Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

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

On a point of order, there was an incorrect statement from my colleague, with the greatest respect. He said we are here discussing the particular case. Well, we are not.

The purpose of this committee hearing was to hear from the witnesses with regard to process, not to discuss the actual case. If at that point this is something that we could and should and would do, then we would do that.

Now, if we are going to question the witnesses directly on the actual Auditor General's case, then quite frankly we might even be pre-empting ourselves without first having heard from the witness.

I really think we're going down the wrong road to do that, because what we're doing then is we're using this hearing to basically set the direction for the committee with regard to an actual investigation rather than setting the parameters of study.

There are two different things. The parameters of study are one thing, but the actual investigation is something else. If we're going to get into the case investigation now, then that's a whole different ball of wax.

If my honourable colleagues want to go down that path right now, I think we have to be very, very careful. We could be prejudicing the entire direction that we could be going in, because we will not then be following necessarily the mandate of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp.

I'm going to remind colleagues about one thing before I proceed to the next step.

We had, as per our own motions, invited Mr. Walsh to give us advice regarding next steps, and that advice would be legal advice as we would go along the way.

On your behalf, I invited Madame Bernier in order to provide us with some insights with respect to the privacy issues that would flow from that...even though the committee said, no, we've done that. I thank her again for coming, and I thank Mr. Walsh for coming.

All of this is to say, Mr. Christopherson and Madame Faille, that perhaps we can accommodate both perceptions, but I think in terms of chronology, we might hear from Mr. Walsh first, and any of the decisions that we might have questions from with respect to Madame Bernier would take place afterwards.

So I would say that we would continue--because we're talking about next steps first, and then implications therefrom--and that we would suspend to go in camera first and afterwards go public for any other questions we might have for Madame Bernier.

I'm prepared to entertain a motion to that effect.

Mr. Bains is the one who made the suggestion that he wanted to go in camera.

If you make a motion, then we can have an indication right away--unless everybody is in agreement right now.

Mr. Bains.

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

I'd like to put forward a straightforward motion. Based on the advice given by Mr. Walsh, I suggest we take the discussion in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay.

There's no debate--

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Just for a point of clarification, though, does the motion mean all questions that we might want to present to Mr. Walsh, or...? As you suggested, there might there be other questions we wanted to ask on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Well, if any questions flow from anything you've heard from Mr. Walsh, or indeed from Madame Bernier, we can deal with them with Madame Bernier and Mr. Walsh. But what we want to do, because we had invited Mr. Walsh to give us some legal advice first, would be to reverse the order. That's all. That's all we're talking about.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm not that far apart in my thinking from what you've outlined, but to me it makes more sense that we would do the public session first to allow everybody who wants to be at the public session to just stay where they are and have that. Then when we go in camera, those who have to leave can leave, and they're finished their time.

So just from a practical point of view, it seems to me we should do it the other way around.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Bains, just quickly, what is it you want to do? You're the guy who made the motion.

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

I stated my position. Basically, I'm of the view that we first deal with this in camera, with Mr. Walsh; then if there are any further questions that do come up, particularly pertaining to the Privacy Commissioner, we can proceed to deal with them in a public manner, if acceptable.

So that was my original thought, but I'm open to other suggestions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

So are you still staying with that, or what?

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

That was my recommendation. That's what I'm staying with. So it depends; if there is further debate, great. If not, then I'll reconsider.

But is there further debate?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

There is no debate. I just asked for the motion so that I could simply call the vote on it and that's it.

I think some members wanted to be ingenious and ask for points of order, but we've closed that off.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

So the motion by Mr. Bains is that the committee sit in camera to hear Mr. Walsh first and then go on to Madame Bernier and Mr. Walsh.

(Motion negatived)

All right. We're not going to have Mr. Walsh first.

Do I have...?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Another motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Yes.

Go ahead, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I move that we hear the deputy privacy commissioner in public, and when we've exhausted that discussion, we then take a motion to move into....

No, I'll put it in this motion: we then go into camera to hear and have questions with Mr. Walsh.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Those in favour of that motion?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can't ask Mr. Walsh any general questions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Well, you're going to leave that up to me right now.

[An hon. member]

No, it's public--

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Just a moment, Mr. Kramp.

The idea here is to make sure that we have a fulsome discussion. Everybody has expressed a desire to have Madame Bernier here to answer questions publicly.

I'm going to ask those on my list to address their questions to Madame Bernier first, so that we can then proceed to the second part.

Ms. Faille, you have the floor.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I am going to try to answer a number of Mr. Kramp’s concerns. I have checked the official procedure for in-camera meetings. If there were unanimous consent or a majority decision to have the comments made by Mr. Walsh in camera made public, this could be achieved through a motion to the Committee requesting this.

This information should answer the concern raised. If, after the in camera session, we deem Mr. Walsh’s testimony to be in the public interest, the Committee may decide to make that portion of the in-camera session part of the public hearing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Well, I think we can have that decision afterwards, Madame Faille. In the interests of carrying on with the debate, let's go on.

Those who have questions--