I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I really do.
For the translators, I'm on page 3 of the document that I have been citing.
I think that as a parliamentarian I'm entitled to actually express the reasons why I would support the motion calling for the ministerto be here, and I think it's incumbent upon the minister, perhaps, to read or to listen to some of this testimony. Maybe I will be able to change her mind and have her show up this time.
Page 3 states:
It is critical to the principle of responsible government that all organizations within the executive be the responsibility of a Minister who is accountable to Parliament for the organization. A Minister is accountable to Parliament for the proper functioning of his or her department and all other organizations within his or her portfolio.
Those are fine words. This continues in the next paragraph:
Ministers fulfill their accountability with respect to organizations by demonstrating appropriate diligence and competence in the discharge of their responsibilities.
It's hard to disagree with that, although we could question some of the performances. It goes on to say:
What constitutes appropriate ministerial oversight will depend on the nature of the organization and the Minister's role. In some cases, where arm's-length bodies are concerned and most powers, duties and functions are vested in a deputy head or a [government] body, the Minister's engagement will be at a systemic level—for example, making or recommending appropriate appointments, approving corporate plans, or examining the need for changes to the framework [of] legislation.
The final paragraph in this section—I believe it's in the section before we go to section 2, which is called “Portfolio Responsibilities”—says, on page 3:
Ministerial accountability to Parliament does not mean that a Minister is presumed to have knowledge of every matter that occurs within his or her department portfolio—
We certainly see that demonstrated most days in the House.
—nor that the Minister is necessarily required to accept personal responsibility [on] every matter.
That's a statement in here that this government excels at. It does require that ministers attend to all matters in Parliament. Let me read that again:
It does require that the Minister attend to all matters in Parliament that concern any organizations for which he or she is responsible, including responding to questions. It further requires that the Minister take appropriate corrective action to address any problems that may have arisen, consistent with the Minister's role with respect to the organization in question. It is important that Ministers know and respect the parameters of their responsibilities with respect to arm's-length organizations.
I think the key sentence here is that it does “require that the minister attend to all matters in Parliament that concern any organizations for which he or she is responsible, including responding to questions”. Isn't that at the heart of the matter of this discussion? The heart of this matter is that we have a simple ask on a complex bill. The simple ask on this is that the minister come and answer questions, as is part of our parliamentary Westminster system—to answer questions about this complex bill that sets out a framework to spend $3.1 trillion.
For those of you who were here earlier, I'm going to speak a little more to the ministerial responsibility. This is in “Open and Accountable Government”. I might come back to it at some point, but for now, for those watching who don't understand this, when cabinet is sworn in, they get a mandate letter from the Prime Minister. It tells them what priorities the Prime Minister, as head of government, wants them to focus on.
I have here in my hand two mandate letters, both dated December 16, 2021. They're both the most recent ones for cabinet, and I'll read part of the first one.
This is Minister Freeland's mandate letter. The Prime Minister quite likely thanks her for continuing to serve Canadians as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. It's quite an honour for anyone to have that role. It is an honour and deserves respect. We have respect for the minister in her role; it's just a question of whether she respects parliamentarians in their roles in this committee.
It goes through some boilerplate stuff—because this was still in the midst of COVID—about the COVID issues.
People can find these online. They're available. They can Google-search them.
I go to the second page—that's for the translators. I want to look specifically at the paragraph at the bottom of the second page and the instructions from the Prime Minister of Canada, the son of Pierre Trudeau. I'd like to see what instructions he gave her in this particular mandate letter. It's very important. This is what guides them. This is how you would conduct a performance review in the private sector: “This is the mandate. These are the things we'd like you to achieve. When I decide whether you've been successful or not, we will look back at these goals and see how you've done.”
The “finding Freeland” effort, I'll remind you, is...five days in Parliament in five months, once a day.
Here's what the Prime Minister wrote and signed himself, personally:
The success of this Parliament will require Parliamentarians, both in the House of Commons and the Senate, to work together across all parties to get big things done for Canadians.
I wouldn't expect a minister to get little things done, just the big things. Apparently, the little things, like getting a passport, don't enter into the mandate of a minister.