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.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do want to point out that my opposition colleagues had some objections to certain words I'm using. I will point out that a member of this committee has—
Conservative
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I don't mind you guys talking. Just take it outside. It's all good.
I was just accused of using certain words that might inflate certain reactions. I just want to inform you, Mr. Chair, that certain words are often used at this committee. For example, Mr. Cooper has characterized the conduct of a minister as “corrupt”. We often hear “corrupt”. Well, corruption is a criminal offence, so none of us can determine whether or not someone is corrupt until there is due process.
On that due process, I will get back to the letter from the commissioner, who has informed us that there is “significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes—
Conservative
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
The relevancy is that our getting to the bottom and continuing to ask other witnesses to come before us to testify on SDTC may actually impede the investigation that the RCMP may be doing—
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Drouin, not only does that not address the motion, but the broader question you're suggesting is that the committee not have the hearings that this committee passed in motions, many of them with support from all parties.
I suspect that's not what you're saying, but I don't see how that responds to the motion that is before us now on referring this to the House. Of course, you're welcome to argue that it's not valid, but this is not an order for production of documents or about a police investigation. This is about a motion before us that is quite specific.
I would ask you to speak to that, please.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, the point is that the actions we do today may impact the very same investigations that the RCMP has warned us about. That is the whole point.
If the chair or the members of the opposition cannot understand that, I'll repeat it in French, because I think it's important.
Essentially, we're calling into question the relevance of knowing whether a witness said what opposition members wanted to hear. Questions continue to be asked when everyone knows full well…. I too would like to know what's happening.
We know there was wrongdoing, we don't deny that. The problem is that opposition members are trying to draw connections with everything they've got. They're trying to draw a connection with a Liberal with a viewpoint from 30,000 feet up—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I have a point of order on the relevance to witness Bains' testimony.
This is rambling about generalities. If he can't speak to the motion, I think we should move to the next person on the speaking list.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
On that same point of order, Chair, with respect to relevance—and I'm hoping you will rule on this—we've been here for a couple of hours over time and Mr. Drouin is raising very valid points—
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Again, it goes to the whole point of this motion and what Mr. Perkins thinks is irrelevant.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I’d like to thank my dear colleague Mr. Perkins for allowing me to pause every three seconds while he interrupts me. I know he doesn’t like to hear it, but the problem is that a witness’s testimony is being called into question. We know full well that Mr. Perkins didn’t question the testimony of that witness when he appeared before the other committee.
Mr. Chair, the RCMP wrote to you and made it clear that the continued attempts to try to manipulate testimony to this committee, as they’re trying to do with Mr. Bains, who already appeared four or five months ago, may have repercussions on its investigation.
So I ask my colleagues, are they serious or not? Three weeks ago, they already wanted an election to be called. I know they’re not serious about this. Mr. Bains came here in good faith. He’s a private citizen who has no connection with SDTC other than the fact that, when he was minister, he signed the contribution agreement. He has, however, never taken part in SDTC’s day-to-day decisions. This is a fact, but one that they refuse to hear. The witness has repeatedly tried to explain that, not only to this committee, but also to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.
I don’t know whether it’s because the opposition needed a break over the summer, but no question of privilege was raised, even though Mr. Bains gave the same testimony he is giving here today, with many interruptions from opposition members. It didn’t seem important to raise this question of privilege. My colleague Ms. Khalid defined the problem quite well: It has nothing to do with a question of privilege. It’s simply a matter of giving the official opposition another opportunity to ensure all work at the House grinds to a halt.
I was elected in September 2021 to work here, not to filibuster. I was elected to represent my fellow citizens. Multiple reports have been submitted by the Auditor General and we seem to be at a standstill due to one report. We know full well that there have been other studies by other committees. Right now, we’re wondering whether a witness gave the answers the opposition wanted to hear. It’s not a question of privilege.
This is appalling. If we had done this before June, I could have understood. I fully agree with the official opposition for inviting Mr. Bains to appear before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. However, since all committee members received the letter from the RCMP Commissioner, which we have here today, everyone knows full well that what we’re doing may impact the RCMP investigation.
If we really want to look at this issue, we have to take a different approach. Whether we agree with Mr. Bain’s testimony or not, it’s not up to us to judge. Mr. Bains accepted the order and came to testify before committee, but the opposition members decided to interrupt him because he wasn’t saying what they wanted to hear. They had heard the same thing in June, but since then, the RCMP Commissioner has written to this committee and made it clear to committee members that what they were doing was potentially impacting the RCMP investigation. I have a problem with what the opposition is doing.
This isn’t a banana republic. Wake up.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
On two occasions, Quebec said it wanted to remain in Canada. It’s time to move on.
These institutions are being treated as if this were a banana republic. There’s no awareness of the fact that our actions may impact one or more investigations. The committee’s actions can have consequences, and that’s unacceptable.
Conservative
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I know Mr. Perkins doesn't like to hear the truth, but at some point, he needs to listen, to hear what's happening here, to hear what the RCMP is telling him, to hear what the Auditor General is telling him, and perhaps, at some point, he'll catch on.
Currently, we may be influencing an investigation that the official opposition has been complaining about for months. For the past week and a half, it's been totally obstructing the business of the House.
