Yes, I do.
My colleague used a very key phrase here. She said “what we think is in the mandate”. She's right in saying this, because of course this committee functions according to a mandate that existed before December 13, 2018. Once the new bill received royal assent and a new department was formed, that mandate is called into question because it's changed; it has been expanded. At least, that's what we're told by officials and by the minister.
Again, it seems appropriate that the minister would come and allow us to engage with her in order to seek a better understanding of what exactly that mandate is. I'm confused as to why the members opposite of me want to shut down that opportunity for us to engage in meaningful conversation with the minister, that we might better understand her department and that we might better be able to serve positive outcomes on behalf of the Canadian public.
It would seem, then, that the members opposite of me don't actually want to abide by the words of the Prime Minister and invite openness, invite transparency, and invite a new tone that is brought to Ottawa. I would show my disappointment with that more than anything, not only on my behalf but on behalf of all Canadians, from coast to coast, who would like a government that is transparent and who would like to know that the minister is inviting herself to be held accountable, the Canadian public who would like to know that the members of this committee are having their best interest in mind.
With that, Madam Chair, I believe you are going to proceed to a vote. I would like that vote to be recorded.