Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do want to just briefly comment in response to Mr. Baker's intervention about delaying potential supports for Canadians, the GST rebate, which is being marketed as the “grocery rebate”—thanks to the NDP, as I'm sure I hear somewhere in the back of the room—and is not actually going out until July for the sole reason of the government's incapability of executing it properly.
They even split off a separate bill to pass what we're calling the “grocery rebate”—the HST rebate—but for those cheques, actually, that relief is not going out until early July. That's not because this committee is delayed. That's actually because the government's execution capabilities were such that even when we all agreed to pass it quickly we couldn't get it out.
There is no relief, not one penny of relief, that's going to be delayed because of what's happening here.
By the way, with Mr. Baker's amendment, this bill is going to be out of committee on May 26 anyway. There is no relief from this budget that's going to be delayed for or lost by Canadians because we've lost a few hours of committee testimony. They are programming it to be out by May 26 in any event.
I just have to take slight issue with that: It's in fact the government's own execution capabilities that have delayed relief getting to Canadians. In fact, all parties got together, supported and fast-tracked the bill that separated out the GST rebate. We supported it a couple of months ago, the Conservatives did, and as well in the fall when it came out. We did so on the understanding that it would more expeditiously get help to Canadians, but those cheques will not be going out until July.
In summary, Mr. Chair, I think it would be great if we get the confirmation. I believe that is under way. I think that will help us advance this impasse once we get an answer back from the minister's office. I think we're being a little cute when we say, yes, the minister can come, but we're not sure for how long. If we can confirm that, it would be great.
I will just point out that this is feeling a little like the twilight zone, because when the government provides answers like that, you have to ask yourself if maybe they want the filibuster to continue. They don't want to be accountable. We're actually pulling resources from other committees, which gets the government off the hook for talking about some difficult and uncomfortable situations in other committees.
On this side of table, at least, we think there is a path to a solution without actually being too intrusive. I'd love to see witness testimony. I was very frustrated last year with the lack of witness testimony and when the only opportunity is for them to go to the Senate, which is a fine institution, no doubt, but members around this table have some very intelligent questions to ask of witnesses when they show up. I would like to get to that point, but I really hope that the government is not now hoping that the filibuster continues. I hope they will answer the question about how long the minister is available forthwith, so that we may proceed.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate your indulgence. I apologize for interrupting earlier on the point of order of Mr. Baker, which I understand was an appropriate notice of motion. I didn't think it was appropriate to move it at that point or to motivate it.
I hope we can proceed in such a fashion and that we'll get an answer back from the clerk. I'm sure that when the clerk receives an answer, he will interrupt us right away and let us know.
I thank both clerks for their work, as well as the interpreters.
I don't think anybody has really given too many accolades to our interpreters, but thank you to them for being with us.
I see a thumbs-up. We appreciate all the work you do.
Mr. Chair, I'll yield the floor.