Evidence of meeting #23 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was snowdy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
I've heard your point of order. I'm sorry, that is my call.
Okay, continue on....
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I don't think he was.... I'm under the impression that it's the chair who makes the rulings, not the law clerk. The law clerk was providing an interpretation of what Mr. Walsh--
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
It actually is a point of order, Madam Chair.
If I could actually finish what I was talking about--
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
--then you might be able to decide whether it's a point of order.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Mr. Dechert, Mr. Calandra, points of order are not the reason to start speaking. Points of order are when you are really making a point of order against something. You were arguing.
Could you please let Ms. Coady finish her round of questions? She has agreed with Mr. Hamilton that she will not ask the questions because it would not be fair to Mr. Hamilton.
So if we're all on that page, I think we should continue.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
My point of order, Madam Chair, if I may, is that the ruling that was read has nothing to do with the rules of professional conduct that govern the members of the Law Society of Upper Canada. That is exactly what is at stake here.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I think they're trying to be obstructionist again today. I just asked for an opinion.
I'm assuming now, Mr. Hamilton, that the Prime Minister has not authorized you to speak. Mr. Snowdy had his client authorize him to speak. I'm now hearing that the Prime Minister has not authorized you to speak.
I have just one point.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Oh; I'm on my final question.
The conflict of interest commissioner did talk about Mr. Snowdy as the sole source. Did you actually write the letter to the Ethics Commissioner? Were you at all involved in that letter to the Ethics Commissioner? It was signed off by the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, but were you involved in the writing of that letter?
3:45 p.m.
Partner, Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP
Again, that's asking a question that is going to get at privileged information.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
To cool off, we'd better go to the vote.
The meeting is suspended. Be back after the vote, please.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Can the media leave, please?
Monsieur Guimond, are you ready to start your round of questions?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you.
Madam Chair, we heard a minute ago from Ms. Mortensen. Whatever the ruling she was referring to that was made by Mr. Walsh on another occasion, in another committee, in another context, I didn't hear her say anything about the rules of professional conduct, which are what apply here.
You know, it's wonderful to hear that statement by Mr. Walsh, but it was taken in a different context, which we don't know and wasn't explained to us. I don't think it should stand as any kind of ruling on the question of what this witness should or shouldn't have to disclose to this committee. I was simply trying to—