Well, I don't want the record to show that this committee feels that we dealt with the supplementary estimates (B) in a satisfactory way and are now reporting to Parliament that we agree with these estimates and that therefore these estimates should be allowed to go ahead. Because that certainly wouldn't be an accurate reflection of what took place around the committee table.
In fact, the motion Mr. Regan put forward would be a more accurate reflection of the fact that we were very dissatisfied with the cooperation we got. I put it on the record that I'm dissatisfied with the process, period. We got a couple of hours to deal with proposed spending worth billions of dollars. No objective third party could ever view that and say that it was a thorough, robust treatment of the estimates process. It's a farce.
I think, at the bare minimum, that the report back to Parliament should be that the government operations committee tried, on behalf of Canadians, to do an in-depth analysis of the proposed spending of the government, and we were unable to do so due to a lack of cooperation by the government. We are frustrated, we are angry, and we are not satisfied. In fact, if it were to go to a vote, I would vote against the approval of these supplementary estimates. So at the very least, you could say that the committee is not unanimous in its approval of the estimates process.
In terms of Mr. Regan's motion, which is what we're speaking to now, I would wholly support that motion, because it at least begins to address how frustrated we are by the sandbagging by the government on the simplest, most straightforward of questions. We don't even have the elemental details to be able to decide whether we should approve this spending.
They come to us asking permission to spend $4 billion. That's what the government is doing. The government comes cap in hand to Parliament to get our permission to spend money, and we get about an hour of questioning of some stonewalling bureaucrats. We get ministers who won't come.... The public should know that this process is a sham and that we have not reviewed the spending proposal by the government to anyone's satisfaction.
Mr. Regan is correct. I'll support his motion.
If you are going to report anything today, you should report how wholly dissatisfied we are with the sandbagging and stonewalling by the government in terms of sharing the most fundamental information with the very committee that gives them permission to spend money.