EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 28, 1996

.1105

[English]

The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, colleagues.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're resuming consideration of the order of reference from the House of Commons dated Monday, March 18, 1996, that the matter of the communiqué of the member for Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995 with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Colleagues, as you know, this matter has been sent to the steering committee. The steering committee has had some active and friendly meetings to pursue the matter. In light of the failure of the steering committee, after more than six hours of discussion, to reach a consensus on the interpretation of the order of reference before the committee in relation to the matter of privilege that's been raised by Mr. Hart, as your chairman I am suggesting the following course of action for the committee.

.1110

I do this for a number of reasons. Many arguments have been put forward that would have the committee adopt a narrow interpretation of the order of reference, more specifically restricting the committee's work solely to the communiqué. Other arguments have suggested a very broad mandate.

I think we've all listened very carefully, and certainly as your chairman I have listened very carefully, to the various points of view that have been expressed from all sides in our discussions. I believe, colleagues, that the time has come to draw this aspect of the matter to a close and to begin to implement a work plan.

We have an order of reference from the House. It arose because the Speaker of our House found that a prima facie case of privilege existed. The committee has the authority to interpret and define the parameters and focus of its proceedings.

I had hoped that the committee would proceed by consensus. This is a privilege matter that goes to the very fundamentals of Parliament and is the responsibility of all members to uphold. It is as much in Mr. Jacob's interest as it is in Mr. Hart's that the issues raised be resolved in a way that respects Parliament.

This committee has previously operated with a fair degree of consensus of give and take. I believe it is my role and my duty to move the committee forward and to provide direction.

In my view, determining the scope of the committee's mandate is assisted by the consideration of the following general factors.

First, the Speaker has made a ruling that a prima facie breach of privilege is present.

This committee is not a court of a law and is therefore not an appropriate forum to determine the scope and the interpretation of the criminal law in Canada.

I also want to remind colleagues that this committee is not a commission of inquiry with a broad-ranging mandate.

I therefore do not believe we are limited by the order of reference to the communiqué, at least in the sense of a piece of paper. It is "the matter of the communiqué'' that was referred to us.

Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): It's not just the communiqué.

The Chairman: That's right. This means matters that are directly related to the communiqué also come within our mandate. And I want to underscore that, colleagues: it is the matters that are directly related. We must remember that our role is to determine whether Mr. Jacob's actions violated the privileges of the House or were in contempt of the House. To this end we need to determine what is or is not appropriate for a member of Parliament.

Mr. Jacob's actions in composing or sending out the communiqué are therefore relevant. To say that the committee's mandate extends beyond the communiqué itself, however, is not to say that it is open-ended.

Those are the parameters we're trying to suggest. The committee is not the appropriate place to determine criminal guilt.

Let me take this opportunity to remind members that this committee is not a court of law, nor are we here to re-fight past political battles or to debate political ideologies or the action of any political party.

.1115

It is our duty to establish the facts that surround this matter. It is the responsibility of the House to consider whether there has been a breach of its privileges. I believe we must, colleagues, confine our deliberations to the question of privilege, in particular as it relates to privilege concerning contempt of Parliament.

If it is the view of the committee that the privileges of Parliament have been impugned, our obligation includes making a recommendation to the House on the sanction that is appropriate under the circumstances.

Now, I should tell you, colleagues, that the meetings of the steering committee have not all been for naught. The steering committee has agreed on what I believe are the following recommendations.

I see that our member is here, so if I don't get it quite right, please jump in.

The recommendations are:

(1) That the Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr. Marleau, and the general legal counsel of the House of Commons, Mrs. Davidson, be invited to brief the committee on the general issues of privilege and contempt.

No one has disagreed with that, so I think I've got it right.

To continue:

(2) That Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob be invited to appear as witnesses.

(3) That Mrs. Davidson be asked to provide a briefing, paper or note for the committee on the nature of parliamentary privilege and contempt of the House and the options that are available to the committee.

Jack, Michel, Marlene, we agreed on that. Okay.

Next:

(4) That an expert in parliamentary privilege be retained to assist the committee as a researcher.

Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): No.

The Chairman: We don't all agree to that.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: No. I don't object to Mr. Robertson's presence. However, if you are considering retaining experts that are not part of the House personnel, then what I repeated during the past six or six and a half hours applies. So long as we have not settled the matter of the order of reference, we should not set aside public funds to hire an expert. Let's resolve the matter of the order of reference, that can be very simple or very complicated. If it is very complicated, we might need the services of an outside expert researcher. However, if it is simple we will not need them.

[English]

The Chairman: The steering committee did agree that witnesses could be accompanied by legal counsel but that the legal counsel would not be permitted to testify or give evidence. I think we agreed on that and that the committee would not pay for any legal representations for witnesses. Did we agree to that?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Chair I have one question to ask you; assistance by legal counsel for...

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me for one second. I just want to know: did we agree at the steering committee that there would not be legal fees paid by the House?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Yes, that's right.

[English]

The Chairman: We did agree to that - by the committee. I am reporting the steering committee's deliberations. Do you want to add something to that?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: If I am going to do it, I might as well do it right now. If a witness arrives accompanied by legal counsel, I would like to be assured, Mr. Chair, that the witness will testify and that the counsel will not. I want to be assured that the witness will not turn towards his counsel at every question in order to know what to answer. If legal points are raised, his counsel can discuss them with you, but with regard to questions, it is not up to the counsel to tell the witness what to answer.

[English]

The Chairman: Absolutely.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: When the witness is on the stand and he is being asked questions, counsel remains silent. He will discuss legal matters and will address the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Absolutely. Let me underscore that. I said that already, but they will not be permitted to testify or to answer.

On the subject of an expert researcher or an outside consultant, I think that's something on which I will need some direction. There was almost unanimous agreement - almost. I thinkMr. Frazer and Mrs. Catterall, on the point of the expert witness, agreed that there is an expert researcher. Michel didn't disagree on the point but felt it was premature.

.1120

I'm just trying to give an accurate report to the full committee. You didn't disagree on the necessity or the potential necessity of an expert witness. As I recall, you felt it may be premature at this point without settling on the terms of reference. Is that fair?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: It is still premature because we have not made a decision regarding the order of reference.

[English]

The Chairman: No, but in your opinion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: In my opinion, so long as we have not make a decision on the order of reference, we should not make a decision on retaining experts or on the number of witnesses.

[English]

The Chairman: That is what I thought I said, though, isn't it?

After the committee has heard from Mr. Marleau, Mrs. Davidson, Mr. Hart, and Mr. Jacob, I would propose that the steering committee meet again and attempt to determine further the scope of our deliberations, including further witnesses, if any, that we may wish to hear from.

Mr. Boudria: Can I ask you a question from someone who wasn't a member of the steering committee just so I can get this clear in my own head? It would work roughly this way then. We would hear from the people you just mentioned in full committee, and having taken note of the contribution of those people, the steering committee would then reconvene and have a further go-round in order to determine what the next step is, what other witnesses, if any...and then establish the scope of the work after having heard those witnesses.

The Chairman: If any further work is required.

Mr. Boudria: Let me finish. The contribution of those people would help to focus us and help us decide whether any further work was required and, if so, what further work was required. In other words, this would enable the steering committee to decide that we can only proceed if we hear a whole bunch of witnesses, or no more witnesses, and even whether further inquiry is necessitated at all or what the matters are before us, having taken knowledge of that representation. Is this the kind of thing we're looking at?

The Chairman: That is my recommendation. The full committee may say no, we don't want the steering committee to meet any more, you haven't achieved much. As your chairman I'm just putting forward a direction, which is my responsibility. I've literally one paragraph left and then I'll hear from everybody or anybody.

In questioning Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob it is my feeling that questions may extend beyond the communiqué, but, and I want to underscore this, I believe they must be directly related to the communiqué. That is my feeling as your chair, and as chair I intend to exercise appropriate direction to ensure that the questioning respects this limitation. The steering committee discussed whether witnesses would be asked to testify under oath, but it did not reach a conclusion on that subject.

Colleagues, I've spoken for a bit of time, but I believe we have met for six or seven hours and I'm trying to give you a consensus of what did happen.

There are a number of people who wish to speak now. We'll now hear from you,Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chair, I am quite aware that some of us have been discussing the same matter for almost six or six and a half hours, that is the order of reference. But it was in camera and my colleagues are not aware of everything that was said, and I believe that you colleagues are not either.

One thing is clear; during those six hours I repeated that we were not going to start discussing the choice of witnesses - be they Mr. Jacob, Mr. Hart, Mrs. Davidson or any other person - , so long as we had not determined on the order of reference. This is for one simple reason; when Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hart come and testify, if we do not have clearly defined parameters for the questions that we are allowed to ask, you will find yourself in an awkward position.

.1125

For example, I don't know what "the matter of the communiqué" means. It can have a broad interpretation or a narrow interpretation.

During those six hours, I heard the Reform Party say constantly that it hoped to push things very far. They want to touch on certain tacit agreements that might have taken place before the communiqué was sent out and might have a direct link with the communiqué.

This morning, it was even said that everything that had to do with the communiqué could include the discussions that military people might have had a long time before sending out the communiqué on the 26 of October, as well as what took place afterwards. You will not be able then to establish parameters. If we play this game, Mr. Chair, we will have to call on constitutional experts, military people, etc. However, I tell you that there are many army generals outside of Canada. We would have to ask all those people to appear before us and they will have to testify.

Mr. Chair, I say that the government had the possibility of broadening the order of reference as much as it wanted, as much as it could have wanted, when it moved the amendment. You yourself limited it, Mr. Zed; in fact, you are the one who moved the amendment to the Reform Party's motion. You limited it to the matter of the communiqué of the member for Charlesbourg released on October 26 1995.

Let us analyze the communiqué and let's not put the sovereignty movement on trial or whatMr. Jacob might have said two, three, four, five months before and two or three months after the communiqué. This is what we disagree on. If we could specifically agree on the order of reference and the parameters, the rest would follow. I will give you my list of witnesses, but I want to know today what to expect. I myself have had enough of useless meetings. I have had enough! Tell us what is in the order of reference.

In our opinion, it is restrictive. It deals with what the government voted. It is a restrictive order of reference. This is how the Reform Party understood it and this is how we understood it. Mr. Chair, today you are indirectly trying to do what you did not have the nerve to do in the House of Commons.

[English]

The Chairman: Let me respond directly to your comments, Mr. Bellehumeur. I think as your chair I have given that indication today by directing how far I believe we can go. Now I'm putting it forward for a discussion by members, and either the members of this committee are going to endorse the approach that I've taken as the chair, or they won't endorse it. It will be that simple.

I've made it very clear how far I believe we should be prepared to go. Since we are now in open session, I accept your point that it's been difficult as colleagues communicate with each other because we've been in camera.

Mr. Frazer today, for example, was discussing relevancy as an issue, and I said it's the words that as your chairman I'm going to propose are directly related to the communiqué. I think as your chairman I have proposed a definition of how far I believe we should go.

It may not satisfy the Reform Party and it may not satisfy the Bloc. I'm attempting to reach a consensus.

Mr. Frazer, you're next on my list, sir.

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you mentioned just a moment ago, I had proposed that we discuss things that are relevant to the communiqué, and in previous discussion I pointed out that we should determine whether the communiqué was in fact a confirmation of previous verbal agreements that had been arrived at through discussions with Mr. Jacob or other members of the Bloc with various military people, because this is germane to what we're talking about.

Mr. Bellehumeur went a little to the exaggeration point in his discussion. I'm not talking about going back years or bothering you to that extent, but I do think we are obligated as a committee to fulfil our requirement to discuss what drove this communiqué and what happened as a result of the communiqué. If we don't do that, we're going to be derelict in our duty.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Frazer. Mr. Milliken.

Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I've listened to your comments.

.1130

First of all, with respect to hiring an outside consultant, the suggestion that was made that we hear the evidence of the clerk and legal counsel strikes me as reasonable. But with all respect, notwithstanding the very forceful remarks from my colleague Mr. Bellehumeur, I think we ought to wait until after we've heard from the clerk and from legal counsel to decide the scope of the investigation.

I suspect they're going to have something to say about what the words of the House motion mean. We have our reference. It's there in the House motion. It's a matter of interpretation as to what it means. I realize there appears to have been some disagreement in the steering committee, at least on the part of Mr. Bellehumeur, in respect of the interpretation of that motion. I suspect the clerk and legal counsel can assist us with that in the course of their testimony before the committee.

I think for you, Mr. Chairman, to tell us today what the parameters are may be slightly premature. I think it may be worth waiting and hearing from the other two witnesses first and then the parameters could be set. Of course the committee may want to have words about what the witnesses have said before we finally set those parameters.

I certainly don't disagree with the guideline you've put forward. It sounds reasonable at this point, but we may want to look at some other matters after hearing from those two witnesses.

I hope Mr. Bellehumeur will agree to wait and hear those witnesses first. They're not going to be testifying as to facts; they'll be testifying as to their opinion as to what the law is and what the motion means. With great respect, I think we can hear that before we make a final determination on the other issue.

On the second point,

[Translation]

In his presentation, Mr. Langlois asked the question regarding the role played by counsels accompanying witnesses before the committee.

[English]

I'm concerned about this issue as well, and I guess I'd like to know whether these counsel are going to be able to sit and whisper answers to the witnesses in the course of the witnesses' testimony. That was not clarified in your comments, Mr. Chairman. You indicated that the counsel would not ask questions or give answers. The question is whether or not they will be able to whisper the answers to their clients sitting at the table.

I thought Mr. Langlois' point was that when a person is giving evidence in a court, counsel isn't up whispering to the witness. I am wondering if that will be permitted here in the committee. I think the committee might like to have an answer to that in advance to warn counsel and the witness as to what will be permitted and what will not.

I think that was the point. Maybe the steering committee discussed it; maybe not. I'm asking for clarification.

The Chairman: No, we didn't.

Mr. Milliken: Finally, you suggested, Mr. Chair, that after we hear the first four witnesses you've listed - and I'm glad there's agreement on these four as it strikes me as the sensible way to proceed - the matter of further witnesses ought to go to the steering committee for further discussion. I am happy to do that, but I'd suggest that it might be appropriate to have a discussion in the full committee as to what additional witnesses we might want.

I think, having heard the witnesses we have heard, we may decide at any point in the course of the hearing that it would be appropriate to call someone else. If so, this might be a useful forum for that discussion. Although the final decision obviously is going to be here, the steering committee may want to go and have another hash at it. Given the difficulties in getting agreement there, it might be faster to do it here.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Milliken.

To respond very quickly to your point about the lawyers, the specifics that you raise were not addressed directly. We might dispose of that very quickly.

Thinking out loud with you, it would not be my predisposition that the lawyer would be welcome to attend with the person who wanted to have the lawyer present, but I would not have thought that the lawyer would be sitting with the witness as they were presenting, whispering answers and consulting throughout a questioning. As your chair, that would just have been my predisposition.

Mr. Boudria: That's something for the steering committee.

The Chairman: The steering committee has not been able to address those kinds of issues. Perhaps Mrs. Davidson could give us some advice on that subject in terms of what would be appropriate within the Canadian context of this.

Mr. Milliken: I am prepared to offer some advice on it, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Okay, I'd be happy to have it.

Mr. Milliken: The counsel should not be sitting beside the witness whispering answers. I've had experience myself in appearing before this committee as counsel years ago and I did not sit beside my client and whisper answers. The client defended himself entirely, and I suggest that it would be appropriate for that to be the case here.

The Chairman: That was my instinct, Mr. Milliken, and if we can dispose of it that quickly, I'd be happy to do that right now.

.1135

On the subject of disposing of that, would there be an agreement at this committee that when a person is before our committee, testifying or giving evidence, that they do so without being interrupted by a lawyer?

Mr. Frazer, did you want to comment on that?

Mr. Frazer: No. I think I would agree with that.

The Chairman: Mr. Langlois or Bellehumeur, or someone from your party, do you agree with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: We will end up as in any other general situation. After the legal points are studied and dealt with, in the event where we need to go further than examining the communiqué, when you will have made a decision, the witness will testify on matters of fact. If the witness is an expert, he will give his opinion. The counsel will have nothing more to do once the legal questions are dealt with. I agree with Mr. Milliken on that matter.

[English]

The Chairman: So the Reform Party and the Bloc agrees to that.

Does anybody on the Liberal side, other than Mr. Milliken, wish to comment? So we agree? We're all agreed. Isn't that wonderful?

Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Chair, I have a question on the presentation you made, especially after Mr. Milliken's comments. The procedure proposed was to first have Mr. Jacob and thenMr. Hart as witnesses, and then to decide on the procedures that would follow, at the steering committee or... In any case what you said is similar to that. Is that not what you said? No?

Mr. Milliken: No, I only mentioned the Clerk and the legal advisor.

Mr. Laurin: Well then, I had understood that we wanted to question witnesses here and then decide, at the steering committee, what would follow our debate. Is what I am saying to you correct?

[English]

The Chairman: No, let me clarify. What I tried to suggest was to give you a bit of a work plan as to how far we could agree, whether or not there was a general agreement amongst the three parties, as I saw it, about how far we could go without going any further. In other words, did we need some expert on constitutional privilege, or were there some other issues that we needed to consider? At least for the moment we'd hear from Marleau, Davidson, Jacob and Hart, and then after that, we would evaluate it to see the relevancy issue and whether or not there was anyone else directly related who needs to be considered.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: So, Mr. Chair, I understood correctly. You have just repeated to me that you would like to hear Ms. Davidson as well as Mr. Marleau, Mr. Jacob, and Mr. Hart. They are not all experts. The two main people involved are among them. You want us to hear them and then decide later on what we will do.

Mr. Chair, I do not want us to have to refer continually with the steering committee, once work has begun here, in order to decide on future work. We will not hold public meetings to later on make decisions in private. If our work is public, I want the vote on the decisions to be made to be public as well, in order that people know what we are deciding. It is important that decisions take place in the same circumstances as the debates.

Secondly, if we hear the testimony of the two main people involved, Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hart, before deciding on the procedure that we are going to follow, I am extremely concerned that we will have a debate afterwards and will judge the witnesses more on the basis of their testimonies than on the facts and events that have brought us here around this table. I am concerned that we will forget the communiqué and that we will say that from now on, given the new statements by witnesses, the future business will be based on the testimonies heard at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I do not think that this is the mandate that we were given.

The mandate we were given was to study the communiqué that was released. Those are the facts, the events, and we must take these into consideration now in order to decide how we deal with the issue.

.1140

We can't start questioning witnesses and then find ways, over the course of our work, to give the committee a new direction or to change the debate for ends other than those stated when we began the process. That is all I have to say for now, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin. Madame Catterall please.

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): I'd like to clarify something here. The fact is that the steering committee has not been able to agree on terms of reference to recommend to this committee. That's why the chair has brought forward how he will rule in terms of the witnesses, the testimony, and the questions to be asked.

As he's indicated, there are two quite disparate points of view. The Bloc member on the steering committee has indicated that he wants a very narrow interpretation that relates only to the sheet of paper, the communiqué. The Reform representative on the steering committee has indicated that they want a very wide interpretation.

I think that we as Liberal members on the steering committee have not indicated a position, and what the chair has been trying to do is reach a consensus. It has been impossible to reach that consensus.

I suppose that as a Liberal member of the steering committee I could propose terms of reference, I could bring them to this committee, and the Liberal majority on this committee could enforce those terms of reference. We don't want to do that. We want to try to move forward to the point where hopefully we can reach a consensus on the terms of reference.

The chair has no intention, from what I heard him say, of letting this be wide open or without definition. He has very clearly said as chair that he will rule based on what is directly related to the communiqué. He will only allow questioning and testimony that are directly related to the communiqué.

I appreciate what Mr. Milliken had to say, because I think in fact it's clear that dealing with an issue of privilege and of contempt of Parliament is something that happens very rarely in the experience of a parliamentarian, and not at all for most parliamentarians.

I frankly believe that it may be easier to lay down terms of reference that we agree on after we've heard from legal counsel and after we've heard perhaps from the clerk. I think it would be entirely legitimate, from within this constraint that the chair himself has put on himself, to hear from Mr. Hart and Mr Jacob.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Two witnesses, not four.

Ms Catterall: Four.

The Chairman: No, the others are Ms Davidson and Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Laurin: I understood correctly. That is why we do not agree.

[English]

The Chairman: We're glad you're paying attention.

Ms Catterall: I think the chair has suggested that after this first round of witnesses the steering committee would meet again. This is not to suggest that anything would be determined in public. The only role of our steering committee is to report and make recommendations to this committee. Decisions would be made in public, in an open forum, by this whole committee. There's no intention or even possibility of doing anything in an in camera meeting that would affect the work of this committee on this matter.

The Chairman: No.

Ms Catterall: My concern is that having been unable to reach a consensus and being unwilling personally to see the Liberal majority impose the terms of reference, but knowing that we have a responsibility to Parliament to do what needs to be done to deal with this order of reference, we have to do that. That's our responsibility to Parliament, as the chair has clearly pointed out.

We cannot simply continue to have long meetings disagreeing with each other. We've got to move forward. It seems to me this is a reasonable first step forward.

There are things on which we have agreed in the steering committee. The witnesses are to be called first. There's no question about that. I'd like to suggest that we get on and agree on those.

.1145

I'm prepared to accept what the chair has defined as the parameters of how he will rule on the matters to come before the committee. Obviously if he makes a ruling in line with the direction he suggested and any member of the committee disagrees at that point in time, we can discuss whether it's an appropriate way to rule and whether he's following his own rules.

But we can't simply sit around and spin our wheels and not do what Parliament has asked us to do.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Catterall.

Mr. Ringma.

Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): As a non-member of the steering committee, I'd like to go over the ground and see if my perception is correct. First, are we agreed that the common aim here is to get on with this thing and agree upon some terms of reference so we can study the issue? Is that right?

The Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Ringma: We're agreed on that. Okay. Then I think we're going to have to be very deliberate and go step by step.

Mr. Chairman, I think your step today was rather important. Your narrative at the beginning is important to me. I would like to see it in writing and I'd like the time to study it, because there are nuances that are perhaps important. I think that might be important to all of us.

With that in mind, I then come to the next meeting that you propose, which is a meeting of the four witnesses: Marleau, Davidson, Hart and Jacob. It should be clear that the aim of that meeting should be to try to establish the terms of reference. That is what we should be getting out ofMr. Marleau, Mr. Jacob, Ms Davidson, and Mr. Hart. We should be getting their ideas as to what the scope or terms of reference should be.

I think it's important to have an aim for that meeting in front of us so the questioning of these witnesses will be directed at that aim.

Ms Catterall: Would you like a motion, Mr. Chair, that arises out of -

The Chairman: Before I get to a motion, I think it's important to let every member have at least one opportunity to speak. If you'll allow me, colleagues, I think I'd like to extend that courtesy to every member who wants to speak at least once, and then I'm going to try to roll everybody in a little bit.

Mr. Boudria was next. Unfortunately I think he's been called back to the House.

Mr. Pagtakhan, do you have something you wish to say?

Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think my time has come. I am sensing a consensus of some kind, but just to underscore the point, in case there are still nuances, I will agree that in fact the Clerk of the House and the legal counsel should be invited. The statement is to constitute a basis for our deliberations on planning the parameters of the order of reference and even for defining the other issue that has been identified: defining the parameters of relevance for the chair.

On that note, I will say that I support the approach to invite those two key witnesses first before we even continue to debate the order of reference.

On a last point, Mr. Chair, on the matter of putting your statement today in writing, I would just like to advise my colleague that it is automatically in writing because that constitutes minutes of these proceedings.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Harb.

Mr. Harb (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, first let me say how much I appreciate your comment. I wish you had been able to achieve a consensus, but that didn't seem to happen. A defined resolution came to us from the House of Commons that we have to deal with and we have to work within that particular context. I think going outside of that will be going beyond the responsibility of the committee.

Second,I think it's a wise thing for us to hear from Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson in order to have an understanding of how far we can go, where we can go, and what terms of reference we can develop.

.1150

But I think we have to be a little cautious when we want to include Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hart in the deliberations. In a sense, it's almost like you're hearing somebody who's accusing somebody else and somebody who's being accused before the court in time to develop the terms of reference. You're hearing from everybody as you go along.

I think we might want to have a little bit of time to reflect after we hear from Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson and before we invite the other two witnesses. We'll have a little bit of breathing space and we'll not get trapped where we have the accused or the accuser being involved in the development of the terms of reference.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harb.

Monsieur Langlois, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I think we are skipping a step. The issue of the order of reference is very important and that is what we have to agree on first. Are Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson coming to enlighten us so that we understand our order of reference? I think that we have to enlighten ourselves; it is not up to people from the outside to come and shed light on our order of reference.

I think that if we were to hear Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob now, we would just be hearing shortened speech notes. Accusations will be made. One will say yes, the other no, etc.

I am going to go back a little in time, back to the Speaker's decision. I said this the other day at the steering committee's meeting. I will say it again. This morning I read Mr. Parent's ruling over and over again. In looking at it closely, I see that it contains two verses which later on become two versions.

We should have Mr. Parent's text before considering the order of reference because Mr. Parent seems to be reacting very strongly to the fact that Mr. Hart is accusing another member of parliament. Yet, from the very beginning, Mr. Parent's question of privilege seems to concern the fact thatMr. Hart is making a strong accusation against the member for Charlesbourg. Mr. Parent's ruling does not begin by raising the issue of the press release. Not at all. Mr. Parent is critical of the member for Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt making an accusation and, later on, an accusation against the member for Charlesbourg.

Thus, without doing this formally, perhaps we should invite Mr. Parent to come and explain why he reacted and why he reacted to what the member said in the House. We are all familiar with our parliamentary rules. We know that, on a question of privilege, the Speaker must act as soon as he can. It is now March 1996 and we are discussing events that occurred in October. Did the Speaker not act too late with respect to the accusation made by a member? Did he not react more to Mr. Hart's comments than to the press release?

I think we need this clarification to be able to begin. Before you put your foot in the stirrup, you need to know that there is a horse underneath the saddle, Mr. Chairman. I submit to you that the first person to be invited should be Mr. Parent; he could tell us why he reacted the way he did.

As you said earlier we are not a regular court. Usually one does not invite a judge to come and explain his ruling. We are part of a much more open process, but we are also part of the political process.

I will leave you to consult the Clerk.

The Chairman: Yes, let us do that.

Mr. Langlois: Good! Then we are suggesting that we summon Mr. Parent. It will probably give him great pleasure to meet us, especially given that his ruling is incomprehensible, prima facie. I say incomprehensible and yet he handed out that ruling and I do not challenge it. All I want to know is what he meant. Appeals are often made, appeals by way of stated case. I'm sure you did this when you were practising, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Ms Catterall: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I've been quite patient, but I think it is not appropriate and I don't think this committee can question a ruling of the chair. There is a procedure in the House if somebody wishes to challenge the chair. That wasn't followed, but I don't think we can call the Speaker of the House before this committee to explain a ruling.

The Chairman: I think Mrs. Catterall is -

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I do not at all challenge Mr. Parent's ruling.

[English]

The Chairman: I understand -

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: It exists but I do not understand it. Nobody is challenging it but nobody understands it either.

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

.1155

I don't think Mr. Langlois was challenging the chair. I think Mrs. Catterall is reminding us that it would not be appropriate to have the Speaker come before our committee -

Ms Catterall: To explain his ruling.

The Chairman: - to explain his ruling. Whether it's, as you suggest, incomprehensible or not is I think where Mrs. Catterall is cautioning you not to challenge the chair.

There was a mechanism to do that. At present in our House there is no mechanism to go beyond that. Mr. Milliken, you can correct me - I just read your book - but I believe that the challenge to the chair ruling was removed 20 years ago. There was a mechanism at one point whereby you could actually appeal the ruling of the chair, but that's been removed.

I have said publicly before that I have been confused by certain aspects of what the Speaker said, as equally you are, but I don't believe, Mr. Langlois, that it's appropriate to bring the Speaker here. We have what we have, and we're going to deal with what we have to deal with.

If you could wrap up some comments, then we'll move on.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: So that it is clear for everyone, I am saying that I was not challenging the Speaker's authority nor his impartiality. We all trust the Speaker and no one is challenging his role.

All that I was suggesting was that we ask the Speaker to come and meet us impartially but as part of a process that would help us to understand what is happening, which is something that doesn't happen very often.

I think that the last time there was a question of judging people was in the time of Oliver Cromwell and King Charles. It started out by being a kangaroo court but became a true political trial. Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote... I have to get rid of this idea. I have a little quote and I will tell you where it's from. First I am going to read it and then I will tell you where it's from.

It is with inconceivable pleasure that we then saw the miserable French and aboriginals pay dearly and feel the weight of our justified resentment.

That was Captain Knox speaking after an order was given on the 4th of September 1755 in the Grand-Pré church, when the Acadians were deported. That's 60 miles from Halifax, very near to you Mr. Chairman. Dr. Jacob wouldn't have been accused if he hadn't been a French Canadian and a Sovereignist. This is a political trial that should be stopped immediately.

If this were an English Canadian we were accusing of the same thing, then we would be called racists. I do not accept that Mr. Chairman. This comedy must be stopped. It is up to voters to judge political platforms. It is up to them to decide and not to a committee of members of Parliament. In a democracy, Mr. Chairman, it is not acceptable to justify acting with an iron fist by saying that you have the majority.

We lived through 1755, we lived through Lord Durham's report and the events of 1838, we lived through the Greenway government's legislation for Manitoban francophones, Regulation 17 in Ontario, two drafts... Stop, that is enough!

[English]

The Chairman: Now you all know why I've had so many problems as your chairman. I have these competing interests. These are challenges.

Mr. Frazer, you're next on my list.

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out for the benefit of those who listened recently that the Speaker didn't send us this order of reference; the House sent it to us. In fact it was a motion by Mr. Hart, which was amended by you. It was no act of the Speaker that sent us this order of reference. Therefore, to ask the Speaker to explain what it means is a little irrelevant.

The second point I'd like to make, Mr. Chair, is something I omitted before. I think we had a consensus that because people were likely to testify the truth before our committee, we had agreed that evidence would be given under oath or affirmation. Would you like to include that in what we had agreed to?

The Chairman: I don't have a predisposition one way or the other. In the British system I suppose there's been an avoidance of doing solemn affirmations or swearing of witnesses - someone jump in and remind me if I'm wrong. That's more of an American-style process.

Peter, do you want to give me some help here?

Mr. Harb: Is this a tradition? Traditionally what do you do with witnesses? Do you -

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur has indicated that he doesn't care one way or another, but out of respect for some of the traditions and history of our Parliament, it would have been my instinct not to swear witnesses. Look, I'm just your chairman.

.1200

Mr. Milliken: I think you could leave the matter to be decided before the witnesses come. If someone moves a motion that the witness be sworn, the committee can consider the motion. Given the witnesses we're proposing, the clerk and legislative counsel who are here to advise us, I wouldn't have thought it was necessary to swear them, but certainly it could be done. The other two are both hon. members of this House. I'm happy to have them sworn if members feel it necessary, but surely we can decide that at the moment the witness appears. Someone could move a motion that the witness be sworn and if it's carried, it's carried; if it isn't, it isn't.

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, I suggest we be consistent here. Either all witnesses are sworn or none are sworn. Why single out a specific witness to be sworn? That's implying that this individual is not going to be truthful otherwise.

The Chairman: Look, I'm your chairman and I'll do the will of the committee. My instinct is not to swear our witnesses; however, as Mr. Milliken has quite carefully pointed out, if you want to swear them we'll swear them. Someone could move that motion at the time.

Mr. Milliken: You could move a motion now if you want.

The Chairman: If you want to move a motion on swearing after we finish some of this preliminary round.... I've indicated to Mrs. Catterall that there are going to be some motions to which I'd appreciate some votes, which will ultimately become my direction as your chairman.

Mr. Frazer: As an intervention, Mr. Chair, I certainly wasn't advising that the clerk or the legal counsel.... They're giving us opinion, and obviously that's not a swearable item.

The Chairman: Okay, I've heard your intervention.

Mr. Speaker, you're next on my list.

Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): I want to speak to the question of relevancy because I think it's very important. I'm sorry I didn't hear your preliminary remarks.

In terms of the Reform Party, when we looked at this, it's not only the specific issue or communiqué at hand. We have never really addressed some of the questions that will come before this committee. We feel that within the word "relevancy'' we should also be addressing the shortcomings of the law at the present time and where we should shore up the law and make recommendations back to our colleagues in the House of Commons as to how we could make amendments so that in situations like this we have better definition to deal with these kinds of circumstances. At the present time we don't have that. So we see relevancy on a broader basis than just dealing with this communiqué. We want to go to the solution end of it as well.

I was just going to raise a question when I put my hand up. You made a statement to the committee earlier, and I didn't hear it all, but the question I have is whether the definition of relevancy is clear in your mind. As we start to move through and we start to press for a broader interpretation and there's a narrower interpretation here, can you steer us through this discussion with your definition? As we go along, if it all of a sudden is going in all directions, I can see our committee leading to some difficulties.

The Chairman: At some point I recognize that as your chair I'm going to have to rule one way or another. I want to remind us all that the words I used were "directly related'', not "relevant''. The word "relevant'' will be different from "directly related to the communiqué''. As your chairman I'm sharing with you the direction I'm predisposed towards. I know I'm playing a fine game of semantics at the moment, and I almost wish I never went to law school, but I'm trying to put a focus on this.

Mr. Speaker: So does the definition "directly related to the communiqué'' allow me as a questioner here, as we move through this toward the end of our proceedings, to say, look at what we should do in terms of solutions in a more general case? Can I say to this committee that I'd recommend we do this and this and this, and can we discuss those as solutions? Can that be part of our report back to the House of Commons?

.1205

The Chairman: I want to remind some colleagues of the other issue.

This is in direct reply to you, Ray, but also in a general sense, there's been a lot of discussion about the "terms of reference''. My gracious, we have an order of reference, and frankly, I'm not sure that.... We're sort of waiting for Godot here.

Really, what we have is an order of reference. As your chair, I have suggested that the order of reference...the questioning and the first four witnesses be directly related to the communiqué. So isn't that your terms of reference?

In other words, it's staring you in the face here, colleagues, but I'm trying to put some flesh and bones on this.

Look, you're also, I want to remind you, the master of your own committee here. You can choose to do something or not to do something. It's the committee's decision.

So I am not disagreeing with you, Ray. I guess all I'm saying to you is that in a general way, as I listen to you say that we should shore up the law, and that we need better definitions of the law, frankly, I don't see how that is directly related to the communiqué in terms of matters of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Just to support what Mr. Harb said earlier, I think if we're trying to define what we're doing here and we're interviewing Mr. Hart and the hon. member from Charlesbourg, we'd be at cross purposes. When those witnesses come in, I think the show's got to be on the road. We have to be moving and looking to deal with the matter at hand.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I've given everyone who has asked a first round of intervention. At this point, before I hear from anyone else, I wonder - look, I am in your hands, and it's your committee - whether or not it would be appropriate to now consider some motions so that we can put some flesh and bones on what would become our terms of reference.

Ms Catterall.

Ms Catterall: I had indicated earlier, Mr. Chair, that based on the discussions in the steering committee I would like to move a motion,

[Translation]

but I would first like to congratulate Mr. Langlois for his superb performance this morning.

[English]

It really does remind me of your comments and your opening remarks that we are not here to have a political debate. We are not here to decide which political position or party is relevant or accurate or what the future of the country is. We are here to discuss a fairly mundane question of privilege and contempt of the House of Commons.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me you laid out quite well the things that the steering committee had agreed upon. Clearly there is no agreement on terms of reference, but you have indicated what you will rule on, the basis on which you will make rulings as to whether things are in or out of order. Anybody who doesn't like the ruling at any particular time can challenge it. The committee can discuss it and resolve whether or not the committee wishes to proceed as you have ruled. However, I think we have agreed that there are witnesses we want to hear, whatever the terms of reference.

So first of all, I move that the Clerk of the House, Mr. Marleau, and the general legal counsel of the House, Ms Davidson, be invited to brief the committee on the general issues of privilege and contempt. Second, that Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob be invited to appear as witnesses. Third, thatMs Davidson be asked to provide a briefing note for the committee on the nature of parliamentary privilege and contempt of the House and the options available to the committee.

The other one, with respect to the engagement of the special expertise, I think I would like to deal with separately.

There's been some suggestion that perhaps we should hear from the first two witnesses and then decide where we proceed from there. I am concerned that it's now two weeks since the House referred this matter to the committee. It will be two, nearly three, weeks before the House, and therefore this committee, resumes. I would very much like to see the chair have the authority to go ahead and invite those witnesses. That would probably be spread over another two weeks of meetings of the committee. If in fact after hearing Ms Davidson and the clerk, and receiving the briefing and so on, the committee were to decide that it wanted to defer hearing Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hart, it certainly could do that.

.1210

But the fact is, if you as chair are given the authority to go ahead and set those up, we can proceed with our work. We can change it at any time, but I don't want to see two weeks wasted and then another two weeks or a month after we get back.

So I would like to make those motions to allow you, Mr. Chair, to proceed, to get the work of the committee under way.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Is there a seconder for that motion?

Are you seconding the motion? I thought you were agreeing with Ms Catterall.

Mr. Harb: I second the motion.

The Chairman: Okay. It has been moved and seconded. Who wishes to speak on the question?

Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, if I may, I suggest that the clerk read the motion.

The Chairman: We're not going to vote on it right at the moment. Let's just hear comments on the subject.

Or do you have the motion there?

Ms Catterall: I do.

That the Clerk of the House, Mr. Marleau, and the general legal counsel of the House,Ms Davidson, be invited to brief the committee on the general issues of privilege and contempt.

The Chairman: Could I just interrupt one second? Let's just put them as separate issues, point by point.

Ms Catterall: Yes, but I wanted you to know the context.

The Chairman: Okay. So the first motion is that Marleau and Davidson be invited to the committee to brief the committee on contempt and privilege.

Ms Catterall: Yes.

Mr. Harb: I second the motion.

The Chairman: So that's been moved and seconded.

On that question, Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I do not know why you do not want to begin at the beginning, that is to clearly explain what "giving oneself a mandate" means and what the order of reference means. Surely Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson cannot tell us what our mandate is. It's easy to see that this won't work if we have not agreed on the meaning of our order of reference. I do not know why but you have threatened to use the Liberal majority two or three times now. I would just like to mention that we have been subject to the Liberal majority for 29 months! So go ahead! We know what to expect! Vote! Then we will know that the Reform Party and the Liberal Party united against Quebec. That is how it has been for 29 months. Stop beating around the bush and vote!

[English]

The Chairman: Oh, come on.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: You realize, Mr. Chairman, that we are asking two people to testify before even having an order of reference! Go to any commission or to any court house and you will see that preliminary issues are dealt with before calling witnesses. You are a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, you know that.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur, as the chair I don't want to engage in a debate, but with the greatest of respect to you, have you or your party put forward a motion of your own? Have you once put on the table a proposal? Have you once given a suggestion, as the official opposition? Have you once put forward -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: We have been discussing the order of reference for six hours and a half!

[English]

The Chairman: - a concept of how you would wish us to proceed? The answer is no, and I refuse to allow this committee -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but you are wrong. During the committee on procedure's six hours of debate, much was said. Among other things, I said that it would be simpler to consider the communiqué. We're discussing what the meaning of the day after is in English and "le lendemain d'un Oui". It is easy to interpret those expressions, to understand what was being said. But you can't put the Sovereignist movement on trial, as you have just done.

[English]

The Chairman: But Mr. Bellehumeur, I'm -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: We are going to be involved in this process and I can guarantee you that if you broaden the mandate, you are going to have quite a time with the Official Opposition. I promise you that, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: But this isn't to have fun. The bottom line here is that there has been an order of reference from the House of Commons. To pretend that there isn't an order of reference, that at the very minimum we have Mr. Marleau and Mrs. Davidson to brief the committee on contempt and privilege...and now you're going to say that you can't even vote for that - fine.

.1215

[Translation]

Mr. Harb: Mr. Chairman, I think that is precisely what Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson are going to say in answer to Mr. Bellehumeur's questions. That is exactly what they will answer, because we have a resolution...

[English]

The Chairman: Order. Someone has the floor.

Please go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Harb: ...and we agree on the fact that members of the Bloc Québécois voted against the resolution. We have been discussing this for a while now and we have tried to reach a consensus.Mr. Chairman, when you told us about the steering committee's discussions, you mentioned thatMs Davidson would be invited to represent the House of Commons and my colleagues from the Bloc were not opposed.

They have said however that they are opposed to the order of reference. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know, as a member of this committee, what I can do and what I cannot do regarding this mandate. I have a right, as a member of this committee, to ask my advisor, Ms Davidson, and the Clerk what is possible. I'd like to remind my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois that this part of the resolution is clear and fundamental for the members of this committee.

I therefore encourage my colleague to vote for this part. If there are other points to be discussed, we can do that in the other part, when Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob are invited.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me. Order. There is a motion, and we will conduct ourselves in an orderly fashion to ensure that the motion is debated. Mr. Harb has just finished speaking.

Mr. Laurin, you are next on my list to speak to this motion. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, this motion is leading us into a dead end. We can't get out. The purpose of the motion is to invite people we want to question, but to learn what? Usually when you invite experts, it is because you require their knowledge and their experience to help you make decisions regarding a specific issue or situation.

However, we have not determined what the issue is. We do not know what it is. It's as if we were asking experts to come and advise us while not being able to tell them what they are to advise us on. They can all come and tell us what they like, but they will not know what to talk to us about.

And there is worse, Mr. Chairman. Not only does the first part of the motion tell us to invite experts to advise us on whatever, but the second part tells us to invite two witnesses to be questioned on accusations we are not familiar with. We are going to ask them to tell us why they are accused and they are going to answer that they do not know what they have been accused of nor why they were asked to come!

Do we want to talk to them about things they said or wrote on such and such a date and under such and such circumstances? Do we want to prepare a scenario for questioning them later on what they say now so that we can hang them?

This can all be harmful for witnesses who will come here without knowing what they will be asked about and what they could be accused of. They have to know what to expect when they come to be questioned, because what they will say could be used against them in subsequent questioning.

If it would make the Liberal majority happy, I will accept that we ask two experts to come to supposedly help us by testifying. I am however convinced that they will not help us because we have no idea what we should be asking them about.

.1220

We could agree but what purpose would that serve? It would just be a waste of time for all of us because we would not know what to ask them about to help us move ahead.

For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can vote in favour or this motion because it does not lead us anywhere.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. On this motion, please, we'll hear Mr. Pagtakhan andMr. Langlois and then we'll vote.

Mr. Pagtakhan: I can appreciate the apparent frustration on the part of the Bloc, but perhaps I could give a friendly suggestion. On the issue before us, I think it is apparently confusing because, first, we are debating the issue of how we clarify the order of reference.

Second, we already have an apprehension of fear in getting Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hart before the committee. That is why the Bloc has to observe that this member did ask Ms Catterall for a clarification of the original motion as she was suggesting. To be exactly clear on what it involved, what we have before us is a specific motion to invite two witnesses whose testimony this member feels would be vital in our coming to an intelligent decision on how to go about defining and clarifying the order of reference.

It is a necessary step in this member's view and I suggest that it be a necessary step in your view. We have not yet brought in Mr. Jacob or Mr. Hart. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I could propose an amendment at this time to make it clear that these two witnesses will be brought in before Mr. Jacob, in that order, if it is necessary. That is the intent.

If there is an apprehension of fear because they may be brought in simultaneously or one after the other without any further deliberation, then we should clarify it so that we can come to an understanding on this very motion, which is to bring them here to guide the committee on how we will go about clarifying the terms of reference insofar as the order of reference from the House is concerned and insofar as defining the parameters or the relevance on the part of the chair.

I support the motion, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Pagtakhan. Mr. Langlois, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: There was the Barnum & Bailey Circus and now we could have the Barnum, Bailey & Hart Circus. It really does not make any sense. The order of reference is clear enough. I respect Ms Davidson and Mr. Marleau, but perhaps they could have advised those who were presenting this motion before they did. If we are not happy - and personally, I am not happy at all - with this process, the simplest solution is to report to the House and to say that we cannot agree on an order of reference. The issue will be debated so that the House can give us an order of reference and explain it to us because we cannot agree.

But while some of us are wondering what rules of procedure to use, others should not be celebrating over the idea of erecting a scaffold; we should not be losing sight of what we're here for. This is happening in an insidious way and these people are acting like ants burrowing under a field; all of a sudden you walk on it and you sink. We are working with people, not all of them, who want to undermine the traditional and fundamental foundation of our parliamentary system, who wanted to become Official Opposition using a Speaker's ruling rather than the results of ballot boxes and who wanted to send a petition to Rideau Hall so that Mr. Chrétien would be removed from office for not having defended Canadian unity.

That is fundamentally what a political debate is. There are two judges who ruled on this, two justices of the peace, one in Quebec and one in Ontario. You can't say that the judge from Ontario had a bias about this issue. He wasn't even convinced that a summons should be issued to Mr. Jacob to answer to any accusations, whether they be under sections 59, 60, 61 or 62 of the Criminal Code. Nothing was done and Mr. Manning just confirmed this in the House.

The Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will determine in another way whether or not Mr. Jacob is guilty of certain actions. But he can't be accused retroactively. That is the issue and I think that Mr. Bellehumeur described the problem accurately.

.1225

[English]

The Chairman: Let's limit your comments to the motion, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Precisely, this brings me to the motion, when you say relevant to the motion or the main motion, the order of reference. You see what your situation will be during the debate. You're saying that I'm getting away from the issue, that I'm on the edge, but it is not clear. Do you think that it will help you to make it clearer and that it will ensure the impartiality of the Chair that, beyond yourself, is a constant throughout all parliaments?

I think that this proposal is a very bad trick. It would seem to me that we should stick to the order of reference for now. If we decide to go further, then fine. But I think that we are skipping steps, and you are the one who will be responsible for this proposal.

You're involving Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson. You know quite well that they try not to displease anyone, and that when they appear, their statements will be neither fish nor fowl. The whole House and Mr. Marleau have said this everywhere since the beginning of Parliament. You even said he was everyone's clerk. Do you think he will want to displease anyone? They will just make general statements that will be neither fish nor fowl.

We can be fish and fowl at the same time, and we can put some flesh and bones on our terms of reference, as you said earlier on. But do not ask that of people who in any case are going to slow down the process. If you want to slow down the process, we will be having a 36th general election on it.

Thus, I will vote against this motion, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pagtakhan had proposed an amendment and I think that it could clarify this, because usually his reasoning is very clear.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Milliken, do you have a last point?

Mr. Milliken: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to make life more difficult for my colleagues because they seem to be very fretful this morning and perhaps overexcited. I would suggest some Valium.

If it will help, I am prepared to move a motion. I realize I can't at the moment because there is a motion on the floor, but I am prepared to move a motion to clarify the questions that can be asked, if it will help them. The reason I suggest this is if they want to have the committee decide what the questions are going to cover, I will move a motion to do it, but I thought they might prefer to wait until we heard from the expert witnesses, because they may say that part of what I'm proposing is out of order -

The Chairman: Thank you. That's exactly -

Mr. Milliken: - and I don't want to do that. I would rather wait and hear in case my motion is too broad. But if their concern is that we haven't decided the thing, if we need to decide it I'll move a motion that will decide it, because I suspect it might carry and then at least the questions will be clear. I wouldn't want us to move a motion that, on the advice of our counsel, went too far. I don't think my friends opposite would either. That's why I'm reluctant to fix it.

I will tell members now what my motion would be. It would be that the press release of the member for Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995, with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, together with statements of clarification of the press release made by the hon. member subsequent thereto, be the subject matter for questioning by members during the hearing of this committee.

That's the motion I propose, and I think it would cover the items that we ought reasonably to be looking at in this committee. I'm sure my friends opposite will disagree, because they seem to want to disagree with everything. But at least it would clarify the point if they want such a motion.

I stress, Mr. Chairman, this is not in order at the moment because I know you have a motion on the floor. I know I am wandering from debate of that motion.

The Chairman: I appreciate your intervention, Mr. Milliken. I suspect we should deal with Mrs. Catterall's motion first.

There is a motion, colleagues, that has been duly moved and seconded, that Mr. Marleau andMs Davidson be invited to the committee to provide a brief to our committee on the subject of privilege and contempt. Is that the extent of your motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I would like to move an amendment on this motion, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there an amendment?

.1230

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: The amendment will be the following: After what you just said, after "appointing two people to testify before the committee", we would add "only after the committee has set its parameters and the terms of the order of reference". We have nothing against these people coming. We are simply saying that this is not the right time. The amendment would allow them to come, but only after the committee has set its parameters and the terms of its order of reference.

[English]

The Chairman: Let's get an amendment on the floor.

We have an amendment. It's been duly moved and seconded, I presume. It doesn't need to be seconded; it's an amendment. On the amendment, the amendment is that after the part that invites Mr. Marleau and Mrs. Davidson, they insert the words "only after the parameters''. In other words, they would be invited only after the parameters and the scope of the order of reference are determined. That's what I understand Mr. Bellehumeur's amendment is.

Ms Catterall: On the amendment, Mr. Chair, I've been waiting through six and a half hours of meetings with Mr. Bellehumeur for him to put forward what he considers the terms of reference should be. He has failed to do that. We could discuss it, we could modify it, we could come to an agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: You can repeat this 25 times, it's not true.

[English]

Ms Catterall: He has refused to do that.

The Chairman: Come on, Michel.

Ms Catterall: We have an order of the House. It's clear to me that there is every effort to try to thwart this committee and thwart the wishes of the House, and that is what the last seven and half hours have been about. I would ask you to put the question.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: We want a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chairman: The amendment is Mr. Bellehumeur's amendment.

Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3

The Chairman: The motion of Ms Catterall is that Mr. Marleau, the Clerk of the House, and Mrs. Davidson, the legal counsel for the House, be invited to the committee to brief the committee on the subjects of contempt and privilege.

Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3

The Chairman: Wasn't that easy?

.1235

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, if I may, the second part of the motion I gave notice of is thatMs Davidson be asked to provide a briefing note for the committee on the nature of parliamentary privilege and contempt of the House and the options available to the committee.

[Translation]

I'm very happy to hear Mr. Langlois say that he believes he's an expert on the topic. I am not at all an expert, and I would like to have a written explanation.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm wondering, Mrs. Catterall, if that isn't implicit in the first motion. I'm listening carefully.

Ms Catterall: No. He's asked Ms Davidson to be invited to the committee to brief us -

The Chairman: On privilege and contempt.

Ms Catterall: I think the steering committee concluded by consensus that we also needed some briefing notes in advance of that meeting.

The Chairman: I don't know if a motion is necessarily in order on that. I think we would presume that she would provide some information in advance.

Ms Catterall: Okay.

The Chairman: I don't think we need a motion on that.

Ms Catterall: The next motion is that Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob be invited to appear as witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: We bloody well do object to that. Mr. Chairman, why don't we decide today on our order of reference? Why do you want to question witnesses before we even know what our parameters are? How are we going to decide? If our position is that we are going to allow questions that are directly related to the communiqué, then move the motion and let's vote today! We would be opposed, but would know what to expect. As it is, you are trying to do indirectly what you do not want to do directly, because if the media were here, they could interpret this in several ways. You want to get around this, as you usually do in this committee.

But this time, the debate is not in camera, and everyone will know how you are acting and how you are treating us. So tell us clearly what the order of reference is, and then we will talk about witnesses, Mr. Chairman. Right now, you are putting the cart before the horse.

[English]

Ms Catterall: I have a point of order. I presented the motion and Mr. Bellehumeur chose, as he's done several times this morning, to interrupt before I had the opportunity to even -

The Chairman: Speak to the motion.

Ms Catterall: - explain why I was presenting the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: We know, we know.

[English]

Ms Catterall: We have an order from the House. It clearly relates to an issue of privilege. It was brought before the House by Mr. Hart. It relates to the actions of Mr. Jacob. I think it's very clear that this committee has to hear from those two people. I have made it clear in the steering committee and by the order of my motion today that I think it's up to Mr. Hart to come before the committee first to explain what he thinks the issue of privilege is, giving Mr. Jacob the opportunity to say whatever he wants in response - not in reverse.

I think it is insulting, frankly, of Mr. Bellehumeur to assume that this committee is in any way going to try to be unfair to either of those parties. If in fact he finds us being unfair at any time, or finds us going beyond what he thinks the order of the House was - not his view of it, but the wording of the order of the House, which he didn't approve of in the first place, and we understand that - then he is quite entitled to accuse us. But I wish he would not assume that I or any other member of this committee is going to be unfair to any witness before us, or to the issue.

This committee above all has a responsibility to the House, to the integrity of the House, and I personally plan to respect that and to carry out that duty. We have done it in this committee in a non-partisan way up until now and I plan to continue doing that, as do most of my colleagues, I believe. I will not be judged to have done something or to intend to do something that I have no intention of doing and that I will not do.

The Chairman: I think your Irish temper is starting to come out, Mrs. Catterall.

Dr. Pagtakhan.

.1240

Mr. Pagtakhan: Is the intent of the motion, Ms Catterall, to invite the two witnesses, Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hart, our colleagues, even before there is a discussion on the clarifications of the order of reference, following our hearing the first two witnesses?

Ms Catterall: The idea, frankly, is to allow the chair to go ahead and arrange for those two witnesses. If subsequent to hearing from the clerk and legal counsel we want to delay that, we certainly can, or we can take further actions in between. But I'm not anxious to see the work of this committee further delayed.

Mr. Pagtakhan: In other words, you just want to ensure that the process of invitations can in effect give notice, but the intervening steps are still subject to the deliberations of this committee.

Ms Catterall: Exactly.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I think I understand what your motion is.

I think that clarification, though, colleagues, is very important. Ms Catterall is reminding us that if, after hearing from the legal counsel and the Clerk of the House, there are refinements that ought to occur with respect to the questioning of the witnesses Jacob and Hart, who would be invited as well to appear, we may in fact choose to seek a delay to allow for an appropriate clarification.

Mr. Langlois, do you wish to speak on this motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Yes, with your permission.

[English]

The Chairman: As long as it's relevant and directly related to the motion. I'm going to start to be a little stricter now.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I have no doubt, as usual.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm not talking about Oliver Cromwell.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Ms Catterall's motion is premature. It is absolutely premature, but perhapsMs Catterall is thinking ahead, and she only wants Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson to be token witnesses. Ms Catterall is already at the trial stage, whereas we are at the preliminary investigation. We will not call witnesses for a trial...

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Langlois, but this is not a trial. I think it's very important that you refrain from using language that implies that this is somehow a trial. It isn't a trial. It is not a commission. It is a simple matter of privilege. I resent and regret any member of this House who uses the word "trial''. It isn't a trial.

I do not believe you or any member of your party, or any member of this House, should be trying to have somebody in the media, or some other member of the public, believe it is anything other than a determination of privilege.

Thank you. I have a temper too.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, during debates in the House, overall Parliament has been quoted as being the highest court in the land. If the highest court doesn't judge, then what does it do? The highest court in Canada is supposed to be the House of Commons, Parliament. And now that we are considering an order of reference, we have become a special little investigating commission. This isn't the Krever commission. Mr. Jacob has been accused, and I raise it because he is a sovereignist French Canadian.

We saw what happened with the vote earlier on. Three members of the Bloc Québécois, three French Canadians, were voted against. We think it is obvious that there is nothing to consider, even though the committee has decided otherwise. This is looking like the Star Chamber in the United Kingdom.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Langlois. If you have comments that are directly related to this motion, I will entertain them.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I will try to be more concise, Mr. Chairman. I'm saying that we know what will happen. Let us listen then to Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson. The committee has decided, so we will hear them with pleasure. It will probably be interesting to hear them speak on the history of privilege, but why do you want to call two witnesses specifically? Are you trying to go back to the time of important witnesses at coroner's investigations, Mr. Chairman?

Two people are being targeted, Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hart. Why is that being done now? The motion refers specifically to a communiqué. The order of reference does not mention Mr. Hart nor Mr. Jacob. This is absolutely premature.

After having heard Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson, if we feel it is appropriate, we will then consider witnesses. They are being called when they are not needed. I'll come back to what I was saying about Ms Catterall's motion. We do not need to hear Mr. Marleau and Ms Davidson because some people, probably the majority of members of this committee, are already beyond the Marleau and Davidson stage and would like to have a trial.

.1245

[English]

The Chairman: On the motion, Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the person who moved the motion what the urgency is in calling two other witnesses. Why would it not be appropriate to do this after hearing the first two witnesses, who we do not think are useful anyway? I hope, however, that you will deem it useful to ask these first two witnesses to come, given that you have insisted on it so strongly.

Mr. Chairman, what if we felt, after having heard the first two witnesses, that it was no longer appropriate to call other witnesses? What would happen? We would need a resolution to overturn the first resolution that said that we were going to hear two witnesses, Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob. The fact that they are being summoned today means that conclusions have already been drawn regarding the testimony of the first two witnesses, and that it has already been concluded that whatever the information provided by the first two witnesses, two other witnesses will be necessary.

Therefore, I would like someone to explain to me what the urgency is in doing it now. We could quite easily do it after having heard the first two witnesses, and say: "Mr. Chairman, now that we have all the information, that we have heard Ms Davidson and Mr. Marleau, we know that it would be appropriate to hear these two witnesses and, only these two witnesses, in the next stage". For now, I think it is premature and I want to have an explanation about this way of proceeding.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, with the greatest of respect, you can't suck and blow at the same time. On the one hand, you say you don't want to hear Marleau and Davidson. Now you're saying, well, if we're going to hear Marleau and Davidson, then we don't want to hear Jacob and Hart.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, that is not what I said. When I use those words, I am referring to your own reasoning. I am saying that we do not believe the first two witnesses are necessary and the other two even less. I am saying that if you believe the first two witnesses are important, you must be logical in your reasoning. You can hear these first two witnesses if you like, even though it is against our will, but hear them properly. Listen to what they tell you, and then draw conclusions on the necessity to call a third and a fourth witness. I'm not referring to my reasoning, Mr. Chairman, but rather to yours. I am saying that if you do not want to understand, it is because you have already drawn your conclusions, and you have already decided what will happen to Mr. Jacob.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Laurin. Perhaps you would want to consult withMr. Bellehumeur, who has been attending the steering committee meetings where there was a consensus on Davidson, Marleau, Hart, and Jacob.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: A point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. We did in fact agree on the names but we can hear them only once we have established an order of reference. Then it will be time for us to invite them to be heard on the order of reference we have adopted. You are mixing up the two.

[English]

The Chairman: This is not a question of privilege.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I'm going to vote against the in-camera meeting the next time. We want this to be open and above board because they're misinterpreting things and coming out with all sorts of remarks. I have nothing to hide and what I say here I also said in camera. The next time it won't take place in camera.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, there is a motion that Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob be invited to appear before this committee. Ms Catterall has put the motion.

I assume you'll want a recorded vote, Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes, sir.

.1250

[English]

Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3

[Translation]

The Chairman: The next, please.

[English]

Ms Catterall: You still have another notice of motion from me, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

An hon. member: I too, have another motion.

[English]

The Chairman: We will hear from Ms Catterall first.

Ms Catterall: He already has a notice of motion from me.

The Chairman: I'll hear from you next, don't worry. There's lots of time.

Ms Catterall: I move that an expert in parliamentary privilege be retained to assist the committee at a rate of $550 per day for a maximum of 10 days, which the committee may wish to extend.

I'd like to point out that the steering committee discussed the possibility of engaging the services of Monsieur Maingot, a recognized expert on the issues of parliamentary clerk privilege and contempt, to assist the committee. The discussion was that it should not be a wide open contract, that it should be for a maximum of 10 days, but it could be less than that. The $550 per day is less than the committee is authorized to pay such assistants to the committee in its work, but we feel it is an adequate amount. While it certainly might be for less than 10 days, if it is to be more than 10 days it has to come back before the committee for an extension.

The Chairman: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Is there a seconder for that motion?

Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): I second the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I'd like the floor, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: As you said yourself, we are not a commission of inquiry or a forum or a court. We are not carrying out a preliminary investigation nor are we putting anyone on trial. But here we are in the process of setting up an elaborate structure that will be expensive because we may be sitting for 10 days or more. Besides, what exactly is he an expert in, Mr. Chairman? We don't yet know where we're heading. I'm wondering what your problem is this morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. You are absolutely determined to commit funds and to hire people when we can't even agree on the order of reference.

If there were some agreement on the order of reference, we would have a better idea of what our parameters are and we might perhaps agree to invite Mr. Maingot or someone else, and even the other people you want to summon. Mr. Chairman, I'd like an answer. Why do you not want us to draft an order of reference this morning with clear parameters and let the matter be put to a vote if there's no agreement?

[English]

The Chairman: Have you given us an order of reference, Mr. Bellehumeur? You've had six and a half hours in the steering committee, and I'm not going to get into all the details of the steering committee, but have you provided us with an order of reference? Have you proposed a motion on an order of reference -

Mr. Bellehumeur: The question....

[Translation]

Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I'll propose you one.

[English]

The Chairman: After eight hours it would be welcome, more than welcome, to receive an order of reference.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I did so in the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, Mr. Chairman, but you only remember the things you want to remember. You interpret my comments as you chose to interpret them. That is why I promise you there won't be any more meetings in camera.

[English]

The Chairman: Michel, I don't know why you want to become combative. I think what we are trying to do is protect the integrity of the House. Look, frankly -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Why am I so combative? Harmful accusations are made against one of my colleagues, there will be all sorts of time and energy spent by everyone involved and we are in the process of committing public funds to hire experts to look into something that everyone recognizes is a lot of rubbish. Yes, the Speaker did hand down a decision but you said yourself, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps that was not the right decision.

We are not challenging the decision but there's no point in going to such length as to committing the sums of money and the amount of time suggested here. Judging from the progress we've made so far, Mr. Chairman, we want to finish by the month of June. One expert may be contradicted by another expert, and one witness by another witness. We'll be bringing generals back from halfway around the world because Jean-Marc Jacob may have talked to them six months ago. This is turning into a hell of a mess, Mr. Chairman. It's time to put a stop to it!

.1255

Let's start at the beginning. The first thing is to adopt a clear order of reference with specific parameters so that we know where we're going. No more of this improvising! You want to hireMr. Maingot... Who will be next? A judge from the Supreme Court of Canada? You've just told us how we are supposed to interpret the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but we're talking about the freedom of the expression and opinion recognized in the Canadian Charter. And right now we're attempting to put it all on trial.

Don't try and tell me it's not a trial. Why else would we be hiring specialists and summoning witnesses. Will they be testifying under oath? Will they be accompanied by counsel or not? What role will legal counsel be allowed to play? Will they be able to whisper things in the ears of witnesses? Will they be placed next to them? You may claim it's not a commission of inquiry but it's certainly proceeding in that way. Maybe you don't have the mandate but the result will end up being the same.

You may think it's funny, Mr. Chairman, but you won't be laughing for long.

[English]

The Chairman: I am laughing at the theatrics because frankly this is a rather mundane, arcane subject of privilege. That's why we went to Joseph Maingot, the guy who wrote the book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada. That's why we bring in Mr. Marleau, the Clerk of the House -

Ms Catterall: Vote, please.

The Chairman: Thank you. Sorry, I was about to launch into one of my own tirades.

Are you ready for the question? The question is that Mr. Maingot be engaged as a research expert available to the call of the chair for up to 10 days at $550 per day to a maximum of 10 days. Are you ready for the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: No. We are taking for granted that...

[English]

The Chairman: No, no, hold on. We've already spoken on the question and we're voting. We've called for a vote. There's a vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Who asked for a vote?

[English]

The Chairman: I thought Mrs. Catterall asked for the vote.

An hon. member: She did.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I'd like to have a look at the blues because I think I am entitled to speak to the motion.

[English]

An hon. member: He didn't hear you call....

The Chairman: I didn't hear. I'm sorry, did you say...?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I'd like to have a look at the blues, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we could adjourn and then determine whether I am entitled to speak. I maintain that the vote was not requested. I'm entitled to speak to the question.

[English]

The Chairman: Look, fine -

[Translation]

Ms Catterall: I interrupted the Chair...

[English]

The Chairman: She interrupted me to ask for the vote. I don't think -

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Yes, she was able to prevent you from speaking, Mr. Chairman. What can we expect with Mr. Jacob?

[English]

The Chairman: Calm down. If you want to speak on the motion, speak on the motion. But calm down, okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: That bodes well for the future.

I would simply move that we take away from Mrs. Catterall's motion all reference to the remuneration of the witness. Mr. Maingot is undoubtedly a great expert but I move that he be granted the remuneration normally given a witness.

[English]

The Chairman: The information on the cost was in fact provided to me by the clerk. I am going by the direction the clerk has given me on the subject.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: I believe there's a misunderstanding. Mr. Maingot will be hired as an expert witness. He will not be invited as a witness.

Mr. Langlois: Have I missed a part of the question as well? What is Mr. Robertson doing here, he's paid with our taxes and underpaid as a matter of fact for the work he is doing? We can certainly ask him to do a good part of the work before we have Mr. Maingot come. Mr. Robertson has been writing reports and has been with the committee on privileges and elections for a long time. For how many years, Mr. Robertson?

Six years! Six years and he is being shunted aside! I find that insulting, Mr. Chairman. In my view, Mr. Robertson will stand us in good stead.

[English]

The Chairman: The interpreter is getting too excited. Calm down. We need every -

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Is Mr. Maingot the only one who's written anything on this? Mr. Robertson, you've been with the Committee on privileges and elections for six or seven years. I'm sure you must have heard of questions of privilege. He will do us very well. We have full-time staff paid with our taxes and we decide to go for someone else? If we need Mr. Maingot, let us start by reading what he has to say and then we can determine whether his presence is necessary. Why not call inDr. McWhinney, our colleague from Vancouver Quadra? It will be free of charge.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Langlois, if you listen carefully to the motion, the motion is to put before the committee the opportunity to have the expertise available.

.1300

Frankly, if it's as you have suggested, a routine matter and there's no big deal, then it may all be for nought. In fact, all this argument may not even need to occur, because if we have some grey hair and expertise at the table, then some of the questions may get answered very quickly. I frankly don't know why you would oppose the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: You're supporting my point of view, Mr. Chairman. Let's start at the beginning and adopt a clear order of reference with specific parameters so we know where we're heading. Maybe we won't need Mr. Maingot. Our researcher may well be up to the task. But for some reason you refuse to adopt an order of reference! I wonder about the directives you were given!

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any other debate on the question?

Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, a short intervention. I hope you assure the committee that the hiring will be to the call of the chair.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Pagtakhan: I think it is very important to underscore that. I think we have to show again, as a friendly suggestion to my colleagues from the Bloc, that the committee at any time and at any point can again bring the issue to the committee if it wishes. Privilege always rests with the members of this committee, until such point as we really have the imminent threat of an injudicious judgment on the part of the committee chair.

I have no reason to believe that the chair will not exercise judicious judgment. I think we can do that, and if it is found during the course of the witnesses that there will be no need to proceed with that, then intervention can again be made in this committee. It is not carved in stone.

I would just like to say that we should show an element of trust in our chair, at this point anyway.

The Chairman: Ms Catterall has called for the question. I have allowed one more intervention because of Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: But I didn't get my turn!

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, just listen. Are you ready for the question? I assume you want a recorded vote on this one.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Of course.

The Clerk: Mrs. Catterall.

Mr. Langlois: But what motion are we voting on? I tabled an amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Did he?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Yes. I moved an amendment to delete reference to Mr. Maingot's remuneration.

[English]

An hon. member: No problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: It's not your mistake but hers.

Mr. Bellehumeur: No, it's the Chair's mistake, not the Clerk's.

[English]

The Chairman: I apologize. Please forgive me. I missed your amendment. We're all human.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: So much for the amendment. I think it would be much better to present a candidate which a chance of beating Mr. Jacob rather than bringing him to trial here because it's a political trial. Ask the people of Charlesbourg whether they want to keep him as their member of Parliament at the next election. But let's put an end to this farce!

[English]

The Chairman: Come on, François, calm down and try to stick to the issues instead of creating a political forum for yourself.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Not for myself, I don't need it.

[English]

The Chairman: This is a privileges committee, and as the chairman I intend to enforce the privileges of this committee.

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, would you read the amendment, please?

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Langlois, would you please repeat your amendment?

[English]

The Chairman: Your amendment, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: It must be in the blues.

[English]

The Chairman: I also understand that this room has been reserved.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: We should postpone the vote until the next time because it's already one o'clock and we have a question period that we cannot postpone. It isn't my fault if it lasted so long. We'll vote the next time. Let's adjourn now.

[English]

The Chairman: No, there's an amendment on the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: We can't postpone the question period.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: We have to prepare for question period.

[English]

The Chairman: Order. There is an amendment on the floor. It is your amendment. Do you want to withdraw the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: We can get back to it next week or the following week, the week of the 15th.

[English]

The Chairman: No, the question was called. There is an amendment. Procedurally, colleagues, I would suggest that the amendment of Mr. Langlois be voted on, and then we'll vote on the main motion and then we'll adjourn. I'm sorry, Mr. Duceppe -

[Translation]

Some hon. members: We've got work to do.

Mr. Bellehumeur: It's 1:05, Mr. Chairman!

.1305

[English]

The Chairman: Order. We will put the question. There is an amendment on the floor - Mr. Langlois' amendment.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the clerk read the amendment.

The Chairman: The amendment is...what?

Order, colleagues, please.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Langlois moves an amendment to Mrs. Catterall's motion relating to the hiring by the committee of Mr. Maingot's services as an expert witness at a rate of $550 a day for a maximum of 10 days. Mr. Langlois' amendment seeks to delete all reference to the remuneration to be paid to Mr. Maingot.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you want to speak on the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Yes.

Mr. Bellehumeur: A point of order. We can start this again next week. Adjourn now,Mr. Chairman. We'll start it up again on the week of the 15th. There all sorts of people around the table. This room was reserved until 1:00 p. m.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur, with the greatest respect, your colleague wishes to speak on the amendment. He has the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: He moves the adjournment.

[English]

The Chairman: I recognized Mr. Laurin. Mr. Laurin has the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: It's a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: If he wishes to say that, then let him say it.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, if you are ready to adjourn, then I am willing to wait until the next time to have my say.

Mr. Bellehumeur: Can I have the floor now?

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me. There's a motion to adjourn. It's not a debatable motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: None of them affected Mrs. Catterall.

Mr. Langlois: Women are strong.

Mr. Bellehumeur: These are new people and we'll be continuing the debate with people who haven't even heard what was said. Adjourn.

[English]

The Chairman: There's a motion to adjourn. Are you ready to vote?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I had the floor.

[English]

The Chairman: Order. There's a motion to adjourn and I'm prepared to entertain the motion. It's not a debatable motion. Okay? You're arguing about your own motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: On point of order, Mr. Chairman. I can't understand how you have a motion for adjournment on the table because I did not move one and I was the one who had the floor.

Mr. Bellehumeur: I did. I made the motion on a question of privilege.

[English]

The Chairman: There is a motion to adjourn. Are you ready to vote on the motion for adjournment?

Mr. Ringma: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: A question, yes, on the motion.

Mr. Ringma: I thought we had an amendment and a main motion on the floor before us.

The Chairman: But there is a legal, superseding motion. A motion to adjourn supersedes those motions.

Motion agreed to

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chairman, there's confusion about the vote. May I ask that there be a clear "all those in favour, all those against''.

The Chairman: All those in favour of the motion to adjourn?

Ms Catterall, the clerk advises me that we have adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page