Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll speak to that briefly, Mr. Erskine-Smith, and then I'll turn things over to Mr. Drouin.

Don't just measure it from the official opposition. When you have all three opposition parties lined up, that's a signal that perhaps trust has been broken. I appreciate what you're saying, but I think, given this and previous interactions with Mr. Bains, that trust is broken. I think that's why we are where we are.

Your solution might have been worthwhile if we'd had this discussion a month ago or two months ago, but I watch these members to my left, and when they're all singing from the same songbook, that tells me something, and I think it tells the room something as well.

I'll turn to Mr. Drouin now. He has the floor.

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

I didn't necessarily have something else to say. I had a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I was just trying to be helpful in guiding it. I appreciate what he's saying, but I think it's clear that the Rubicon has been crossed.

Mr. Drouin, go ahead.

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

My issue is that we're putting the cart before the horse.

Clearly, from previous testimony, I've heard opposition members say that I don't believe you or I don't trust you or I don't believe the answers that we are given, but they don't have the evidence to suggest why they're not believing what the witness is saying. That is my issue. They have made some claims that Mr. Bains is not answering questions or they don't believe what he's saying, but I have failed to get any documentation to prove the point.

Now, as a committee, without having the full story of SDTC, we are going to make a decision as to whether or not Mr. Bains' testimony was truthful. Let's understand that the minister flies at 10,000 feet, but SDTC is at arm's length, not even close to the minister's office. We've heard that from multiple testimonies. The minister's office is not involved in the decision-making at SDTC. The only relationship that ISED has with SDTC is the contribution agreement that they've signed. That's it.

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

I guess you don't [Inaudible—Editor].

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

Actually, I do, Mr. Perkins. I made a living out of it.

The contribution agreement was breached. It was breached by SDTC. That we agree on. There is currently a review by a third party to analyze all—

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

This is not related to the privilege motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Order.

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

I call relevance. This is not related to the privilege motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Order.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

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

I want to thank Mr. Perkins. There's coffee over there if he's tired.

We're still ready to go, because we don't necessarily agree with the way that this has been presented before this committee.

I salute what Mr. Desjarlais has tried to do in trying to rally us, but it fails to get to the bottom of what we are trying to do. It was another question of privilege. We certainly don't agree that Mr. Bains' testimony was somehow not truthful to this committee.

I'll go back to why I say that. No one in the opposition has provided evidence to this committee as to why his testimony was not truthful, none of you, and if we are to make accusations that witnesses who come before this committee are not being truthful, then surely to God I would hope that those who are making those accusations would have evidence to provide to this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Hold on one second, Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Perkins, do you have a point of order?

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

My point of order is that he's referencing comments that have never been made by the members of this side, the entire opposition.

We've had provocation and unwillingness to answer questions. That's what we said. He should stick to the language instead of making stuff up.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll nudge you back.

I don't think the issue is truthfulness. I think it's more evasiveness and an unwillingness to answer questions.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

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

Again, Mr. Chair, I would challenge all members of Parliament to give me a date and an exact time of who they met exactly five years ago on October 9. Who did they meet exactly then, right at this committee? They don't know, obviously, and that's the type of question they're asking former Minister Bains.

We know for a fact that the minister's office was not involved in day-to-day operations, yet they still want to make that link, even though there's absolutely no evidence tracing SDTC all the way up to the minister's office. There's no evidence. The Auditor General report does not mention that at all. Nobody has mentioned that.

Now we're trying to bring to the cleaner a now private citizen who has served this country honourably. Are we trying to say that he was corrupt? That's the language the other side is using. Are they trying to say he's corrupt? Come on, guys—let's be reasonable.

I would have no issues—I think my colleague, Ms. Khalid, has referred to that—with inviting Mr. Bains back to the committee or having him respond to the questions that somehow some members of Parliament did not get the same time to ask, although we all get the same time to ask them. There are various ways they can do that.

It's now almost 9:30 p.m., and I think we're going around in circles. For our part, we don't agree that this is a question of privilege before we've even had a chance to fully question the witness, even though he may have been asked questions in another committee. I think we're going around in circles here.

I don't know what the way out is to resolve this, Mr. Chair, but if—

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

Then stop talking. That's what I'm talking about.

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

Yes, but it's because you immediately move a motion to say that this is a question of privilege, but at the same time, you say that you didn't have enough time to ask the witness questions. It doesn't make sense. Either we've had enough time to ask questions and determined that we didn't have enough time to answer questions, or we've had enough time to answer questions and we don't trust what the witness said. That's the question. That's your motion, Mr. Perkins. As long as you don't withdraw your motion, I'm definitely going to oppose it.

I think everyone has the right to a trial or the right to come and speak or testify before the committee. We can't immediately judge the situation and say that we don't trust what the former minister said or that he was evasive. You're asking specific questions about things he has nothing to do with. It's quite normal for him not to have an answer. If you ask me what's going on in the Ontario government, I'll definitely tell you that I have no idea and that I'll be evasive, since I'm not part of the Ontario government. That's what the minister is saying: He wasn't involved in the day-to-day decision-making about SDTC.

Even before I would entertain a question of privilege as to how this committee determines whether or not a witness is being truthful or evasive on certain questions, we should have a discussion on setting criteria. What are the criteria for us to determine that? Who makes those decisions? I don't have a framework to determine whether or not a witness is being truthful or evasive. We haven't established the framework.

I mean, the rationale—

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

If asked if the sky is blue, you'd say “Let's talk about this”, and that's not being evasive.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Order, Mr. Perkins.

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

There's coffee over there, Mr. Perkins, if you want it. I'm just saying.

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

I don't need coffee. I have a lot of energy and I can't put up with inanities.

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

Well, Mr. Perkins, I have to put up with your shenanigans in the House and I smile when you speak and I respect you, so you have to put up with my shenanigans once in a while. All I'm trying to say is....

My colleague Ms. Khalid is right. We've gone from zero to 100. We know the motion was pre-written before the questioning was over. We know that and we've established that, so I'm trying to know the intent of the official opposition and whether they would speak to it and I'm trying to understand what exactly they want to hear from the former minister. What do they want him to say?

Obviously, they want him to say, “Yes, I was involved. Yes, I was part of the decision-making every day that I was there.” The simple answer is that he wasn't.

I know that you're trying to make these Liberal ties and all this—

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

I want him to say, “Yes, I phoned her”—

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

—and it's not fitting your narrative.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Perkins—