Thank you, Madam Chair.
I feel compelled to share an observation about my colleague, whom I hold in high regard. He said that we've worked together in other committees. He added that it hasn't always been an easy relationship. However, since we don't have the same logo on our election signs, naturally we don't agree on everything. I find it rather amusing that he finished by saying that he doesn't want to waste the committee's time, when he and his three colleagues have been filibustering on their own motion for 29 minutes.
We may not have the same definition of the words “laugh” or “smile.” We most likely don’t have the same definition of “wasting time.” Maybe that's why we don't belong to the same political party.
That said, I welcome the fact that some progress was made over the weekend. At last Wednesday's meeting, we gave the minister almost 10 days to set his schedule. My colleague knows that the minister will be coming. We didn't give him two days. We gave him 10 days.
Last Wednesday, my colleague considered the entire motion unreasonable. I said that it was unacceptable to rush through the process of hearing from the too few witnesses during the study of the budget implementation bill. My colleague said that my comments were completely unreasonable. He referred to his extensive six years of experience as a seasoned parliamentarian and noted that, in previous years, witnesses continued to appear during the pre‑budget period while work proceeded on implementing the budget. He could confirm this.
We had these statements verified. In the past, during the budget implementation period, the pre‑budget period for the following year had already started. I gather that my colleague, Mr. Turnbull, has trouble reading calendars. He doesn't find it easy. He finds it complicated. There are years, months, days and boxes in a calendar. It's complicated. He took the weekend to think about it, which I understand. His opinion changed.
That said, we must meet with the minister, Madam Chair. My colleague says that the only part that remains unreasonable is the date. He's proposing a date, but he doesn't want us to vote on it. He's wasting our time.
According to my colleague, if we looked at the history of committee business, we would see that ministers typically take from one to five weeks to appear before the committee. This brings us to the eve of the budget. That's exactly what we're worried about. He then confirmed that we need to have a date.
We should also look back at times other than wartime and see which ministers left ambiguity surrounding the presentation of a budget in the spring, to the point that, on the first day of Standing Committee on Finance proceedings, committee members were unable to set a schedule and invite witnesses.
Perhaps we should ask the analysts to find the last time that this happened. If we're listing historical firsts, I would like to know which minister, upon taking office, didn't table a budget before an election; which minister didn't table a budget after the election; and which minister tabled a budget in November while being unable to say whether he planned to change the budget cycle, even though no one asked him to do so. We could play around with historical firsts.
My main concern lies in the fact that Mr. MacDonald, whom I also like, and Mr. Turnbull say that consultations took place, but that the opposition members weren't invited. These members were in their constituencies, and nobody was paying any attention to them.
The government is currently in a minority position. Yet the members say that they travelled by plane at the taxpayer's expense. They went to Vancouver, Kitchener and all over the place. They met with farmers from Prince Edward Island and had a good time, and ministers were there too. They had a Liberal gathering with everyone in Canada, but without the committee or opposition members. There were consultations. That's enough for them, and they're telling us to take a hike.
The word “indecency” is virtually the same in both official languages. I apologize, Madam Chair, but I must say that these remarks are indecent. We're asking for one thing, and we're ready to set a date for a meeting. All we want is for the Liberals to stop filibustering and to stop going on and on when it comes to their own motion. That way, we can vote on it, set a date and let the minister simply tell us whether he'll do the bare minimum required by his job description, meaning the minimum required by the union.
Will there be a budget in the spring, so that we can set a schedule? I'm ready to vote on their motion.