Evidence of meeting #49 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 elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Acting Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Public Prosecution Service of Canada
I'm not sure how to answer the question. Not having seen the letter, I can't speak to what it says or how it might make me feel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Before your point of order, on August 5 I circulated to the committee, in both official languages, through the clerk, copies of the witness lists. They showed all of the witnesses, morning and afternoon, for all four days, including Madam Proulx and the Chief Electoral Officer. Subsequently Mr. Beardall was added to provide some support.
All of this was decided and circulated to you on August 5, including who was summonsed. This has already been sent out. There were no side deals. There are no side deals with anybody, quite frankly. So in terms of time, this was all settled over a week ago and circulated to the members. That's just for your information.
Mr. Goodyear, please.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
It's procedural, Mr. Chair.
My point of order has to do with the fact that my question related to the fact that some witnesses have been allowed to select their dates and others have not. Today a witness showed up who was responding to a summons and was not provided the ability to select his date.
You have decided to enter a debate. You are trying to defend your actions, sir. You have been changing the rules as you go, and the point is that some witnesses have been able to pick their dates and others were dictated their dates. There is a stark contrast. You also did not allow the national campaign manager of the Conservative Party to appear on a date that was convenient to him. That was your choice, supported by the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Excuse me, we're on a point of order, sir. You'll have to wait until we complete this one before we can do another one. Would that be all right with you? Okay.
The reason I raised this document, which was circulated to all members electronically by the clerk's office--this was on August 5--was that it included all the dates on which people were scheduled to appear that were agreed upon and included in the summonses. The representations by Mr. Del Mastro about some people not being given a choice is not true. In fact, Mr. Goldstein chose August 12, and he was scheduled to be here August 12.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Del Mastro has just said that I didn't give him a choice, and now he wants to appear today.
He also said, and I must respond.... The point of order provided some information that was false and misleading. Mr. Finley was scheduled and summoned to be here--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Excuse me, I issued a summons to be here August 13 on August 7. After I issued the summons, he first contacted the committee. So to say that I didn't give Mr. Finley any choices.... Mr. Finley walked into this hearing room on Monday morning and said, “I want to appear now.” I can't imagine in a court of law some witness walking in and saying, “Your Honour, I'm here, and I want to appear now.” I mean, that's how ludicrous it is.
I would like to say that if members are going to make allegations, their facts must be correct. In Mr. Del Mastro's case, every point he made was wrong and misleading. I'm going to have to correct every member who does that. Okay?
Now, we have--
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
No, no, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I have a point of order after you. I have a point of order.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
These guys are disrupting the meeting...[Inaudible--Editor]...and we can't do our work.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please. Order, please.
Could you please keep the conversations down a little bit? Thank you.
I'm a little concerned about how things are going here, but members have the right to raise points of order, and I'm going to hear them. I'm going to encourage them to make sure they're points of order. Maybe they can check with their neighbours first before they disrupt the proceedings and bring them to a full stop. And be concise so that the chair can rule or take some action pursuant to a point of order.
We have two more to go, but I really have to get back to our committee.
Mr. Lemieux had asked for another point of order.
Go ahead, sir.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Chair.
It's on procedure. I object to your constantly jumping in and offering your point of view on things. Mr. Del Mastro's questions were directed at the witness, and the witness answered. There was no need for the chair to jump in and offer his explanation, his point of view, and what he thought happened and in what order. You're constantly cutting people off, like me and my colleagues, in the middle of their points of order. You then rebut the point of order and don't allow a response. You just say that we've dealt with it; it's over. You call order right away. Yet you will jump into the middle of questioning when you feel it's appropriate. You did this all day yesterday too. You were jumping in at the end--
Conservative