PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 26, 1998

• 1107

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): I'll call the committee to order.

The order of the day is resuming consideration of the order of reference from the House of Commons of March 10, 1998, on certain statements attributed to members of the House in the March 8, 1998, Ottawa Sun, which may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant, the Speaker.

Following previous discussions at the committee, we invited the five members who were mentioned in the article to attend today. The letter, which was the same letter but obviously addressed to each of them individually, says:

On Tuesday, March 10, 1998, the House of Commons referred the following Order of Reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

And I've just read out that order of reference. The letter goes on:

Since certain statements were attributed to you in the said Ottawa Sun article, you are invited to appear before the Committee on Thursday, March 26, 1998, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 112-N (Centre Block). Please note that

—and then in each case it mentions the other four members—

have also been asked to appear at this meeting.

It goes on:

The Committee will allow up to 5 minutes for an opening statement, followed by questions and answers.

The Members invited to appear will do so one after the other.

That means, by the way, that we'll invite the members who have arrived to join us one by one.

Should the time allocated for the meeting not be sufficient to hear from all five Members, the Committee will resume on Tuesday, March 31, 1998 at 11:00 a.m.

Please confirm your appearance with the Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Marie Carrière— Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

And the letter is signed by myself as your chair.

Four of the members confirmed by phone that they would be here, and I see that they are here.

I believe members now have the letter that I'm going to read out in both official languages. I received this letter on March 25. You should know that our letter was dated March 24, which is Tuesday last, and it was delivered by hand that day. I received this letter from Cliff Breitkreuz, who is one of the members we invited.

Dear Mr. Adams:

Re: The Spurious Federal Tory Motion to Refer to Committee

I received your “invitation” to attend the Committee meeting today.

Because of riding commitments it will be impossible to be present.

In addition, I cannot justify the expenditure of taxpayers dollars (approximately $2000.00) without knowing why I should appear at the meeting.

This is my quote in the Sun paper:

“It would be a pretty serious thing if he joined with the Bloc on this”.

I ask the Committee members the following question: “How can the above statement be construed as contemptuous?”

And it's signed Cliff Breitkreuz, MP, Yellowhead.

• 1110

I would strongly suggest, given that we have our colleagues here, four of our colleagues, that we proceed as planned, and that we consider this letter at the end of the meeting. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I would also suggest that we have to think of an order. The order that you see on the agenda, which is Benoît Serré first, Dan McTeague second, Peter Goldring third, and Ken Epp fourth, is the order in which we received the responses. I would suggest, if it seems fair and reasonable, that the members be called in that order. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

I would therefore ask Benoît Serré. Ben, if you would join us—our colleague, Ben Serré.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): On a point of order, I think I made the point at the last meeting that it's fairly important that we treat each member appearing before us in a totally equal way. It's not like our normal situation of witnesses.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, if the other committee members have no objection, that in order to hear them all on an equal basis today, we allot 20 minutes to each witness. That would ensure that in fact we hear from them all today. If we feel there's a need to do more than that, we could call them back, but at least it would ensure that every member has an opportunity to make a statement and respond to questions today.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron first, and then Randy White.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Randy White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask if my colleague is suggesting that that is presentation and questions. It's the total? Okay.

The Chairman: If that's agreed, I would say up to 20 minutes, because if in fact we exhaust it— As a matter of fairness, as a rule of thumb we'll use up to 20 minutes—okay?—beginning with up to five minutes for the members.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, further to our discussion on Tuesday, I don't believe that we set a limit. If our colleagues wish to continue questioning our witnesses, we should not put an end to the discussion, but rather allow them to continue until everyone feels that the issue has been exhausted. We had agreed to this on Tuesday, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, I understand that, and I took it as a rule of thumb—okay? If in fact we get to the 20 minutes or somewhere around there on a particular case, we can proceed with whatever questions members have.

But I do think there's an element of fairness here and that if in fact— For example, already we have Benoît Serré as our first witness. We're all fresh and ready. He is first. The last one might have an advantage. Or, by the way, it might be vice versa. I think we have to be seen to be fair.

Michel Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): We cannot treat all of these members of Parliament in exactly the same way and question them for the same length of time. The statements made by some members of Parliament went much farther than others. During the debate of March 9, some members of Parliament added comments, whereas others measured their words and others offered reluctant apologies. Benoît Serré, who is in attendance here, is among those who added comments on March 9. We cannot give him the same amount of time as we will give to another member of Parliament who did not add comments.

I would also point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is my second experience with this type of issue. When Mr. Jacob testified, we did not limit ourselves to 20 minutes. The members of Parliament from the Reform Party and the Liberal Party called Mr. Jacob all kinds of things. This did not result in our saying that we would question him for 20 minutes and then allow him to leave. Given that most of the members opposite were members of the committee during the Jacob case, they should agree to treat these members of Parliament equally. These are transgressions. These are the same charges of contempt.

• 1115

I think that this is an even more serious matter than the Jacob affair. I would like the members sitting around this table to be able to question the members of Parliament without being constrained by a 20-minute limit.

[English]

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl and then Bob Speller, briefly, I hope.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

My understanding of this is that we're dealing with this newspaper article. We're not going to rehash, I hope, the debates of the day of the incident. Let's hope we can stick to what was given to us by the House of Commons, which are the remarks in this newspaper article. I don't want to get into rehashing speeches and so on. If we're going to do that, this is going to take forever.

So let's keep to this. My argument has been all along, let's just hear the witnesses. We'll give them 20 minutes each. If we want to have them back, rehash them again, and put them through the meat grinder, we can do that at a later date, but let's just do 20 minutes each, as suggested. We can always call people back later if necessary.

The Chairman: Bob Speller, Stéphane Bergeron, and Mac Harb, briefly, I hope.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Briefly, very briefly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to remind members that when a member gives an apology in the House, it's never a “so-called apology”. It's accepted at face value and it's accepted as an apology. So if Mr. Serré has given an apology in the House, then it is accepted as that, and it should never be referred to as a “so-called apology”.

The Chairman: I would remind members that there's no contempt established here. We have members here to explain a particular situation.

Stéphane Bergeron and Mac Harb.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, last week we quickly agreed to the fact that we could not summon people here who could have said some things in the House or who could have asked questions on issues that were not covered by the newspaper article.

However, on the one hand, it is clear that some members made statements that appeared in the newspaper and that can be considered as part of their testimony pertaining to comments made in the House on March 9. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday we agreed that we would not put a time limit on the debate. Accordingly, I do not want us to decide, this morning, that we will limit the debate to 20 minutes. In one case, we may question the member of Parliament for no more than 10 minutes, but I don't want us to set, in advance, a time limit for each of the witnesses.

[English]

The Chairman: I would point out, Stéphane, that we included that remark in the letter.

Mac Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): I wanted to reiterate what one of my colleagues has said. I just hope to God we don't waste the valuable time of the committee, more than what we have agreed on in terms of the 20 minutes each. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that if at the end of the session we discover we need more time, then we will go and revisit it. I would want it to start as quickly as possible.

The Chairman: Joe Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): One way of assuring a little more fairness and equity— I would agree with Chuck that the reference is pretty clear, and the only thing we're talking about is the article. Therefore we cannot deviate from the reference from the House, which clearly says, “—certain statements attributed to Members of the House in the March 8, 1998 Ottawa Sun—”. That's what the order of reference is from the House of Commons, so we cannot start to talk about everything else. If there's disagreement there, that's problematic.

Secondly—

The Chairman: We've gone through the briefing. Our authority in this matter is strictly tied to the reference we have before us. So I'd like to proceed.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I was just going to say something else.

The Chairman: Very briefly.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Why don't we make sure that each of the members who are here be afforded the opportunity of a five-minute statement and the other 15 minutes, in keeping with the 20-minute time period, would be taken up for questions? There may or may not be questions.

The Chairman: Joe, we set the terms of reference at the last two meetings, and they have up to five minutes. That's what I read in the letter.

As I've said, I'm going to take the 20 minutes—and I think there's general agreement—as a rule of thumb. I've explained that. If the circumstances at the end of a particular 20 minutes are different, we can discuss it again.

I'd like to go to our colleague, Benoît Serré.

Ben, as we indicated, we're grateful to you for being here.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. You are referring to the letter of invitation that you wrote to the witnesses—

The Chairman: yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: —to justify a time limit of 20 minutes. On Tuesday, there was never any talk about specifying, in the letter, that the questioning or exchange would last no more than 20 minutes.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, the letter refers to the five minutes. I was picking up on Joe's point that they be allowed five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine, that's right. No problem.

[English]

The Chairman: We have just agreed on the general frame of reference, in fairness to the people who are here, with a 20-minute timeframe. At the end of that we'll think about it.

• 1120

Benoît Serré, we are grateful to you for being here. If you have some remarks, you have up to five minutes, and we'd be glad to hear you.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): To say that I am happy to be appearing before this committee this morning would be false. However, I believe it is important to set the facts, straight.

First of all, I must tell you that I was surprised that the Conservative Party tabled this motion on Monday, March 9, I believe. I must confess that I have a great deal of respect for the Speaker of the House of Commons. He is a personal friend. I also have tremendous respect for the institution of the House of Commons. I also have a great deal of respect for the Canadian flag and what it represents for Canadians.

I can't tell you whether what I'm quoted as saying in the article in question are actually my exact words. You've all had this experience: you're interviewed for a half hour or three quarters of an hour. You don't really remember the exact terms used. But in my heart, I'm convinced that I never said: "warn the President".

When the question of privilege was raised in the House, I rose immediately and I was surprised that what I said could have been perceived by some members as being an attack against the authority either of the House or the Speaker. I immediately made the following comment, and I quote:

[English]

If my comments are perceived by anyone as an attack against or lack of respect to the Chair, I withdraw them and apologize.

[Translation]

I subsequently met the Speaker of the House, on a personal basis, and repeated my apologies in case some of my words may have had an influence on him or have been perceived as being an attack on his speakership.

I also put out a press release where I repeat my confidence in the Speaker. Once again, I am quoting the press release of March the 13th.

I wish to assure the Speaker of the House of Commons that he has my full confidence and my utmost co-operation during this difficult time.

I could also quote an article that appeared in The Montreal Gazette on March 12 where I refer to the words that were attributed to me and to the Conservative Party motion. In that article I said:

[English]

“I did not perceive it that way”—as being an attack against the Speaker or his credibility. “I fully support the Speaker. I've got a lot of respect for Gib Parent.”

[Translation]

I must also emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that the comments I made in the House when the Conservative motion was presented were made before the Speaker made his decision. I did not wait for the Speaker's decision.

It is said that I stated I was ready to take the consequences if I were to decide to keep my flag on my desk. I've already taken the consequences; I spent five days in the House of Commons without being able to rise to speak because the Speaker did not recognize me. That is the only thing I was alluding to.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman,

[English]

I'm not sure what I'm doing here this morning. I don't think I've said anything that would attack either the integrity of the House or the Speaker, and certainly—and this I can guarantee—there was no intent to.

That's all I have to say.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ben.

Michel Bellehumeur and then Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Is it true that once the Speaker's decision was made known, that is that he would not tolerate little flags on the desks and that he would not recognize any MP displaying one on said desks, you kept that flag for a few days?

Mr. Benoît Serré: That's true.

• 1125

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Is it also true that you did speak, while that flag was on your desk, to address the Conservative Party motion?

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, as several members of the committee have mentioned, we're not here to replay the battle of the flags in the House of Commons. We are to address only the article published in the Ottawa Sun. I don't intend to debate here what went on in the House of Commons.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, it's very important. The question is very important because Mr. Serré says he respects the Speaker of the House and the House itself and that he never wanted to do anything that might put that in question. However, the Speaker of the House had made a statement, made a judgment or made the decision to prohibit those flags. Now we have here a member who did not respect that decision, continued to display this little flag, and rose to speak. And he did speak.

I think we have to be aware of that context. I'd like to be able to finish—

[English]

Mr. Randy White: I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, if we don't adhere to the principle that we're here dealing with this one particular article, we are going to get into a morass of issues. Whether or not our witness displayed a flag in the House is not relative, quite frankly, to this article. We have to adhere to that principle or we will never get through this.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, and then Bill Blaikie on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I don't agree at all on the point raised by my colleague and I have two reasons for this: first, and most important, I think, is that our colleagues were called before this committee to explain their statements. But some of our colleagues preempted this and decided to explain, both in the House and outside of the House, what they stated to the Ottawa Sun.

Thus, the committee must consider the explanations they provided both in the House and outside the House as part of the explanations provided regarding the statement in the Ottawa Sun. I believe this is imperative.

Second, Mr. Chairman, my colleague's question was very relevant. Let me explain why. Our friend Benoît Serré has just said before this committee—if we are to consider only what he says before this committee-that he has taken the consequences. He said: "I was ready to take the consequences, and that is what I did. My right to speak was taken away because I had a flag on my desk".

My colleague then asked him: "But were you not given the floor, even though you had a flag on your desk?" This is absolutely relevant to the statement that has just been made. All of a sudden, our colleague no longer wants to answer that question. All he wants to do is state that we took away his right to speak because he had a flag on his desk. But was he not given the floor, even though he had a flag on his desk?

I think this is indeed a relevant question in relation to the statement I have just made before you.

[English]

The Chairman: Bill Blaikie on a point of order.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, we should be clear and you should rule that we are here to deal with what happened outside the House and what we have had specifically referred to us as a result of a motion now of the House. In fairness, we should stop referring to it as a motion by the Conservative Party and identifying it as a partisan motion; it arose as a result of a judgment of the Speaker, which was followed by a not unanimous but significant vote of the House of Commons.

We need to pay attention to what that motion says and what that reference says. The Bloc's questions are completely out of order—

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —with respect to the reference we have. We are not here to relive what happened in the House. What happened in the House has been dealt with as a result of the Speaker's ruling, as a result of a vote on the following day, etc., etc.

What we're here to decide, and to decide only, is whether or not the remarks attributed to certain members in an article in the Ottawa Sun constitute contempt of the House. Any line of questioning that attempts to deviate from that or drag up a debate that I think all of us, no matter what side we're on, are glad is over is just purely destructive and mischievous and should be regarded as such by the chair and ruled out of order.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Joe Fontana on a point of order.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I concur totally with what Bill just said. The date of the article is March 8, and is that article outside the House? That's all we should make our remarks on. Anything before or after that, in the House or outside the House, is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. March 8 is the date, that is the article, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what happened inside the House or outside the House before or after March 8. It's that article, and you should so rule.

The Chairman: I think we're close to dealing with this.

• 1130

Mr. Joe Fontana: I think you should so rule if any of those questions persist.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl, on a point of order.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just to drive that point home, Mr. Chairman, in Beauchesne's quotation 31 it goes as far as to say that statements made outside the House by a member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege.

I think we're dealing with this because it's been referred by the House. With respect to other statements and things that went on, if they want to bring another motion in the House, they're welcome to do so. But we must deal only with what the House has given to us, and no more.

If we get into it, this will turn into a zoo instead of—

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, you may have the last point.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, in the remarks I was getting ready to make a few moments ago, I was quite prepared to consider Mr. Serré's apology in the House as a mitigating circumstance. I was also ready to consider another action of his as a mitigating circumstance: he went to see the Speaker and issued a press release saying that he continued to have every confidence in the Speaker, and that he had in no way intended to question the authority of the House.

But since our colleagues' enlightened and wise decision seems to imply that we can take no account of what colleagues do inside or outside the House, I have to tell you Mr. Chairman, that as a result I cannot consider the fact that our colleague apologized, or stated he continued to have confidence in the Speaker, as a mitigating circumstances.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Bellehumeur, you have a short period of questioning left. Please keep your questions strictly to the reference from the House of Commons. Could you pose your last question now? Then we'll proceed to the other members.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I am in no way surprised to see that all the federalists are once again making every effort to push the Bloc Québécois aside. That is something we see every day.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

[English]

The Chairman: Come on, let's keep on with it.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I would just remind you that, in the Jacob case, members of the Liberal Party and the Reform Party were much more eloquent.

[English]

The Chairman: We're dealing with this.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, Mr. Chairman, here is my question for Mr. Serré. Someone may bring out the same point of order, but this is an important issue, given the fact that Mr. Serré himself alluded to his statement made on March 9, yet read only a part of it. I would like him to read the rest of it, and then ask the question.

Mr. Serré, this is an excerpt from your statement of March 9 which follows what you read earlier:

—I took the position that I had the right and duty to show the Canadian flag in the House, in the Canadian Parliament, regardless of the Speaker's ruling—

[English]

Some hon. members: Order.

The Chairman: If Ben wants to comment on that, he can.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I think the chair just ruled that we deal with the newspaper article only. This was the statement in the House of Commons, so I feel it's irrelevant to the motion before the committee and I won't answer it.

The Chairman: Okay, it's Marlene Catterall and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: On that article, you're quoted as saying “If he rules I can't wear it, I will wear it anyway.” Is that in fact what you said?

Mr. Benoît Serré: As I said at the beginning, it's very hard to remember the exact words when you're dealing with a 45-minute interview.

I think the intent was exactly that, that I would put the flag on my desk. If he ruled that I couldn't have the flag and I couldn't speak because I had the flag, I would keep it on. I did, for five days. Then I realized that was not the right thing to do at the time, and I removed the flag.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The article refers to you warning the Speaker. You've already commented on that, but to be absolutely clear, did you feel you were warning the Speaker? Was it your intention in any way to force the Speaker to rule the way you wanted him to rule?

Mr. Benoît Serré: Absolutely not. It was not the intent, and I would be surprised actually if I had used the word “warn”. I don't think I did. I probably used the word “hope” or another word of that nature. I know that “warn” might be perceived as— I'm confident in my heart that I did not use that word.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: How do you feel about the statement now?

Mr. Benoît Serré: Well, you know, hindsight is always 20-20.

I think there was a point I wanted to make about my love for this country and my love for my flag, but I repeat that I had absolutely no intent either to intimidate the Speaker of the House or to influence his decision. I was speaking only of my personal views on the matter and how strong my feelings are toward my country.

• 1135

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, André Harvey, and then Randy White.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: When Mr. Maingot appeared before the committee, we established there was a fairly direct link between the authority of the House and the authority of the Speaker. We also established that a threat to the Speaker constituted contempt of the House.

So does defying the authority of the House, the authority of the Speaker, amount to contempt? We will probably have to legislate that. Perhaps if we had examined the various concepts involved in greater depth, we might have reached that conclusion this morning, but unfortunately we decided to hear the witnesses first. This means we have yet no clear understanding of whether defying the authority of the Speaker actually constitutes contempt or not.

Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Serré told the press, or at least what he's quoted as saying, is this: "If he rules I can't show [the flag], I will show it anyway."

Mr. Serré, do you regret those words?

Mr. Benoît Serré: I would prefer to have said that if the existing Standing Orders did not allow it, I would take all the necessary measures to ensure that I made my point.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's very laudable. But do you regret the words you actually said?

Mr. Benoît Serré: I regret the way some people have interpreted them.

The Chairman: André Harvey.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am not quite finished, Mr. Chairman. I have another question, with your permission.

Mr. Serré, since the Speaker has decided that we cannot have flags on our desks, are you still convinced that we have to—

[English]

The Chairman: It doesn't matter. My understanding is that any powers we have are by strictly complying with the reference.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am referring to that statement, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: If we move away from the reference, we lose the authority we have.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, if you persist, I will consider myself as being harassed and muzzled. I am referring solely to the statement made by Mr. Serré. Since the Speaker has arrived at a ruling, I want to know whether Mr. Serré still intends to put a Canadian flag on his desk.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, though the question is not entirely in order, I can provide a very brief answer. I have removed my flag—

[English]

The Chairman: If you wish, Benoît.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, I took my flag off my desk before the Speaker ruled on the issue.

The Chairman: Very well. André Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, I think that we must let the committee proceed calmly with its deliberations; I am sure that all members who will appear before the committee are perfectly able to respond appropriately to the questions that will be put to them.

I would also like to point out to Mr. Serré, who is thoroughly familiar with House of Commons procedure, that we are no longer just talking about a Conservative Party resolution. In the House, 205 members voted for referral. So please, out of respect for the House of Commons, let's consider the fact that we are now dealing with a resolution referring the matter to the Standing committee.

I know that you love the Canadian flag, but do you consider that— You are of course aware that you are a member of the House of Commons, and as such should normally be working towards national reconciliation, and attempting to bring people closer together. Looking back on this incident, do you feel that the actions people took are likely to bring people closer together?

Loving our little flags is very important, but loving people and promoting a closer understanding among them is even more important. Don't you feel that actions like these, far from promoting a closer understanding among communities, tend rather to divide communities and further polarize the debate on symbols that may in themselves be divisive?

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have about 10 minutes to answer that question. However, on the basis of the criteria you established, it is out of order. Moreover, we will get bogged down in a debate on national unity. We will revive the flag debate.

• 1140

After four or five days, I realized that more than one political party was exploiting this issue for political ends, and that it was becoming an obstacle to national unity.

[English]

The Chairman: I think, Benoît, that's you going beyond the terms of reference.

I'll go to Randy White and Michel Bellehumeur. We have four minutes to go, because I took out the debate on the point of order on this particular case.

Randy.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do appreciate the comments you made, Benoît. You have said at this committee several times that there never was and there isn't any intent to be contemptuous, and I think you've made that very clear to everybody here.

I do recall an instance in which I was asked by a certain part of the media about an individual in my caucus, and I failed to answer the question. I just told him to buzz off, so to speak. The article that came out said I had failed to endorse my colleague. So I have a lot of sympathy with putting a great deal of faith in articles like this.

I would like to ask you how much of your decision with the press is contained in this article. Is this about—

The Chairman: Discussion.

Mr. Randy White: I'm sorry, yes, it's discussion. Is it three seconds of a 45-minute discussion, or—

Mr. Benoît Serré: I recall that the discussion took a minimum of 25 minutes, maybe up to 35 minutes, I'm not quite sure. I know we had a clip of about six or seven lines.

Mr. Randy White: I'm trying to point out the insignificance often of five or six words out of a 25-minute discussion.

Is this quote a partial quote? Is it extracted from a lengthier sentence? Do you recall at all?

Mr. Benoît Serré: I wouldn't be sure about that. I know we discussed the issue for about 30 to 35 minutes at the most, and exactly how this came into the discussion I can't recall. Your point is right that it's a very, very small quote out of a half-hour discussion.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoît Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reinforce how sometimes when you're dealing with the media the media's perception of what you say is different.

There was one article in the Montreal Gazette written by Terrance Wills. The headline is “Lone Liberal in flag flap has no love for Reform”. The same article is reprinted in the North Bay Nugget and says “Ben Serré in bed with Reform”. It's the same article!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Thanks, Ben.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I want to understand exactly what you mean. Do you acknowledge having made that statement?

Mr. Benoît Serré: I think I have said so umpteen times since we started.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Not exactly, since you have been tempering your words. Did you or did you not make that statement?

Mr. Benoît Serré: If you have finished asking your question, I could start answering it. As I have mentioned a number of times since the beginning, five or six lines were printed after a discussion that lasted 30 minutes. How were these words taken out of the 30-minute discussion? I don't remember. However, I repeat that I am sure I did not use the word "warn". I probably used the word "hope", because that is the word I use as often as possible.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: How long have you been giving this explanation, Mr. Serré?

Mr. Benoît Serré: I just gave it to you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You just thought of it. However, when you explained yourself in the House the day after, you never gave this explanation.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois member is referring once again to comments made in the House.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I would like to settle something and raise a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: Ben, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that the Bloc Québécois members hope to use this issue for political purposes and hold the flag debate again. In my view, we should limit ourselves to the motion before us. I don't appreciate at all having the member tell me that I just thought of something or that I had not thought of it before.

The Chairman: Fine. Michel.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, in his testimony, Mr. Maingot told us that we had to take the context into account in reviewing the statement made on March 8.

• 1145

We cannot judge a statement in a vacuum and question whether or not there was contempt. We have to look at it in its context. I accept that the context was the date of March 8, but it was also the first opportunity given the member to justify or withdraw his comments. He had that opportunity on March 9, the next day, in the House of Commons. He had an opportunity to provide an explanation at that time. The explanation that he is inventing today was never given on March 9. I would like the truth to come to light here, and have that people tell us what actually happened, rather than give us prepared explanations after speaking to the whip.

[English]

The Chairman: Order, order. Michel, you're out of order.

Now, colleagues—

A voice: Withdraw—

The Chairman: Colleagues. We have gone roughly 20 minutes, and I took out the time we spent discussing points of order so that Ben would have the 20 minutes of questioning, just as the others did.

I would like to say, Ben, that we're going to conclude the questioning now. If it's okay with you, I'd be grateful if you would stay for the remainder of this meeting. It may well be that at this meeting or another, the committee will need to invite you to attend again.

I thank you for your statements—

Mr. Benoît Serré: May I make a final remark?

The Chairman: I'd be grateful if you didn't, Ben. Ben, thank you very much. You're excused.

Point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little lost. If I understand correctly, you just concluded the questioning of the witness. Is that it, even if we have other questions?

[English]

The Chairman: No, no, I've not ended the questioning. I've ended the roughly 20 minutes. By the way, as I said, I try to be as fair as I can in the time of the questions. It was roughly 20 minutes. I explained to Ben that he may well be invited back, so if it's necessary, we can bring him back. We said—Stéphane, we started with—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You have just interrupted the rhythm of the meeting, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask some questions that followed up on those of my colleagues.

[English]

The Chairman: It may well be you can pose them later on, but for the moment we agreed that roughly 20 minutes—

Stéphane, in all fairness, the point I made at the beginning is this: the person who was first is going to be faced with all the technical points and with the settling down to the questioning. We have to be seen to be fair to all four people who are here.

We proceed to Dan McTeague—

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): On a point of order, so the entire committee can understand, my understanding is this meeting is going to end at 12.30. By my watch we have time to have only two more witnesses. So how are we going to be fair with the Bloc taking up all the time with these silly arguments?

The Chairman: First of all, I know of no understanding that we're finished at 12.30, but we might be.

Dan, we're grateful to you for accepting our invitation to appear. As you know, you have up to five minutes.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given the tone and the questions, I may want to leave a little bit more time for the questions.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am pleased to be invited here to give comments on the event that took place following March 9, 1998. To do so, to prepare all of you here for what I am about to say, I am going to simply reread for you what I had said prior to the decision made by the chairman,

[Translation]

before the Speaker of the House had an opportunity to make a decision that was ultimately settled by the House. I will distribute copies in English and in French, to those on my right, so that members may read the statement with me. I will leave it as proof of what I said and of my presentation today.

[English]

This was, of course, on March 9, 1998. It was:

Mr. Speaker, I am also rising to speak in light of the comments attributed to me in this weekend's Toronto Sun as well as the Ottawa Sun.

Those comments do not refer to the Chair or to yourself, but obviously to a larger question: the privilege of all the members in this House.

The thousands of men and women who laid down their lives for this country, in defence of the unity of this country, are being insulted each and every day with the continuation of this debate. They fought for a united country and a united flag.

It is for those reasons that I have absolutely no desire at this point to suspend free speech, to allow members of Parliament not to be able to defend themselves when veterans are talking about them about what is going on in this great House.

There are grave consequences to whatever decision should be made, Mr. Speaker. That is not a reflection on you. However, this Parliament should not dismiss it, in a rather dilatory fashion, by trying to throw out a couple of interesting rules which are suddenly conjured up, especially when the country is concerned about national unity.

I may have an opportunity to be quoted by a person of the press as to my position with respect to the flag. If that causes difficulty to the Chair then I sincerely apologize for it, but I do not apologize for the unity of my country, nor do I apologize for the Canadian flag, especially with the separatists.

• 1150

Of course, that gesture was because of the heckling that was going on on the other side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the comments that have been attributed to me in the Ottawa Sun are “The Speaker is not above the Canadian flag”, and “There will be grave consequences if he doesn't rule in favour of the flag”.

The context of the discussion was a meeting that I had with several veterans. As most colleagues know, it was the week we had time off. One of the town hall meetings that I had had focused on this issue because of what had occurred, I believe, on February 24. A number of veterans were concerned about our national symbol, and I reflected those in my comments, but in no way were my comments to be inferred or construed or were they intended to be a matter directed at the chair.

In fact, when the motion was raised initially in the House of Commons, I was sort of surprised, because I had only access to the Toronto Sun that day, which said “MPs ready to rally 'round the flag”, a very different title, the subtitle being “Speaker pressured to rule against BQ”, somewhat different from “MPs threaten Speaker's job in flap over Maple Leaf, anthem”.

Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in the questions that members have. I wanted to put my cards on the table well before this.

[Translation]

Obviously, I am here to answer questions from all my colleagues in the House of Commons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

[English]

I have Chuck Strahl, and then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks for coming, Dan, and thank you for your comments and for the copy of your point of privilege.

On the article itself, you're quoted in the article as saying that there will be grave consequences. Did you imply or did you mean to threaten the Speaker by saying there would be grave consequences?

Mr. Dan McTeague: No. I meant grave consequences for the country as a whole. In fact, what I had thought was going to occur did occur, and it's culminating or perhaps not culminating with today's events.

Clearly, for the past week or so the country has been embroiled in a very serious debate over the question of the flag and how it should be placed. The consequences I was referring to were of the national forum. They were not reflective on the Speaker.

The comment of the Speaker not being above the Canadian flag was a second comment. No one, in my view, is above the flag. That is an opinion; that is a publicly held opinion.

As to the question of intimidating or threatening the Speaker, none was contemplated. I felt the Speaker was well within his bounds to make that decision. The Speaker himself has made that decision. I abide by it. If for some reason—and this is why I expressed this in the House of Commons—it is in any way suggested that this is somehow directed against the chair or the person in the chair, then I sincerely apologize for that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do you think people take that kind of a statement and say that it is a coercive thing, that when the Speaker would read this— I don't know what the Speaker's reading schedule is, whether he reads all these articles or not, but if he were to read this article, do you think the Speaker would change his ruling one way or another, based on your comments? Would he be shaking in his boots, or would he just say there you go, some comments in the press? Or do you think he would be coerced? Do you think he would be saying he'd better change his decision here based on this?

Mr. Dan McTeague: The intention of my remarks were not to tell the Speaker how to rule. The intentions of my remarks in the public domain were to give, I think, a response to the many people who have laid down their lives for this country, for those who fought for the defence of this nation and for the integrity of the flag, an opportunity to know that I would do everything I could as a member of Parliament to make sure that their views were properly held to account by a member of Parliament who is trying to be accountable.

The Chairman: One very short question, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

As we led into this referral to this committee, I said to the House that I think the Speaker makes rulings based on precedents, on rule of law, and so on, and I don't think comments in a newspaper article affect the Speaker one way or the other. I doubt your comments had any effect whatsoever on him.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Well, very shortly then, Mr. Chairman, I can't be responsible for what happens to my statements after I make them. Clearly, that is the relationship we have with the fifth estate. It is not one I'm prepared to contend with, and it has everything— The fourth estate, I should say. Sorry, John, I'm going a little further.

But I do appreciate that there is above all of this, at the same time, mixed into the hopper here, the right of free speech.

The Chairman: Next are Marlene Catterall, Bill Blaikie, and André Harvey.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Sorry, are the CBC guys here?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Dan, you were asked specifically about the quote, and I understood you to say that when you talked about grave consequences you weren't certainly talking about grave consequences for the Speaker but the importance of the issue.

• 1155

As I read the headlines, they don't contain any quote from you, but they create quite a different impression when they say “MPs threaten Speaker's job—” and “Reform and Liberal MPs will demand the removal of Commons Speaker Gib Parent—”. Did you ever say anything vaguely resembling what that headline and sub-headline imply?

Mr. Dan McTeague: To my way of recalling the conversation, no. I would never threaten the Speaker. That would put me obviously in a position of suggesting that one lowly backbencher is ahead of the Speaker. I was surprised at the heading, because it is certainly not relative to anything I have said, and given what I've just heard from Mr. Serré, I'm sure it's not what he said either.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So just to be perfectly clear, you had no intention of threatening the Speaker, notwithstanding what the headline here says?

Mr. Dan McTeague: No. As I said, when I came in that morning, reading the Toronto Sun of the same date—and I would be willing to leave this with the clerk if that is required—I could not have known there was going to be a problem with this issue, even having read this article this morning. It was not until the member for Antigonish got up to raise the matter on a point of order that I suddenly became aware of what he was talking about. It was in reading the Toronto Sun that I saw there was a very different reading of the editorial.

So under the circumstances, I'd not anticipated a problem. I certainly did not in any way intend, as I said earlier, to push or pressure or intimidate the Speaker. I don't think, frankly, that I have that much influence.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dan. We'll circulate that document to all members.

Marlene, very briefly.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Just to be perfectly clear, you obviously seem to regret very much the interpretation that's been placed on your words. Is that a fair reflection of how you feel about the situation?

Mr. Dan McTeague: I don't believe it would be in anyone's interest to challenge in any way, shape, or form the authority of the House of Commons. So my statements are not reflected at the authority of the chair or the person in the chair, and I made that very clear even prior to the Speaker making that ruling.

Outside the House of Commons, we have a very important role to play in trying to address the real complexities of the rules of procedure of the House of Commons as well as trying to respond to the public's concerns. And let's not kid ourselves: every one of us in this room received calls on this issue. It put us in a very unusual situation. I tried to do the best under the circumstances.

The Chairman: Bill Blaikie, André Harvey, and then Michel Bellehumeur.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. McTeague, I take it you're saying that both the headline and the sub-headline, which refers to demanding the removal of the Speaker if he didn't rule in the way you hoped he might, don't reflect substantively what you actually had to say to the reporter in question. Is that fair?

Mr. Dan McTeague: That would be a fairly accurate description of what I had intended.

My other concern—and I should point this out to you, Mr. Blaikie—is that the display of February 24 signalled to me that even members of Parliament took the issue of the flag very seriously, and I was merely reflecting on what I thought was a serious situation.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes. I don't think you should enter into a debate about the rightness or wrongness of your position on the flag, because certainly there are people on both sides of that issue, even within the community of veterans. We've had veterans who feel differently from the way you do about it or from the way the veterans you talked about feel. I don't think we should be entering into that kind of debate.

The real question is whether or not, in any way, when you were talking about grave consequences or when you say the Speaker and the House are not above the Canadian flag— What does it mean to say you're not above the Canadian flag? The Speaker and the House determine how the flag will be flown in the House. In that sense it's not a question of above or below; it's a question of who decides, because somebody has to decide.

There has to be protocol when it comes to the flying of the flag, no matter what kind of institution you belong to. So the people who make those decisions about how a flag will be flown do not set themselves up as above the flag but simply as the people who have the appropriate authority to determine how and when it will be flown and in what context.

• 1120

It seems to me the whole notion of anyone setting themselves up above the flag is probably a regrettable way to put it.

The Chairman: Dan McTeague.

Mr. Dan McTeague: I agree with you as to the way it's put, but I think you must appreciate the context, which this article does not give and which perhaps this debate will never be able to really incur.

I was interested in the context of discussing this matter with veterans. The reporter asked me if I had any questions, and I said yes, as a matter of fact. I had just had several discussions with veterans within my riding, and this was a very serious issue. It's in those discussions that I relayed what I had talked about and what questions and concerns were brought to me. If somehow those have been taken to mean something further than what they were, then they were clearly taken out of context.

The Chairman: Bill, briefly.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: But you don't mean the Speaker or anybody else is putting themselves above the flag by exercising the authority that is due them in deciding how and when it will be flown.

Mr. Dan McTeague: This is the difficulty members of Parliament are put in each and every day.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's not being above the flag in some pejorative sense.

Mr. Dan McTeague: But you try to tell that to a veteran who fought for this country. Had they not fought for this country, there'd be no House of Commons. That question of procedure wouldn't be there.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's venturing into debate about the rightness or wrongness of the decision.

Mr. Dan McTeague: I'm giving an explanation, Mr. Blaikie, as to why I made those statements.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You keep attributing your comments to veterans. There are veterans on both sides of this debate. Just because a veteran told you this doesn't make it—

Mr. Dan McTeague: If there are, I haven't heard any on the other side of the debate, Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, there are. I know that.

Mr. Dan McTeague: I'd like to hear from them.

The Chairman: André Harvey, then Michel, and then Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Because of the quality of my colleague's testimony, I would like to know what he thinks about the point he made himself—namely, that for 25 or 30 years, the strategy of provocation has allowed the sovereignist movement in Quebec to increase its popularity rating from 5 per cent to 49 per cent. There are reasons for that, and I am quite sure he is very familiar with them.

Among those close to me, in my own family, our people have fought this fight in the past and are still fighting it today. So I certainly understand the references you made to the national pride issue, given that the Canadian flag, and you no doubt are unfortunately aware of this, is not currently a unifying symbol in our efforts to promote national unity.

[English]

The Chairman: André, if I could—

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I want to set the context.

[English]

The Chairman: I understand, I understand. Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I want to set the context. The federal Liberals want to work on national reconciliation, and their efforts have not been very successful over the last 30 years, Mr. Chairman. In all good faith, I am reporting facts that date back to 1968.

[English]

The Chairman: I do understand that, André.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I would like to ask our witness whether he thinks that—

[English]

The Chairman: André, would you keep it to the reference?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thirty seconds. Does our colleague think that the strategy used in the House of Commons, given that we know that there are two huge flags on either side of the Speaker, rather than promoting harmony, helps polarize groups and opinions? As we know, there are countries in which symbols have done a great deal of damage.

[English]

The Chairman: André, order. Order.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have finished.

I am not afraid of my question, or my answers, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, I'm certainly in a moment going to let Dan respond, if he wishes, but I urge you all— This is not a court of law. Here we are hearing from our colleagues. We're hearing from our equals on a very specific reference from the House of Commons.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I would like to conclude, Mr. Chairman. On a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: Listen, we can have a debate in a moment. I would urge you all, colleagues, to keep to the reference.

Now, André, briefly on the point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I would just like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that I hope we will draw some constructive conclusions from these events. Taken objectively, these public comments are very serious. As a member of Parliament, I behaved very respectfully towards my colleagues at the last meeting. I insisted that we begin our work by listening to our colleagues carefully, Mr. Chairman. I want to try to look at the general problem in order to try to change our behaviour in Parliament.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, phrase your question now.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I just wanted to focus on national reconciliation. I would like his views on that, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing wrong with that.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Dan.

[Translation]

Mr. Dan McTeague: Look, I am always concerned about the unity of our country. It is something very important for Franco- Ontarians.

• 1205

For me, the issue of symbols, in light of the fact that I have members of my family on both sides of this major battle in Canada—

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, Dan, I'd say the same thing. I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can. I understand, by the way, the importance of context and all of that, but if we let it go into the general debate, we will have serious problems.

Dan, very briefly, a point.

Mr. Dan McTeague: The point simply is that my comments were in respect of something that occurred locally, which I'm sure occurred right across this country. There was no infringement, whether we agree or disagree with a flag from other countries.

The Chairman: Okay. Michel Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We would hope that we will be able to ask some questions.

When you made this statement, did you know that the Speaker had taken the matter under advisement?

Mr. Dan McTeague: Pardon me?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: When you made this statement on March 8, did you know that the Speaker had taken the whole matter under advisement?

Mr. Dan McTeague: Yes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: When you made this statement to the journalist, did he say that he was conducting a sort of investigation and that he had been in touch with other members of Parliament?

Mr. Dan McTeague: No. Excuse me, I want to give some further explanations. As I explained earlier, I did that as well, knowing that many members of Parliament were concerned about the situation. The incident that occurred on February 24 was extremely important, and I simply made an empirical observation.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: So you knew there was discontent in the House about all of that? You knew that it was important?

Mr. Dan McTeague: It was important in the ridings, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: So you knew that the ruling to be made by the Speaker was extremely important.

Mr. Dan McTeague: The ruling to be made by the Speaker put members of Parliament in—

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The decision of March 8.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Which decision? The first decision to refer the question?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: On March 8, when you made this statement, as you have said, there were many members who were worried about the consequences of all of this. So, did you know that the ruling that the Speaker would make on the Bloc Québécois's question of privilege was extremely important?

Mr. Dan McTeague: I was merely expressing an opinion on the flag issue and its importance throughout the country, whether for the Speaker, the members, veterans or business people.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel is keeping his question. Keep your replies to the reference, Dan.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Will you answer my question?

[English]

Mr. Dan McTeague: I'm answering as best I can, Mr. Bellehumeur. Keep going.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No, you haven't answered at all.

[English]

Mr. Dan McTeague: Ask it again.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: When you made this statement on March 8, you knew that there was grumbling among the members in the House of Commons. You knew, as you have said, that it was very important and was being talked about in the ridings. Here is my question: when you made this statement, did you know how important the Speaker's pending decision would be?

Mr. Dan McTeague: Yes, it was absolutely important.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You knew it was very important.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Any ruling by the Speaker is important for the members.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Particularly that decision. Personally, I allowed the motion to be tabled, even though I am wondering today why it was done. It refers only to March 8, while you made your statement on March 9. However, you strongly emphasize its importance, separatism, etc. So you knew that the Speaker's forthcoming ruling would have major consequences, especially in the House.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Yes, it was very important. The Speaker would have to make a very significant ruling in view of all the members' concerns.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The Speaker of the House of Commons had to make a very important decision, as you have just admitted, one that would be very significant in the ridings and for the future, because of all the bad separatists, etc. Mr. McTeague, when you make a statement like this: "There will be serious consequences if he does not decide in favour of the Canadian flag"—

[English]

Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Bellehumeur, I think it's fairly clear that when the Speaker has to resolve a very difficult issue for everyone on all sides of this issue, to say there would not be serious consequences for every Canadian after the fact would be an understatement. This is further evidenced by the fact that over the past two weeks this House of Commons has been embroiled in this issue. I don't want to stand here to vindicate the statement I made back then, but it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that what I said turned out to be quite true.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It's because I didn't ask my question. He replied before that.

I will repeat exactly the same question and add everything that you have just said about the importance of the situation.

• 1210

It was said that there would be serious consequences if the Speaker did not rule in favour of the Canadian flag, in the context that you have described and knowing that there was grumbling in the House of Commons and that members found it unfair not to be able to have a Canadian flag on their desk and that the Bloc Québécois had risen on a question of privilege. Can you claim that such a statement was not intended to intimidate the Speaker of the House?

[English]

Mr. Dan McTeague: That's exactly what I'm telling you, Mr. Bellehumeur, and it's in the context of the discussions that I had with people in my own riding. I'm sorry if it doesn't satisfy you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I am upset that you have unilaterally and in a very authoritarian manner decided to limit the debate to 20 minutes per witness. We never voted on this or made such a decision.

Furthermore, I can see that Mr. McTeague's statement is worthless because we have to limit ourselves to the statement on March 8. So let's get back to the statement of March 8, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McTeague, when you said that the Speaker was not above the Canadian flag and that there would be serious consequences if he did not decide in favour of the Canadian flag, what serious consequences were you thinking about?

[English]

Mr. Dan McTeague: Well, I've already explained those, Mr. Bergeron. I think I made it very clear that the consequences— If you read the statement very clearly, it doesn't say the consequences to the Speaker, it says the consequences in general. And I refer to the fact that there will be grave consequences if he doesn't rule in favour of the flag.

I think this was a very public issue. It went beyond the four walls of the House of Commons, and it does engage into the whole question of how I am able to treat my constituents or how they reflect on me when a decision is made on my behalf. I think it's a matter of privilege that goes the other way. It cuts both ways.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: When you made this statement, did you think that it would influence the Speaker's ruling?

[English]

Mr. Dan McTeague: No. And I don't want to get into the whole question of mens rea, because I don't believe that is a court of law. But I will say that there is no intent here—

The Chairman: It's not a court of law.

Mr. Dan McTeague: —to intimidate, threaten or whatever the speeches— I believe I heard some of yours, Mr. Bergeron, during the deliberations.

This statement was done purely in the context of the concerns that were raised by many of my constituents, and the ultimate question of the integrity and the importance of the symbol of the flag to my constituents.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Did you believe that the Speaker would rule in favour of the Canadian flag?

[English]

Mr. Dan McTeague: I believe that there are two competitive imperatives here at play. One is the integrity of the House and its rules, which are paramount, and in the minds of Canadians rightly so, because of the supreme sacrifices they have made and continue to make each and every day. We are caught in the middle of that.

If this committee is here to determine contempt of members of Parliament, then it does so with the probability of putting many members of Parliament in a position where they cannot defend themselves with their own constituents, which is in itself a breach of privilege.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have two short questions in conclusion. Mr. McTeague, are you sorry for your statement, or for its negative or pernicious effect?

Mr. Dan McTeague: It's like I said, but unfortunately you have picked my comments apart, I will—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like you to repeat them, because your statement on March 9 has no standing before this committee.

[English]

Mr. Dan McTeague: That's a problem of the decision of the committee. Don't blame me for that, Stéphane. If my comments were taken to mean that in some way they should be construed as challenging the authority of the House of Commons, I withdraw those comments. But I can assure you that my comments were made purely in the context of the constituents I represent.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dan.

Stéphane, if I might, you can have a choice. You can either ask your last question, or Michel can ask it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, but I think that—

[English]

The Chairman: No, seriously, I'd like to address your point about the time here. Stéphane, we have given you and your party—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If we asked you to apologize for what you said in the House—

A member: And to the member for—

[English]

Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chairman, I'm in your hands on this one. I think your committee here has a very important role. I'm not sure what constitutes contempt. I'm not sure if there's any member at this particular committee who understands that. I don't believe that my statements, anything more than what I've said in the House of Commons, should be taken as the face value of what I believe this issue has become.

In my view, I think to most Canadians outside of this room today this has become a rather unfortunate event. I think many onlookers on both sides of this equation would probably find this a rather useless exercise.

• 1215

The Chairman: Dan, I want to thank you for appearing before us.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you.

The Chairman: I would make the same remarks as I did to Benoît: it may be today or at a later time; we may need to call you again.

I would point out to colleagues, and with respect to the discussion there, that we've gone over the 20 minutes this time, comfortably. I've tried to give every party full time, including, by the way, in the case of some parties, a second round on the questioning.

I'd like to ask our colleague Peter Goldring if he would come forward.

Peter, I want to thank you for responding to our invitation. I think you've been here long enough to understand the procedure. The suggestion is that you have up to five minutes, and that would be followed by fifteen minutes, roughly speaking, of question and answer. I would be grateful, if you have a statement, to hear it.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, to establish where I'm coming from I would like to read short excerpts from the speech I made on the motion that was in the House. It's just two paragraphs.

I take pride in being a Canadian in a country where any so-called commoner can aspire to a legislative role. Two short years ago I held my breath with millions of others as Canada barely survived Quebec's referendum vote. Today I take part in a debate about our flag, the symbol of our land.

I trust that my colleagues' expression of support will serve as a catalyst to do more to help break the bonds of apathetic Canadianism, to usher in a newfound spirit of love for our country and the symbol that both represents all of these and joins us together—our flag.

And I closed with:

Today I ask this House to allow the display of the symbol of our country when we speak. I want to show to all Canadians that our national symbol may sit with us in this honourable place as a symbol of how close it is to our hearts. When I speak to Canada, there is no flag visible to those who see and hear my words. I wish only to do as I did in the chamber of commerce meeting in Edmonton two weeks ago. I placed a flag of Canada on my table in that chamber. I would like to do likewise in this chamber.

That was my speech on the motion. The motion failed, and the ruling was to remove the flags from my desk. I complied at that point; that's when I removed my flag from my desk.

Now I'm at this meeting, and I come here very reluctantly as a participant—reluctant because I feel I shouldn't be here. I feel that all I did was support something and give my comments to something that's very close to me and the reason why I am here. I am here and in this very seat as a product of that referendum of two and a half years ago, and for no other reason. Returning from Quebec City, I decided to see if I could do something, and that's why I'm here today.

So attending this meeting— Frankly, the issue was started by the Liberals with the flags. All parties participated in the House. The Bloc exacerbated the problem, and the Reform attempted to bring closure by introducing a motion. Now it's still going on, so I kind of question why it is. We tried to bring closure with a motion.

But I am particularly concerned with the request to remove my flag. I believe, as reported according to the newspaper reporting—

The Chairman: Peter, I don't want to interrupt you. You have your five minutes and you are our colleague and you're entitled to it. But I urge you to keep to the reference. I am trying to keep our members and the questioning to the reference. It's not a warning; it's a suggestion.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, I wanted to give a little bit of background in the questioning.

The Chairman: I understand that, but I urge you to keep to the reference, because it makes it more difficult for me to keep the questioning to the reference if you don't. Please continue.

Mr. Peter Goldring: All right. These are the points to the reference. I believe, as reported March 8, as I do now, that “it would be the totally wrong message”—that was my quote—for Canadians for the Speaker to rule against the displaying of the Canadian flag.

I believe my prognostications of the future were correct when I said it would run into serious resistance. It did. The Reform brought forth a motion to resist the removal of the flags from the desk, so it in effect happened.

• 1220

I feel that I have nothing to apologize for. I don't feel I have done anything wrong, and I suppose I would resist being asked to apologize. I'd want to have it made very clear to me why I should be apologizing for something that was honest comments made about an issue that is close to me.

I believe I answered the questions fairly. My answers that are quoted in the paper actually were correct, and they did happen.

So I want to close on that note. I question why I should be apologizing for anything.

The Chairman: I have Chuck Strahl, Michel Bellehumeur, Marlene Catterall, Stéphane Bergeron, and then Randy White.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Peter, for appearing before the committee and giving us your remarks.

I would just like to try to stick to the order of reference, which is this newspaper article out of the Ottawa Sun. It has apparently appeared elsewhere, in other newspapers in the same format, with different headlines, but we're being asked to keep our comments strictly to this one article.

Your entire quote is one sentence long in this article. Just to go through it in some detail, when you said—and forgive me, because it is pretty preposterous that you're even here, but even so, let's go through it—“It would be the totally wrong message—”, were you threatening the Speaker?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Absolutely not. I'm passing a comment that for the flags to be removed from my desk would be sending the wrong message. I think it was substantiated by a great number of people writing in support and giving comment on it.

I believe it was giving the wrong message, but, no, it's not against the Speaker's position.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, what about your ominous words, “it would run into serious resistance”? Could that be interpreted as coercive? Do you think that perhaps the Speaker, trembling in his robes, read this article and felt that perhaps his physical presence was threatened in some way?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Absolutely not. I don't know how anybody could interpret that from it. These are comments I'm making from my viewpoint of supporting the position of having a flag on my desk.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: When you talk about serious resistance, are you talking about the Gandhi type—you know, make a statement and stand by it—or are you talking— What does serious resistance mean here?

Is the Speaker or the House— It could not just be the Speaker. Is the House perhaps threatened by your comments here? Are you perhaps saying that serious resistance is more—

An hon. member: Terrorist attack.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: —terrorist-oriented resistance, or is it perhaps— Is the House in danger by your comments here?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Absolutely not. I don't know how it could be interpreted that way. But certainly by serious resistance I believe that the motion that was brought forward was a very serious motion that was brought forward to question it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, well, I—

The Chairman: Michel Bellehumeur, Marlene Catterall, Stéphane Bergeron, and Randy White.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I find it unacceptable that you did not give me the floor a little while ago so that I could complete my questions to the other witness. I disagree with the 20-minute limit, in view of the fact that the committee never made a decision on time allocation. You are behaving like a dictator at the end of the table and you are cutting me off.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel, you're new to this committee. I gave your party the option: either Stéphane posed his last question, or you posed it. Stéphane proceeded—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No, but you did not give the member the choice of asking a question in my stead.

[English]

The Chairman: I most certainly do. This is not a court of law. We're not tied to procedures. This is a meeting of colleagues.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: This amounts to a gag. You do not want to get at the truth. You do not want the members to speak openly here.

[English]

The Chairman: This is not a court of law.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You even interrupted the Conservative member a little while ago.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel, you have the floor. Proceed with your questioning.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, this is not a court of law, but we do want to know what is happening.

[English]

An hon. member: You're wasting my time here.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The 20-minute allocation and all the rest are very important, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: As I've mentioned, we can call the witnesses back if the committee so agrees, and you can pose your question then to the last witness.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That doesn't work.

[English]

The Chairman: We're dealing with our colleague Peter Goldring at the moment. Why not proceed and question this witness?

• 1225

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, your proposed procedure will not work. The time to get to the bottom of things is when the witnesses are in front of us. We never get the official version, and that won't work.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel, can I ask you to question this witness?

[Translation]

A member: If you want to get to the bottom of the issue.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, my question is very simple.

[English]

The Chairman: I beg your pardon?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: My question is addressed to you. Is it the mandate of this committee to thoroughly elucidate this question? Is this our mandate?

[English]

The Chairman: Our mandate is to consider the reference we have from the House of Commons and to decide ourselves what the article and the statements mean. That's it.

If we decide that—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If I understand you clearly, Mr. Chairman, we are here to examine the statement published in the newspapers on March 8. So would you explain why you are gagging us with a 20-minute time limit and why you won't allow us to ask the questions we want to ask.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel, I've explained to you that this is not a court of law. Our powers are very tightly tied to the reference from the House of Commons—very tightly. It's my job, as chair among equals, to keep to the reference, and I'm doing that. If I might say so, it's almost my job to see that each of our colleagues gets a fair hearing.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, is it your function to change the rules of the game?

[English]

The Chairman: It is not.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No, that's not it. The rules have to apply equally to everybody.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel, do you want to make your question now?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I am opposed to the 20-minute allocation, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Please, question now.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: These are not the rules that this committee adopted.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel, I note your comments. Proceed with your questions or I will proceed to the next questioner. Do you want me to go to the next questioner or do you not?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman—

[English]

The Chairman: Michel, do you want me to go to the next questioner?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Should I proceed to the next questioner?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, you are not even answering the questions yourself.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You're behaving like a dictator, when all is said and done.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I can see that your job is to protect the Liberals and Reform members.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron has the floor. Michel, Stéphane Bergeron has the floor.

Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Ask him if he wants to protect the Reformers and the Liberals.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'm still wondering why it was decided to limit each witness to 20 minutes.

[English]

Mr. Joe Fontana: I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: My interpretation, if I may be allowed, following the discussion—

[English]

The Chairman: I have a point of order.

Mr. Joe Fontana: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think the rules were set at the beginning of the meeting.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We didn't vote.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Wait a minute. The only people who don't agree with the rules are the Bloc.

I will put the motion, as indicated by yourself, right here and now that the statements by members and the questions of the members of this committee shall be limited to 20 minutes. It is so moved. Let's get it off the table once and for all.

Mr. Randy White: Seconded.

An hon. member: Can I vote?

The Chairman: I don't editorialize much. I hesitate to do this, but I have a motion—

Mr. Joe Fontana: Well, this is largely the point—

The Chairman: As I said, my explanation, Joe, was that we keep to roughly 20 minutes, but I have a motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Can we speak to the motion, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, certainly. Speaking to the motion—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Therefore, we will speak to the motion, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: When we discussed this issue on Tuesday, no one ever mentioned a time limit. You have just told us that you want to keep to about 20 minutes.

[English]

An hon. member: Speak to the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But as a result of your interpretation of "about 20 minutes", you interrupted me when I was asking my question of the previous witness and you said, "it's either your question or Michel Bellehumeur's; we can't have any more because we will exceed the 20 minutes." In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, your interpretation of 20 minutes is very restrictive, authoritarian and arbitrary. I think it is totally inappropriate to impose a 20- minute limit when we have witnesses to question and when we are supposed to get to the bottom of an issue.

[English]

The Chairman: On the motion, Chuck Strahl and then Michel Gauthier.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have not finished. When we have witnesses to question, as far as I know, there should not be a time limit.

[English]

The Chairman: No, listen, we're discussing the motion. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There should not be a time limit as long as there is a pending question. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you merely want to interrupt the flow. You are asking the witness to step down in order to interrupt the flow and confuse the issue.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel Gauthier on the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I had not completed, and that's just as well for him.

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry, I mean Monsieur—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's a matter of the Standing Orders.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Michel, you're second. Chuck Strahl goes first and then you.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): May I speak to the Standing Order that we are discussing, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is a motion from the House. I do not doubt that it represents a well- intentioned effort to solve things here and to ensure that people can appear, but I just wanted to draw one point to your attention: your government, in a very large majority, voted with the opposition to once and for all settle this whole flag issue. Obviously, unpleasant and regrettable things had happened. Some members had even threatened the Speaker.

• 1230

I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of what principle you can prevent those, who at the outset, spoke out against what was happening in the House from asking all the questions that they want to the witnesses, and what principle you evoked for limiting the time so that we will be unable to clarify this matter.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel, on the point of order, as chair I'm faced with a motion. I'm dealing with a motion that has come from our committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: You have a motion, Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Because of the decision.

Mr. Michel Gauthier: To elucidate, and you are preventing us from elucidating that matter. We are the party with the strongest interest in this matter because we were the first to speak out against the situation, and we demand to have the right to ask questions. If you want to solve the flag affair, it will be done here.

[English]

The Chairman: I have Chuck Strahl on the motion.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are two ways we can progress. I can just now during this—just call for the question, which is probably wise. The other thing we could do is withdraw.

Actually my preference is to withdraw the motion and just say that we immediately move to sustain the chair in your decisions.

Mr. Chairman, this has gone on, and this is turning into what I feared, which is a bit of a zoo. It's interesting to me now that the two people most vociferous on this are also two people named in this article.

I'm starting to get pretty fed up with the way they're trying to hijack this agenda and bypass the chair. I move now that we immediately move to the question, since I think that's the easiest way to resolve this, and we get on with this thing and get it over with. I call the question.

The Chairman: Okay. Randy White.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, call the question.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, I was listening to someone else here.

Mr. Joe Fontana: The question should now be put.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I ask that the question now be put on Mr. Fontana's motion.

An hon. member: Call in the guards.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, we should have just moved to sustain the Speaker in his ruling. The chair has to have— This is another case of confidence of the assembly.

The Chairman: I'm going to go to André Harvey because he was on the list, and then I'm going to come back to it. I understand that is the reasonable procedure.

André.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I really find it unfortunate that we've got into this type of a debate merely because of an attempt to limit the time. In fact, I wanted to try to make the best possible use of the unfortunate statements made by our colleagues and to ensure that the Canadian Parliament would be a place where it is possible for some change in attitude to take place.

I believe that everyone agrees that the witnesses must speak on substantive issues, but I can see that this is extremely difficult to do. I hope that we will find a solution to enable people to ask all the questions they want. I am willing to sit. We won't die from sitting on the committee. but we have to allow our colleagues to take as much time as they need to question. I think that this would help to calm the deliberations, Mr. Chairman, even if we may have to adjourn to the next session and take as much time as is necessary.

[English]

The Chairman: I should explain, by the way, that the reason we're proceeding this way is that the question now put is not allowed in committee.

I go to Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, to put some order to this, the chair did rule on 20 minutes. It is not necessary to debate this motion.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Randy White: I'd first move to adjourn this debate, then move to a motion to sustain the original ruling of the chair. Both of these are not debatable. We should just vote on them.

The Chairman: The first motion?

Mr. Randy White: Adjourn this debate on this motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The second motion.

Mr. Randy White: The second motion, Mr. Chairman, is to sustain the chair in its original ruling.

The Chairman: My ruling was that it be 20 minutes, but used in the way we've used it in this meeting.

Mr. Randy White: We understand that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think reasonable people understand it.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: May I still exercise my right to speak? I was interrupted by a point of order. May I continue?

[English]

The Chairman: Again, can we settle this down a bit so I can clear my mind.

Did Stéphane have the floor? I accept that, and then I go to Randy White.

• 1235

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Goldring, you stated in the Ottawa Sun on March 8 that this would convey the wrong message, and that it would be widely opposed. First question: do you believe that the Speaker sent the wrong message?

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, I feel that to remove the flag from my desk would be sending the wrong message. Certainly a great number of the public thought so, too.

And as far as running into serious resistance, it's exactly what happened. We brought forward a serious motion on it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, you believe that the Speaker made a bad decision.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: My comment in the newspaper article was foretelling, and quite frankly, it was correct. It ran into a serious motion, which is a resistance.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I will ask my question again, Mr. Goldring.

Do you think that the Speaker's decision was a bad decision?

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: I believe we are here discussing what is here in the paper.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But I want to know, Mr. Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: He had not made a decision by that time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have your opinion on the bad message. In your opinion, did the Speaker's ruling convey a bad message?

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: He had not made the ruling at that time. I was commenting here in the paper on this particular date.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Goldring, I would like to know what you meant when you referred to a bad message. In your opinion, did the Speaker's ruling constitute a bad message?

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: He had not made that ruling yet.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You said that there would be widespread opposition. When you made that statement, were you aware of the fact that its publication in the Ottawa newspapers might be interpreted as an attempt to influence the Speaker or even as a threat?

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Absolutely not. It was published in a lot of other newspapers too. I repeat again that this actually happened. There was serious resistance. There was a motion brought forward.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Were you aware of the fact that your statement would—

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Stéphane. Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Peter. I think you're very clear in what the intent was.

I'd like to know how much of the comment attributed to you—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Excuse me, but there are limits. On the basis of what principle have you decided in this committee to cut my colleague off in the middle of his question? I would like you to explain the rule to me, because I have a copy of the Standing Orders in my hand, and I do not understand how you are proceeding.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel, before you came in we established the rules of procedure. We've had a number of occasions when people are returned to the list. They're not cut off.

I have to look at the approximately 20 minutes we're dealing with. Stéphane had had a fair period of time. I have a list here. You, Michel, are on this list, and I'd like to see that members get a fair shake.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: I would like to ask you a question. On the basis of what principle did you decide that my time was up in the middle of a question, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: I have a point of order.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The chair is trying to follow an order to make sure that all members of the committee and all parties get an opportunity to participate fairly.

We've now had one speaker from the Bloc, and did agree, as the chair indicated at the beginning of the meeting, to be fair to all the members of Parliament involved in this incident. He would try to make sure—

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: —that they each had a chance to be heard. You weren't here—

The Chairman: Okay, Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm sorry, but I would ask the chair to continue with the order of speakers as he has them listed so that we all get an opportunity to participate.

The Chairman: Michel, again, you weren't here at the beginning. Our concern is fairness to our colleagues, the witnesses. So I have an order, which is Randy White, Marlene Catterall, and then Michel Gauthier.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I hope that you are aware of the consequences of your decision.

[English]

An hon. member: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Through this decision, you are compromising the work of this committee.

[English]

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind—

The Chairman: Michel, if you don't mind, you're on the list.

• 1240

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: If that's how it is, Mr. Chairman, we will continue the meeting elsewhere.

[English]

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Let's go with a point of order. André Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, we'll not solve our problems by tolerating this type of attitude and continuing to sit. In light of that, it is important to adjourn and to try to arrange— I know that you are a chairman who is, generally, conciliatory and allows our colleagues to speak. I think that we should try to find a solution for the next sitting.

I would move that we adjourn until the next sitting if I have a seconder.

[English]

The Chairman: I'd welcome discussion on this, but it seems to me that with respect to Peter Goldring we're well into this. We have some minutes of questioning to go. Out of respect for him—he's been sitting there through this—let's continue this hearing.

I would repeat, Peter, what I've said to all the others, that we may well be calling you back and so on.

I would urge the committee, with your agreement, that we continue with this one and that when we finish this round we consider André's suggestion.

Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Bloc got what it wanted, and that was show business and not into the issue itself. I think calm heads can prevail, but where they go I really don't much care. I have a few suggestions, however.

The Chairman: Let's get on with the—

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Peter how much of the discussion he had with the press was actually included in this article.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Not very much. I recall being on the phone for approximately 20 or 25 minutes, so we really are down to a few seconds here on one sentence.

Mr. Randy White: It's really not representative of the whole issue, is that fair to say?

Mr. Peter Goldring: No, it's not.

Mr. Randy White: Could you, Peter, define what contempt of the House of Commons would be?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Being a new person and not aware of all of the rules and regulations, I would probably stay very clear of saying anything intentionally that might be anywhere infringing on it. My opinion of contempt would certainly not be in this category of talking. I would find this would be normal talking, discussions, and reporting on any number of issues I might be involved with. I would have serious problems if this were to be considered contentious by anybody.

Mr. Randy White: I would like to ask you this. In the article you were quoted as saying it would be a pretty serious thing. Would you consider that any harsher or any more contemptuous than someone saying you would not tolerate the situation?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I suppose I would reverse and ask in what way should I approach a discussion on this. I obviously disagree that the flag should be removed. This is said, in my mind, in a pretty innocuous fashion. I really don't understand how it can be contemptuous at all.

Mr. Randy White: Okay.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I ask is that there is a quote in the article indicating that the Bloc would not tolerate certain aspects, and yet the very person who said that was not only not called as a witness, he came in here and disrupted the whole damn meeting. I just wanted to make that point.

Quite frankly, I agree with you, Peter, that one has to wonder why you are sitting here in the first place.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall, please.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

I just want to be sure I've got everything clear, because there was so much interruption during your statement. You did say what was reported in the paper, I gather.

• 1245

Mr. Peter Goldring: I said what was quoted there in the one sentence.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. Did you consider yourself to be threatening the Speaker's job, as the headline says?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Absolutely not.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Did you intend in any way to threaten or coerce the Speaker to rule the way you wanted him to rule?

Mr. Peter Goldring: No, no. I'm making a comment on having my flag removed or possibly removed. I'm not commenting in a threatening fashion at all. That would be up to others.

Mr. Mac Harb: Are you guilty?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm not guilty.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If somebody had asked you directly “are you threatening the Speaker”, would you have said yes or no?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I don't believe anybody in this article was threatening the Speaker. I believe the statements made by me and others in this article were really not made to coerce or threaten anybody. I find it a real reach to try to interpret threat in any of the statements made here in this article.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Marlene.

Peter, we thank you for accepting our invitation and being here. As I mentioned before, we may wish to call you again. Thank you very much indeed.

I think with your support we'll now proceed to our colleague, Ken Epp. Again, since others have heard the testimony and have gone through this procedure, it's fairer to Ken to do this now than it would be at a later date. So we ask our colleague Ken Epp to come forward.

Ken, again we appreciate your accepting our invitation to be with us today. You've heard enough, you know the terms of reference. You have up to five minutes for a statement if you wish. We will then have approximately fifteen minutes for questions and answers. Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I understand it, you as a committee are here to determine whether the statements that I and my colleagues made were contemptuous or threatening to either the House or the Speaker. As far as I know, at this stage no specific charges have been laid. You are simply evaluating whether there will be charges. Is that correct?

The Chairman: Again, I think “charges” is a legal term. We're here to consider whether there's contempt contained in this article.

Mr. Ken Epp: I need to tell you just one minute's worth of stuff. I really am very surprised that I'm here. I'm one who went through elementary and high school without once being called to the principal's office. I have not yet had a traffic violation ticket. I think I'm the only guy in Ottawa who stops at walk lights.

An hon. member: It's not true; I saw you jaywalk.

Mr. Ken Epp: No, you didn't. No, you didn't. Take that off the record.

Very frankly, I'm really surprised that I'm here. This is the first time in my life that I've been hauled up for anything.

I will simply say this. The statements that were attributed to me in this article—you can read—I did not at that time intend them to be threatening. I don't believe now they were, and I think you have no case. That's the end of my statement.

The Chairman: Okay, Ken, thank you very much.

I have Joe Fontana, Jay Hill, Mac Harb, Chuck Strahl, and then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you, Ken, for your statement.

Some of this is editorial comment and some of it is your quote. It says here “—he'll demand Parent's removal as Speaker if he rules in favour of the BQ—”. That obviously wasn't in quotation marks; it is something that was said by the reporter.

It goes on to say—this is a quote from you, and I just want to ask you if it's the correct quote:

If he rules any other way I am most offended and I think we will have to call for the election of a new Speaker.

Is it a correct statement, or was it taken out of context?

Mr. Ken Epp: This occurred a number of weeks ago, and I, being such a trusting guy, have never yet made a recording of an interview that I've made. I wish now that I had so that I could put on the record word for word exactly what I said.

• 1250

My recollection is, when we spoke about this, since I felt very strongly about the flag and I also felt that the flag did not come under the definition of a prop in the usual sense of the name “prop”—we discussed that. I discussed it when he phoned me out in the riding.

Then he asked me that hypothetical question, what happens if he rules otherwise, if he rules the flag is in fact a prop? I made a statement, as I recall, to the effect this would be displeasing to me. He has quoted me as saying “I would be most offended”, and I guess that's something I would say, so I believe it's accurate.

I did go on—I do remember saying this—that we would then have to consider electing a new Speaker. I said that, yes. I don't believe it's contemptuous. I understood the rules then, and I have not yet had anything to dissuade me from this, that as a member of Parliament I do have input into the election of the Speaker. I've gone through that rigmarole twice, in 1993 and again in 1997. I understood also that the rules permit me to call for a re-election of the Speaker. That was my understanding.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Was the intent of your statement to in fact intimidate or threaten the Speaker?

Mr. Ken Epp: No, absolutely not, no more than that any of us who stand for elected office are intimidated when somebody says this is what we want you to say or do. That's part of the democratic process.

The Chairman: Jay Hill, then Randy White, and then Mac Harb.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To reiterate, Mr. Epp, what you're saying is to the best of your recollection that direct quote, “If he rules any other way I am most offended and I think we will have to call for the election of a new Speaker”, could have been what you said but you meant no intimidation or coercion by that statement.

Mr. Ken Epp: I thought I was simply invoking a democratic process that was my right, and it was not intimidation in any way.

Mr. Jay Hill: In your opinion, Mr. Epp, would that statement be any stronger than statements in the same article we're referring to that are attributed to other members who call acts of patriotism “vulgar” and “provocative” or that Michel Gauthier will not tolerate MPs singing the national anthem or waving the flag in the House of Commons?

The Chairman: Please stick to the reference. I understand the point, though.

Mr. Ken Epp: I didn't want to bring it up, but when I was called to come to this committee and I read the article over again, I said “How come these two guys aren't here?” I thought their statements were more inflammatory and put more pressure on the Speaker than mine ever did, and certainly more than I intended to.

Mr. Jay Hill: I would concur with that.

Thank you, Mr. Epp.

The Chairman: Randy White, then Mac Harb.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The committee is charged with looking at the facts and determining whether contempt has taken place. You, like our other three colleagues, said—and I quote—“I did not intend to be threatening.” I take that at face value.

I don't know if you have the article in front of you.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, I do.

Mr. Randy White: The quotes in the article led in the direction of threatening, I suppose, because of the words at the top. Those words are not quotes, they're mere editorials. For instance, they say “MPs threaten Speaker's job in flap over Maple Leaf, anthem”. That is in fact an editorial. It sets the theme by someone in a paper based on quotes he can try to get to fit into the story. We all know how it works.

If these editorial headings were not there, would you say it would make a difference in the whole article?

Mr. Ken Epp: Undoubtedly, since many articles were written and this is the one that the Conservative Party chose to use in their motion, I would say this is the writer's read on this story. If I can go even beyond that, when it says at the beginning of the part about me, “Reform MP Ken Epp said he'll demand Parent's removal as Speaker—”, I suppose that's a fair extrapolation by a writer. I did not say I would demand his resignation. What I said is “I believe we will have to call for the election of a new Speaker.”

Mr. Jay Hill: You mean “I think”.

Mr. Randy White: I'm looking for relevance of all our colleagues; that's why I'm asking this consistently. How much of the discussion that you had with the reporter is reflected in this article?

• 1255

Mr. Ken Epp: I was sitting in my office in my riding that Saturday morning when I got this call; at least I think it was on a Saturday morning. I don't believe it was more than about ten or fifteen minutes. That's my recollection.

Mr. Randy White: All right.

The Chairman: Next are Mac Harb, Chuck Strahl, and Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Mac Harb: I would appreciate it if you would give me a yes or no answer. Do you respect the Speaker of the House of Commons' ruling?

Mr. Ken Epp: I'll do more than a yes, I'll say absolutely.

Mr. Mac Harb: Do you respect the rules of the House of Commons?

Mr. Ken Epp: Absolutely.

Mr. Mac Harb: Do you consider yourself a usual or unusual suspect in contempt of the House of Commons?

Mr. Ken Epp: Well, I don't know exactly how to answer that. I don't want to give the impression I'm perfect, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mac Harb: Are you or are you not guilty of this?

Mr. Ken Epp: No, I'm not guilty at all of this or even of the implications.

The Chairman: Okay. Thanks, Mac.

Chuck Strahl, then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to do a character reference for Mr. Epp, because who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.

Mr. Mac Harb: The Shadow knows.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I will, however, quote the words—and I'm jealous—of our leader, who said in a speech in the House that the member from Elk Island doesn't have a mean bone in his body. I could take it for what it's worth.

The Chairman: I believe you have a question.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I do have a question.

During Mr. Maingot's comments before the committee, I put this hypothetical question to him. I said say we come up and the next time there's a Speaker to be elected, I say to the guy, “Listen, I'm looking for a guy who doesn't want to sit Fridays any more. That's what I want, and if he doesn't give it to me, I'm not voting for him. I'm telling you right now, everybody might as well know it, and the Speaker may as well know it too, that his job is on the line. I'm not voting for him unless he gives me Fridays off.”

I asked him whether it isn't my right as a member of Parliament to say I'm not going to support him in this because it's my democratic right to say otherwise. Doggone it, if I don't like it, I'll never like it. If you rule, I have to follow the ruling, but I don't like it and I'm not going to support you again.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Who said that?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just hypothesized.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Can I pose that to my caucus?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's right. Mr. Maingot, the expert, said that what I said didn't sound wrong to him, that it didn't sound improper, and that there has to be some notion of impropriety where your conscience suggests this should not be done.

In other words, Mr. Epp, did you intend to threaten the Speaker when you made these comments?

Mr. Ken Epp: No. Quite obviously, at that time my feelings toward the flag were very high. They still are. I value highly our country and our flag. I felt very strongly then, and I still feel strongly about it.

As for threatening the Speaker, of course not. I mean, that's his choice. But I felt I was totally within the rules of the House when I said we might want to call for an election of a new Speaker, which is a process we can use.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So in all good conscience, which is what I think we're going to get down to here, you did not feel you were coercing the Speaker or threatening him in any way with your comments.

Mr. Ken Epp: In no way at all.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, that's it. Thank you.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'll have to admit, Ken, your words in this article give me the biggest problem, but I have no choice but to accept your words that it was not your intention in any way to threaten the Speaker or to try to coerce him to rule the way you wanted him to. Do you stand by that statement?

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, boy. I'm speaking to a reporter. He's asking me my opinions. Am I trying to influence the Speaker? Probably, but I'm not threatening him. I recognize and I acknowledge that he has the final say. Even now, as you know, the ruling has come down. The House has made its decision. My little flag is actually now back in my riding. It will be there. It's a valuable piece of history for me.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think that's enough for me.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ken, on behalf of the committee I want to thank you for being here. I hope you appreciated the way we selected the order. You happened to be the last, so you had to wait throughout the hearings.

Mr. Ken Epp: That was no problem. I have more capacity to wait for dinner than anyone else here.

• 1300

The Chairman: As I mentioned to the others, it may well be that we'll need to call you back, in your case not today but at some later date. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, as I mentioned at the beginning, it seems to me we should deal with the matter of Cliff Breitkreuz' letter at the end of today. It would be my strong suggestion that we write a letter to Mr. Breitkreuz and invite him to attend our meeting on Tuesday.

Mr. Mac Harb: With the understanding, Mr. Chair, just in the event he cannot make it, that it will happen at a subsequent meeting.

The Chairman: Okay.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think Cliff can be here for next Tuesday, if that's the wish of the committee, but given what's happened here today, I ask you seriously, folks, if you want to do this. I ask you seriously if you want to do this. The zoo we went through here today is just a small step. Who knows what they plan the next time? The comments you're going to get—

Read what he said: “It would be a pretty serious thing if he joined with the Bloc on this”. That's what he said. To think he's going to say anything other than what we've heard here today, which is a pretty serious thing— He can come. Cliff is not afraid. The only thing I'm afraid of, folks, is that if you bring Cliff in front of the committee and the Bloc and those who want to make this into a Gong Show— If we go through again what we did today, then it's the worst possible scenario, for me, and I don't know why you would want to do that. You should consider seriously whether you really want to do that.

This has turned into just what I thought it would turn into, which is an opportunity for the Bloc to grandstand and blow off steam and accuse us again of all kinds of stuff. The wisdom of having Cliff back here, Peter— A committee does what a committee will, but I would just say I would not agree that's a wise decision.

The Chairman: Okay.

Jay Hill and then John Richardson.

Mr. Jay Hill: Further to the discussion presently before the committee, Mr. Chairman, I would refer to the article in question and point out that at least Mr. Breitkreuz did respond. In his written statement he explained where he was coming from. There's only one line attributed to him.

In response to Mrs. Catterall's comments to Mr. Epp that she had the most difficulty with his comments contained in this article, as a Canadian concerned about the issue of national unity, which is the underlying issue of what prompted this whole debate and this whole issue, my greatest concern is with the comments attributed to the House Leader, Michel Gauthier, when he says he's not going to tolerate MPs singing the anthem or waving the flag. I would note, Mr. Chairman, that he was not even called upon to send in a letter, as Mr. Breitkreuz has. He has not been called upon, nor has his colleague, Stéphane Bergeron, to defend their comments whatsoever.

I would suggest that as my colleague, Mr. Strahl, has said, enough is enough and it's time to put this thing to rest. We don't need another Gong Show next Tuesday.

The Chairman: On the same point, John Richardson, then Marlene Catterall and Joe Fontana.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Strahl, what you mentioned has merit, but we have to find a delicate way to close it off, Chuck. Do we accept the letter in good faith and say this is an acceptable response in absentia, or do we handle it another way? We have to address whether we accept it or not. Do we say he was called and we accepted his evidence? We have to close it off.

The Chairman: Marlene, then Joe, and then Mac.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Much as I would like to finish this right now, Mr. Chair, I don't believe we have any choice but to hear from the third member of the Reform Party on this. His letter does not refer to the issues we have been addressing with the other witnesses, and we have to have him in front of the committee so we will be seen to have treated everybody in the same manner.

The committee took a decision earlier as to who it would call as witnesses as a result of the reference from the House, and it's very important. We can always decide we want to call other witnesses, but I think it's extremely important that we be seen to have treated each witness we invited in exactly the same way.

• 1305

The Chairman: Joe Fontana, Mac Harb, and then Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I would like nothing better than to do what Chuck and Marlene indicated. The process, though, is what we're talking about. I would agree, based on the submissions made so far by the four members and their recollection and reflection of what they had said, but I think it would be improper to accept one letter and four appearances, when the four members thought it was incumbent upon them to be there.

In his letter, as I understand it, he doesn't refuse to come here. He just says he had something else to do and will show up on another day. I think it would be unfair to put four people before the committee and accept a letter.

It's no big deal. I think we should wait and see if he can come on the Tuesday and finish off. I would agree with most of what Chuck and Marlene have said.

The Chairman: Mac Harb, Chuck Strahl, Jay Hill.

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, it was really quite intriguing watching my colleagues, each one of them pretty well blaming the usual suspect and saying he was misquoted because the paper did a wrong job on him.

I was very appreciative of the backtracking that has taken place, and I don't see that anything else is going to happen on Tuesday but another backtracking, to say he really didn't mean to do that. I take that at face value, and I appreciate that, honestly, because it's an admission that our system and our democracy work.

I will be reluctantly moving along with the extension for one more day, with the understanding that our clerk will start drafting the report so that we don't drag this issue any longer, and also with the understanding that next Tuesday will be the last date we will be dealing with this matter. I think we have much more important issues to deal with. This issue has been debated to death inside and outside of the House. Certainly I'm not interested in seeing the committee going again for a long-winded debate on this issue.

If that is the understanding, and I don't know whether it will take a motion or a direction or a consensus or whatever, I want to make sure that we don't drag it beyond next Tuesday.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl, Jay Hill.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'd like to be clear on a couple of things, just so everybody knows. Cliff had meetings in his riding that week, and as the party whip, I'd previously given him that week off. It's not that he will not come. It should be taken at face value. This is what happened. He was in White Court, two hours north of Edmonton, when he wrote this letter, saying he's not just going to drop everything and fly the all-nighter to come back. That's where that came from.

I would argue that the same opportunity has been extended to everyone. Not everyone has maybe expressed—or not been able to come or not willing to come or not able to come at this time. The same invitation has been extended. I think you folks are just misreading the thing here. You're going to have the movie cameras back in here next Tuesday again for another round of, you know, The Gong Show, part three.

The rhetorical question that Cliff asked at the bottom, which is how can you possibly construe this as contemptuous, is just what he's going to say when he's here, which is “How can you possibly say this is contemptuous? I didn't mean to be in contempt. I didn't want to be.” That's why he's saying how can you possibly— If you just look at the sentence, if all the theatrics are set aside, it's really preposterous that he has to do it. I think it's just a waste of time. You're going to get another round. The fourth estate will be buzzing around here again for another—

The Chairman: Jay Hill.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just don't see it.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, of course I agree with my colleague Mr. Strahl, in that I'd like to put this to rest today, and I don't see any need for Mr. Breitkreuz to appear.

I would refer to the order of reference in closing, Mr. Chairman. It says that certain statements attributed to members of the House of Commons appearing on page 7, March 8, 1998, of the Ottawa Sun, etc., etc., etc.

I would put forward, Mr. Chairman, as strongly as I can today, that if we're going to insist that Mr. Breitkreuz appear next Tuesday and continue this what I would term a farce, then the Bloc House leader and his colleague Stéphane Bergeron, whose attributed statements appear in the same article, should be required to appear and defend their statements as well.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I always accept the guidance of the committee, and perhaps there's a motion.

Bob Kilger.

• 1310

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): First of all, the steering committee had a meeting two days ago to decide the list of witnesses. Thus far, we've done exactly what we said we would do today. To all intents and purposes, when I first saw Mr. Breitkreuz's letter I interpreted it as meaning that's fine, then, we will see him next Tuesday.

Notwithstanding the actions of some members from other parties today, I am satisfied that we did what we were supposed to do today, and I don't feel threatened by them in any way, whatever they may want to do next Tuesday. I am more than prepared to come here and do my work again next Tuesday, to hear Mr. Breitkreuz and to continue the deliberations just as they were planned, notwithstanding some of the antics today. We should stay on track and stay focused.

It's a tough, controversial issue. It's an emotional issue, but we will work our way through it, with or without the presence— I hope all the parties will participate again next Tuesday and we can get through this.

Mr. Jay Hill: On a point of order before adjournment, Mr. Chairman, if we're going to continue this, I would move that the two members quoted in the article, Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Bergeron, also be called before the committee.

Mr. Joe Fontana: First of all, it's not a point of order, and my motion to adjourn was first.

Mr. Jay Hill: Suit yourself, Joe.

The Chairman: I'm going to consult with the clerk. I've tried not to run this thing on technical—

Mr. Jay Hill: Let me make a point of clarity here.

Mr. Joe Fontana: The steering committee already dealt with it.

An hon. member: The trouble is it's not one more day. It's Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday until the thing's reported.

The Chairman: I have to rule that you can't move a motion on a point of order.

This is what I have tried to do, folks, as well as I can today. We've really been concerned about the appearance of fairness and the actual fairness to our colleagues. These colleagues who have appeared before us today have faced a very serious set of questions. It is my view that the remaining member should appear. I would be grateful if you would support me on that.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Jay Hill: What about the other two members, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned until Tuesday.