Transport Committee on March 8th, 2011

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

Mr. Guay, could you answer that? Why don't you do that? Why don't you go to your union members, collect some money, and go and force Air Canada to comply with that because you don't think they're doing that?

[Jean Poirier]

Mr. Jean, I would just like to understand why the government is not taking Air Canada to court. Tell us why you aren't taking Air Canada to court, even though that is your duty. It was said in 1988, and I'll say it again. The new company's private shareholders...

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

But Mr. Poirier, my question is not that. My question is, why aren't you doing this? Have you received a legal opinion on it? Have you received advice saying to do it or not to do it?

[Jean Poirier]

That will answer your question.

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

I understand, but--

[Jean Poirier]

Mr. Jean, let me speak. That will answer your question.

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

--why aren't you doing it?

[Jean Poirier]

They will have no choice but to bring action against the government. Do you think that today a majority of Air Canada shareholders are opposed to the company having sold its overhaul centres?

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

There's a shareholder down at the end of the table. Why don't you ask him?

[Jean Poirier]

No. At present, it's the opposite. The private shareholders in the new company will have no choice but to bring action against the government to have the section about maintaining the overhaul centres amended. Have they done that? No, they have not done that.

I will ask my question again. You are aware that the act is not being complied with. Why don't you take Air Canada to court?

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

With respect, sir, I'm the one asking questions here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order, please. Order.

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

I've asked the question several times. You have a gentleman at the end of the table who has privity of contract with Air Canada. He can sue them. He can spend a few thousand dollars and get it done. Why hasn't that been done instead of this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

With that, I'm going to thank our guests for being here today. Obviously, we have more meetings to delve deeper into this. We appreciate your participation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

A point of order, Mr. Chairperson.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

As soon as I'm done, please.

With that, I'll thank you again and we'll look forward to future discussions.

Mr. Lamoureux has a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes. Mr. Chairperson. In terms of previous presentations from Air Canada and what we've heard here today, I would suggest and maybe ask, through you, Mr. Chair, that Air Canada and the board be requested to come before our committee so we can seek better clarification as a follow-up to this particular presentation in the letter they have now provided us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would be happy to deal with that at the subcommittee when we make recommendations of the committee. It's on the--

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have Mr. Guimond first, on the same point of order.

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

On the same point of order, I want to remind this public meeting of a private discussion we had. Mr. Chair, I'm certain that you won't interpret that as a lack of confidence in yourself. Rest assured that I have full confidence in you.

I just want to point out that I have another witness to call. I have approached him and he asked me for two weeks to prepare his testimony. I agree with Mr. Lamoureux's point of order and his idea about hearing the Air Canada people again. But I would like you to tell Ms. Charron, if she comes back, what we agreed together when I went to see you in the House, that we would hear another of my witnesses in the next two weeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's never been in doubt that these special meetings have been set up to deal with these kinds of issues, so I have no problem with that.

Mr. Byrne.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the issue of the point of order Mr. Lamoureux raised, the committee.... When Air Canada officials appeared before us, I asked for specific information, which Air Canada officials were extremely reluctant to provide to the committee. I argued—and I think I argued effectively—that it was very pivotal and central to the issue at hand of the adherence, the subscription to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. It was not indicated at the time whether or not the committee would be getting a complete response.

The clerk, apparently, received on March 7, 2011, a response from Air Canada to some of those questions that were raised weeks ago. The information could not be transmitted to committee members until four minutes before our witnesses were originally scheduled to depart this chamber.

I don't find that very acceptable on the part of Air Canada, to send information that is critical to these hearings.... I'll even go so far as to make an assumption. The clerk probably received these letters, these clarifications, from Air Canada late yesterday afternoon. If it weren't for these witnesses appearing before this committee, I don't think we ever would have received any response from Air Canada.

But that being said, given the fact that this information from Air Canada was not received in a timely fashion, that the information in their correspondence to the clerk for the benefit of committee members does raise some pretty provocative issues, I would agree with Mr. Lamoureux that Air Canada should be compelled to come back to this committee chamber to provide some further clarification, answers it failed to provide in its previous appearance before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Again, I'll thank our guests for being here today. We're going to take a brief recess and reset the table for the next part of our meeting. Thank you again. We're going to take a five-minute recess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

When we adjourned our last meeting on Tuesday, there was a motion before the committee. There was debate around the table as to, one, whether the committee is the right committee to deal with the issue, and, two, if because the issue is before the courts awaiting a decision....

I listened to the debate and I'm prepared to make a ruling on the motion. I am basically going to rule, as of now, the motion out of order, and I'll give you my reason. It has to do with the argument of sub judice:

There are other limitations to the privilege of freedom of speech, most notably the sub judice (“under the consideration of a judge or court of record”) convention. It is accepted practice that, in the interests of justice and fair play, certain restrictions should be placed on the freedom of Members of Parliament to make reference in the course of debate to matters awaiting judicial decisions, and that such matters should not be the subject of motions or questions in the House. Though loosely defined, the interpretation of this convention is left to the Speaker. The word “convention” is used as no “rule” exists to prevent Parliament from discussing a matter which is sub judice. The acceptance of a restriction is a voluntary restraint on the part of the House to protect the accused person or other party to a court action or judicial inquiry from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue.

That is what I based my decision on, and I believe if the issue is before the courts awaiting a decision, the committee should not discuss it publicly until that decision has been rendered.

Mr. McCallum.