Transport Committee on March 8th, 2011

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

I'm glad to see you guys are carrying on the humour. Good. Merci beaucoup.

I even talked to Mr. McCallum about this particular motion--listening to the cab drivers--and I'm not even sure if everybody knew what motion we were talking about.

Ultimately the chair was overturned on a decision he made on the basis of a legal precedent that this is before a court—that's what I understood it to be—and as a result of it being before a court, he didn't want to prejudice it. That seems to make a lot of sense to me.

I didn't want to challenge the chair before we discussed it because I didn't understand the situation. I wanted to know what the situation was. And nobody, even to this time, has told me what the situation is. Maybe we could find that out.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

I will make one comment. I don't agree with the ruling because the date on which we had called the witnesses was after the decision would have been made by the board. I don't think the ruling was correct.

I'll go to Mr. Trost, and then Mr. Byrne and then Mr. Guimond.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will ask if other members around the table could help with clarification. Last week I was in Washington, D.C., with the international trade committee, and because of other conflicts I've had a brutal time coming to this meeting.

Would there happen to be a copy of the motion that the previous chair ruled on? And during any discussion going forward, if members would be considerate enough to elaborate a little more on the background, I would find it helpful.

Again, having multiple committees and multiple assignments at the same time, I'm having a bit of a hard time keeping track of where everything is. I'd like to be able to participate in the debate.

I appreciate everyone's efforts and their understanding. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The committee should indeed be guided by exactly what occurred this morning and today in the House of Commons. An almost identical point of order was raised by Tom Lukiwski. He challenged the legitimacy of the Liberal opposition day motion based on the premise, if I can paraphrase the government's objection, that matters are now before the courts on the Conservative in and out election financing scandal.

This is the debate that's occurring, for Mr. Jean's benefit, because Mr. Jean indicated that he wanted to know more about this issue.

There is an opposition day motion currently under way in the House of Commons regarding the Conservative Party of Canada's actions with Elections Canada and its financing operations during the 2006 election campaign, which is also known as the Conservative in and out scandal.

I forget Mr. Lukiwski's title. I believe he's the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. On behalf of the government, the Conservative Party of Canada and its benches, he said that the motion should be ruled out of order because certain elements of the matter were currently before the courts.

After receiving representations from all parties on the matter, this morning the Speaker ruled that the motion was in order. He would further consider specific language within the motion to determine whether or not specific language was on the periphery of the spirit of the conventions of the House of Commons. But he indicated this morning that he did not see any problem whatsoever and that the House has always interpreted these matters with a wide discretion to allow the House to debate all matters that are of public interest.

Mr. Chair, that occurred this morning.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

There's a point of order.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Excuse me. I'm not finished, Mr. Chair. I'm still continuing with my point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Are you on a point of order?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Yes, I'm speaking on behalf of the point of order that was raised.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I have an actual point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

I believe I recognized you on debate, and the point of order has precedence.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

The point of order is on whether or not what happens in the House is transferrable to the committee. I'd like to check with the clerk on whether or not that is the case.

[Chad Mariage]

The Standing Orders indicate that the rules of the House are applicable in committee. I can get the exact standing order, though.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Something that's before the courts is okay.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

It is eligible for debate, absolutely.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Okay.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Yes.

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

While the clerk is doing that, does he see any difference in this particular case? It's two third parties and the federal government has no jurisdiction over either of them. Bluntly, we have no jurisdiction over the airport authority's use of taxi services and which service they choose. That's the first thing. There are third parties in the litigation. That is my question.

If it's not the case, that's fine, but I'd like to know that as well. This obviously involves the government. If it is legitimate, then let's hear it, because I don't understand why the chair would rule in that way, if that's the case.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

We'll go back to Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have basically established that the rules of the House, the conventions of the House, and the practices of the House, as articulated by the highest authority of the House, which is the Speaker, should have some construct in committee business and in the committee chambers. Given the fact that the Speaker of the House of Commons actually ruled on this exact point this morning, I think honourable members should be at least bound by what transpired in the House of Commons this morning.

Mr. Chair, I'll leave it at that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, John McCallum]

Thank you.

Mr. Guimond.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Jean said earlier that the matter was before the courts. I am going to give him...