Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 6th, 2022

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Chair, I call a vote on the first motion. We can't have this kind of back-and-forth. We're in public here, so let's not embarrass ourselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Members can't call the vote. We will have a vote when there are no more speakers.

I see Mr. Fragiskatos has his hand up, as well as Mr. Desjarlais, but it sounds like we're moving away from Mr. Genuis's compromise.

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

I'm sorry. I have a point of order.

I moved a motion. It's a motion for adjournment of debate, subject to a condition. I can cite various examples of this being done at other committees, where there is a motion to adjourn, subject to a condition. That motion provides a framework for saying a debate would be adjourned. It's a debatable motion. We've had this at the foreign affairs, immigration and status of women committees. It's a fairly standard case, where a motion is moved and, because it seeks to shape the way in which the existing motion will be dealt with, it's in order.

The committee should either debate or vote on my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let me then suspend for one minute. I'm going to consult with the clerk for clarification on that point. Excuse me for one minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Colleagues, I will recognize first Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Fragiskatos.

I think we have an agreement to come back to this, but Mr. Genuis, why don't you put your proposal out there, and we'll see if we can get UC on it?

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

Yes.

Generally, regardless of the previous matter, I think committees can proceed by consensus if there's agreement. I think there is an emerging consensus that the committee would adjourn debate on this, with an understanding as well that the chair would schedule an opportunity for us to resume consideration of this motion after we have heard from CRA and ESDC.

If that's the agreement of the committee, then we're good to proceed on that basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll look to Mr. Fragiskatos on that.

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

I have no problem with that [Technical difficulty—Editor] colleagues are okay with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm sensing consensus on this.

Are you clear on what we're doing, Clerk, or do you want Mr. Genuis to repeat it?

[The Clerk]

I may have to go back to the evidence. Mr. Genuis might like to read it again, or I can go back to the evidence and draft the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You can take 30 seconds, Mr. Genuis.

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

The proposed adjournment motion is withdrawn. The original motion is adjourned. The committee agrees to resume consideration of this motion at a time to be scheduled by the chair, following hearings with CRA and ESDC on the matter of the 10th report.

Is that clear? Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Ms. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Chair, let's not preclude what the hearings will be and so on. There's a lot packed into that. Let's just say that it's following the study that the committee conducts, in the usual manner.

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

I'm sorry. My understanding of the compromise we had agreed to was exactly what I just said. If it's not, then we have to recalibrate.

We're going to have hearings with CRA and ESDC, aren't we? Is that what people want? Okay. Good.

Thanks.

(Motion allowed to stand)

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll come back to you, Mrs. Shanahan.

Mr. Desjarlais, do you have a comment?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's very reasonable. From what I've heard from my Liberal colleagues, what I've heard from my Conservative colleague and what I've heard from the Bloc Québécois, it's important that we hear from the witnesses. What gets us to that point is this consensus motion. It's reasonable that we should move forward with this consensus. We'll adjourn debate on this and return to this motion following the hearings with ESDC and CRA. I think that's as reasonable as it's going to get, and I think it's worth all members' consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good. We have a consensus. I'm going to move on to....

Just one second. I have a few hands in the air.

Mr. Dong, you had a point you wanted to make earlier. I think it was about going into camera with the AG, but I wasn't sure—

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

No. I had a couple of questions, but she's gone. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right.

I have a few business points here for the whole committee. I want to turn to Mr. McCauley first, and then hopefully get all this done.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

In light of everything happening today, I'd like to move a motion, please. I'll read it into the record: That the public accounts committee rejects statements made by the Minister of National Revenue in the House of Commons on December 6 undermining Canada's Auditor General, and that the committee affirm its support for the Auditor General and the independence and integrity of the office.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm checking to see if the clerk has that and could send it out. All right. It's coming.

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

Chair, it's very unfortunate that we've reached that point. I said at the outset of the meeting that I did not hear an accusation about independence on the part of the minister today. I also pointed to comments—I could have made an issue but did not—that members in the Conservative opposition made in 2021 about the Auditor General and her office's independence. I don't want to get into this back-and-forth where one side blames the other. I don't know how that advances the interests of the committee or of Canadians, more importantly.

All of us recognize the independence of the Auditor General. That's been affirmed. I don't see the benefit of engaging in this endless discussion. The independence of the Auditor General is something the government recognizes and all MPs on this side recognize.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I, too, am disturbed that these kinds of discussions are creeping into this committee, which has always prided itself on being non-partisan and studying the Auditor General's reports in a fulsome way. For members on either side, and I can think of examples where it was in....

When we're sitting on this side, or when the opposition was sitting on this side, there are very careful considerations made of what the Auditor General has to say and a very deliberate manner of bringing those points forward to the government of the day. This is because we all have the same objective in mind, which is that we want to have a better functioning public service and delivery on government policy for Canadians.

Therefore, a statement—and I think we do this on a regular basis—in which we uphold the integrity of the Auditor General's work is one that I am very comfortable making at any time. I have been very uncomfortable in past meetings, when there were accusations or insinuations that the Auditor General was somehow working on the government's side, or however it was put.

It was very unfortunate, because, as members have pointed out, the Auditor General is named by the government of the day, but there are nomination hearings. Again, it's the integrity of that office that is most important, even over and above the person themselves. The integrity of that office.... We are known internationally for the quality of the public accounts work that we do, and I know our ministers appreciate the reports that are produced by the Auditor General.

I always go to how the Auditor General works. They go into different government departments. They speak with public servants in their workplace. They look at the day-to-day operations. They are there to provide the kind of.... It's better than the best-paid management consultant you could hire, having the Auditor General in your offices.

I know our ministers, including our Minister of National Revenue, deeply appreciate the work that was done. Of course she does, and of course we do, because the Auditor General has brought forward some very important points that need to be looked at. We need to look at different ways of doing things, and we are very happy to do so.

I am distressed any time—and I've discussed this in other forums here—this committee wants to compel the Auditor General to do certain audits, because we know the Auditor General looks at the functioning of government and her office will choose to study independently those areas that she deems are the most important to Canadians. However, as she said today, these audits were produced by an act of Parliament, and she's followed them. I have every confidence that the work was done to the highest degree of excellence that we've come to expect.

Chair, I can only say that, again, this committee normally operates by consensus. Normally, we would be in the subcommittee or in camera right now, discussing the Auditor General reports and operating by consensus. However, members have brought up motions and want to have things done in public and to have votes when it suits them, and then go back to consensus when it suits them as well.

I am very disturbed, and it does not bode well for the future of the work of this committee, but again, I stand by my belief that the Office of the Auditor General.... I remember when it was Michael Ferguson who had the office and the tremendous work he did. I know we had ministers who were very appreciative of the comments he brought forward and the themes he was attacking and addressing before his untimely death, and he was named by a Conservative government.

Where are we going with this? This is just nonsense, and it's not worthy of this committee.

Thank you, Chair.