Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

In recognition, I believe, of the conversation we had last week and the motion that was tabled by the Conservatives in relation to naming the minister in the House of Commons, I believe it's incumbent upon us as members of this committee to look at our role here and to ensure that we can continue to have in mind the best practices of this committee and the best outcome for Canadians.

Hearing our discussion last week, and now hearing the amendment read by our Liberal colleague, this is my request to find a consensus on this. I think all of us do in fact believe in the independence of the Auditor General's office, so I believe that's something we can get to.

Recognizing that we have this existing amendment on the table, I would invite my Conservative colleagues to maybe look at amending the first portion of the motion, read more clearly in the relation to the last point our friend Mr. Fragiskatos made, the very last portion of his amendment, and let just that portion stand. I think that was part B, he said, if the Conservatives would be willing to amend their original motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Mr. Fragiskatos, perhaps you could send a copy of your amendment.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Can we get the motion in French, please?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Okay.

Please forward a copy of your amendment in both English and French.

Mr. Desjarlais, were you suggesting—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I would just like to get the motion in French.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

You want the whole thing.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'll read it for our colleague. I'll read it in French, and then I have something to say about what Mr. Desjarlais has put forward.

Here are my proposed amendments for the motion.

First of all, after the word “office”, I want to add “and that attacks made by the Leader of the Official Opposition against the Auditor General in the context of the government's COVID‑19 benefit programs are also unacceptable.”

Next, after the word “unacceptable”, I'd like to add the following: “The committee also requests a government response pursuant to Standing Order 109.”

Here is the wording of the motion, including the amendment:

That the Committee report to the House that it rejects statements made by the Minister of National Revenue in the House of Commons on December 6th regarding the independence of the Auditor General and that the committee affirms its support for the Auditor General and the independence and integrity of the office and that attacks made by the Leader of the Official Opposition against the Auditor General in the context of the government's COVID‑19 benefit programs are also unacceptable. The committee also requests a government response pursuant to Standing Order 109.

Madam Chair, I'll also add that if I understood our colleague from the NDP correctly, he mentioned the word “consensus”. I think we need consensus as well. I think what he is getting at is if we put forward something here that doesn't include the Minister of National Revenue and the Leader of the Opposition, and we emerge with a motion that has us, as a committee, understanding and recognizing the importance and independence of the Office of the Auditor General, that would be consensus.

I see him nodding his head, so maybe we can proceed to the next step. If we want the motion amended so that it reads that way, we can maybe vote.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Can we also mention the Liberal leader?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. McCauley, that's very clever. That wouldn't be consensus, Kelly.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Resuming debate, we have Mr. Genuis.

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

I have a couple of comments.

Substantively, the allegation in the amendment moved by Mr. Fragiskatos is obviously ridiculous. I don't think that's the point of what he's doing. The committee, in its original motion, was responding to a comment that had been made by a minister of the Crown the same day that explicitly suggested that the Auditor General was making decisions in response to some kind of political pressure by the opposition. It was an outrageous claim by Minister Lebouthillier, which merited a response, and it merits a response from this committee.

That's very different from the particulars of the case that he referred to of a couple of years ago. At no point were the integrity or the independence of the Auditor General challenged by the Leader of the Opposition, who was not the Leader of the Opposition at the time when the events took place. It would have been more sincere if Mr. Fragiskatos had felt that the public accounts committee needed to engage in that discussion at the time. This is clearly a bit rich.

That said, if Mr. Desjarlais wants a compromise proposal, I'm as capable of doing math as anybody else, so I would certainly welcome Mr. Desjarlais's proposal. Procedurally, we'd have to agree by unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and proceed with Mr. Desjarlais's amendment.

Mr. Desjarlais probably just needs to put his specific compromise language on the floor as something to talk about, because it's probably easier to discuss actual prospective language than to deal with what the possible language could be.

Those are my suggestions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Desjarlais, do you have the wording in French and English?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

It will take me about three minutes, unless someone has it in front of them.

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order, could I suggest we suspend for a few minutes?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

We will suspend for a few minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Do we have unanimous consent to amend the original motion of Mr. McCauley?

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

I'm sorry. Maybe it's a disadvantage to those of us on Zoom, but I haven't heard the new language from Mr. Desjarlais yet.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Please read the new wording.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Genuis.

First of all, I want to clarify something. Last week at one point, it was advised by the clerk to do things by unanimous consent if we can. At that time, two motions were presented to us. We used unanimous consent at that time to amend the original.

I was going to use the same procedure of unanimous consent to amend the original motion to remove the minister's name and have the amendment read the exact same way.

It would be, “That the committee report to the House”—then reject the portion after “reject” and everything after that to the word “the” and then keep “the independence of the Auditor General and that the committee affirms its support for the Auditor General and the independence of the office.”

We would be removing the noun, “the minister”. It would be any reference to the minister.

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

Could the text of the amended motion be reread?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Scratch out the portion about the minister.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I don't have the original with me. I just have the one that Peter has.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Let's suspend the meeting for a few minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

We will resume the meeting.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.