Madam Chair, I believe my colleague is trying to provide me with an explanation, but for me, this is not an objection, it is a matter of principle and transparency.
In terms of transparency, normally, when decisions are made that involve other people, those people are consulted because it could have an impact on them—including me, in this instance.
The issue I am raising is not that this person wants to attend a meeting in this way, but that we were informed after the decision was made.
I am not trying to ambush you right now. I want to understand how things work and try to bring some healthy credibility to the committee, because you decided to approve this request and then ask us if we disagreed. I can't see myself expressing any disagreement that would then lead us to inform the person that they can no longer attend the committee meeting, when you've already approved their request.
I think the way to do things transparently and consistently is to ask people if they approve of a decision before announcing it. If we go back on this decision, it will undermine the credibility of the committee. We also need to consider how this person will perceive the situation. This is what I am requesting going forward, unless you tell me that there is a rule or a way of working that says we do not need to be informed or consulted.
So I have a few questions for you, Madam Chair: if we had expressed disagreement, how would we have proceeded? Would we have acted according to the outcome of the vote? If one person had expressed disagreement, would it still work or not? Would the unanimous consent of committee members be required? Would a vote be required?
Madam Chair, this is the first time I've been in this kind of situation, and I'd like to understand how it has to be managed.