Thank you very much.
I'm almost done with my presentation. Since I did my research, I'd like to continue.
Point 4 of the motion reads, “The Committee also noted the absence of the Prime Minister, who was given the option of appearing in place of these witnesses in the motion of March 25, 2021”. Why? This is nonsense.
The Prime Minister has every right. It happens every day in question period, and it happens in other areas as well. Cabinet speaks with one voice and each minister is responsible for defending decisions. I still find that interesting.
Even in parliamentary assemblies, which aren't necessarily the same as the federal government, this same principle has developed. This principle doesn't apply only to us; it's a parliamentary principle. I'll continue my research to see how it works elsewhere.
I'll come back to the Government of Canada.
Ministerial solidarity, which is the principle of collective ministerial responsibility, allows ministers to be frank in private, that is, in cabinet only, but requires them to support the decisions of the government in public. As I said earlier, it is their duty to appear before a committee such as ours. That is what Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Fortier did, even though that the committee decided not to hear Ms. Fortier's testimony.
Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the actions of their government and must defend government policy. It is agreed that policy is also in the broad sense of program development. What is policy, other than a suggested approach to solving society's problems? There are recommended ways of doing things. To implement them, programs must be developed, including a program like the Canada student grant for full‑time students, which didn't work. This is one of hundreds of programs that have been implemented since the beginning of the pandemic.
Even though the program did not work, the Prime Minister and the ministers responsible have said exactly what it was. We all know the number of hours we spent on this issue, the number of documents the committee received and the number of witnesses we've heard from about this unfortunate program.
Cabinet's role is to provide the Prime Minister with the information he needs to carry out his responsibilities. So there is always a solidarity between the ministers and the Prime Minister.
Again, that's why I don't see the need for point 4 of Mr. Fortin's motion. When we hear obvious things, we don't always realize that it answers the question being asked. Sometimes the answer is right in front of us.
With our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, there has been an evolution in the way question period, which takes place every day, is conducted. The widely accepted convention is that when the opposition asks a question, while they may want the Prime Minister to answer it, another minister can do so. This isn't a problem and is consistent with this cabinet solidarity. It's a tradition that can evolve, as we saw with the innovation of Mr. Trudeau who, as early as 2015, right after we took office, began answering all the opposition's questions on Wednesdays. It's also his right not to be there and to delegate this task to other ministers. It amounts to the same thing.
Here is what is written in chapter 11 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, about oral questions:
In reality, questions are directed to the Ministry as a whole, although customarily they are addressed to specific Ministers. It is the prerogative of the government to designate the Minister who will respond to a given question, and the Speaker has no authority to compel a particular Minister to respond. The Prime Minister (or Deputy Prime Minister or any other Minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister)—