Clearly, Mr. Chairman, canon law doesn't apply here.
Mr. Chairman, this is through you to the minister.
Minister, your government created the Parliamentary Budget Office with great fanfare. You appointed Mr. Page as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, yet now you seem to be trying to discredit him. That gives me great concern. You won't give him the information he needs, as he's pointed out time and again.
Let's get back to this question of the attrition. Over the past five years, you've actually added over 33,000 more civil servants, more positions. The PBO is talking about the attrition of positions—not how many people actually retire each year, but how many fewer positions there are.
Surely, in the report on plans and priorities of departments, when they're talking about, and when in your budget planning you're talking about, attrition, you're not talking about what happens if Bob and Sue and John leave. You're talking about absolute numbers of positions that are reduced and the reduction overall of the civil service.
I think you're trying to fudge it here today by suggesting two different things. You're not actually responding to what he's saying.
Are the reports on plans and priorities of your government important, worthwhile documents or not? In those documents, those 10 agencies and departments that he's talked about can't identify more than 1,133 positions that they'll reduce. So are they important documents? Are they valuable? Should we ignore them? Are they useful to the public at all?