Transport Committee on March 8th, 2011

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I thought that's what--

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Jean, we don't have to study that because the matter is in front of the courts.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

No, I thought that's what the chair said: it is because it's in front of the courts. I didn't even know it was in front of the courts.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

D'accord.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

But I thought it was in front of—

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

If there are any of you who think that, I'm going to disabuse them of their illusions by telling them about two events.

The in and out case in the Conservative Party in the 2006 election has been taken to court. Even though there was a legal action involving the Chief Electoral Officer and the Conservative Party underway, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member, considered the question. This is a prime example that proves that this can perfectly well be done.

As well, in the sponsorship scandal, even though the Gomery Commission was underway and a large number of civil and criminal proceedings had been initiated against people involved in that case, the Standing on Government Operations also considered that question. That is why we guaranteed Chuck Guité and other figures in that scandal that nothing that was said at the committee could be used against them in other proceedings. If some of you think that we can't consider this question because it is being dealt with or might be dealt with in another proceeding, I would remind them that committees are in charge of their own proceedings. That is what the Standing Orders clearly say.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Merci.

Do you want to answer that point of order?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I have a point of clarification. The Speaker actually didn't make a ruling this morning. He just permitted the debate to continue and said he was going to make a ruling prior to the vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Okay.

[Chad Mariage]

I obviously am not in a position to rule either way. I will simply state what the sources say and I'll let the committee come to its own decision.

Standing Order 116 states that “In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable....” That's with regard to the rules.

With regard to the sub judice convention, it's mentioned twice in the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on pages 99 and 100, and on pages 627 to 628, which is a bit more elaborate in its description, and I'll read an excerpt of that:

During debate, restrictions are placed on the freedom of Members of Parliament to make reference to matters awaiting judicial decisions in order to avoid possible prejudice to the participants in the courts. This self-restraint recognizes the courts, as opposed to the House, as the proper forum in which to decide individual cases. Matters before the courts are also prohibited as subjects of debate, motions or questions in the House. While precedents exist for the guidance of the Chair, no attempt has ever been made to codify the practice known as “sub judice convention”. The interpretation of this convention is left to the Speaker [in this case the chair] since no “rule” exists to prevent Parliament from discussing a matter which is sub judice, that is, “under the consideration of a judge or court”.

I can go on, but that's the gist of it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Okay, I think that's good enough.

Anyway, whether we were right or whether we were wrong, we've already voted to overrule the chair on this matter.

I have two more people on the list. I'd suggest we hear those two, and then if there are no other people on this issue, we go on to the motion.

I have Mr. Jean first and then Mr. Maloway.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I was just wondering if you could possibly clarify for me what is taking place currently, because I don't know, in relation to the airport issue itself. You said the legal decision was going to be made prior to what you propose as a date. I never heard that before.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

I will do that after we finish this round of speakers.

Mr. Maloway.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I thought I was the speaker. That's why I wanted to get current, so that I could continue on with my speaking.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

I was going to explain the motion after we had finished this round.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Could I go back on the list then, after you explain the motion, please?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I was simply going to explain that while Gerry was correct in that the Speaker let the debate proceed on the opposition day motion, he was holding off making a ruling in terms of the actual vote on the motion. That was all I wanted to say about that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Perhaps now we could move to consider this motion regarding the limo drivers. For the benefit of those who were not at the last meeting, there was significant discussion, which I will try to summarize.

The date on which the meeting is proposed is now March 24, which is later than originally proposed. The reason for that is there's a Labour Relations Board ruling prior to that, and we will not be hearing these people when the issue is before the courts because that decision will have been made.

Second, there was some discussion as to whether this was within the mandate of this committee. Some people thought not. Others, including myself, argued it has to do in part with the governance of the airport authority, and that is or could be a concern of the transport committee. I think that's where we were.

And then the issue came up of whether it's in order. The chair ruled. We overruled the chair, so we're now in discussion of this motion.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Could you provide to me the Labour Relations Board date regarding when they're going to make that decision?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Next Wednesday.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Would it be in order to ask the committee to wait on this particular one. It's already been passed, but before setting that date we wait until the date has passed.

Is that the only decision we're waiting for, the Labour Relations Board?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

This motion has not passed yet.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Why don't we wait until the 8th and then deal with it on that day?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I propose an amendment that we change the date to the first available date after the Labour Board's ruling.