Evidence of meeting #43 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was options.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chair, I assume that Madame Faille and I may be heading in the same direction. I want to try an amendment to the main motion: that this motion be tabled until after Mr. Rob Walsh has briefed the committee on all its options.
The intent--lest there be any doubt--is that as soon as we've had that briefing, then this motion would be in order, back in front of us for consideration, based on what we heard from Mr. Walsh.
So I move that motion, Chair.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes.
I'm open to wording changes--I just jotted this down--but with regard to the main motion: that this motion be tabled until after Mr. Rob Walsh has briefed the committee on all its options.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
In fact, I support that motion, but my idea was to go a little further.
I was asking that the Treasury Board, the Privy Council and the former office of Ms. Ouimet—the Office of the Commissioner—table the correspondence exchanged between them.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Excuse me, colleagues, but before we carry on with Mr. Christopherson's amendment to Mr. D'Amours' motion, I should point out that we initiated the discussion with the options that were available. I thought I heard the committee say that you wanted to explore as many of them as possible. One of the items we raised was the question of an expanded witness list that the steering committee was going to go through tomorrow and that was already on the schedule.
What Madame Faille is suggesting is that it be part of the motion. I'm not sure that's necessary inasmuch as we had already agreed to put it on the steering committee's agenda, and the steering committee can make that decision. If it is the entire committee's will to make the decision today, that's fine, but we already have it on an agenda.
The reason I say this is that I don't think that Mr. Christopherson or Mr. D'Amours intended to pre-empt a continuance of this study. They are just looking at another step that would require the approval of the committee.
Okay, Mr. Christopherson?
Okay, Madame Faille?
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I understand what you are saying, there will be a meeting tomorrow. However, I was just bringing up an idea. We are talking about using all means at our disposal. One of the means we have is to call for documents. Mr. Walsh will tell us what powers the committee has.
In fact, we are studying the report of the Auditor General, but this does not prevent the committee from asking to receive these reports, the correspondence and documents which will help us gain a better understanding of the relationship between the Privy Council, the Treasury Board and Ms. Ouimet's office.
What do you intend to do tomorrow? Do you want to plan the work schedule of the committee's upcoming meetings? Before that happens, the committee should agree on whether it wants to hear from Mr. Walsh, whether it wants to call for documents, and what steps need to be taken. Afterwards, tomorrow, we can begin to schedule meetings. That is not a problem.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I appreciate the question that you've directed at me, Madame Faille. I'm prepared to answer it. But we have a motion on the floor and an amendment to that motion. My intervention to you wasn't to take you off your stride. I'm just wondering whether you want to add a second amendment, an amendment to Mr. Christopherson's motion, so as to make the whole thing comprehensive, or whether you were happy that it was going to be dealt with by the steering committee tomorrow. That was my question.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I would rather amend Mr. Christopherson's amendment. I am also calling for documents, so that the motion makes sense.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with Ms. Faille's request, but I would not want it to interfere with my motion. I can live with Mr. Christopherson's amendment, and I can live with putting my motion on the back burner for now, until Mr. Walsh appears before the committee. Then, after his appearance, we can put the motion to a vote.
I do not want to confuse things and add other elements to the motion, which might cause problems in the future. The purpose of my motion is to report to the House and obtain a ruling from the Speaker, whereas we are now talking about the production of documents. If Ms. Faille wishes to present another motion calling for documents, I will support it, but I cannot support adding something to my motion which has nothing to do with it in the first place.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I agree with holding an independent vote on Mr. D'Amours' motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Merci.
Thank you, colleagues. We were trying to get current procedural advice while we were entertaining all of the interventions by colleagues. I appreciate the complexity of some of the issues and also the immediacy of the concerns.
We have Mr. D'Amours' motion. He, I think, has indicated in his discussion that he's prepared to accept Mr. Christopherson's amendment as a friendly amendment, and that amendment in essence says we agree to table Mr. D'Amours' motion until after we've heard from Monsieur Walsh. That doesn't mean we don't have to deal with Mr. D'Amours' motion, but we have Mr. Christopherson's motion on the table.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't see anything in the main motion or in the amendment to the motion that would preclude the steering committee from dealing with Madame Faille's issue tomorrow at steering committee and making a recommendation back to the main committee. So I'm just checking with you if you concur with this interpretation. There's nothing in this that would prevent us from dealing with that at steering committee tomorrow and bringing it back to committee, parallel with this process.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Mr. Christopherson, that was my understanding as well. But I wanted to clarify it with Madame Faille, because she's the one who made the intervention.
I think Madame Faille gave the committee an indication that what she wanted was that there be a motion, whether it would be in steering committee or whether it would be here, that the committee make PCO, PMO, Treasury Board, all of the people associated with the decision with respect to this office and the commissioner...and that the documentation also be provided. Whether the appropriate place to do that is now with your amendment and Mr. D'Amours' motion, or whether it be done in steering committee and then presented to committee is, I guess, an issue more of convenience than anything else. But I didn't hear anybody say no.
So on your behalf, I'm going to take it that there is consensus that Madame Faille's motion will be dealt with thoroughly in steering committee. And unless she says no, then I'm going to proceed with consideration of your amendment.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Just to be clear, the reason I raised that--as you saw, there was some huddling going on--is that there was some concern that the wording of the amendment, in particular, may preclude Madame Faille from dealing with that either here or at steering committee. I was seeking to get clarification that, no, I didn't see anything here that would encumber her right to deal with that issue. And I was checking to see whether you felt the same way. It sounds to me like you do, and therefore I think we're okay to proceed to a vote on the amended motion. Then Madame Faille can proceed either today or at steering committee tomorrow, as she chooses.
Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Well, you could do it later, if you like, but to give you reassurance, I didn't hear anybody give a contrary view.
I was going to interpret it exactly the way you've raised it. I mean, you can decide after we do this, okay?
Those in favour of Mr. Christopherson's amendment that this motion be tabled until after Mr. Robert Walsh has briefed the--
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Could Mr. Christopherson's motion be separate from Mr. D'Amours' motion?
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I would like to clarify something. Before Mr. Christopherson proposed his amendment, I mentioned that I was prepared, in view of the discussions around the table, to wait for Mr. Walsh's comments before making a decision.
I would not want my motion to be diluted or set aside because of that. If necessary, I am prepared to set it aside. Right now, it has been presented and we will vote on it after hearing from Mr. Walsh. That way, the sense of the motion will not be lost.
I do not know if Mr. Christopherson agrees with what I have just suggested.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Technically, it's not even an amendment. I didn't want to split hairs. It's a motion to table with instructions. The rules provide that you can debate the instructions but not the issue of tabling. That's a straight-up vote.
So technically, it's really not an amendment to your motion. It's a motion of guidance, of steering, of moving the motion, tabling it, to set aside.
Right now, technically, we can debate the instructions of the tabling. If we support the motion to table, then your motion, Mr. D'Amours, will be set aside until we've completed the directions, conditions that are contained in the motion to table, in which case your motion would be brought back in front of this committee complete, whole, and unamended.
That's where we are, as far as I interpret the rules, Chair.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
On a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, I have already said I'm ready to table my motion. And I'm happy with that. I don't know why we should continue to discuss the matter. I have agreed.