FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 1, 1998

• 1005

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I call the meeting of the committee to order.

We're here this morning to discuss the motion of Mr. Mills.

Mr. Mills, if you'd put the motion to the committee, then we can begin debate on it.

Perhaps, though, I could offer a word of introduction. Welcome to Mr. Manning. I think this is the first time he's attended the committee.

Welcome, sir.

Also, I gather Mr. Mills would have liked to have televised the committee hearings, but as you know, we have to get House permission before we can do that if we're outside room 253, so we can't do that. So I'd ask the television cameras if they'd now, since the committee has started, be good enough to withdraw. Thank you very much.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): The motion reads:

That pursuant to section 18 of the Constitution Act, section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act and section 108(2) of the Standing Orders, that this committee study and report back to the House on the events surrounding the suppression of a legal protest of the APEC conference in Vancouver in 1997 and that the following people be called before this committee as witnesses:

The Right Honourable Prime Minister Jean Chrétien;

The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy;

Mr. Jean Pelletier (Chief of Staff); and,

Mr. Jean Carle (Former Director of Operations within the PMO).

Mr. Chairman, would we be voting on this at the end?

The Chairman: I presume so. It's up to the members of the committee, but I would suggest we have the usual order. The first three speakers will speak for ten minutes and then we'll go to five-minute debates.

I would like to draw the attention of the committee to one thing, though. Mr. Robinson has to leave at 11 o'clock, and I know he's very interested in this. We could certainly make sure that he has an opportunity to speak before 11 o'clock, if that's agreed.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. White?

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I was just looking at the number of members.

The Chairman: You're worried that we won't have enough members?

Mr. Randy White: I was worried you didn't have enough, in case we have a vote.

The Chairman: It's unusual of you to be so conscientiously interested in the welfare of the government.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Randy White: I was just about to call the question.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Well, we have parity. Mr. Chairman, you could find yourself in a difficult situation.

The Chairman: We have a full committee.

[English]

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

This is an opportunity for all opposition parties who are in agreement with this motion. I know from talking to a number of Liberal members that they are in agreement with this motion. What I want to do today is justify why this motion should be approved by everyone here today.

This is an opportunity for the elected people in this House to do something for the Canadian people in terms of getting this information on the table. Our goal would be to calmly discuss the issue and find out what happened, and thus the Canadian people will find out what happened.

I was there. I saw the security. I was there. I saw the People's Summit and the APEC conference. I was there at the foreign affairs minister's speech. I felt the pride of hosting 18 leaders, foreign affairs ministers, and other officials of those countries. As a Canadian, I think it's fair to say that this pride was out in most of Canada as they observed this on television.

That's why it's so important that we clear the air as to what happened. It is so important that we find out what happened and that we let our elected officials who were there give their side of the story.

Canada's reputation is at stake, and that reputation is very important to us as Canadians. Having travelled extensively—and certainly Mr. Manning and I travelled extensively this summer—I realize just how important the world sees Canada and what Canada stands for. We cannot have a tarnished record of any kind if we're going to maintain that international reputation.

You will ask, why should this committee hear this motion? I have a number of reasons that I would like to place before you as to why this motion should be heard by this committee and approved by it.

• 1010

First of all, it was Foreign Affairs that had the entire control of this event. If you read this document on the APEC Summit and what it was all about, you will find that it was Foreign Affairs that organized the theme, Foreign Affairs that did the arrangement, Foreign Affairs that was totally responsible for what was there, with of course the Prime Minister's Office having its input where necessary, because these were world leaders.

The objectives of this APEC meeting were certainly as stated: regional trade and investment, economic cooperation and development within APEC, and the strengthening of the APEC community. I put forward to you that because of some of the incidents, we might not have achieved our own objectives as we stated in this document.

I would like to state a second reason this committee should deal with this issue. I quote from the Toronto Star of September 25. All of us should congratulate our chairman for the very favourable article that he had done on him.

A voice:

[Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Bob Mills: No, not at all. I think we agree with this, Mr. Chairman.

The writer of this article says:

They conduct inquiries, supplementing the Commons in some ways. Graham's committee, being charged with foreign policy, brings those matters to the public understanding.

He goes on to say that it will seek to represent what the Canadian people want, and that “Canadians want to be involved.” Then he in fact quotes Mitchell Sharp as saying about this committee, “This is a wonderful development in foreign policy.” So we have the czar of the Liberal Party saying this committee works better than any committee has in the past in terms of foreign affairs, and a lot of that's due to our chairman.

Obviously this is our chance, then, to represent Canadians and put this issue on the forefront. That's my second reason for why this committee should look at this.

The third one is that this is an opportunity for the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister to be heard in front of their elected colleagues, in front of their peers—this group, as described so aptly in this article.

Let me quote something that says it all, and I'd like you to really listen to this quote very carefully:

I believe that in parliamentary democracy, one of the fundamental rights is the right to be heard, the right to have open access to express your concerns, and there is no better place in my mind than in front of a committee, in front of the elected representatives of the people who are held accountable. That is the difference between us and everybody else; we can be held accountable. I think it gives a sense of confidence to ordinary citizens in making a case of injury that they will be heard by a court of elected members who, if their judgment is wrong, can certainly be held accountable at the next election.

That quote is from Mr. Lloyd Axworthy, speaking in the House of Commons on May 5, 1992. That quote says it all. We should all have a chance to appear before the committee. What better place than before elected members to be heard about a particular situation?

So document number three then is the foreign affairs minister saying that this committee is the one that should listen to any concerns they have, representing the Canadian people.

Fourthly, the members around this table are experienced members in foreign affairs. We have people who have been doing this sort of thing for many years. If this group doesn't have the expertise and the understanding of relationships between other countries, and a clear understanding of what had to happen at this conference.... I say there's really no group that could better hear this. We understand how these 18 countries think, how they have to relate, and so on. That's why no other committee in this Parliament could deal with this particular subject as we could in this committee.

Fifthly, an argument that has quite often been used is that the Public Complaints Commission in fact will be able to look at it all. We've looked very carefully at this whole Public Complaints Commission, and we, like so many others, are not very certain that they are able to look at much more than what the RCMP did. They're not able to look at what the Department of Foreign Affairs did or at what role any politicians might have played in this.

• 1015

Of course, if we wanted to quote people who had comments about this, we could quote Ms. Copps, who in a speech in the House described this commission and said:

I urge the government to make changes to allow the Public Complaints Commission to investigate beyond the RCMP.

She was saying at that time that it could only look at the RCMP, and of course that was the basis on which that particular Public Complaints Commission was opposed by the Liberal Party, because it couldn't look at anything beyond the whole area of what the RCMP did.

This committee can be elected and is accountable, as Mr. Axworthy has said. He has said before our committee, “I will come any time to discuss issues with you.” This is an issue. It's an issue that has the potential to tarnish our image. This would give them the opportunity to speak to us calmly. Let's talk about the issue and get to the bottom of it, for the sake of the Canadian people.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: To begin with, the Bloc Québécois plans to support this Reform Party motion because it feels that further light should be shed on this incident which has already been raised before this committee, as you yourself acknowledged at the first committee hearing this year. We and our colleague Svend Robinson wished to have the issue brought before the committee immediately and to hear those primarily responsible for this most unfortunate event which continues to make the headlines.

Having gone to Indonesia just a few weeks ago and taken part in a mission by the Canadian International Co-Operation Council, which, incidentally, involved MP Augustine, I was quite surprised with the paradox facing us following the APEC events. In Jakarta we met with the students who brought about the fall, resignation and replacement of President Suharto by another president whom they would like to see leave the presidency also, because they do not feel Indonesia is anymore democratic today than it was under Suharto.

A few months before, some Canadian students from British Columbia were prevented from expressing their disagreement with the Suharto regime and from demonstrating peacefully on their university campus. Some Canadian federal authorities, the RCMP, violated these rights, according to certain sources, at the request of certain very highly-placed individuals in the Canadian government—possibly the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister or members of his Cabinet.

This leads us to a question that the committee should study, perhaps in light of testimony from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in particular concerning this whole issue of the relationship between human rights, development aid and Canadian policy, and the way in which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs view this policy. It is an issue which we in the Bloc Québécois would like to have the committee look at, but which most of the committee members do not seem to be interested in.

• 1020

But this would not be the main purpose of having the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the two PMO officials appear. They should appear before an authority which has some credibility and in which we would like to participate. The Foreign Affairs Committee has proven in the past, last year in particular, that it could be a serious, studious and non-partisan committee. In a case like this, even though partisanship might be presumed to exist, I believe that the political parties, including the opposition parties, would behave in the proper manner for an investigation, one which would be very important in parliamentary life.

As subsection 108(1)(a) of the Standing Orders states, this committee is entitled to call witnesses and to ask for the production of documents. Given the current status of the coming investigation which will begin its work on Monday, it appears that the committee might hear some of the people who should be heard, in particular the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who will not, to our knowledge, be heard by the RCMP complaints committee or other staff members. It is important that the Minister of Foreign Affairs report to the committee, which he says he respects, and tell us what his role and that of his department was in these incidents.

We are supporting this Reform Party request for a valid reason, but there is certainly another, namely that this committee is probably not as partisan as a committee might first appear to be. As pointed out yesterday in the House, some members were appointed by the government itself and some financed the party in power, and for this reason could treat the main witnesses with a certain amount of reservation.

Finally let me say that neither the people of Canada nor those of Quebec could accuse the members around this table, and especially the members of the opposition, of holding back or refusing to shed all the light on these incidents.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois will support the motion put forth by Mr. Mills.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Turp. I will now give the floor to the spokesman for the government party, after which I will invite Mr. Robinson, Mr. Bachand and another member of the government party to intervene. Ms. Cohen.

[English]

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you. I'm a visitor here; I don't normally sit on this committee.

The Chairman: That's to our impoverishment, Ms. Cohen.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Thank you.

An hon. member: We have quite a few visitors here today.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: It's not my role to lecture the foreign affairs committee, so let me just say this. There's no question that the committee has the authority or the power to do what's asked here under Standing Order 108(2), which allows a committee of the House to initiate studies of any subject matter within its ambit. Certainly this is within the ambit of this committee.

But having said that, simply because we are the Parliament of Canada and we have authority and power does not mean we must exercise it. It's important for us to exercise some discretion when we do these things and to respect the other institutions that have been established in the broad ambit of governance, including the Public Complaints Commission of the RCMP. I disagree with Mr. Mills, who seems to think their authority is limited in this case.

Not to show off or self-aggrandize, but in my former life, I did have some considerable experience with the issues of police disciplining and police complaints. It would, in my opinion—and I think others will see the logic of this—be the obligation of this commission to look into not just what the RCMP did but how they were motivated to do that. It could be, for instance, that there are questions here of police misusing their authority based upon other influences, which is part of the allegation that the commission is taking a look at.

• 1025

So this commission is going to have to look at lines of command. They're going to have to look at with whom outside the RCMP they communicated in terms of this task they took on. They're going to have to look at the behaviour of individual police officers and how that behaviour came about.

So as an outsider looking at that, but an outsider with some experience in policing matters, I would say that commission already has a very broad authority, and it would be remiss if it did not.... Mr. Mills is shaking his head, but I can say with some certainty that they would be remiss if they did not take a look at some of those questions.

This process, which is yet another institution in this situation, has been set up by law, and it's important for us to respect that and allow that to happen.

Although Parliament has the power, it could inadvertently or advertently derail that commission of inquiry, and that would be a serious misuse of our authority and our power. I have to say, just because you have the power doesn't mean you have to exercise it.

So I would suggest at this point, placing my argument at its highest, that this motion should be dismissed. But having said that, placing it at the lowest, it should at least be considered at another time, if necessary, after the commission has completed its work and reported.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Cohen. Since you're here, perhaps we might refresh the members of the committee about this before I turn to Mr. Robinson. He raised this matter in the steering committee, so some of the members might want to ask you about this or discuss this with you.

You will recall that when he originally raised this matter, we took the position, I believe it was in the steering committee, that it would be inappropriate for us to consider this matter from the perspective of the police activities. That was the framework of the discussion.

I then went to you, and you agreed with me that once the commission had finished its study, if there were anything political dimensions there, you would be willing to consider that in your committee, since it is the committee to which the Solicitor General reports, and therefore the Mounted Police. Therefore we felt at that time that was the more appropriate place for any hearing to be held about policing issues.

I just wanted to refresh the members of the committee about that conversation and that background. I think you'll agree that was the way it was left last spring, as I recall.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Yes, although I have to say that I can't right now speak for that committee, since that committee hasn't been struck yet.

The second point I'd like to make is I can't really speak for the committee, because we try to operate on a consensus basis. But I already have a notice of motion, so I'm assuming it's going to be on our agenda when our steering committee meets.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chair, things have changed an awful lot since spring as well. There's a lot more involvement and a lot more information; documents have come forward. A lot has changed since April.

The Chairman: I didn't introduce that to suggest that things haven't changed. I just wanted to make sure everybody understands the background of how we got to where we are today.

I'll go on to Mr. Robinson and then Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Before I make my comments on the motion, just to clarify the record, the chair will recall that in fact it was the month after the APEC Summit, in December, when I first raised this issue. I then wrote to the committee chair in February and again in June.

While a majority of the committee—and in fact it was a Liberal majority—felt this should await a response from the justice committee, certainly I never accepted that suggestion, because obviously some of the issues we're dealing with here go far beyond simply the role of the RCMP and the Solicitor General, serious as those are; they go right to the core of the Prime Minister's Office and the foreign minister.

So I want the record to reflect very clearly that while the committee decided to ask the justice committee to look into the possibility of hearings, I continue to believe this is the place where that should be dealt with, and I'm pleased that the Reform Party is at this point supporting that proposal.

• 1030

Mr. Chairman, the argument we've heard from Ms. Cohen frankly is not only legally untenable but politically ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that for this committee to consider the issue of the role of the Prime Minister and the most senior officials in his office as well as the role of the foreign minister around the APEC Summit in no way—in no way—diminishes the role of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

Ms. Cohen suggested it might “derail”—I think that was her word—a commission of inquiry. For those who have forgotten, a commission of inquiry, the Macdonald commission, held extensive hearings on a whole range of issues around the RCMP, the role of the RCMP, and political accountability, and no one seriously suggested that that prevented Parliament in committee—because the committee dealt with it extensively while the Macdonald commission was holding its hearings—and the House itself from looking in-depth at these issues.

So frankly, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that the fact that this committee is holding hearings on political accountability might in some way diminish the significance or the credibility of the Public Complaints Commission. There's no argument whatsoever on that, no tenable argument whatsoever.

The second point, Mr. Chairman, is with respect to the Public Complaints Commission itself. The body in many respects is a fundamentally unfair and unjust body. On the one hand you have a battery of lawyers lined up for the RCMP—and I don't question that, given the seriousness of the allegations—and then you have a group of students who have been turned down for legal assistance, despite a judge of the Federal Court saying they should have that if it's to be a level playing field, and despite the Public Complaints Commission themselves urging that funding. Who said no? The Solicitor General, Andy Scott: “Forget it, no funding.” That's the body we think is going to get to the bottom of this? That's pretty fundamentally flawed.

Secondly, if that body is going to look at some elements of the political direction of the RCMP—and they may; the commission counsel is a man for whom I have great respect, Chris Considine, a very respected counsel in British Columbia—they may look at some of those elements, but there are a lot of elements that they're not going to be able to look at at all.

These posters, for example. Some members of the committee might recall the poster. According to a memo written by the Canadian ambassador to Indonesia, Gary Smith, our foreign minister, Lloyd Axworthy, apologized for these posters to the foreign minister of Indonesia. He said it wasn't the Canadian way, it was outrageous, it was excessive.

Does Ms. Cohen seriously think the RCMP Public Complaints Commission is going to ask Lloyd Axworthy to appear before that commission to explain why he was kowtowing to the Indonesian foreign minister? Of course they're not going to. That's not their mandate; that's not their role. It is ours. It's squarely our role in this foreign affairs committee. The justice committee is not going to look at that; it's not their role. The Public Complaints Commission is not going to look at that. We should, and that's why I'm supporting the motion before the committee.

As for the role of the Prime Minister, I was at the pre-hearing of the Public Complaints Commission in Vancouver last week, when the lawyer for the Prime Minister said that a document sent by the president of UBC to Eddie Goldenberg wasn't relevant—wasn't relevant—to the Public Complaints Commission. Well, if that's not relevant, it's pretty clear what approach the federal government is going to take to the issue of prime ministerial accountability, isn't it? It's pretty clear.

I've sat on this committee for a lot of years, and this is one of the most fundamental issues this committee has to address. I appeal to members of the committee not to hide behind the Public Complaints Commission, because if they do—if the Liberal majority in this committee hides behind the Public Complaints Commission, hides behind maybe a hearing of the justice committee at some point in the future—what they are doing is denying the Canadian people the right to get at the truth through their elected representatives. That's a very serious matter, a very serious matter.

Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of other points. There have been a lot of misrepresentations by the Prime Minister, by Liberal members of Parliament, and by ministers about what's actually happened. We've heard, for example, “Oh, well, everything's fine, because the People's Summit took place.”

• 1035

The People's Summit took place and the Prime Minister was quoted as saying, “We brought people in for the People's Summit.” False, totally false. Last night the chair of the committee said on CBC that the government financed José Ramos-Horta to come to Canada to the People's Summit. False. The Canadian government didn't put a penny into José Ramos-Horta's travel to Canada, not a penny—nor for any other delegate.

This foreign affairs committee is the body that has to ask, why was it that we were looking more at embarrassment of Suharto and comfort for Suharto and not looking at security? This committee and no other committee, and certainly not the Public Complaints Commission, is going to be able to ask the questions about why we allowed Suharto's armed thugs into this country. When did we change the policy to allow guns on people such as the bodyguards of Suharto, and why did we change that policy? The RCMP Public Complaints Commission is not going to look at that. That's a foreign affairs issue.

The issues here are very, very serious.

[Translation]

This is an issue which concerns the role of the Prime Minister and that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, not one that should be referred to the RCMP Complaints Commission. It is now up to the Liberal majority to decide whether we will keep Canadians and Quebeckers from knowing the truth.

[English]

That's what this is about, Mr. Chairman. That's what this is about.

If the members of this committee choose to vote this motion down, what we are saying—or rather, what they are saying, because I assume that every member on this side of the House is going to be saying, “We want to get at the truth; we want to get at accountability”—what they are saying is they're going to line up to protect the Prime Minister, the foreign minister, and the Solicitor General. In doing so, they will make a mockery of the role of this committee and deny an opportunity for us to get at the truth about why we were prepared to kowtow to Suharto and his thugs to avoid embarrassment.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

[Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Svend Robinson: Ms. Augustine, you have an opportunity to vote on this issue, and we'll see what your vote is in getting at the truth.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Athabaska, PC): I will try not to repeat the arguments that have already been raised on this side. Needless to say, we second the proposal.

We must bear in mind that the APEC Summit demonstration was not a demonstration for a Stanley Cup victory, Mr. Chairman. No windows were broken, no buses were turned over and no police cars were damaged. It was a peaceful demonstration in which people were exercising their basic Canadian. As soon as things turned bad, the Prime Minister discredited himself totally, and is dodging the issue of what he knew or didn't know and making silly remarks about cayenne pepper. This is where the problem lies and people must know about it.

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, this is a question of credibility in all our international relations, and this is why this committee must absolutely get to the bottom of things. I can be assured to a point that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission will consider the police aspect. I could give you some kind of example, perhaps the VIP stickers fiasco in Montreal. Who paid the bill finally? Not those who did or did not issue the fines, but the executives. I am not saying whether I agree or not with this decision, but it does prove one thing—and you can laugh—: you must go to the top of the decision-making process, where some of the most elementary rights were violated.

How can our hippy Minister, who was a demonstrator during the 1960s, enjoy any credibility when he condemns countries using excessive force against demonstrators? Surely our foreign policy should be credible here, first and foremost, before it can be so outside the country.

• 1040

I am convinced of one thing, Mr. Chairman: this committee's report can only help the RCMP Public Complaints Commission to get to the bottom of things.

The Prime Minister has said that he was in the House every day to answer questions. We are only asking him to give us a little time and to come and meet with us. We will serve him some coffee, and ask him questions for an hour or two. Why can he not come with his friends, the Foreign Minister, Mr. Pelletier and the Solicitor General, his sidekick the court jester, who protects him by giving us the same old answers in the House of Commons? He could at least come and listen to our questions.

They are hiding behind the Commission, Mr. Chairman, and its credibility will be marred. If the Liberal Party, the governing party is so proud of this Commission, it should not oppose our looking at the political aspect, the aspect of the elected representatives, in this affair. The commission might not be able to go as far as it would like to, and that is dangerous. If we look at the argument from the government side, we can let the Commission do its job, but on our side, let us do ours.

I am sure that the opposition parties would be asking fewer questions in the House on the Commission if we could do our job correctly. We are having a credibility problem with the Prime Minister, his Foreign Affairs Minister, his Chief of Staff and the Solicitor General, in regard to Canada's foreign policy. We can boast about the antipersonnel mines, but we will lose our credibility if we suppress the right to demonstrate, to talk and to disagree. That is very serious, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage you to support us. You have a high degree of credibility, within the committee, us with Quebeckers and Canadians elsewhere, and I hope that it will continue to exist by your having supported this resolution which, I underline, is far from being partisan. In the past many governments of all stripes have had problems, but we are hoping that with your support and that of our colleagues on the other side of this table, we can enhance Canada's credibility when it criticizes similar action outside the country.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am counting on your support and that of our colleagues on the government side.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, can the clerk provide to us a copy of the mandate of this commission, what they can do and what they cannot do?

The Chairman: This committee or the commission?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The commission that will be looking into this.

An hon. member: We don't want to see it, Sarkis.

The Chairman: I think maybe Ms. Cohen can speak to that.

Mr. André Bachand: You should be able to answer that, if it was said in the House that the commission will take care of everything.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So what's the problem, if it's going to take care of everything?

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: That is the—

Mr. André Bachand: But you know the mandate of that commission when you ask the question. So that proves one thing, Mr. Chairman: most of our colleagues from outside the House don't know exactly what is the mandate of that commission. That means we should do our part of the work.

An hon. member: Why didn't you check it before now?

The Chairman: We won't get it here in time to deal with it in this debate.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: They should have provided it before.

The Chairman: Members, I wonder if we could not have a side discussion going on.

I have Mr. Reed and Mr. Manning yet who want to speak, and Mr. Speller is also on the list.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The issue here is very simple and I'll be very brief. The previous government created an institution to examine the actions of the RCMP, called the Public Complaints Commission. Either we have one or we don't have one. It would seem to me that if we want to bring a motion such as this forward to this committee, at the same time we might bring a parallel motion saying we want to disband the Public Complaints Commission.

• 1045

The Public Complaints Commission is an independent body; it orders its own business. It can order up whomever it wishes and deal with whatever subject matter is pertinent to the issue. And it is under way.

The fact is we should respect an obligation to allow that commission to complete its work, instead of entering into a duplicate effort that will really accomplish nothing, and as my colleague has said, might very well be in danger of derailing the work of the commission.

Mr. Bob Mills: In 1988 you said it wouldn't work. When it was introduced, you opposed it.

Mr. Julian Reed: It's there, it's in place, and it's in operation.

Mr. Bob Mills: But you opposed it.

Mr. Julian Reed: We have an obligation to allow that process to take place, and it seems to me the issue is that simple.

Mr. Bob Mills: You guys opposed it.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Mr. Manning.

Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Official Opposition): I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to join you this morning.

I'm primarily here to emphasize the seriousness of the issue raised by Mr. Mills and to urge the committee to support and pursue it.

The APEC conference in Vancouver in 1997 was a major foreign policy event, and surely this committee, of all committees, has a right to be completely informed on every aspect of how it was conducted.

As members know, there's now concrete evidence that a policy decision was made at the highest levels of the government to trade off the constitutional rights of students to freedom of speech and association in order to achieve a foreign policy objective, namely the prevention of political embarrassment to APEC leaders, in particular the Indonesian leader, Suharto.

This evidence is contained in part in this note, written by Robert Vanderloo, of September 12, 1997, where he says, “The PMO had expressed concerns about the security perimeter” of the University of British Columbia, “not so much from a security point of view, but to avoid embarrassment to APEC leaders.”

This note goes on to say, “The response”, as suggested in fact by Mr. Donolo, “is that we have to find a balance that meets both concerns. We do not wish student demonstrations”—and I never expected to see this in any memo by an official of the Government of Canada—“and efforts by the government to suppress the freedom of expression to become a major media story.”

I suggest to you that any suggestion or even hint that the constitutional rights of Canadians are being traded off to achieve some foreign policy objective ought to be of great concern to members of this committee.

I have a great deal of respect for your constitutional rights, Dr. McWhinney. I know the supremacy you have given over the years to constitutional rights. Surely you would agree that if a policy decision is being made to trade off constitutional rights in the name of a foreign policy objective, members of this committee ought to deal with it.

I want to suggest that the most important contribution this committee could make to clearing the air on this issue would be to provide a forum—and it would be a forum in which government members would have the majority—where the foreign affairs minister, the Prime Minister, and senior officials from their respective offices can be invited to come and lay all the facts on the table concerning their role in the affair, the trade-offs that were made, and their reasons for doing so.

As members will know, the inquiry being conducted by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission only possesses the authority to deal with the role of the RCMP in this issue. Surely no one, not even Ms. Cohen, would suggest that that commission would be able to deal with the issue of trading off constitutional rights for a foreign policy objective. That is completely beyond the scope and mandate of either the commission or the people who are on it.

What we're talking about is something different from what the RCMP commission is going to deal with. We're talking about policy decisions at the highest levels of the government with respect to a trade-off of constitutional rights for a foreign policy objective, and that requires input and explanations from the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister.

• 1050

So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to urge this committee not to avoid its responsibilities. The public is increasingly skeptical that every time somebody at the top of the government gets into trouble, the machinery goes into gear, not to get the truth out and to clear the air, but to shove it under the carpet or push it off or to blame somebody at a lower level. We owe it to the Canadian public and we owe it to our fellow members of Parliament to demonstrate that when there is a concern that's not going to be dealt with in other ways, the parliamentary committees are prepared to grab the ball and run with it.

For those reasons I'd urge members of the committee to support this motion and do your duty in that regard.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.

Before I go to Mr. Speller, I just want to raise something, because I know you're leaving, Mr. Robinson, at 11 o'clock. I don't want us to get into a personal debate about what took place on television last night, because it's not relevant to this, but it is relevant in the sense that you suggested that I said Mr. Horta's way had been paid to come to the summit. I certainly didn't know the details of that.

I can assure the committee, however, that the federal government provided $200,000 to defray the costs related to the organization of the People's Summit in Vancouver. What I was trying to convey on the subject of Mr. Horta, and what I think we're all trying to convey, is that the government wasn't running away from the idea of a People's Summit. It actually paid money to help it and was quite happy to have someone like Mr. Horta come and participate in it. That's what we were talking about.

So I'm very sorry if you feel I misstated that, but $200,000 struck me as a heck of a lot of money to go to the People's Summit.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, on that specific point—and I'll be very brief—the fact of the matter is that the organizers of the People's Summit just last week sent out a press release vigorously protesting the misrepresentation by the Prime Minister of the circumstances of financing. The fact is that the federal government and the foreign affairs minister explicitly said that not a penny of that money could be used to assist in bringing delegates from APEC countries to the People's Summit, including Mr. Horta.

The Chairman: Well, there wouldn't have been a summit.... Anyway, okay. I was afraid that by bringing that up, we'd get into a diversion.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): On a point of order, this being in the public domain, it would be possible for the committee to request the foreign minister to table a statement of what the moneys were and how they were expended. That would be helpful, and it certainly would be the right of this committee to ask.

The Chairman: We can certainly do that. Thank you very much for that suggestion, Mr. McWhinney.

I'm sorry. We're now going to go to Mr. Turp and then Mr. Speller.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief comment, perhaps mainly an appeal to you and your colleague, the Member for Vancouver Quadra. Many of us around this table have expressed their respect for and confidence in you. You have an important responsibility here, because you can make the difference between this being just another investigation, since it is so important in informing the people of Canada and Quebec about what happened in Vancouver.

I think we can also seek the support of the Member for Vancouver Quadra, the constituency in which these events took place, and appeal to his conscience, because his decision will also make a difference in the vote, which will of course be close. A positive vote will shed a new and essential light on these events, and the people who took part in them will have to give an account before Canadian and Quebec public opinion. I am appealing to you, Mr. President, and Mr. McWhinney in particular, to make this investigation a possibility.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I have asked to have my name included on the list of participants.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too will be brief. I'd like to hear Mr. McWhinney also.

I want to welcome Mr. Manning here today and other members of the Reform Party, as well as the media. We don't often get an opportunity to have the likes of the leader of the Reform Party here, nor this crowded a room, for such an issue as this. I'm sure it has nothing to do with politics.

• 1055

I want to speak to the question of misrepresentations. We hear so-called truths and allegations. For me, as a member of Parliament from southwestern Ontario, one who in his youth, like the Minister of Foreign Affairs, participated in such actions, and quite frankly one who, when he saw the TV, was as disturbed as I'm sure all honourable members were when they saw the actions on TV.... That was very disturbing, and I for one want to find out why something like that happened in a country like ours, in Canada.

Over the last number of weeks in the House of Commons, I've heard allegations, I've heard other people saying they're not true, and then I heard some more allegations today. I would like to get to the truth on this. I don't think any member on this side of the House would disagree that this committee has a very important role to play in something like this, and I would certainly agree with the Leader of the Opposition and the other party members who say we do have a role and we should have a role.

For me it's a question of when. This is not the time to involve politics in such an important issue that goes to the heart of what Canadians are about. I don't see what the problem is with waiting until the Public Complaints Commission, which is set up to find the truth, actually goes in and gets us the details. I don't think we as a committee have the resources that the Public Complaints Commission has to call all these people and get the whole story. What you're asking on that side is for us to get part of the story and to add to a situation where we just add another part of the story.

I would side with those who say the Public Complaints Commission has an opportunity to get all this. But if they don't, and we find afterwards that they have not been able to get all of the information and the facts, sure, we can come back to this committee and say we want to know, and we have a right to know, as members of Parliament. But we don't have a right to disrupt the work of a public commission like that. I don't believe we ever should have had a right to do that. That's not our right as members.

We should be allowing them to do their job. If they don't do the job to the satisfaction of members, then sure, we should have an opportunity to call these people forward and get to the truth, if the Public Complaints Commission does not.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Speller.

I'm going to go now to Mr. White, then Mr. Robinson, and then Mr. McWhinney, and I think then we'll probably be able to wrap it up.

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

I've heard several times here this morning now that perhaps the timing isn't right, and in a few minutes I will be prepared to put an amendment to that motion with regard to the timing.

I want to make several comments, one in response to Ms. Cohen's remark that because we have the authority and the power does not mean we have to exercise it. I would comment to this committee that when it's right to exercise that authority, it is appropriate that this committee take some action; it is certainly right.

I'm given to understand that the commission of the RCMP basically reports to the RCMP. All of us around this table, with our experience, know that we won't be apprised of the details of the results, recommendations, and outcomes of that inquiry, will we? So what we're going to be confronting here, very soon after the decisions are made, is access to information, rejections from the Privacy Act, etc., etc. Although, Shaughnessy, you shake your head in denial of that, I think we know.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: It's happening in public. What more do you want?

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I want to address just one other item. This incident happened in Vancouver, and I along with Ted represent areas in the general area of Vancouver. Much of the feeling of the people there is that government came to town, they had their meetings, they had their photo ops, they sprayed our kids who exercised their democratic rights and freedoms, and they left. There are a lot of questions in the area of the lower mainland in particular and all across this country, but I know specifically in my riding, they're asking, “What are you politicians doing about this?”

• 1100

The effort through a committee is much more appropriate to this point. So I want to put an amendment to this motion—and I don't have it written down here, but we can work on that—that this committee undertake the actions put in the original motion immediately after the inquiry is held.

The Chairman: You mean after the report of the inquiry?

Mr. Randy White: Yes, after the report is tabled. I wonder if that would satisfy the members opposite. That seems to be the problem. This will ensure that the Prime Minister does attend. If he does not attend the inquiry in Vancouver, it certainly ensures that he will here, and that the foreign affairs minister will attend, and so on.

The Chairman: While we prepare this for procedure, Mr. White, may I suggest that what you are proposing is that the original motion be amended to read:

That pursuant to section 18 the Constitution Act, section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, and section 108(2) of Standing Orders, this committee study and report back to the House on the events surrounding the suppression of a legal protest of the APEC conference in Vancouver in 1997, such study to take place after the Public Complaints Commission has delivered its report, and that the following people be called before this committee....

Would that satisfy your requirements?

Mr. Randy White: After the words “back to the House”, I would insert “immediately following the conclusion of the inquiry commission”. That covers exactly this motion and the timing.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: We're consulting.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp, are you prepared to support the amendment, even though it hasn't been translated into French?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Janice could translate it into French very quickly, I'm sure. It's very short.

The Chairman: Is that acceptable, Mr. Bachand?

[English]

Mr. Robinson, you wanted to intervene, and then I'm going to back to the ordinary debating list and we'll discuss the amendment afterwards.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly on the amendment, I understand what motivates the amendment, obviously—I mean, I can count like anybody on this committee can count—but I am troubled by it to the extent that it suggests there is conflict between the Public Complaints Commission carrying on its hearings now and this committee doing the kind of work that we should be doing immediately. In fact I've argued for some time that we should have started a long time ago to get at the truth on this. So while I'm sympathetic to the objective, it's not clear to me that it advances the overall concern Canadians have that we get at the truth now on all aspects of this.

I might just say as well that the counsel to the commission certainly indicated to me that their hearings could go on for months and months. This is not a matter of just a few weeks; it could be many months. Frankly, Canadians are entitled to answers to a lot of the questions about political accountability long before that committee submits its report to the government.

The Chairman: John, I'll put you on the speakers' list, but I did say that after Mr. White, we were going to pass to Mr. Robinson and then to Mr. McWhinney, but on the main motion.

I believe you wanted to speak once again on the main motion.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question for clarification on the main motion.

Is it the intent of the committee to acknowledge the fact that while there are obviously a whole range of questions about the main motion—and I'm not going to repeat myself—there is another APEC Summit coming up in Malaysia next month? That's assuming that it's going; we don't know.

Irrespective of what happens to this particular motion, I would hope that we could in fact call the foreign minister and possibly the Prime Minister, but at the very least the foreign minister, Mr. Axworthy, to talk about what position Canada is taking at the upcoming APEC Summit.

• 1105

The Prime Minister has said that human rights are not on the APEC agenda. Given what's going on in Malaysia now, with the brutal suppression of the rights of many Malaysians who are peacefully protesting, given the fact that the deputy prime minister, Mr. Anwar, has been beaten up....

I just wanted to give notice to the committee at this point that whatever the outcome of the vote on this particular motion—which I, as I say, fully support—I will be seeking the consent of the committee that we hold hearings at the earliest possible time with respect to the upcoming APEC Summit in Malaysia, and that we ask the foreign minister and possibly the Prime Minister to appear before this committee to speak to the role of Canada at the upcoming APEC Summit.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson.

I'm now going to pass to Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the committee's allowing me to be heard today. Following constitutional etiquette, as a former parliamentary secretary, there is a belief one shouldn't continue, at least for a time period, with the committee. One, the committee may be too deferential, although this committee has been a group of friends and they're not overly deferential; but two, it can create issues of access to confidential files, which perhaps requires a time lag. I know of no confidential files, by the way, on this particular issue now before you.

The Chairman: Any time would be too long for you to be absent from us, Ted.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I would miss my candid friends, frankly.

But coming back to this issue, it is a matter of particular interest to me. As Daniel mentioned and as Svend has mentioned to me privately, the University of British Columbia is in my constituency. Two, it does happen that many years ago I was chairman rapporteur of an international commission that recommended three of the five treaties to which the treaty involved in this case, the 1977 treaty on diplomatic privileged persons, belongs. So I've followed it very closely, and I have been in continuing touch with the students, the alma mater society, and the administration of the University of British Columbia on this issue.

I will tell you that on December 1, 1997, I wrote to the Solicitor General suggesting that he convoke the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, because it was the only body, to my knowledge at that time, then in existence with potential jurisdiction on these issues. I did suggest—and it has some relevance to Randy White's amendment—that when convoked and after its hearings, consideration be given to striking an inquiry to examine the report and consider any implications flowing from that, but I'll return to that in a moment.

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission would be more effective if persons summoned or invited as witnesses before it had access to legal assistance, and I have recommended, as others have, that legal assistance be made available to witnesses summoned to appear, that's to say the students. I've repeated that, and I suppose it's still possible it may be done.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The government has said no.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Well, I gather there's been one further issue, and the commission itself has the nod on this.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The Solicitor General has said no.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: In any case, I will come to what is the more interesting arena for determination of these issues. It is a fact that civil actions have been filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. There's a possibility also of actions before the Federal Court of Canada.

I've spoken to persons involved in the case. For reasons having to do with other departments in the foreign ministry, there is a backlog of cases in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, so the cases are not now listed before June 2000. With the consent of the parties and cooperation, this can be advanced, and it would be an appropriate arena in which to advance the cases.

Frankly, there are issues involving obligations under international law and the countervailing obligations that any country has under its own constitution and charter of rights. The Supreme Court of the province would be clearly the best arena to hear this, with of course the opportunity for appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

• 1110

It's not often understood that most of the substantive provisions in the Charter of Rights of 1982 stem from the English common law, and the English common law was established in cases very similar to the one in the APEC situation.

What I'm really saying is that is probably the best arena for determination of the large, conflicting policy issues involved. The courts themselves are the ultimate arbiter of what are the legal limits of privilege, including crown privilege, as to appearing and as to producing documents.

I have also made the suggestion that the government consider reviving a program that existed under the justice department for a number of years. You remember the famous case of the absence of bilingual traffic tickets in Manitoba. I've suggested that the government consider financing the costs of lawyers appearing in this case. This might facilitate the speeding up, by mutual consent, of the hearing of the case.

Some things are very clear in retrospect. Frankly, when I heard the meeting was going to be at the University of British Columbia, I was myself astounded. The University of British Columbia had great success with a Yeltsin-Clinton summit meeting in 1992. The chairs they sat on are preserved, and Japanese and other tourists are photographed sitting on those chairs. But two popular leaders are a different matter from 19 heads of state, and there were clearly problems of a logistical and other character, apart from the larger issues of conflicting policy.

One would recommend seriously—and I am quite sure the University of British Columbia would have this view—that it may not be the best place to hold political meetings, social events, or photo opportunities, particularly in a university where there is conflict between treaty obligations to protect foreign sovereigns and the constitutional right to protest, including protesting against unpopular dictatorial leaders of other states. They are clearly on a collision course.

By the way, I would say in comment to the other point Mr. Robinson raised that it is perfectly proper for this committee and for individual members to convey to the foreign minister their feeling that under the particular circumstances involved in Malaysia at this time, it would be an inappropriate venue for the next APEC meeting. This would certainly be my own opinion.

I am alarmed. The finance minister has made comments in the House of Commons in the last two days. I am alarmed myself at the thought of the meeting being convened when what is clearly a—What would one call it? What sort of trial process?—is going on there at the time. It would be appropriate to convey that view to the committee, but in another context.

On the aspect of this committee, my own feeling originally was—and it's in my letter of December 1, 1997 to the Solicitor General—that a further inquiry should come after, not before and not simultaneously with, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. And I would join this perhaps to—although I'd still have to see the nature of the litigation—the litigation before the Supreme Court of British Columbia and possibly before the Federal Court of Canada.

It is competent for this committee, within its jurisdiction, to examine certain aspects of the affair, but they would relate more narrowly to the issue of the collision between the draconian obligations in the treaty, which were a response to the terrorist fears of the 1960s and 1970s, when that treaty and other related treaties were drafted.... It's a situation where a more precisely drafted motion, one that perhaps incorporates Mr. White's suggestion, would be one appropriate for the steering committee of this committee to consider.

I would certainly like to come back again to the issue of the balance between the charter, our constitutional law obligations, and our international law obligations.

Mr. Chairman, you're a very distinguished international lawyer in your own right, as is Daniel Turp. We have a strength of international law here that's rather surprising.

• 1115

I think you said, Daniel, that no parliament in the world has this array of talent.

It would be appropriate for the committee to examine those particular aspects. It would also be appropriate, if need be, to examine them in conjunction with other issues of other committees. But it would be better after the particular proceedings are completed.

I don't accept the inevitability of interminable delays, particularly if financial assistance is provided. It seems to me the process, by mutual consent, can be speeded up. If the Supreme Court of Canada can rule on Quebec secession within a matter of six months, surely the courts can dispose of a case such as this in six months. Similarly with the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. So my private request to the government would be to provide funds for the legal actions now pending.

Incidentally, Mr. Robinson, a brilliant young counsel is handling the case for the students. He's somebody I've worked with in the past. He's more known for advising Conservative governments than others. He happens to have been the teacher—the revered teacher, although he's a very young man—of Shaughnessy Cohen.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: He's not a very young man.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: He's not; that's right.

The Chairman: Well, this adds a new dimension.

I'm going to pass the word to Mr. Abbott, but members, at that point I'm going to call the question on the amendment and then on the main motion.

Mr. Abbott, sir.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Thank you.

I'd like to clarify something very quickly, so that the Liberal members understand what they're voting on, because from intervention by one of the committee members—I can't recall who—it's clear that they don't understand the mandate of the Public Complaints Commission.

Under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the Public Complaints Commission is seized with this affair and will report to the commissioner. It will not necessarily be a public report. Furthermore, any evidence taken at the Public Complaints Commission will be done under the Canada Evidence Act. Under the Canada Evidence Act, ministers of the crown may choose to not answer questions and not supply papers.

The ability of the Public Complaints Commission, by its definition, because it was never designed to be used for the purpose that the government purports it's being used for right now, is so limited that there is no way it can answer the questions that only this committee can end up getting to.

And I would make one final point. In a couple of public debates that I had on television with Mr. McWhinney, I believe last Saturday about noon, Dr. McWhinney was saying it would be a good idea for us to have this matter taken up by this committee. That was on CBC Newsworld. I will therefore be very interested to see how Dr. McWhinney ends up voting on this issue today.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Point of order?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to clarify something. With respect to my earlier intervention, I have drafted a notice of motion that I will give to the committee. I understand it takes 48 hours' notice on this, but I'll just quickly read the notice of motion to inform members of the notice:

That this committee hold hearings on the role of Canada at the upcoming APEC Summit in Malaysia and that the foreign minister and Prime Minister be invited to appear before the committee.

I want as well, particularly in light of Dr. McWhinney's comments, to give notice of a motion:

That this committee urge the Solicitor General to provide legal assistance to the complainants currently appearing before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

The Chairman: Those are two notices of motion. We've received them. We will debate those at the earliest possible moment. But you appreciate that my understanding of the procedures before the House at the moment is that either today or tomorrow, lists of committee members will be filed. Mr. White might be able to advise us better on that.

Is it tomorrow that the lists will be filed?

Mr. Randy White: It will be today.

The Chairman: That means we will probably be reconstituted next week sometime.

• 1120

Yes, sir?

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): I would like to ask my colleagues opposite if they're satisfied with this translation. This is something new to me. I have never seen an amendment published this way in both official languages, simply printed in. I want to check and make absolutely sure that my colleagues are satisfied with it before we vote on the amendment and/or the motion.

The Chairman: Okay. Leave that with Mr. Turp and he'll get back to you. I'm sorry; Mr. Cannis had asked to speak, and I didn't see his name on the list.

Mr. Cannis, I'm going to go to you first, and then we're going to go to the discussion of the amendment and the main motion.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll be brief, because I've sat and listened very carefully to the arguments presented by Mr. Mills, Mr. Manning, and everybody, and I reserved my comments until the very end to draw some conclusions. I must begin by saying, having heard what I've heard from both sides, that I cannot even consider this, even now, with the amendment, which in essence undermines the entire process.

It seems to me very transparent that we are indeed undermining this process; we are prejudging this entire process. I agreed with Mr. Mills when he pointed out very clearly that Minister Axworthy in 1992 did make the comments in the House of Commons, mind you. What better place, where there's considerable question on this entire issue, for the public to hear than on live television, right across the nation?

Questions are being asked and have been asked consistently, and the government has been on its feet answering these questions. I know the question has come forward from as far back as 1986, when the commission was created.

I conclude by saying that I'm very happy that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Manning, is here today. It's not often that we have the Leader of the Opposition here trying to present his case, and I'm very pleased. He talked about credibility of the House of Commons, and credibility is at stake here. If we vote to support this motion, we will send the wrong signal that we do not have faith in the commissions we've established, whether today or in the future.

An hon. member: Well said, John.

Mr. John Cannis: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cannis.

We're going to move to the question.

Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Chairman, can we have a recorded vote?

The Chairman: Mr. Grose raised a point of order respecting the appropriateness of our proceedings. I've always taken the position in this committee that we facilitate the work of members, and if an amendment wants to come forward during the process, we can't insist that every amendment be typed out in both official languages before it comes forward, or the committee would never be able to function. We'd adjourn every 15 minutes to go away.

We have an amendment; the clerk has done the translation. Mr. Turp has pointed out that

[Translation]

it should read "de la GRC" instead of du "GRC".

Mr. Daniel Turp: In order to reassure our Liberal colleague, I confirm that I was involved in the translation and that we are satisfied with this wording. Our committee is accustomed to working like this, informally.

[English]

The Chairman: Both the amendment and the main motion are in front of the members in both official languages. I'm going to put the amendment first.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Recorded vote, of course.

(Amendment negatived: nays 14; yeas 3) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I will pass now to the main motion. We will proceed in the same way.

• 1125

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 8) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I want to thank members for their cooperation in having an orderly debate on this complicated issue.

I remind members that we will not meet again until the committee has been reconstituted, at which point we will take up the matter of our nuclear disarmament report, which will be the first matter, but subject of course to Mr. Robinson's motions.

Thank you very much. We stand adjourned.