Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I have a growing list here. I'm just going to run through it. I want to be sure to recognize everyone.

I have Mr. McCauley next.

After that, it will be Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné's turn.

After that, I have Mr. Dong, Ms. Yip and Ms. Bradford.

Mr. McCauley, you're up.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think all my colleagues here know that I'm a reasonable person who's willing to compromise. That's why I would ask my esteemed Liberal colleagues to stick together with us this time and go along with the committee. We can prove to the public today that we're a non-partisan committee.

Ministers are elected officials, and they aren't infallible. They make mistakes sometimes. The minister made one today in Question Period when she insinuated in an answer that the Auditor General is not neutral. That's more than asking her to complete a study, Ms. Shanahan. I don't agree with what you said. The minister really went too far. It is this committee's role to show that we stick together and that we all support the Auditor General's neutrality and independence.

I urge you to support this motion. We must stand together to preserve the Auditor General's independence. It's very important, and we can prove it today to everyone watching and those who will be watching.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

I'll turn now to Mr. Dong.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I kind of regret not continuing with my motion to move this meeting in camera, because had that happened...without an audience, this motion we're debating probably would never have been moved.

I have one thing on my mind, but before I say it, I want to respond to the point made by my colleague, Mr. McCauley.

“Non-partisan” doesn't mean “consensus”. I joined this committee after the last election. The members of this committee see this committee.... The subjects we debate and study are supposed to be non-partisan. I try to craft my questions very carefully—more on the substance, numbers and details, as opposed to, “Would this be good or bad for the government?” because there is no defence and offence in this committee. Everybody is on the offensive to make sure the government is accountable in carrying out its programs.

Not having consensus happens in this committee, but that doesn't mean the government side is partisan in its intentions. At the end of the day, we are a minority government. We don't control the outcome of votes in this committee. I think, from time to time, the public and opposition will have to recognize that, or need to be reminded that we are a minority government. We need to work with at least one of the opposition parties to get stuff done in the House. I think that's a very important fact.

I really hate the fact that we're wasting this committee's time by acting as an extension of question period—although question period is exciting. Some would consider it the most exciting part of our day. We hear the back-and-forth in the House, and there's attendance in the public gallery. It is very exciting, but nothing gets done. The work is getting done in committees like this, where we study things like recommendations, check the compliance with those recommendations and make sure the government follows through, so we have a better system. That's the whole point of this committee.

I don't know why we are debating something that happened in question period. We have another hour of question period tomorrow in which to sort this out. If the Conservative Party member has questions about the intent or wording of that question, he should ask the Prime Minister tomorrow. Tomorrow is Wednesday. I think that's fair. Let's not waste any more time on this committee, trying to sort out something that isn't meant for this committee.

Those are my initial thoughts on this motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Yip.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I agree with my colleagues, Mr. Dong and Mrs. Shanahan. I'm very disappointed that this is happening in this supposedly non-partisan committee. It's the tradition to be non-partisan and work together.

In the past, there was unanimous consent on many reports. I would like to return to that—where we, here, don't always have to agree, but we respect what viewpoints there are. We should definitely respect the fact that the AG and her team work hard to produce reports that are very thorough, with recommendations. For the most part, the government recognizes the recommendations and is willing to put in action plans and work in order to provide some sort of solution.

I feel that right now we're wasting time. We're wasting taxpayers' time, as well, when we could be doing something else. We could have had our subcommittee meeting to discuss looking at more reports and moving things forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Ms. Bradford.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to say that the public accounts committee is a very important committee. It's an honour to serve on it. It's where we review the work of the government. It's really important.

I feel that the appropriate place to debate what was said in the House is in the House of Commons. That's what question period is for. That's not the work of this committee. This committee is intended to review, right now, the work of the Auditor General and the reports she presented today.

We had reached consensus on how we were going to proceed forward with that and then, all of a sudden, we get this unexpected motion put forward that is not at all related to what the focus of our meeting was today.

I feel it's inappropriate. I feel that the motion involves a discussion that happened earlier today in the House of Commons. As my colleagues have indicated, no doubt it will be continued tomorrow when question period happens again. It happens every day at the same hour, five days a week. That's the forum for that debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was present in question period today, and I was just reviewing the blues from today's comments by the minister. It is quite clear that she does impugn some motive to opposition parties.

It does bring some credibility challenges to the reports of the Auditor General, and I think that's very reasonable. I also think the government and many of my Liberal colleagues who are present here today also understand that it's important we uphold the independence and integrity of the Office of the Auditor General. It's important that we continue to maintain that support for its independence.

Today, whether it was a government member or an opposition member—I'm certain that all members of this place would agree that whoever it came from—something that would disparage the independence of an Auditor General should be met with a verification by all parties present. It's all members, but I feel that we, in particular, as members of the public accounts committee, are most equipped, when dealing directly with the work of the Auditor General, to move this motion. I think it is important that Canadians actually see that, because what they saw today was something that I think demonstrates a harm to the Office of the Auditor General's independence.

I agree with the motion and with my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and from the Conservative benches that we can find room here to enhance our position that the Auditor General's office is in fact independent and can serve its role to ensure that our processes and our programs are done correctly.

I disagree that opposition parties have in any way, shape or form motivated the Auditor General to say the things she did. I disagree with the statement made today in the House of Commons on that. I think it's important that our committee recognize the fact that we work with the Auditor General almost every single day in this committee. It's important for us to recognize that she does have a role and her independence is part of that. Verifying that independence is something I believe all of us agree with.

That's what we're doing here: We're verifying the independence.

That's my contribution. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

We all agree with the independence of the Auditor General. The minister agrees with it. The government agrees with it. I'm worried that we are going to get into, as I said before, an endless back-and-forth that further politicizes a committee that should be, at its core—and that was, up until very recently—non-partisan. This is the audit committee of the Parliament of Canada, or the House of Commons side. We have a responsibility to uphold that in every way possible, but if members on the opposite side wish to engage in pure partisanship, that's how things will go.

I could point to comments made by the Conservative leader in an article from last year. The article is titled “Federal AG’s office skewed contract, leaked reports to lobbyist”. That's the title. It's not the finding, but Conservative MPs were pointing to comments that are entirely partisan and hoping for that finding, it would seem. At the finance committee, the member who is now Conservative leader said, “it is not common for independent, non-partisan officers of Parliament to give untendered contracts to partisan lobbyists”.

The substance of the issue doesn't really matter, but where this is going, and I don't want it to go there.... This side could put forward a motion asking for the committee to condemn those comments. Is this where my Conservative colleagues want to go? I don't think so, but as a matter of principle.... Perhaps I see my colleague across the way nodding his head. Perhaps he would agree that two motions could be engaged on tonight. We could put a motion forward asking for this committee to condemn.... I see my friend in the NDP agreeing.

I don't want it to get to that point. I hope that Conservative colleagues agree, and that we can move on. With that in mind, I wonder if Mr. McCauley would withdraw his motion.

If he doesn't, we'll keep discussing it, because I've had the pleasure and honour of working with the Minister of National Revenue as her parliamentary secretary for almost a year now, and I find her to be someone who's not just a compassionate person. She proved that again today in her comments at the press conference. She has proven that throughout her career as a social worker and as Canada's second-longest-serving minister of national revenue. To try to disparage the reputation of someone like that, I don't think is appropriate at all.

Again, we can end up going back and forth in a committee that should be entirely non-partisan, with a competing motion. We can do that. I don't think that would be appropriate, though. We can end it here.

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

Chair, I have a point of order. I'm sorry. Is debate collapsing, or are we going to vote—

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

No, it's not. We can end my comments on this point—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, it's not.

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

Mr. Chair, it is a point of order.

I wanted to ask if we can request additional resources, or if additional resources are available to continue this at some point, maybe tomorrow or maybe subsequently.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We can request them. I'm going to suspend this meeting.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 6]

[The meeting resumed at 1:02 p.m., Friday, December 9]

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Good afternoon. We will now resume meeting number 43, which was suspended on Tuesday, December 6, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. The committee was meeting to study the 2022 reports of the Auditor General of Canada to the Parliament of Canada. Reports 9 and 10 were referred to the committee on Tuesday, December 6, 2022.

At the moment the committee was suspended, the committee was debating the motion moved by Mr. McCauley.

Clerk, would you care to clarify the motion?

[The Clerk]

Yes. I apologize.

I just want to inform members that with regard to the motion I sent you on Tuesday, there are slight differences from the motion that was read into the record. I would like to know if you want me to send you the motion as read by Mr. McCauley, with the French translation.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

Do we have a copy of the motion?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I think that's going to happen [Technical difficulty—Editor] Do we need to?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Jean Yip]

I suggest that we move forward and we resume debate. There were no speakers on the list.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to amend the motion put forward by Mr. McCauley, as follows. After the word “office”, I would add, “and that the committee shall also report to the House 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.” Also, after the word “unacceptable”, I would add, “The committee also requests a government response pursuant to Standing Order 109.”

Just so we're all on the same page, if amended, the wording of the motion after the amendment would read as follows: 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 6 regarding the independence of the Auditor General; and that the committee affirms its support for the Auditor General and the independence of the office; and that the committee shall also report to the House 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.