Evidence of meeting #15 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 sparrow.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
--the deadline for the release of that information?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just a moment, Mr. Poilievre.
Colleagues, first of all, it's always a challenge at this committee, but the chair has to do the best they can to maintain order and decorum and to follow the will of the committee in its work.
It's very clear from the motion that the committee members wanted to hear from this witness, separate and apart from the minister, who was called separately, has already appeared, and had an opportunity to respond to all the members' questions. The minister is not a witness here. The members have not had an opportunity to prepare to ask questions of the minister and it is improper, therefore, to engage the minister with questions.
So I'm asking the committee members... And it's my decision that it is improper, under the orders of the day and the witnesses called by the committee for today, and that questions to the minister are out of order. Okay?
Carry on, sir.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Thank you for your advice, Chair.
Minister, the timeframe in which a piece of information on, for example, a costing--
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Could you turn his mike off?
Okay. When I came to this place, Gibby Parent was the Speaker. He was a very wise man and he never pushed. He implored members, when he had to make tough decisions, to respect them, and I think it's the way that we should proceed in this.
We have to show good faith and we have to stay together, because if we start breaking the rules or saying oh, it's okay, the rules and the order start to fall apart. I have to follow the rules. I have to follow the will of the committee. I have to make decisions.
And the decision was that we've called a witness to be examined. I understand that the minister is here, but just to repeat, I've ruled that it is improper for members to address questions to the minister.
If the committee wants to ask further questions to the minister, we have...as Speaker Parent always used to say, you have other means to do that. The other means to do that in this case would be for the committee to request that the minister reappear on such-and-such a date, if she's available, and that members would be given notice of that and have an opportunity to prepare to ask questions to that particular witness.
That's the principle we're trying to protect here. I don't want to stray from that, so I'm going to again just remind members that it is improper to ask questions of anyone other than the witness who was called for today, as required and requested by the committee.
So, Mr. Poilievre, do you accept that, sir? Are you going to respect that? I mean, if we're going to have this game... I've made a decision and I've asked twice. I will ask a third time if it happens again, but at that point, the only recourse that a member would have is to challenge the authority of the chair. I'm prepared to take that, but it's not in the best interests of this committee, and it's certainly not in the public interest, to spend our time doing that.
So I'm going to turn the floor back to you, Mr. Poilievre, to ask your questions. You have used only one minute of your time. You have six minutes remaining and I'd ask you to proceed.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Thank you.
I think this is the first time in the history of Parliament where a minister has shown up and begged to be questioned, pleaded to be held accountable, and an opposition member who also happens to be the chair has denied the minister that opportunity.
I would further point out that the matter in question on which the controversy is based is that a member of the media sought information which was scheduled to be released within 90 days and it was released within 21. So you have standards not only met but exceeded, and you have a minister who has gone beyond the demands of Parliament and asked for the chance to be accountable for the conduct of her office, and you have the ironic situation where the opposition is denying her the ability to be held accountable.
Mr. Chair, perhaps we could have the analysts look through the hundreds of years of parliamentary experience to determine if this sort of event has ever occurred in the history of the British system of Parliament. I think you might be turning to direct your analysts to do just that...
I will ask Mr. Sparrow a question, and I'm sure that the minister would be delighted to answer it but for the fact that she has been silenced.
Mr. Sparrow, what is the timeframe during which the cost of an advertising campaign must be released?
Noon
Director of Communications, Office of the Minister, Human Resources and Skills Development, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Ninety days.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
And in what timeframe was it actually released in this case?
Noon
Director of Communications, Office of the Minister, Human Resources and Skills Development, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
It would have been 21 days.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Ninety days being the rough equivalent of three months...?
