I'll be happy now to continue with my comments.
I'm not a permanent member of this committee. I heard the comments from members of the opposition. We just ruled on an amendment and a motion. If these had been adopted, we would have been able to end the debate and begin studying Bill C‑19, which is extremely important. However, the opposition members voted against the amendment and the motion.
I must say that I did some research, because it's a subject I'm interested in. I'd like to continue to talk about the principle of ministerial accountability and our roles in the parliamentary system, in accordance with Westminster traditions.
I will be citing in English for clarity from the Treasury Board of Canada report of 2005. I was speaking before about the roles of minister:
[W]hat is clear from this overview of responsible government are the distinct and finely balanced roles of each of the system’s different players. Ministers exercise executive authority on the basis of the political support that they receive from Parliament; they therefore have political accountability to Parliament. Parliament, in turn, does not exercise executive authority, but it ensures that executive power is properly exercised. Its mechanisms for doing so are political and partisan.
I like the idea of in-depth debate on the whys and hows of our presence here.
It may not be linked directly to the matter at hand, but the issue in the report was the role of ministers and public servants. In many of our discussions, we talked about the accountabilities of officials and ministers, and attempted to determine who should appear before the committees.