Yes, just very briefly, Chair.
This recommendation is obviously going outside the boundaries of our normal course of duty. The reason I say this is that we're talking about many other independent officers of Parliament who could potentially be called, whereas the report of the Auditor General presents, and I'll read it here, “the results of our audit of the allegations related to the conduct”--not the office, but the conduct--“of the former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada as a deputy head”.
Now, if we are going to go beyond that into who knows where, I'm just suggesting that this matter should be pushed forward in an argument and/or discussions by this committee. If this committee authorizes that, then so be it. But to make that decision without first having understood that we are in contradiction of our original intent in responding to this...?
Sure we're the masters of our own direction. We can go where we want to go. But we should go with the agreement of the committee as passed by a motion or passed by a direction. At that point, then we go. But to just go off ad hoc, based on any motion that's tabled, without first of all having agreement from this committee--that's why I said it's a point of order. It's not a point of argument. It's simply a point of order.