It's a procedural point of order, yes.
Thank you, Chair.
We are concerned about the minister's earlier testimony to Mr. Housefather. He seemed to relay testimony that would have been given in camera. Unless the minister can provide any basis for that testimony right now, I would reserve the right to come back on this issue as a matter of privilege.
I'll give you an example. We have a transcript of the proceedings. Very early on, Mr. Housefather asked a question of the minister. He said:
Recommendation 10 states, “That the federal Parliament consider creating a new intimidation offence under the Criminal Code to more clearly and directly protect entrance to and exit from community buildings...places of worship and community centers, in addition to existing offences that may apply in situations where such buildings are being blocked.”
Minister, is that in the bill?
The minister responded:
It is, and I would note that the recommendation had multipartisan support, including from the Conservative Party.
The minister was not part of the justice committee and would not have been privy to this confidential information unless it had been shared directly by a member of the justice committee. This is a serious breach of privilege. It is a serious breach of confidentiality.
It is extremely misleading for both Mr. Housefather and the Minister of Justice to conclude—this is just one example of many examples where the conclusion has been drawn—that this had the full support of the Conservative Party. No one mentioned that the Conservative Party filed a dissenting report. In the dissenting report, there was a strong statement that while the Conservatives supported most of the recommendations, there were other recommendations we did not agree with, hence the basis of the dissenting report.
On the issue of this breach of confidential information that was taken in camera, I'd like to hear from the minister how he acquired that information.