Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 3rd, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, I mean additional witnesses—Auditor General of Canada and the RCMP commissioner.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That's all. It was additional witnesses. I wasn't quite—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

We're talking about only the motion you have presented today. We're not talking about any other motions that have passed through this committee.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

You were adding them as additional witnesses, not—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'm adding two witnesses and removing one, as proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right. Mr. Perkins, you are done.

I have Mr. Genuis, Mr. Desjarlais, Ms. Khalid and then Mr. Brock.

This is all on the amendment with these three names. We're removing one—Guilbeault—and the other two we're adding.

I am going to enforce that we speak to that amendment only.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor. Go ahead, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I was flabbergasted by some of Ms. Khalid's opening comments. She described our inquiries in this regard as being like “a fishing expedition”. If this is like fishing, it's like going to a barrel that's full of fish and grabbing fish out of it. The volume of corruption is evident. There's no question that there were violations of basic norms around conflict of interest here. Using idioms that suggest that this is a sort of speculative investigation is pretty outrageous. It seems like the member is trying to deny some of the basic conclusions of the Auditor General's report.

I did have a specific comment on the amendment, in that Ms. Khalid seems to be taking issue with the motion. Yes, it was a Conservative motion, but it was passed by a majority of the House of Commons in June regarding requesting documents. That motion used the unfettered powers of the House of Commons to send for documents. This is a clearly well-established constitutional principle. I'm happy to talk about that motion and the work that Conservatives are doing, with the support, in this case, of all opposition parties, to get to the bottom of the corruption we've seen in this government.

Look, I think I can offer a subamendment that will help us discuss this in a more fruitful way. We should have the law clerk in, because the law clerk works for us—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, I'll stop you there. It is the same rule that I applied to Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné. You can make additions to the motion when that time comes. This is not the time. We're dealing with these three names right now. You can support it or you can propose a subamendment to strike one of the names, if you disagree, but that is where we are. You can—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Here's what I'm doing: I'm proposing a subamendment to replace the RCMP commissioner on that list with the law clerk. It seems like the mover of this amendment is actually looking for the law clerk. They're looking for someone who can answer questions about the appropriateness of that June motion and about some of the procedural or constitutional issues associated with that request for documents. In the abstract, the RCMP commissioner may have an opinion on this, but if this is a question of constitutional or legal authority, the appropriateness of sending for these documents and the discretion that's available to the House.... I mean, it was a decision of the House and not of this committee, and I should underline that, but it does relate to work that this committee is doing. If members want to probe that issue, I think we can talk about it.

I would propose the subamendment that we replace the RCMP commissioner with the law clerk on this list.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay.

I'm starting a new speaking list for the subamendment to the amendment, which is to strike the RCMP commissioner and replace that person with the House of Commons law clerk.

Are there speakers?

I have Ms. Khalid and then Mr. Desjarlais.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor first.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm quite perplexed, actually. I'm not sure why Mr. Genuis feels that we should be removing the RCMP commissioner from this list. Of course, as we're having this discussion, we can add witnesses and discuss the importance of these witnesses to the context of what exactly it is that we're studying.

To be clear, I do want to quote this article that I had referred to earlier, where it is said quite simply that an RCMP investigation is the only way to fully.... This is from.... I'm sorry.

It states:

According to letters tabled over the summer in the House of Commons and its public accounts committee, the order created significant consternation within the [Office of the Auditor General] and the RCMP.

The letters also reveal that neither the [Office of the Auditor General] nor the RCMP found evidence of criminal wrongdoing while looking into the SDTC.

On July 10, Hogan wrote House of Commons Clerk Eric Janse to inform him that she would not comply with the order because it could compromise her office’s work. She also noted that if the RCMP wants her files, it can obtain a production order to obtain them legally.

“I am not able to respond to the order at this time,” she wrote to Janse, arguing that the records she audited don’t belong to her office but to the government.

What I'm trying to say is that I think Mr. Genuis misunderstood what the point is that I'm trying to get at here, Chair, which is that the role of our committee is not to be a judiciary. It is not to dictate to the Auditor General or the RCMP how they should be conducting their work. The role of parliamentarians is not to dictate to these institutions that we have created to have that oversight. By doing so and by continuing down this road, we are abusing the power of Parliament. That is not correct. That is not fair.

My whole point of adding these two names—the Auditor General and the RCMP commissioner—is to make sure that we have the full context of what exactly is happening here. I've never gone fishing, Chair. I've never had fish in a barrel, and I'm sure Mr. Genuis probably hasn't either, based on his comments on lobsters on the Atlantic shore earlier, but what we're trying to do here is be responsible and be reasonable, and if we are going down this path, then let's have the full context and let's be effective and efficient in how we are conducting our business as parliamentarians.

It makes no sense to invite a minister who has nothing to do with this file. It makes no sense to exclude somebody who has clearly, on the record, had so much to say about exactly what it is we're trying to do and has had so much to say about a motion that was passed in Parliament that is a potential abuse of parliamentary powers to basically dictate to the RCMP how they should be doing their job and basically dictate to the Auditor General how she should be doing her job. If we want to continue down this path, then I think that both of those voices need to be at the table.

If Mr. Genuis wants to add an additional name, including the law clerk, as he has just proposed in his subamendment, then he should propose that as a separate amendment and add the name rather than replace a name. The fact that he is trying to replace a name I think tells a complete story in and of itself. Why is he trying to replace this name? Why is he wanting the RCMP commissioner to not come to this committee and to not talk about the potential abuses of power that the Conservatives are playing at here?

I really think that this should be a game of addition and not of subtraction, for sure. I've laid my points out very reasonably to say that Minister Guilbeault should not be invited here, because he has nothing to do with the issue. If it was an issue that involved him, sure, but this issue does not involve him.

Do we want the full context of exactly what is happening here? Yes. Then include the Auditor General. Include the RCMP commissioner. If Mr. Genuis wants to include the law clerk, sure, but why is he trying to replace the RCMP commissioner?

I obviously do not support this subamendment. I'm more than happy to support any additions that Mr. Genuis proposes for this list, but I will not be subtracting somebody who has relevant, contextual testimony to give to this committee about what exactly is happening in this instance when it is on record where the RCMP investigation is and it's on record how these independent offices feel about this Conservative motion, its implications to our democracy here in Canada and its overstepping and abuse of powers by certain parliamentarians.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I will turn now to Mr. Desjarlais on the subamendment to the amendment.

I have three lists now, Mr. Desjarlais, and you're on the top of all three of them. I'm going to corral you so that your comments are on the subamendment, which is to remove the commissioner of the RCMP and replace him with the House of Commons law clerk.

It's over to you.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your using the word “corral”. As a former cattle rancher, it really means a lot. I can fully appreciate what you mean by trying to corral me. I'll do my best to ensure that I speak directly to the subamendment.

Largely speaking, Mr. Chair, I do believe we can find a consensus. I think you and I often agree on attempting to try to find a consensus and a pathway forward. I find myself attempting to balance the need for true accountability, and true responsiveness to a really serious concern of the operations of SDTC, with partisan witch-hunting. These are really tough for me to balance, which I think you struggle with as well, Chair.

As a matter of a proposition to my colleagues, I agree with Mr. Genuis under the first subamendment, but before I agree in full part to that, I would suggest that rather than go about the process of amendment, second amendment and subamendment, can we have an agreement to simply add any names, including sustaining Minister Guilbeault as a witness, and proceed with our meetings on these topics?

It's obvious to me that there are questions that members of our committee have for every witness who's been put forward on this list. They're going to use those witnesses for whatever they're going to use them for, no matter what, so I suggest that we just increase the list and be reasonable with each other. I propose that we collapse all three amendments and have a consensus of the committee.

Canadians expect us to do work here. I really want to get to the bottom of what is a very real issue that's been going on consecutively forever. These issues of procurement aren't just Liberal ones. They're also Conservative ones. I'm sure there have been instances provincially as well that even New Democrats or Bloc members have had to deal with.

I really would suggest that we take a more serious approach, add as many witnesses as we deem appropriate for the further study of this report—including the minister, including the RCMP and including the law clerk—and get to a consensus on this.

That would be my proposition, Chair. I think we can get there if we can try to avoid the obvious partisan back-and-forth that's sucking up committee time here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just to summarize that, Mr. Desjarlais, I think you're in the column of just additions. You would like to see Minister Guilbeault remain, as well as the Auditor General and the RCMP commissioner, and you're agreeing with Mr. Genuis on the law clerk.

I have a speaking list, Ms. Khalid. I'll have to come back to you.

This is Mr. Genuis's subamendment. He is up next, so maybe we'll see what he has to say about the proposition that instead of swapping, we would have them both here.

Again, it's your subamendment, Mr. Genuis, so it's over to you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

In the abstract, Chair, my view of what's ideal hasn't changed in terms of who can shed the most light on this specific issue, but I think Mr. Desjarlais is proposing a good way forward in terms of finding consensus with the addition of witnesses and not the subtraction of witnesses. If there are individuals that particular members think are important to hear from, then others may be surprised to find that they have more to offer than they expected on the particular topic.

My point with the RCMP commissioner was simply that if the goal is to talk about the legal and constitutional issues around sending for documents, the law clerk is the appropriate person for that, but hey, other people may want to ask questions of the RCMP commissioner on various things. I would say that if we're going to try to establish consensus on the principle that it's addition and not subtraction, we can't be selective about that, right?

Our view is that Minister Guilbeault has some important context to add to this conversation. I guess the appropriate way of proceeding would be by unanimous consent or by agreement. If we can agree that Minister Guilbeault stays on the list and that we add the RCMP commissioner, the law clerk and the Auditor General, and then we get back to the main motion so that Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné can propose additional names and then others propose additional names, then I think that's a good way to proceed, if it's agreed to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

There are a few steps to get there. It's not quite that easy.

I have Ms. Yip and then Ms. Khalid. Ms. Yip, you have the floor. Mr. Desjarlais, I'm going to ask you to put your hand down unless you want to speak again, but I think you're covered.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor, please, and then after that it's Ms. Khalid.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

With respect to Mr. Desjarlais, I feel that opening up to any names and just adding willy-nilly.... I think we need to be conscious of our time here on the committee and the purpose of this committee. We've already been looking at...how many meetings of ArriveCAN? I think it's over 25 meetings now, yet there are so many of the other reports by the Auditor General that need to be addressed. We put so much work onto the back burner, and we really need to get back to that, because there is more to life than just ArriveCAN. There are other issues that Canadians are concerned about and issues that the Auditor General has raised.

I do agree that with the subamendment to have the Auditor General, the RCMP and the law clerk. I support Ms. Khalid's position that there is no point in having Minister Guilbeault come. Again, we want to really be targeted and precise in our time with the witnesses so that this doesn't drag on. There has to be a purpose. I think that Minister Champagne is more relevant and that having him here would be a better use of time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I'm going to turn to Ms. Khalid. Then, Mr. Genuis, I'm going to come back to you, and we're going to see if you're willing to make a.... In order for you to withdraw your motion, you'd have to seek UC. Otherwise, we would vote on it. I'm going to hear Ms. Khalid first, and then you and I can talk, but I've got to go to Ms. Khalid next. She's been very patient.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. You're very kind. I think you're trying to make up for ordering that butter chicken.

I think we should be precise and targeted if we're going to go down the path of this study. As I said earlier, I would propose, Chair, that Mr. Genuis, if he feels so inclined, should withdraw his subamendment and perhaps add an amendment after we've decided on mine at a later time in this meeting and stop creating confusion, because I would like to just vote on one thing at a time. I know Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné has some witnesses that she wants to propose as well, and I'd like to hear what those names are and see how we can be more productive in this meeting, rather than going back and forth and trying to scratch out names and add more and scratch out more and add more. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Chair, if it's okay with you, I would prefer that we stick with voting on the subamendment, or Mr. Genuis can withdraw his subamendment and we can vote on my amendment and then move on to the proposal of Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

There are a few steps. Depending on what Mr. Genuis does, we would then return to your amendment to the motion.

Mr. Genuis, I think you'll get where you want to go if you seek UC to dissolve your subamendment. You will then have an opportunity later to propose the law clerk. Would you like to do that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes, Chair. I'd like to retain the floor to speak on the amendment as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Hold on a second. It won't work. You will get an opportunity again. I will add you, but I'm keeping multiple lists here. I will add you so you'll get an opportunity and you will have your say. I'm looking for—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I would like to request unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment. That's fine. I think we're getting to where I wanted to land.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay.

Do I have agreement for Mr. Genuis's subamendment to be withdrawn and to be...?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.