Without exception, I'm interrupted by a member of the governing side of the House when I speak at this committee—without exception. If one of the speakers, when it is their turn to speak, wants to enumerate the number of times that hasn't happened, I'd find it very interesting.
With respect to the motion put forward by our colleague, it's incredibly troubling, because Canada's Parliament passed a motion by a vote of 181 to 153, totalling 334 out of a possible 338 votes. A clear majority of members supported the motion. The motion is crystal clear. It gives direction to individuals to appear; it gives direction for documents to be produced, and there is an option built in to the motion that allows for the argument that was made on the day of debate, Thursday past, for ministerial accountability—for a member of cabinet to be accountable. The motion asks that:
(i) an order of the House do issue for due diligence reports, in the care, custody or control of the Privy Council Office, respecting the Canada Student Service Grant, and that these documents be deposited, in both official languages, with the Clerk of the Committee no later than Thursday, April 1, 2021,
(ii) Rick Theis, the Prime Minister's Director of Policy and Cabinet Affairs, be ordered to appear before the committee on Monday, March 29, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.,
(iii) Amitpal Singh, the Deputy Prime Minister's Policy Advisor, be ordered to appear before the committee on Wednesday, March 31, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.,
(iv) Ben Chin, the Prime Minister's Senior Advisor, be ordered to appear before the committee on Thursday, April 8, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.;
(b) regarding the study on addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces by the Standing Committee on National Defence, Zita Astravas, formerly the Minister of National Defence's chief of staff and the Prime Minister's Director of Issues Management and currently the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness's chief of staff, be ordered to appear before the committee on Tuesday, April 6, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.;
(c) should the Prime Minister instead appear before the committees mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), at any of the dates and times mentioned, for at least three hours, the witness otherwise scheduled to appear, and any other witnesses scheduled to appear before the same committee at a later time, be relieved of their obligation to appear pursuant to this order; and
(d) it be an instruction to the Chairs of the committees mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) to convene televised meetings of their respective committee, at the dates and times mentioned, for at least three hours, for the purpose of receiving evidence from the individuals then ordered to appear or the Prime Minister, as the case may be, unless the individual has been relieved from attending under the provisions of paragraph (c), provided that the witnesses be required to appear until discharged by the committee.
We have this very clear order calling for witnesses and there is an “or” option included in there for the government. That option is for either the individual named—in the case of today's meeting, Mr. Amitpal Singh; in the case of Monday's meeting, Mr. Rick Theis; and in the case of next Thursday's meeting, Mr. Ben Chin—or Prime Minister Trudeau to appear at committee. That's the option.
The Prime Minister would be able to exercise the principle of ministerial accountability, but instead what we have, in defiance of an order of the House of Commons on Monday, is a witness who was ordered not to appear by the government and in whose place the government House leader attended. The government House leader, Mr. Rodriguez, was unable to answer questions that anyone with an interest in this file would have had answers to. He kept referring to documents that were tabled before his government prorogued Parliament, and to committee testimony from studies at other committees before his government prorogued Parliament, instead of answering the questions that were given to him.
Instead of being sent the witness who was ordered by the House to appear, we were sent a minister who didn't have passing knowledge of the issue at hand.
This motion was passed by a majority of parliamentarians. It called for key witnesses—or the Prime Minister—to appear at this committee, and it called for a witness to appear at another parliamentary committee. The matter of confidence in the government with respect to its ability to be a good steward of taxpayers' funds and with respect to the handling of sexual misconduct allegations is of interest to the House. It caused an order to be issued by the House. Instead, by blocking witnesses from testifying, ordering witnesses to testify against an order of the House of Commons, the government is devaluing and disrespecting Canada's Parliament. It's unacceptable.
We have a minister who was asked to appear today. The minister's involvement in this matter may be of interest to this committee, in which case I would invite them, as I would any member of the government or any Canadian who has information with respect to the study this committee is undertaking, to submit a written brief to the committee. I would assure the minister that I would review it with great interest.
That being said, while I believe that we need to examine the motion that Monsieur Fortin has put forward, I move that the meeting be adjourned.