Transport Committee on April 1st, 2010

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

But you're prepared, on one side, to criticize.

[Ron Smith]

I applauded the minister yesterday for saying they're going to hire more and do more. That's a step in the right direction and we applaud him for that. But I don't know how many, sir.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I have Monsieur Laframboise on a point of order.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I would like to comment on that question. I would like to say something to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Jean. If a directive reads as follows: “Where surveillance resources are still available after the annual surveillance planning is completed ..., other surveillance activities may be planned, ...”, I think it should be changed. I understand you do not know how many inspectors there are. If we say that there will be no-notice inspections, when we change the directive, we will be able to figure out, together with the inspectors, whether they have enough staff to enforce the standards. According to the document Transport Canada circulated, where surveillance resources are still available, they will go and carry out no-notice inspections on the premises. I think we have to change the directive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

With that. I will thank everyone. I thank our guests for being here today.

Just for the record, a couple of organizations that were mentioned by members were invited for today. Due to the short notice, we are making arrangements to have them appear after the break.

On a point of order...?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Are you shutting us down now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have some committee business that has to be dealt with before we break. There may be some discussion involved.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I think the discussion here has been very important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I agree.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I don't understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

This has to do with a motion that's going to be put. There are also some financial things we need to have addressed before we take the recess for Easter.

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Bevington, this notice of breach of privilege takes precedence over any other committee business. I wanted to make sure the witnesses were heard today before I went forward with the breach of privilege motion.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It's not on the floor yet.

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

I gave notice to the committee. According to the rules we go by, it takes precedence over any other committee business. But I wanted to make sure, since the witnesses were coming today, that we heard from them first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will thank you again for being here.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Just so none of us feel that anything has been interrupted, and for Mr. Balnis in particular, but also for Mr. Smith and Ms. Dias, we said they would be welcome down the road, because we intend to get to the core of the issues once Transport Canada comes back. I hope that's still the case, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Absolutely. If there are further questions, we'll be inviting back every witness who comes before this committee.

I thank you.

We're going to take a brief recess. If there are questions to be asked of our guests, please move out into the hall so the committee can continue its business. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We're back to some of the business. Mr. Jean has sent a message to me as chair. I'll defer to Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is in relation to a breach of privilege. I want to get on the record specifically what took place. I have to be careful about what I put on the record because the breach has to do with an in camera meeting this committee had.

I'm first of all going to give some background. Hopefully, I don't run out of time, but if I do, I know that Mr. Volpe will cut me off--with respect, Mr. Volpe.

A breach of privilege, according to page 82 of O'Brien and Bosc, is as follows, and I will quote:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege”....

Page 1,077 in O'Brien and Bosc reads, at the bottom, and I will quote:

Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.

It goes on to talk about the case in question. In this particular case, it involved the divulging of information by a member of Parliament of the results of a recorded vote held at an in camera meeting, in that case, of the Standing Committee of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

It should be noted that, and I quote:

Members should be aware that utterances which are absolutely privileged when made within a parliamentary proceeding may not be when repeated in another context, such as in a press release, a householder mailing, on an Internet site, in a television or radio interview, at a public meeting or in the constituency office.

I will end that quote from page 96 of O'Brien and Bosc.

Finally, and I quote again from page 88 of O'Brien and Bosc:

...the individual Member’s rights are subordinate to those of the House as a whole in order to protect the collectivity against any abuses by individual Members.

First of all, only the House can decide whether or not a breach of parliamentary privilege occurred or there has been contempt, but committees must report this to the House. The role of the chair is to determine whether the matter does in fact touch on privilege.

In this particular case, I have put together a motion based on what took place. I have the evidence before us. First of all, I would like to pass this out, if I may. I have the minutes of our in camera meeting, in French and English, as well as a letter that was sent by Mr. Kennedy, who was a substitute member of this committee at the time, to colleagues in his own caucus, I understand--that is in French and English as well--and then an attached letter to mayors and to other municipal councillors across the country, in French and English, and a questionnaire that was attached to it.

This all has to do with a motion that was made in this committee in camera. In fact, if you remember, Mr. Kennedy asked for us to go outside of in camera, and we disagreed. We agreed as a committee that we would remain in camera, because we had dealt with some of Mr. Bevington's motions in camera and thought it was fair to deal with all the motions in camera, especially considering what the motion was.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Kennedy wrote this letter, which you will receive copies of as well. What it did was it actually.... That letter designated that he made the motion, first of all.

I'm sorry, Mr. Laframboise. We'll make sure that gets to you.

His letter clearly indicated that it was his motion, which of course, it wasn't. It was Mr. Dhaliwal's motion. He indicated in the letter he put forward that it received all-party support, which again is against the rules; he is not allowed to do that.

Here are the rest of these copies. There is one for each member. They're in both French and English.

Also, he talked about when the hearings would take place. Again, it is against parliamentary privilege of an in camera meeting to divulge any of that information.

That is the dilemma we have today. I do believe, prima facie, that there has been--no question--a breach of privilege by Mr. Kennedy of this committee's rights, and certainly of information that was confidential and was not to be shared with anyone else.

If we remember that meeting, after all of the meeting was conducted in camera, Mr. Kennedy again asked to go out, so he was fully aware that this meeting was to be in camera and he was not to divulge that information. But immediately thereafter, he went and drafted some letters, along with some questionnaires and some additional correspondence to members of Parliament outside of this committee, and to mayors, divulging this information.

He stated, again... And my understanding is that it's going to every municipality and town in the country, and I'm not sure if it has already been done or not. But he even had the information itself incorrect in relation to its being his motion rather than Mr. Dhaliwal's.

Now, if we look at it, the motion itself clearly indicates the original motion, and the only thing that he's allowed to divulge from that in camera meeting is this. I'm not quoting. The public minutes did not include whose motion it was—Mr. Dhaliwal's, not Mr. Kennedy's—and that it received all-party support, which could be seen as misleading—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

On a point of order, if we're not divulging information from an in camera session, why are we reading it into the record here?

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

Because it has already been put into the public domain by Mr. Kennedy in his letter.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, I'd say that this has to be handled in the correct fashion as well. I'm concerned that we're now reading into the record an in camera meeting. These documents are confidential and should remain so.

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

I'm certainly--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I understand the sensitivity of this and I appreciate the point. I do think you have to choose your words very carefully and not infer who said anything. I think you're dealing strictly with the fact that the breach is that the information was released when it was an in camera meeting.