Public Accounts Committee on June 6th, 2019

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

It is precisely about the legacy report. I think that's where we as a committee could leave a mark, a special and lasting legacy.

It is precisely on the mechanisms of funding for all officers of Parliament, not just for the Auditor General. We've had this conversation and we've agreed that they shouldn't be a decision of cabinet; they should be a decision of Parliament. The oversight should be in Parliament and not with cabinet.

We've agreed on that, I think, and it should be part of our report. It should be part of the legacy that we as a committee leave for whomever comes after us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That is the first recommendation in the legacy report.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Exactly.

While I understand why Mr. Christopherson is so outraged about this, I would like to put on the record that the government has reinstated funding. As of last year, $8 million a year for five years was added to the budget of the Auditor General. Last year, for example, they didn't even spend the whole budget. There was $2 million left on the table.

With respect to the planning you tell me they've gutted because they don't have the funds, we don't know, really, how many reports they're going to do. Right now on the website, yes, there's only one for the fall and two for the winter, but that's clearly not all they're going to do. That's what they usually do. They only put two or three on the website and eventually they develop another work plan. I think we're okay.

I understand completely what you're saying. I start with the premise that it shouldn't be cabinet that decides what the budget of the Auditor General is. That's my starting premise. Right now, I can tell you that we won't solve this issue. We won't get that $10 million back—no, not even back, to what they asked. They are getting $8 million a year over five years. That's every year, so it's a 12% increase every year. That's what they are getting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

There are a couple of things.

I think the government would likely vote for a unanimous letter, because it would allow this to move on and they could stickhandle a letter much easier than a filibuster.

That's my take on it, and that's just it. I'm only exercising my rights.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

We're still here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would also point out to my colleague that it was the Auditor General who said specifically that cybersecurity couldn't be afforded to be done. If the government wants to challenge the legitimacy of what the Auditor General is saying, I am more than willing to agree that we bring the Auditor General back in, in front of the cameras, and let's have it out.

I'd love that. If that's what the committee would like to do to get to the bottom of it, if the government believes that the funding is adequate and that this is consistent with the way governments have treated the Auditor General before, if the government members actually believe that as strongly as I believe the opposite, let's bring the Auditor General in front of cameras, and let's have at it.

I'm open to a Simms protocol response to that.

Let's get the Auditor General in here. If you want to not deal with debate and deal with facts, let's bring him in.

Are the government members open to that?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

I wouldn't have any trouble.

The problem is that I do want to finish the four reports we have. That's my only concern.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you know what? If you're willing to bring in the Auditor General, I'm willing to negotiate what the rest of the sitting looks like. In terms of my goal, here's the thing; here's my real problem.

Madame Mendès, it's exactly what you said, when you said that basically the funding is not going to happen. You said, the bottom line is that this is not going to happen. My position is that it bloody well is, and I'm going to do everything I can to make that happen. Even if it's David and Goliath, David is still going to fight.

It seems to me that we're quite a way from a resolution. To be clear, what I would really need is to know that not only is this committee unanimously supporting that but that it's going to do something with the government. I've been around a long time. I can keep secrets, q.t., winks. I'd be more than willing to give the government whatever face-saver it needs. I offer this publicly. I will work with the government, publicly and privately, to do everything I can to help create a face-saver where this is easier to stand down from.

I don't care. I don't need headlines. That's the opposite of what I want. I'm trying to fade into the distance and you keep pushing me into a fight. I would love to get this resolved and go back to new serene Dave, rather than bringing this guy back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do you know what? We long for the new serene Dave to happen.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's the goal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

What I'm trying to do is hear all sides and then find a solution. I'm not so certain that we're going to get the “wink wink, nod nod” to do this, but would we be willing to meet on a third day in the next week and invite the Auditor General to come to a meeting?

In regard to the next Tuesday, I realize this can go into Tuesday and we can miss our reports, which I don't use as a hammer, but I think all of us want our reports finished. Can we today say there would be two things: a letter, and a meeting with the Auditor General either next week or the following week?

It would be a third meeting. It might be outside the normal meeting time. From there, I can't speak on behalf of the government, but that would give us a letter from our committee asking the government unanimously for this, and secondly, an invitation to the Auditor General to come next week or the following week to that meeting.

After that, I can't speak on the response. None of us really can just “wink wink, nod nod”.... I don't even think the government side can do that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm not hearing anything that I couldn't work with as an idea. I think the wording of the letter would probably require some time.

Just on the reports.... I appreciate, because obviously you're all smart people, you would have thought through, as I did, that okay, if I start doing this, what am I going to face? One of the first things I'm going to get from respected colleagues like Alexandra Mendès is, “This is all fine data that's important, but what about the committee reports that we have to get done? They're important.” I weighed that out, and for me, for what it's worth, I concluded that this is so big that if....

The work we do has three key points that really change things. Number one is when the report is tabled from the Auditor General. It's a whole day. We do the lock-up. The media usually controls the media cycle for the next 24 hours, longer if there is a big problem. That's one.

The second one is when we hold our hearing. It's public, so the media are at least aware and often they are covering it, but certainly people who are interested are watching. That has an impact.

The third one is our committee report. It makes a difference, but I am arguing that the other two are more important. On the reports that we have, we've done those two parts. I'm looking at not being able to finish the third part of a couple of items, versus not even having the report tabled or a hearing because no audit exists. To me in the higher—

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

This is probably a good opportunity—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just a minute. You have to learn your timing. I'm friendly, but don't cut me off.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Sorry.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In the hierarchy of things, in my mind as much as it's tragic, I think that the trade-off is worth it.

On the legacy piece, I have offered a process and I think we could get around that if we needed to.

That's my thinking on the reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

On the letter, because your concern is the wording of the letter, if you, sir, and Madam Mendès, and Mr. Kelly—so there are the three vice-chairs and the lead critic—were to work with our analyst to draft the letter, would that suffice?

I know that the problem happens we get whips and everybody involved. I just want the three of you sitting down and putting in a letter that everyone can live with, and certainly you, because this is contingent, I think, on your satisfaction that the letter properly addresses what we want to accomplish here.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

On a point of order, I think we can sweeten the pot for Mr. Christopherson a little. If he agrees to move now into committee report consideration, over the course of the week until Tuesday, the next regularly scheduled meeting, the letter can be discussed. The order of business on Tuesday can begin with the consideration of that letter in case he's not satisfied.

At least then he'll get the floor back on this item because it's like another Simms protocol olive branch. It's just so that he appreciates that he is not surrendering anything, but it does allow us to get 45 good minutes on the report consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

One thing that I think would be a real stumbling block would be if we brought the letter to the committee to begin wordsmithing all over again. I think the committee has to see it, but I would really much rather have the three work on the letter, draft the letter and then send the letter so that we can get a timely response from the Auditor General's office.

Mr. Christopherson, I'm not sure if the olive branch scenario.... It puts it off today.

I do think it is a solution. Whether it's a full solution, I don't know, but it is a way forward.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I very much appreciate that and I'm trying to think. What I do like is the last suggestion by Mr. Whalen. It gives me some time to think and to see whether the letter....

Again, as much as the government members would like this to go away, I want it to stay here, because it's the only way we're going to get any change. What I would be banking on—again, doing it even out in the open, and I'm saying this to my fellow opposition colleagues—is a letter from the committee that is and clear and strong about how we as the public accounts committee unanimously feel about this, combined with a hearing at which we get the Auditor General to talk to Canadians.

The question is how that stacks up as pressure. For me, the resolution is not peace in the committee, as much as I want that too. That's not my resolution.

It is yours, sir, and I understand that. That's your mandate. My purpose is beyond that. It's to get that money allocated, and everything we're talking about is short of that.

Let me reiterate the suggestion that has been made so that I understand it and say it in my words, and if that's the case, then maybe we have an agreement that will let us move forward. The suggestion is that, at the conclusion of my remarks, if we're in agreement with what I'm saying and I have it right, we will switch into committee report writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Right now we would move to the legacy report document.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Tuesday we would have three other reports. We have the....

[Dillan Theckedath, Committee Researcher]

There's the RCMP draft report.