I find it quite amusing that the government side uses consensus a lot. Consensus seems to matter, apparently, only when it's a Liberal idea, and any disagreement with the government all of a sudden seems to be an attack on the opposition for not being in consensus with the government's view.
I'm going to quote from the minister. She stated this in the House twice today. She doubled down. She twice stated that it was not the Auditor General's fault. She then said that the Auditor General had been under a lot of pressure from the opposition and that political games should not be tolerated. She stated that the CRA disagreed with her results, and it was not her fault because she was under pressure from the opposition. Previous to that, she also said, “That is not the Auditor General's fault. We all know that she was pressured by the opposition to produce this report.”
It's very clear that the minister is stating that the AG violated the integrity of her office to produce a report that dared disagree with the CRA.
It's not, “We disagree and would love to chat it out,” or “Hey, we disagree, but, you know, let's go to Public Accounts, and we'll have CRA come to discuss and defend its point of view,” as the government side stated. Apparently the Minister of National Revenue believes the Auditor General doctored a report under pressure from the Conservatives. These statements are shameful.
It's also shameful that the government side is constantly trying to shut down any disagreement by claiming, “We used to be non-partisan, until you disagreed with us.” Debate is wholesome. Disagreement is wholesome, and it's good for us. Disagreeing with the government is not being partisan; it's standing up for taxpayers. Disagreeing with the government does not mean we don't believe in consensus; it's because we disagree, and we disagree on behalf of taxpayers.
We heard it today from Mr. Desilets, and in a previous one, especially on the disgraceful report on the conduct of Indigenous Services. Mr. Desilets brought up some excellent points. That wasn't an attack on consensus or partisanship. It was a request to try to find truth and accountability. This is no different.
If you support the AG, then you support this motion. If you don't support the motion, it's very clear you support the minister's blatant attack on the integrity of the AG.
Thank you, Chair.