Evidence of meeting #135 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
That one is done.
Mr. Whalen and Ms. Kwan are prepared to hear my ruling.
Ms. Rempel.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Just on a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left for questions after we're done with this?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
My ruling may be lengthy.
On the point of order I am going to actually....
Mr. Baylis.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I was waiting to speak while Mr. Tilson, who seems to not like being interrupted, if you recall—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I thought they didn't speak, so I didn't know if you still wanted to speak.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
No, it's okay. He seemed not to appreciate when someone was talking over him.
I'm glad you didn't appreciate it, and I'm with you on that. I didn't appreciate when I was talking and you were speaking over me, Mr. Tilson. Do you want to do it—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You know, this member's new to the committee, and he's—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
He's interrupting the meeting and stalling for time. I would suggest that you allow the chairman to make his ruling, as we've all requested.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Why didn't you say that when you had the chance to say that?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Why don't you speak through the chairman? Why are you speaking to me?
As your minister of public works said, do you want to go out into the hall?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
It is your time, and I'd ask all other members to please be quiet. You may continue.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
On that point, I ceded the chance to Mr. Tilson to say that diatribe, but he chose not to, except when I was talking again.
Ms. Rempel said that those acts of that oath were related to charges of allegations. This is her bringing it up, not me. There are no charges of allegations here, number one.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm going to ask the member to speak on the point of order, which is simply now on the relevance of this question to the supplementaries.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
She has said clearly that the government doesn't like this to get out. That's what's relevant. She seems to me to be making a statement about why none of us would want to see that report now. I've never said I don't want to see that report.
I cannot leave that on there—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
You're saying that's relevant. We have agreement.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
No. I can't let you make a statement that puts words in my mouth to say, “I don't want to see that report”. I never said I don't want to see the report. I've never made that statement.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I just remind the committee there's no such thing as a point of clarification. You have a point of order or a point of privilege.
We have one point of order on. If there's a point of order with respect to the point of order, I would hear it.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Yes, on a point of order.
I believe that my colleague is arguing against relevancy. I would argue on a point of order that if he's arguing that my line of questioning is, in fact, relevant, then the challenge that we're having now is moot.
November 27th, 2018 / 4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm going to rule that Ms. Rempel has her seven minutes and she is able to continue in the line of questioning that she has engaged in, provided two things.
One is that no one in this committee should impugn the reputation of any other member of Parliament, either directly or indirectly. It's very clear in the House of Commons rules that an indirect impugning of one's character by suggesting, either indirectly or directly, that they are not telling or will not tell the truth is not going to be allowed in this committee as long as I'm the chairperson.
Anybody who suggests that someone—on either side or either end of this table, if they are a member of Parliament or have taken an oath—is not acting appropriately, then they will be ruled out of order.
I will ask for the Speaker's help with respect to that person as a matter of parliamentary privilege. Part of parliamentary privilege is to be able to come to this committee having taken an oath and be assumed to be telling the truth. That is the fundamental nature of the Westminster parliamentary tradition.
Ms. Rempel will have the floor in a moment, when I'm finished. She will be able to continue, as she will define for herself—and then the court of public opinion will decide—whether she is relevant or not. That is for her to make up.
I'd like to finish this. I'd like to read that last statement. It goes to the point of impugning someone's character. While the rules of procedure have said one thing, in 1960, in relation to the appearance of current and former ministers, the law clerk of the House advised the chair of what was then the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee that in the view of his oath as a privy councillor, he need not necessarily be sworn, although it would not be inappropriate to do so if a member of the House committee raised the point.
I wanted to raise that point that there's no requirement, ever, for a member of the Privy Council—or, I would actually argue, a member of the House of Commons—to be sworn in. The motion was in order. You could entertain that; however, it was also in order that the committee voted that it was not necessary.
I've made those three statements. I understand, unfortunately, that the minister has to leave to go to another appointment he committed to from 3:30 to 4:30. The committee was all well aware of that. Unfortunately, he has to leave. Our committee will continue with officials.
Ms. Kwan.