Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 10th, 2011

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Very well, but I asked the question in French, and in French everyone was in agreement to pass the motion as amended.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

That was Mr. D'Amours' motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

No, Mr. Kramp, I asked for a vote on the amendment.

Initially we asked if there was going to be a recorded vote, and government members said no need, because we agree.

I then called for a vote on the main motion as amended. I asked if colleagues had the same disposition and would accept it.

I said that in French, and everyone was in agreement. I don't know what we have to do.

Mr. Kramp, the reason that we didn't go to your amendment was that we were going to deal with that first.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I agree with you. We did approve the amendment and we did approve the main motion. But I, as one member, don't want to walk away with that and the government--a whole caucus--feeling that they just misunderstood.

So I would propose to my colleagues that, number one, we start being a little more finite. This has happened before where we're unclear; even if it's a quick show of hands, it provides that line. I would urge that we kind of get back to that. It helps us make things crystal clear. I won't get into it here--I can't in public--but we had the same issue come up at steering committee.

Chair, I would ask you, and I would support any motion or attempt that would have us do this, to go back and recognize that the amendment to the amendment passed, that the main motion is still before us, and accept Mr. Kramp's right to place an amendment on that main motion, just in fairness. I don't see anything to be gained the other way other than for someone to feel like they've been tricked or had. That's no way to operate.

So I'm quite prepared to accept that the amendment has passed, the main motion is in front of us, and therefore Mr. Kramp--and any other member--is entitled to place a motion of amendment in front of the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Christopherson, thank you for attempting to be very helpful.

Obviously, as you know, there's never an intention to mislead anybody.

I guess, Mr. Kramp, when I saw you with the paper, I wondered what it was you wanted to table.

We can do this one of two ways. As Mr. Christopherson has suggested, I can ask the committee for the same unanimous consent to reopen that decision, and I can give you an opportunity to present an amendment.

Or--and I will ask colleagues for consent on this as well--you could move it as a motion on its own. I have no problem with this at all. I think colleagues are disposed to accept it.

So how would you like to proceed? We want to be collegial and we want to get this done.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is not a point of order--

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Go ahead, Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

—but the reason I want to speak on this is that when Mr. Kramp did allude to it earlier on in the conversation, my understanding was that, when I signalled to you as well, Chair, saying let's deal with the amendment that Mr. D'Amours was dealing with first, the amended motion would be voted on; that then we would go back to that main motion, which was being amended; and that Mr. Kramp then had the intention of providing, I believe, his amendment.

So there was a genuine misunderstanding, and from my point of view, I think that's where we should stand. I agree with Mr. Christopherson: I think there was genuine misunderstanding.

When Mr. Kramp alluded to the fact that he wanted to make an amendment, he was alluding to the fact that he wanted to make an amendment to the amended motion. And we wanted to vote on that first. That's how I interpreted it as well, Chair, when I was speaking to Mr. Kramp off the record and not through you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Bains, thank you very much for that.

I'm going to ask for the unanimous consent of the committee just to reopen things so that we have that vote.

The amended motion is now the main motion. Madame Faille's motion as amended by Monsieur D'Amours, which everybody has accepted, is what Mr. Kramp is going to address with his amendment.

Mr. Kramp, you have the floor. You've given me these documents. Please tell me what you'd like me to do with them before you give us your amendment, just so that I'm aware.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I would like you to table them with the committee in case anybody wishes to look at them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'm the only one who sees what's here. Do you want to take a moment to tell everybody what it is that I'm holding?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Yes. It is a disclosure document. It's the rules of disclosure from the Ethics Commissioner's office.

I will read from the document, and I would just propose that this would be part of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Do you want this to be distributed to everybody?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

It's on the back page, actually. I'm reading from the back page.

We could support the motion by Madame Faille, where it says in this document from the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada that:

The disclosure process is confidential. Your identity and other information provided to the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner when making in good faith a disclosure about a wrongdoing will be protected to the extent possible under applicable laws. Such information obtained or created by the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner in the course of an investigation into a disclosure cannot be released under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act or the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. This information is held in Personal Information Bank PSIC PPU 005 and you have the right to access this information in accordance with the Privacy Act.

What I'm saying is that this committee uphold the intent of this document and ask for further guidance and clarification from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. What we're asking for with this, basically, is to have the Privacy Commissioner comment on this document before this committee. As such, then, I would suggest that it be added to Madame Faille's motion, and we would support that motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

All other colleagues are at a disadvantage because they don't have what I have in my hand. Mine is only in English.

Mr. Kramp, I can have you sit with the clerk in a moment to see exactly what that amendment is and what your intent might be.

I'm holding onto several of these things. I've just heard your last comment and I'm trying to see where everybody else is at. I think if someone were to be quizzical for a moment, to try to see exactly where we're going and what you want to do, I think that would be understandable.

Colleagues, if you will bear with us for a moment, we will suspend while we get that sorted out. You don't have to go anywhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Colleagues, if you don't mind, please take your places around the table.

I'm looking at the clock, and I feel uncomfortable, on your behalf as well, for the fact that we've had witnesses who had planned to come here and have waited this long for us to go through our deliberations. It's taking a few minutes to try to coordinate what the main motion might be.

Given that we may be here for a little longer, I thought that as a courtesy I would ask colleagues around the table if they would allow me to give the witnesses the opportunity to leave, with our apologies for having taken this amount of their time. I don't think we'd like to keep them any longer. They're welcome to stay, of course, but I think it would be unfair for us to ask them to stay and maybe be here until 5:30.

We'll try to make arrangements at another time. We appreciate that you have been this patient with us.

I've consulted with just some colleagues during a discussion here. If there's anybody who thinks that's an inappropriate action on the part of the committee, please say so. Otherwise, I'll thank all of our witnesses for their time.

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, there is another option that we haven't discussed, and that is just tabling the motion and then asking our witnesses to go ahead. I propose that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

There's a problem with that, though. The motion has timelines in it and we need to get the main motion passed.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, but I think--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So you're willing to pass that and then do what with your motion...?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

With our amendment included.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Oh well, no, that's going to require some discussion.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I'm just trying to—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that, though, Andrew. That was really good of you, really--