Thank you.
Mr. D'Amours.
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.
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.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to say earlier that in order to submit a point of order, one has to speak to one of the provisions of the Standing Order. What I read regarding the fact that the committee may study other things than what the Auditor General has submitted to us was clear. We don't need to limit ourselves to specific documents.
You may be handing down a decision soon and afterwards I would like to make some comments on the motion and not on Mr. Kramp's point of order. I maintain my position which is that the committee is free to make its own decisions. It is clearly stated that according to the committee's mandate, it may study other things.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
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.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Thank you, Mr. Kramp.
Thank you, colleagues.
I think the motion is in order, Mr. Kramp. It's part of the mandate of the public accounts committee. On December 9 the committee decided to study the Auditor General's report on the Public Service Integrity Commissioner and anything that flows from that, so I think the committee has already made the decision to give itself the parameters to complete that particular study. For that reason, I'm going to rule that the motion is in order. I'm prepared to hear discussion of the motion itself.
I'll go to Madame Faille first if she wants. Otherwise, I'll just take a speaking list.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I explained the reason why I have submitted this motion. I only mentioned the organizations that were identified in the Auditor General's report. Earlier, Mr. Christopherson explained the purpose of my motion very well.
As Mr. D'Amours said that he wanted to make some comments on the motion, I will yield the floor to him.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am entirely in agreement with the motion submitted by my colleague. I would however like to submit one or perhaps even two amendments. We have to see whether we could agree on a friendly amendment. I would like us to add two specific points. I would like us to ask for a copy of Ms. Ouimet's letter of resignation, as well as a copy of the agreement which may have been concluded between Ms. Ouimet and the Government of Canada. I would also like us to replace the date of February 24, 2011 by that of February 14, 2011 and I would like you to let me explain why.
In the near future Mr. Walsh is going to appear before our committee. We agreed on that this week, Tuesday. I think that we should have the documents before Mr. Walsh's appearance so that we will already have in hand all of the information and can ask Mr. Walsh all of the necessary questions. This would allow us to not have to ask him to appear again because we are missing certain documents. Perhaps the date could be the subject of a friendly amendment. I am going to repeat what I said earlier.
I would like to add: to receive a copy of the letter of resignation and also a copy of any agreement made between Madame Ouimet and the Government of Canada based on the resignation.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Before I go to Mr. Saxton, Mr. D'Amours, on your amendment, you'll have to tell us exactly where you want those points to be put in Madame Faille's motion. If you have it written down, would you share it with us so we can make sure that it goes in the appropriate place, for the record?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
As to the date, I do not think this is complicated. We simply have to replace the 24th with the 14th.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
We have to include the proposed amendment in the main motion exactly where you suggested it.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to respond to Mr. D'Amours' proposed amendment to the motion.
My recollection is that the reason Mr. Walsh is coming before this committee is to advise us on how we should proceed with the non-compliance order and the subpoena of the former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. It has nothing to do with reviewing these documents.
I think Mr. D'Amours' request that the date be moved from February 24 to February 14 is out of order because it has nothing to do with Mr. Walsh's purpose and reason for coming to this committee.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
No, not yet, but I would like to make a comment on what was just said.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Colleagues, just a moment. We're just trying to get the information situated appropriately so that we can make a....
Go ahead, Monsieur D'Amours.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have almost finished what you asked me to do earlier. I would like to get back to the reason behind my amendment.
You will remember that I raised some concerns this week during Tuesday's meeting. These concerns have stayed with me and in fact have gotten worse, because I saw in an article in the media how information was being conveyed concerning Ms. Ouimet's situation. It seems that according to certain members, Ms. Ouimet had gone abroad.
If you remember well, I had said that the business card was removed. One day somebody was there and one day somebody was answering the phone, but Madame Ouimet, for some members, was out of the country.
As you will remember, I was indignant. Indeed, how could people say that Ms. Ouimet was outside the country unless they had information on that?
I would like to read you some excerpts from an article published in iPolitics.ca on February 9, 2011. I have copies for all of the members in both official languages. I will also give a copy to our clerk.
This is what the article says: “A neighbour told iPolitics that she spoke to Ms. Ouimet last week. But her comings and goings are now unclear. The former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner is not opening her door, neither to journalists nor bailiffs.”
Ms. Ouimet seems to be moving about, going here and there, as we can see. The former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner is not opening her door to journalists or bailiffs, but she speaks to neighbours. And yet people are trying to make us believe that Ms. Ouimet has gone on holidays, that she will come back at a given point but that no one knows when. However, business cards disappear, nieces answer the door, the people who answer the phone are no longer there, but the neighbours are talking to Ms. Ouimet or Ms. Ouimet has been talking to her neighbours. And this was no later than last week. While we the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts cannot even manage to contact Ms. Ouimet, the neighbours for their part had no difficulty reaching her.
The objective of my amendment is clear and simple, just like my colleague's main motion. I am going to finish drafting my amendment, Mr. Chair, and show you where we want to include it. I was frustrated Tuesday and I am even more so today, when I see that we the members of Parliament cannot obtain information, while the neighbours are talking amongst themselves and talking to Ms. Ouimet. This is passing strange.
As was said, “One neighbour told iPolitics that she had a conversation with Ouimet last week”.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Thank you.
Thank you for giving us the indication of where you'd like to have that. I appreciate your desire to explain why you've moved that amendment, but as some members will probably say, that goes to your explanation, let's go to the substance of the motion, because that's what we're speaking to, and he's proposed an amendment....
Allow me to speak for a moment while the clerk and the staff situate it in an appropriate place so that you can read it. But I think colleagues have heard his amendments, or his proposals, and if they'd like to speak on them, that's great.
I think I had Mr. Christopherson...no, I didn't have you first, actually, but go ahead.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm on? Good. I'll be very brief.
Actually, I was just asking if the mover of the motion would be kind enough to make his amendments in two parts—an amendment and an amendment to the amendment—simply because I'm with him on the letter of resignation and any signed agreements. I think those are very pertinent to our work.
I have a problem with the 14th. Number one, I think it's a bit tight in terms of fairness to the people who have to actually deliver these things. Secondly, I'm with Mr. Saxton: the briefing with Mr. Walsh really is not tied to these documents at all or this motion, so it seems to me that we could put a more reasonable date in there, still go ahead with Mr. Walsh, and then go on. I don't think we lose anything. So I disagree with the notion that these documents would form a relevant part of our briefing with Mr. Walsh at this time.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Just so that I keep it clear in my mind while I go to others, you're not in disagreement with the amendment, but you are with the date.