The concept of asking someone to go under oath has been used when there's a suspicion of misleading someone. That being said, the expectation that a minister would know the individual files of 338 members of Parliament over a past period of time is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
I don't know how many times I've spoken to the minister on a particular case for me, so if I were to be asked just how many times I have interpellated a minister on a particular case, I wouldn't be able to answer that.
If I simply can't answer it, putting me under oath does not give me some extra superpowers to answer it. The gamesmanship here—pretending that we're going to put someone under oath to get to the truth—is defamatory and part of some political game intended to suggest that the minister is hiding information, which is not true.
If the member is truly interested in getting this information, there's a process. You can file a paper called an access to information. You don't expect a minister to come to committee knowing the files of 338 people off the top of his head. That's ridiculous.
Normally, when I speak in other committees, I don't have to deal with other members. I did not interrupt Ms. Rempel. I did not interrupt Mr. Tilson. I did not interrupt Mr. Maguire. I find it quite annoying, Chair, that he feels it's his right to speak over me every time I say something.
I don't see how you have that right.
If you want to take my time, go ahead and do it, and I'll come back. If you have something to say, I'm going to cede my time so you can say it, Mr. Tilson, but then I want my time back.
I'm not going to speak over him, though, Chair. I'll wait.