International Trade Committee on May 30th, 2022

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much for taking the time and sharing what you have proposed in writing for us to see.

I take a look at the last sentence and I think that's where the trepidation is. It seems like the last sentence is directing. Our friends across the aisle just mentioned they'd handwritten it, but when you read the last sentence, it seems to direct the AG. I don't know if there's any wordsmithing that could be done there to make it more of a suggestion, as people have been saying around the table.

When you look at that last sentence, to me it seems to be directing the AG. That's where my trepidation is. If there could be some kind of wordsmithing to deal with the wording.... It could be changed to “should she decide to examine”. It could be that kind of thing.

I think allowing that independent decision-making process that Arif has put so well to be reflected in the verbiage.... It could be in the last sentence, in particular.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hoback had his hand up first, and then I have Mr. Baldinelli, Mr. Masse, Mr. Arya and Mr. Virani.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I understand where Mr. Sheehan's coming from. Again, it's a request. Everything is based on the request being followed through on. If the Auditor General chooses not to take on our request, that's her prerogative. Thus, the last sentence becomes moot.

If she decides to take on the report, then an invitation to come to committee would be part of the request. If she chooses not to come to committee, I believe we and the chair have no means to compel her. I think the request to come to committee and make the report public is reasonable in light of the context it's written in. I don't think we need to wordsmith anything here, Mr. Sheehan. I think it's already there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You could always add “give consideration to”.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

If you want to add it in there, I'm okay with that. I don't want to debate to the nth degree, because we have other business to move on to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We still have a lot of things to do today at this meeting.

If Mr. Baldinelli has no other comments, I have Mr. Masse next.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

In the interest of trying to move this along, would it be a friendly amendment to just drop the last sentence? The Auditor General reports to the House of Commons by standard procedure. I wonder whether we could find consensus on that. I don't want to belabour it, but I believe the Auditor General has to report all of the work to the House of Commons anyway. Perhaps that might be enough to put this to rest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is everybody in agreement with that?

Let me continue with my list here.

Go ahead, Mr. Virani.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The suggestion by Mr. Masse is an improvement.

I wouldn't mind something that reflects that the committee understands the institutional independence of the Office of the Auditor General. Right now, it says on line two, after the comma, “the committee requests that the Auditor General examine both agencies....” It could say something like “the committee understands the institutional independence of the Auditor General and requests....”

Madam Clerk, did you get that?

It would read, “the committee recognizes the institutional independence of the Auditor General and requests that the Auditor....” and then it follows, still deleting, as Mr. Masse suggested, the last line.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Do we have agreement on this?

I have Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I'd just like to ask the member who introduced the motion a question.

The motion has no time frame; it leaves it open. In a case as specific as this, how did we come to agree on that?

I'd like to know why we decided to leave it open rather than establish a specific time frame?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

That's a great question. Actually, we thought about that. Again, they are an independent body, so they'll choose their own timetable in which to complete the request, if they choose to take on the request. That's why we didn't put a time on it.

Ideally, it would be nice to give a time frame, but they don't work under our time frames.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I have Mr. Arya and Mr. Sheehan next.

Before I continue, Madam Clerk, what do we have on the table right now that everybody seems to be in relative agreement on?

[The Clerk]

It reads as follows:

Given that the committee had only one day to examine the estimates of both Invest in Canada and the Canadian Commercial Corporation, the committee understands the institutional independence of the Auditor General and requests that the Auditor General examine both agencies, and their expenditures, to ensure they are meeting their mandates and providing value for the expenditures being allocated to both.

[An hon. member]

That's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think everybody's in agreement with that.

Do you still want to speak, Mr. Arya and Mr. Sheehan, or will we just go to a vote on this motion?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

It's perfect, Madam Chair. That's what I too was proposing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We have the motion on the table in both languages. Is everybody clear on it?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much.

I will now suspend so that we can go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]