Evidence of meeting #144 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Possibly.
I'm going to uphold your belief—that you believe your privileges have been infringed upon—which then triggers your motion.
I will turn to you, Mr. Perkins, to now speak to your motion.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For all those who are watching, the reason I move this is that part of this process of being accountable to Parliament is for witnesses to actually answer the questions that we pose. I'll go through a series of some of the questions that were asked that I'm aware of, and I'm sure others may add a little more to it, that were very simple questions put to the former Liberal minister, but he refused to answer them. He basically kept repeating the lines from his opening statement, the same lines over and over again, as if he were some sort of automaton or something.
I started by asking him whether he had called and spoken with Annette Verschuren twice. It was a very simple question. He refused to answer that. He talked about the appointments process. I said Ms. Verschuren had testified before committee that he had called twice. I asked who was right, him or her. He again talked about the appointments process.
After, obviously, some frustration and interruptions, I went on to another area. I asked him whether he appointed Andrée-Lise Méthot in 2016. He went on about the appointments process and wouldn't say yes or no about somebody he is on the record appointing as a GIC appointment. It's not that he is on the record; it's on the public record.
I pointed out the fact that while she was on the board, under his watch, $114 million went to her companies. I asked, was he aware of that? He talked about the good work of SDTC. He didn't talk about whether he had knowledge of that. I said his assistant deputy minister, Mr. Noseworthy, was in those meetings, and he must have been informed about that. He basically said that it was a fair and open process.
I went on to ask him about the $750 million he gave to.... Before I asked that, I asked whether, in the 25 times that the current environment minister, Steven Guilbeault, was lobbying in the year before he was elected, while he was a nominated candidate, he was lobbying his office on the public record, the lobbyist registry, for Cycle Capital—for money for Cycle Capital fund IV. I asked whether or not he remembered those meetings. He basically talked about the open appointments process and that he shouldn't have to remember everything in his life. I said, okay, so those meetings were about, as in the registry, meeting with him to get money from EDC, and EDC gave $145 million. I asked if he remembered that. He talked about the activities of SDTC, not about that process to get money.
I asked about the fact that after all of this corruption that was going on within the fund—his appointment of a conflicted chair; his appointment of board members who were conflicted, like Andrée-Lise Méthot; and the fact that he had officials in every single meeting where 82% of the time they were voting themselves taxpayer money.... Why did he get cabinet approval to give $750 million more only a month before he left the job to go to work at CIBC? That is $750 million more in taxpayer money for this fund, when there were clearly management issues. He, again, talked about the appointments process.
Those were just my questions. There were some excellent questions from MP Cooper around the five appointments that he made, whether or not he recalled any of them, and whether any of them were conflicted. He talked about the PCO appointments process.
I am sure some of my colleagues will come up with some other lists, but the member from the Bloc brought forward a new revelation. Amber Batool, a VP at SDTC, worked there for five years. When he was at CIBC, guess who starts working at CIBC in the investment banking area, where I believe he was? It's the same person who was working at SDTC. He claims to know nobody, and nothing that went on.
Time after time, when we asked about individual appointments, money, the reporting of his assistant deputy minister to him or whether or not he did a basic thing like make a phone call to a prospective chair of the fund, he didn't say, “I don't remember.” In most cases, he repeated his opening statement line of an open process and that people applied.
He totally ignored every single question that opposition parties asked. Unfortunately, we don't know if he ignored questions from the government members, because the government members didn't ask any.
That's why we have a breach of privilege. There has to be an attempt by the witness to actually answer the question, not repeat a line that's been written for him and ignore the question totally in order to facilitate the further cover-up of the cover-up of these documents and the refusal of the government to turn over the documents to the House. They're clearly hiding things. They're clearly hiding more corruption.
This Liberal minister—and the current Liberal minister—started the process. The current minister has been asleep at the switch for 40 months and didn't do anything until it was made public in the media. He still hasn't done anything, really, because it's still SDTC. It just has three bureaucrats running it now, as opposed to Liberal board members.
He didn't answer any questions. He is obstructing the work of this committee and our study into the corruption of SDTC. We need to send a report to the Speaker for the House to deal with this breach of our privilege.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
I have a long list.
Mr. Erskine-Smith, you have the floor now.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Before I get to any kind of response, at the end of the day Mr. Bains said a couple of times, “I don't recall,” as an answer. Mr. Perkins just glided by that as if it wasn't a sufficient answer, when it was eight years ago. Of course it is an answer. He might not like it, but it's an answer. We don't have to be children about it. That's an obvious answer.
The second part of this, Chair, is you said he may well come back. This is premature and then some.
Mr. Chair, you said it's based on precedent. What's the precedent? Walk us through it. You have a witness who isn't even done with their testimony yet and there's a privilege motion.
I would love to hear from the clerk. I would love to hear from you. Walk me through why you ruled that this is an acceptable privilege motion. What's the precedent? This is a terrible precedent to set.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Erskine-Smith, at this point I'm not part of the debate, so—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
No.
What's the precedent? You said there's a precedent, so what's the precedent?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Most recently, in January, there was a ruling that involved Mr. Firth and his unwillingness to answer questions. That's all I'm going to say, because I'm not part of the debate.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Can I raise a point of order on this, Chair?
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
That's the precedent you're pointing to, Chair. That is laughable. That's an absolute joke.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Drouin, wait just one second.
If you have a point of order, you need to say, “Point of order.” Otherwise, I assume you're looking to speak to the motion. I didn't.... I'm sorry.
Mr. Drouin is first, and then I'll recognize you, Mr. Genuis.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
As much as I appreciate that there are six members of the Conservative Party on the other side, there has to be some form of decorum. I believe if you look at the book....
I still don't know whether or not Mr. Genuis was actually subbed in. I will refer you to chapter 20 of Bosc and Gagnon, which reads:
When Members serve on subcommittees or as substitutes for regular members, they enjoy all the rights of regular members: they are counted for purposes of a quorum; they may participate in debate; they may move motions and vote; and, if required, they may submit a notice of motion.
To this hour and minute, I still do not know. I'm looking at Mr. Nater. I'm looking at Mr. Perkins. I'm looking at Mr. Cooper. I'm looking at Mr. Brock. I'm looking at Mr. Stewart. I'm now looking at Mr. Genuis. It does not reflect the decorum of this particular committee.
Conservative
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Again, I'll refer you to chapter 20. I would like a ruling on that, and I would like to know whether or not Mr. Genuis has actually been subbed in.
Pardon my French.
I'd like to know whether he was brought in to the committee as a substitute.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
The Standing Orders are clear on this matter. I refer the members to Standing Order 119, which reads:
Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
Any member can participate. It's very clear in Standing Order 119. That's how we govern ourselves.
This has been debated in other committees. It's been dealt with. It's in the Standing Orders, Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
All right. I'll just bring 157 members here. If you guys want to play ball, we'll play ball.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Drouin, those are the Standing Orders that we govern ourselves by. It is why, occasionally, we have Green Party members who come to this committee and—