Evidence of meeting #44 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I just needed that for clarification. Now I can comment.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
My question was for clarification. There was no sense in me giving a big opinion when I'd misunderstood what he said. I was seeking clarification. Now I just need half that time to give you my opinion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I've got a list, so is yours a point of order or is it a point of clarification?
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, I realize he is, but so what? I've got the floor.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But I still need you to say it. Just because I say it, that doesn't count; I need you to tell me I've got the floor.
Liberal
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm sure they do--just so I'll shut up quicker.
No, I hear what Mr. Kramp is saying.
At the risk of divulging discussions that we had at the steering committee, I understood your point when we were talking about the witness list and whether it...because that is once removed. We don't normally bring in the public, per se, unless there's a very specific reason--for instance, if someone's name is mentioned, or their company or something.
But in this case, Chair, my point is that I think this is very much within.... Well, Mr. Kramp uses “terms of reference”; I think it's definitely within our area of responsibility.
If I understand correctly, Madame Faille's goal is to look at what kind of correspondence may or may not have been taking place between central agencies and the commissioner. And since part of our mandate is to determine why this happened so that we can make recommendations that it not happen again, it seems to me that if there is evidence of advice being given or the lack thereof, or a request for help that wasn't received, and we don't know what that dynamic is, then that information is very relevant for us to determine whether or not this was an individual who was given the kind of supports that they should be given as an officer of Parliament, or whether there's a dearth of supports.
We don't know: maybe she was out there in the wilderness crying for help and nobody was responding. This would shed light on how much, if any, support, and to an appropriate level, was coming from the central agencies that are there both to support our officers of Parliament and to provide them with guidance and advice when they're carrying out their functions.
I think it's very, very much in order, and I disagree with Mr. Kramp that it requires any kind of motion to make it in order.
So my position would be that you should rule in favour of the motion being in order.
Thank you, Chair.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Thank you very much, Chair. I'll be very brief.
I believe this is in order and well within the scope of this committee. The terms of reference that Mr. Kramp alluded to earlier I think are clearly outlined in the motion in the first sentence, where it says “with regard to the report by the Auditor General on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada”.
That clearly outlines what the terms of reference are and why this information is required. It will help us deal with the Auditor General's report, and essentially allow us to make a more informed decision for the recommendations that we want to pursue.
So I support this motion, and I think it's definitely in order.