[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
.1606 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
We're resuming consideration of the order of reference from the House of Commons dated Monday, March 18.
As we left the last meeting, there were a motion and an amendment that had yet to be voted on. I would, if I could, colleagues, believe that there's been enough debate on that motion, and I'd like to look for consideration of it.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): No.
The Chairman: No, Mr. Strahl.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): He's telling you the sound is horrible and they can't understand a word you're saying.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Strahl, you were telling us that you're going to vote in favour of both of these motions.
Mr. Strahl: No. I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that when we last left this exciting event we were in the middle of debating that motion.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Strahl: If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to amend that motion.
The Chairman: First of all, you want to amend -
Mr. Strahl: The amendment.
The Chairman: So you want a subamendment to Mrs. Catterall's motion?
Mr. Strahl: Right.
The Chairman: So we have Langlois and we have Catterall, and now we have Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: Right.
The Chairman: Okay. Fire away.
Mr. Strahl: My subamendment would add after the words ``report to the House'' the words ``and that in order to protect the integrity of the Canadian Armed Forces...'' -
The Chairman: Just hold on a second.
Mr. Strahl: We have the motion, I think, given to the clerk. It would add:
- and that, in order to protect the integrity of the Canadian Armed Forces and the reputation of the
House, and with a view to preventing potential uncertainty in the event of any future
referendum and/or negotiations concerning Quebec secession, the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs consider recommending in its final report to the House of
Commons:
second, that in future the Speaker and Members of the House shall be guided by the principle that any interference (or the appearance of interference) with the allegiance of members of the Canadian Armed Forces shall be considered behaviour unacceptable for a parliamentarian and in contempt of Parliament; and
third, that the government instruct the Canadian Armed Forces to draft policies, procedures and regulations to guide its members in their conduct and with respect to their responsibilities during any such future referendum or negotiation.
.1610
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): That's out of order. It's terrible.
The Chairman: I'm going to rule your subamendment out of order. It's argumentative. It's anticipating a decision of the committee. It's in the style of a speech, colleague. So I'm going to rule it out of order.
Mr. Strahl: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could -
The Chairman: Mr. Milliken.
Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I think that the committee is ready to get on with doing a report on this matter, and it seems to me that all these motions are a waste of time. I have the feeling that if we sat in camera we wouldn't have all these motions, so I move that the committee now move in camera.
The Chairman: We have a motion...
The microphones are not working? I have no translation. Something must be causing this interference. Maybe CSIS has its bugs in here again.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Chairman, I move that we sit in camera.
The Chairman: I have a motion by Mr. Milliken. Is it the wish of the committee to sit in camera?
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Why?
The Chairman: We're going to prepare a report.
An hon. member: No.
The Chairman: All right. So we still have a motion on the table.
Mr. Milliken, there's no unanimous consent to go in camera.
Mr. Milliken: We'll have a vote, won't we?
The Chairman: We have a motion on the floor, which is still -
Mr. Milliken: Is mine not a superseding motion? I believe it is. It's like a motion to adjourn, except that we're moving in camera.
The Chairman: My clerk did not advise me of that, but she's going to double-check.
Mr. Milliken: I look forward to the advice.
The Chairman: Mr. Milliken, I'm advised that it's not a superseding motion.
So we have a motion on the floor, and we have an amendment. I've ruled Mr. Strahl's motion out of order.
Go to court. Appeal.
Mr. Strahl: I've tried that before. It doesn't work.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now on the main motion as amended.
Mr. Strahl: Can you just read it out, then, as amended? It's the second one, is it?
An hon. member: Yes.
The Chairman: That the committee do now proceed to the consideration of its conclusions and the preparation of a report to the House.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: There, that's off the table.
Mr. Milliken: Now I move, Mr. Chairman, that we go in camera to do exactly what we've just compelled ourselves to do.
The Chairman: Mr. Milliken has moved that we go in camera to prepare a report. Are you ready to debate that question?
Mr. Bellehumeur.
.1615
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Why should we go into camera today, at the report's stage? Since the beginning, the committee has been very transparent; we have heard witnesses and experts and sometimes had very vigorous debate, but always with much respect. I'm interested in...
The Chairman: That's normal.
Mr. Bellehumeur: No, that's not normal. My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, has been the target of extremely serious accusations in public and in the House. I think this whole thing must be analyzed in detail and we should have public debate so it will become clear, as it was very rapidly clear for the Bloc québécois, that these accusations were totally gratuitous. It's in the public interest to know, in the case of such accusations, how the Liberal Party, the Reform Party and the Bloc québécois see this case and what their attitudes are.
This whole matter requires public analysis and debate; we strongly oppose an in camera meeting because of the importance of this case. I see no advantage to going in camera nor any reason to justify it.
In any case, I have already sat in camera at the very beginning of this whole committee. The government members had me saying things I never said and I told you, Mr. Chairman, that I would never again accept this committee going in camera. Once again today, I'm sure that once the Liberals go through that door, they'll be putting words into the mouth of the Bloc members that were never said. Let's do this in public. I have nothing to hide. We're very transparent; let the Liberals do the same thing.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
On Mr. Milliken's motion, Mr. Boudria, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: It's absolutely normal that a committee, especially when dealing with a case like this one affecting the House in its entirety should meet to prepare a report with a view to presenting it to the whole Chamber at the same time and not just to the MPs and journalists present here. We're preparing a report which, I hope, will be unanimous and we'll make it known to the House. It must be before the House before anyone else.
There is nothing new in that; this committee has been working this way for a long time. We have proceeded this way for just about everything including when we changed the wording of the prayer for the House of Commons. That's how it's done; it's completely normal.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: You don't want to put an end to this; that's clear.
Mr. Bellehumeur: You haven't followed this thing very well because we've been saying since the outset that this is idiotic. We voted against that motion in the House of Commons.
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: But you didn't want to compromise...
The Chairman: Order! Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Bellehumeur: You're trying to get your gang out of the trouble it got itself into.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I really have problems with Mr. Milliken's motion but for other reasons. Fundamentally, Mr. Bellehumeur was saying that we heard no witness in camera and that the public was aware of the evidence which was televised. We're back in the dynamics that the Liberal Party has loudly decried, that of Charlottetown and the smoke filled backrooms where the process itself is vitiated. The final product might be nice, but we refuse to go along with a vitiated process. Why hide our debates from the Canadian people? They have a right to know the arguments leading to our report. All Canadians have heard the evidence. If we judge they don't have the maturity necessary to follow our reasoning, there is a problem somewhere. They will be our judges.
.1620
I'll make an exception for the Subcommittee on National Security where I sit and where we have heard evidence in camera. Witnesses have revealed things that could not be made public and so we sat in camera; I can understand that in a case like that. But here, that's not the case. If we had heard some obscure general talking about a mutinous handful of officers, maybe we should keep his name secret.
We heard Ms. Davidson's brilliant presentation. Is there anything to hide there? Mr. Marleau, with his usual clarity, threw light on parliamentary privilege. Mr. Maingot gave us a good wrap-up and spoke French at the end. Mr. McWhinney made a brilliant presentation to the benefit of all Canadians. What is there to hide? Mr. Hart had nothing to hide; he made his accusations before the committee and withdrew them at the same time.
We continued to sit. We heard Mr. Jacob. We saw all that. Will public opinion think it's normal for us to sit in camera when it's already made up its mind based on the evidence heard? Everyone heard the evidence. Actually, we're not sitting in room 253-D anymore; I wonder why. It was presumed that we wouldn't be sitting in camera, Mr. Chairman. I think that deciding not to continue to sit in room 253-D constitutes a dangerous precedent.
[English]
The Chairman: Excuse me. The President of Mexico is here; you know the reason. Let's not make changes... There are 12 committees meeting at this time.
Spare us the rhetoric, colleagues, respectfully.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: We did not know the schedule of the President of Mexico. We have a lot of respect for him, but there are a lot of other rooms available. I don't see the urgency. What seems urgent is to stifle this whole matter. There are three meetings scheduled this week and in camera is being imposed today; then you're going to tell me that justice will appear to have been served. I don't really believe in it.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, colleague.
I'm going to hear from Mr. Strahl, and then we will vote on this motion.
Mr. Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to have a recorded vote on it.
Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6
[Proceedings continue in camera]