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
I had Ms. Bradford and....
Ms. Khalid, you kind of yielded your spot. Would you like to speak now?
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Chair, I was just wondering who is on the list currently.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I have Ms. Khalid, Ms. Bradford, Mr. Erskine-Smith, Mr. Desjarlais and Mr. Genuis.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Chair, I'm sure this is unconventional, but would it be viable for me to yield my time to Mr. Desjarlais and then perhaps come back after him?
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues.
Wow. I haven't seen such a thing in a long time in this public accounts committee. I think there are a few of us who are original members of our 44th Parliament on this committee, and we remember that we were able to do quite a substantial amount of work. Our analysts remember this and our clerk, I'm sure. This has obviously become an impasse on a very serious issue and one I sympathize with in both cases.
To Mr. Perkins, I understand the very relevant frustration you deeply feel with the fact that Mr. Bains has failed to answer questions whether in INDU, the other committee that was mentioned, or here. I feel that frustration as well. It was very obvious to me that we had a very limited amount of time. That's a concern that, I'm sure the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc can all agree on. The limited time obviously frustrates our ability to understand the testimony of Mr. Bains. I also agree that it's extraordinary to report this to the House.
There has to be some position, if we are to be adults in the room and if we want to take this issue very seriously. I take it very seriously. I think Canadians do. They want to know that they don't have to suffer through Mr. Drouin's continuous conversation, blaming and trying to find every which way to assume someone's character. I'll forgive him for that, because I'm sure he's obviously frustrated with this as well.
It's the same with Ms. Khalid. I'm sure you're both very frustrated with this circumstance. It's unfortunate, and you're just doing your jobs. I get it. The Conservatives, I understand, are just doing their job as well, but we have to find a way to get to a place where we can all agree that Mr. Bains must testify to the questions that are still outstanding.
That's the most credible point I've heard in this very long, exacerbated debate this evening about privilege. I do think that there's a way we can find accommodation if our colleagues are interested. We may entertain the idea that we resummon Mr. Bains and bring him back to this committee. To the Conservatives' point—because I understand that trust is largely broken, and I would agree with it—maybe we can bring him back, and if at that time he doesn't answer the questions, then we can refer this under this motion to the House.
I think that's a reasonable process and a reasonable step to take, because I certainly couldn't get through all my questions and that frustrates me. I had one round. I even mentioned that I could only get one round of questions in, and I wasn't able to get the substantial answers that I was hoping for.
I want to be able to balance these two obviously important facts.
Yes, the Conservatives are right. To my Liberal colleagues, they are right when they're saying that their questions aren't being answered, because my questions weren't answered either. I get that. It's brutal that we can't get to the the bottom of what is a real issue of accountability, which was present to the Auditor General. I read from the Auditor General's report questions to him that he wouldn't answer.
I also understand what the Liberals are saying. One hour of discussion should not end up being referred to the House as something to admonish the guy—which is something that's only been done twice in Canadian history and is an extraordinary process—because of the fact that there's an election coming up and there's a desire to see polarization. I get that. I'm a politician too. I understand partisanship.
What I don't like is when that partisanship gets so extreme that the truth is going to be confiscated for everyone. The truth will be gone for everyone here, as will the opportunity for Canadians to get down to the bottom of this issue and to understand SDTC and Minister Bains, who was the minister responsible at that time, and how this all happened. I think most Canadians believe that politicians are reasonable people if given the opportunity to see each other's points of view.
I'd ask my colleagues if there is a way we can come to a consensus on this. I propose that perhaps Mr. Perkins amend his privilege motion to include an opportunity to invite Mr. Bains back under very serious consequences if he fails, as he did today, to give us the answers and the appropriate amount of time we need as parliamentarians to get to the bottom of this very serious issue that is present to Canadians.
We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. We're talking about a report from the Auditor General that I'm interested in getting to the bottom of, which is why I've entertained this discussion for as long as I have. I want to understand deeply the concerns that all of my colleagues have.
I've heard, I think, an exhaustive list of these concerns, and I think that we can all get to what we want here. I want fiscal accountability and transparency and I want answers that are present to the Auditor General and present to Canadians. That deserves to happen. However, I also don't want to lose sight of the goal here, which is to have answers, instead of becoming a very partisan arena where we would lose all of the opportunity to get that information. Therefore, I'm inclined to suggest that we do a process here, one in which everybody still gets what they need—Mr. Perkins will get what he needs—under the circumstance of inviting Mr. Bains back here.
We can invite him back here, Mr. Chair, for two hours, a full meeting. I am disappointed that he only came for one hour. I find that frustrating and an issue for me. I have at least six more questions, and you know that as an NDP member here, I only get two minutes afterwards, so one round isn't going to be enough for me. It's not going to be enough for the New Democrats, who feel that we have a unique perspective on this issue because we take financial accountability seriously, regardless of who is in government. We need to get system answers on this. Mr. Bains is a subject to this work, this investigation and this study. He should come back. Let's invite him back.
With regard to Mr. Perkins' point and to my Conservative colleagues' point, I agree with their frustration because it's true that they've asked good questions and haven't had good answers. What we can do here, if we can come to unanimous consent, is invite Mr. Bains back. We've done this before. You might remember, Mr. Chair, that we've done this before. We've said to witnesses that if you don't come at a reasonable time, spend the necessary amount of time and answer our questions, we will report this to the House, and we'll use the powers that we have to get the answers that we must have.
I think that's what Canadians expect. I think Canadians largely want that. They don't want to have to suffer through what the Liberals have been doing here in this large filibuster, blaming everybody, saying, “Oh, the Bloc Québécois are evil. The New Democrats are evil. You're all evil,” as Mr. Drouin has suggested over and over.
I hope that is a reasonable path forward that we can take, Mr. Chair. I would seek your will to see that convention practised and to take the step necessary to invite him back, and that if he doesn't come, we send a strongly worded letter that suggests that if he doesn't come, we will do this.
Liberal colleagues, you must agree that if we give you this opportunity to support Mr. Bains' coming back to this place and if he does again fail to give us the answers necessary, it would be incumbent upon you to vote in favour of this breach of privilege motion, because that would be the right thing to do, given this opportunity. I think it's fair and just, and I think it's a reasonable position for all of us.
The alternative, of course, is that we continue on with the Liberal filibuster and get no answers at all. That doesn't serve anyone, other than partisan interests.
I suggest that solution, Mr. Chair, and I hope that my colleagues can understand where I'm coming from on this and can see it as an offer of goodwill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I want to see if there's any goodwill on this. Usually that happens, as you know, off-line, so I'm going to suspend for about five minutes, please. Then we'll come right back here.
This meeting is suspended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I'll bring this meeting back to order.
I'm going to recognize Mr. Desjarlais once again. I'll give him a few more seconds.
You have the floor, sir.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your grace.
I also appreciate our ability to take the time necessary to come to a position where we can best reflect the desire of Canadians, which is to ensure that Mr. Bains is present for this committee and answers the questions presented by all members, including my colleague Mr. Perkins, who made a very credible point of privilege. I think this is a very fair and balanced approach.
To my Liberal colleagues, I believe your requirement is satisfied within this agreement as well. It dispenses, in some way or form, with the prior motion in exchange for this new motion, which I hope we can adopt by unanimous consent.
The clerk has a copy. I wish to read it into the record, if I may.
I move:
That the committee instruct the clerk and analysts to immediately prepare a report to the House, which the Chair shall table forthwith after 14 days have elapsed since the adoption of the motion, outlining the potential breach of privilege concerning Navdeep Bains' refusal to answer certain questions which the committee put to him and his prevarication in answering others, provided that the Chair will not report to the House if Mr. Bains returns to the committee within 14 days and the committee agrees that he has answered the questions to its satisfaction.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Desjarlais is seeking unanimous consent to replace the motion Mr. Perkins put forward with this motion.
Do I have unanimous consent to make that change? Then we can open debate on it.
Wait one second.
Before we hear comments, I need to seek UC. I could hear a point of order, but I'm the—
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
There you go. Why not?
Chair, I would like to see the language of this motion. I would also like to seek clarity on how privilege motions get replaced with other motions before I give UC for anything.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
The email has been sent to you with the wording. When you're ready....
Perhaps I wasn't clear. This motion Mr. Desjarlais is proposing effectively swaps the original motion Mr. Perkins tabled with this new language that provides a window of opportunity for Mr. Bains to come back for two hours.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Well, we can do it one of two ways.
We could adopt it by unanimous consent right now. I was taking the more gentle route whereby we replace it. Hopefully, if we get that, we'll get it afterwards.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I don't want to feel like I'm hitting out with a firehose and they won't have a chance to weigh in on the motion.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I would like to seek some clarity.
In my nine years as a member of Parliament, I've never seen any chair seeking UC to replace one motion with another. Do we need UC to procedurally withdraw the initial motion and then present a new one? I would seek clarity from the clerk on this, based on the green book and how things are done in Parliament.