Evidence of meeting #32 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 point.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Okay. I'll turn back to you, as is your right. I just would remind colleagues that we've now been debating this motion for several days.
Again, Ms. Shanahan, you have now spoken for over an hour. I would encourage you, just out of respect for your colleagues, to allow them to get on the record as well.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
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)—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thank you, Chair.
The member opposite is offering her explanation here, but on relevance, the matter we're dealing with is an order of the House, not the procedures of the House in question period, for example. It's not debatable to conflate the two. They couldn't have less to do with each other.
The principles that the member has stated notwithstanding—and we've heard them for over one hour.... While she started her comments by saying that she would like to deal with other issues, that is disingenuous. This is a filibuster. She is not speaking to the matter at hand, she's reading from the green book. She might as well read us the phone book.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
Ms. Shanahan, I will rule that speaking about question period generally is out of order.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
It's unfortunate that my hon. colleague said that.
I'll say it in English. You are saying that our green book of procedure is equivalent to the phone book? That is not the appreciation of the rules of the House that we have on this side of the aisle, Mr. Chair.
I was using the practice at question period as an illustration of how that concept of cabinet solidarity, of delegation, if you will, by the Prime Minister is totally acceptable and common practice, and indeed why I am against and disagree with point number four in Mr. Fortin's motion, which wants to report—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We have sat patiently now through most of a meeting in which Ms. Shanahan is not going to allow anyone else to speak.
However, after my colleague Mr. Barrett pointed out her use of question period, she continued. If she wants to use the question period rules, then she will run out of time for her speech.
Again, I think she needs to stop repeating and regurgitating the same tired points and allow other people to speak. It's a basic issue of respect.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
I think Mrs. Shanahan is effectively arguing with me in my decision to rule that her former discussion was off topic.
I'd caution Ms. Shanahan that she should return to the subject at hand and the motion that is before the committee.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Indeed, Chair, again, I was just trying to use an illustration.
However, I would agree with some of my colleagues: I would rather be discussing—as Mr. Boulerice of the NDP would rather we be discussing—the continuing study of MindGeek and Pornhub.
We offered an option to do that where we could have one more meeting, have more witnesses come in who would discuss the dark web, but about that—
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We gave Ms. Shanahan one more meeting and then she cut off the witnesses.
The reason I am raising this issue is that she started by changing the subject on the Fortin motion. Now she has run out of topics and she is going back to the issue of another subject. If she is not going to speak to the subject, she needs to give up the floor so that other members of this committee have a chance to speak to this motion.
I am here to speak to this motion and to get it disposed of so that we can get on to business.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. Sorbara, is it the same point of order, or is it a different point of order?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
It's the same.
On Charlie's point of order, it seems like more of a point of debate.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Angus.
Ms. Shanahan, you can understand that there is a growing desire to move on with the speaking list. As I instructed you earlier, there is no way that we can move forward with other subject material until such time as we have disposed of this motion. I am not sure if that was a direct comment to me, as the chair.... However, I will remind committee members that the only way we can move on to other subject material, as has been expressed as the desire of most members of this committee, is if in fact we can move to a vote on this motion. The only way we can move to a vote on this motion is if in fact nobody is left in the speaking order.
Ms. Shanahan, you've now spoken for over an hour. If you'd like to move to other subject material, we have to exhaust the speaking list that we have now and then go to a vote. Then we can move on to other subject material.
I'm not sure if those comments were directed to me or to other committee members, but as a reminder, you are the only person standing in the way to moving forward to other issues and the other people on the speaking order. It is specifically you at this point.
Ms. Shanahan.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair.
There are actually other options that were discussed and put forward to deal with this motion, one being that Mr. Fortin could withdraw his motion and that we just note—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mrs. Shanahan, I have addressed that before. It is not possible for Mr. Fortin to withdraw this motion. It requires unanimous consent to have this motion withdrawn.
I don't want to start an argument with you. The way I see that we can dispose of this motion is to go to a vote. If that's not your desire, then I'd ask that you make your points. We'll complete the speaking list and then hopefully we can get to the vote.
Monsieur Fortin does not have the privilege at this point to withdraw this motion without unanimous consent.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Well, Chair, I do have a lot more to say about Monsieur Fortin's motion, but in the spirit of collegiality, I will yield the floor at this time.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon, colleagues. We are obviously spending a lot of time looking at and speaking to Mr. Fortin's motion. I know that many of us would like to move on to other material. Obviously, we're looking at this motion, and there's a fundamental disagreement in terms of how we interpret rules and responsibilities in terms of where responsibility stops or ends. It's very apparent that for me personally, during this entire time that we've been looking at Mr. Fortin's motion....
With regard to this motion, obviously it applies to the matters at hand and our studying the subject matter with regard to the Canada student services grant and the events that have passed. We continue to spend an enormous amount of the committee's time on something that we could have quickly disposed of with unanimous consent by the committee—obviously, Mr. Fortin would have to ask for that—that the motion be withdrawn so that we could move on to other more pertinent and, I would say, more important topics at hand. A committee member could potentially offer up an amendment that we could debate and look at to maybe get to a point where an actual vote could take place.
Obviously, I would love to move on and get to another point, but I'm also very stuck on the fact that I do believe in ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister prior to the current Prime Minister commented on that. I think it's been read into the script. I was reading it. The former Right Honourable Stephen Harper said this at the time:
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.
For me, it's very specific. I'm on that tangent and I don't see any other way of looking at the situation we're in with regard to the debate happening on the motion, dated March 25, from Mr. Fortin, the honourable member from Quebec. I can't see how we look at this....
Perhaps I can take a step back. I'm not speaking for the entire committee but from my interpretation of where we are. There's obviously a disagreement in how we look at and interpret the fifth point:
5. The Committee noted that Minister Pablo Rodriguez appeared on March 29, 2021, instead of Rick Theis, after having ordered him not to appear before the Committee, as mentioned in his letter to the Chair received by Committee members on March 28, 2021;
I think there's a fundamental disagreement here. No one was ordered “not to appear”. In fact, the individuals responsible appeared at committee. I think that distinction is very, very, very important.
I spoke last time to this idea that, as we've seen with other material, we can just keep adding people to speak. If we extend this, anybody who has worked in the Prime Minister's Office, or “a” Prime Minister's Office, according to this committee, should be called to committee for a study. We've seen this transpire now with this motion from Mr. Fortin, because this is based on events leading up to thereof, and invitations there offered, for individuals to appears at the standing committee. Then we received other material saying, well, this person should appear, and that person should appear—but, oh, we're not finished; we're going to invite another two or three people to appear.
We've done this, and it's sort of—I'll use the word mind-blowing, but at the same time it is sort of exhausting to have this happening.
I go back to my honourable colleague Minister Rodriguez. If I can just make sure we understand, let me end my remarks with some wise words from that former Conservative minister, who I have quoted extensively today. He is right. He said this about the staff:
They bring to us many talents and I expect many of them, when they accepted their jobs, [they] never imagined that one of the skills required was to stand up to the interrogation of a bitterly partisan parliamentary committee.
As a result of the actions of the opposition today, like the approach of the Conservative government in 2010, I say here today that:
ministers will instruct their staff members not to appear when called before committees and the government will send ministers instead to account for their actions.
I think about that. To me, the staff member should not come to a committee to be interrogated. It has to be the members, and it goes to this committee and this motion that there's a fundamental disagreement. For me, the solution at hand is one of two avenues: that when Mr. Fortin has the floor—and I may be corrected in terms of parliamentary procedures—he offer the opportunity for his motion to be withdrawn and there is unanimous consent granted or that potentially there is an amendment offered whereby we can reach some sort of agreement to move forward. If not, in my view, if the motion were to pass, the precedent that would be setting would be very bad. I don't think I would be proud of it—that's for sure—and I don't think we, as a committee, are arguing that I would not be doing my job of representing my constituents and ultimately being responsible as a member of Parliament, and I use the analogy that I'm the one who is responsible for my office, rather than the employees who work in my office and so forth. That's the way I would look at that.
The calling of these witnesses, I think, was, as a matter of fact, not the route that I would have liked to see proceeded on unless it did occur and it was the will of the House that this happen, and I respect that.
Is there someone—Clerk, I just hear a little bit of noise. Maybe the floor is not on mute, so I'm hearing the floor. Excuse me.
With that, Chair, again I look at this motion and I know my honourable colleagues will also have their comments to make on it. This is just not in line with what we saw in prior governments. That's not saying it's a good or bad thing, but in this realm it would be a very unique precedent, and I can't accept that at all since ministerial accountability or responsibility is very important in the House of Commons every day. Question period is not for staffers. Question period is for ministers, and when they're unavailable, the parliamentary secretaries will answer their questions and so forth and will fill in.
We've also seen, in the studies by this committee, that individuals who have come to the committee have then faced unnecessary and unintended consequences, I would say, from MPs' actions. People were unfortunately harassed afterwards because they had come to this committee and so forth. That was very unfortunate to see.
Chair, when I continue to look at Mr. Fortin's motion and read it over—and obviously we have spent plenty of time on this—the same issues, which I would say are very important issues—keep coming up, namely, ministerial responsibility.
That, to me, is the fundamental premise of why, at this current juncture, I can't offer my support for Mr. Fortin's motion.
I am only one member of the committee, but it's my right to speak on it and offer my views on why I can't do that.
With that, Chair, can you provide me with the refreshed speaking list, please?