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
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
No, I'm not ceding the floor. I'm just asking for a revised speaking list. I am looking at the clock and I want to make sure.... We have other individuals who could potentially wish to—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Most of your colleagues are waiting in the queue, so they would enjoy the floor if you're ceding the floor.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
No. I am just going to offer my last thoughts for another minute, and then I will try to wrap up.
With that, Chair, my viewpoints on this topic, on Mr. Fortin's motion, are well-known. I believe there are two avenues available for the committee so that we can move on to conduct the work we're here for, including the study that I know many of the MPs are passionate about. I know that for many MPs in the province of Quebec this is very pertinent, with the organization based there.
With that, there are two avenues: first, that we seek and receive unanimous consent for Mr. Fortin's withdrawing his motion; or second, that the motion be amended to better reflect the fact of ministerial responsibility, and also how we can move forward to make the motion pertinent to the report at hand, the study on WE, and to the original motion that was put forward.
I will stop there. I do know my wonderful colleagues have some remarks to provide. If I need to speak again I will resubmit my name to the list on this motion, but I will stop there.
Thank you, Chair and colleagues.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank all of you, and my colleagues Mrs. Shanahan and Mr. Sorbara for their very interesting and educational interventions. I also want to acknowledge the other interventions, even though they were points of order. This may demonstrate to the general public listening to us the importance of having this debate.
For those who are following our discussion closely today, I will be very frank. Several reasons have been listed as to why the motion is not acceptable to half of the committee members. I will also list my concerns with this motion. One of our colleagues has put forward a motion that the other half of the committee finds quite acceptable. So we are in the awkward situation of having half of the committee in favour of the motion and the other half against the motion. What do we do in this situation? I am speaking directly to Canadians.
Either we discuss and try to convince others of the merits of the arguments we're making, or we ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the motion, as Mr. Sorbara mentioned. There is a third option, and that is to ask for an adjournment of the debate to move on to something else. This option would fully preserve the right of a member to reintroduce this motion for debate at a later date in the hope that it will receive a greater consensus than is currently the case. Yes, we're at an impasse with half the members in favour of the motion and half against the motion.
Mr. Chair, if I could, I would like to advise my colleagues that I have a lot to say about this motion. I know this is a question you ask from time to time. Unfortunately, my comments won't be very brief, and I would like to warn you of that. If you don't want to listen to me and you have other things to do, you can do your job, but I want to be transparent with my colleagues. I hope that will make it easier.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, with all due respect to my colleague Mr. Fergus, I have no doubt that he is capable of speaking to us for many hours and telling us the same thing 338 times. He already commented at length on this motion last week, I think it was, or the week before. He is telling us that he's going to do the same thing again.
Mr. Chair, I think that obstructing the work of the committee is neither democratic nor respectful of the parliamentary process. It is quite the opposite. I say to Mr. Fergus, with respect, that I find the process disrespectful and unworthy of the work of this committee.
So, since Mr. Fergus has already “spoken at length”, to use the same expression, on the motion in committee, I think he should give way to the next speaker so that we can finish up and vote on this motion, Mr. Chair.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you very much, Monsieur Fortin. I think that's getting into points of debate, but I will remind Mr. Fergus that we are in the same meeting at which you did speak previously on this particular motion. I will caution you that repetition is not acceptable in the debate on the motion.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
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—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, our colleague Mr. Fergus is in the process of telling us who is accountable to the House of Commons. He's telling us that it's ministers. No one is contesting that.
The motion refers to people who have been summoned, not to be accountable, but to testify so that they can be asked some questions, and that is not prohibited. It's actually encouraged.
The idea of accountability is another matter and is out of order. We're not talking about who is accountable. It doesn't appear anywhere in the motion or in our debates. We are discussing a motion about people who were supposed to testify and did not. They were not invited to be accountable, they were invited to testify.
Thank you.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Mr. Fortin, I do believe that's an issue of debate and not an issue of a point of order.
Mr. Fergus.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll just finish reading the quote. I think it might help my colleague to understand.
Ministers are answerable to the House of Commons, and our employees are answerable to us.
It's no other than the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper who said that. It's his birthday today. I would like to wish Mr. Harper a happy 62nd birthday.
When we invited the Prime Minister to appear before these committees, we also invited his government, because the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of the government, as do his ministers.
To state in the motion that we are expressing our disappointment seems to me to be completely unacceptable. We need to find a way to withdraw this motion. As I said, there are a number of ways to do that.
Mr. Chair, if you wanted to informally canvass the opinion of the members of the committee, as you have done on a number of occasions, to see if we should proceed to a vote, I would like you to seek an informal indication from our colleagues as to whether they would give their consent to withdraw this motion unanimously. I would be more than willing to give you an opportunity to do that. We could take a short break to do that.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Fergus.
I'm already getting indications from committee members that there is no consent to do that. I'm seeing a number of heads indicating that. Members are not supportive of it.
Thank you, Mr. Fergus.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We are looking for creative ways to move forward. It doesn't seem that it's possible to simply move on, so the only other alternative would be to move to a vote.
Mr. Fergus, if you'd like me to poll to see if there's support for a vote now, I could do that as well.
Colleagues, are you supportive of moving to a vote on the motion now?
I'm seeing some heads that are in support.
Mr. Sorbara and Ms. Shanahan are indicating that they do not support the idea of moving to a vote.
Mr. Fergus, it looks like we'll have to go through the speaking list.
Just as a reminder, Mr. Fergus, several members are waiting behind you for their opportunity to speak as well.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Fergus did tell us that we could go off and spend our day doing other things, which I thought was very disrespectful of the committee, because he was going to take the floor. I believe we're down to about six and a half minutes left. Is Mr. Fergus planning to go all night, or will we have a vote at the time the committee normally ends in order to end this circus?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Colleagues, we've been informed that we cannot technically proceed beyond 3 o'clock. The House can't accommodate our meeting beyond 3 o'clock today, so I'll simply be suspending the meeting if in fact we get to the 3 o'clock point.
We'll move forward now.
Mr. Fergus, the floor is yours.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise one last point of order.
In order to accommodate everyone, and so that we can hear what Mr. Fergus has to say, I would suggest that he provide us in writing the full testimony that he wanted to give us today. We will have time to read it before Tuesday. The work will be done and we can move on to the next topic. If it's okay with Mr. Fergus, I would agree to read it.
Thank you.