Evidence of meeting #65 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was spectrum.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
The thing that has happened in this place is totally unacceptable—the reference to this man's work as being garbage. People who come before this committee deserve due respect. To say his work is garbage is absolutely uncalled for. You don't even know what this man does and you're characterizing it as garbage. That is blatantly unfair.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
First of all, what I'm trying to do.... This person is claiming to be an expert witness in a certain specific part of the budget implementation act. I'm looking at that and I'm saying, based on his history and what he has said on previous economic issues, and how wrong he has been relevant to Saskatchewan, he cannot be a credible witness. That is what I'm saying.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
We are at our 65th meeting. I've never heard an attack like we have had from Mr. Hoback. We have a lot of witnesses here. I think the finance committee has been very reasonable, and they always mention they enjoy working here, but to attack someone on a personal level...and where we have witnesses here, who have come here, who have waited for us to talk about the bill.... I think Mr. Hoback is out of order.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Hoback is totally in order, and it's clear that Mr. Weir has an agenda. He spoke about transparency and yet wasn't transparent about his past. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Hoback did not say that his contribution or his work is garbage. What he did say was that those quotes that are attributed to him, which he did not deny, are garbage.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Peggy Nash
Mr. Adler, maybe I could just help the discussion along a little bit. I don't believe this is a genuine point of order. I think it's a point of discussion. I appreciate the comments that have been made. I'd like to caution the members of the committee that we're working long hours and we need to show respect to those people who have given their time to come here. I think it's fair for us to have a vigorous debate, but I think what you're making is in fact a point of debate.
Yes, Mr. Hoback.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I guess I just want to defend myself, Chair. First of all, this is not a personal attack on Mr. Weir. It never will be. I don't do business that way. What I am questioning, though, is his credibility. I'm questioning whether or not he's representing the United Steelworkers or the NDP.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Peggy Nash
Mr. Hoback, I'm going to interrupt and say these are all points of debate. These witnesses have all come here in good faith. You can disagree with what somebody is presenting and debate with them vigorously, but I would leave it at that.
Can we move on? I'm saying this is a point of debate.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I'll stay out of this one for now—just for now.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
The only thing I'm going to say at this point is this. Does this mean that for every witness who comes before us now we're going to have to ask them what political party they're associated with, what background...what activity they've done, what's their history, what comments they may have made? It's taking it to a level where we shouldn't be going.
Why don't we just talk to the witnesses about Bill C-38 and get on with this?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you.
I would like to say, in relation to the point of order, that Mr. Hoback has five minutes to ask questions. This individual has come forward criticizing the government in relation to our budget. My understanding is he was a candidate in 2004 for the NDP, but he also currently holds a position with the NDP, either in Saskatchewan or federally. I think it's a legitimate question to ask whether or not he still holds a position, because he's criticizing the government and he's supposed to be an independent witness, not a member of the NDP criticizing the government. I think it's a legitimate question.
So does he have a current role with the NDP, federally or provincially? That's a good question.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Peggy Nash
I don't know.
Let's just get back to the debate. I again encourage all members to be respectful.
Sorry, was there someone else who had a comment? Did you have a comment?
Conservative
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Peggy Nash
I'm not keeping the list; the clerk is keeping the list. You're up next.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
I actually wanted to agree with you, Madam Chair, regarding the fact that this is actually a point of debate that's frankly probably gone on far too long. I would like to get back to the study at hand, but I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Jean just said. This was a question posed to this witness, interrupted by the NDP, and it was not a point of order. I believe Mr. Hoback ought to be allowed to continue. This is relevant, completely relevant, because independence of witnesses is essential to making sure that we represent Canadians' interests properly.
I would suggest, Madam Chair, that Mr. Hoback be given back his time and that we proceed, but that you rule that in fact it was not a point of order and Mr. Hoback can continue the line of questioning he began.