She made certain observations regarding the officer.
This committee has said in the past that one of the reasons it wanted to bring Madame Ouimet forward was to give her an opportunity to defend her own position—because she indicated she disagreed with the Auditor General—in the same forum in which her own competence had been impugned.
Secondly, since there were ramifications to the way the office worked, the whole issue of the architecture of the office and the law that she was to apply would be addressed by her.
That's all this committee wanted to do. There is no limit procedurally, of which I am aware, on this committee's ability to conduct a study as it sees...as long as it's within the parameters of its mandate. We're not studying another committee. The other committee on government operations—and Madame Faille and others have been on the government operations committee—was to review the appointment. We're not here to review the appointment. We're here to deal with the Auditor General's report.
Madame Faille has now used different language again, and she's prepared to present a motion for consideration on Thursday. I indicated that if that's her will, that's great. If it's not, there's nothing to prevent her from asking for it to be considered today. I accept what she said, and so she is giving notice to the committee that she wants that issue dealt with on Thursday, keeping in mind that this is going to be dealt with by steering committee on Wednesday, beforehand, anyway.
Okay? Okay.
Thank you for all of that.
I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes....
Monsieur D'Amours.