Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 9th, 2024

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

If you had let me finish my thought, Chair, I would have said that yes, there have been a lot of points made by a lot of our colleagues today and, as I was saying, for fear of repeating myself—not just myself but members all across this table—to consolidate the arguments that have been made today with respect to this privilege motion, I'm sure that you can check Hansard records to see what those arguments are.

I'm now afraid to repeat myself because I'll get called out on it. I'm not trying to repeat myself. I'm trying to help our committee members understand why this privilege motion is a process to jam this committee, to jam the House of Commons, not for reasonable purposes but for nefarious purposes.

If it were a reasonable argument—

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

It's Standing Order 11(2).

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Perkins, for your interruption.

I'm sorry; I'm not sure what Standing Order this gentleman is referring to.

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

It's obvious. Standing Order 11(2) is the one that says that you cannot do repetition.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

You're just blabbering that stuff out. Are you calling a point of order? You have to say “point of order”. That's also in the Standing Orders—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Our colleague Ms. Khalid has the floor.

We're back to you, please.

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

Thank you very much.

If Mr. Perkins has contributions to make to this very valuable debate, I'm sure he can raise his hand and get on the list that you're keeping, Chair.

The point that I was making, first, is that this motion is for nefarious purposes—jamming up this committee, jamming up the House of Commons.

Second, it is procedurally incorrect, I would say, because there are so many other options and other ways for this committee to be able to get to whatever answers it is looking for through written requests or through inviting the minister back again or through many other ways.

I'm not sure why Mr. Perkins is shrieking at me. I do like that word “shrieking”. It's a nice word.

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

On a point of order, this is repetition. It's Standing Order 11(2).

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That is a good point of order, and you cite it.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

On a point of order, if Mr. Perkins has evidence that there's repetition, then he can submit it and exactly cite the member of Parliament on repetition.

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

I will cite the repetition—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'd be happy to.... Maybe his memory is causing him some issues.

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

Would you like me to cite the repetition?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, thank you, Mr. Perkins. Ms. Khalid, you have the floor.

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

As I was saying, Chair, I just listed the reasons that I find this motion to be misplaced and nefarious in this committee.

I also want to point out that this motion does not lead to where members want this study to go. We have had numerous meetings on SDTC. Our objective here, collectively on this committee, is to make sure that this does not happen again and to find a way to recuperate funds that have been misappropriated in any way. If that's the ultimate objective of this committee, how does this motion get to where we want to go?

I argue, Mr. Chair—for the first time, in case Mr. Perkins wants to question me on that too—that this motion does not help us get to where we need to go.

I agree 100%. I think all members on this committee are united in saying that SDTC messed up. The minister acted. Now we're looking at what happens next through the transition phase and how to recoup funds. I don't see how creating a privilege challenge—not just in this committee, but in transferring it to the House of Commons to jam debates on all matters in the House—gets to the objective of what we're trying to do here as the public accounts committee.

When I first joined this committee, I did it with the knowledge and the understanding that all members of this committee are respectful, that they don't call other people liars and that they have a collective goal of making sure that taxpayer dollars are accounted for and spent reasonably. If not, then we, as a committee, have an obligation to raise the alarm. We work with the Auditor General and her reports and ensure that we are doing the good work that Canadians expect of us and have put trust in us to do in spending taxpayer dollars.

What are we doing? We're sitting here at 9.43 p.m., debating a privilege motion that is frivolous and unnecessary and has gone from zero to 100, without taking into account all of the discretion the chair has in getting to where committee members are trying to go. Our Liberal members on this side of the committee have not held up anything on this committee without reason. We continue to try to collaborate with our colleagues.

I still remember, Mr. Chair—Mr. McCauley is here—when we suspended the meeting for an hour while we all huddled together. We composed a motion and collaborated to put together language on a motion for a study that we all agreed to. We did that. We were able to do it because the cameras were off. There was no clickbait. There was no Rebel News coverage of whatever the opposition was trying to do. We were able to work together.

This motion is the exact opposite of where we started as a committee. We had the ability to collaborate with one another and we had the ability to get to the objectives of what we're actually doing here. For us to use procedure to jam things up and call people liars.... I understand and appreciate that shift and using the F7 key on your computer help you bring up a thesaurus, and you can use the thesaurus all day long. What—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Hold on, Ms. Khalid.

I assume that you're now talking about the witness and not one another.

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

No, I'm talking about the language of the motion, Chair.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Actually, it doesn't use “lie” or “liar”, and I'm just raising this point because I wasn't sure whether you were referring to a member calling another member the word that you used, but even the motion does not use that word.

You have the floor again.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Chair, on the point of order, just on that—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Regardless of whether she was referring to another member or not, we are debating the motion. I ask that we bring it back to relevant debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I believe it was referencing the motion. I just don't think it was quite accurate.

I turn things back over to you.

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

The motion uses the word “prevarication”, which, according to the dictionary, means “the deliberate act of deviating from the truth”, a.k.a. lying. When you put that in a privilege—

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

[Inaudible—Editor] that definition, Mr. Chair.