Evidence of meeting #45 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I had a point of order that you had promised you would return to immediately after you were done listing--
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, I'm asking for the floor and to be recognized. It's not a point of order. I'm asking to be recognized in dealing with the witness list.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Hold it. No, Mr. Poilievre is correct. He had called on a point of order, and I'm going to recognize him on his point of order.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Chair, at this point you've not had a chance to rule on the subject of the three witnesses at the top--John Courtney, Andrew Heard, and Heather MacIvor.
I know with near certainty that none of them have been investigated for election spending, yet they are being invited to testify as witnesses. I suppose that means they are being invited to testify about the Conservative electoral financing practices. The individuals you have taken off the list are also being called to testify about Conservative electoral practices, so they would fall within the motion, and so I would ask that they simply be put back on, given that they are going to be asked to testify about the contents contained within the motion. They are not being asked to testify about prior elections, but on the content within the motion.
In that new light—
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just for clarification, I understand you're talking about the first three people on the list. I did not delete them. They are on the list.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Okay. My point, though, is that they are still on the list, even though they are not under investigation and are not party to any investigation. They are testifying about the discussion of the Conservative financing.
What I was going to tell you is that we were hoping Jean-Paul Marchand and the group of others you have removed would also testify about the same thing, even though they are not party to it. In that new light, it would be great if you could just go ahead and put them back on the list.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you. It's not a point of order; that's debate. The committee has already taken the decision on amending the list. We now have an amended list. I believe the next item is to address the amended list.
Mr. Martin, you were recognized.
2:25 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a motion that we adopt the witness list as just amended by the chair, with the inclusion of one more detail, which is to withdraw the name of Robin Sears, and also to give direction to the chair and the clerk to begin to assemble a logical order of witnesses for appearance when we reconvene this committee in the month of August.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, maybe you could write out the elements there. Or did the clerks get that?
We need to have the motion. You don't have that written down. The clerks have said that the motion is to the effect—and you may want to confirm this—that Robin Sears be removed from the list, and that the proposed witness list as amended be agreed to, and that the chair be authorized to proceed with the arrangement for witnesses to appear at our hearings to be held in the week of August 11. Is that about right?
2:25 p.m.
NDP
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'm sorry, I have a point of order called.
Mr. Goodyear, on a point of order.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm calling attention on a point of order here. Marleau and Montpetit, I believe on page 857, states:
A point of order calling attention to a departure from the Standing Orders or from the customary manner in which a committee has conducted its proceedings may be raised at any time, by any member of the committee. In doubtful or unprovided cases, the Chair may reserve his or her decision.
Mr. Chair, do you seriously believe that it is customary to openly play favourites? Now, I know you're a Liberal and I know that you have been appointed by the Liberal Party, but I am asking why you would deviate from Standing Orders and persist in destroying the credibility of a parliamentary committee. You stated before, Mr. Chair, that you would not involve yourself in the selection of witnesses and you have flip-flopped on that decision, and I am calling a point of order on this whole matter.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Goodyear, your point emphasizing the customary practice, etc., in fact this—
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
I didn't mean customary for you, Paul; I meant customary for chairs who do things properly.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, we have the decision of the committee on the motion that we adopted to look into the in and out scheme, which was in fact handled the same way. We had an earlier approach today that was on the last item we dealt with before we broke, which was the motion about the eight. The chair—
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, I'm responding to it. I just have two examples in which the committee has followed this approach to respect the right of a committee to make a decision as well as to respect the rights of members to speak.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm fully aware of that, but clearly you've misunderstood what I mean. I'm not talking about your customary behaviour on this committee.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
My apologies for not stopping while you were debating with the clerk.
I am not suggesting that I said “customary procedures of your actions on this committee”. I am talking about the customary manner within which all committees on Parliament Hill have acted over generations, according to Marleau and Montpetit. Clearly, clearly, you are displaying a bias to the selection of witnesses. You have displayed the ability to control what questions can be asked and what answers can be given, and now you're telling us what witnesses we can see.
Why don't you, Mr. Chair, just tell us the outcome? Why don't you just tell us the outcome and save us a lot of money?
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The last part there is not any part of a point of order. It's a matter of opinion; that's debate. I respect your right to have that opinion, but I have no response to it, sir.
Madame Jennings had asked to be recognized.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
First, may I speak to the issue of this point of order?