PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 8, 1998

• 1133

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): If I may, I will call the meeting to order. I think everyone has the orders of the day.

Item 1 is a proposal by Mr. Solomon. I'll speak to that in a moment and so will he.

The second item is the first report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, our steering committee, which essentially has to do with the pattern of the future business of the committee.

During the steering committee meetings, a matter came up which was raised by John Solomon. The steering committee agreed that Mr. Solomon would be able to move a motion today. It's the motion you have before you. We agreed, by the way, that he would be first on the agenda, and so he is.

I have to say that I have some concerns about the propriety of our committee dealing with this matter, but I want to hear what John has to say. I will then ask members if they will join in the debate. But I will ask them specifically, at least on the first round, to address the issue of whether they believe this comes under the mandate of the committee.

Joe Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm happy that you've suggested this. First, we ought to discuss whether or not it's appropriate to discuss such a motion and whether it's within the purview of this particular committee to do so, and perhaps the clerk or somebody might remind this committee as to whether or not we've ever done something like this before. I know we've dealt with certain things that were—

The Chairman: Joe—

Mr. Joe Fontana: I remember being part of the committee that—

The Chairman: Joe, if we could—

Mr. Joe Fontana: Before we get into the debate—

• 1135

The Chairman: No, Joe. In the steering committee, we agreed that John Solomon would speak first and that he would have a reasonable run at it. That was agreed to in the steering committee under particular circumstances, and that's what we're going to do.

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to at least talk about this issue and perhaps present the motion to the committee.

I would like to present the motion mainly because this committee, like other committees of the House of Commons, has the authority to undertake business from time to time that it feels is appropriate to the running of the House of Commons.

In the past week, we've seen a continuous stream of questions in the House regarding the conversations that took place between Mr. Frederick Toole and the Solicitor General of Canada, Andy Scott, on a flight between Ottawa and Fredericton last Thursday, October 1, 1998.

Many questions are left outstanding on these conversations. At first, the Solicitor General himself had a memory loss in regard to this conversation. Later, he produced a letter from Mr. Toole, which stated that the conversation occurred and that they did discuss various things, and the APEC situation in particular.

The notes taken by the MP for Palliser, Dick Proctor, have been quoted extensively by all sides and by all parties of the House. As recently as yesterday, the Prime Minister quoted Mr. Proctor in his comment on the contents of the notes.

This committee, in my view, needs to clarify the content of those conversations. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister and other government members have used Mr. Proctor's notes as evidence to the content of the conversation, there has been no opportunity to ask the Solicitor General direct questions about his exact words.

The issues at stake, in our view, are very serious. The Solicitor General is alleged to have discussed confidential government issues related to the treatment of demonstrators at the December 1997 APEC conference in Vancouver.

As well, it's our view that Question Period is not an adequate or an appropriate venue in which to comprehensively investigate this important matter.

It's imperative as well that the content of this public conversation be clarified. Calling the member for Palliser, along with Mr. Toole and the Solicitor General, in front of the committee to answer direct questions can best do this. This will give those involved the opportunity to state their cases, so I ask members to consider it.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay. If no one wants to speak, I'd be glad to comment on it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): I am convinced that all my colleagues on the committee want to find out the truth about this matter, as I do.

I agree with you that that concern, as such, does not constitute an imperative to discuss any motion or undertake any mandate. However, Mr. Chairman, to the very specific question on whether the committee has the authority to discuss this motion, and to implement it, my answer is yes.

Some shameful acts occurred a few months ago in Vancouver. Things happened that we never thought we would see here, at home, in Canada, in Quebec, and those actions warranted an investigation in themselves. An inquiry was in fact undertaken by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. An inquiry was begun and up to that point, there was no problem.

In the days that followed, we heard that the Prime Minister's Office might have been behind these shameful acts, might have been involved in some way. Of course, some may say that it is normal for the Prime Minister's Office to be involved in operations aiming to protect foreign dignitaries. That is a fact and no one will challenge that.

However, should that involvement include giving instructions for the violent repression of a peaceful demonstration organized by students? That is another question and it certainly deserves to be looked into carefully.

I don't mean to say by that that the Prime Minister's Office did or did not give such orders, but that is certainly a matter that should be looked into. The question is whether the RCMP Public Complaints Commission can shed light on the matter. I think not.

• 1140

First of all, it is not within the mandate of that Commission to determine the political role the Prime Minister's Office may or may not have played in the RCMP's actions. Its mandate is to examine the actions of RCMP officers. Moreover, we have heard from the very mouth of the Prime Minister that he was not inclined to appear before that Commission. So, obviously, things have become a bit cloudy over time.

We attempted to shed some light on the matter in the House. Unfortunately, we could not find out any more than we knew. Things became even more complicated when we learned that the Member for Palliser had taken notes on certain things the Solicitor General is alleged to have said with regard to that affair.

Once again we attempted to elucidate things in the House but that was not possible. That wasn't possible for several reasons but mostly because of the tradition of the House of Commons, which is that we must assume that what a colleague says is true.

We are now faced with two versions of the same event that are totally contradictory. One colleague rose in the House Monday to say that the Solicitor General had said certain things. On the same day, the Solicitor General was called on to defend himself and could not recall his seatmate was, could not even recall whether it was a man or a woman next to him, but did not really deny the statements ascribed to him, which he did deny, however, on the following day. The next day, in the House, solemnly, he stood and stated that the words ascribed to him were totally false and as parliamentarians we must assume that the Solicitor General was telling the truth.

Mr. Chairman, there is a basic problem here. I cannot at one and the same time assume that what Mr. Proctor is saying is true and also assume that what the Solicitor General is saying is equally true, since, obviously, there is a contradiction between the two and since the Solicitor General was implying by his words, indirectly, that Mr. Proctor had lied.

We tried to shed light on the matter during question period in the House; we did not succeed. Thus, I submit that it is incumbent upon this committee to examine with close attention the very delicate issue of the government's integrity. In this whole matter, the Solicitor General's integrity is called into question. I am not saying that he lacked integrity; I am not saying that he lied; I am not saying that he did indeed make those statements; I am simply saying that, as we speak, the Solicitor General of Canada's integrity is being impugned.

In light of that, let us shed light on the matter once and for all, let's elucidate this and allow those concerned to come and explain what happened so that we may understand what did in fact occur, and if the Solicitor General of Canada did not say those things, let's dispel all doubt to that effect, put an end to it, and move on to much more important questions, important both for the committee and the House itself.

As long as the matter has not been settled, our friends across the way must expect that the opposition, from now to Friday, and when we return after the week's recess— You mustn't think that the issue will disappear during the week we spend in our ridings and that we will go on to other things, because doubt subsists and must be dispelled. When that has happened I will be the first one to say to everyone: Listen, let it go; let's move on to something else, because we have much more important things to do. Mr. Chairman, I am asking you in your wisdom to allow us to discuss this motion. It should not be swept under the rug; that would only add to the nebulousness of this affair, which is becoming increasingly confused.

[English]

The Chairman: I will hear comments from Joe Fontana, George Baker, Chuck Strahl, and John Solomon again.

Joe.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That's why I started to ask about procedure and questioned whether or not it was within the purview of this committee, whether we have the authority on this committee to talk about hearsay information or the hearsay evidence that one member has said something about another member. If that's what the new role of this committee is going to be, I'll tell you that we're going to be busy 24 hours a day for the next 365 days.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

• 1145

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Watch the washrooms!

Mr. Joe Fontana: So I'm rather perplexed. I'd like to know what precedents there are and what authority we have now to start talking about these kinds of things.

It's appropriate for this committee, obviously, as we have in the past, to talk about conduct of members within the House or what they may have said to the press that might have caused some difficulties.

But to suggest that we as a committee now intervene based on hearsay information that has come to us by virtue of one member saying “this is what another member says”— I think that's pretty dangerous. Where is it going to start and where is it going to stop?

Secondly, I get the impression, at least from the previous speaker, that all of a sudden now we ought to take on the role of the Public Complaints Commission and start to hear evidence with regard to what happened during the APEC meeting because I've heard all of these allegations. In fact, what we should do, if anything, today at least, is not start to speculate. We should let the commission do its work in an unfettered way so that it can get on with finding out the truth based on the complaints that have been brought before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. I think the fact that we're even talking about whose role or whatever is not proper.

Mr. Chair, I think it's important, and not only for this particular issue before us today as to what might have been said between two members of Parliament in a plane, let alone in the House of Commons. Deciding on that principle will, I think, carry us as to how we're going to deal with these kinds of issues in the future.

I know we're discussing procedure. As you said, do we have the authority to discuss these kinds of things? Do we have the authority to discuss hearsay, to discuss words that passed between members of Parliament who obviously disagree?

I say no, we don't have the authority. Nor should we as a committee start to talk about who said what, where, when and so on. As I said, this committee would become nothing but a kangaroo court and we would be busy 365 days a year trying to adjudicate the truth as to what one member said and another member said and so on and so forth.

The Chairman: Joe, we're discussing this because, first, we agreed to it in the steering committee, and second, because it is somewhat different than something I ruled on last week. It was a similar thing, but it wasn't quite the same. We're discussing this because it's different.

George Baker, followed by Chuck Strahl.

An hon. member: Yes, but do we have the authority—

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your ruling on this matter. I think it's the sign of a good chair, first of all, that all committee motions be vetted through the committee.

However, Mr. Chairman, in this particular matter, normally, by custom of the House, when a committee deals with a matter that is not directly assigned to it by a reference from the House or is not directly a part of its reference or its makeup, the mover of the motion, Mr. Chairman, in putting forward the motion, would—and I listened very carefully—list the rationale for the motion being debated, or in other words, would list where in the rules it says that the committee would have the authority to do what this motion purports to do.

And secondly, Mr. Chairman, not finding such a rule, the mover of the motion would then perhaps make reference to a custom that this committee followed in the past, which would give it the authority to do such a thing.

Now, of course, Mr. Chairman, keeping in mind that the committee is really a master of its own destiny and could do something outside of the normal rules—and of course, then, the House would have to decide whether the committee should be listened to or not—I would submit that not hearing Mr. Solomon outline what rule of procedure would justify such a debate or an examination here, and also not having heard the custom that this committee could use to carry out such an investigation, there is no such rule that would allow the committee to do this.

.11150

In fact, I'm certain there's no such rule, and furthermore, there's no such precedent, and if there is no precedent and if there is no rule, then, Mr. Chairman, I think the committee members are justified in rejecting this particular motion.

But as I say, I appreciate what the chair is doing, and that is, allowing the members to have a say on any motion that comes before the chair.

The Chairman: I will hear from Chuck Strahl, John Solomon, Marlene Catterall and Gurmant Grewal.

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

I agree with what George said too. It's always fair game to have a discussion, and I think it's always wise to do so, because to deny that means the chair has to unilaterally make the decisions.

I think it's clear that Standing Order 108 says that a committee, especially the procedure and house affairs committee, can examine just about any matter it deems fit. So if the committee decided to examine this, I think it could. It's just a matter of whether the committee decides to do so, and that's a decision for the committee, not just for the chair. I appreciate the way you're handling this, Mr. Chairman.

I do point out that in regard to reports in the press, last year we spent quite a bit of time discussing reports in the press, if you remember, not because I was keen on it, but because of a press report about words allegedly attributed to members of Parliament that were deemed scandalous and scurrilous and all sorts of words. This committee did examine it, did interview all the people quoted in the newspaper report, and did submit a report to the House of Commons.

So it's not unheard of for us to deal with matters that are in the press, whether they're uncorroborated or whatever. As a matter of fact, the matters we dealt with on that occasion were not even matters between two members of Parliament; it was a matter of a media person and a member of Parliament. And I don't want to raise one of those esteemed groups higher than the other, but let us just say they weren't two members of Parliament. The matter involved a member of Parliament quoted by a media type, and that was considered scandalous enough at the time that this committee was—

Mr. George Baker: Asked.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: —charged with doing that. And certainly, though, a precedent was set. I did ask at the time if the committee was sure it wanted to open that can of worms. I said, “Folks, if you open this can of worms, where charges of a serious nature are in the press and somebody takes offence to it, you're going to be back in here doing this again.” And we are.

Mr. Joe Fontana: But the House—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Because it was a press report, basically.

Now this is worse, in my opinion, more serious, because we're dealing with two members of Parliament. One of them is saying, “You said it.” And the other one is saying, “I said something, but I don't like the spin you're putting on it.”

Personally, I think what happened with the minister in the House a couple of days ago has raised the ante on this. And the reason I can support this motion— I'd be reluctant to, frankly, if the minister hadn't stood in his place and said that he had a point of privilege, basically calling Dick Proctor a liar. And the Speaker, I believe, made an error in judgment by not allowing anyone else to respond to that point of privilege.

In other words, the minister gets up, spreads his version of what he wants to say—it's in the record, in Hansard—blasts away, and no response is allowed. Then another minister gets up and says, “I'd like to move to table the letter.” And no response is allowed from a single opposition member, even to be able to say, “I'd like to address that point of privilege.” That means something that serious gets brought to the attention of the House and no opposition member from any party is allowed to address it—

An hon. member: Although we tried.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Although efforts were made.

And that means the reason this motion is here before us today is that there is very little recourse there.

Furthermore, the letter by Mr. Toole that was tabled—again, without debate or response or any opposition comment—merely says that he does not interpret the words to be harmful to the APEC hearing—or whatever he said. He doesn't interpret them to be.

• 1155

In other words, there's no denial that a conversation took place. There's no denial that the discussion took place. It's just that he chooses not to interpret them in a certain way.

Well, what's happened now is that we have somebody saying, “Well, here's the best corroboration I have.” It's a letter that says he doesn't deny there was a conversation, just that he chose not to interpret it badly. We have a minister standing up and basically calling Dick Proctor a liar, and no response is allowed from anybody else.

So now, the reason we have this motion before the committee, I guess—and I didn't speak to the NDP whip about this—is that in defence of his member, the whip is forced to come to this committee and say, “If this is what we have to do”—and there is some precedent in this committee for dealing with this kind of reporting in the papers—“then this is what we have to do.” And that's why this motion, I think, is not only in order—well, as Mr. Baker says, it's always in order to discuss it—but is supportable. It's because of that very problem.

And the minister exacerbated his own situation by raising the ante. Up until then it was debate. It was just “I said, you said”, just debate.

But once he starts in with that and the House doesn't allow any response, members have to seek other recourse. And the recourse that's being sought here is an open discussion between the people who were named both in the newspaper articles and in a point of privilege in the House of Commons when no response by opposition parties was allowed.

That was a silly way to handle this. The minister has raised the ante. I don't know who's giving him advice, but it's bad advice. And now we're in this committee because the House doesn't give any recourse to the member from Palliser. I believe that's why we're in this, and that's why I think this motion should be supported.

The Chairman: I'll hear from John Solomon, Marlene Catterall, Gurmant Grewal and Lynn Myers.

Mr. John Solomon: I have just a couple of brief comments. I appreciate all members' input on this.

Perhaps to respond to Mr. Fontana, I do agree with him that if we were to call before the committee members of Parliament who had disagreements in debate we'd be here 24 hours a day. This is not what we're talking about. We're talking about something far more serious. So I just want to agree with him but still support this motion.

In regard to the comment Mr. Baker made regarding precedents, I would never pretend to advise Mr. Baker on what committees should or should not do; he's chaired committees and I have not. He knows Standing Order 108 better than I can tell him, so there is an opportunity for us to do this. It's not a really complex matter.

With respect to the committee, we cannot question Mr. Toole in the House of Commons on what he did or did not hear or what Mr. Scott did or did not say to him. That's why the motion includes Mr. Toole as somebody who's a witness: it's to set the record straight. I thin that's very important.

This is not a frivolous matter. I've known Dick Proctor personally, as a friend, for 18 years. This guy does not lie. This guy does not play with words in terms of adjectives or adverbs. This guy is straight-up. And there is something really seriously wrong in this last week in this House of Commons, because we are not able to get to the source of this.

I'm not doing this because I've known the guy since 1993 as a member of Parliament. He's a friend of mine, and that, in my view, has some basis for credibility. I know his lifestyle. I know him and his family. I know him to be a person of the highest integrity and—

Mr. Joe Fontana: You can say that about Andy Scott too.

Mr. John Solomon: —I believe Mr. Toole should come before this committee to verify exactly what's been said. But more important is the fact that the discussion, at least in the House of Commons, and the questions raised in the House of Commons with respect to what the Solicitor General said, in my view, undermine not only the integrity of Mr. Scott as Solicitor General, but undermine the APEC hearings and a number of other very important matters that are before the House of Commons.

And everyone around this table knows that it reflects on all of us if there is a real problem here. As a committee, we have to understand that, I think, and deal with this motion today.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall and then Gurmant Grewal.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Chair, we're now arguing whether this motion is in order. I've been listening very carefully and what I've heard is that this issue goes to the heart of the Prime Minister's Office and its role, to the integrity of the government and to the integrity of the Solicitor General.

And that may all be true, but I don't think that brings it under the mandate of this committee.

• 1200

The Prime Minister's Office is not under the mandate of this committee. Neither is the integrity of the government. Neither is the integrity of the Solicitor General.

I'm concerned when I hear people say that the Speaker made an error in judgment. There's a way to challenge that if you wish to challenge that, and it's not by trying to bring an issue to this committee that has already been ruled on in the House of Commons by the Speaker.

I've heard people say that there are no other avenues to address this. Well, if people want to comment on a document that was tabled in the House or on a point that was raised by a member in the House—minister or otherwise—there are other avenues. There are statements in the House. There are questions in the House—as we have heard more than forcefully in the last couple of weeks.

Any member who feels his or her integrity has been impugned—and that seems to be what Mr. Solomon is suggesting—has the opportunity to raise a point of privilege on that basis and to have it referred to this committee. That's the proper procedure, in my view.

An hon. member: She's right.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We can deal with things—and I'm referring to the standing orders and the mandate of this committee—referred to us by the House. This has not been referred to us by the House. In fact, the Speaker specifically ruled out the opportunity to refer this matter to the committee, and I think that says a great deal about whether we should be dealing with it. It obviously does not fall under the administration of the House or services and facilities to members, all of which are within our mandate, nor does it fall under the management of these buildings jointly by the Senate and the House of Commons.

In my view, it does not fall under the standing orders. Nobody has pointed to any standing order that this relates to.

An hon. member: 108.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It does not refer to the procedures of the House or to the practices of the House in a general way, which is within our mandate, and I cannot find anything in the standing orders that puts this in the hands of this committee.

I'll repeat what I said at the steering committee meeting the other day: if members want to have this referred to this committee as an issue of privilege, we will deal with it as we have dealt with other questions of privilege.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I want to say, quite aside from that, that when we have a commission about to begin inquiring into this very matter, having a parallel discussion with political overtones in this committee would be most unwise. If I were a member of that commission, I would almost regard it as interference in the affairs of the commission.

Now I haven't reviewed the commission's legal mandate or its regulations, but if it wishes to hear from these people, it has the power to do that. I think we should not be muddying the waters in regard to the job the commission has to do—and a very important job it is, with some very important issues.

So that's my summary. I think it's not in order.

The Chairman: Next is Gurmant Grewal, then it's Lynn Myers and then it's Randy White.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the way you are handling this issue so far, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to you continuing to handle it in the most appropriate manner.

Mr. Chairman, I will say that this issue should not prejudice the way this committee is handling this. That's the major concern I have, even though I'm a new member of this committee.

Members heard that what we are debating here is hearsay. Mr. Chairman, it's not hearsay that we are debating here. The members are not discussing the colour of the chairs; they are discussing a very serious issue and it is being discussed in a public place. The seriousness of the issue itself warrants serious action from someone somewhere in the House of Commons in order to maintain the integrity of, the respect for and the honour of this respectable institution.

The media has been beating on this issue for one week. All Canadians have been looking at it. And what I perceive is that we are making a mockery of this issue in the eyes of Canadians. It is hurting the respect and the honour of this institution.

What we are talking about, Mr. Chairman, is the integrity of two MPs, the integrity of the minister and the integrity of this institution. And the conduct of the Solicitor General is at stake at this time.

If we look into the statements which are alleged to have been made by the Solicitor General, Mr. Chairman, hypothetically, if we assume for the time being that the allegations are true, nobody would disagree that these are serious allegations.

• 1205

The Solicitor General is alleged to be prejudging the consequences of committee. This is really a very serious issue if it is true, so it is up to us to determine its seriousness and the approach on this matter.

If two members of Parliament are making allegations against each other and partially accepting these statements— And the third person, Mr. Toole, doesn't deny those allegations; he is simply giving it a different spin in his interpretation.

I think this is the place where we should discuss it, particularly when during the debate in the House of Commons the issue was not handled the way it should have been handled. No chance was given to the other members to present their views on the issue. I believe this is the only place where we should discuss this issue and find out what the truth is, so Canadians can know what the truth is and so we maintain the integrity and respect and conduct of the members as well as the House.

The Chairman: Lynn Myers, then Randy White.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that I am somewhat disturbed by the tenor of the debate here today, in terms of drawing conclusions, I believe, in advance of the facts being laid out, and in terms of making prejudgments and in fact calling into question the integrity of members. I, quite frankly, don't like that.

I think it's even grossly inappropriate for this committee to decide anything related to this motion, but I appreciate your ruling in terms of the discussion and I'm prepared to go along with it.

To actually do what the motion calls on us to do is most inappropriate. This is not the purpose of this committee. We have a process in place whereby the Public Complaints Commission will be looking at all these matters in the appropriate way and in the appropriate time. That's the place where these things should be looked at.

And it's not a question of “he's my friend” or this one's “integrity” and such. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a process where facts from both sides have to come out. That's where this should be. It shouldn't be a fishing expedition, an expedition whereby we're somehow “muddying the waters”, the term that I think was used. That is not what this committee is all about. We need to act accordingly.

This motion is, as I said, grossly inappropriate, and we should close this matter soon.

The Chairman: Randy White, then Yvon Charbonneau, then George Baker, briefly.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Here's the question I'm asking myself: if this doesn't occur here, then where does it occur?

What has happened between the Solicitor General and other parties on an airplane, what has been said and what hasn't been said, is certainly not likely to be a matter of in-depth study at the Public Complaints Commission.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Randy White: In fact, I don't think the commission is going to address this. It could even be a matter of the commission being compromised as a result of not necessarily addressing it. That's one of the reasons, really, why a committee of the House of Commons has to take up this matter. Now, as to which committee is more appropriate for taking it up, I think we've heard a good argument for this one doing so.

We've talked about integrity. I don't think it is just a matter of Minister Scott's integrity. It is also Mr. Proctor's integrity that is at stake here. This committee didn't seem to have such a problem in dealing with the integrity of members like Ken Epp or Cliff Breitkreuz, although the House mandated the committee to do something—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Exactly.

Mr. Randy White: —but all of a sudden, when it's a very highly sensitive issue again, the committee has difficulty dealing with the integrity of the Solicitor General.

I would ask the members present to keep this in mind: again, the integrity of two individuals is at stake here, and we don't want to lose sight of that. The integrity of one of our other colleagues, Mr. Proctor, is on the line as well. That must be sought out, and we must prove, either way, if this instance occurred and how it occurred. And that is not going to take place at the Public Complaints Commission.

So this is really not about a fabrication of a discussion, because we know the discussion took place. This isn't about the fabrication of some issues, because some issues in that discussion that took place are in fact rather accurate, as the Solicitor General has basically admitted in the House and, in fact, as the Prime Minister has admitted in the House—as you can see if you look at the transcript of Hansard, and I'm sure you have, like we have.

• 1210

Mr. Chairman, we have to deal with this issue at a committee in the House of Commons. A good argument has been made here for this committee to deal with it, and I see no reason why members opposite would have any problems bringing these people here and asking them what happened. For again, it is the integrity of more than one of our colleagues that is at stake.

The Chairman: Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, some of our colleagues from the Reform Party in support of the motion, are referring to the fact that we had asked a certain colleague to appear in the flag foofaraw some time ago. I think that is not a good argument. The matter concerned statements made in the House or outside the House by certain colleagues as members of the House, comments that might have had some bearing, as we understood, on the Speaker of the House. Had they said this or that? What did that mean? Was there a threat to the Speaker of the House?

We heard our colleagues. The matter had been referred to us by the House. I think that is a completely different situation from the one we are considering here. In this case, the committee has not been asked to examine anything by the House. Further, we are talking about statements made by one person. The motion is not aimed at a member for a given riding, but concerns Solicitor General Andy Scott, and says so clearly. These statements ascribed to him have some bearing on his duties as minister. He is alleged to have said this or that and made statements related to the APEC business in Vancouver, etc.

Ministers are responsible for what they say in the House during question period or at other times, because there are other methods that can be used in the House. These statements ascribed to him are related to his ministerial duties.

So, in my opinion, this is not the place to pass judgment on statements parliamentarians are alleged to have made, statements related to their ministerial duties. Ministers are accountable to the House. Consequently, I think this motion does not belong here. There is a mechanism to hold ministers accountable, and a committee such as this one is not it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Yvon.

[English]

Mr. George Baker: I have just two sentences, Mr. Chairman.

The standing order quoted here does not allow the committee to originate any terms of reference outside the customary business and mandate of the committee. That's the first point.

Second, the precedent that was listed here was actually in the form of a reference from the House at the time, on a point, I believe, of personal privilege.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think you're correct in your assessment made on previous occasions that we're simply a creature of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, we haven't yet arrived at the point in this country whereby we can originate our own terms of reference. We would be breaking the rules of the House, and that, I submit, would be the case in this particular matter.

The Chairman: I'm going to draw this to a quick conclusion, but with one possibility. John Solomon may wish to say something.

Mr. John Solomon: I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman, other than my original statement making the request that the three individuals appear before the committee.

The Chairman: Okay.

Colleagues, we had agreed to give this matter a substantial airing and we've certainly done that.

And this is somewhat different. If Mr. Toole had been the only one mentioned, I'd have been very comfortable very early on in ruling the thing completely out of order. But because it involved two members of Parliament, I thought it was worthwhile to have this discussion.

In my view, we are not dealing with a question of privilege referred to us by the House. To my knowledge, Mr. Proctor has not raised a question of privilege in the House. And I was there when the minister tried to raise a question of privilege; he was, in fact, ruled out of order.

• 1215

And if I might take on the arguments that were put, particularly the points about the flag debate and the past matters we discussed, they were specifically referred to us by the House of Commons.

So I would urge John Solomon to raise this matter in the House. I believe the House and the Speaker are responsible for such matters. And if a reference is made to this committee we would certainly consider it.

So can we move to agenda item 2?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Very good.

The Chairman: Would someone care to move the motions before us?

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, I move—

The Chairman: Oui?

[Translation]

René Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Since the motion that was on the table has been defeated—

[English]

The Chairman: Are we returning to the previous discussion, René?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: On the same topic, I would like to make another motion since the first one was defeated.

[English]

The Chairman: We had notice of this motion and I've ruled that one out of order, René. Perhaps something could be raised again at another meeting. I'd sooner proceed now with the agenda before us.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman—

Mr. René Laurin: Is it too late to move an amendment to the motion, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: No. It's ruled out of order.

Can we proceed to agenda item 2, please?

Stéphane, I've taken a lot of time with this. I really have. I believe that it is out of order. We gave it a very good airing under the circumstances.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, you've ruled the previous motion out of order, a decision that seems inappropriate to me, but that is your decision. Perhaps we should now listen to the new motion.

[English]

The Chairman: No. At another meeting, raise it again. We had notice of this motion. We discussed it, as you know, in the steering committee, and it's out of order. Can we proceed to agenda item 2, please?

Would someone care to move the motion before us?

Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I move the motion as printed.

The Chairman: Okay, colleagues, you've seen the first report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, something is wrong here. Does this committee have a rule according to which one must provide notice of motion?

[English]

An hon. member: You guys are goddam—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]—

The Chairman: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In that case, why can't my colleague table his motion? On the basis of which rule, regulation or routine motion is he being prevented from doing so?

Could you be quiet two minutes so that I can speak?

[English]

Mr. Joe Fontana: We're at item 2.

An hon. member: Oh, Joe, you're not the chair.

Mr. Joe Fontana: No, well—

An hon. member: You're a Liberal, so—

An hon. member: Wait your turn.

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Just a moment, George.

The Chairman: Our colleague has a motion. I am advised that he is allowed to move a motion and—

Mr. George Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the motion that the hon. member made a few moments ago—

The Chairman: Is out of order.

Mr. George Baker: —was to amend the motion that you had ruled out of order.

The Chairman: Right.

An hon. member: He made no motion.

Mr. George Baker: But he distinctly said that he was moving an amendment to the motion that you had ruled out of—

An hon. member: No, no.

Mr. George Baker: Well, that was the translation, I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: First, I asked for permission to introduce a new motion. Since the answer was "no", I asked him whether we could propose an amendment to the first motion. My first request was to propose a new motion.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the salient question here is—and maybe we have to hear the member out—is it on the same topic? And if it is, he's out of order. If it's something new, then you might want to hear him out.

• 1220

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, no, no, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: John Solomon, then Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: On a point of order—

Mr. John Solomon: There's a point of order. I'll listen to that first.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: —look, we've dealt with item 1 on our agenda. You have now moved on to item 2. I believe a motion has been moved to adopt the report of the steering committee.

An hon. member: That's right.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can we dispose of that? And then Monsieur Laurin is free to raise anything he wants to raise under other business, which is also on our agenda.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think that my colleague's point of order is out of order since you have moved to the second item on the agenda without basing your decision on any known rule. First you refused to even hear my colleague's motion and you moved on to the second point.

I then intervened to ask you why you were refusing to hear my colleague's motion, what rule you were basing your decision on. I think that in light of the rules we must hear my colleague's motion before ruling it out of order. It is not because it is on the same topic that it is necessarily out of order. The point as such is not out of order, but the motion that was introduced by my colleague. So, let's hear the motion and see whether it is out of order.

[English]

The Chairman: Joe Fontana, on a point of order.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, the record will show that we had moved from item 1 to item 2. And in fact a motion on item 2 was already put forward before—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: He tried to put a motion first.

Mr. Joe Fontana: No, excuse me— just because you weren't fast enough—

The Chairman: Joe.

René, could I hear you under other business? I will proceed to item 2, and you will be ready when we get to other business. Would that be okay?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I could do that, but a motion was introduced to settle the problem that was raised. The motion moved to solve the problem was refused. That doesn't mean that there aren't other ways of solving the problem. I was proposing that we listen to some other suggestion. I wanted to suggest another way of solving the problem raised by my colleague from the NDP.

[English]

The Chairman: René, if it is related to the previous motion that we've ruled out of order—in other words, if it is effectively an amendment or a rephrasing of it—I would rule it out of order.

Would you agree to deal with it under other business later during this meeting?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I am willing to do that, but I don't want to be told again that the motion was declared out of order under the first item on the agenda and that it continues to be under "Other business". It will be on the same topic, that's clear. If you tell me that this is not a new topic and if you rule my motion out of order, we won't have gotten anywhere.

[English]

The Chairman: René, I would need to hear the motion to rule on that. Would you agree that we'll deal with it at this meeting under other business?

Mr. Joe Fontana: Number three.

The Chairman: Would you agree? Under number three?

We have a motion before us. René said okay, and we will come back to it.

In regard to the subcommittee report, colleagues, these are the items agreed to by the steering committee on Tuesday. You will see the items that are mentioned. We tried to cover the material that was left over, as it were, for our committee.

One was a briefing on the business of supply. Mr. John Williams of the Reform Party has been particularly keen on this. Marlene Catterall has been keen on it. The idea is that we would have a briefing and see if we can move and look at a report which was not considered by this committee in the previous Parliament.

In regard to the accommodation plans, we have a watching brief on what is happening on Parliament Hill—that's item 2—and we thought we should be brought up to date on that, on the timing and those sorts of things.

With regard to the treatment of Senators' private members' public bills in the House of Commons, it was suggested that I speak to the Hon. Sharon Carstairs concerning a letter which we received, and if it's agreeable to you I will do that and report back to the committee.

In regard to agenda item 4, for new members, we dealt with the standing orders at considerable length in the last session. That culminated in a debate in April, the required full-day debate on the standing orders. We went through that. We are awaiting a summary of that debate, which we will then bring back to this committee, and we will see what the committee wishes to do with respect to the standing orders.

• 1225

The last one, with respect to the rules for joint committees, again for new members, these are committees of the House and the Senate. I think there was a considerable wish in this committee that we develop some acceptable uniform rules for these joint committees. We made some progress. We think that at some point in the next few weeks we should return to this matter and see if we can look again at the items that are outstanding between us and the Senate. There's still some disagreement.

We have a motion before us. Is there any discussion? Those in favour? Those against? I see no one against.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Okay. If we could move to any other business, I have two items, one from Lynn Myers, the chair of our subcommittee on private members' business. Then we'll return to the point we were discussing.

Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to report briefly that the next draw for private members' bills and motions will be on October 20, at around 1.15 in the afternoon.

I also wanted to report that I was requested by the committee to determine the status of the report concerning private members' business, our committee. This is committee report 13, and it's my understanding that it's still being discussed. I'd like to, with your permission, report to the committee that it's still under discussion and consideration.

The Chairman: I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

An hon. member: Who's discussing it?

The Chairman: It's at the level of the House leader.

An hon. member: The House leader?

The Chairman: Yes.

Are there any questions or comments for Lynn Myers on private members' business?

Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I find his question very legitimate and an answer should be found to this question which has been around for quite a while.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Gurmant Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Just roughly, what is the inventory of private members' bills? How many bills are there for the draw?

Mr. Lynn Myers: We will take a look at a number of bills. We're not sure yet how many we require. That we will be able to determine between now and October 20, and as a result we'll have a better idea closer to that time. So I will defer answering that until such time as have the full count.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Anything else?

Lynn, thank you very much.

René Laurin, could you read your motion slowly?

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: The motion I want to move follows upon what Ms. Catterall said earlier. She said that the Solicitor General could be called by the commission of inquiry tasked with looking into the circumstances around the RCMP's actions in what is now commonly known as Peppergate, to answer questions that would be put to him.

My proposal is a follow-up to that statement. It would read as follows:

That, in the event that the Solicitor General, Andy Scott, is not invited or refuses to appear as a witness before the commission of inquiry looking into the circumstances of the RCMP's actions in what is commonly known as the Peppergate incident, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs call Mr. Tool, Mr. Proctor and Mr. Scott before the committee to clarify exactly what the Solicitor General said on flight 8876 from Ottawa to Fredericton Thursday, October 1, 1998.

For all practical purposes, Mr. Chairman, that means that if the RCMP inquiry into the circumstances we have been referring to today cannot clarify the matter, the committee would look into it and attempt to shed light on the whole affair.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. I would rule that it's a good try, but it's out of order on exactly the same grounds, in that the mandate of the committee deals with references to this committee from the House of Commons. So I would rule it out of order.

Yvon Charbonneau, and then Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I think your decision is very sensible because the motion refers to “what is commonly known as Peppergate”. Can anyone imagine a motion that says “what is commonly known as”? Who agreed that that was the case? The opposition agreed to that. Not us.

An Hon. Member: —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]— just spoke.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: That is exactly what you meant.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, briefly, please.

• 1230

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I simply have a question to put to you because it seems to me that there is a misapprehension that we are in danger of accepting as procedure. According to what I understand, this committee is entirely free to determine the topics or matters that we'll be studying pursuant to Standing Order 108 which was referred to earlier by my colleagues.

When there is an order of reference from the House that topic, sent to it by the House, becomes a priority for the committee. Otherwise, this committee is completely free and has all latitude to choose any topic of study that seems relevant to it. That is absolutely the case! Absolutely! Perhaps we should obtain an opinion on that interpretation. As far as I am concerned it is very clear pursuant to Standing Order 108 that this committee has complete freedom and may undertake to study any topic it feels is relevant to its mandate.

No one can claim that the fact that we have not received an order of reference from the House prevents us from undertaking the study of other matters.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, I would say that our mandate is the rules of the House of Commons, so we cannot make our own rules.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.