Evidence of meeting #13 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was question.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No. Mr. Poilievre, please.
Mr. Easter has a line of questions. He has the full latitude to pursue whatever he wants, but he has asked a very direct and clear question. To challenge whether a member's question is in order is simply not a point of order.
It's up to the chair to determine, and I have indicated to Mr. Togneri that I believe it's a straight question; it has not anything to do with private, secret, or confidential information. It is asking for his knowledge of the Access to Information Act, which is related to the work that he does.
I don't want to waste any more time of this committee's meeting.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, there was no point of order. There was a debate. I have to move back to Mr. Easter, please.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The chair has a lot of powers, none of them telepathic. You don't know what my point is, so therefore you cannot respond to it.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I've been patient, but what I'd like to do at this point is ask members who wish to raise points of order—which is their right, first of all—to state clearly the basis for the point, rather than have a bit of a story leading up to it. I want to know the basis for the point of order. It could be something like relevance, or repetition, or not related to the matter before this committee, and stuff like that, but be very specific.
Mr. Bezan, before you start debating it, what is the nature of your point of order?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
My point of order is Standing Order 117, very specific to committee, which states:
The Chair of a standing, special, or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal of the committee; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof.
I refer to your powers as chair, under “Procedural Responsibilities”, on page 1,030 of O'Brien and Bosc, in chapter 20, which says that:
They ensure that any rules established by the committee, including those on the apportioning of speaking time, are respected. They are responsible for maintaining order and decorum in committee proceedings, and--
This is referring to your work.
--rule on any procedural matter that arises, subject to an appeal to the committee.... Furthermore, the Chair....
But anyway, what I am getting at, Mr. Chair, is that you have to recognize points of order and that if any member is raising a point of order based upon any of the questioning here, you have to hear those points of order, as outlined in Standing Order 117. If you feel that things are getting out of control, Mr. Chair, you can report this back to the House if the committee agrees to it. I just wanted to raise that with you.
11:35 a.m.
Former Parliamentary Affairs Director, Department of Public Works and Government Services, As an Individual
In response to the question, I'm not here to give opinions, legal opinions. I'm not a lawyer and I am unable to give that kind of legal opinion.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay.
My recollection is that the question was, were you or are you aware of the sections of the act?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Easter is the questioner. I will ask him to pose the question again.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I have just a point first, before I get to that. I hope all the government's points of order on delaying here are not coming out of my time because--
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Okay. That sounds good.
The question specifically was, Mr. Chair: are you aware that your interference in the ATI process is an offence under the Access to Information Act? That was it specifically.
11:35 a.m.
Former Parliamentary Affairs Director, Department of Public Works and Government Services, As an Individual
And my answer is that I'm not here to give legal opinions. I'm not a lawyer.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
With all due respect, Mr. Togneri, it isn't a legal opinion; it is whether you were aware whether it was interference. But set that aside, then, if you're not willing to answer that question.
In terms of that interference, was Minister Paradis or anyone at the PMO or PCO aware that you were instructing the bureaucrats to “unrelease” the report that already was on its way to the media?
11:40 a.m.
Former Parliamentary Affairs Director, Department of Public Works and Government Services, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I again refer to the order from the Information Commissioner that I tabled today.