Thanks very much.
It is not at all apparent to me, given the testimony we heard and the high threshold for a breach of privilege and the weaponization of process we currently see in the House, why the compromise isn't to invite Mr. Bains back with a summons to appear for an additional two hours and to then reconsider the question of privilege, which I'm more than happy to do.
I would note that this is important, because we just went through this at the committee last week, when Mr. Ouimet was at the committee. Mr. Perkins was asking questions and said:
...in your statement to the Ethics Commissioner and in other board director testimony before this committee, we found that there was a process, I think, when you were about to consider an investment. The process was this. A few weeks beforehand, board members would get a list of investments that were being considered. Board members would let the—
—and he went on:
Were you, the board members, recusing yourselves or abstaining 82% of the time?
Mr. Ouimet said:
...allegations of conflict of interest were made against me last year. A detailed and complex investigation was completed by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. All these issues of administrative misconduct and recusals—
He was cut off at this point, and Mr. Perkins said:
Sorry, I have limited time, Mr. Ouimet.
That was not my question, Mr. Ouimet. I would appreciate that you stick to answering the question out of respect for members of Parliament.
My point is that based on that interaction, could we have had a privilege motion last week on that basis? Is this the threshold we are setting for breach of privilege motions at committee and in Parliament?
It is an absurdity to me. I appreciate the desire to find some consensus, but when people are actively acting in bad faith for partisan ends, you're not going to find unanimous consent on issues like this.
The reasonable path here is that I think we can find unanimous consent on asking Mr. Bains to come back and on summoning him back within 14 days for two hours. People can have at it and ask as many questions as they like. We can revisit a privilege motion if there is high-handed conduct by the witness in saying, “I'm refusing to answer questions,” and completely sidestep accountability. So be it; revisit it, but we are nowhere close to that after less than an hour of testimony, given the number of interruptions and interventions.
It is incredibly frustrating, especially given the weaponization of process in the House right now, that we can't find a path to simply ask Mr. Bains to come back and then reconsider this as a committee in a reasonable manner.