Certainly. John Diefenbaker, former Progressive Conservative prime minister, said that the loudest noises sometimes come from the emptiest drums. Mr. Poilievre purposefully used up all the time because he did not want an answer, because the answer would discredit just about everything he said.
The fact is, our legal interpretation—with the accordance of the Auditor General—is that we are bound to the line-by-line items listed in A2.11. That is the legal opinion. We may differ from time to time with the PBO, and I completely differ with them on this one, with respect for their work.
I could read the supply bill line by line to Mr. Poilievre at night before he goes to bed, and it wouldn't be enough. He would still claim that was not too much. My little girls always say, "One more book, one more book."
This committee is an important committee. For vote 40, there's an accountability for Treasury Board on this. I have demonstrated time and time again my openness to meeting with this committee. Mr. Poilievre could work with their industry critic, as an example, and on items like this, work with other shadow—I think they call them shadowy, or shadowy something—ministers. They could work together and find out what the questions or issues would be. In the same way, a cabinet—or a shadowy cabinet—can work together across portfolios to ensure that Mr. Poilievre and others have the right questions. That's how cabinet works. I don't know how their cabinet worked.
I find it a little rich that the Conservative Party, who were the only government in the history—not just of Canada, but in the British Commonwealth—to have been found in contempt of Parliament for not providing Parliament with information, would be on a moral high horse on this issue. I find it gobsmacking.
I have a secret. I like Pierre. He was my critic when I was public works minister a long time ago. Don't tell him, but he's actually a pretty sharp parliamentarian and he's very political, but sometimes he lets that get in the way of just recognizing that something is good. One of the things I like in parliamentarians is where they can hear a good idea from another party, and say, “You know what, that's a good idea. They are doing something with which I agree.” I think that is something Pierre will develop over time, but he's not there yet quite clearly, because this is absolutely, unequivocally, undoubtedly, the most significant step forward in terms of accountability and transparency that has happened in decades. I will continue to move in this direction because I have a love of Parliament and a respect for Parliament and parliamentarians. That explains my affection for Mr. Poilievre, who is actually a pretty good parliamentarian.
Let's be very clear on this one. There is common ground, notwithstanding the banter and noise on some of this stuff. This is good for Parliament. This is good for accountability. This committee that ought to be championing more accountability and transparency, ought to be supportive of these changes because it is better for Parliament. It will mean that all parliamentarians—government and opposition—will have more ability to hold our government and future governments to account.
