Evidence of meeting #51 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 witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
—to this particular steering committee recommendation. But what I was saying was that we should deal with the current witnesses who are before the committee before we cast our net further and talk about further witnesses.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
No, but the witnesses who were before the committee, as you well know, are the Auditor General and the former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. I'm just saying that we should deal with the witnesses who have already been before the committee, because you have indicated an interest—or Mr. Christopherson, who is not here, has indicated—
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Would you like to wait for Mr. Christopherson, or his replacement, at least, to come and speak on his behalf?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Let me deal with the part that doesn't deal with him, and then we can go on.
This is contingent on the study continuing. In the event that we do continue, your committee has said, “Let's carry on.”
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
What are we doing with the Auditor General and the former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Now that we have Mr. Christopherson here, and there appears to be a desire on the part of Mr. Saxton to switch the agenda so we can deal with Mr. Christopherson's motion before the committee last March 10, before we accept what he has already said, he does not object to....
Mr. Christopherson, I'm going on a little bit to let you catch your breath.
I'm going to link the two, but I'm not forgetting that you have said you have no objection to the committee's report.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I know, you can't guarantee anything from minute to minute.
Mr. Christopherson, on March 10 you moved a motion that--we don't have the exact wording here, but you wanted to have.... We're looking for the exact wording.
Mr. Christopherson moved:
That, in relation to the study of the Report of the Auditor General of Canada on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, the Auditor General of Canada and Christiane Ouimet, the former Integrity Commissioner of Canada, be invited to appear at the next available meeting.
There was some debate. The chair looked for any dissent, there was none, so we said yes, we would proceed on that. So we are at that stage.
I think, Mr. Saxton, you wanted to have a vote on that. If you wanted to have that motion confirmed, we can do that right now.
Those in favour of Mr. Christopherson's motion, please indicate in favour.
(Motion agreed to)
It's unanimous. Thank you.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate that. Twice now we've got into a jam as to whether the vote was taken. Once I saw it was going to carry, I let it go, but if there was a chance it was going to lose, I was going to argue that it did carry at that meeting.
We've got into a habit of looking around, and if there's no agreement, we move on and the minutes don't reflect hard decisions. This is one example. The other one is there. I can't think of it right now, but there was another example in the last while.
I would urge that we make a point, even if it's unanimous...that you make some declaration, Chair, that finds its way into the minutes, regardless of how we did it, by vote, voice, nod. So it's clear we made that decision and it has the weight of an approved motion.
Thank you.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
All right. I think we all agree on that, so that's fine.
Mr. Young, on that same point of order?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
On that same point of order, I think the one Mr. Christopherson is thinking of is where the bells began to ring, calling the committee back to the House, and you proceeded to coerce the committee to keep on going, that we didn't have a proper vote--
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
We don't need that point of order anymore, Mr. Young. Thank you. We've already made a decision--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
This is your problem today. You're paying a price for the way you run this committee. There's no trust, because you overrule members. You don't hear points of order. You're expressing your bias in everything you do. The committee doesn't trust you.
If you went by proper procedure and you recognized points of order in an unbiased manner, the committee would run more smoothly.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
I think what's very important is that we ensure that the witnesses who have already been before the committee and the witnesses whom Mr. Christopherson has just presented in a motion that was passed would come before these witnesses who are proposed in the steering committee's recommendation.
If that is the case, we have no objection. But we do feel it's important that we finish with this set of witnesses before we get into another set of witnesses, and therefore, based on that, we would not object to this report.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I don't think the steering committee laid out a timeline, other than to say that once we get through those witnesses, this is the list and there may be others. What you see before you, minus the date we have now cancelled, because obviously that's today's date, is a reflection of the committee's desire to go beyond the witnesses we had to make the situation much more complete.
We don't see this as happening before, but it's consequent to....
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Chair, I take what you're saying is that you agree that these witnesses would come after the witnesses that Mr. Christopherson in his motion recommended come together. Is that correct?