Mr. Chair, MP Barron raised a couple of procedural questions in her opening response. I'd like an opportunity to respond to clarify the issue.
One of the questions she asked was why the word “potential” is in the motion. The word “potential” is there because this committee cannot determine a breach of privilege. Only the Speaker can.
I will quote page 1060, chapter 20, of Bosc and Gagnon, where it says, “The Chair of a committee does not have the power to rule on questions of privilege; only the Speaker has that power.”
It goes on to say the following:
The Chair then determines whether the question raised in fact relates to parliamentary privilege. If the Chair determines that the question does relate to parliamentary privilege, the committee may then consider presenting a report on the question to the House. The report should:
clearly describe the situation;
summarize the facts;
provide the names of the people involved, if applicable;
state that there may be a breach of privilege; and
ask the House to take such measures as it deems appropriate.
Ordinarily, presentation of a report to the House is a prerequisite for any question of privilege arising from the proceedings of a committee.
MP Barron, that is the outline overall. That's why it says “potential” and why the chair and the committee don't have the power to determine privilege, but have the ability to determine whether it is a question that should be proposed to the Speaker.
It then goes on to say in Bosc and Gagnon, about committees, “There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to witnesses appearing before committees, beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue”.
My questions on estimates were about enforcement, which was relevant at the time.
Bosc and Gagnon also says:
Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them. A witness may object to a question asked by an individual committee member. However, if the committee agrees that the question be put to the witness, he or she is obliged to reply. Members have been urged to display the “appropriate courtesy and fairness” when questioning witnesses.
The question I posed was about the issue of enforcement. The minister chose to reply. The minister's reply was, as I've said earlier, that she began consultation on enforcement.
MP Morrissey said that he couldn't discern what was in her mind and I agree that's an impossibility. What is possible to determine is whether or not the minister and/or the department had engaged in consultation. The minister represents both of them and said she had consulted.
All of the letters and evidence from the fishing groups clearly indicate that neither the minister nor the department reached out and answered MP Morrissey's question. It wasn't a question where she was reflecting on whether or not somebody else in her department had done the consultation with these groups. In fact, these groups have said that neither the department nor the minister did that.
I think that answers MP Barron's procedural questions. It's our job to prepare a report, which the clerks do. I will give all of these letters to the analysts and the clerk for them to look at as part of their discussion of this question of privilege.
When the minister said she began this situation by consulting with individual fishing associations, that was misleading the committee. Neither she nor the department had done that. The evidence is clear.
I ask that this committee and the chair be impartial when they look at the evidence and make an appropriate report back to the House that there has been a breach of privilege. Ministers have to tell the truth before committee. This minister did not.
There's no language barrier to this. That's a lame excuse for a very simple question about consultation and enforcement. She had interpretation. The interpretation was clear. Her response was clear.
Her response was that she began with consultation. She didn't begin. She didn't start in the middle, and she never ended. To this date, she hasn't had consultation with any of the maritime fishing groups regarding the Bay of Fundy enforcement—neither her nor her department.
We will share that evidence, Mr. Chair, and those letters from those groups with you and the clerk so that you can make your ruling. Your ruling is only on whether the question was in order. The chair's ruling is not on whether there's been a breach of privilege, but on whether misleading the committee is a question of privilege.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.