Evidence of meeting #40 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Okay, thank you for the clarification, because obviously, if it was “our minister” I wondered who that was.
12:30 p.m.
Provincial Member, Prince Edward Island, Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments
Yes, I thought of that after.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I assumed it was probably just a translation issue.
Maybe I can ask you both the same question that I asked previously. In terms of the process itself, now that you've gone through it, this is about being able to assess your ability to think critically and your qualifications. What would your opinion be of the process and what can be done to improve it in the future?
12:30 p.m.
Provincial Member, Prince Edward Island, Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments
I think Mr. Vij pretty well answered those questions because—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We have a point of order.
Just before we go to the point of order, I remind the witnesses that all the comments we had on process are irrelevant to this discussion. It's on qualifications, which is the only reason that we're allowed to call you.
On the point of order, Ms. Sahota.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I don't see what else to do other than.... We keep going down the line of asking questions about the process and that's not why the witnesses are here. I'd like a fair ruling, actually this time, on the fact that we're not here to ask about process. We're here to ask about their skills.
If Mr. Richards wants to reformat that question, he is obviously free to do so, but the way he stated it, at this point, it is a direct question on process and it's not within the purpose of this meeting today.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
If one were to listen to the question that I asked it was to assess their critical thinking skills and their ability to analyze a process. That was the way I formulated the question.
You permitted the question previously, obviously. I think it's really unfortunate. I don't know what the sensitivity is over there. I know I've pointed out that this process is no reform, and it's really just a sham that the Prime Minister can just go ahead and appoint whoever he wants. Why are they so sensitive? I guess it's because of that. They're trying to defend the Prime Minister, even though it's indefensible, in my mind.
At the end of the day, Mr. Chair, the question was to assess the critical thinking skills of the witnesses and—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Mr. Chair, I thought it was one response and you would rule. This is actually getting kind of ridiculous. Why are they so scared?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
It's about our standing orders. It's about the rules. The rules are the rules. It's not about the Prime Minister and it's not about—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
There is no malice intended in the question, and I really wish I would not be interrupted. There is no malice in the question. It's simply trying to get a sense of their assessment of the process—
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
—and what they think could be done to improve it and that would obviously go to an assessment of their judgment and their critical thinking skills. I don't understand what the sensitivity is here in defending the Prime Minister so—
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay, this is enough.
When we started the point of order you had one minute left. You did ask specifically about the process, so I'm going to give you a chance to ask your question along the lines of what you were just talking about—critical thinking—so ask and you have one minute left.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I did ask it in that fashion previously, Mr. Chair, so I'm not sure what you're seeking to have me do differently.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Yes, based on determining their critical thinking skills. That's a very typical interview question, Mr. Chair, to ask people about a scenario to be able to assess their skills.
I don't see what the sensitivity is around the question. I guess I'll put it to the witnesses.
You heard the question. Would you care to respond?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Provincial Member, British Columbia, Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments
Can I just answer that for a second, Mr. Richards?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative