Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll double-check and tell you what I have experienced. I will then turn to the clerk to ratify this approach.

In the past, the committee itself has adopted this approach. Committees, of course, are masters of their domain. We have both the privilege and the right, through unanimous consent—that would be all of us—to replace the motion. Mr. Perkins cannot just withdraw his motion. This is a way we found that expedites the process to undo what has been done and replace it with what Mr. Desjarlais is proposing here. I mentioned this to the clerk. I'm going to make sure that I am correct about that. This is meant to move us forward together.

Wait one second.

I'll answer Ms. Khalid.

Yes, with unanimous consent, without opposition, we can replace Mr. Perkins' motion with the motion Mr. Desjarlais put forward. Then we can speak to it as well.

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

Just so I'm clear, we're replacing a question of privilege motion with another question of privilege motion.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

No. It's unanimous consent.

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

That's the ultimate impact of what we're doing: We would replace one question of privilege motion with another question of privilege.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, it would, with the caveat that the minister would come back, so the short answer is yes.

[An hon. member]

That's what it says.

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

That's not what it says at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Why don't we suspend for another five minutes?

Members can.... There's some reluctance here.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

What's the question?

You have, like, a hundred people here.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On a point of order, are we sitting or suspended, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I will suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let's bring this meeting back to order.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Desjarlais to speak to his unanimous consent motion. I'll hear a few points of order and then I'll have to call the vote.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's the government's opinion. With the government members, my Liberal colleagues, we found difficulty trying to get unanimous consent on this, which is a very large offer for what Canadians expect. People—

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

No, they don't.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Now they're laughing because they don't take this issue seriously. Ms. Khalid and Mr. Drouin do not take this issue seriously. It's clear to me that they don't, which is very disappointing.

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

I take it very seriously.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

She's still heckling, even though she asks everyone else—

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

I'm going to shut up.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I'm trying to be very reasonable. I even went to Ms. Khalid and Mr. Drouin, Liberal members, with an offer in order to try to bridge the gap, which I mentioned before.

Please recognize that the Conservative member, Mr. Perkins, is claiming a breach of privilege. He's one of our colleagues. I'm saying I sympathize with that, because as an MP, I wasn't even able to answer. He wasn't able to answer. I had one round. He couldn't answer the question. If Mr. Drouin or Ms. Khalid had that happen to them, then maybe this would be taken more seriously.

I'm going to ask one more time: What can we do to get unanimous consent on these two positions, one being the fact that Mr. Bains is failing to answer questions in the committee? I believe the most reasonable step forward is to invite Mr. Bains back to this committee for two hours, have him speak to our questions and hopefully answer our questions. If he doesn't answer our questions, as in what happened today, then Mr. Perkins' privilege motion will then continue.

I really think that if we can't come to a conclusion on this and if we can't get to a compromise in exchange for whatever opinion the Liberals have, it's not going to work. It's going to jeopardize the opportunity for co-operation.

The Liberals just finished having a giant filibuster about how they want to co-operate and how hard all this is, calling us a big coalition, because for some reason no one's listening to them, even though I've put directly into this unanimous consent motion some of the requirements and some of the issues the Liberals want.

This is a democracy. You can't just get everything you want just because you want it. You have to work with other people. You have to learn to work with other people. This is why so many issues are present. It's because of this very narrow approach by Liberals to have this extreme level of caution and risk, even when dealing with serious matters raised by the Auditor General.

Forgive me, Chair, if my frustration is demonstrated at this moment, because it is a very earnest, honest proposition that I'm making here. He has 14 days to come to this committee and answer questions for two hours, and to the Liberals' point—even to Mr. Erskine-Smith's point about how the Speaker is just going to dismiss this anyway—what better evidence is there to dismiss a privilege motion like this if Mr. Bains comes back to the committee for two hours?

Please. Canadians really need us to maybe put our egos aside for a second and just come to a realization that it is the right of parliamentarians to ask questions and get answers. I'm offering Mr. Bains an opportunity, which is what the Liberals want, to not refer this to the House until such time that Mr. Bains is given an opportunity to come back to the committee and answer the questions, and then this will all be over.

There needs to be at least some semblance of trust. I hope that my goodwill here can demonstrate that if 14 days go by and Mr. Bains is present here and he answers all of our questions, you would know where I stand on this.

The alternative, of course, is we dispose of my intervention and just toss away the opportunity of consensus we've come to now and move forward with what I perceive.... I'd be forced to have to vote with Mr. Perkins, because he's raising a credible issue that I have experienced in this committee.

I understand what he's saying when I get one round to ask one question of the former minister responsible for SDTC, after the Auditor General has found credible governance issues and a lack of public stewardship. I read that at the beginning of my question.

Who's not taking this seriously? I begin to question that.

Please, let's put our egos aside—particularly my Liberal colleagues. I understand what you're saying when you say you're scared of Mr. Bains being referred to the House and being admonished. That's not going to happen—

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

Not at all.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Now they are trying to interject again.

Ms. Khalid, please, I've spent three hours listening to you. I'm asking for five minutes. I can't believe how quickly you've dismissed this opportunity for co-operation, Ms. Khalid and Mr. Drouin. Instead, you're angry. You're still mumbling under your breath because it's frustrating for you. I get that. I want you to know I understand that.

Now you're having a conversation. Sure.

Please understand that if you want this to go away, Mr. Bains must come back to this committee. That's what I'm offering.

Your attitude right now is so disappointing to me. You're taking such an aggressive approach avoid your colleagues questioning the former minister of SDTC. If this were the other way around and the Conservatives were in government, I'm certain you'd be questioning the same things. You'd even be asking why we can't summon Harper.

Please have some consideration for the fact that multiple opinions matter here. The truth matters here. We can get to some of that truth by inviting the former minister of SDTC. I have questions for him. I have six questions. I was only able to ask one. I think it's only reasonable that I get an opportunity to ask him the remainder of my questions for two hours here.

I recognize the Liberals' concern about reporting this to the House before the opportunity is presented to Mr. Bains. I'm telling you that I understand that. That's why the motion is written the way it is. It's so that we can get support from our Conservative colleagues, who do not trust that Mr. Bains has given them good answers. That is a breach of privilege and should be referred to the House, but until that issue is more credibly established, which I don't necessarily believe has happened.... If that's our only option and the Liberals are telling me my only option is to just say to Mr. Bains that he is free to go and we don't have any more questions, that's not the truth either. We're between a rock and a hard place.

As a member of this committee, either I'm supposed to accept that Canadians are never, ever going to get their answers to my questions, or there will be this giant sword that will force me to admonish him. I don't agree with either of the positions that either of the major parties have, which is why I'm suggesting we can come to a compromise. I really hope that's enough to motivate my Liberal colleagues.

The most important piece in Mr. Erskine-Smith's point is that even if we vote on a breach of privilege and this goes to the Speaker, he may dismiss it, so what better evidence is there to dismiss that than having Mr. Bains come here and answer our questions? That is the most reasonable path forward. It may be the only path forward.

I really implore my colleagues, particularly my Liberal colleagues, to set aside the deep partisan selfishness, which is what I think my Conservative colleagues have done here in order to give an opportunity to Mr. Bains. I'm sorry that this is frustrating for members here. I know it sucks to not always get what you want, but you have to learn to work together.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

In a moment I'll look for points of order, comments or queries on this.

As I try to guide this discussion and find resolution, I will point out two items.

Mr. Desjarlais has proven himself on this committee. His word has been trustworthy. I've found that to be the case, which is why I think I work well with him. He stands behind what he says.

This is important for two reasons. He raises the point that not only is there the threshold that he has—and again, Mr. Desjarlais won't be looking for the answers he wants to hear—but that he'll be looking for answers that he views as being credible. We don't often hear the answers we want to hear, but we do judge witnesses by how they answer, the words they use and their general posture. While witnesses might not always be forthcoming for some reason—maybe they don't remember—you do get a sense of that. I think Mr. Mr. Desjarlais often judges that as he questions witnesses.

The other thing—and I think this is a very valid point that he raises—is that should Mr. Bains come forward here and, let's say, Mr. Desjarlais was subbed out for someone who might not have his view, then the Speaker would then have a very strong case to say there's nothing here.

I think Mr. Desjarlais has made some very good points, but that's just me trying to guide this to a resolution.

Like many of you, I've been in committees in which filibusters have gone on for days. I hope that won't happen here. This does buy some time, I think, for the committee to bring back Mr. Bains and to hear from him in hopefully a more forthcoming and credible manner.

I'll look for some points of order, which is a bit unconventional—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Maybe it's more of a point of clarification. I appreciate what Blake's trying to do. I agree that if the goal is to have Mr. Bains attend again within 14 days for one to two hours—I couldn't care less, but two hours—and then determine after those two hours whether his answers are sufficient and whether we're going to go around this merry-go-round again in terms of a privilege motion, I'm actually perfectly okay with that. However, there are a couple problems with the motion, as I see it, if we're going to get to that goal.

Number one is that it speaks the language of prevarication, which is to lie, to deliberately mislead or avoid the truth. That is pejorative in a motion like this when we're stipulating that he lied while attending today, which I think is inappropriate if we're trying to find some consensus.

The second part is that it says the committee would not report back to the House if the “committee agrees that he has answered the questions to its satisfaction”.

Here is the point of clarification that I genuinely don't know the answer to.

How do we determine that? Is it another full conversation like this, and there's a vote? Is it as long not one member says it's not to their satisfaction? Chair, you just said “credible”. “Credible” and “satisfactory” are two different things.

Again, if the goal is to bring Mr. Bains back within 14 days, have him answer questions for another two hours—although that's over and above the original two-hour allotment that we were getting, but fine—it would make more sense to me that we would simply agree to revisit the question of a privilege motion after the fact. We would have this full debate all over again, as opposed to trying to wordsmith a motion to say whether it's not to our satisfaction.

Could someone clarify for me what it means for it not to be to the committee's satisfaction? Is that a vote that we would take? Is that a number of members?

Can someone clarify that for me? Maybe we're closer on this than I think.