Evidence of meeting #19 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just a moment.
I'd like to ask members to please catch the eye of the clerk if they wish to speak and be on the list. If there is a matter for a point of order, it doesn't show up on the list for me here, so you would actually have to call for a point of order, as Mr. Hoback has just done.
Go ahead, Mr. Hoback, please.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
First of all, Mr. Chair, you have to respect the right of parliamentarians to talk at committee. I'll tell you what I'll do: I will cede my point of order to the minister, so that the minister can actually be heard.
Is this based on committee rules or the chairman's rules?
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I have made a decision on this--Mr. Hoback, please.
I gave my justification to the best of my ability, and if the member feels that my decision is incorrect, there is one approach that the member can use, and that would be to challenge the decision of the chair. That's it. It's not debatable, sir. It's not a point of order. You're debating and you're questioning my decision; you can't ask questions of the chair. You can't start asking questions of the chair. The chair is here to try to keep order, so I'm going to move on.
Mr. Easter was still in debate on the Freeman motion.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I want to get to the motion, Mr. Chair, but as just a friendly suggestion, maybe Mr. Hoback could step back and—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Easter, I'm going to ask all honourable members to please remember that we have some important business to move on to. I'd rather not get into opining on anyone's words or actions in this committee.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, but if I could say, Mr. Chair, my suggestion was that maybe if Mr. Hoback wanted to sign out and the minister sign in, he could ask his questions that way. I've seen that done at other committees before, rather than a minister trying to come in and make a ministerial statement as a member sitting on the side.
In any event, Mr. Chair, on the motion, I think it goes in part to Mr. Rickford's outburst a moment ago, when he tried to interject about the motion not being translated and therefore it trampling on the rights of the committee. We do have bilingual interpretation and you could therefore hear it. I heard it in English over the translation system. If he really wants to get to the trampling of the rights of the committee, then he would certainly be arguing that when we as a committee decide on witnesses to come before this committee, we expect them to be here.
This brings me to the motion itself, which basically is outlining very clearly, as you've reported from the bailiff, the following. I believe it was today that you said that from the time of June 3, the bailiff tried to serve Jillian Andrews on three occasions via three calls between June 3 and June 7, and he spoke to the receptionist, who confirmed that Jillian Andrews was in fact in the office.
I just find it hard to believe that a government that spouts law and order would so challenge the legal system by denying a bailiff's ability to serve papers on an individual who has been directed to appear before a parliamentary committee of this country. What an affront to justice by a government that claims to promote justice. It's unbelievable. What would we do if any ordinary citizen acted so as not to be found when they knew a bailiff was attempting to serve them with papers?
I am certainly most supportive of the motion. I think it puts a little more pressure on the individuals who seem to be avoiding an appearance before a parliamentary committee. They are the folks with the knowledge on the issues and are really the only ones we can question as to their activities surrounding the matter of access to information. They are the individuals who were involved. So I certainly welcome this motion and am fully supportive of it.
