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]

Tuesday, March 31, 1998

• 1110

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin?

Colleagues, you have the order of the day before you, but before we get to that, our witness on the second item, Cliff Breitkreuz, has asked that his assistant, Logan Day, be allowed to sit with him. Are we comfortable with that, colleagues? No objections? That's fine.

I'd like to suggest we proceed with the first item, which, as you see, has to do with our subcommittee on private members' business. In connection with it, each member of the committee has a copy of the proposed report and also, I understand, a copy of the list of private members' items from which the item in the report was selected.

I'd like to ask the chair of the subcommittee, Carolyn Parrish, to proceed with this matter.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you will recall, in one of our reports a couple of weeks ago, we mentioned that there were no spaces for votable items, but we heard from all those listed on the attached page, and we felt that on the off chance a space might open up, we would like to select the one bill we would have made votable had there been a space. The space has now become available. It's Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act, from Mr. Lowther from Calgary Centre.

So we would move today that this report from the subcommittee on private members' business be adopted as the committee's 25th report to the House and that the chair's report be accepted.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you, Carolyn, for that, and could you convey to the subcommittee the thanks of the whole committee?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

The Chairman: I think you know we are the committee that has the largest number of subcommittees, and we really do appreciate the work you do.

Colleagues, the second item of business 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. In that connection, we have the fifth and last of the witnesses we invited to appear before us, Cliff Breitkreuz.

Cliff, we welcome you to the committee. We appreciate your being here. I think you know that when we start in a moment, you will have up to five minutes, and that will be followed by roughly fifteen minutes of questions and answers.

[Translation]

Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have three questions before we hear the witness.

First of all, the witness seems to be accompanied by someone I don't know. Perhaps that person could be introduced.

The Chairman: Sorry, Stéphane. I did try to introduce Mr. Day. He is the assistant of a member,

[English]

and I asked at the beginning of the meeting if it was appropriate for him to be at the table. Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, yes. I have no objection to that.

The Chairman: Very well.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Second, Mr. Chairman, when I read the transcripts of our last committee meeting, I realized there was no discussion on the nature of the letter Mr. Breitkreuz sent regarding his appearance before the committee. Yet, in my opinion the letter went somewhat too far in at least two respects. I don't know whether you would like to talk about that before we begin hearing our witness. That is my second point.

• 1115

My third point is in connection with a statement made in the House of Commons last Thursday. In the House, you indicated that some witnesses might well be asked to appear before the committee once more. I would like to know what the procedure will be to have witnesses appear a second time. Will you just call them back upon request by one or more committee members, or will you put the question to the steering committee, and abide by their majority decision?

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, my thought was, in fairness and so we've treated all five members equally, that first of all we hear the witness, and hear him in the same way we heard the others. Then I thought there would be a discussion of what we'd do next, and that discussion, I would assume, would include whether we call back these or other witnesses and in fact how we'd proceed from that point.

My concern in the first two meetings was to get some sense of the reference. In the last meeting my concern was that there be clear fairness to each of our colleagues appearing before us. And now the next thing is that we decide what we should do next. So my thought is first the witness, and then discussion of that. And by the way, the same would apply to your point about the letter we received.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Agreed. So you have no preconceived ideas this time, Mr. Chairman. Last time, we realized how important it was to know what you were thinking and how you intended to proceed. I would like you to tell me whether, in your opinion, witnesses will be recalled upon request by one or more committee members, or whether you will put the question to this committee, and abide by the majority decision.

[English]

The Chairman: First of all, Stéphane, I didn't have a preconceived idea the last time. In my view, what I was doing was trying to carry out the wishes of the committee. I did not have a preconceived point. I was trying to the best of my ability to interpret the wishes of the committee. And I think I did that.

I have to say to you, Stéphane, that I was concerned about some of the things that were said in the House of Commons. I understand it is the House of Commons and these things can be said, but I, in this committee, have tried to be as fair as I possibly can to all members.

As an example, in the last meeting we had, Bloc members had 15 times more time than Liberal members. There was a suggestion that I was cutting off Bloc members. In fact I cut off Liberal members, PC members, and witnesses—as chair, not to be awkward, but simply to be fair. So I didn't have a preconceived view the last time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But Mr. Chairman, that was from the time you decided that we would hear the four witnesses during a single meeting, when we had agreed... If you remember, I myself asked that question at a meeting of the sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure. I said that we might not have the time to hear the four witnesses. Your answer was: «Yes, of course. In any case, witnesses will be notified of that. We will invite them, and they will be well aware that they may not all be heard at the same time.» However, unlike what you said to me during that meeting of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure, you decided to limit witnesses' statements to 20 minutes, so that we could hear them all. This is not what we agreed to during the meeting of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I said a few moments ago that you came here with a well-established idea of what procedure you planned to follow, and that is why I am repeating my question. How do you plan to proceed when recalling certain witnesses? Will you recall them upon request by one or more members of this committee, or will you put the question to all committee members and abide by their majority decision?

[English]

The Chairman: My intent is to, at the end of our hearings with this witness, have a discussion in the committee and see what the committee thinks at that point—not, by the way, to impose some view of my own.

Bob Kilger, Michel Bellehumeur, then Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to give my views on the issue raised by our colleague, Mr. Bergeron. I hope that, after we hear Mr. Breitkreuz's testimony, the committee will decide whether we should invite additional witnesses or whether we should recall some witnesses we have already heard. To my mind, that decision should be made by the committee as a whole.

• 1120

[English]

The Chairman: Michel Bellehumeur and then Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Chairman, what I understood when a point of order pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House was raised immediately after the meeting of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was that a certain openness was shown both on the part of the government and on the part of the Chair. Certain things were said, among others that the statements made on March 8 must be clarified. It was said that we could not restrict ourselves to the statements made on March 8, but also study the statements made after that, including the contradictions and explanations heard from members before this committee. Did they make the same statements the next day, or comments on the statements made on March 8? I had a sense of openness both on your part and on the part of the Chair.

For the committee's information and to ensure that we don't waste our time here, before we even hear that witness, I would like to know whether today we will find the same openness here that I perceived in the House. Will members of the Bloc have all the time they need to ask questions on the issue?

I would like you to tell us that today, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Bloc Québécois will then be able to draw their own conclusions, and inform you of their intention as to the future of this committee.

You say that Liberal and Reform members had less time than the Bloc. However, I would point out that the statements we are examining were made by Liberals and Reformers. This is quite an unusual situation: the judges and the parties involved are in the same building, and can question those involved in the issue. So it is quite natural that Bloc and Conservative members—if he's here, as he was last week—he's here? Mr. Harvey has just arrived. So it is quite natural that we be given more time than Liberal and Reform members to question their colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, before we begin questioning the witness, I would like to know whether you intend to show the same open-mindedness I perceived in the House. If you do, we will stay and question the witnesses, and take the time we need. If we are not to have this opportunity, I would like to know right now.

[English]

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall, Chuck Strahl, and Randy White.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I have two comments.

One, Stéphane, you seemed to suggest that the chair had arrived last Thursday with a preconceived notion of how he intended to conduct the meeting. I think if you check the minutes, Stéphane, you will find in fact that the proposal to allot an equal amount of time to the witnesses in front of us that day was made by me during the course of the committee meeting. So your statement about a preconceived notion on the part of the chair as to how he wanted to proceed is simply not the case.

Secondly, on unlimited time to question witnesses, it's quite clear that the chair has to keep the questioning within the terms of reference of the order from the House, and not open-ended completely. I'd say let's go ahead and hear the witnesses on the same basis as we've heard the others and then discuss how we can proceed with openness to come to a conclusion on this.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl, Randy White, and then Joe Fontana.

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

We are now at 11.30. I think the way you handled the last meeting, which was with the agreement of the committee, was that we'd have approximately 20 minutes, at your discretion, for questions and so on, and to try to maintain that decorum. You were sustained in your ruling on that by the committee. So I think we should just get at it.

I move that we immediately move to hearing the witness. The rest of this can be decided later.

The Chairman: I put the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur:

[Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Would you like us to proceed right away with—

[English]

The Chairman: Following that, we're going to proceed with the witness, but we will return, Michel, to the points you raised when we have heard the witness.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I asked a very clear question, Mr. Chairman, and I would like an answer. Do you intend to proceed in an open-minded way, or not? Please tell us right away. We will give you an opportunity to settle this while we are amongst ourselves.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Clear question, clear answer: yes. Michel, the answer to your question is yes, and following this meeting, we will proceed as before, by the will of the majority of this committee.

Cliff Breitkreuz. Cliff, you have up to five minutes.

• 1125

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. I hope the Bloc members didn't cut into my time, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Cliff, let's just proceed with it. Fine, they did not.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I appear before this committee today, as you can imagine, under protest, and indeed appear only because of veiled threats to me should I not attend. This summons of course came from an MP whose party prattled on endlessly about how the whole flag flap was a waste of time. I could not agree with them more.

If everyday Canadians could see this hearing, they surely would be embarrassed by what their Parliament has come to. No doubt they would view this as comedy, and bad comedy at that. I'm being investigated, and there really is no other word for it, unless of course I indulge in euphemism. I'm investigated by a government committee.

And why am I being investigated, Mr. Chairman? Because I dared to speak up publicly for our national flag. This committee is chaired by an MP whose party voted against the right for MPs to tastefully display a small flag on their desks. There was a vote—I accept that—and life goes on. But what's worse, this committee is made up in part of separatist MPs whose party would surely burn the national flag if they thought they could get away with it.

The Chairman: Cliff, just a minute. If I might, as chair, we're dealing with the very specific reference. At the last meeting—and I know you weren't here—we made it very, very clear that we have to deal with the reference. The reference has to do with statements, which you may or may not have said, as they appeared in the media. Okay? It's very, very precise. I'd be most grateful, as chair, if you'd really try to keep your remarks to that.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: And yet I am the one—

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: A point of order, briefly.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chair, I'm sure the member would want to correct a statement he made that this is a government committee. I want to correct the record, because this is a House of Commons committee, and there's a big difference between a government committee and a House of Commons committee.

The Chairman: I accept that.

Stéphane Bergeron—the same point of order? No?

Okay, Cliff, please continue.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: And yet I am the one appearing here today.

The exact words that were attributed to me by the Ottawa Sun article in question were as follows: “It would be a pretty serious thing if he joined with the Bloc on this.” The words are accurate. I made that statement about the Speaker. I believe it was the truth, and I believe it is still the truth, and nothing this committee says or does will change that.

It is a serious thing that happened during the flag controversy, because that flag debate, in the final analysis, was not about the right to display a little flag. No, Mr. Chairman. It was about standing up to separatists in our House of Commons and refusing to allow the people who would destroy Canada's government to set the rules for Canada's government.

The Chairman: Cliff, excuse me. You have to keep to the line or I'll have to rule you out of order.

Point of order—Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I was just going to move that we ask for the witness's consideration, in the same spirit, Mr. Chairman, as you've just raised. This has not been an easy issue for our previous witnesses any more than for Mr. Breitkreuz. Understanding that we've already had a debate in the House on the issue of the flag, I think we've done our best collectively to stay to the content of the motion.

The Chairman: And that's the point of order.

Cliff, this is a committee of your colleagues, in this sense. I'd urge you.... You've seen the debate and you've had good reports of what happened the last time. I would have to rule you out of order if you move away from the term of reference.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Okay, Mr. Chairman. You extended the invitation for me to attend.

The Chairman: Well, listen—

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: No, I should be given the right to say what I have to say. I have a prepared statement.

The Chairman: As long as it ties in to the reference, Cliff.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Oh, this is all part of it. This is all part and parcel of it.

The Chairman: That may be your point of view. As the chair, in my view, you're getting very close to it not being.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Okay. I'll continue.

The pretence for summoning me here today was to inquire whether I was threatening the integrity of the House of Commons or the Speaker. Now that, I submit, is a patently absurd excuse for a hearing such as this, but I am here today, and I'll play along, I guess.

No, Mr. Chairman, and a thousand times no—I intend no threat to the Speaker of this House. After all, why should I, and why would I?

• 1130

I have the greatest respect and appreciation for our system of government, for the common law, for our institutions that developed over a span of almost a thousand years and had their first origins after the Norman conquest, when kings formed councils to advise them, to parley, to talk—to talk, for heaven's sake. Even a thousand years ago, people could talk to their kings, but of course they risked losing their heads. And I will defend these institutions that we inherited from Great Britain, our mother country.

I will close, Mr. Chairman, by giving this committee some hopefully helpful hints about who is a threat and who isn't. If an MP defends the flag, that's not a threat. If an MP writes a letter to a Quebec base of Canadian soldiers asking them to defect to a new Quebec army, that's a threat.

The Chairman: Cliff. Cliff, you were on the track, and you've gone off again. What are your next...? You have about a minute and a half, including the time we took out, so....

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I have a few more comparisons of threats—what's a threat and what isn't a threat.

The Chairman: I would sooner you avoid those, if you could, and proceed—

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: But they're part and parcel of what this debate is all about, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: —as you were doing, though. You were dealing with your remarks with respect to the Speaker, and I understood how you tied in the Norman conquest with the Speaker. I understood that. But I think you're getting very close to the line again. And I'm not being awkward, Cliff, okay?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Yes, but you're putting me in an awkward position.

The Chairman: That may be so. You have to address the reference. Could you leave out the part about the comparisons, because we understand that point, and go on to the last part, please?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Well, okay, Mr. Speaker.

You know, for sure I pose no threat to our national security. As I mentioned, I have the greatest respect for our institutions that we inherited from Great Britain. That's what I'm trying to protect here by even appearing before this committee.

I wish things were different, I really do, and they could've been different in this country. I still believe that there's a great chance for things to be made much better.

I guess that's my statement, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I appreciate you very much keeping to the time.

I have Chuck Strahl and Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I have a point of order. I wonder if we could just take a brief recess of two minutes. I would suggest it's a very important matter. I would like the chair and a representative of each party for approximately two minutes, for the parties present.

The Chairman: It's suggested that I should suspend the meeting for about two minutes.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay. Two or three minutes.

• 1133

• 1137

The Chairman: Colleagues, I apologize.

Cliff, I apologize to you in particular for that time out. So we're now proceeding to roughly 15 minutes of question and answer, just so you know, Cliff.

The way it proceeded the last time was that if there were points of order and so on, that time was taken out of the period for question and answer.

We have Chuck Strahl first, and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thanks for coming, Cliff. This may be the longest 20 minutes of your life; it's hard to say.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: It's already 40 minutes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I checked out what you said in this article and I wondered it you would admit that you were single-handedly responsible for saying this. Would you admit that?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Yes, and I'm going to be single-handedly slapped on my wrist.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm just checking. I wanted to make sure, because I know what kind of a guy you are.

It's an in joke, Mr. Chairman.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Cliff, you already said a thousand times no, that you didn't mean to threaten the Speaker. Obviously, there's nothing in that sentence to me that's very threatening. Do you feel there's any way anybody could interpret this as being coercive or somehow trying to browbeat the Speaker with your comments?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: No, absolutely not, Chuck. Why would I do that? The Speaker represents one of our institutions in this Parliament. While you can be critical of Speakers' rulings, why would you ever want to question the institution of the Speaker's chair?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: What did you mean by saying that it would be a pretty serious thing? What were you anticipating then? What were you thinking about when you said that?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: With what was going on in the House regarding the whole flag debate and siding with the Bloc on this important issue, that's all I meant.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Of course it did turn out to be a serious thing, in that it did take up some House time and so on.

Mr. Chairman, I'm at a loss of what else to ask.

The Chairman: It's Stéphane Bergeron's turn, then Marlene Catterall, then Randy White.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have two short comments, Mr. Chairman. First, I can well understand the witness' frustration at his inability to go beyond the strict terms of the order of reference of the committee. A number of other witnesses have expressed the same frustration, as have several committee members, who were unable to dig beyond the statements actually made, and were unable to determine the context in which those statements were made, or the intent of the member making them.

• 1140

Moreover, in the light of comments made by the witness—which to some extent confirm what our friend André Harvey was saying last week—I should say that there is no reason whatsoever for me to feel comfortable in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few very simple questions. To begin with, sir, you stated that you did indeed make these remarks. That is already something. Were you aware that those remarks might influence the Speaker's ruling?

[English]

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: How could I influence this Speaker's decision? It would be absurd to even think that. I was just commenting on an issue that was before the House. Certainly we have a right to do that in this country.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Agreed. In light of the ruling the Speaker handed down, do you feel that he teamed up with the Bloc Québécois?

[English]

An hon. member: Order.

An hon. member: He's just leading him into it.

The Chairman: Go on.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Teamed up with the Bloc...?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, to use your own words. Do you...

[English]

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Mr. Chair, here we have an indignant Bloc member, a separatist member in the House—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There he goes again.

[English]

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: —asking me a question about my patriotism to this country, which is absolutely absurd. It's actually hilarious, really.

The Chairman: There were parts of your statement that I allowed. At this point, as chair now, he's making the point about whether you see a difference between the Bloc and the interest you have in it and the Speaker, because we're referring to the Speaker here.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Now that the witness has calmed down, I will repeat my question, Mr. Chairman. You stated: "It would be very serious if he teamed up with the Bloc Québécois on this point.." In the light of the ruling he handed down, do you still consider that the Speaker teamed up with the Bloc? I am just using your own words. You don't need to get hysterical. I am just using your own words.

[English]

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: And you're questioning me, is that what I'm understanding?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, I am questioning the Speaker. Can we have an answer? In the light of the ruling he handed down, do you believe that the Speaker teamed up with the Bloc?

[English]

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Why should I be accountable to your asking me questions about my patriotism to this country?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am not asking you any questions about your patriotism.

[English]

The Chairman: It's close, but I've allowed it. So is it no or yes?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I feel I really don't have to respond. I gave my statement. I was asked to come here and give my statement and that's it.

Mr. George Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't see the words “teamed up with”. “Teamed up with” has a different meaning from the one stated by the witness. The one stated by the witness, Mr. Chairman, was if he joined with the Bloc on this. Now, “on this” is how the Speaker ruled, meaning a vote in the House, or a decision in the House. To ask the witness whether or not the Speaker teamed up with the Bloc would be passing judgment on motives that the Speaker would have in teaming up with a political party, which I think—

The Chairman: On the point of order, Stéphane....

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, this goes to the very heart of what the member might have said. Does the member believe that, in handing down a ruling prohibiting Canadian flags in the House of Commons, the Speaker teamed up with the Bloc Québécois on the issue? I am putting the question again because my colleague across the way does not seem to be getting the interpretation clearly. Do you believe that, in handing down the ruling that he did, the Speaker...

[English]

joined the Bloc Québécois on this matter?

• 1145

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: No, I don't.

The Chairman: As chair, thank you very much. It should not be difficult to answer that question.

Stéphane Bergeron, you have one more question.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said that "it would be very serious", and it seems that the Speaker finally handed down a ruling which, according to you, sided with the Bloc Québécois; yet, in your opinion, this does not mean that the Speaker joined up with the Bloc Québécois on this matter. To my mind, there is a basic contradiction there. So when you say it would be very serious, what exactly do you mean?

[English]

An hon. member: People would be upset.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's really amusing this Bloc member asking me questions. I'm going to ask him what he meant in an article by “troublesome incident”. I think it's the same article perhaps. It says:

BQ MP Stéphane Bergeron urged Parent to take strong action to ensure such a “troublesome incident” never happens again”.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, and then what?

[English]

Mr. George Baker: It's the same article.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Yes, and I'm the one who appears here to answer to you.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You have a bit of a point, I admit.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Am I entitled to an answer, or will you keep beating around the bush for the rest of the meeting?

[English]

The Chairman: Are you going to reply to the question?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Perhaps it was a waste of time and a waste of money—perhaps.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Marlene Catterall, then Randy White.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We seem to have a lot of misinformation floating around here this morning, Mr. Chair.

Firstly, Stéphane Bergeron said that the Speaker ruled against flags in the House. No, the Speaker didn't rule against flags in the House. The House of Commons has its own rules, which have been agreed to by all members of all parties over a period of time. One of those rules is—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. For Marlene's benefit, I would like to point out that I never said the Speaker had ruled against flags in the House. She implied that a ruling against desk-top flags in the House was a ruling against the flag. I want to make it clear that is not what I said.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: May I finish?

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Second, we have a statement about a motion of a Conservative member in front of us.... That's not what we have. What we have is a motion of the House in front of us. I think people should be clear about that, Mr. Chair.

I have only one question, really, and I'll explain why in a moment.

What did you mean, Mr. Breitkreuz, when you said there would be serious consequences?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I don't know where I said “serious consequences”. It's not in the statement.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You said it would be “a pretty serious thing”. I'm sorry I misquoted.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: An explanation was attempted already—a waste of time, a waste of money.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): If you have it, throw it in.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: MPs should have every right to talk to the media and the media should have every right to print. There should be no censorship in this country. That's really what it's all about.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I have no further questions for the simple reason that I have consistently asked our previous four witnesses two questions, which Mr. Breitkreuz has already answered: one, is this the statement you made; two, were you threatening, did you intend to threaten the Speaker? Mr. Breitkreuz has already said clearly that yes, he made that statement, but that he intended no threat to the Speaker. He went on to affirm his respect for the Speaker and the institution of Parliament. Those are the issues I've asked every witness about, and I think I've heard the testimony on that.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Randy White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I too have asked several consistent questions of our witnesses.

First of all, Cliff, how much of what is in this article was actually in the discussion you had with the press? How long did you talk to person in the media?

• 1150

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: That's quite interesting, actually. The media called me when I was back in my riding. I think it was a weekend when they called. It was not a really lengthy discussion, but it was at some length.

Mr. Randy White: About how long was it?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Maybe five minutes.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

Would you say that “It would be a pretty serious thing if he joined with the Bloc on this” represents a very small portion of the discussion you had?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Sure. It's just a small tittle of what we talked about.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, we have another member before us. This member says “a thousand times no”, there was no contempt to the Speaker meant in his statements. He says that the Speaker represents one of the institutions in this Parliament he has respect for. I think it can hardly be considered that contempt was meant in a single statement such as this.

I might have other questions, but I don't think it's necessary to go any further than this. I would remind my colleagues from the Bloc that their position in this regard is neither persecution nor prosecution, but is that of questioning witnesses. That's all I have to say.

The Chairman: Thank you, Randy.

We have about three minutes, because we've been taking time for the points of order and so on. Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): To follow up on what was just asked, this quote represents only a small portion of your discussion, which took about five minutes with the media. Does this quote accurately reflect exactly what you told the media in the context of the total discussion you had with the media?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: I suspect we talked about a number of things centring around it, but I don't keep track that much of what I say, because I usually don't have to. Why should I?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But you are not disputing the accuracy of the quote at all.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: That's already been mentioned numerous times.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Just to reiterate for the record, and as a question for me, this quote was not intended to threaten the Speaker.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Absolutely not. I mentioned that already as well.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Colleagues, it's time.

Cliff, thank you for taking the time to be with us today. As we mentioned, it may be that you or other witnesses may be called again.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: You've got to be kidding.

The Chairman: Cliff, the same remarks have been said to the others. It may concern you a lot, but this is a standing committee of the House of Commons and it's your colleagues. This is not some war or feud that we're engaged in here, and I would urge you to remember that.

Again, thank you for being here and for taking the time.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Thank you.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I'd like to say one thing. Michel Bellehumeur made a point earlier. I was not complaining the last time when I cited the time the Bloc had. I was simply trying to make the point that they had 31 minutes of the last meeting, while the Reform Party, the next largest, had 16 minutes. I understood his point that the Bloc had a particular interest in it, so we did that.

Second, in answer to the question from Michel Bellehumeur that was sort of cut off, we proceeded by a majority decision before, and it's my intention to continue to proceed by a majority decision.

Joe Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the meeting you indicated that once we had our final witness here, this committee would discuss where we go from here.

It would seem to me that in looking at the order of reference from the House of Commons, which says that certain statements by certain witnesses on March 8 appearing in the Ottawa Sun, which may bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant, the Speaker, be referred immediately to the standing committee.... I think that's what we are doing.

• 1155

Mr. Chairman, if you're looking for some advice as to where we should go from here, it would seem to me that having heard all five witnesses, having heard that each and every one of them did not intend to question the integrity of the chair, that there was no contempt intended.... After all, we work on an honour system here. For example, when the Speaker stands up in the House of Commons and says to any one of us that the language we just used is unparliamentary and asks us to retract, and we stand up and retract, that's the end of it.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the intent of this committee is, but I don't believe we need any further witnesses. I don't believe we have to call the witnesses in again. I take it at face value. They came here and said there was no contempt, no intent and no threatening to the Speaker. I think we ought to move to report to the House that we have heard the witnesses, that there is no finding of contempt or intent to question the integrity of the chair, and dismiss and report back to the House that we've done our job.

I don't think we need to carry this on any further if we believe in an honour system in this House. Because if we don't believe in an honour system in this House, then the whole system will fall apart. So I hope that gives you some advice as to where I think we should go on this matter.

The Chairman: Colleagues, that's exactly what we're discussing.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I'm prepared to make a motion if and when you want it.

The Chairman: We're discussing where we go.

Chuck Strahl.

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

Just to reinforce what Mr. Fontana said, all of us asked some consistent questions on our own little points that we were trying to get from each of the witnesses. My question each time was very specific: Did you mean to threaten someone? Did you mean to coerce someone? Did you mean to force a change or an action by the Speaker by your words? In every case the answer was no, from all five people we heard from. I agree that to chase this further at this time is to chase after rainbows. You're not going to get any more than that. No matter what we hear or who we hear from, it's all going to come down to the basic question: what was meant by the comments we heard again today. He says no, “a thousand times no”.

We can go on with this for longer, but in essence it's going to come down to a report that says “As requested by the House, we have interviewed the members questioned in the article. We have done this and we found no case of contempt toward Parliament or the Speaker”. That's our report, and I don't see how anything else or getting them back again is going to change that. That's the bottom line. “A thousand times no” is good enough for me.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, André Harvey, Bob Kilger and Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we have no intention of asking that all five witnesses be recalled. I don't want to come back to last Thursday's incident, but for all kinds of reasons we still have questions to put to certain witnesses. So unless we are really trying to sweep the whole thing under the carpet, I would ask the committee to show some openness and accept any request by the Bloc Québécois to recall some witnesses. We still have questions to ask. For a start, we didn't have the time to put all the questions we had.

A little while ago, Mr. Fontana said that we work on an honour system, and that when someone retracts his words in the House, that is that. We do work on such a system, and some colleagues who appeared before this committee have in fact said they regret that their words have had the consequences they did. But it is also true that some colleagues, far from showing the slightest regret—to use the terms of our colleague, the member for Bourassa—actually piled it on, Mr. Chairman.

So whatever we may say, it remains that certain remarks made by a number of our colleagues, a number of the witnesses, were aimed directly at the Speaker. They said that if the Speaker failed to hand down a ruling they considered appropriate, they would ensure that he lost his position. I consider that a threat, Mr. Chairman, unless I've misunderstood completely.

• 1200

So for all the reasons I have given, I would ask that some colleagues be recalled. I do not wish to be subjected to vindictiveness, or to an authoritarian majority decision by the committee. We still have questions we wish to ask. If the committee is serious and honest in its desire to shed light on the matter, it should respond favourably to the Bloc Québécois' request to recall certain witnesses.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

André Harvey, Bob Kilger, Rey Pagtakhan, Jay Hill and Randy White.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, we have had an opportunity to hear all the witnesses. I am sure most of us agree that these events have done nothing to enhance the prestige of Canada's Parliament. We only had to go back to our ridings on the weekend to see just how stupid our constituents considered these events.

The important symbols of our country are present on each side of the House, on each side of the Speaker. Students felt that the members' battle over desk-top flags in the House of Commons was very childish. And I imagine Canadians in all parts of the country felt the same. They wondered why we would waste our time on such things. We don't have to walk around with symbols on our heads every day.

So I have heard enough. I fully understand the Bloc member's point of view, but I have heard quite enough to help me make constructive comments when the report is drafted.

I hope that in the report we will have an opportunity to make some good points for all our colleagues in the House of Commons. First of all, we should all try to make an effort to be less childish in the House itself. Such behaviour does not contribute to bringing together the solitudes in this country. We have to work in ways that concretely bring us closer together. And we will not achieve that by throwing around symbols in the House of Commons, symbols that simply provoke, yet again, instead of bringing us closer together. We don't need that kind of thing.

I could certainly help draft a report. The report need not be long, but it can put forward some factors that are crucial to bringing the various cultural communities in this country closer together.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's just not in the cards, guys.

The Chairman: Okay.

Bob Kilger, Rey Pagtakhan, Jay Hill, Randy White and Carolyn Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Bob Kilger: I believe that I understood...

[English]

Mr. Randy White: You just speak when you're spoken to, maybe.

The Chairman: Bob Kilger has the floor.

[Translation]

M. Bob Kilger: Coming back to our colleagues' testimony, be it the testimony of colleagues from my own party or colleagues from the Reform party, I would tell Mr. Bergeron in all frankness that I really do not believe that we need to recall some colleagues. Others have expressed that opinion, and I agree. Another colleague, Mr. Harvey, mentioned crucial factors.

I very much appreciated Mr. Maingot's testimony. After that, it was our duty to hear the testimony of our colleagues. However, there is another important factor here. I am drawing on the experience I gained as Deputy Speaker. The Speaker, as a servant of the House, is unable to defend himself.

[English]

Maybe that's what brings me to suggest one witness—my experience back in the chair and because the Speaker does not have the ability to defend himself. There's a certain element that I think would really complement our findings and our report to the House. It's not my idea. I think this name already surfaced at the steering committee meeting, but I'll raise it. I hope it will have the support of my colleagues. That would be the former Speaker of the House, Mr. John Fraser, who I think could give us a tremendous amount of insight and direction in wrapping up our report.

• 1205

I think this is a very serious matter. The stability of the House and the integrity of the Speaker and its occupant is also essential to our democratic institutions. In short, I would suggest we consider inviting Mr. John Fraser.

The Chairman: Okay. Next we'll hear from Rey Pagtakhan, Jay Hill, Randy White, and Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly I will second the submission of my colleague Mr. Kilger about that invitation. Of course if Mr. Fraser would come to our committee and we would agree to that invitation being extended, we can ask a few questions of him.

Let me make a few observations, Mr. Chair. As I see the issue, there are statements that are in the media; that is clear. In fact, we are to study the impact of these statements on whether they may bring into question the integrity of the House. In my analysis of the issue, first, there are these statements themselves, the statements per se. Secondly, we invited the witnesses to ascertain whether these statements indeed, as quoted, were correct, and by and large they have been affirmed by the witnesses.

The subsequent question to that, of course, is whether the intent behind these statements was to threaten the Speaker. To my understanding, invariably the witnesses said no. Mr. Fontana is right: we have a tradition in Parliament, based on the principle of honourable members, that we take the statement of the member as given, when given.

Therefore, there are two components to that: the statement per se, to the view of the members themselves, devoid of the explanation of intent, whether they could indeed imperil or endanger the integrity of the House; and second is the intent. It appears we have established, based on these statements of the witnesses.... Because unless you dissect the brain, how can we know the intent? So we will accept their word for that.

The third point, then, Mr. Chair, is this: We have the article before us, and the subtitle is “MPs threaten Speaker's job in flap over Maple Leaf, anthem”. Whether we like it or not, to me the question is raised: did the author or reporter of this article create a fictional kind of headline in this instance, in this article in the Ottawa Sun, March 8, 1998? I would submit not. It is not in the interest of any reporter to create any fiction in terms of news, to my understanding, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Randy White: Where have you been?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Well, obviously we have differences of opinion, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Wait until the spin doctors get done with this Port Moody—Coquitlam thing. We'll find out who's going to make this up.

Mr. Joe Fontana: You're a spin doctor.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, the question then is whether this is a genuine reflection of the reporter's understanding of the statements of the various witnesses as given to him during the series of interviews. A statement in itself may not mean anything to the reporter, I would submit, as a possibility, but given together, he formed an honest conclusion, and hence the result of the headline and the way the opening news article is there.

So in our dissection of the issue, I would submit for the report—and of course it is only a submission—that we answer the question whether these statements per se, taken out of intent for the moment, in themselves threaten the integrity of the Speaker. If so, then we have to say, as a prescription for the problem, that in the future, statements like this ought not to be said, because they could be misinterpreted.

Secondly, in terms of intent to convey our decision, we may or may not want to pass judgment on whether the reporter reflected an accurate and genuine understanding of the interview. I would submit he did.

So we approach the report-making on that basis. And if we have Mr. Fraser as a witness, I will certainly pursue this in questions to him.

The Chairman: Thank you, Rey.

It's Jay Hill, Randy White, Carolyn Parrish, and Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, before what will hopefully be my final comment in service to the committee or on the committee over this issue, I would like to say that I appreciate the way in which you have tried to chair these two meetings. Certainly it has been a difficult task for you. My hat's off to you, sir. You've done an admirable job.

• 1210

Secondly, on the issue that was raised by the honourable whip of the government in regard to having past speaker John Fraser appear, I don't think, for a number of reasons, and there's no point in being redundant, that we should continue this any further.

Thirdly, my colleague Mr. Bergeron made this statement during his remarks: “unless we intend to sweep all of this under the carpet”. If that's not implying motive or could be misconstrued as a veiled threat, I don't know what is. He's presupposing the outcome of the report itself, even while serving as a sitting member on the committee.

I would suggest—as at the last meeting, just before it broke up and I was ruled out of order because there had been a motion put forward to adjourn—that if we're going to continue this any further, whether it's to call any witnesses, including John Fraser, then I would move that we must go back and have the other people involved in the aforementioned article appear also, Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Gauthier. I think it's patently unfair, and as I said at the outset, I think you've tried to be as fair as possible in handling this issue. But to have one of my colleagues who normally sits on this committee, Ken Epp, appear as a witness here and have him cross-examined by a fellow MP who also normally sits on the committee—and he himself made some rather outrageous comments in this article—I think is grossly unfair.

If we're going to continue this any further, I believe those two gentlemen should be called as witnesses, and Mr. Epp should be allowed to cross-examine them, if you want to be fair.

The Chairman: It's Randy White, Carolyn Parrish, and Chuck Strahl.

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

In their own words, each of these witnesses has said there is basically no intent on contempt to the House. In their own words, each of them, as I heard it, said they have respect for the House of Commons, and I think in their own words all of them had said that they had talked at length to the media but really what came out was one quote. I think that's pretty clear as well. I think in their own words all of them had spoken rather well about their respect for the institution of Parliament. So I really don't see much further need to go beyond what we heard from our colleagues, other than I guess if there is any further attempt to stand on a soapbox, that's going to be challenged rather vociferously from here.

I do want to address this issue of the quotes versus the editorial, on which—with all due respect, Rey—I don't think my colleague is right. This article says “MPs threaten speaker's job in flap over Maple Leaf, anthem,” written by Bob Fife. We took a lot of information out of that, basically the quotes. But the very same article ends up in the Sunday Sun on March 8, and the editorial on that one says “Speaker pressured to rule against BQ,” which is a lot different from “MPs threaten Speaker's job...”.

So the fact of the matter is that it is not necessarily accurate to say that the quotes are leading to the editorial. I know for a fact that the media people in this room oftentimes will complain that the editorial people will put a completely different slant on the base of the article. So I think really what we're looking at here is an issue that was probably more directed towards what the editorial said—“MPs threaten Speaker's job...”—than what the individuals said in the article.

• 1215

That all being said, Mr. Chairman, I just don't think there is any need to go further. I would agree with Jay Hill that to request the former Speaker of the House to this committee would only prompt me to insist that we have Michel Gauthier and Stéphane Bergeron here as witnesses. I have a few questions to ask these two people as well. For a change, they have to be accountable for some of the things they have said. With that in mind, we should just move on to more important affairs of the House of Commons from this committee.

The Chairman: We'll have Carolyn Parrish, then Chuck Strahl.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you. At great risk to my personal well-being, I'm also going to disagree with my whip.

I agree with Mr. Harvey. This has really gone on long enough. The only group I've met with since this started was a group of university students at Erindale College, and unfortunately they were all female. They said this is a typical male-type childish prank and it's boyish high jinks, and they were quite laughing at us.

I found that disconcerting, to say the least. I don't think the House of Commons should be laughed at, or the fact that we're pursuing this should be laughed at. I think it began as a prank and it escalated into a political statement. It degenerated into a party fracas. I just hope it doesn't become an historical battle of national significance. The longer we pay attention to it, the worse it's going to get. I really believe we've investigated it thoroughly.

I would hope that a report can be written under your guidance, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the members opposite that you've done an incredibly good job.

I found it difficult that the perception out there was that I had voted with the Bloc against the Reform. I didn't vote with the Bloc; I voted with the Speaker and for the sanctity of the House of Commons. I just don't want this to continue much longer and I'd like to see a report as soon as possible.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's interesting that we're getting the female perspective on this. I know when my colleague Val Meredith stood in the House she said she detected high levels of testosterone in the air today. It was interesting how she brought that up.

Be that as it may, in an effort to keep the testosterone levels down again it's now necessary to move on. I mentioned that earlier. I see no value in going further with witnesses unless we want to make this into a big deal. That's the next step. To my way of thinking, it is going to end up being bigger than it needs to be.

I disagree with Mr. Harvey. If we want to make this a full-fledged report on flags or the two solitudes or anything, I think that's unwise. You're reading more into this report than what should be there. We can't solve two solitudes with this report, and it's unwise to try to do so. We have to stick to the order of reference at hand.

Just to get it on the table, I would move that the committee instruct the clerk and the chairman to draft a report to the House noting that we have considered the order of reference of March 10, 1998, and we are convinced that there was no intention to bring the House or the Speaker into contempt.

The Chairman: So we have a motion and we'll go to a discussion of the motion.

Before I do, and I should have done this technically before, I just want it to be noted in the record that prior to this meeting I received a letter from Peter Goldring, who is a colleague and one of the previous witnesses. This letter conveys to the committee his personal views of this issue and it adds to a number of points he made. I said to him that I would record it. I can't circulate it at the present time because it's not translated. I just want it to be known that this letter has been received by the committee and all members will receive it shortly.

Let's have a discussion of the motion. Rey Pagtakhan.

• 1220

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, we are passing a motion to draft a report, but the motion gives a conclusion to the report.

The first order of duty is for the clerk, under the guidance of the chair, to summarize the testimonies before the committee. We will then look over them and say okay, this is an accurate reflection of the testimonies given before the committee, and then from that draft report a conclusion would emerge. Do we agree that in fact the conclusion ties in with the summary of the evidence? It would be premature at this point to give such an instruction, Mr. Chairman, because at that point we will have no opportunity to have a clear debate on the draft report itself.

The Chairman: Let's have Joe Fontana, then Randy White.

Mr. Joe Fontana: With all due respect to my colleague, whose advice is always forthcoming, surely we're not going to leave it up to a clerk to tell me what we've decided.

Mr. Jay Hill: What you heard.

Mr. Joe Fontana: What we need to do is in fact give some direction to the clerk and the chair to prepare a report. It would be totally unfair to ask the clerk to bring a report, because what would be in that report? So I'm not sure that was the intention of my colleague to have the clerk give us a draft report.

It's clear by the motion that this committee would in fact have to vote on their findings. It's also clear that once we see a draft report there may very well be some additions to that report that one would want to make in order, I suppose, to put some historical significance, or in fact to make sure that this kind of stuff doesn't happen again and how we might prevent it from happening again. We want to learn from our mistakes, obviously, for the future. So something could be said about adding to the report, but an initial finding has to be voted on in order to give some direction to the clerk and to the chair to prepare a report.

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: I'm going to save some time here. I think Rey is wrong and Joe is right, and I agree wholeheartedly. This isn't something I'm prepared to delegate to somebody else. I heard what everybody else heard here, and I agree with the motion.

The Chairman: There's been some discussion of the motion, colleagues. Could we just wait a moment and find out exactly what it is? I have yet to read it again.

It does seem to me that if it is based on the discussions to date, it would be quite clear that the purpose is to draw some evidence from the discussions.

I'm going to read it again, Chuck, if I can. I'll read it as it stands here, then the proposer can speak, and we can discuss the motion again. It says:

I move that the committee instruct the chair to draft a report to the House on its consideration of its order of reference from the House of March 10, 1998. We are convinced that there was no intention to bring the House or its Speaker into contempt.

We will have Chuck Strahl and then Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I thought what I was trying to get at there was fairly clear, which is that we instruct the chairman and whatever staff are required to draft the report. However, the report must come back to the committee, obviously, and then the committee must approve it or disapprove it, as any other report.

The reason I put the instruction at the tail end of that, which is that we are convinced there was no intention to bring the House or the Speaker into contempt, was because that is what I hope the gist of your report would be. Then you can bring it back here and we can look at the wording and whatever length of report you feel is necessary to communicate that. We would then decide as a committee whether it fulfilled that.

• 1225

I don't think we just want to say prepare a report, without giving you some direction as to what kind of conclusion we've come to, or at least the gist of your report. You'll bring it back, and we may say it's not firm enough, or too firm, or we might say anything.

We have to start somewhere. This is an attempt to give you some idea of the committee's instructions. You and the clerk and your staff can then take the first cut at it, and as with all reports, it will then come back and we'll kick it around.

The Chairman: Okay. Rey Pagtakhan, André Harvey, and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Rey will go first. Is that all right?

Mr. André Harvey: This would be a draft report, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Like a draft report.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. We'll go to Rey Pagtakhan—and we'll bear that point in mind, that it would be a draft report.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I still find it difficult that we are making a statement of conclusion even before we have seen the report. We are prejudging exactly our total examination of the body of evidence. When you hear pieces of evidence, you then sit down and look at the total body of evidence. The conclusion may be different. I'm not saying it would be different, but it could be different. Therefore to prejudge it with a conclusion we are convinced of, which means that we will vote on that.... And if we voted on that, how come in the future you are not convinced, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, my suggestion is this. May I move, if it is within the rules of this committee, to divide the motion? We have two statements to the motion.

The Chairman: I understand the point.

Colleagues, just let me think aloud about it, because my concern is in changing the nature, or de-naturing a motion.

As I read this, I read it out as it was presented to me by the proposer. It's true, there are two clear paths to it, but at the moment, Rey, those are parts of one motion. I can see what you're trying to do. I think the second part actually reflects on the way the proposer—and he can speak to this better than I can, I suppose—wants us to deal with the first part. To my sense, your motion is in fact changing the nature of the motion before us.

It may be that we can amend this in some way, but for me to take another motion now I think is technically out of order.

You have the floor now, briefly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. With all respect, that is why the word is to split the motion. It is not to split the motions. There are several parts to the motion. What really I'm saying is to split the parts of the motion—of one single motion.

Mr. Jay Hill: Vote against it if you don't like it.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. If the members would not interrupt me, I would really appreciate it very highly.

Mr. Chair, the reason for that is for greater clarity. All the members may vote the same way when we split the motion. But suppose there are one or two who would decline to vote to the second motion. The second part will still carry. It will still carry, Mr. Chairman, but we have greater clarity of our voting intention when we have a split motion. That is why this procedure is not invoked so often, Mr. Chairman.

In this instance, I would submit, with all respect to my colleagues opposite and others here on this side, that if we could split it, I may be the only one opposed to the second one, and it will still carry, Mr. Chairman. But I think I will really plead that the motion be split.

• 1230

The Chairman: I have one more speaker on the original motion. I still think that unless we get an amendment from the proposer, we will have to consider this motion first.

I have Stéphane Bergeron on the list.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify a comment made a few moments ago by Mr. Hill. He said that I participated in questioning our colleague Ken Epp last week, when Mr. Epp appeared before the committee. I would just like to remind him that we left the room at that point, and that I was therefore unable to participate in questioning Mr. Epp. I would like everyone, including my colleague here, to be very clear on this point.

That said, Mr. Chairman, we were certainly not very pleased about the decision to come back today to take part in these proceedings. The reason I decided to stay until the end, or at least until now, is that I had decided to trust the spirit of co-operation, concern and sense of responsibility on the part of committee members. Clearly, I was mistaken, because the obvious intention of the committee is to continue to muzzle us, to ensure that we cannot ask the questions we want to.

Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be voting against this motion. That goes without saying. I would just like to point out that we will definitely be expressing some dissenting views, not only on the committee's findings, but also on the process that led to these findings.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, we have a motion before us. I'm going to read it again. I think Chuck knows this, but it has changed slightly since the last time I read it. The motion is:

That the committee instruct the chair to prepare a draft report to the House on its consideration of the order of reference from the House of March 10, 1998. We are convinced that there was no intention to bring the House and the Speaker into contempt.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that you had ruled that the motion to split was not in order.

The Chairman: I've heard, by the way, that I'm within my rights to say that it was not.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: And I respect the chair for that, Mr. Chair.

In the discussion of the motion, the proposer indicated that it would only be used as a guide, the second part—

Mr. Jay Hill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We've been as open as we can, Jay. Go ahead.

Mr. Jay Hill: As far as I know, there's no debate once the question is called.

The Chairman: I try not to use technicalities in these hearings.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I do not like to prolong the discussion, Mr. Chair. I've given my thoughts, but the members will be guided by their own thinking on the subject. I remain convinced that this could be establishing a bad precedent, and I hope this is not the intent of the opposition. Making a conclusion before even having seen the report.... I would accept any manner of amendment the proposer would agree to. It will be guided by the belief at that moment—

The Chairman: Okay, Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: They are convinced. I will go to that.

The Chairman: Okay, I appreciate it.

Mr. Joe Fontana: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Point of order.

Mr. Joe Fontana: To help my colleague, I think you had indicated that this motion asks to prepare a draft report. A final recorded vote on that report will not be given until such time as this committee reviews that report. To give some comfort to my colleague, you don't vote on the final report until you see the final report, at which point you vote against it if you don't like it. This just gives some direction.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1235

The Chairman: Colleagues, it would be my intention to call a meeting at our regular time of 11 a.m. on Thursday. It's my hope that we would have the draft report by that time.

The meeting is adjourned.