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
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm following the discussion on the motion put forward by my colleague, Mr. Perkins, here, who is out to raise a point of privilege. At the same time, members of all stripes on the other side of the House have used public funds to attend partisan conventions. Whether it's members of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP or the Conservative Party, they're all the same. We put an end to that practice in 2014.
When I hear the members on the other side of the House talk about transparency and the importance of spending public funds properly—
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Please do. I'll remind you that your entire caucus visited St. Andrews in my riding just two short years ago.
Conservative
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
You're quite right. We visited your riding, but it was for a caucus, and not for a partisan convention. That's the difference, Mr. Chair, and you didn't really understand that. You want to be in power and to govern, but you don't even understand the rules of the House, Mr. Chair. I find that problematic.
On the other side of the table, people are talking about—
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Exactly, you're on a pedestal. You're promoting the fact that it's important to ensure transparency and to invite witnesses to appear before our committee. You're saying that taxpayers' money needs to be spent properly.
You're in the opposition, you aren't even capable of spending public funds for which House rules exist and yet here you are, accusing us of that. It's clear that people at SDTC made mistakes. However, jumping from that to going after his aunt and his uncle just doesn't fly.
Mr. Bains has come here, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone were to ask him who consulted him about coming before committee. Was it his aunt or his uncle? Will we then start inviting his aunt and his uncle and everyone else to committee? It makes no sense. It has to stop.
The Auditor General of Canada published a report. The firm Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton published an excellent report, and McCarthy Tétrault wrote another. That's three reports. When will it end?
There's no longer any connection to what's happening here. The proof is that the Leader of the Oppositionis circulating fake petitions, and inviting people to sign them. I see that people are being redirected to a partisan website, a Conservative Party website. Yet he points fingers at others.
My colleague Mr. Erskine‑Smith is quite right. If it's determined that the issue before us is a question of privilege, it means that the testimony of all the witnesses who've appeared before us will be called into question. They'll say it's a question of privilege. For example, there are people who believe in climate change and those who don't. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP believe in climate change. Those on the other side of the table aren't convinced. The testimony of people who appeared before us will be called into question just by saying that it's a question of privilege. It makes no sense.
I come back to what Ms. Khalid and Ms. Bradford said, that all this was done to hold things up and filibuster in the House of Commons. I'd like to tell the Conservatives that there's already filibustering going on. They're filibustering their own motion. It makes no sense.
Can we treat the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with respect? Are we able to focus on concerns that really affect Canadians and Quebeckers? Take, for example, the whole issue of cybercrime. The Auditor General of Canada has issued a report on the subject. Right now, because we're in a hurry to do endless investigations, we're not looking at other issues that are much more important to seniors.
Is the Bloc Québécois, which defends seniors in the House day after day, telling me that seniors aren't important here in committee? Is it saying that we shouldn't look at the Auditor General's report on cybercrime, knowing that the majority of victims are seniors?
No, there'll be more and more inquiries. People will say that the witnesses who appear before us are no longer credible. It makes no sense.
I would invite my colleagues in the Conservative Party to tell us, in all transparency, how much money they have raised by talking about this subject. Apparently, they don't have enough yet, because they want to keep talking about it. But they don't want to talk about other concerns that are more important to Canadians and Quebeckers. I just mentioned an excellent example.
I'd like to come back to the point raised by Mr. Erskine‑Smith. It's the whole question of the precedent we're setting. If we don't agree with what a witness says before committee, we're going to start saying that it's a question of privilege.
I can see that the opposition parties aren't willing to work to advance issues that are important to Canadians. Some want to gather more names for partisan reasons. People are being asked to give their name, address and phone number and are told that their concerns will be addressed.
What are the other parties doing? They are complicit. Mr. Pierre Poilievre, Mr. Yves-François Blanchet and Mr. Jagmeet Singh form a coalition. They're all guilty of working together. Mr. Poilievre must be so popular in Quebec that I have no doubt the Bloc Québécois is proud to defend him. The Bloc Québécois members are toeing the Conservative Party line, and I don't understand why. NDP members are in the same boat; they're toeing the Conservative Party line, and I don't understand why. I don't know what's happening on the other side of the House, but there seems to be a new coalition comprising the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. Mr. Perkins can say whatever he likes, but there was no problem when he was appointed to a board by a Conservative. No Liberals were appointed.
It's no secret, Mr. Perkins, that you and your colleagues are the best of friends when it comes to making donations. You made donations, just like the chair of the board of directors. You're in the same boat. You didn't give one dollar or two dollars or three dollars, you gave $1,600 to a candidate running for leadership of your party. You're guilty. You're in the same boat. Now you're trying to paint us into a corner with this, and I don't agree. The new minister, Mr. François-Philippe Champagne and Mr. Navdeep Bain have nothing to do with this, and you know that full well.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Pardon me, Monsieur Drouin. I'll come back to you.
On a point of order, I have Mr. Perkins.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
He's doing the same thing that Liberal appointees have done. Liberal appointees have stolen $400 million.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Perkins, that does not give you the right of reply on the spot. If you'd like to raise your hand, I'll put you down.
Monsieur Drouin, you have the floor.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I sense that people feel passionate about this issue, even at this hour.
If people have stolen money, we need to let the RCMP do its job. Let the RCMP conduct its own investigation. If there are guilty parties, they should be brought before a judge and put in jail. I have no problem with that.
The problem is that this is a wild goose chase, so to speak. It's a wild goose chase and Mr. Bains is the target. They're doing the same thing to Minister Champagne, despite knowing full well that he's viewing all this from 20,000 feet in the air and that he doesn't see these details. The problem I have with this is that the opposition has heard the arguments loud and clear.
This week, a board member was even asked about things that didn't happen. She was asked what she was going to do. Can we let the board see the report before making a decision? That would be the rational thing to do, but that's not what we're doing. Accusations are being made. We want to sully the reputation of people who have nothing to do with this. The goal is to add more names to the Conservative Party database and to raise even more money. We've heard it—
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as thrilled as I am to be sitting in committee at 6:52, listening to this wonderful tale told by my colleague, he's repeated himself numerous times. You know the rules and he knows the rules on original thought. He's running out the clock and repeating the same talking lines.