Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 4, 1996

.1107

[English]

The Chairman: Good morning. I will call this meeting to order, colleagues.

We are resuming consideration of the order of reference from the House of Commons dated Monday, March 18, 1996, in relation to the matter of the communiqué of the member from Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995, with reference to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Colleagues, you may recall that we left the matter with the motion of Mr. Strahl on the floor, which I would suggest is now back on the floor.

Do you want to speak to that motion?

Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for bringing this motion back. I realize it was tabled last time for whatever reason.

I would like to make two or three points. First of all, this committee was charged with investigating this whole issue. This was a charge we received from the House. Therefore, we must do a thorough investigation and we must find out all the facts.

I would suggest that although we've had some interesting witnesses and we've had some technical observations, we have not done a thorough investigation to date. We have glossed over the surface. We have started to see how it could be done, or what we can do and what our powers are as a committee. Basically, that has all been technical stuff, and I don't think we have really investigated the facts the House charged us to do.

The committee has heard from five witnesses: Ms Davidson and Messrs Hart, Jacob, McWhinney and Maingot. Only Mr. Jacob himself actually has any real knowledge of the communiqué itself. The rest of it has all been opinions on what it meant, or what it could mean, or what we could do about it. We have not heard from any of the people who received the communiqué and who stood to be most affected by it, which is the military side. We haven't heard from anybody there to see what impact the communiqué had, whether they felt it was appropriate, whether they were shocked, indignant, or whether they thought it was a good idea. We haven't heard any of that.

.1110

To us, it seems we haven't done a thorough investigation until we try to cast our minds back to the pressure-packed moment this communiqué was released to see how it impacted upon the military, which is, of course, the key to this whole thing.

The key thing is whether or not it had a negative impact on the impressions of a member of Parliament or upon this House and whether or not it brought the House into contempt. To do that, we feel we need to bring forward some military experts and question them. We need some experienced people who examined the communiqué, who were there when it happened, and who realized the tenseness of the situation.

The reason I brought forward the motion earlier is that I think it is just not acceptable to walk away from it at this stage, having heard basically from procedural experts who at times contradicted themselves, but still dealt only with the procedure.

I think we now know what we can do in this committee. We have a pretty wide latitude. We've been instructed by the House of Commons to investigate. We can find this whole incident to be in contempt of Parliament, we can recommend sanctions, and we can give instructions to other committees, to other people, to other departments. We have a wide latitude of what we can do, but we must first investigate.

My fear is that if we stop the list of speakers at this time, we'll have done a superficial, technical overview, but we will not have arrived at the facts.

Mr. Speaker, some of those facts we have had to date from Mr. Jacob, in his own testimony, underline how I think the military received this, and how unacceptable it was. Again, I have to speculate, because we haven't heard any witnesses from the military side, and that's why it's important to have those.

Certainly, from Mr. Jacob's communiqué where he talked about recruiting Canadian forces members to join a Quebec army, there's some debate about whether it was immediately, or soon, or whatever it might have been. But what was understood by the Canadian Armed Forces? What was their perception when they received this communiqué? What did the chain of command do with this communiqué once it received the information? How far up the chain of command did it go? DidMr. Collenette react to it in any way? Was he shocked? As the government whip said, did he consider it close to mutiny, and so on?

That's what we have to investigate. Unless we do that, I think we've had only a partial, superficial investigation.

The Chairman: As I understand this at the moment, then, we have your motion that the committee call additional witnesses to appear. Just so that we are all reminded, colleagues, of where we're at, we as a committee agreed on a set of three or four witnesses and then said that at an appropriate time - and that's where we're at - we would consider additional witnesses.

So that everyone's familiar with the issue.... And because you are new to this committee, Mr. Strahl, you can well accept we were at a difficult crossroads in trying to establish a process. We did establish a process and I did ask all parties and all members to prepare a list of witnesses.

I want to remind colleagues, as your chair, that the only list I did receive was from the Reform Party. No other members submitted any other names. So I just want to share that fact with you.

Would you have a comment on this motion, Mr. Harb?

Mr. Harb (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chair, we heard from a number of very distinguished witnesses who came here and briefed us on their views on this matter. We have had a chance to question both the person who is making the charge and the person who has been charged, both Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob, in terms of all the colleagues in the House of Commons.

It is my hope we will deal with this matter today and put an end to it. I think we have enough evidence to look at. If by now we haven't found any fish in the lake, I doubt we will find any in the future.

.1115

The Chairman: Mr. Boudria.

Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Mine is similar in terms of train of thought. The only group that has asked for witnesses is the group making the case to start with. We've listened to all of those witnesses, and having completed the original group, I don't see why we would want to continue an additional set of witnesses.

We've listened to the witnesses and to our own experts on parliamentary authority, likeDr. McWhinney. We've listened to experts we've hired ourselves, namely Mr. Maingot. I think we've listened to experts on both sides of the issue, and a sufficient number.

[Translation]

I want us to put an end to this proposal, to vote against the motion to have other witnesses appear, and to go in camera immediately to start working on our report today.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Boudria.

Mr. Milliken, Mr. Speaker and Dr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear from Mr. Strahl. If he thinks there are additional witnesses we should hear, who and why? In my view, we are being asked to keep dragging this issue on for no apparent reason.

The evidence we've heard so far seems to deal with two issues. Was the offence of sedition made out? It's clear that was not made out, and I don't think anybody is still suggesting it. EvenMr. Hart has abandoned that specious claim. He is now left with contempt of Parliament, and we have heard what happened with respect to this issue. We heard that a press release was issued. I think we're in a position where we can form a judgment as to whether or not a contempt of Parliament, however major or minor, took place.

I don't feel that I need additional testimony on that point, either from any experts or from other witnesses who could clarify the issue further. We've heard that the communiqué went out and we have the communiqué before us.

Mr. Strahl: We have no idea of the impact.

The Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Milliken: I'm happy to have the honourable member ask that kind of question,Mr. Chairman. I have some idea of the impact. I walk along the streets from time to time and I get handed literature from various organizations that are pushing this and that, which would be similar to receiving a communiqué from the member from Charlesbourg. Material from the lunatic fringe is something you don't read. You chuck it. That's my approach. And in my opinion this material is from the lunatic fringe.

While Mr. Strahl may think this is something different, if I got a communiqué from him, I would be suspicious. The member from Charlesbourg makes me even more suspicious. And that's without being excessively partisan, Mr. Chairman; it's just realizing the source.

This stuff is sent out for referendum purposes. If I got a brochure from the Parti Québécois, from the yes side in the referendum campaign, I'd have regarded it as junk. I might have read it just to know what these people are saying, but not because I regard it as serious or an intelligent contribution to a debate on which I have very firm views. Nothing that I read from the other side is going to persuade me.

I think we can imagine what the impact would be. It's like the sower going out to sow seeds - some land in fertile soil and some don't. Are we going to call all of the members of the armed forces who might have seen this thing to hear what they thought when they got it? I don't think so.

Mr. Strahl: How about one, Peter?

Mr. Milliken: From what I've seen of the list, that's what the member seems to be suggesting.

.1120

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn to some of the statements that have been made on this, because the Reform Party is all over the map on this issue. I turn to Mr. Hart's statement. In his first speech on this issue in the House on November 21, 1995, he said:

That's what he said on November 21, 1995. But by March 12, 1996, the matter had become so serious and urgent that he proposed the following motion in the House:

We amended the motion, and that's history, but then on March 14, 1996, with great outrage, he said:

When he got to the committee on April 23, 1996, he said:

In other words, he changed his position completely. One day this was a terrible thing that we had done to his motion, and the next day he said this is great, this is exactly what we should be doing. Then on March 13, 1996, in the House he said:

Then in the committee on April 23, 1996, he said:

Mr. Chairman, the Reform Party is all over the map. There are no specifics. They move these motions and they want to hear more witnesses, but they don't even understand the nature of this charge, and I suggest the nature of it is very clear. We have one of two things, and one is off the record.

I can read more from Mr. Hart on this. In evidence on April 23, 1996, he said:

In other words, it was not whether it was seditious any more, but whether it was contempt of Parliament. He abandoned the seditious nonsense right then and there.

Mr. Chairman, on March 14, 1996, in the House he said:

That's what he said in the House on March 14, 1996. Then in committee on April 23, 1996, he said:

Which was it, Mr. Chairman? Was he accusing or wasn't he? One day he says he is, and the next day he says he isn't. He can't have it both ways and neither can the Reform Party. They can't come waltzing in here today and say let's hear more witnesses and then not tell us who they think it should be. They've not been specific.

We have this list, and I could go to the list.... The former Chief of Defence Staff - we have a quotation from him already in the bundle of joy that Mr. Hart brought with this, the newspaper clippings - Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who I believe was retired before this even happened. And Lieutenant General Armand Roy, the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff - did he even get a copy? Why are we asking these people? It's not even clear that a copy was sent to this particular gentleman. Then there's the Minister of National Defence. I'm sure he didn't get a copy, and when he got one later he thought it was rubbish and said so.

Mr. Strahl: He probably shredded it if he got it anyway.

Mr. Milliken: What I think we ought to do, Mr. Chairman, is have a short look at this body of evidence we have. I think we as members are perfectly capable now of forming conclusions on what the effect of this communiqué was.

.1125

We have the evidence on whom it was sent to, how it was sent. We have the views of Mr. Hart on what he thinks the communiqué did. We have expert evidence on what constitutes contempt of Parliament and on what findings, if any, we can make in respect of sedition.

I don't know what else we need, because I can't imagine what evidence would otherwise be helpful. The opinion of the people who received the communiqué, while it may be interesting - and frankly at this late date I'm not particularly interested - will not aid us in deciding whether or not this constituted contempt of the House.

The contempt is of the House and of its members. It's not a matter of how contemptuously members of the Canadian Armed Forces were treated in being sent a load of drivel. I think that is the point.

We're all able to make our own conclusions about the intelligence of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and how they would feel when they received something like this in the mail or by fax or however it was sent to them.

The Chairman: All right, Mr. Milliken, thank you for that intervention.

Mr. Speaker, please.

Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has raised the question of who we would want and why we would want to do that. So what I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is to move an amendment that lists five persons we would like to call. Then I would like to speak to this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: So you're amending Mr. Strahl's motion.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

The Chairman: His motion reads now that the committee would call additional witnesses to appear. What would your amendment read?

Mr. Speaker: It would read that this committee would call further witnesses to appear before the committee, taken from the list submitted by the Reform Party of Canada, beginning with the testimony of retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie; then Judge Advocate General, Pierre Boutet; the Minister of National Defence, the Hon. David Collenette; retired General John de Chastelain, the former Chief of Defence Staff; and finally Mr. Brent Tyler.

Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I submit that this amendment -

The Chairman: Just one second, please. Is that it for the amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay, you have a point of order on the amendment, Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Pagtakhan: The amendment as I heard it is a completely new motion. Even at the beginning of that amendment to call further witnesses, the original motion says to call additional witnesses to appear. In other words, this is a new motion completely replacing this motion. I wonder whether this is in order.

The Chairman: No, I'm going to rule that the amendment is in order, respectfully, colleague, and I'm going to accept the amendment.

Mr. Harb: You vote on the main motion first or on the amendment.

The Chairman: We have an amendment to a motion. Okay, Mr. Speaker, are we ready to consider that?

Mr. Speaker: No, I'd like to make a few comments with regard to this.

The Chairman: Okay, fine. Please proceed.

Mr. Strahl: I'd like to speak to the motion too, if I could.

Mr. Speaker: To answer the questions of who and why, we have laid before you these names as to who, and the reason we want to have these people here is very straightforward: we must know the impact of that communiqué.

That communiqué was sent out by a member of Parliament, the member for Charlesbourg. It was sent to the armed forces and distributed, in a sense, as a government document. It came from a formal institution called the Parliament of Canada. The fax of this institution was used. The communiqué went out to the armed forces.

The question is how the people out there react when they get an order, in a naive way, from the Parliament of Canada. We must know that.

We can make assumptions and we can make generalizations and we can believe that certain things are going to happen, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has done here earlier. We can create our own perceptions, but we must have some hard facts. We must have someone from the field who has some first-hand experience who can tell us what impact that communiqué actually had. The names I've submitted here, Mr. Chairman, would fulfil that function. They would be able to tell us the impact of the communiqué.

.1130

Once we understand the impact to a greater extent, then we can first decide contempt of Parliament by the hon. member from Charlesbourg, and second, we have a better judgment as to whether or not sedition occurred. Did members of the armed forces leave or were they prepared to leave if there was a yes vote? We can find that out, Mr. Chairman. If they were, then there was an impact by the communiqué. Then we can better judge the question of sedition that is before this committee as well.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to look at the recommendations we have made and to go through this list and hear these witnesses for that very purpose.

The Chairman: Colleagues, if it's simpler for procedure, the clerk is telling me that.... The motion is going to read that the committee call additional witnesses to appear, namely...and they will be the names that have been circulated. Rather than have an amendment, it's collapsing it into one motion.

On this motion, I have Mr. Boudria next on my list.

Mr. Strahl: Point of order.

The Chairman: Look, if it's not acceptable to you, then we won't do it.

Mr. Strahl: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to the original motion.

The Chairman: The motion is just that the committee call additional witnesses.

Mr. Strahl: I would like to speak to the amendment.

The Chairman: That's fine. We'll allow that.

Do we all agree that we will vote on just one motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Mr. Boudria.

Mr. Boudria: I'm having some difficulty. We've just heard Mr. Speaker, the member for Lethbridge, say that one of the reasons we have to listen to all these witnesses is that the communiqué from Dr. Jacob is a government document, House of Commons letterhead. If that is true, isn't it equally true that a communiqué attacking and asking people to harass the Speaker of the House of Commons, sent by the member for Lethbridge not that many moons ago, is similarly a government document?

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order - this isn't even on the subject.

Mr. Boudria: I'm allowed to debate the merits of what's been brought forward to us and to draw parallels.

The Chairman: Colleagues, please, let's try to stick to the germane points. Mr. Boudria, on this motion.

Mr. Boudria: This is on the amendment specifically. Countering the arguments made by the member for Lethbridge, I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if the document from Dr. Jacob is an official document, there are several others too. Some of them have to do with a certain incident that occurred in the Niagara Falls area involving the Speaker of the House of Commons. There's actually a motion on the floor of the House about that issue, but that's a matter to be discussed another time. We'll get back to it.

The point I'm making is that whatever rule applies in Goose Bay has to apply in Gander here. If the member is saying that the communiqué from Dr. Jacob constitutes an official document, I have one of his own that I'd like to parade for the exact same reason. I think I've made a very good case in the past that this particular document, which was in fact an attack on the Speaker of the House of Commons, is completely opposite to our rules in the House of Commons.

The second point I want to address is the issue of sedition, which has now come back, according to the member for Lethbridge. We just heard an eloquent presentation by Mr. Milliken as to how the issue of sedition had gone and returned a number of times. One thing that Mr. Milliken didn't mention but I'd like to remind you of are the words of wisdom of a member here, no less than a colonel in the armed forces, Colonel Frazer, who is a member of this committee and who is in this room right now. He said on April 25, 1996, and I quote from our debates:

.1135

So he said it wasn't sedition.

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): On a point of order.

Mr. Boudria: And, Mr. Chairman, you've got to admit the colonel might know something about it.

The Chairman: A point of order.

Mr. Frazer: The whip of the government has made the point that sedition is only the provision of force. This is not the case, and I can read from the -

Mr. Boudria: That's a point of debate.

Mr. Frazer: It is a point of order. He is deliberately misinterpreting the whole thing.

The Chairman: If I am given an opportunity to speak, I would like to say you're getting into a debate, colleagues.

Let's try to keep this in an orderly fashion, and let's try to summarize, Mr. Boudria, if we could.

Mr. Boudria: I'll just end on this point, Mr. Chairman.

We've changed our minds.... I say we, but I should say they. We're referring here to the Reform Party. They have changed their minds once more on the issue of sedition, even though it is not part of the mandate.

Mr. Frazer: On a point of order.

Mr. Boudria: Let's be accurate here. It's not sedition. It's viewed as seditious. There's a substantial difference.

Mr. Harb: It is viewed as such by whom? This is the question.

Mr. Frazer: It is viewed by Parliament. Isn't this what we're talking about?

Mr. Boudria: May I conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Mr. Frazer, could we just let Mr. Boudria finish?

Mr. Boudria: Okay, I'll draw the obvious distinction between sedition and viewed as seditious. I understand most members -

Mr. Frazer: Lawyers.

Mr. Boudria: - and most people here will have clearly identified the huge difference between something being sedition and viewed as seditious. These two are substantially different, and obviously I stand to be corrected on this tremendous error I made.

In this matter, which was most recently as of moments ago said to be viewed as seditious, and which was said not to be viewed as seditious a few moments prior, as Mr. Milliken pointed out, and of course which was also not the case on April 25, 1994, and which was not referred to this committee, Mr. Chairman, need I remind you this is totally out of the scope of what we were dealing with? We are dealing with the issue of contempt.

I want to end by saying I consider the issue of the government document, which is just now brought to our attention, to be absolutely frivolous. If it is not frivolous, it certainly has to be applied to other cases. The issue of sedition seems to be going around like a weathervane. Every time the wind changes it becomes seditious, then not seditious. I marry, I marry not - this type of thing. It changes all the time before this committee, and it's beginning to make all of us as parliamentarians look foolish.

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Boudria. Mr. Bellemare, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): We would have to see whether the appearance of the five other witnesses on the list would help us in any way. The Reform members want to hearMr. Lewis MacKenzie, who was not on active duty when the communiqué was released. In any event, we know Mr. MacKenzie's position on this issue. I think that someone like Mr. MacKenzie, who draws comparisons between Canada and the former Yugoslavia, cannot contribute too many rational arguments and would not be in a position to shed light on the matter.

With regard to Mr. Pierre Boutet, I think that the Reform members would like to familiarize themselves with the legal opinion he prepared for the department. We already settled this issue during our debates and we concluded that for reasons of confidentiality, it was preferable not to pursue this.

With regard to David Collenette, do they want to hear him say that he personally received the communiqué? That would surprise me.

To my knowledge, Mr. John de Chastelain is currently outside the country. Do we really want to have him come back from the ends of the Earth to repeat what he said in 1991, which was that in a free and democratic society, there is not very much in Mr. Jacob's communiqué?

Isn't the last witness, Mr. Brent Tyler, the person who filed a complaint of sedition under certain sections of the Criminal Code in Quebec court? If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Tyler's case was dismissed by the court, which stated that the matter did not constitute sedition. The same happened in Ontario.

.1140

I think that the appearance of these five witnesses would contribute nothing to the committee whatsoever and would simply waste our time.

As far as the rest is concerned, I listened with interest to the comments of the government members; at first glance, I totally agree with everything my friends opposite have said. I only deplore one thing, and that's that they took three months to realize this. I don't know if we had some sort of crystal ball, but in March 1996 what we said led to pretty much the same conclusion, namely that this was a waste of time, that Mr. Jacob had simply been doing his job as an MP, that this was not a question of privilege nor of contempt of Parliament and above all, that this was not sedition.

On that last point, in order to shed light on the matter of the committee, because I think that the Reform Party is doing it on purpose to confuse us, let me re-read word for word the Hansard of March 12 1996 to reiterate the substance of the issue, the specific accusation that the Speaker of the House presented to Mr. Jim Hart.

Mr. Boudria: Not sedition. You're talking about seditious behaviour.

Mr. Bellehumeur: No, that's not true. «Is he guilty of sedition?» Now today, if they can't live with those statements, that's their problem. But let's not waste the time of this committee and of Parliament. We are prepared to vote on the first motion to have other witnesses appear and there's nothing more to add about that. I'm advising you now that I will table the motion for which I have given notice in order to advance the work of the committee. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Catterall and Mr. Strahl, please.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Is my time coming, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: You're on the list.

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Chair, first of all, I want to tell Mr. Bellehumeur, much as he may have come to conclusions, I suspect, before these hearings even started, not all of us have come to conclusions. We intend to continue the hearings and we will come to our conclusions when we get to that point.

I did want to comment on the validity of these witnesses. A point that has been made by bothMr. Strahl and Mr. Frazer in amending the motion is that we need to know what the impact of this faxed message was on the people who received it.

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how a Chief of Defence Staff who wasn't even there at the time could have anything to tell us about the impact the message had. He wasn't there when it was received and he had no role or relationship with the people who did receive it.

Mr. Strahl: He's in charge of the armed forces.

Ms Catterall: I can't see how he could possibly provide us with any useful information on the impact of a message whose receipt was totally unrelated to him, unless, Mr. Chairman, the members are asking us to have somebody with as distinguished a career and as enhanced a reputation as the former Chief of Defence Staff come before us and spend his and our time speculating on what the impact might have been. That is all he'd be in the position to do, and frankly I'm not interested, nor do I think are the members of the committee, in speculation.

The other suggestion was that we should have at least one person who received that communiqué. I don't see the name of such a person in this list, but perhaps somebody could identify someone. We have no way of knowing if that communiqué was seen by one person, five people, 500 or 5000 people. How is having one person who received the communiqué going to tell us anything about how those people who saw the communiqué reacted? One person can only tell us how one person reacted.

.1145

I'm totally at a loss as to how Mr. Strahl thinks the Minister of National Defence can have anything useful to contribute to this discussion. I really would like one of the members of the Reform Party to clarify what they think this committee is dealing with. Do they think we're dealing with sedition or do they think we're dealing with contempt of Parliament? If not, I wish they would stop coming back to an issue of sedition, which in my view is not before this committee. We're not a court. Let's pursue this idea of whether or not it had seditious impact. This is the only relevance of this list of witnesses, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Catterall.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do need to respond to some of the more preposterous statements coming from across the way from the Liberal side.

I cannot believe they do not think the Chief of Defence Staff would not have received this. Frankly, if he didn't receive it, I'd also like to know why he didn't receive it. Why didn't he get a copy of it along the way? For goodness sake, this is the Chief of Defence Staff we're calling.

The Chairman: For your information, perhaps again because you're a new member of the committee, you're not aware of what we adopted as terms of reference. I am not trying to interrupt your speaking time, but I'm trying to be helpful.

Matters directly related to the communiqué are within the purview of the committee. What we have tried to govern ourselves by - I don't know if this is helpful to you at all - are matters that were directly related to that communiqué. I think what colleagues are trying to contribute, to help bring you up to speed on this, is that the issue is matters directly related to that communiqué. I'm just trying to be helpful.

Mr. Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't find it particularly helpful and -

The Chairman: Okay, sorry.

Mr. Strahl: - I'll tell you why. If you don't ask the Chief of Defence Staff what impact it had on the defence.... What if he comes here and says it's absolutely nothing? What if he treats the whole thing as a joke, as did the member for Kingston and The Islands? I think we should know the impact it had on the Canadian Armed Forces.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I think the Liberals who are now, at this time, saying - I forget the words that Mr. Milliken used - it is a joke or a farce -

Mr. Milliken: No, I don't think I said that.

Mr. Strahl: What were the words he used?

Mr. Milliken: It was -

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, he said: ``This is a lark. I would just take it as I would from a street person and from the lunatic fringe and drop it in the wastepaper basket.''

Mr. Chairman, try to cast your mind back to the time of the referendum crisis when Mr. Chrétien practically lost the country on us. Imagine back to the time of the comments from the honourable government whip. The honourable government whip said ``a communiqué was irresponsible and inaccurate''. He said ``It's highly inappropriate for someone who is the critic for national defence. They're Canadian soldiers the day before, the day of and the day after a referendum, no matter what the outcome.'' So he was outraged.

In another quote from The Toronto Sun, the government whip says ``It's dangerously close to inciting mutiny''. This isn't the lunatic fringe. This isn't something you'd drop in the wastepaper basket as you're passing by. The government whip says it is dangerously close to inciting mutiny.

Cast your mind back to the crisis of the moment. Another one of our witnesses we're trying to get before the committee is Mr. Collenette. Now, did Mr. Collenette think it was a lark? Did he know about it? Did he think it was a lunatic fringe? Listen to his comments. Back in November, he said: ``I'm shocked by this communiqué and I'm seeking an opinion on the propriety of this release''. He didn't say, ``Oh well, comme ci, comme ça, who cares.'' He says he is going to seek an opinion on the propriety of this. I suppose it is a legal opinion he is asking for because he is shocked at this communiqué. This is not the lunatic fringe and is not to be ignored. The Minister of National Defence is shocked and he's worried.

What else did he say? He said ``It's a matter that has to be looked into seriously. We just can't have members of Parliament saying those things.'' What does he want to do about it? Does he take it and put it into the shredder? He takes it seriously. The Minister of National Defence should come before this committee so we can ask him how serious this was.

.1150

Was this a thing we could just put aside, grind up and forget like the member from Kingston and the Islands would have us do? No, I don't think so.

Mr. Milliken: I said we were ready to do our report.

Mr. Strahl: He also said Mr. Collenette said he was surprised none of his colleagues in the House of Commons had raised this, since it would be more appropriate to deal with it in that manner. In other words, Mr. Chairman, back in December Mr. Collenette was begging members in the House of Commons to raise it in the House. None of the Liberal members did, although why he didn't instruct them to is beyond me. It was left to the Reform Party to bring it up in the House. The Minister of National Defence says it's serious enough that we need to do that. So we did it. And you guys are sleepwalking toward the cliff again. You're saying it's not a big deal. You are saying we should forget about it again. We won't put recommendations to the military about how to handle this thing in the future. We won't do anything. We'll just talk about the technical stuff and go back to sleep.

The Chairman: Please deal with the motion.

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, even you have said if this matter is referred to the committee it will be taken very seriously, it will be given high priority and will be dealt with equitably and in an orderly manner. I appreciate this.

What we're trying to do is to get to the bottom of this issue and the facts that went with it. It is not enough just to hear from Mr. Maingot and Mr. McWhinney about the technical side of this, about what we could and couldn't do as a committee. We need to get to the bottom of this issue, the facts behind it, and the impact it had on the armed forces.

To say the Chief of Defence Staff has no idea how it affects his military is either a condemnation of the chief of defence or all these other comments from Mr. Collenette and Mr. Boudria are patently false.

I think you have to go back to the heat of moment. Think back, people, to the heat of the moment and how concerned you were at the time. It wasn't the lunatic fringe. It was damned worrisome. For this reason we should call some military people in here to find out just how worrisome it was and to find out the impact it had on the Canadian military.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Dr. Pagtakhan, please.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, thank you.

The question before us on this motion is whether it has merit to proceed to call further witnesses. This is the issue before us. I think I would like to bring to the attention of the group that inherent in this debate is whether, as a new principle to be adopted by Canada, we allow a fishing expedition as a new principle. Only the Reform Party is submitting this. Why?

In the last debating point of the member who spoke previously, he said we would like to know the impact of the communiqué on the Canadian Armed Forces. It may be a terrific research project, and I would submit that the Reform Party perhaps may like to spend its research money, Canadian taxpayers' money, on this project, but these are not the terms of reference this committee has before it.

The terms of reference we have before us ask us whether this communiqué had an impact on members of Parliament, and on the institution itself. Anything we hear henceforth from these suggested witnesses will be anecdotal. We cannot check. We do not even know whether they have any documents or any diaries. Are you trying now to cast your fishing net and find out?

Mr. Strahl: I'd like to drop one line.

Mr. Pagtakhan: That is a fishing expedition, Mr. Chairman. Secondly, I agree with the government whip that the whole motion is frivolous.

What we saw today was a motion before we started the meeting to call additional witnesses to appear - period. Then we have an amendment. I would like to call to the attention of the chairman that this is, precisely, a new motion. In fact, we agreed this is a new motion because we set aside the main motion.

But I would like to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, that to call further witnesses to appear before the committee whose names are taken from the list submitted by the Reform Party, ``beginning with'' -

Mr. Harb: So we could go for three more years.

Mr. Pagtakhan: This is not the end of the list. This is a classic example of a fishing expedition. and we should not allow it to happen, Mr. Chair.

What I'm hearing is this. Based on the evidence we have heard so far, it appears to me the Reform Party cannot make up its mind yet. If it cannot make up its mind yet with the evidence we have heard, there is no guarantee, Mr. Chairman, it can make up its mind after hearing 1,000 witnesses. But if it can make up its mind now, then we can make a judgment. The judgment may be a matter of debate, but that is the nature of Parliament.

.1155

On the last point, Mr. Chair, the original motion, the original debate here, indicated we would likely study the whole issue. Well, the chair has called our attention to the fact that we have a specific issue adopted by this committee with the agreement of the Reform Party, very specific, and to change the terms of reference is changing our mandate again. This is another example of a flip-flopMr. Milliken alluded to, in this instance on a different subject matter.

I recall - and it is recorded in Hansard and I asked one of the witnesses earlier - that the communiqué itself is conclusive evidence. How can evidence be no longer conclusive when at the time it was presented by Mr. Hart it was conclusive to the point that we can make a conclusion out of it now? I'd like to leave that message with you.

Mr. Chair, I submit it will not be fair to the House of Commons, it will cost us additional taxpayers' dollars, and it will cost us time and effort unnecessarily. I will submit and I will appeal to the Reform Party that we can best use those taxpayers' dollars, the time and effort, to put an end to this deliberation of the evidence we have now, to form the conclusion and to use those extra efforts, time, and money for job creation.

The Chairman: Thank you, colleague. We have three people left and then we'll vote on this motion.

Mr. Laurin, Mr. Frazer, and Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): We could agree in principle on the appearance of new witnesses if we had some guarantee that they would have new facts to contribute. The purpose of Mr. Strahl's question is to ask witnesses whether they think that Mr. Jacob's communiqué had some effect on the army. That's not the purpose of our inquiry; we do not want to know if a communiqué had some effect on the morale or the behaviour of the troups.

If that was the case, every day we would deem that communiqués are seditious. Do articles that appear in the press have a negative effect on the behaviour of the army in Boznia-Herzegovina or Somalia? Did an article written by some journalist mean that Canadian troups were demoralized? That's not the point.

Could a general come here tomorrow morning and tell us what influence Mr. Jacob's communiqué had on the vote of each member of the military? That was the purpose of the communiqué: to reassure people who had something to wish for one morning.

If a general came here tomorrow morning to state that 50 per cent of the members of the armed forces changed their vote, he would be breaching voter confidentiality. Could a general come here to testify about that? I don't think that we are in any position to ask him such a question. I would doubt the word of a general who comes here and tells us this and I would ask him how he can state categorically that 50, 60 or 70 per cent of the people under his command changed their vote following Mr. Jacob's communiqué.

Even if he told us this, it will only be hearsay. Only members of the military could tell us whether they changed their vote following Mr. Jacob's communiqué. Does Mr. Strahl intend to hear all military personnel who had the right to vote and ask them if they changed their vote in the last referendum following the communiqué? I don't think so.

The very nature of Mr. Strahl's questions demonstrates how pointless it is to hear new witnesses, or at least the people on this list. They may tell us that they were angered by this communiqué, but that wouldn't prove that there was sedition in the House. It's not because a general is angry that the House is insulted. It's not because a colonel believes that a communiqué was disturbing for some that there has been contempt of the House or sedition.

Things have to be put in the proper context. If these are the only witnesses that the Reform Party wants to hear, I don't think that their testimony will help us progress in any way.

.1200

I invite them to propose the name of other witnesses who, in their opinion, could help us make progress and we could discuss then. I don't think that the five witnesses they have proposed will help this in any way.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. We'll hear from Mr. Frazer and end with Mr. Langlois.

Mr. Frazer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to address the reason for calling witnesses to come before us.

One of the tasks we have is to see whether this communiqué caused Parliament to be viewed with contempt. We haven't talked to anybody who received that communiqué and how that person viewed it. If, as Mr. Milliken said, it came from the lunatic fringe, does he not think that a person receiving this would ask why he was getting this lunatic communiqué from a member of Parliament? Does that cause Parliament to be viewed with contempt? I suspect it does. It wasn't an ordinary person who wrote it.

I'd like to find out when the communiqué was received. The remarks of the deputy whip of the government are facetious, because if the Chief of Defence Staff did not receive a copy of that communiqué very quickly after it was received on any base, there's something wrong with the structure of the Canadian Armed Forces. I think he did get it.

I'd like to know what action he deemed appropriate when that communiqué came in, and what action was taken. Did they just sit on it and say ``Well, there's that thing and everybody will consider it a lunatic fringe'', or did they feel it was necessary to go to base commanders and formation commanders and suggest maybe this communiqué should be addressed to assure people that this is out of line, they are still members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and their loyalty is to Canada and not to a second.... We don't know this because we haven't talked to any of these people. Until we can talk to them and assess what they say, we won't have all the details we need to find out whether Parliament was held in contempt as a result of that communiqué.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Langlois, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): We've come to a crossroad where we have to draw conclusions. I don't intend to repeat what my colleagues have said. We've dealt with the issue of parliamentary privilege and contempt of Parliament. We've heard enough evidence and expert opinions fromMr. Marleau and Ms Davidson. Mr. Hart, the accusor, has in fact withdrawn his accusation.

The member for Chambly, Mr. Lebel, said it was surprising that this committee is continuing in this vein when the accusor withdrew his accusation and had to admit that there was no sedition in the communiqué itself, but in the spirit of the communiqué. We are going pretty far when we're start judging the spirit of the communiqué. Since we're talking about military personnel, are we going to hear colonel Sanders as a witness?

When the ACFO held a meeting in Ontario to which Mr. Bouchard had been invited as leader of the official opposition at the time, Mr. Boudria, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, had said that this was like chickens inviting colonel Sanders to their national convention.

I took this comment as a play on words, a humour that is typical of Mr. Boudria. Should we summons him to appear before the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons because he somehow attacked the leader of the opposition? One has to know how to take these things.

Yesterday, on television, Mr. Boudria said that he only had one regret about the referendum, and that's that he didn't get involved 10 days earlier. That statement is not offending. If he wants to start 10 days earlier next time, he can do so. Fundamentally, this is a question of democratic debate. Mr. Boudria, Mr. Milliken and all the other members opposite do not share our point of view on the issue of Canada's constitutional future. That's the issue being debated and that's fundamentally what Mr. Jacob wanted to talk about in his communiqué.

The Reform members are terrified that Canada's democratic fabric will not resist. They want to protect Canadians from many issues brought up for debate by either party or by any current in Canadian politics.

.1205

Canadian men and women have decades and even centuries of democratic history behind them. They don't need limits, and certainly not Reform limits, to guide them in their democratic choices.

As a society, we have achieved some maturity thanks to which we can make our own decisions. Whether Mr. Milliken considers Mr. Jacob's communiqué as the work of someone in the lunatic fringe - and that's the term he used - and whether someone else feels its a contribution to the debate, this is a matter for debate. Personally, I don't think there is too much in the red book, and that's my opinion. Liberal members think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that's their opinion. In the final analysis, the Canadian public will decide. That's why we bring up arguments and have a debate: in order for the people of Canada to decide.

The work of our parliamentary committee is coming to a close. We have very patiently heard all the people who could shed light on the debate; the time has come to vote on the motion. In a subsequent meeting, perhaps we could consider the motion for which I gave notice at the last meeting.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

On Mr. Strahl's motion - we'll call it that if it's okay with everyone - that the committee call additional witnesses to appear, namely General de Chastelain, Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, Brent Tyler, Brigadier General Boutet, and the Hon. David Collenette....

[Translation]

An honourable member: Recorded division.

[English]

Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 3

The Chairman: We've heard from a number of witnesses: Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson from the House of Commons, Mr. Hart, Mr. Jacob, Mr. McWhinney and Mr. Maingot. I believe that it's now the general sense of this committe that we move to careful consideration of all of the evidence we have and decide what we wish to report to the House. The committee has received an order of reference from the House, and the issue before us is whether the privileges of the House have been breached or whether a contempt of the House has occurred. It will now be our responsibility to carefully consider the evidence that is heard in light of the procedural advice we received.

I'm trying to give you some guidance as your chair that we would need to prepare a report, so I would think we should move in camera. I'll give you my suggestion and then you can decide how you want to proceed. I would suggest that we move in camera, that the researcher be given an opportunity to hear of the views that we, as members, wish to express, and that he then be charged with the responsibility of giving us a draft of a report that we, as committee members, might wish to consider. The government members may wish to be in a different position from the Reform members or the official opposition, at which point we'll know after we have had an opportunity to look at a draft report.

That's what I'm going to propose as your chair. If there's general agreement, then we move in camera. I'd receive a motion to that effect and then we would move where we would consider that matter.

.1210

Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, we have at least one motion on the floor that I think we have to deal with first.

The Chairman: Do we have a motion on the floor?

Mr. Strahl: I think it's from the Bloc.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, you're right. We have a notice of motion. I was trying to share with you my view, as your chair, on how I thought we might wish to proceed.

On your notice of motion, Mr. Strahl has asked -

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I'm informing the committee of my motion. I move that the committee do end its consideration of the matter of the communiqué released by the member for Charlesbourg and report to the House after having drawn the appropriate conclusions.

[English]

The Chairman: That's not inconsistent, is it?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: No. Read the entire motion.

Since it's 12:10 and that we'll be here till 2 p.m., there's no reason why we can't go to the substance of the matter and read our motion verbatim. It has 32 paragraphs which are self-explanatory. I think that it is in that spirit that Mr. Langlois had understood that, given the time, we would reserve the motion until a later date.

Since we gave a notice of motion a long time ago, I would like us to make a decision before we proceed the way you have proposed and give any kind of mandate to the researcher.

Mr. Langlois has tabled his motion and we have no objection to discussing it at a later date. However, before we continue, we would like the committee to make a decision about the motion we have tabled.

Could you explain how you want to proceed? If we continue, we will go to the heart of the matter; we've already been here for three months. If you prefer to wait for a subsequent meeting, we don't mind.

[English]

The Chairman: As I hear what Mr. Langlois is proposing, it is not different from what I was suggesting. I was suggesting we now move to a point where we consider the substance of the issues and report back to Parliament.

As I hear the second part of what the Bloc is suggesting, there are some substantive issues for this report, is that correct? I just want to get an answer on that to understand this.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Given what was said by the witnesses, we are capable of knowing what we're doing, what the committee is doing. We agree on that.

However, we tabled a very structured notice of motion that we would like to present to the committee, and depending on whether the committee votes for or against it, it will surely give some directions to the researcher.

It would take a very uncanny researcher indeed to go back to his office and attempt to draft a report without knowing the major thrusts of what we want to say. He may think he knows.

Certain items of the motion that we will present may be kept and others withdrawn. When the researcher goes back to his office, he will have a very clear idea of what the committee wants to include in its report.

There may be minor discussions in our absence, but I doubt it. I think that you're all very democratic, Mr. Chairman. We at least have to discuss this before the researcher goes back to his office.

Perhaps it's too late today to begin this work that may turn out to be quite laborious, but we have no objection whatsoever to doing this at a subsequent meeting. But let's not start if we are going to be interrupted and then have to continue later. I think that ideally, we should have three hours in a row, from morning until afternoon if necessary. We have to settle this once and for all; we've been discussing this long enough. Canadians are fed up; and Quebeckers have been for a very long time.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. I want to hear from Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, just so I understand what Mr. Langlois and Mr. Bellehumeur are presenting to us, Mr. Langlois read an initial motion, and then Mr. Bellehumeur indicated there were 32 sections to be added to that motion.

The Chairman: That's what I'm trying to find out. It's a very good point, Mr. Speaker. It certainly would appear to me as your chairman that what you're suggesting are issues you wish to have considered in the drafting of the report. That's what I think I'm hearing from you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I've just talked to the clerk of the committee, Ms. Carrière, and I think that there may be some problem of comprehension here.

.1215

We had withdrawn the motion that we've tabled following an agreement in order to accelerate the process.

During one of our recent meetings, we've tabled a notice of motion. In my mind as a legal officer - and perhaps this should not be my understanding of the matter - when you table a notice of motion, you're not tabling the text of the motion, but the conclusions that you are seeking to draw from it.

Mr. Langlois said that he's tabled his motion, although he read the notice of motion. We will table the motion once and for all in both official language so that everyone can have it in hand. The motion is not different from the wording of the notice of motion; these are simply the conclusions. I'm therefore tabling the motion, which was reiterated in the notice of motion for the second time in any event.

[English]

The Chairman: As I understand it, colleague, you're already giving us your position, which we as a committee are prepared and happy to receive. But there will be no discussion on this motion at this particular time.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Today? Another time, not today.

[English]

The Chairman: It could be at another point. I'm happy to receive that motion now to share with us your views.

If you look at the second notice - and I'd like to hear from the government whip on this - by negativing Mr. Strahl's motion, we've effectively adopted what Mr. Langlois has said procedurally, which is that there will be no more witnesses.

Mr. Government Whip.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I think there are grounds for agreement at least for the next step - not two steps away, which is the content of the report, but the next step. I just looked at this motion and I think it could instead say something like this, which could be amended or otherwise: that the committee end its hearing of witnesses regarding the matter of the communiqué released by the member for Charlesbourg - in other words, we've concluded that part - and proceed to the preparation of its report to the House after having drawn appropriate conclusions.

The way this is worded suggests we are finished considering the whole issue. We're not finished considering the whole issue. Our meeting together as a committee in camera is considering the issue. We're going to have ended with the witnesses.

[Translation]

I've done a quick translation of the wording which may not be perfectly faithful to the English version. The motion should read instead:

If the motion was amended in this way, we could vote and sit in camera at the next meeting, during which we would hear the proposals of each member. From that point, our researcher could draft a report if there was consensus; if not, perhaps he could add dissenting recommendations to the report.

Our next step should consist in ending the hearing of witnesses and holding our next meeting in camera in order to work together in drafting our report.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, one second.

I want to find out from Mr. Bellehumeur, before I hear from the Reform Party, whether or not you agree with the potential suggestion of changing the motion. Do you agree with that process?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: It's very simplistic. With all due respect to Mr. Boudria, we can't just delete something from a motion without discussing it previously. I would like us to discuss it, that we have a debate, that we agree on a resolution, a motion or whatever, so that the researcher can draft his report. But let's not do this in camera. I'm tabling my motion so that we can discuss it at a future meeting, since we won't have time today.

.1220

In the light of Mr. Boudria's comments, I realize that we will never agree. Let us postpone this discussion to a subsequent meeting, vote on the motion, and then we can go in camera.

It is premature to go in camera immediately and delete this motion. The issue has to be analyzed before you can reach a conclusion.

It would not be a report. If you think that our report will be a succinct and very precise analysis of the testimony and contradictions of the Reform Party, you are mistaken, Mr. Boudria. The purpose of our motion is to guide the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. I'd like to hear from Mr. Speaker, please.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few comments with regard to the motion that Mr. Bellehumeur and Mr. Langlois have presented to us, and ask your consideration that you rule the motion out of order. I give you the following statement with regard to that. It is in reference to whether or not the motion is in order. It is not debating any other question, Mr. Chairman.

It is the practice to have preambles in bills, in constitutional matters, but it is not procedurally correct to have a preamble attached to a motion. One reason is that it may be possible to be for a motion but not necessarily for the reasons set out in the preamble. It has been done and may be acceptable in a limited application, but this motion gets a little carried away. There are 25 instances of ``given that''. There are 25 individual preambles. This is highly irregular for a motion.

I refer you to Beauchesne's, sixth edition, citation 565 on page 174, which says: ``A motion should be neither argumentative, nor in the style of a speech, nor contain unnecessary provisions or objectionable words.'' The preamble of this motion is very argumentative. It uses words such as ``unjustly accused'' and ``voluntarily misled'' many times. It is not only in the style of a speech, but one could argue that it is essentially the Bloc's version of the committee report.

Ms Catterall: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Speaker: It contains objectionable words such as ``misled''. In conclusion,Mr. Chairman -

Ms Catterall: On a point of order.

The Chairman: I'll take your point of order. He's almost finished. Let him finish, please.

Mr. Speaker: In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, citation 566(5) of Beauchesne's says: ``Any irregularity of any portion of a motion shall render the whole motion irregular.'' The preamble is part of the motion. As I've pointed out, it is very irregular. It violates just about every checklist outlined in Beauchesne's. This makes the whole motion irregular and, Mr. Chairman, I would claim out of order.

The Chairman: On this point of order, Mrs. Catterall.

Ms Catterall: No, it's fine. Thank you.

Mr. Pagtakhan: As a point of clarification, what are we debating now?

Ms Catterall: Yes, that motion isn't even before us.

The Chairman: That's what I was about to get to.

Call it a notice or call it a motion, what I see before me by Mr. Langlois is the following motion: that the committee do end its consideration of the matter of the communiqué released by the member for Charlesbourg and report to the House after having drawn the appropriate conclusions. That's a motion. Mr. Bellehumeur has given us another piece of paper that is a motion or a notice of motion.

I frankly have to share my predisposition that Mr. Speaker may very well be right about some of the issues in reference to the motion or notice of motion contained in this piece of paper ofMr. Bellehumeur's. It is clearly inflammatory. There are some issues and some problems in the language. The ``voluntarily misled the House'', for example, is unparliamentary language. If it's agreeable, colleagues, I would like to vote on this motion.

.1225

Mr. Boudria made a suggestion to Mr. Langlois that there be a friendly amendment and I don't think it is being received, so if we can agree....

Ms Catterall: On a point of order, I do have an amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I had raised a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Catterall has raised a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I raised a point of order before Ms Catterall; may I have the floor?

Ms Catterall: I don't think so.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Catterall has the floor.

Ms Catterall: I'm sorry that Mr. Langlois doesn't want to accept Mr. Boudria's suggestion as a friendly amendment, so I will propose an amendment. I'm trying to do it in an orderly way because the committee has already decided that it will not hear further witnesses. We don't need to deal with that again. I think Mr. Boudria has made very good comments as to why he doesn't feel that.... Once we have reached our conclusions and prepared a report, we will have finished our considerations.

I move that the motion of Mr. Langlois be amended by deleting all the words after ``Committee'' and substituting the following: ``do now proceed to the consideration of its conclusions and the preparation of a report to the House.''

The Chairman: So we have an amendment to the motion of Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I would like to point out that you should not refer to a motion by Mr. Langlois, since he did not in fact table a motion but rather inform the committee that we were going to table a motion to terminate examination of the communiqué released by Mr. Jacob and to report to the House.

In his notice, Mr. Langlois stated that he was notifying the committee that we would table a motion. Therefore, it is not a motion; the motion is what Mr. Bellehumeur tabled. How could an amendment be made to the notice which Mr. Langlois presented?

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, my clerk advises me that this is a motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: We want to be perfectly open and honest. We are tabling our motion beforehand and, furthermore, this is the second time that we've tabled it. Today, you're pulling that out of a hat: the motion is out of order; it is not acceptable. Wake up! We've been telling you since March that you are completely off base. I hear you say today that we are out in left field, that this has to be stopped right away. That's what you are saying today, Mr. Boudria.

We know that we have worked consistently with you all day, and we have allowed you to get out of the mess you got into. Today we are tabling a motion which we had tabled earlier and withdrawn in order to suit you. Last week, we tabled another notice of motion and now you would like to amend our notice of motion. We're on a different planet. It's true that there are two countries within this country, because we're not talking about the same thing whatsoever.

[English]

Mr. Harb: Mr. Chairman, put the motion and let's vote.

The Chairman: Colleagues, excuse me, order. I'm going to suspend the meeting for five minutes.

.1229

.1236

The Chairman: Colleagues, thank you for the agreement to suspend while we took an opportunity to clear up some confusion.

I understand there is an agreement now that there is a motion, so we're getting somewhere. There is a motion. Therefore, there is a motion and there is an amendment. Is that correct, Madam Clerk? Okay.

We're ready to vote on the amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. Bellehumeur: Non, lisez-la avant.

Mr. Speaker: Did the notice indicate that it is now formally moved and that the amendment is formally moved? Do we have everything on the table?

The Chairman: The motion was a notice. The chair recognized that the notice in fact was a motion at that time, and I recognized the amendment. So before you is a motion that says that the committee do end its consideration of the matter of the communiqué released by the member for Charlesbourg and report to the House after having drawn the appropriate conclusions. That was the motion by Mr. Langlois.

Mrs. Catterall's amendment to that motion is that the words after ``That the Committee'' be deleted, adding the following: ``do now proceed to the consideration of its conclusions and the preparation of a report to the House.'' So you'd be voting now on that motion.

Mr. Speaker: Are you open to speakers on the amendment at this time?

The Chairman: If it's your view that we want to have some.... Otherwise I suggest it would be appropriate to adjourn and have this matter considered at...if there's an adjournment motion out there.

Mr. Milliken: I move adjournment.

The Chairman: We've moved to adjourn and we'll consider this at our next meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;