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.
12:40 p.m.
Former Parliamentary Affairs Director, Department of Public Works and Government Services, As an Individual
Thank you for your question. But I do not think it is relevant, I do not think it has any bearing on the matter for which I was summoned here.
It has nothing to do with this subject, the pertinence of this question.
12:40 p.m.
An hon. member
I just wondered—
12:40 p.m.
An hon. member
Point of order.
May 6th, 2010 / 12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just a moment, please. Order.
I wanted to remind all honourable members that to say the words “Point of order” is not a proxy for “I want to speak”. There must be a specific point of order. If it persists to be an abuse of the opportunity, the chair has a responsibility to keep order of the committee and may in fact not recognize a member who has been persistent in abusing that opportunity.
Mr. Warkentin, you asked for a point of order. Please—
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
—specifically, what is the character of the point of order, before you start arguing or describing it?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Yes, exactly, Mr. Chair.
What I was actually going to ask you specifically, Mr. Chair, is if you could rule on if this is relevant to the study by which we've been called--
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. Order.
Mr. Warkentin, we dealt with this a little earlier. Members have an opportunity, have their time, to make questions of the witness. They're having the conversation. The witness has responded and it's up to them. But it's not up to us to decide what a member can raise at this meeting in their questions. It may have relevance. We don't know. It's up to the questioner to establish that or refute the claims.
That's not a point of order. What you've really done is you've decided to jump in on the conversation, okay? So let the members use their time contiguously. We don't need to have any further delays, because I do want to get through the rest of it. and one of your members is going to lose his time to ask questions if we keep on this.
So I want to move back to Madam Thi Lac to complete. She has two minutes left.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Today, I think it is pretty clear that you are getting legal advice to help you answer our questions. You say that the question is not relevant. In the beginning, you told us you would be consulting him. So the question is quite relevant.
What I want to know is whether Canadian taxpayers are the ones footing the bill so you can consult a lawyer during your appearance here today. Is the government paying or someone else? My question is clear. Today, who is paying the bill for Mr. Lecours, who is giving you advice as you answer the questions put by the members of this committee?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The witness may or may not want to answer that question, but I would point out that the member is asking him to divulge a solicitor-client privilege before this committee.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
That is not a point of order. It's a matter of debate. I'm going to go back to Madame Thi Lac.
I think Madame Thi Lac has indicated clearly what the question is and the reason why she asked the question. The witness is the one, Mr. Poilievre...and to all honourable members, if a question is posed to a witness and they believe there is a valid reason that they cannot or should not answer it, it is the responsibility and the right of the witness to do that--not committee members to represent the witness. Please remember that.
Mr. Togneri, you responded. Please respond again in the fashion that you feel is appropriate to the member's question.
Start the clock again, please.
12:45 p.m.
Former Parliamentary Affairs Director, Department of Public Works and Government Services, As an Individual
My conversations with my lawyer are protected by solicitor-client privilege. I do not think the question has any relevance or bearing on the matter for which I was summoned. No, no.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal