EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 25, 1996

.1125

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

Good morning, colleagues. I apologize for the obvious delay, but we had votes in the House of Commons to attend to.

I would like to begin this meeting with a matter left outstanding at the end of our previous meeting. Near the end of our meeting on Tuesday, Mr. Hart referred to a note he had received from the Speaker of the House. Mr. Bellehumeur then requested Mr. Hart to table the note with the committee.

Mr. Hart initially indicated he had no objection to providing the note, but Mr. Speaker, the colleague from the Reform Party, raised as a point of order that the note was a private communication between the Speaker and the recipient of the note, and that the Speaker's approval would have to be obtained.

I took the matter under advisement and undertook to you, colleagues, that I would report back to the committee today. Any member of the committee can request that a witness table a document with the committee. It is up to the witness to decide whether or not to comply with such a request. The witness may wish to consult before making such a decision.

If the witness voluntarily provides the document, that is the end of the matter. If, however, the witness decides not to provide it, then a motion can be proposed whereby the committee would order the production of the document. Disobedience of an order of the committee could then, of course, be reported to the House, which would then decide what action, if any, should be taken. Under Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee has the power to send for persons, papers and records.

Colleagues, as you know, according to the sixth edition of Beauchesne, citation 848 provides that:

(1) Committees may send for any papers that are relevant to their Orders of Reference. Within this restriction, it appears that the power of the committee to send for papers is unlimited.

(2) The procedure for obtaining papers is for the committee to adopt a motion ordering the required person or organization to produce them. If this Order is not complied with, the committee may report the matter to the House, stating their difficulties in obtaining the requested documents. It is then for the House to decide what action is to be be taken.

(3) It cannot, however, be said that this requirement is absolute either in the case of government departments or of public or private bodies, since there are no instances recorded in which obedience to an Order for papers has been insisted on.

A question of privilege in 1991 led to a report by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in which the right of parliamentary committees to demand production of documents was strongly endorsed. Therefore, in deciding whether to adopt a motion for production, members of the committee will undoubtedly wish to consider the importance and the relevance of the document, whether it was intended as a private communication, and other such factors.

So before I invite colleagues to comment on my statement, I would look to you, Mr. Hart, to see if you wish to produce the communication in view of what I've said.

Mr. Jim Hart, MP (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt): I have no problem with producing the communication.

The Chairman: Great. Maybe I should have asked you before I read my decision. Anyway, it's good for all of us to know the parameters and the scope under which I'm guiding myself as your chair.

Mr. Ringma, would you like to speak on this particular point of order?

Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): It's not on this point, but I think it is of interest generally.

Could we just go over what we hope to achieve today just so that we have the parameters, and reiterate why are we having Mr. Hart back here? I presume it's to allow those who didn't get their questions answered last time to get them answered, and presumably to also respond to requests made here at our last session.

.1130

The Chairman: Colleagues, as I understand it, several of you had other questions that arose out of Mr. Hart's testimony. As a consequence of the testimony he gave, there were a number of other questions and interventions that the chair had recognized on a list. As a consequence of that, as your chair, we agreed to postpone Mr. Jacob's attendance until next Thursday. Is that correct, Madam Clerk?

The clerk checked Mr. Jacob's schedule and that's the date selected for Mr. Jacob to appear. As I understand it, today's meeting is to continue with Mr. Hart's testimony or interventions that he wishes to put forward, and/or other interventions pursuant to things Mr. Hart raised in last week's meeting.

Mr. Ringma: In effect this is to clean up the last meeting, to clean up odds and ends.

The Chairman: Yes, clean up is a good.... If that's the word you wish to use, the chair isn't going to comment on that.

Madam Clerk, you can remind me if I'm correct. We left Mr. Godfrey and -

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, there were some questions raised and people had asked me for some particular things, so I would like to offer those to the committee.

The Chairman: That's great. I'll hear from you in one moment.

We'll begin with Mr. Bellehumeur, but before we do, Mr. Hart, I understand that you wish to add some clarification to certain questions that were put to you at the last meeting.

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, some questions were raised. Although I know that I am here to testify as a witness, I hope I won't be asked to provide all the research for the members of the committee.I hope this committee will take it upon themselves to call the witnesses required to get to the bottom of this matter. But there were a couple of questions raised.

I would like to first direct you to the questions Dr. Pagtakhan raised regarding how it would affect people in the Canadian Armed Forces. I have a media report with me that I would like to table with the committee for its review. It's regarding several statements by retired Major-General MacKenzie. One of his comments is, and I quote:

If I was commanding the army when that communiqué came out I wouldn't do anything with it other than get a hard copy, get in a plane, parade myself into the minister's office and say this is well beyond the military's capability to deal with. This is a serious national issue. We are talking about inciting mutiny, for God's sake.

I feel that Major-General MacKenzie is an esteemed former member of the Canadian Armed Forces who holds the rank of general, and he has a number of issues that would be relevant to this committee. So I will table this with the clerk of the committee for the committee's thoughts and review.

The second area Dr. Pagtakhan brought up related again to the issue of how members of the Canadian Armed Forces would deal with receiving this communiqué. I would like to read from a manual of the Canadian Armed Forces on discipline. In particular, it relates to the area of morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. It says that when morale is low.... And I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that morale was probably very low during the referendum and when they were in receipt of this communiqué:

When the morale is low, duty becomes irksome; they have a sense of compulsion, and they put forth only a minimum effort. In a well-disciplined group, people accept necessary burdens and privations without undue loss of morale; in an undisciplined group, they will be selfish, they will complain, and they will disagree with each other. Panic, which creates confusion and chaos, can best be prevented and overcome by the exercise of discipline of the highest order.

.1135

This is important, because in my testimony I believe I was stating quite clearly that the Canadian Armed Forces doesn't have in place policies, rules and regulations regarding a communiqué of this nature. So I would also offer this, a section of a manual from a publication called The Officer:A Training Manual for Discipline.

Also, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Boudria in his questioning said, and I quote:

So according to your knowledge it wasn't distributed in the press gallery, but you say it was distributed on military bases. Could you identify some of them, please?

I would direct the committee to a media report of November 11, 1995, in The Toronto Star, where Major-General Roméo Dallaire, commander of land forces in Quebec, confirmed that the Bloc release reached his office. Another officer goes on to say that he confirmed the release made its way down through the ranks of military bases. So I would submit this for the committee's review.

On the same subject, Mr. Boudria was asking where the communiqué went. At that time I said Canadian Forces Base Valcartier. I was correct in that. We did some more research. We found another media report in The Toronto Star dated Wednesday, March 13, 1996, that says on October 26, 1995, the release issued by Mr. Jacob was faxed to all military installations in Quebec. So I would submit that.

Mrs. Catterall raised a point on the separation of the powers of government. She said, andI quote:

I would like to ask the honourable member where he got his advice or information that Parliament directs the armed forces. As far as I know, it's the government that directs the armed forces.

Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the whole concept of responsible government is that there is no separation between the executive branch and the House of Commons.

I will submit this. This is Constitutional Law, volume 1, Peter W. Hogg, Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall, York University, Toronto. Under section 73(1), ``Implications of Constitutional Jurisdiction'' section (a), and I quote:

There is no general ``separation of powers'' in the Constitution Act, 1867. The Act does not separate the legislative, executive and judicial functions and insist that each branch of government exercise only ``its own'' function. As between the legislative and executive branches, any separation of powers would make little sense in a system of responsible government; and it is clearly established that the Act does not call for any such separation.

I would submit this, Mr. Chairman, for the committee to review. I might suggest that if there are further questions on this perhaps Diane Davidson, the chief legal adviser, from whom I received the information, should be called once again.

A good example of that, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we have question period every day. The members of the House have the opportunity to question the executive branch of government. They are part of the House of Commons.

Mr. Milliken raised the point in his questioning that he was unaware of situations at RMC Kingston. I would present as evidence another media report. This is from The Financial Post of March 5, 1996. It states up to half the cadets at Kingston Military College were reported to be packed and ready to return to Quebec to join a new army if a yes vote had succeeded. So I would offer that to the committee as well.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to present one last item. In my testimony I had said there were a number of manuals, regulations and rules in the Canadian Armed Forces dealing with a variety of subjects including employment equity, racism, harassment and a number of other issues. I did bring some examples with me. My point with this was that the Canadian Armed Forces does not have policies or regulations in place to deal with a communiqué asking members of the Canadian Armed Forces to bring into question their oath of allegiance and their commitment to the Canadian government. Therefore, I would submit these for the committee to review as a possible suggestion to the Canadian Armed Forces. One of the actions this committee could suggest is that policies or regulations be put into place in the Canadian Armed Forces. So I would submit those as well.

.1140

The last item is from the National Defence Act. This shows clearly that members of the Canadian Armed Forces live under a separate set of rules - in fact an additional set of laws in Canada - which are the laws under the National Defence Act. It shows quite clearly that the most serious punishment for going against the National Defence Act is death. It supplies a list of things unique to Canadians. It shows that the oath of allegiance is very important to good order and discipline in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Colleagues, Mr. Hart has given us several documents. Is it the wish of the committee to agree to receive those documents?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: It is agreed.

Mr. Bellehumeur, you're first on my list. Before I begin, I understand you were to provide a list of potential witnesses the chair might consider. Did you do that?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): No Mr. Chairman, I haven't submitted my list yet because I wanted to finish with Mr. Hart. I wanted us to hear Mr. Jacob and then at the right time, we would let you know where we stand. We will table our list at that time. However, I can tell you that we have enough to keep us pretty busy and amused with the list that the Reform Party just tabled.

[English]

The Chairman: No, I don't want to get into a discussion on who's on the list. I just want a list.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: We will submit the list next Thursday at 11 a.m., after Mr. Jacob's testimony.

[English]

The Chairman: No. Excuse me, as your chairman I'm trying to put some order to this. I wrote all members on Friday and asked for a draft list. The list is not definitive. The list doesn't mean that everybody on the list is going to be called, because at the end of the day it's your committee, and you, colleagues, will decide by agreement who will or will not be appearing before this committee.

Now, I've asked for a list. If I don't receive a list, I'll presume that you do not have any witnesses to call.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: That's your assumption, Mr. Chairman. The Reform Party has just tabled a list of 16 names. I think we'll have our work cut out for us if we question the people on that list. We will table our list when the time comes. This will be the first time in history that we don't wait for the evidence of those accusing the member before tabling our own list of witnesses. You will find out who they are when the time comes.

I think that right now, we have enough on our plate to hear witnesses and proceed with this matter. Moreover, you will see when the time comes what we will present. I don't have the impression that we'll spend a great deal of time on such a ridiculous matter, following what I've heard from Mr. Hart. If you have time to waste, I don't. You'll see what we intend to present when the time comes.

[English]

The Chairman: Let me intervene for one moment and respond so that I understand the issue.

You're saying, Mr. Bellehumeur, that because Mr. Hart presented and the Reform Party gave us its list of witnesses at that time, you would be prepared after or contemporaneous with Mr. Jacob speaking to give us your list. Is that what you're saying?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Jacob's list will be the same as that of the Bloc québécois.

[English]

The Chairman: Is the request to the chair that you wait for the list?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: We got a list from the Reform Party. I also have a provisional list. But before I let you know who my witnesses are, I would like to know exactly what evidence I've heard.I want to refine this list myself. I don't want to embarrass anyone in the Canadian Armed Forces.I don't want to embarrass politicians.

Mr. Hart just laughed. I wouldn't laugh quite so hard if I were in your place, Mr. Hart. I want to see whether these accusations are truly founded or not.

.1145

Up until now, it's been a goose egg. He's misled the House and I want to hear again...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur, listen, please.

Colleagues, as your chairman I thought I was opening this matter to try to resolve this particular aspect on a procedural basis. I'm going to allow one question or intervention from the Liberal side, and then I'm going to go back to the regular questioning. I apologize. I tried to raise it in the hope that we would have some unanimity.

Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I'm a little bit concerned about what I just heard. I seem to have overheard from Mr. Bellehumeur - I'd like the chair to clarify it for me - that the list of proposed witnesses by the Reform constituted ``their list of witnesses''. I want to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I believe it's up to our steering committee to decide from those proposed people. This is not a court of law where people draw up their own lists. We are going to decide as a committee how many of those suggestions we hear.

I just want the chair to clarify this for us so that members do not leave this room later today thinking there is an automatic list that was proposed and that all those people will be heard and then an automatic parallel list would be brought by the other group.

The Chairman: The government whip is absolutely correct. The memo that I sent was quite specific. It asked to receive some suggestions that could be considered. There is nothing definitive about a list, and I asked for a proposal of some suggestions. I have only received one set of proposals and they are contained in a list I received on Tuesday. All I'm saying to you, colleagues, is that I'm giving you an update as your chair.

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Without any disrespect to you, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if we have a new chair on this committee. You asked us to provide you with a list. We complied with your direction on time. These people decided not to. What's going on here?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: You're the accusers! Why don't you prove what you're saying!

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me. Colleagues, on behalf of the committee, the chair put out a memorandum on Friday, and what happened is the chair asked if you could, on a timely basis -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: [Inaudible - Editor]

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Bellehumeur, we have to have order here.

The chair asked to receive a potential list of witnesses. I am drawing attention to the fact that I've only received one list. I asked the Bloc if they wish to put a list and I will also ask the Liberal Party if there are any lists. At the end of the day, the government whip is quite correct: it will have to go to a meeting of the steering committee or of the whole committee - it will be the committee's decision - and they will hash out who should and shouldn't be on that list.

That's the decision I'm giving you, and the decision I've been guiding myself by. I'm trying not to come up with a surprise for any colleagues.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Chairman, I think it was quite premature of you to send us a note, which I received, asking us to provide a list of witnesses. We have to hear the evidence first. Up until now, Mr. Hart hasn't convinced me of anything. He had to back down on almost all the statements he made in the House on March 12th and the subsequent days.

Why provide you with lists? We will hear Mr. Jacob and then we'll hear the end of the evidence. After that, we shall see.

[English]

The Chairman: Look, I am not trying to cause a federal case over the list. I asked for a list only in trying to help the committee get its work organized. If colleagues don't want to provide a list, fine, don't provide a list. But we're not going to have this committee run by one group or another group. I'm your chairman. If you have confidence in me as your chairman to prepare orderly business, then I'll prepare a schedule of orderly business and rule in an appropriate way on the business that will come to the committee.

Mr. Paradis.

.1150

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis (Brome - Missisquoi): I'd like some clarification here. Are we here for a trial? I'm listening to the discussion and we seem to be hearing the accuser, the defense, the list of witnesses, etc. I don't have the impression that we're in the middle of a trial here. This is not the place to have a trial. Perhaps you can clarify that for me.

I believe we are here to examine the wording of a communiqué that was issued by the member for Charlesbourg. This is not a trial.

Each side is drafting a list of witnesses and so forth. Mr. Chairman, would you be so kind as to clarify this point?

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, I'm going to withdraw the request I put forward to you as your chair on the matter of the list of potential witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I would refer you to Standing Order 122 that says that we can submit a list when we feel it is appropriate. We will give it to you, but at the right time, Mr. Chairman. I have a great deal of respect for the committee and I don't want to mislead it and have you believe that we'll be here until the end of June, when given Mr. Hart's testimony, we may not even need witnesses. That's just what I wanted to point out today, Mr. Chairman.

Pursuant to Standing Order 122, I have the right to proceed this way and I am proceeding this way, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: The clerk of our committee has advised me that the standing order you cited is not directly related to the substance of the issue at hand. So the matter is tabled on the subject matter of the lists. As your chairman I was trying to put forward a consensus on the schedule. We'll now go to Mr. Bellehumeur's questioning of Mr. Hart.

On a point of order, Mr. Ringma.

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to be polite by waiting my turn to be recognized, but I've been upstaged by Mr. Bellehumeur, who is projecting himself and insisting on speaking. I had a point to make and I think it's unfair -

The Chairman: I'm ready to hear it. Go ahead.

Mr. Ringma: That's point number one. I think we should have proper recognition in an orderly fashion.

Point number two was to address what Mr. Langlois said. He said we have to hear the evidence before we can decide on the witnesses. I would submit that the evidence to make this committee decide on the case itself will come from the witnesses.

Witnesses are going to give opinions, and that in itself creates the evidence. I suggest that this committee needs to decide yea or nay, or where we're going with this case.

The Chairman: I appreciate your intervention, and I think it's not inconsistent with what I've heard. I was throwing out the list and I'm sorry I even raised it.

Mr. Bellehumeur, please begin your questioning of Mr. Hart.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Hart, we're going to start from the beginning. On November 21st, 1995, which was, according to your last testimony, and extremely important date for you, it was my understanding that you had received a note from the Speaker during your speech. If I read this note, I understand that you received it at the very end of your speech, is that right?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I believe it was. I can't really recall. I think it was at the end of the speech.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: So at the time, the Speaker in the Chair, Mr. Kilger, cautioned you by saying that you would be well advised to consult experts in this matter. Did you do so?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I didn't take it as a warning. I think he was offering some advice as another parliamentarian and the person in the House who first of all congratulated me on my speech.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: So on November 21, you made an accusation since you invoked section 62 of the Criminal Code which deals with sedition, encouraging rebellion in the army, etc.

[English]

The Chairman: On a point of order.

.1155

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see where this is going. On the business of this communiqué, Mr. Hart, as a result of having to do so, made an accusation in accordance with the Standing Orders. The Speaker heard that and established that there was a prima facie case made. That went to the House of Commons for a debate, and on the 18th of the month 158 members of the House of Commons said this should go to this committee, with 36 voting against it.

Our charge is that the matter of the communiqué of the member for Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995, with reference to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Where is this questioning of Mr. Bellehumeur going? Mr. Hart has complied with the Standing Orders. It has been debated in the House and referred to this committee. Why are we going back to find out about Mr. Hart? He is one member of 295 in the House of Commons. Why are we pursuing him?

The Chairman: Mr. Frazer, I've listened to your intervention on the point of order. I don't think you can.... Unless Mr. Bellehumeur's questions are not related to the communiqué in some way -

Mr. Frazer: Well, how are they related? Explain to me how they can be related.

The Chairman: This point of order, as I understand it, is that this line of questioning is inappropriate or out of order.

Mr. Frazer: Exactly.

The Chairman: So the essence of it is that you feel that because the House ruled that there was this prima facie case, the questioning on the Speaker's note is inappropriate.

Mr. Frazer: If I understand it, we're asking how justified Mr. Hart was in making his case. That's where this is all going. That has been proven. It has been supported by 158 members of the House who said to send it to committee and let them consider it. Why are we pursuing Mr. Hart to see what his -

The Chairman: But as I see it, we're at committee.

Mr. Frazer: Exactly, but why are we pursuing Mr. Hart to see what his thought process is? That doesn't matter. We've been sent this message to do it.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, on that issue.

[English]

The Chairman: This is on the point of order Mr. Frazer has raised.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes. First of all, it's the witness currently before us, Mr. Hart, who has referred to this note from the Speaker to explain the delay, among other things. I think that the delay between the communiqué and the point of privilege is extremely important and is part of our mandate. If he doesn't know where I'm going, he only has to follow me, because I know where I'm going. You will see, Mr. Chairman, that the delays are inexplicable and are the result of bad faith on part of the member who voluntarily mislead the House. That's the evidence I want to present this morning and he will not prevent me from doing so because it's part of our mandate. In this regard, the question now raised by the member is completely unacceptable.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Frazer, on this point of order.

Mr. Frazer: The Speaker has already decreed that the timing is a moot point. Why are we bringing it up again?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Prima facie...

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, colleagues.

Mr. Frazer: He has said this is out of the picture. Now let's get on with the job and get this committee going.

The Chairman: Excuse me. Let's try to stay calm and keep it orderly.

Mr. Langlois, please, on this point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: The Chairman made a decision saying that it was prima facie point of privilege. We are no longer considering it prima facie, we are debating the merits of the matter. Now is the time to introduce evidence. The House recognized that this was a prima facie case of privilege following representations made by Mr. Hart.

We are currently questioning him in accordance with section 78(1) of the Code of procedure to determine whether this is actually the case. He's just inches away from being declared a hostile witness and attempts are being made to prevent us from continuing. Just a moment. We will establish our evidence on merit. Mr. Bellehumeur began very well and I think the best thing to do would be to allow the witness who is currently in the witness box to stay there so that he can answerMr. Bellehumeur's questions on the merit of the issue. The evidence is obviously directly related to the whole matter of the communiqué. But we are examining it on merit.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Frazer, I've already heard from you twice.

Mr. Frazer: It is my point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I understand, but we haven't heard from the government side on the point of order. We've heard from the Reform and we've heard twice now from the Bloc. I'd like to hear from the government side on this point of order.

.1200

Mr. Boudria: Again, Mr. Chairman, we're seeing something that I don't think belongs in this committee. We have questioning that is rather strong, and I'm the first to recognize that. On the other hand, the comment I just heard from Mr. Langlois that Mr. Hart is in the witness box - il est dans la boîte - I don't think that is the way to approach the work of this committee either. It has to come down somewhere in between. The Speaker has established that there was a prima facie case of privilege.

When we voted in the House, we didn't vote as to whether or not there was a definite question of privilege. We voted to refer it to this committee for further study. Once it is in this committee it is up to us to determine whether the charge - I use ``charge'' in the parliamentary sense because it was made on the floor of the House - was valid, and we'll report to the House afterwards.

Perhaps it's incumbent upon all of us to elicit information from a witness before the committee in the parliamentary sense, not in the witness box sense. On the other hand, we should obtain as much information as possible to enable us to decide whether the prima facie case of privilege that was referred to this committee by a vote of the House - again, the House did not vote that the case was valid, it only voted to support the Speaker's decision to refer it - was the appropriate one. So perhaps we need strong questions, but we do not need to approach this in terms of an accuser and an accused for us to do our work properly.

I believe it is relevant to know, particularly when the same person only a short while ago said that his approach to this thing was delayed because of a note from the occupant of the chair, that someone question him on why that note from the chair made him take certain courses of action. It is those courses of action that eventually brought the matter to the attention of the House. Maybe we can all cool it a little bit and try to find the information.

The Chairman: As your chairman I'm going to rule that this line of questioning is appropriate. We are here to get on with the information that has at least been levelled, and I'm ruling that the questioning of Mr. Bellehumeur is appropriate and may continue.

Colleagues, I hope we can avoid becoming embroiled in procedural wrangling and concentrate, at least with Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob, on the substantive issues. I'm trying to guide myself by the rules we've all laid out for ourselves. I do think it is relevant. It is directly related to the communiqué and it's interesting and valuable for the committee to know what formulated Mr. Hart to get to where we are.

The Speaker did rule that there is a prima facie case, but it's up to this committee to make the final decision about whether or not there has been a breach.

Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I only used up 30 seconds. The rest of the time was taken up with comments from all sides. I don't want that time ascribed to me.

Mr. Hart, you didn't answer my question. As of November 21st, and following the Speaker of the House's advice to consult experts, did you consult experts, lawyers, Crown attorneys, anyone you may wish to consult?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, the reference I made in my speech on November 21 was simply to say that Mr. Jacob, the member from Charlesbourg, should reflect on section 62. The topic of the speech was not Mr. Jacob or this particular matter. It was on a different matter and my speech continued on with our topic in the House on that particular day.

I did not take the note as an order from the Speaker. I think the Speaker offered it to me with good intentions, and I wasn't directed to consult. While I was waiting for the government in Canada to take action, and I have made reference to this before, there was a delay because the Minister of National Defence had said that he was shocked, that he was waiting for a report from the judge advocate general, and that he would consult with the justice minister. We were waiting for that. So, no, I wasn't ordered at any time by the Speaker to walk over and consult, and I didn't at that time.

.1205

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: What I understand is that you made accusations on November 21st, despite the Speaker's warning.

[English]

Mr. Hart: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Despite the Speaker's warning, you did not consult any experts. That's what you've just said.

[English]

Mr. Hart: No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman. I'm saying that in one line I raised it in the House of Commons. At that time I did not make an accusation. I suggested that the member for Charlesbourg reflect on section 62 of the Criminal Code. I did not make any accusation, whatsoever. I made a speech and the Speaker of the House, in a private note, congratulated me on an excellent speech.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: On November 21st, you said, and I quote,

It is quite frightening... I urge the honourable member to seriously read section 62 of the Criminal Code and reflect on his actions of a few short weeks ago.

This was on November 21st. You were sitting as a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs with Mr. Jacob who is here today. You were sitting with him on November 28th, 1995, December 5th, 1995, December 6th, 1995, December 12th, 1995 and December 13th, 1995. You were sitting alongside Mr. Jacob that you had just accused pursuant to section 62, although you'd been told to be careful because you were infringing on a member's privileges. You didn't check anything. You sat next to him and moreover, with your prima facie evidence, as you said earlier, on March 12th, 1995...

[English]

Mr. Frazer: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I'd appreciate it if I was allowed to finish, Mr. Chairman. It hurts.

[English]

The Chairman: A point of order.

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to argue with your previous decision. I ask perhaps that you ask our expert, Mr. Maingot, to consider what I'm going to say and advise the committee on his reaction to it.

We know where Mr. Hart stands. He has made his charge in the House of Commons, he has established that there is a prima facie case, and the House has agreed with him and sent it to this committee for consideration. His relationships with Mr. Jacob or with anybody else have no bearing on what's happening here. We, the committee, have the job of considering whether the statement made by Mr. Jacob in the communiqué is offensive to Parliament or not. It does not matter whatMr. Hart says, because he has made his case. He is one member of 295 in the House of Commons, who has established an opinion. The rest of the 295 are now required to conclude whether he's right or whether he's wrong. Let's get on with it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Frazer.

Not to put our colleague on the table, but Mr. Maingot -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: On this point of order, Mr. Chairman, before giving the floor to the expert...

[English]

The Chairman: Just a second, just a second.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: It's a question of delay, and the delay was significant, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Bellehumeur. The clerk is keeping the list for me, and I know, colleagues, that I look out and see somebody....

Michel, I urge you not to just jump in. We're trying to keep a list.

Mr. Milliken, you're next on the list on this point of order.

Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): I want to say that I think it's highly unfair ofMr. Frazer to interrupt the questioning. You've already ruled that the questions thatMr. Bellehumeur is putting to the committee are in order, and I think it's appropriate that we allow the questioning to proceed in an orderly way. This constant interruption is unfair.

It may be that it is irrelevant, but the committee can make that determination after it has heard the evidence.

Mr. Frazer: It could take all week.

Mr. Milliken: It may take a bit of time, but it's better than wasting time on these procedural matters.

Second, the witness himself made allegations in his testimony on Tuesday that the government delayed this matter, that it was a terribly important thing, and that the government was doing nothing. I think Mr. Bellehumeur is making the point that if this was so important -

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, all of this is irrelevant. We have the charge here.

Mr. Milliken: Order.

The Chairman: Excuse me. Order, please.

Mr. Milliken: Mr. Bellehumeur is making the point - and I think he's entitled to make it - that if this was so important, why was something not done by Mr. Hart earlier? His testimony, in my view, is contradictory to what he's saying today.

I can understand why these questions are being asked, and I'd like to hear the answers. The chairman has already ruled. Frankly, the attempt to interrupt is simply disruptive and, in my view, unfair and improper.

I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you rule the questions in order and that we get on with it so we can hear the evidence. We can decide later what's relevant and what's not.

.1210

The Chairman: I'm not totally convinced that this is a new point of order. But as a courtesy to you, Mr. Frazer.... You've asked for a comment from Mr. Maingot. He's indicated he's prepared to give us a brief comment on it, and then we'll go back to Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Joseph Maingot (Committee Consultant): Mr. Chairman, with respect to the issueMr. Frazer raised about, in a sense, the role of the committee, it's true that the Speaker has found a prima facie case. But prima facie means on the face of it. It's up to the committee. Even though it's on the face of it, you in the committee still have to determine whether there really is a question of privilege. So the questions are directed for that purpose.

Mr. Frazer: May I ask you, though, what relevance has this to why Mr. Hart made the decision? The point is that he made the accusation, the House agreed with that and sent it to us. What does Mr. Hart's thought process have to do with this?

Mr. Maingot: It's not my role to answer that question.

Mr. Frazer: No, but that's why I'm asking you if it's relevant, because I don't think it is.

The Chairman: As your chairman, I'm going to rule that Mr. Bellehumeur should be allowed to continue his questioning. On this particular point of order, I'm not satisfied that it's a new point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I hope you're taking my time into account and that you'll give me a little more because of the interruptions.

[English]

The Chairman: I acknowledge that.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Hart, can you confirm that you attended the hearings of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, alongside Mr. Jacob, on November 28th and on December 5, 6, 12 and 13, 1995, as indicated in the minutes, and that these meetings lasted an hour or an hour and a half on average? Is this the case or are there any errors in the minutes?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Could I see the reference to the meetings?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Did you attend sittings of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on November 28th and in the month of December? You must know that without checking the minutes.

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, the point I raised, which was the initial question of Mr. Bellehumeur, on November 21 shows to me, and it is my testimony, that it was on my mind. I was concerned about the issue. I was waiting for the government to take some action. The government said it was going to take some action.

Mr. Bellehumeur: Okay.

Mr. Hart: We have waited. To this date, Canadians have not seen any word from the government.

Mr. Chairman, if I could continue -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: That's not the issue. In November and December, you sat with Mr. Jacob; it's recorded in the minutes. And you didn't think it was important enough to inform the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs of the accusations that you wanted to make against Mr. Jacob. Is that true?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I don't understand what he is getting at here. I sat on the committee. I had work to do on behalf of my constituents.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Well!

[English]

The Chairman: Let the witness answer the question.

Mr. Hart: I had work to do as the defence critic for the Reform Party of Canada. It was not on the schedule to talk about Mr. Jacob, the member from Charlesbourg. No, it wasn't. No, I didn't raise it with the committee at that time. I was waiting for the government to take some action.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Allow me to refresh your memory concerning March 12, 1996, 134 days after the communiqué of October 26, in order to demonstrate that you had a prima facie case. In speaking of Mr. Jacob and the Honourable Leader of the Opposition at the time, Mr. Lucien Bouchard, you said:

...I must question the prudence of providing these minds with the information contained in special briefings on the Canadian Armed Forces which are given to members of Canada's Standing Committee on National Defence.

If you were questioning the prudence of this on March 12th, why didn't you raise this important manner during the five or six meetings in November and December, when you were sitting alongside Mr. Jacob?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, the matter was a very important issue. The matter was on my mind. It was on the minds of many Canadians, including Mr. Boudria, the government whip, who was quoted in the paper as saying that it was a very serious matter and bordered on mutiny.

.1215

There were other comments from the defence minister and the media. They were also quoted as saying how shocking it was and how urgent it was.

As a member of the third party of the House of Commons, I didn't feel at that time that I was the person who should be taking the action. I was hoping that the Government of Canada, on behalf of the people of Canada, would address this very serious issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I understand that you didn't bother because you didn't deem it important enough at the time. And yet, Mr. Hart, when something is urgent, a national emergency as you are saying now, when you accuse someone of sedition as you did on March 12th, you don't wait for the government. You take matters in your own hands as you did March 12th. Why did you wait until March 12th?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I was waiting for the government. I was waiting for the government to act.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Or you were waiting for the bi-elections of March 25th.

[English]

Mr. Hart: That's ridiculous.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Another question, Mr. Hart. Did you read the Quebec Referendum question?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, could you explain what that has to with the question?

The Chairman: It's his time. He's asking the questions. I'm here to guide whether or not it's appropriate.

Mr. Hart: All Canadians were aware of the referendum question.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Did you read it?

Mr. Hart: Yes.

Mr. Bellehumeur: I'm going to read it to you because I don't think you understood it.

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

Is this the same question you read?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, I'm not an expert witness on such things as the referendum question or the referendum or Bill 1 or any of these things. I cannot answer questions on that, and I don't see why I have to. It's not relevant to what we're dealing with.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Did you take...

[English]

Mr. Ringma: I have to put in a point of order of my own.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Please stop clocking me, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Ringma: I've been very patient about all this, Mr. Chairman, but the point of order is this. The presentation being given in the guise of a question to this witness is totally out of order. Bringing up such things as the by-election and the wording of the referendum question on October 30 is simply a guise on the part of the Bloc to put things before this committee. They should choose another medium to put that before, rather than trying to use this witness to say what the question was on October 30. It's totally irrelevant to this witness at this time. It may be relevant later. Let the Bloc, by all means, bring in another witness and question that witness about it.

The Chairman: I would ask committee members for some guidance here, but at the risk of opening it up to a freer democracy in terms of this committee....

Mr. Ringma, I think the committee, if it ever gets to making a report, will determine the relevance or irrelevance of certain questions that may be asked.

I don't want to jump to a conclusion as to where I think you are going, Mr. Bellehumeur, but I'd presume that you're headed towards dealing specifically as it relates to the communiqué. Otherwise I think you would agree with me that it is starting to get beyond the realm of where you'd agree with Mr. Ringma.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: If he gave me the chance to finish, I would come to the communiqué.It won't take long. May I continue?

[English]

The Chairman: Unless someone has an intervention on this point of order, I'm going to rule, Mr. Ringma, that we'll at least hear Mr. Bellehumeur finish the few questions. If Mr. Hart doesn't want to answer them or finds them irrelevant or moot, the committee will decide that when they consider the evidence.

Please proceed with your questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: That was the Referendum question. If you had read it, you would have seen that it referred to the act respecting the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995. Before making your accusations, did you read the Act respecting the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I can't recall.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: You don't remember. Don't you remember whether you read the bill on the future of Quebec? Have you ever read it?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I've skimmed through it, I believe.

.1220

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: In glancing at the bill, did you not find a direct reference to the Quebec army or defense forces, under section 17 on the Act respecting the future of Quebec? Don't you remember that?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Could you read it to me?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Didn't you read the following:

17. The government shall take the necessary steps to ensure the continuing participation of Quebec in the defense alliances of which Canada is a member. Such participation must, however, be compatible with Quebec's desire to give priority to the maintenance of world peace under the leadership of the United Nations Organization.

Didn't you happen to glance at that section?

[English]

Mr. Hart: It seems to me that, at the time, I thought it was unconstitutional. I don't believe there is any province in Canada that has the ability to make that decision.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: When? When did you say that?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I really can't recall. I don't know. I don't think.... You see, the communiqué said ``immediately after a yes''.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Hart, in the agreement signed on June 12, which the referendum question also mentions, it says, and I quote, because I'm sure that you did not read it:

As a priority, the treaty will ensure that the partnership has the authority to act in the following areas:

And a little further it says:

Defense policy...

Had you read this, Mr. Hart, before making accusations against Mr. Jacob?

[English]

Mr. Hart: My testimony is that I believe it was read, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: You had read it.

[English]

Mr. Hart: I don't know exactly when.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: In your opinion, do you truly believe that the communiqué should have been interpreted in the context of everything that was happening regarding the referendum, the bill, the referendum question and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

Do you believe that the communiqué should have been read in the context of these documents?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, my responsibility as a parliamentarian and a representative of the people who elected me in Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt is to listen to my constituents and the people's concerns across the country and raise those issues.

Mr. Chairman, it's quite clear in my motion in the House of Commons that I said it was in the opinion of the House. I still am asking in the opinion of the House.

In my opinion, yes, it was offensive. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, yes, it flirted with the Criminal Code. It came very close to being seditious. That is the opinion of many Canadians across the country.

So I don't see where we're going with this. I'm more than happy to help the committee any way I can, but I think if you want to get into constitutional law, I can tell you that I'm an ordinary Canadian, not a constitutional lawyer, and I can't answer those questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: In your opinion, Mr. Hart, do you think that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Quebec members mentioned in the communiqué, not only the francophones as you stated at the time, but the members from Quebec, full fledged citizens who have the right to vote, the right to express themselves during a referendum and an election, who read the referendum question...

Do you believe that a reasonable person, a full fledged citizen, who took the time to read the act respecting the future of Quebec, the agreement signed on June 12, 1995 and the communiqué, would accuse Mr. Jacob of sedition, would accuse him of not having carried out his parliamentary duty?Do you think a reasonable person would make such accusations?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hart, would you please answer the questions if you wish or respond in any way that you wish to answer?

Mr. Hart: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say again that reasonable people across Canada did do all of the things that Mr. Bellehumeur has suggested.

Take the Canadian Armed Forces personnel. It would be very interesting, I suppose, to find out if all of them did read Bill 1, the question and the communiqué, and in what context they took it.My concern is that maybe they didn't. And what did the communiqué mean to those people?

.1225

If a Canadian Armed Forces member who is also a separatist received the communiqué, he or she would have to compare that communiqué with the oath of allegiance sworn to their country. This is the testimony I've been giving.

A non-separatist Canadian Armed Forces member would probably immediately dismiss the communiqué. Yet at the same time, a non-separatist member would probably question the dignity of the House. It has delivered two diametrically opposed messages, one message where they swore their oath of allegiance under the National Defence Act of Canada, the other on the letterhead of the official opposition, coming from the House of Commons - albeit unauthorized, but from the House of Commons. This is the evidence I've been giving.

Now, the separatists in the Canadian Armed Forces are vulnerable - and I repeat, vulnerable - to receiving that communiqué. That is my concern. That's why I raise the issue, and that's why I raise the issue on behalf of millions of Canadians across this country.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hart. Mr. Frazer, please.

Mr. Frazer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to bring it to the attention of the committee that in regard to Mr. Bellehumeur's questions, he asked if Mr. Hart had read the referendum question and the bill surrounding it. I guess I wonder whether every member of the armed forces had read it and therefore were as familiar with it as he thinks they should have been.

I would like to ask Mr. Hart to respond to some quotes. My first quote is from Mr. Collenette, the Minister of National Defence, who said in The Toronto Sun on November 4:

I'm shocked by the communiqué. And I'm seeking an opinion on the propriety of this release.

Were you aware of that, Mr. Hart?

Mr. Hart: Yes, I was.

Mr. Frazer: The minister went on to say in The Toronto Sun of November 8:

It's a matter that has to be looked into seriously. We just can't have members of parliament...saying those things.

Would you agree with that, Mr. Hart?

Mr. Hart: Yes, I would.

Mr. Frazer: Then, from The Toronto Star of November 11, 1995, comes:

There are certain things that you do and don't do in public life.

Would you agree with that, Mr. Hart?

Mr. Hart: Yes, I would.

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Boudria said in The Toronto Sun on November 4:

According to their own leader, the day after a Yes vote, they would still have been part of Canada. To start integrating the armed forces that are in Quebec is a dangerous thing to say. It's dangerously close to inciting mutiny.

Would you agree with that, Mr. Hart?

Mr. Hart: Yes, I would.

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Boudria went on to say in The Toronto Sun on November 4 that:

Such a communiqué was irresponsible and inaccurate. It's highly inappropriate for someone who is the critic for national defence. They're Canadian soldiers the day before, the day of and the day after a referendum no matter what the outcome.

Would you agree with that, Mr. Hart?

Mr. Hart: Yes, I would.

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Derek Lee, according to the March 12, 1996, Hansard, said:

...one notes that it is an arguable counselling of a member of the armed forces which has taken place contrary to the National Defence Act. One notes that it is arguably a seditious act which has taken place, being a subversion of the federal sovereignty tending to public disorder or a disorder. It is arguable that the outcome could have occurred.

Do you agree with that, Mr. Hart?

Mr. Hart: Yes, I do.

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Lee went on to say in Hansard of the same date:

...you, Mr. Speaker, are being asked to take note of the actions of a member who has used the House of Commons facilities and stationery in taking action which may bring the House into disrepute and may involve the House in some prima facie illegality either in relation to the Criminal Code or the National Defence Act.

Would you agree with that, Mr. Hart?

Mr. Hart: Yes, I would.

Mr. Frazer: Finally, the 1993 Liberal Foreign Policy Handbook says:

All major military force commitments named by the government will require consultation with Parliament.

Are you aware it says that?

Mr. Hart: That's correct. Yes, I do know that.

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, those are my questions.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Bellehumeur, do you have a point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes, I would like to raise a point of Order. The Reform member was just asking questions of Mr. Hart and I am wondering who is testifying here. One of them is talking and the other is only saying yes or no. We are not here to listen to a conversation. If he wants to table documents, he can do so. I can read them. I would like the witness to speak for himself and not to repeat answers which are whispered in his ear. In any case, that doesn't count for much and we have better things to do. Yes and no doesn't mean much. We want explanations.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to rule your point of order out of order.

Mr. Frazer, you still have some time left on your side. Do you wish to use it, or is there anything else?

Mr. Frazer: No.

The Chairman: Okay. Next on my list is Dr. Milliken.

Mr. Milliken: Mr. Hart, you indicated in your testimony the other day that you were a member of the Canadian Armed Forces at one time.

Mr. Hart: Yes.

Mr. Milliken: What did you do there?

.1230

Mr. Hart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in 1973 I joined the Canadian Armed Forces. I was a marine electrician. I served on three Canadian destroyer escorts, Her Majesty's Canadian ship Gatineau, Her Majesty's Canadian ship Yukon and Her Majesty's Canadian ship Qu'Appelle.

Mr. Milliken: How many years were you serving in the armed forces?

Mr. Hart: I served in the regular force for a five-year period. I also served in the reserve force of the Canadian Armed Forces. In 1988 I received my commission as an officer. I was in the reserve force for five years. I was the commanding officer of the 902 Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron in Summerland, British Columbia. So I served a total of ten years.

Mr. Milliken: Thank you very much.

In the testimony you gave on Tuesday, you said, and I've quoted this to you before but I didn't have the actual words in front of me at the time, that the communiqué forced Canadian forces personnel to choose sides in the secession debate. In your testimony today I think you've clarified that. Am I correct?

I don't want to do what Mr. Bellehumeur regards as so bad and put words in your mouth, but do you feel that non-sovereignist members of the Canadian Armed Forces would have dismissed this press release as so much gibberish?

Mr. Hart: I think they would have been less vulnerable to the message in the communiqué. But I would like to point out that I think it had an effect on non-sovereignists in the Canadian Armed Forces as well because of the message it was sending.

Morale and discipline are some of the most important cornerstones in a military environment, and this would have caused uncertainty and chaos in the Canadian Armed Forces in the minds of the personnel. We have to remember that a lot of these -

Mr. Milliken: So chaos in the mind is what you're saying was caused, not chaos in the armed forces.

Mr. Hart: No, I'm saying in the personnel itself. We have to keep in mind that some of these people are very young - 17, 18, 19 years old. That is my concern and that is the concern I have.

Mr. Milliken: Your concern is that they felt they had to choose sides in the secession debate. Don't you think that for virtually every member of the Canadian Armed Forces, who after all have sworn an oath of allegiance, there isn't any question of their views in respect of their sides in the secession debate?

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important point. This is one of the reasons I brought the concern to the House of Commons in the first place.

You see, the problem is that the Canadian Armed Forces personnel rightly swear an oath of allegiance to Canada. They're the only group in Canada that, as a caveat with that oath of allegiance, promises to lay down their lives, like the eleven peacekeepers did in Bosnia and Croatia during the UNPROFOR mission. Now when they receive a conflicting message from the House of Commons, they put this in question and it should be questioned.

Mr. Milliken: What do they put in question?

Mr. Hart: They put in question the message that's coming from the House of Commons, and it brings the House into disrepute.

Mr. Milliken: Well, wait a minute. Don't members of the Canadian Armed Forces know that the leader of the opposition at the time was a separatist?

Mr. Hart: Yes, and that would even cause more instability within the ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Milliken: Well, on your argument, the fact that the leader of the opposition is a separatist causes instability all over the place. I don't think that fact is denied. But the fact is he's there. I know it causes instability for Mr. Bellehumeur too, but surely the members of the military are no more surprised by the fact that they're there than the rest of us are.

Some of us are very surprised that separatists are there, but that's the fact and we've lived with it now for two and a half years. Some of us don't find it very pleasant. I'm sure you don't, and of course your party has made that clear in the House, as has mine on occasion. But that's the fact. These people were elected.

Do you not think that members of the Canadian Armed Forces can distinguish between a message from someone who's clearly a separatist and someone who's not? And do you think they're unable to realize that when they get a message from a separatist, perhaps it's going to be something they disagree with, profoundly disagree with, and that it is nonsense?

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, we have already heard and we will probably hear more testimony that there are separatists in the Canadian Armed Forces. There is that element in the Canadian Armed Forces, which there is nothing wrong with. Let's make that very clear. If you want to choose to be a separatist, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. But it becomes diametrically opposed to the oath of allegiance they have taken to their country.

.1235

Mr. Milliken: Well then, you are saying there's something wrong with it.

Mr. Hart: Let me continue here.

With the Canadian Armed Forces personnel, if you put them on the same level as every other Canadian, then maybe your argument holds some water. But they're not. They're not on the same level as every other Canadian because they live under a second set of laws, under the National Defence Act of Canada. They are the only people in Canada who live under the reality that they may have to lay down their lives for their country. Therefore, our previous legislators in this place, in this House of Commons, back when they drafted section 62, were very concerned about that, and all western democratic countries are. They are concerned about insulating their military.

Let me continue, because this is a very important point.

Mr. Milliken: No, just a minute. I want to interrupt because I'm asking the questions and I think you're giving me the same answer I've heard before.

I think what you've got to remember is that I have a substantial military presence in my constituency. I was there from time to time visiting on the base throughout the time of the events that are described in this case.

While there was almost universal disagreement with the communiqué in the fact that it was sent, no one I'm aware of in the armed forces whom I met thought that it was forcing them to make a choice, that they felt as you say that they had to choose sides in the secession debate. Their side was very clear: they were Canadians; they had sworn an oath of allegiance; their duty was to the Government of Canada. That was their duty, that was clear. The fact that a press release came in from a separatist MP didn't please them, that's for sure, but it didn't make them question their loyalty to their country. It didn't make them feel they had to choose in this secession debate, because I think they regarded it as utter nonsense.

Don't you think you would have felt that way if you had been in the armed forces when this document arrived?

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with what the questioner is putting forward. First of all, I presented some evidence that I urged the committee to investigate. That was in the form of a media report that stated that up to half the people at RMC, under the nose of Mr. Milliken, were packed and ready to go the day after a yes vote.

Mr. Milliken: Did you read the media report? It said it was reported. Somebody could have phoned up and said they heard that half of them are in and the media would print it; I mean, they'll print anything.

Mr. Hart: I am urging this committee to seize the opportunity to call witnesses to testify on that very point.

Mr. Milliken: You know, if I phoned up the media, Mr. Hart, and said that I heard the sky was falling in and they printed it, do you think that a parliamentary committee should investigate it? This is the only piece of evidence we've got, ``It is reported that''. I'd like to know who reported it. There isn't any attribution to anybody in any possible position to know, and I can assure the honourable member that had half the cadets at RMC packed their bags and were ready to leave, I'd have heard about it.

I do keep in touch with my constituents. Mr. Ringma, you may not, but I do visit RMC from time to time. I think the comment that would have said that they've got a problem there because half our cadets are packed up, they would have called me up.

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, the questioner didn't even see the article I'm referring to until today.

Mr. Milliken: No, of course not. It's in some obscure journal.

Mr. Hart: The Financial Post?

Mr. Milliken: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Milliken, does that conclude your questions?

Mr. Milliken: I'll conclude.

The Chairman: Okay. Colleagues, I have two last questioners and then we're through with this witness. I'm trying to wrap up here in a timely fashion. Ms Catterall, then Mr. Langlois, and then we're completed.

Mrs. Catterall (Ottawa West): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Are you unilaterally and definitively saying that we have to finish with the witness after the next two questions?

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, because that's all I have. Those are the only notices I have. Let me see, we have Mrs. Catterall and Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Each member usually asks to speak when his turn comes up. I didn't know we had to ask to speak at the beginning of the meeting. I too would like to say something. In other committees, members don't have to tell the Chairman at the beginning of the meeting that they might want to speak at a certain point. But I'm polite. When it's my turn, I raise my hand.

.1240

[English]

The Chairman: Can I hear from Mrs. Catterall? If you have some questions we'll allow them, but go ahead.

Mrs. Catterall: First of all, I want to go back to the Speaker's ruling, because I think it's fairly important to have that on the record. At least part of it is of particular interest to me.

The Speaker referred to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener that ``there should be no investigation of any member's conduct unless there is a specific charge. This specific charge must be made by way of a substantive motion.'' Then he went on with Mr. Michener's ruling: ``I believe the charges are so grave against one of our own members that the House should deal with this accusation forthwith.'' He then invited the member, Mr. Hart, to put his motion.

I wanted to read that into the record because I think it's important in terms of explaining the breadth of the questions being asked to this witness. There seems to be some question about it.

There is a matter before us that involves two members of Parliament in the first place. One is Mr. Jacob, who published a communiqué that admittedly is of great distress to virtually all members of Parliament, and the other is Mr. Hart, who brought an accusation and a charge against Mr. Jacob. Therefore the actions of both members are before this committee. What we might want to recommend and report to Parliament on is the actions of both members.

We're dealing here with the accusation made by Mr. Hart, and that's what I want to pursue again. He tabled some new documents with us today, which unfortunately I don't have with me. But at our last meeting Mr. Hart said the Canadian Armed Forces take their orders from Parliament. Does he still maintain that position?

Mr. Hart: Yes, I presented evidence to that today.

Mrs. Catterall: Okay. In other words, if the armed forces are to go to war or are to go on a peacekeeping mission, it's Parliament that must give those orders?

Mr. Hart: No. What I'm saying in the evidence I presented today - and if you want I can get the document back and read it - is that it's quite clear there is no separation between the executive powers of government. Therefore, a responsible government - and I hope that's what we have in Canada, that's the impression I've been living under - is part of the Parliament of Canada and therefore will not be separated. The evidence to that is question period every day: the House of Commons questions the government.

Mrs. Catterall: The House of Commons questions the government. The House of Commons does not in question period give orders to the government or to the armed forces.

I'm quoting from your own testimony that ``the Canadian Armed Forces takes its orders from Parliament''. Do you still stand by that statement, nothwithstanding -

Mr. Hart: The prime minister of the country is part of the House of Commons. Let me explain a little further. The communiqué, in my opinion -

Mrs. Catterall: I ask for a simple yes or no answer. Does Mr. Hart stand by that statement, notwithstanding the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces have gone to war in the Middle East, have gone on major peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia, have gone on peacekeeping missions to Haiti without the order of Parliament? Notwithstanding that, does he stand by this statement? Yes or no.

Mr. Hart: The executive branch sends the troops. In actual fact the commander-in-chief of the Canadian Armed Forces is the Governor General of Canada. The communiqué challenged the authority of the executive branch of the federal government over the Canadian military. The communiqué challenged the authority of the House over the Canadian military. The communiqué challenged the authority of the Crown over the Canadian military.

The House of Commons has 295 members of Parliament, and they may find that they cannot support the communiqué and what the communiqué suggested to do. They may find that the integrity of the House has been violated.

.1245

Now I'll quote from the Constitution Acts 1867-1982. The Crown, in effect, controls everything:

The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is...vested in the Queen.

The commander-in-chief of all military forces is vested in the Queen, and in Canada that is through the Governor General of Canada.

I have another quote:

There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.

Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Chair, if I may -

Mr. Hart: There is no separation according to the Constitution. That is my testimony.

Mrs. Catterall: I understand that the witness is trying to use up my available time by repeating answers without answering the question. Of course it's so wonderful to finally have a chance to ask a question, because that doesn't come to the government members very often in the House of Commons.

Could I have a yes or no answer? Do you stand by the statement in your testimony before this committee?

Mr. Hart: Yes.

Mrs. Catterall: Okay, thank you.

Well, that would be interesting to the various people who were off risking their lives for Canada without any direction from Parliament whatsoever at various times in the history of the country,Mr. Chairman.

I want to go to another point. In your paper, you also said - and you said it in the House as well - that the communiqué forced Canadian Forces personnel to ``choose sides on the secession debate.'' You also talked about your charge being that the communiqué was aimed at getting members of the CF to take sides on the secession issue. Would you point me to the wording in the communiqué that was asking people to take sides in the secession debate that was then on?

Mr. Hart: It says so after the yes.

Mrs. Catterall: Pardon?

Mr. Hart: It says that after a yes, they can join the Quebec armed forces.

Mrs. Catterall: Where does it ask them to take sides in the debate? Remember, this was three days before the referendum. Presumably, it was asking them to take sides - those are your words - in the debate.

Mr. Hart: Did you take a side?

Mrs. Catterall: That's irrelevant. My question is what words in the communiqué led you to make this charge?

Mr. Hart: Well, I think it's an obvious thing that everyone in Canada took a side in the secession debate. Did you not? I did.

Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Chair, the witness has brought an important charge before both the House and this committee. Because it's my responsibility as a member of this committee, I'm trying to determine whether or not his charge is warranted, and on what he bases it.

I'm going back to the Speaker's ruling. That's why this matter is before us. Because a charge has been made by one member of Parliament against another, it's my obligation to try to determine whether or not that charge was justified and whether or not the making of it was justified.

I'm asking the member to please help me, a member of this committee with a serious responsibility, by pointing out where in the communiqué members of the armed forces are being asked to take sides in the debate. It's a simple question.

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, I would say the entire communiqué asked members in the Canadian Forces to make a choice - the entire communiqué.

Mrs. Catterall: It asks them to make a choice in the debate between the yes and no side.

Mr. Hart: Of course it does. Everyone in Canada had to make that choice. The violation comes from sending the communiqué -

Mrs. Catterall: Everyone in Canada had to make that choice, but I didn't have to get a communiqué to help me make that choice. I'm asking specifically how this communiqué, in your view, asked members of the armed forces to ``take sides in the secession debate''.

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, my testimony has been and will remain that the communiqué sent a direct and opposing message to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. On one side - and I'll say it again - you have this document, the oath of allegiance for Canada, under which members of the Canadian Armed Forces swear to obey their allegiance to Canada. They do so under the National Defence Act of Canada, which is under the authority of the Parliament of Canada. The communiqué, which was on the letterhead of Her Majesty's official opposition in Canada - it's right here - sent a view diametrically opposed to the National Defence Act of Canada and the oath of allegiance that these soldiers, sailors and airmen have taken. It is the entire communiqué that is offensive to me. I'm asking the House - you and the rest of the members of the House of Commons - to rule on that. It's as simple as that.

.1250

Is it offensive to you, Mrs. Catterall?

Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated my views as a staunch Canadian on this communiqué. Whether it's offensive to me is not the issue before this committee.

Obviously I'm not going to get an answer on this question, so I would ask -

Mr. Hart: It's offensive to me.

Mrs. Catterall: - that the proceedings of the committee show that Mr. Hart did not provide information to justify that particular element of the charge he brought before Parliament.

Mr. Hart: It's offensive to me.

Mrs. Catterall: This is the only conclusion I can come to.

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out - and I think this is important, and I have it in front of me - the motion that came from the House of Commons. It was ordered, dated March 18, 1996, that the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs:

That the matter of the communiqué of the Member for Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995 with reference to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I fail to see what the relevance is to many of your questions.

Mrs. Catterall: The relevance is simply that the communiqué and matters relating to it are referred to this committee, but in the context of the Speaker's ruling a serious charge has been made and the committee has to deal with that charge.

I'm trying to understand the nature of the charge and the justification for the charge you've brought to the House.

Mr. Hart: It was quite clear. I said ``in the opinion of the House''. To me, it was offensive. Now what do the rest of the members of the House...? That's what your task was, to call witness and find out what other people felt about it.

Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into an argument with the committee. I'm trying to give him an opportunity to put his views on the record and to assist me as a member. But that is not in fact what is before us: my opinion or any other member's opinion. What is before us is a charge that was made in the House of Commons and the communiqué on which that charge was made. That is what is before us, and not my opinion or the House's opinion. The House did not express an opinion, except to refer the matter to this committee.

Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, for clarification of our terms of reference and the line of questioning we're hearing at the moment, the implication of the question is whether the communiqué encouraged, motivated, or incited in some way a member of the forces, in making a decision in regard to ``yes'' or ``no''...as to how he or she would vote in the referendum, and this seems to be one of the implications of the question. I raise the question as to whether that is really relevant in this discussion.

Second, I believe we're trying to seek out here whether the communiqué is related to causing or imposing some action on a member of the forces.

The Chairman: I'm going to interrupt. It's not a point of order; you're into a point of debate.

Mr. Speaker: I'm trying to clarify our terms of reference.

The Chairman: I think our terms of reference are well understood. We have a consensus, and I'm ruling on a point-by-point basis. It's not a point of order, respectfully, colleague.

Mrs. Catterall, if you have a last question, I'd ask you to put it, and I'd ask the witness to keep it very brief. We need to be out of this room in less than eight minutes.

Mrs. Catterall: I think I have overused my time already, but I will simply say that in terms of the relevance of the question, it relates to at least page six of the witness's testimony, and if it's not relevant to ask the witness questions about his own testimony, I'm not sure what is relevant. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

To the Bloc, if you wish to split your time...colleagues are prepared to split it. If you want to share your time, you have approximately five or six minutes and then we will conclude.

Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I'll begin by summarizing the situation. This is the second time that the witness appears before us. He evaded Mrs. Catterall's question; and he did not answer the questions asked by Mr. Milliken and Mr. Bellehumeur. In fact, his colleague for Saanich - Gulf Island had to provide him with answers and told him whether to respond with yes or no.

What kind of testimony is this? But we'll deal with that later.

.1255

Mr. Hart, did you know that your colleague for Saanich - Gulf Islands, Mr. Frazer, a colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces, told The Toronto Sun, on November 4, 1995:

[English]

We have to accept that in the Canadian Forces right now are some people who were in favour of separation. From a Canadian point of view they'd have to relinquish their commitment to us and swear allegiance to Quebec. Had there been a separation, this would have happened.

[Translation]

Did you know that the member for Saanich - Gulf Islands had said this?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Are you asking me the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Hart: Well, Mr. Frazer is right here, if you want to ask questions -

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I'm asking you, the witness, if you were aware that Mr. Frazer had said that members of the Armed Forces would have to make a decision sooner or later if the yes side won on October 30th 1995?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I've heard that quote before. I've heard that before.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Do you agree with that point of view?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Do I agree with Mr. Frazer's statement that at some point in time people must decide? I think everybody in Canada must decide at some point in time. So I would agree with parts of that statement.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: So you agree with Mr. Frazer when he said that members of the Armed Forces would sooner or later have to make a choice. Let's just say that the communiqué did not impose anything. Thank you for your answer.

[English]

Mr. Hart: The communiqué says ``immediately''.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Hart, a little earlier you told us that you found time to look at the bill. As a member of Parliament, I would invite you to read every bill, especially bills dealing with important constitutional issues. Let me refer you to section 18 of the Act to respecting the future of Quebec, which reads as follows:

18. The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and the regulations thereunder that apply in Quebec on the date on which Quebec becomes a sovereign country shall be deemed to be laws and regulations of Quebec. Such legislative and regulatory provisions shall be maintained in force until they are amended, replaced or repealed.

Mr. Hart, under section 18 of the Bill, Quebec would become a sovereign nation. Therefore, don't you agree that the Armed Forces would have to eventually swear allegiance and submit to the basic rule of our country, which is the rule of law? Do you understand what section 18 means? Don't you realize that no one was calling for a coup d'État, no one was calling for overthrowing the government and that it was just a matter of a constitutional amendment which would last at least a year, or the time it took to complete negotiations? Did you at least grasp that part of the bill?

[English]

Mr. Hart: The communiqué didn't indicate that.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: As Mr. Bellehumeur did, I will raise the issue of the question, the bill and the communiqué. Can those three documents be disassociated from one another, Mr. Hart? Can a voter, who is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, having the right to vote... You seem to contest the right to vote of the members of the Armed Forces. You seem to think that they always blindly obey orders and that they don't have the right to participate in decisions which will affect the democratic future of their country. I think that is basically what you object to.

A Quebec member of the Armed Forces based in Valcartier or Bagotville, reading Dr. Jacob's communiqué, and aware that there is a bill before the national Assembly of his home province, who reads the referendum question on the ballot which he will have to mark, yes or no, shouldn't this person be informed and understand the three documents, as does every Quebecker who has the right to vote?

You are trying to separate the issues. Let me go back in time. I won't quote what your colleague for Saanich - Gulf Islands, but England's Thomas Moore, under Henry VIII, said: ``Give me a sentence out of context, and I can cost a man his life''. That's why Thomas Moore was executed, because something he said was taken out of context. Your party seems to be repeating history.

It happened with Thomas Moore, it happened under the reign of Oliver Cromwell, and you are trying to do it as well. I find your stance extremely dangerous.

Do you agree that the three documents are inextricably linked?

.1300

[English]

The Chairman: I'm going to jump in here. You have less than a minute and a half left for questions. Please have them directly related to the matter at hand.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Since every member of the armed forces received all three documents, do you still maintain that the communique has nothing to do with them, and that it can be read as if it was produced by Wolfgang Droege or Grant Bristow?

Was this a serious communiqué issued by a Member of Parliament and dealing with a bill which had been put to the National Assembly and which concerned every Quebecker who had the right to vote at that time, and even those who did not? If so, tell me why.

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, I don't challenge the right of the Canadian Armed Forces to vote at all. As a matter of fact I insist on it, and during the time I spent in the navy and also -

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: But you object to them being informed, for instance.

[English]

Mr. Hart: - in the air force reserve, I took great pride in voting each and every time there was a federal or provincial issue that came to my attention during that service period.

My concern is what happened in the minds and on the field of those Canadian Armed Forces personnel who received the communiqué when it came off the fax machine. They must decide what to do. They have a decision to make. That decision is in direct conflict with what has already come from the House of Commons. It's diametrically opposed, because it was on the letterhead of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It was directing the Canadian Armed Forces to do something that's diametrically opposed to their oath of office, their oath of allegiance, what they have sworn to do, the contract they have signed, and the commitment they have made to Canada.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you, Mr. Hart.

This is the last question. Let us have a short question and a short answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Were you aware, Mr. Hart, that the chief of Defense staff, general John de Chastelain, on December 6, 1991, said that the role of the armed forces was not to fight to hold the country together but to obey to the democratically elected authorities and, in the event of Quebec sovereignty, to obey the orders of the legitimately formed government in Quebec? General John de Chastelain was quoted as saying this in western Canada as it appeared in the Calgary Herald of November 9, 1995, as major Joe Lund explained.

[English]

Lund said that if Canadian soldiers decide they want to join the Quebec army, should the province separate at some point in the future, the forces have an established release mechanism.

[Translation]

Lastly, general Ronald Michaud, testifying before the national commission on the future of Quebec, which sat throughout the spring of 1995, basically said the same thing. Three highly ranked officers took the opposite view of what you are claiming. You said you are not in a position to make a statement on that matter; this excuse seems to come up when it's convenient. Do you admit that these three Canadian armed forces' generals who said that the role of soldiers was to serve their democratically elected government are in a position to make that statement?

[English]

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

Mr. Hart: Yes, to answer the question, and in my testimony, if you review the blues very carefully, you will find that I said there is a release mechanism for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It takes up to six months for a person to effect a release on a voluntary basis in the Canadian Armed Forces.

This is one of the problems I have. The communiqué said ``immediately'', and ``the day after a yes''. This is, again, diametrically opposed to what established routine is in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, colleagues. I appreciate your patience, your forbearance, and your respect for the chair.

We're adjourned to the call of the chair.

Return to Committee Home Page