I wanted it to be November 2 at the latest. If it is October 31, we will let the Clerk discuss it with people from the departments. In any event, I have a number of remarks regarding these motions, Madam Chair.
The first point that I would like to address is the fact that all of the departments called to testify have suddenly stated that they are unable to do so. I can’t say that this was orchestrated because I have no proof, although it appears very much to have been the case. The President of the Treasury Board, for his part, decided for the Committee. The same goes for his ministerial responsibility. In a letter regarding the matter, it was stated that the Treasury Board was refusing our invitation because people from that department have already appeared.
The fact is that we had agreed, when we debated the motion that the appearance would be made up of two parts: first a global approach, then a more detailed one. We were supposed to ask the Treasury Board Secretariat direct questions about their spending cuts, and not about those to be made jointly with the Department of Finance or those imposed on all agencies. It is very clear that either they have greatly misunderstood—and that would surprise me, coming from the Minister—or there is an appearance of collusion of some kind.
Indeed, we were told that it would be our unelected Minister’s pleasure to answer questions on budgetary forecasts when he appeared. We now know how thick will be the supplementary budgets that we will be receiving. We are aware of the grand task before us. In fact, practically the entire budget is involved, since there was an election. Members of a Committee are being told how to do their job, when and why they should receive their witnesses. Further, this Senator, acting as Minister, who we are unable to question in the House, sends us little messages like this. I find this totally unacceptable.
Moreover, we received this absolutely incredible letter of grievance from the official informing us that they have to prepare their Minister. I think that if this was so much work, considering the date that the Minister will be appearing before the Human Resources Committee, they could have, for example, told us that the senior official could not attend for two hours and asked to reserve a half-hour, during which time we could ask the official all of our questions. We would never have refused such a proposal, but these people assume that their way of seeing things is the only way.
What I also find extremely surprising, with regard to the fact that these agencies and departments backed out in this way, is that a spokesperson for their government, namely Mr. Kramp, said the following about the debated motion. This is the official text:
In response to the motion presented by Madam Thibault, we, as a government, welcome this intervention. And we think it should be a necessary means by which to further explain how and why the decisions have been made in government and to listen to deputations that have been affected, positively or negatively.
He did not even limit it to government witnesses: he seemed to want to receive groups. I continue:
We think that is the duty and responsibility of the committee[...]
Here I acknowledge that my Conservative colleague’s observations were correct.
So we welcome this motion.
To conclude, I will now skip a paragraph.
And we're suggesting that at the first steering committee meeting we'll be able to work out an acceptable arrangement whereby witnesses and scheduling of this would be available for everybody to examine with the proper diligence.
Madam Chair, these statements were eloquent and correct. Yet we know that last Thursday this very colleague suddenly attempted—as was his right—to persuade us that everything had been done in two hours and that it was unnecessary to hold a second meeting on this motion. We then voted and a majority carried it. The second meeting was then supposed to take place. Those who contacted the Clerk yesterday between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. know that the documents and e-mail withdrawing began to pour in. I call it insidious, Madam Chair. If it isn’t a deliberate act, I do not understand why when they had from Thursday until Tuesday, they waited until Monday night to tell us.
I find this situation disgraceful. It is not up to the officials—however senior they may be—if they did make or carry out the decision, something I cannot prove but that must be cleared up when they are here — to tell parliamentarians representing the taxpayers what to do. I find it very disturbing that these officials, whose role is to serve those very taxpayers, are more preoccupied with serving their Minister.
I took the trouble to review the government documents last night, as though I had nothing better to do with my time. So I reread the throne speeches, the documents on the budget and the supporting documents, which are accessible to the public and not just to members of Parliament. The words “transparency” and “openness” are used practically hundreds of times. Their attempt to silence us makes me seriously question this transparency. When I think of the e-mail that we received, I know that I would never tolerate having parliamentarians being told how to do their work in the committees.
I have spoken for a long time, but I wanted to express my entire point of view. Thank you for giving me all of this time.
