Hearing Mr. Turnbull filibuster an opposition motion when we’re used to hearing him filibuster his own bill is a bit of a change.
All joking aside, the committee and Parliament have no place telling the Auditor General what to do. That’s exactly the spirit in which the motion was drafted.
We suggest that the Auditor General provide us with a list. Does she have to comply with the motion? The answer is no, but she will know that Parliament and the committee want to find out more about the situation. At some point, it becomes difficult to draft a motion like this. In fact, this is the most consensus-driven way of doing it.
As for everything our colleague Mr. Turnbull said, I would say that, from the outset, if I'm not mistaken, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts unanimously passed a motion calling for certain sums to be reimbursed by the minister within 100 days. There is therefore a presumption that certain companies may have received some of this money. The Liberals agree with this presumption, as do the Conservatives and the New Democrats, if I’m not mistaken.
Earlier, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner mentioned that Minister Bains did have certain tools at the time that enabled him to avoid this type of situation. These tools did indeed exist. Did the minister have this information? Did he have any reason to use those tools? It remains to be seen.
That said, absolutely nothing in this motion binds the Auditor General or condemns the government in advance. If the Auditor General were to consider the motion, which is non-binding—and if Mr. Turnbull happens to be right about the government being absolutely diligent in its dealings with SDTC—I don’t see why the governing party would have any reluctance whatsoever in supporting such a motion. It would be hard to understand. When you have nothing to hide, you open the books.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.