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
Ms. Khalid, the floor is yours. The chair is not required to answer why a meeting was called. We suspended in the middle of our debate. Resources did not permit me to go further last night. I picked it up at the earliest possibility.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'm not going to get clarification from the clerk or you on why you recalled the meeting without giving members notice.
Personally, I had half an hour's notice that this meeting was going to continue, but do you know what? I am more than happy to continue from where I left off last night. We had a five and a half hour long conversation about how this motion is actually not a privilege motion. I am more than happy to continue—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I have a point of order.
The chair has already ruled that it's a point of privilege, or we wouldn't be debating it. I would ask the member not to question the chair's ruling on that.
Conservative
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Look, I understand and appreciate the importance of the work that this committee does. I understand and appreciate why we do this work because, ultimately, we need to find accountability for the hard-working taxpayer's dollars, which Canadians spend to keep our democratic institutions going and alive.
I'm not sure why we are wasting those dollars, which Canadians have worked very hard to build, on a privilege motion whose intent and purpose is to delay democratic proceedings in the House of Commons and in our Parliament.
Our job as members of Parliament is not partisan. I support my constituents regardless of which party they support. That is my job. I do it because I love to do it. I have conversations with Conservatives in my riding all the time. I have conversations with New Democrats in my riding all the time. I try to understand and appreciate where they're coming from.
That is, ultimately, who we are as elected representatives in our communities and how we bring those voices up in Parliament. It is a diversity of opinion that we really have high regard for. What really hurts, not for us individually but, yes, for us individually and collectively, is partisan games, and this is exactly what this motion is.
It is not about getting to the bottom of what happened with SDTC. It is definitely not about what happens going forward. We see that there is a plan from the minister as to how we go forward, and that is the transfer to the NRC. That is a really concrete plan as to how to move forward.
This entire program has been implemented over the past decade. What I have seen over these past number of meetings from my Conservative colleagues, my Bloc colleagues and my NDP colleagues are very partisan questions where any witness who comes here is not given the opportunity to actually respond to the questions that are being posed. They're being cut off. They are props in how the opposition wants to be somebody.
That's not fair to Canadians whatsoever. I am more than happy to have the witness in question come back before committee for however many hours the committee wants, but when we're questioning whether a witness has been able to answer questions to the satisfaction of the questioner—in this case, the opposition—I find that to be quite damning, because, first, the Charter of Rights is implicated with respect to how people are able to express themselves.
Our parliamentary rights and privileges are implicated with respect to how we determine what is satisfactory to one party versus another party versus another party. When we're talking about satisfactorily answering questions that have been posed, regardless of who they've been posed by, what is the ultimate goal? What is the objective?
Why do we have to now question who's right and who's wrong among us as members of Parliament? Not even the witnesses who are here to provide expert testimony on the issues we discuss on a regular basis....
Yesterday, I raised the point that the motion presumptively called the witness a liar beforehand. How do I know that members opposite are not trying to use this motion to create their partisan games and work with Russian Rebel News—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
On a point of order, I will refer to Standing Order 11(2).
For two hours, MP Khalid said all of this last night, about four times. She's repeating what she said last night. If she has something new to offer, I would encourage her to do so, or we should move on to the next speaker.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
As the member can see, I have no notes in front of me. I am not repeating myself. I am not going verbatim.
Chair, yesterday, you said members should not be reading from notes. I'm not reading from anything. I'm talking about what is valuable to our democracy here, and this ain't it. This is absolutely not it.
For Mr. Perkins to call a point of order on something he knows is bogus is very unfortunate.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
It is getting very close to what was said yesterday.
You have the floor. Again, I will just repeat that it's not just reading; it's relevance and repetition. The floor is yours again.
Mr. Drouin.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
On that same one, I keep hearing the opposition saying, “corrupt Liberal green slush fund”. That's repetition, so I'm expecting the same level of fairness.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
All right. Unfortunately, we've heard those words being thrown about on both sides. That, sadly, is the business we're in. It's the the school of hard knocks.
The point for standing committees is about when arguments begin to be repetitive. You're welcome to make arguments that speak to the motion, but repeating the same arguments again and again is what is not permitted.
Ms. Khalid, you continue to have the floor.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate your clarification.
The point I'm trying to make today, which I did not make yesterday, which I have not made.... I'm not sure how your standards of repetition would work in this committee regardless, but the point that I'm trying to make is that this does not have to be a privilege motion, because we know where a privilege motion leads. We know the partisan hacks and their objectives on what a privilege motion can do.
What I'm trying to say to this committee is that we can achieve the objective of having that witness back before this committee without this being a privilege motion to allow Conservative hacks to jam up the work that is being done in the House of Commons. We can achieve our objectives without being superpartisan. I use that as a better way of framing it, Chair.
I am more than willing to work with all members on this committee to ensure that the work and the objectives of this committee are fulfilled. What is that work and objective? It is to make sure that taxpayer dollars are held to account. It is to make sure that.... On this specific issue, as has been acknowledged by all of my Liberal members here, as has been acknowledged by everybody at this table, wrongdoing happened. There was no ministerial influence on that wrongdoing, but the government does have an obligation to act on this and it has acted on this.
If members on this committee want to have a witness reappear to answer the questions they need answered, we can do that without setting a terrible precedent within the House of Commons by use of a privilege motion. That privilege motion, as I think we can all agree around this table, is not meant to get to the bottom of what needs to happen. It is to jam the work—the legitimate work—that Canadians expect us to do in our Parliament, and that is really unfortunate.
You look very impatient, Mr. Chair. You called this meeting on a half-hour's notice, and I am here to help express the viewpoints of the majority of reasonable Canadians who want to see Parliament function, who want to see Canadians have that representation but also to see work being done.
The fact that this motion has been moved in this committee for the exact purpose of stalling work in the House of Commons is unfortunate. There are so many significant bills that are going to the floor right now. What are we doing? We're doing privilege after privilege after privilege, because God forbid that the privilege of those folks is violated. God forbid their privilege is ever in question.
Privilege, Chair, is not a right. It's a privilege.
I have a right to have a voice in this place. I have been elected by my constituents to have a voice in this place and to speak for them. They don't care about Mr. Perkins' privilege to be satisfied by a witness's answer. There are ways in which he can get the answers that he rightly deserves.
Is this the right way? No, it is not. The right way is for us to be able to collaborate, to be able to identify what the issue is and to be able to find ways to get to the solution of that issue. We have proven in the past that this has been possible. We have been able to work together, to come together and to do the right thing for Canadians and by Canadians.
Why are we here today? Why are we here at this meeting that was called at the last minute? What are we here to discuss? It is to discuss an issue that could have been dealt with at your own discretion, Chair. The fact that we haven't gotten there tells me that there are nefarious purposes for why this privilege motion was moved in the first place within this committee. I cannot, with respect to my morals and the responsibility I owe to my constituents, support this nefarious purpose whatsoever.
I would recommend and strongly suggest to my opposition colleagues that this motion needs to be withdrawn and replaced with another motion to say that this witness needs to come back and that this witness absolutely needs to answer the questions that all of our colleagues across this table have for this witness.
Then, we also need to understand and appreciate how the report is going to look and not be redundant in the questions we're asking time and again of the same witness while badgering and calling witnesses liars, etc. It's not appropriate and, quite frankly, it is beneath us. The public accounts committee has a higher mandate than to be a political tool for the opposition.
Chair, I know how much principle you have with regard to how we conduct ourselves in the House of Commons and how we conduct ourselves in our constituencies. The purpose of the work here happens to serve the purpose of the exact same constituents we serve, so I would again implore you, Chair, first, to find this motion out of order, because there has been no violation of privilege.
If you can't find that for the sake of your own constituents, then I would encourage you to work with your opposition colleagues and withdraw this motion so we can put forward a more concrete and more substantial motion to say that, yes, we need this witness back, we need him to answer the questions that any committee members may have and we want to send him written questions he may not have answered at this committee.
There is no privilege that is being questioned here, Chair, and you of all people know this.
I put that proposal forward to you, Chair, firstly, to consider whether this motion is out of order—which I think it is—and, secondly, to encourage your colleagues to withdraw this motion and put forward one that is not so partisan, one that encourages all of us as committee members to work together, to summons any witness we have any challenges with and to help them answer the questions we have for them, and, lastly, to send in the written questions any of our members may have or were raised by members over the course of the past two days and have those written answers back.
We can't go from zero to 100 all the time. We saw, in the context of what happened over these past couple of weeks and months, the use of parliamentary procedure to play political games and to stop the work Canadians expect us to do.
I park my comments there, Chair. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you.
Far from being impatient, the chair is fully engaged and reaching out to the vice-chairs to try to find resolution here. I note that your hand is up to speak again, so we will add you to the list.
Mr. Stewart, you have the floor.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We come to public accounts to question, to provide oversight for taxpayers' dollars and to check for value for money and whether or not it achieved value. Members have privileges here. One privilege is that, when you come into these hearings, you're not here to evade. You're here to answer questions—important questions.
At first glance, 186 conflicts of interest were found by the Auditor General. The taxpayers deserve clarity, accountability and the oversight that we provide. It's deeply disappointing and alarming that Liberal government members—the committee members here—simply don't want to find the truth for Canadians.
There are no points for evading questions at a hearing such as this. This brings us precisely to the moment we're at. Mr. Bains knows the political process, what is acceptable and what is not, and what it means to be held accountable and to be transparent with taxpayers' dollars. He has to be held to a higher standard: He was a cabinet minister. He told the president of SDTC that they will manage her conflicts when they appointed her the chair.
Though he's not a politician today, there are no points for evading or refusing to answer the questions posed by committee members. He is, however, accountable for his time in office. He was, is and will always be a member of the Privy Council, forever bound by those rules, and $400 million is a lot of money—
Liberal
Valerie Bradford Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
On a point of order, I believe Mr. Stewart is reading from notes.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I was watching. I hear what you're saying, Ms. Bradford. I don't think so. I've been watching it. He is allowed to refer to notes, but he just cannot read those notes.
Mr. Stewart, you have the floor.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bains is accountable for his time in office. He's still accountable because he is a member of the Privy Council and, therefore, is forever bound by these rules.
Four-hundred million dollars is a lot of money. It may not seem like a lot of money to some of the members of the governing party, but I tell you what, Mr. Chair. When there are record numbers at food banks, carbon taxes, record inflation and inflating grocery prices, people in my constituency of Miramichi—Grand Lake who call me on a daily basis, choosing between medications and groceries, sometimes fuel and groceries, and mortgage rates, interest rates and rents going up, all of these problems are on the watch of the current government.
You know, I remember in the 1990s—I was in high school—when Jean Chrétien was a former prime minister. I remember hearing so much about the sponsorship scandal. The only reason I bring it up today is that, for its time, it was quite a thing. It upset Canadians, very clearly, but the interesting thing is that, today, this scandal in particular is eight times larger than the sponsorship scandal. This is a massive scandal. It's a massive misuse of public funds, $400 million, for which there was no value achieved.
The reason we want this sent back to the House, with the production of documents, and the reason we want this privilege to pass is that our questions were not answered. The questions of other members from other parties were not answered. When the questions are not answered by the individuals who have those answers, it is our privilege to get those answers for the public of this country. It's deeply disappointing that the Liberal members are not supporting this privilege motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
Up next is Mr. Genuis.
I think I'm going to suspend for five minutes because there seems to be a discussion on the side, and maybe it will lead somewhere.
I'm going to suspend.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I'd like to bring this meeting back to order.
Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, the floor is yours.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Good morning, everyone.
I believe that while we were suspended, we were able to come to a more than reasonable compromise. I'm seeking unanimous consent to move the following motion: “That the committee summon Navdeep Bains to appear for three hours, on the matter of SDTC, within 21 days of the adoption of this motion.” That would be a three-hour appearance within 21 days.
Liberal