Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do not share the government MP's point of view. Let's look at the motion. It was presented last Thursday, which was not before we heard witness testimony, but after. The first point states the following: “That the government has failed to produce the specific documents ordered to be produced by the Standing Committee on Finance and by the House.”
We received this draft report at the beginning of the hearings, Mr. Chair. It was not presented to the Standing Committee on Finance. The second point states the following: “That the government has not provided a reasonable excuse.” That's exactly right. We asked for those documents. We were even told that the confidentiality of documents would not be affected, while just the opposite was being claimed in the House of Commons.
The draft report states the following:
3) That the documents tabled in the House and in Committee do not satisfy the orders for production of documents; nor do they provide a reasonable excuse;
4) That this failure impedes the House in the performance of its functions; and
5) That the government's failure to produce documents constitutes a contempt of Parliament.
Let's now consider Mr. Page's testimony. Following all the testimonies, even the one in the latest report, and after we asked him to study it and send his answer to the committee, he wrote the following:
There remain significant gaps between the information requested by parliamentarians and the documentation that was provided by the government, which will limit the ability of parliamentarians to fulfill their fiduciary obligations.
The questions asked are about such considerations as the cost to provinces. We were told that this was unknown. How much will it cost in other cases? We were told that the amount would be minimal. We never got any answers. We cannot draft a report to congratulate the government.
This does not mean that, after a report is submitted to Parliament, the committee won't be able to make other suggestions for the future. However, we have to follow up on the Speaker of the House's request. What was the prevailing situation? He did acknowledge the fact that we were not receiving the documents. This was also confirmed by all the testimonies we heard, excluding those from government representatives. Government ministers told us that they provided us with everything they had. That is absolutely not what the report said. That's why I think that option A truly reflects the recent events.