That's a very interesting question. As MP Blaikie knows, I'm a member of Parliament from Nova Scotia. I've actually never met the Premier of Alberta, so I cannot speak to the media reports, which, of course, some may feel are always accurate. I'm not sure I do, but I'll let the voters of Alberta decide that. I believe the election was called this week, and they can make a judgment on whether the Premier of Alberta acted appropriately or not. I always put my future into the hands of voters, as I did the last time when I defeated the Liberal minister of fisheries.
Back to the paper, the paper says Canada is next, so let's talk about Canada and our issue or history of codification or not, or pamphlets and legislation in these areas. This academic paper says:
Written guidance in the form of official documents or legislation is comparatively less extensive in Canada, with calls for a Cabinet Manual or something similar (see Russell 2010).
This was dated 2015. This thick-looking document, with a very thin section on accountability, was published by the new Liberal government. This paper says “calls for a Cabinet Manual or something similar”, and the academic reference is Russell 2010.
The next sentence goes on to say:
Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State “sets out core principles regarding the roles and responsibilities of Ministers…[including] the central tenet of ministerial responsibility, both individual and collective, as well as Ministers’ relations with the Prime Minister and Cabinet, their portfolios and Parliament”. The current edition was issued in 2011 by the Privy Council Office under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
He was one of the best prime ministers this country has seen. That was my editorializing. It does not say that in the paper, just to be clear, although I'm sure the author felt the same way.
Under Section I.1., “Individual Ministerial Responsibility” is firstly defined in terms of accountability to the prime minister, with the prime minister able to ask for a ministerial resignation. “Ministers are also accountable to Parliament...for all areas of responsibility, whether they are assigned by statute or otherwise”....
The most detailed section is I.3. ‘Ministerial Accountability’. Ministers are required to be in parliament to answer questions on the discharge of their responsibilities and use of public monies, with political judgement resting with parliament.
The paragraph goes on, but I am just going to stop there and read the most important sentence in that section again: “Ministers are required to be in parliament to answer questions on the discharge of their responsibilities and use of public monies, with political judgement resting with parliament.” This is Stephen Harper's code for ministerial accountability.
That is really what this discussion is about here at committee. It's not some esoteric or sort of odd thing that others may have said. Even some members of the government made some spurious accusations before question period yesterday about what this was about. The essence of this discussion is questioning whether ministers in this government are required to be in Parliament to answer questions about “the discharge of their responsibilities and use of public monies”.
There were five appearances that appeared through the “finding Freeland” search I did through Hansard. There were five appearances in Parliament since January, at a cost of $100 billion an appearance. I would like the cost of those appearances to be less. The way we can lessen the cost would be by having more appearances. That is what this is about. It's to conclude the exercise of “finding Freeland” and have the minister show up here for two hours and not ignore the requests of this committee to appear, when she is choosing to spend $3.1 trillion of your money.
The next sentence in this “Canada” section says:
However, the prime minister can reaffirm support or ask for a resignation. Consistent with the principle of responsible government, it is said that ministers are accountable to parliament for all organisations within their portfolio and the “proper functioning” of their department (3).
That's why we had that long discussion at the beginning of the last meeting and this meeting when we were discussing Mr. Genuis's subamendment on the appearance of the Minister of Public Safety, because he is responsible for at least four agencies that this spending authorizes, including the RCMP and its performance as our community and national police force.
The paper goes on to say:
However, reference is also made to “appropriate ministerial oversight”. Therefore, in relation to arm’s-length bodies, “the Minister’s engagement will be at a systemic level”. Most importantly:
The following is a direct quote in this paper from Prime Minister Harper's guide for ministerial accountability:
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 or portfolio
I'm just going to stop there, because I think many ministers of this government have shown that they don't have knowledge of every matter or any of the matters in their portfolio. It goes on to say:
nor that the Minister is necessarily required to accept blame for every matter.
I suppose that since the Minister of Public Safety only found out about something on Monday that national security agencies briefed the Prime Minister on two years ago, whether or not he should accept blame for the incompetence of the Prime Minister's Office for not informing him is a matter we should discuss at some point in Parliament or have before a parliamentary committee, if we could.
It goes on to say, quoting from Prime Minister Harper's guide for ministerial accountability:
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.
Wow, what a thought, that a minister would respond. Well, I guess we allow responses to questions in question period, but there is a difference between responses and answers; they are quite different. We get a lot of responses from ministers in committee and in the House of Commons, but we don't get a lot of answers.
The paper goes on, quoting from Prime Minister Harper's guide for ministers:
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 (3).
That's the end of the quote from the Harper guide.
Given that the Minister of Public Safety only found out on Monday about Chinese interference and threats against a member of Parliament and that this was kept from him presumably by the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister, who said he voraciously reads about national security issues, I would expect that the Minister of Public Safety is addressing that with the Prime Minister's chief of staff now as to why he was left out of the loop. Maybe we should get him a coffee mug: “I'm out of the loop, and that's the way I like it.”
The next section is called “New Zealand”. New Zealand is one of the four countries in this study.
While lacking a formal written constitution, the Cabinet Manual is self-described as “an authoritative guide to central government decision making for Ministers, their offices, and those working within government”, as well as “a primary source of information on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements”. It is endorsed by each new government, with the current version updated in 2008.
Remember that this was in 2015, so the “current version” in 2015 in New Zealand had been updated in 2008. Section 3 of that 2008 version of New Zealand's manual for ministers and public office holders says the following—