearing from Mr. Rodriguez. I accept that proposal.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I think there's unanimous consent to proceed in that manner. Does anybody oppose that?
Seeing nobody—
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
On a point of order, I want to understand what we are doing. You're asking for our consent for Monsieur Fortin to withdraw his motion?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Yes, the motion would be withdrawn at this point so that Mr. Rodriguez could speak, and Mr. Fortin reserves the right to reintroduce that motion at a later—
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Point of order, Chair.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I didn't say I would withdraw my motion. I want to make that clear: I'm not withdrawing it. I'm suspending debate on my motion while we hear from Mr. Rodriguez. I'm not withdrawing it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Colleagues, I need to suspend for one minute. There's a technical question with regard to what we need to do with the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I'm calling the meeting back to order.
I did seek clarification. Monsieur Fortin is correct that all we are doing is ending debate on his motion now. He is free to reintroduce it at a later point, either at this meeting or at a future meeting. Is there any opposition to suspending debate on the motion and allowing Mr. Rodriguez to speak? We'll have our questions, and Monsieur Fortin will be free to reintroduce that motion at some point later in the meeting or at a future meeting.
Mr. Fergus.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you.
Just to be very clear, when I was speaking earlier on the motion that is now being suspended, you said there was no motion in play. That's fine, but, Mr. Warkentin, please, out of respect, I would appreciate that you at least acknowledge that I was speaking appropriately, patiently, with my hand up, on the motion that Mr. Fortin had presented, which is now being suspended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
There was a motion that we were debating. It was not the debate as to whether or not Mr. Rodriguez would speak. It was with regard to reporting back to the House on the lack of the appearance by the witness who was expected by the House. That was what was being debated.
Mr. Rodriguez, we'll turn to you now for your opening statement.
Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you. It's been a while.
I'm very happy to see all of you. It's been a very long time since I last saw some of you.
It's true, Mr. Angus, we go back a long time. I had black hair when we met a while ago.
Colleagues, and Mr. Chair, I'm here because on our side of the House we have a deep respect for the traditions of Parliament, and one of those traditions is the principle of ministerial responsibility. As I said during my speech in the House last week, we believe that cabinet ministers are accountable to the House of Commons for the decisions of the government, and also for the actions of their own political staff.
This is why, since we took office in 2015, our government has repeatedly shown respect for this tradition in the House of Commons and its committees. Every day, our ministers answer questions. By now, there have been thousands of questions answered during daily question periods and during countless appearances at committee. They've answered lots of questions, as they should. That is how it is supposed to work.
We've always been collaborative with and accountable to members of Parliament and committees. It is our responsibility, and I think we've always fulfilled it professionally and gladly.
Ministers have collective responsibility for the actions of government, so I'm here today because, as a member of cabinet, I speak on behalf of the government and of those who work in it.
I am aware that some of the members of this committee would rather be hearing from a staff member from the Prime Minister's Office, Mr. Rick Theis, but as I told the House last week and I want to make clear again, we fundamentally disagree with the decision of the opposition to use its powers to intimidate and mistreat staff members who work in political offices. That is in direct contradiction to the very bedrock of our parliamentary system. Unelected political staff members are accountable to members of cabinet, and cabinet is accountable to Parliament.
This is a clear principle that the official opposition believed in more than a decade ago when the government in power was under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I was there. Some of you were there. Mr. Poilievre was there. Charlie was there, and others too.
As I noted last week, it was the Conservative House leader, Jay Hill, who spoke extensively in the House on why the Harper government was refusing to let its staff members testify at committee. As Mr. Hill said quite rightly at the time:
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.
The Harper government instructed its staff not to appear. Instead, cabinet ministers went in their place.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives under their current leader have changed their minds on the importance of this fundamental principle of ministerial responsibility.
What was so important to them when they were in government has been thrown out the window now that they are in opposition. That is regrettable, and it is dangerous, Mr. Chair, because Canadians need to know they can trust that the very traditions of their Parliament will not be abandoned out of political expediency.
The argument put forward by the Conservative House leader in 2010 was correct. It was the right thing to do then, and it's still the right thing to do now.
Please permit me to speak briefly about the matter at hand.
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. That's it. 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.
That all occurred in May 2020. It was a normal thing for Mr. Theis to do as a member of the policy staff in the PMO. He spoke to a stakeholder organization. It was one of many conversations he had with a variety of organizations. It was a general discussion.
Mr. Theis directed WE Charity to officials at Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, which was the most appropriate place to get answers to the questions they were asking. This staff member did his job in a professional manner. There's nothing more complicated about it than that.
These were actions similar to those of thousands of people who work hard every day in government, both in the public service and in ministers' offices. I hope you will come to understand this as you proceed with your work.
With that, Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer committee members' questions.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, colleagues.
Today, in an effort to maintain order, because we had some difficulty doing that at the beginning of this meeting, I will be looking to give Mr. Rodriguez the opportunity to answer the questions that he will be asked. So, we will provide him with an equal amount of time to answer the question to the duration of the question. We will also do the reverse.
We will turn to Mr. Barrett to begin.
