Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'm very happy that we're starting the meeting this way, even though we had planned for something else. We have witnesses here today. However, I'm glad to see that the government seems to have done some soul-searching in the past few days. I think it has realized that there are limits to avoiding summoning Minister Mélanie Joly to talk to us about her budget, her measures or her strategic planning, so I'm a bit surprised.
Madam Chair, I also sense that you're willing to move things forward.
As you know, last Monday, on November 24, I proposed a motion to discuss the possibility of inviting the minister, as well as Minister Solomon, to come talk to us about artificial intelligence as part of the study that we're conducting today.
However, there's something I don't understand about the way we work in committee. We discuss certain things, and you then take steps on your end without us having any say, as if there were two groups: that of the chair and the government, which does things; and that of the committee, which focuses on something else. That's what I'm seeing today. You're providing us with information on the minister's appearance, and I appreciate that openness, but we've never adopted a motion to that effect.
I would remind you that we debated this motion in public on November 24. Our colleagues in the Liberal Party were still trying to make up stories about my grandmother that didn't hold up, saying that it was impossible to get the minister here because a report would have to be tabled in Parliament. However, I've been on this committee for four years, and I've never seen a situation like that. Last week, my colleagues were upset and said that it was impossible, that it couldn't be done.
As parliamentarians, it's important for us to be able to hear Minister Joly's remarks here in committee. The topics we discuss regarding science, research and innovation also concern the other parliamentarians.
I have a hard time understanding the situation we find ourselves in today. Something was being defended last week, and now we're being presented with new information, somewhat by surprise once again. This personally makes me feel very uneasy, because I'm not sure we're going in the right direction by operating this way. People do things behind the curtains, and we're ultimately presented with something else today. I received a text message from my colleagues. They're all showing good will. I don't think it's functional to work in this way. It shows that the government isn't really being transparent.
On Monday, I only asked for the minister to appear before the committee. On November 4, a historic budget was tabled, announcing a $78‑billion deficit. There's some good news in there, and there's some less good news.
As parliamentarians, we're entitled to ask questions about the government's direction. That can be done in the Standing Committee on Science and Research. However, there are still attempts to cover things up today; we're told that the minister might appear before the holidays. A Liberal member then tells us she might appear in February. We went from November 4 to December 4, then from December 4 to January 4, and then from December 4 to February 4. We've been waiting for three months. For the past three months, we have been unable to ask a minister from a G7 country to come and answer a parliamentary committee's questions about her files.
This is a serious matter. It's like a banana republic. The minister has been dodging the issue for three months, and her colleagues are defending her, whereas we want to be able to ask her questions in committee. I'm embarrassed for the government members. I'm embarrassed that they have to defend that position. I understand that the minister may have other things on her mind. She was in South Korea last week shopping for submarines. I understand that that will really strengthen science, research and innovation in Canada. I understand that she doesn't want to come and talk about her budget. However, the will of this committee is to invite the minister.
Today, people are going to have to tell the truth: What do they want?
Do they want to protect their government by not having the minister appear?
Do they want the public, who are entitled to ask questions through parliamentarians, to be able to hear the minister's comments by summoning her to the committee?
It's all of those issues that I'd like to clarify. I would again like to invite my colleagues to demonstrate co-operation, good faith and transparency. That starts with informing people before taking action, in particular.
Madam Chair, you have the responsibility to provide that leadership through the committee. What I continue to see today is a failure in that regard. You're presenting us with a done deal without talking to us about it. I went to see you last week in good faith. I told you that we were going to talk about it and that there was no problem. At the last meeting, I even pushed back the date to November 26 to have the chief science adviser appear, because, in reality, I didn't want us to resume debate on the motion.
You're doing it again today. You're repeating what happened at the start of November. When the committee met on November 5, you had completely changed the schedule and agenda, despite the fact that we had committee work scheduled. You're now telling us that you went and got this information for us, that it will serve us in committee, despite the fact that we already had a schedule and an agenda.
The same scenario is happening again today. We arrive at the meeting, you open the committee meeting and, as if by magic, our government colleagues have a solution, and you open the door for them to share it with the committee.
You can understand that this raises many concerns about the impartiality, neutrality and objectivity of doing things in those kinds of ways.
For that reason, I would like you to explain to me today why all this was done without us being consulted first.
That's the only question I have for you today.
