For the purpose at hand, this is not the first time that we have heard a commentator, who is supposed to be impartial, speak out via the public broadcaster. I remember when we used to hear an experienced commentator named Michel Drapeau, who was put forward as a retired colonel. He would make comments with regard to the administration of the Department of National Defence, and he had a lot of fun sticking it to the government in power, which at the time was a liberal government. Never when this experienced commentator was being introduced did anyone say that he himself was a defeated conservative candidate. I found that the whole thing lacked transparency. People talked about Mr. Drapeau as being a retired colonel criticizing the government, but no mention was ever made of the fact that he was a defeated conservative candidate.
In this case, a supposedly impartial commentator is presented on the air, but he makes mind boggling contributions to a political party. He is, it would seem, in favour of that party, but he is put forward as being an impartial fellow. It does not wash.
In other committees, the majority, under the present minority government, belongs to the opposition, and some would say to the coalition of the opposition. Every time someone wants to bring forward witnesses to launch partisan attacks against the government, the coalition majority that gets its way. In the case at hand, we are asking a witness to come and explain himself; but we are unable to move forward in these circumstances, because we know for a fact that the government does not have enough votes on committees to impose its will.
I believe we are not being consistent when we defend these arguments in such circumstances.
Thank you.