Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for your warning.
If at any point, you find that I'm repeating comments I've made in the past, I am open to that criticism. I don't think I've said a word so far that reiterates the arguments made. Like Mrs. Shanahan, I have re‑read the minutes, I have re‑read what I said. I hope to refine my arguments without repeating those already presented to the committee. That's why I wanted to be transparent with you about my intentions for today, because I think there's a lot to be said for that.
Mr. Chair, if I may, I'll continue my speech.
There is more than one way to dispose of this motion. We can vote on this one because we will get to the point where there will be no further arguments to present to the committee. We can withdraw the motion with the unanimous consent of the members. We can also adjourn the debate on this motion, which will allow us to move on. As my colleague Mr. Sorbara said, we can also make a motion to amend Mr. Fortin's motion, to make it stronger and more acceptable to the committee for consensus. These are ways of dealing with the issue.
I know that you would like to proceed directly to a vote and, on several occasions since the beginning of this debate, you have even informally polled members to see whether or not they were prepared to vote. Since several members have their hands up, have an interest in voting on this debate on Mr. Fortin's motion, and have the right to convey their views to other members, you have had to do this polling on several occasions without getting unanimous consent. That can be remedied by getting unanimous consent.
Mr. Chair, there are four major themes I want to raise today, and they are the substance, content, foundation—
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but I pressed a button that muted me, much to the delight of several of my colleagues, but the issue is now resolved.
I also want to continue along the same lines as Mr. Sorbara by using the arguments made on this issue by political parties other than mine in similar situations.
In closing, I would like to talk about the new form of accountability, not only in terms of ministers, but also in terms of members of the House of Commons. They have been duly elected to represent the will of their constituents or to present their views and bring something to the debate.
With respect to the motion of my dear colleague Mr. Fortin, I would like to point out that the last time I had the opportunity to speak to him, he very skilfully countered my arguments. I tip my hat to him. He did not respond to my argument about who represents… The motion that was adopted by the House of Commons had two objectives. Mr. Fortin keeps reminding us of that through his points of order. The motion in the House of Commons called for political assistants to appear before the committee or for the Prime Minister to testify on their behalf before the committee.
Mr. Fortin didn't answer this question. If the Prime Minister had appeared before the committee, he would have strictly adhered to the interpretation of the motion that was presented in and adopted by the House of Commons. It was adopted by a majority vote of the opposition parties.
He didn't answer the question. Who speaks for the Prime Minister? Ministers. Ministers speak for the government. That was something that was raised today by Mrs. Shanahan, and it was raised very briefly by Mr. Sorbara. I personally raised it, but I didn't raise it well enough, because my colleague Mr. Fortin didn't revisit the issue.
Who speaks for the government? The government stands in solidarity. Any member of the government can speak on behalf of the government. That's why, if it was acceptable to have the Prime Minister here, it's perfectly acceptable to have a member of the government here.
We heard Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. I remember that Mr. Barrett didn't even want to agree to have Mr. Rodriguez speak on behalf of the government, just as the Prime Minister would have spoken on behalf of his government. He said that committee members would listen to Mr. Rodriguez, but they still wanted to hear directly from political assistants. In doing so, it goes against the spirit and logic of the motion adopted by the House of Commons.
I think that's the key and the crux of what's happening here. I think it's unfortunate that no one really wants to respond to this situation. We've gone even further. Points 5 and 6 of Mr. Fortin's motion indicate that Ms. Fortier's appearance before this committee was not even accepted. This is another member speaking on behalf of the government, as the Prime Minister does. Given these two things, it is clear that we could not continue with our business.
We talked about what was presented in the past when a government was in the same situation. I would like to quote one person who said this:
Mr. Speaker, our precedents and practices are very clear. It is ministers and the ministry at large who are responsible to the House and to its committees, not their staff members. The staff members are responsible to the ministers and the members for whom they work.
Another time, he said:
Ministers are answerable—