Thanks very much, Chair.
It is disappointing that it seems that we are once again finding out at a committee that we are left with fewer options to ensure Canadians are ultimately getting the answers that I certainly think they deserve.
Having now spent most of my time elected to Parliament at this committee, I understand the rules surrounding why redactions can be and sometimes are needed and the need for the protection of that sort of information, but I think, Chair, that we are, as a committee, now confronted with the larger challenge that exists in terms of the culture of secrecy that finds it optional within the government to provide information that has been requested to ensure that Parliament, which government is a function of, and committees being a part of our parliamentary structure....
Government doesn't rule the country, and it is accountable through acts to Parliament. I find it very frustrating—very disappointing—that there is not a more forthcoming nature in the way the government conducts itself in terms of providing information. I certainly would have been very amenable had there been a willingness of the department to have an honest, upfront conversation about why redactions were necessary and about releasing the report in a manner that would have satisfied the demands of this committee, but instead we now have a defiance of the will of Parliament in responding to what I believe was a unanimous motion that was put forward.
Asking for this information was supported by all political parties. It hasn't been provided. I think it's frustrating and certainly very disappointing that we are now forced.... With the revelation that the minister is coming on Monday, I think that's a good opportunity to ensure that we ask some of those important questions, but not providing the information leaves too many question marks.
The motion Mr. Barrett has put forward I think is entirely reasonable. It does exactly what our parliamentary system is designed to do in ensuring that government, as a function of Parliament, is able to be held accountable therein.
The time, I would suggest, has passed for the department. The clerk has reached out, as you've described, Chair, many times, asking for this reasonable conversation to take place, and the department seems to have been unwilling. I think ensuring that the department knows from this perspective, from this committee, that they are to be held accountable, and if they are not willing to abide by that.... I am more than happy to be as reasonable as possible when it comes to making sure that phone numbers, personal names—whatever the case is—are omitted, but Chair, this is now just affirming that culture of secrecy that seems to dominate every time a request is made for government to provide answers to parliamentarians on behalf of Canadians.
I think this motion is entirely reasonable. I hope it can garner the support of all members of this committee to ensure that we are in fact able to access the information that Parliament should be entitled to access. Very clearly, a department is defying a very clear request. There could have been more inflammatory ways to go about this. I think this is entirely reasonable, and I would hope that we can find support around this table to take that next step to say, “Look, this isn't a option. This is about Canadians getting the answers they deserve.”
Thank you, Chair.