Sure. Let me just finish this thought, because I'm just not smart enough to hold it for long, and then I'll have a quick consultation and I'd be glad to do that.
This is the thing. Again, I'm picking up where I left off yesterday, trying to figure out why the government is doing this. This is what throws me. It's not as though you need the $10.8 million. Come on—in this place, where we deal with billions? Remember, I used to be the parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance in Ontario, so I know a little bit about these things.
If it's not for the money and the politics suck, there has to be another reason. I won't review these in detail again today. I may need a refresher down the road, but today we're okay. I pointed out that I thought one motivator might be that the government was really worried about what a cybersecurity audit would show, especially since I was here the last time we had one, and it was scary.
Is the government of the day, first of all, arrogant enough to believe that they're going to be the government and therefore they should axe this now because it's going to give them all kinds of pain? Is the political calculation that it will be such a horrific audit, of the dimensions of the sponsorship scandal or the F-35 debacle—or worse, because it deals with security? Would it be so bad that it was worth paying this price?
There is a price to be paid. I and the other opposition members are doing everything we can to try to get some attention to this. At the end of the day—I mean, I've been around long enough—the only time this is really going to change is when emails and texts and phone calls start coming in to individual Liberal members' offices. Then they're going to be saying at their next caucus meeting, why do I have this problem for $10.8 million on the Mother Teresa department of Parliament? “Why do I have this problem?” is what Liberal backbenchers will be asking.
The other thing I thought was, is this retaliation? When we're going to talk about this big-time...and to her credit, Vice-Chair Mendès has been strong about looking at the long term to make sure we change the process of funding, so that we don't have what we have right now. What we have right now is that the very people whom the Auditor General audits—we recently came out with a couple of reports that didn't make these folks look very good—are the same folks they have to negotiate with.
Is this retaliation? It would be horrifically unacceptable from any government, but I have to tell you, there would be an added sting coming from one that got elected on a mandate of respecting Parliament.
Is that what this is, retaliation? Are we that kind of banana republic, such that when an oversight body makes the powerful government of the day look bad, they're going to pay a price? Is that what happened?
Again, I find it mind-boggling that either of these things could happen: cutting the budget of the Auditor General so that a specific audit or other audits don't happen because of the political fallout; or retaliation led by bureaucrats who felt that they took a whacking from the AG and now they have a chance to return the favour. Again, I find this really hard to believe.
I find this whole thing hard to believe. That's why I say I'm trying to understand the motivation. If we can understand the motivation, then maybe we can help unpack it. The problem is that, even after 34 years in politics, I can't figure out what the motivation is, unless this is just in the same category as the stupidity of giving millions of dollars to the Westons for nothing. Is it the same crowd of people with absolutely no political gut who let this get through? Is it incompetence?
I have yet to have anybody give me a satisfactory understanding of what motivated the government to do this, on the brink of an election, no less. The best I have right now....
The part that I still don't understand—there's a part of it I'm hoping someday I will because it totally perplexes me—is that, if a mistake was made, which happens.... We've all been in government—I'm looking at my colleagues—and mistakes happen. Then you run the biggest political mistake of doubling down on a losing hand, and that's what I see the government doing. We made a mistake. Rather than pay the political price of acknowledging we made a mistake and having to put our tail between our legs, we're going to double down. That's what I'm seeing when I hear the minister responsible for this budget stand up in the House and want to talk about 2011 rather than a single justification for this.
What's the justification for causing the Auditor General of Canada, for the first time in history, to tell Parliament.... Remember they're our employees, not cabinet's employees, our employees, and our employee is telling us, Parliament, for the first time in our history, that we don't have enough money in the Auditor General's budget to carry out its work plan.
You can slice and dice the letters, the issues and the way the minister is responding in the House, and you can parse that all you want. It does not change the fact that the Office of the Auditor General of Canada does not have enough money to do its work. Colleagues know, because I told you that at the end of every estimates meeting of this public accounts committee. The chair of the committee ends the process. I did it. This chair does it, as did all the chair's predecessors and my predecessors. The last question you ask the Auditor General is, “Do you have sufficient money to carry out your work plan?”
Why do we ask that question that way? It is because we're not part of the negotiations, because it's not independent, because we can't necessarily as Parliament trust the process explicitly because we're not part of it. It's more this ridiculous business of the executive council and the cabinet usurping the power of Parliament over the years. This is no different from the cabinet deciding how much money the clerk at the Supreme Court is going to get, because they're completely different branches of government and they're all equal.
We have two big issues; one is the micro and one is the macro. Macro, I suspect, may not get changed now, although I'm going to get into it because there was a mandate to do it, and there was pressure from the agents of Parliament as long ago as January, and this government has just ignored that and done nothing. Do you know what? It wouldn't have been an issue. It's just not big enough to be an issue had this not happened. Then they could have got away with ignoring their promise in that area. They probably would have. Who would have brought that up in the context of all the things that are going on that are going to be part of the next election, which you're all welcome to?
I remain trying to answer the question of funding in the next Parliament, which was, to me, the most important part of that question. Yes, I hope that happens, but I have to tell you, if this government is there, you're going to look bad, and if you're in opposition, you're going to look even worse, because the government of the day will make sure you do. They're going to ride in on their white steed and save the day from a horrible scenario that this government created for no good reason, which is the essence of my point.
Now, I was asked, Chair, by Mr. Whalen if I would consider some language. Do I have a moment?