Transport Committee on April 1st, 2010

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

Certainly, Mr. Chair, I understand.

I do understand the sensitivity of it.

I thank you for that, Mr. Bevington.

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

On a point of order, I realize that the parliamentary secretary wants to get all the information or as much of it on the table as possible. I'm wondering whether it is in order for him to read from minutes of the proceedings that were in camera.

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

The only thing I read was actually what was published.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

In the part you have there, the minutes of the proceedings, you'll see there is no inference as to who made the motions. It's talking about “That the Committee invite...” and “That the Chair request...”. There's no record of anyone's individual comments in this document.

That's why I would suggest, Mr. Jean, that you not refer to anybody other than Mr. Kennedy.

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

I won't, Mr. Chair. I understand that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

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

But the document as a whole is in order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The document as a whole is in order because it says “It was agreed, --” and “It was agreed, --”. There is nobody identified in the document as making or even speaking on the motion.

Mr. Jean.

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

Certainly. I have drafted a motion. Based upon what I understand the rules to be, the motion is quite lengthy. I do not have it in French, but I do have it in English. I would like to read the motion, but it is quite lengthy. May I?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It will be translated.

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

The motion is:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities present a report to the House of Commons regarding a possible breach of privilege and/or action of contempt on the part of the MP for Parkdale-High Park in divulging privileged information from an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on March 25, 2010, against the will of the committee and with the intention of sharing this information with the public, and that the Committee ask the House to take whatever action it deems necessary.

Also, this report should include the following: an explanation that the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on March 25 was an in camera meeting, including a notice of motion put forth by Mr. Dhaliwal--I think that's on the public record--to study the government's deadline. Actually, it's to study certain information; I'm going to have to clarify that, but I don't think I can actually put forward... Can I put forward, Mr. Chair, in relation to that? Okay.

Also: an explanation that the committee explicitly ruled that this and all other motions of the day be debated in camera, and an explanation that, subsequent to this in camera meeting, Mr. Kennedy sent an e-mail to all members of the Liberal caucus with an attached letter stating that his motion had passed and that it had received all-party support. He also advised in this letter that the committee would be scheduling hearings shortly and suggested in his e-mail to the Liberal caucus that they send it to municipal contacts in their ridings.

Also: an explanation that the only portion of our meeting on March 25, 2010, that was published in the official minutes was the body of a motion that had the public meetings and did not mention whose motion it was and that it received all-party support, a fact that could be seen as misleading without the context of the debate that occurred on March 25; an explanation that the public minutes did not mention when the committee would be scheduled or hearing testimony, and that, in fact, there was consensus among the members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that this motion would not take precedence over the other committee business already discussed; and, a statement that this breach of privilege and/or that a contempt may have occurred in this instance, and a request that action be taken by the House.

That is the context of the motion.

My point is this: that if we cannot, as a committee, have discussions in camera and not in camera and obviously have the difference be significant, then my privileges as a member are obviously...it has absolutely no consequence to be in an in camera meeting, and it has no power and authority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to suggest that the motion is in order. I will open the floor to debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Volpe.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to comment on the substance of the motion. It's just that Mr. Kennedy is obviously not here. I'm wondering whether it would be more appropriate for this committee to debate and consider this motion by the parliamentary secretary when Mr. Kennedy is present?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It is a difficult position since the member is not a sitting member on this committee. He was brought in for that particular meeting. I'll take that under advisement at this moment.

I have a couple of other people who would like to speak; then I'll make a ruling.

Go ahead, Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chair, the only problem I have with the motion introduced today is that first, Mr. Jean is citing O'Brien and Bosc. I am not able to have that checked right now. I have just sent an e-mail to my party whip. I need that piece of information.

If I second a motion, I have to be convinced that the content of the motion complies with our rules. So I do not want to assume, but I need to have that checked. Is it urgent to move the motion right away? I would like to see because that can influence my vote. It is not that I am against the motion, but I need to be sure that it does comply with our rules, Mr. Chair.

I am still a bit surprised that we do not have it because you could have sent it to us to have it checked. I would not want to defeat a motion just because we did not receive it in time. I understand your zeal. I also find that cavalier on Mr. Kennedy's part. But I have to make sure I know whether it is against the rules.

Someone is coming to give me the information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I have a question first, Mr. Chair. When was the report tabled?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It was yesterday.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That would be March 31, right? So the report was tabled on March 31. In that report, there was a mention of our--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm sorry; I actually reported Bill C-310 yesterday. I apologize.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Then has that not been reported yet?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Do you mean the in camera meeting?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I mean the report from the in camera meeting, with the recommendations. Has that been reported to the House of Commons?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It doesn't have to be reported to the House. It is contained within our minutes of the meeting.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So it's a public document as of--