It is good reading.
Next is “Guidance to Officials”. Let us bear this section in mind when we have people here. We have no objection to senior public servants coming in with ministers; I think that is a full and fair response to what you're requesting.
Officials may give explanations in response to questions having to do with complex policy matters, but they do not defend policy or engage in debate as to policy alternatives.
It is exactly the point my honourable colleague Mr. Moore made here earlier. The government has made the policy. If you have a problem with that policy and/or an objection to that policy and/or want clarification of that policy, that is why we have had ministers here and that is why it is your choice to have a minister back, with senior public servants if you wish.
We willingly stated that we would do that, but might I suggest in closing that there is to me a very obvious conclusion? It is aptly titled; it is in the document that is available to all of us here and it has been a guideline for all ministerial staff, all committees, to follow.
The relationship between the Government and Parliament expresses the fundamental principle of responsible government, namely that those who exercise constitutional authority must be part of and responsible to Parliament. It is Ministers, and not officials, who exercise the constitutional authority of the Crown; and it is Ministers, and not their officials, who are responsible to Parliament. Officials are accountable to Ministers. They may assist Ministers by answering directly before Parliamentary committees; but there should be no doubt that Ministers, and not officials, are constitutionally responsible for the exercise of the power of the state. Thus the cornerstone of responsible government, as manifested in ministerial responsibility, ensures the supremacy of Parliament.
I might suggest to all of my honourable colleagues that they take a very serious look at this document, which has been standard operating procedure for decades for this Parliament, for committees, and for responsible members.
We are talking about bringing in the public works minister. That is wonderful. On the record, I hope my honourable colleague recognizes that the spending in that area accounts for maybe 5% to 7% of the entire savings, or cuts, as someone would classify them. It is important, yes. I don't wish to demean the 5% to 7%, because it means a lot to a lot of people, but let's try to keep everything in perspective while we're going through here. Let's not just be using this committee to score political points. Let's get solid answers.
Madame Thibault has raised some very good points. She wants some solid answers on this. I am suggesting that we bring in the officials with the ministers and ask those questions.
We had senior ministers here. We had Mr. Moloney as a senior public servant with Minister Baird, and the meeting was curtailed early, because there were no more questions.
That is a whole different kettle of fish, but I read it into the record, Madam Chair, because I think it is responsible that we act in a manner that is consistent with past history and tradition and not go out and embarrass the purpose of this committee.
We are very close to moving beyond the normal realm of responsible activities. I think we all share a common goal. You want accountability; you want answers. So do we. We've made decisions. If you don't like them and want to discuss them, or if you're in favour of them, then that's fine; that's fair ball. Let's get to the bottom of that.