[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 16, 1996
.0940 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please. Good morning, colleagues. I trust everyone has had a restful and quiet respite and looks forward to getting back to work.
Colleagues, you may remember that today we were to have heard from the Speaker as well. That meeting has been cancelled due to the Speaker's illness.
Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I've brought the matter privately as no disrespect to the person to whom I'm going to be referring. But I just don't think when one has a question of privilege before this committee that one should be morally entitled to be a member of the same committee.
I'm referring to the fact that Mr. Hart has been, I understand, duly substituted and is this morning a full member of this committee. If he were a spectator, as is Mr. Jacob, that's fine. But you cannot be a jury.... Think of the parallel of a civil case, if you were the member of your own jury ruling on your own case. I don't think that would be acceptable. Any kind of sense of justice that I know of would not accept that and I don't think it's acceptable here either.
I've raised it privately, it was not dealt with, and I'm forced to bring it to the attention of the committee.
The Chairman: Mr. Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): I'm rather surprised at the kind of comments made by my colleague opposite with respect to the type of committee we constitute. It has long been our contention that bringing Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob MP before this committee is tantamount to bringing him before a court that will sit in judgment on him, a court where the means made available for his defence are poorly organized and inadequate.
This morning Mr. Boudria tells us that one of the members of the committee should not be on the committee because he would be both judge and jury. Are we sitting in judgment here?
[English]
The Chairman: I think that was a parallel. I'm going to interrupt you. My colleague's comments -
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: That isn't what I said. I said that whatever the circumstances, a basic principle of justice is that one cannot sit in judgment on oneself.
[English]
The Chairman: My comments -
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: To sit in judgment on oneself implies that one is making a judgment. Are we here as judges or not?
[English]
The Chairman: Order!
A point of order has been raised by our colleague, Mr. Boudria. He drew a parallel. His question comprises the composition of the committee, so with the greatest of respect, Mr. Laurin, let's put the rhetoric aside and deal with the point of order that's been raised.
Do you have something you want to deal with on the point of order? I've heard your point. Your colleagues have heard your point.
Are there any other comments on this point of order?
Mr. Hart, please.
Mr. Hart (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
While I appreciate the motion in the spirit that it was presented today, I would like to say that this is a matter for all members of the House. I bring a certain perspective and I don't think it is an issue of judge and jury here. I do think all members of the House should have the opportunity to question witnesses who come forward and all members should be able to discuss it.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I think the honourable whip will find in House precedents.... We could have the research staff look into this. Certainly they will find that there are previous cases where this wasn't out of order and that in fact the person who does bring the point of privilege is able to sit on the committee and question people who come forward to the committee.
I don't want the committee to get bogged down by this. If it is the decision of this committee that I observe the proceedings and not participate, I would not have a problem with that.
.0945
The Chairman: Mr. Hart, I just want you to know that the matter has been raised. I listened carefully. Mr. Boudria used the words ``morally'' or ``ethically''. I think the clerk has advised me - and I had a brief conversation with Mr. Robertson, our researcher - that procedurally there may be no problem with you sitting on this committee. I mean that technically there isn't a problem. Mr. Jacob himself could be replaced and be on this committee.
But I think that ethically or morally I share the view raised by Mr. Boudria: it would be - I don't want to use the words ``highly inappropriate'' - certainly inappropriate, in my view, and unusual for you to be participating in a committee when you're also going to be coming forward and giving information to the committee. You've been asked or invited to attend as a witness. It just seems to be quite unusual. I don't know if I want to go so far as to say ``inappropriate'', but I certainly listened carefully to what my colleague said.
Are you telling us you want to withdraw? I don't know if I want to put it to a vote. I think it's been raised. If you're interested in withdrawing I think we'd be happy to receive your withdrawal from the committee, but -
Mr. Hart: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw from the committee and I will observe, if that's okay. Can I sit and observe?
The Chairman: Any member of Parliament is welcome to sit at the table, but -
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): The accused is there...
[English]
The Chairman: Pardon me?
The meeting will record that you are not a member of this committee, Mr. Hart.
Can we do that? It's up to Mr. Ringma to deal with the clerk.
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): That's fine. Mr. Hart is now off the committee.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Langlois and Mr. Bellehumeur, I assume that this point of order is dropped so I'm scratching you from the speaking list on the subject.
Colleagues -
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Pardon me?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Following the meeting on the Thursday before the Easter break, a number of comments were attributed to me by my honourable friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who must not have read only one newspaper.
I read over what was said at that meeting. Never did I impute any motives to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who in any case was attending to very legitimate concerns during that fairly busy time of the Parliamentary session. These comments were never made. I don't know where they come from.
I wish to ensure my honourable friend that he has my full understanding and tell him that this is not the kind of remark... I think he has known me long enough to know what I think of him. I may not always share his ideas, but as a French Canadian and native of Hull who has long concerned himself with Francophone issues in Ontario and who must now be closely following what is taking place in the ACFO, this association being forced to apply for an injunction in order to control its schools, he must be anxious to have this committee conclude its work so that once this attack on the member for Charlesbourg is over, something can be done to look after the rights of Francophones where they are the most seriously threatened, not in the middle of Quebec City, represented by Dr Jacob, but here in Ontario, in Maillardville and in St. Boniface with Mr. Duhamel.
Mr. Boudria, you've done a good job on that issue, keep up the good work. Let's bring these proceedings to a quick conclusion. That is the message I wanted to convey to you. Let me repeat my pledge of friendship.
Mr. Boudria: I didn't raise this matter with the member because I myself recognized in the newspaper article that we had exchanged some jokes before the meeting began and the comments attributed to him in the newspaper were in no way a reflection of what actually took place.
I did not raise the matter with my colleague because I knew full well that that wasn't what he said.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. We've had some mea culpas so can we can move on?
.0950
Before I take colleagues to where we were with Mrs. Catterall's motion, I understand there is a very small matter of preliminary business, on which there is unanimous agreement, for a subcommittee on the business of supply, which was convened under the last Parliament.
I'm happy to receive a motion, which I believe you have before you.
Mrs. Catterall, did you want to move that motion?
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Sure. So moved.
The Chairman: It's been moved by Mrs. Catterall that, pursuant to the committee's mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a), a subcommittee be struck to undertake a comprehensive review of the business of supply. Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chairman: Okay.
Are we in favour of this? Are you ready for the question on this matter?
We need the subcommittee to be composed of which members? Mrs. Catterall is on the committee as chair, I understand. Mr. Boudria is on the committee.
John Williams was on the committee. Who was the Bloc member? I think it was Gaston Leroux. We can make that change after.
[Translation]
There will be no problem in making the change after.
Mr. Langlois: It's in the new format and Mr. Leroux...
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, we need three Liberal members, don't we? So it'll be Mrs. Catterall, Mr. Loney and Mr. Pagtakhan.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Yes, Mrs. Catterall? You're the chair.
Ms Catterall: The NDP also had a representative on the committee in the last session. It was John Solomon. He seldom participated, so you might want to consult with their whip.
Mr. Boudria: How about if we appoint him and he can just have someone substitute if he doesn't want to attend?
Ms Catterall: Okay.
The Chairman: That's fine. Is that agreed, colleagues?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: And the subcommittee shall report to the committee no later than what date?
Madam Catterall, did you want to suggest a date?
Mr. Boudria: What's the last day in June?
The Chairman: June 23, isn't it?
Ms Catterall: How about June 15?
The Chairman: Okay,
[Translation]
the 15th of June.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: That's a Saturday.
The Chairman: I'm happy to sit Saturday, but how about June 14? Okay.
Are you ready for the question?
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Oh, this committee works so well. Michel's had a good holiday. François, you're having a good effect on him.
The second item on the agenda is resuming consideration of the order of reference from the House of Commons in relation to the matter of the communiqué. We have Mrs. Catterall's motion on the floor. Really it wasn't on the floor, but -
An hon. member: There's a motion and an amendment.
The Chairman: There's a motion and an amendment on the floor. Mrs. Catterall had a motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr. Chairman, if I may...
[English]
The Chairman: Is it a point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: The purpose is to assist the committee. It's up to you to decide if it's a question of privilege, a point of order or a point of agreement. As I see it, it's a point of agreement...
An honourable member: A good point!
Mr. Bellehumeur: It's a good point.
To continue in this morning's spirit of cooperation, my colleagues and I had a discussion about the way things took place the last time. If we repeated that kind of thing, I don't think we'd get very far in dealing with this matter.
There was a lack of agreement on one major issue but I think we're not that far from agreement. As far as we're concerned, we want some guarantees and we want something written down so that we can refer to it.
.0955
I think we all agree that the order of reference established by the House of Commons is far from being clear. Everyone around the table agrees that we need parameters, as I refer to them, but the ones I suggest might be more restrictive.
At the beginning of our meeting on the 28th, you explained to us how you wanted things to proceed in the committee. We haven't read over the blues but we did take notes during that meeting. If you were to move a proper resolution presented in written form, in keeping with the comments that you made on the 28th, we would be willing to vote in favour of this proposed way of proceeding.
I can repeat my comments, if it is necessary.
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Bellehumeur: We want to have something that will enable us to say during the questioning of witnesses: No, Mr. Speaker, you must not allow such and such a question for the following reasons. This would provide reassurance to us and to you as well when you have rulings to make. It is important to do this today because I heard the whip say at one point that that will be the subject of the release.
I think that everyone agrees on this but that it should be put in written form. In view of what I read in the newspapers, Mr. Chairman, and whip, it's obvious that not everyone around the table understands this in the same way. I'd like us to get off to a good start, and to ensure that everyone agrees, let's put it down in writing. I'd like us to have a resolution, if possible, or at least a very clear and precise ruling on your part so that we know where we are heading.
If that is not how you decide to proceed, I intend to propose a motion that I'd like to table. You'll probably all be against it. I'm looking for a consensus so we don't start the whole thing all over again. There's nothing to prevent us from repeating what we did last Thursday and then everyone will get involved even though I don't think it will do much to advance our work.
That said, Mr. Chairman, I'm anxious to hear what you have to say on this.
[English]
The Chairman: Before I respond to that I'd like to hear from my colleague, Mr. Boudria. I'm just looking for comments.
Mr. Boudria: We could do things in any order, I suppose, but we were to start the discussion on the motion of hiring outside help. Anyway, we can leave that aside for a minute and go to this point.
An excellent document was prepared for us by our researchers, entitled ``Briefing Note to the Standing Committee''. While reading that, I came to the conclusion that in fact what is before this committee is, for instance, the matter of privilege and not the matter of contempt. Right away, by eliminating one of those issues, it narrows the scope of the work of the committee, assuming we agree with the research work that was done for us, and I assume we would. The reasons are all there as to why it's eminently reasonable.
For instance, if we are to deal with the matter of contempt, or alleged contempt, it has to be dealt with in the House. It can't be dealt with in the committee anyway. The matter of privilege, then, from my understanding of the briefing note that was given, is the only one that can be discussed by this committee.
So whenever we interview a witness or anyone else, or even in our discussions, if we're dealing with an issue that is outside that of privilege, we are de facto going outside the scope of the motion that was referred to us.
Right away I think it is helpful to us to have knowledge and cognizance of the document that was prepared for us. If we've established that, we've already gone some distance in terms of ensuring that we're discussing the same issue.
.1000
Should we go beyond that and further define the mandate, I'm not sure. But we could at least understand each other by going that far, and then we would have gone some distance - that is to say, if we agree with the legal advice given to us by our very able staff.
This document is dated April 11, 1996. I hope we have extra copies in the event that some colleagues did not bring theirs.
The Chairman: I got mine this morning and I didn't have a chance to read it, to be honest.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I don't have it.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Frazer.
Order, please.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): If I could refer you to page 14 of that document, it clearly does not rule out contempt. The conclusion says, ``To conclude, if a finding of contempt is made to the satisfaction of the committee...''. So I think what Mr. Boudria said is interesting, but it doesn't really apply, according to this.
The Chairman: Colleagues, let me suggest the following. At the beginning of the last meeting - at both the steering committee and the general meeting - I outlined a process, which I believe Mr. Bellehumeur is referring to at the beginning of his comments.
Mr. Frazer, as I recollect, you weren't opposed to the process I outlined. I was basically, as your chairman, trying to look at a way to resolve what I saw as a bit of an impasse between two competing views. We're all members of Parliament on this committee and we're trying to look for a way to resolve this, so I established in my comments what I saw as a view or a way to proceed. What I said is in the blues. I have my comments here now. I've had a chance to reread them, and I scoped out what I viewed as the committee's work. I can quickly highlight them again.
I talked about the fact that the Speaker made a prima facie ruling that there was a breach of privilege and that there was this prima facie case. I emphasized that we're not a court of law, we're not a commission, and we're not a commission of inquiry with a broad-ranging mandate. But I used the words ``directly related'' and I want to use those words once again and remind you that this is how far I felt we ought to go. I provided that guideline to you, colleagues, as a way to facilitate getting this matter dealt with. I outlined a course of action.
Now, what I hear from Mr. Bellehumeur this morning is that you've had an opportunity to reflect on my comments, and upon reflection you might be predisposed to follow the outline of what I said if it were in the form of a resolution. I presume the Liberal colleagues on the committee would be predisposed to this, and I'd be interested to hear what the Reform Party would say now.
Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: I would be disposed to look at it, but not today. I'm prepared to discuss this thing starting at tomorrow's meeting, but certainly not today. I'd like to go over the terms of your resolution and look at it in detail and ask if it is acceptable, if it is going to achieve what we want.
The Chairman: Look, I know it's sort of like dog dancing. I suppose everybody is trying to figure out their next move. I just want to get the facts and get on with it.
Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, I believe we should have only one chairman. If I understandMr. Bellehumeur properly, he wants you to write down a set of parameters within which you will operate and then he will judge whether or not you're within those parameters. You said you would use your judgment to decide whether it was, in your terms, ``directly related''. I thought ``relevant'' was better, but you said ``directly related''.
The Chairman: Yes.
.1005
Mr. Frazer: I would prefer, as an individual, to leave it that way rather than have a whole bunch of people chairing the meeting, which is basically what would happen if you set down some parameters and they said, oh, no, that's not within those parameters. You're the chairman, you're the judge of whether it's directly related, and I would prefer to leave it that way.
The Chairman: I will share with you, colleagues, that I'm pleased to hear you've had an opportunity to reflect on what I've said and to read it, because I think we've advanced at least to the point where everyone has understood the parameters of how far your chair feels would be appropriate. I'm looking for a way to facilitate getting on with this.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: But I want us to adopt a resolution, so that it is in written form. That's how I'd like us to proceed. It's a complicated game and that's how I'd like it to take place. Put it down in writing because on the other side they're going to try and expand as much as possible what you said at the beginning. Put it down in writing. I'm reading the document right now and there may be some things that could be included in it. But adopt a resolution so that we all agree. Let's get off to a good start and I'll try to live up to my name, belle humeur.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, but with the greatest of respect, I believe it is in writing, colleagues. I believe I've already issued a comment, which is.... We're not a court of law, Michel. You're saying it's not a decision. I think it is a decision. I think as your chairman I've scoped out some parameters. I'm forced to be put into a situation as your chairman, and it's a bit of a squeeze. But I would draw your attention to Standing Order 117, which says:
117. The Chairman of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order, subject to an appeal to the committee; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof.
So what I've done effectively is decide on some questions. I gave you effectively a ruling. It's written down. I've scoped out how far I believe we should go and I'm operating under that.
I'm happy this morning to hear that in general terms you liked what you heard the chair say on reflection.
Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: I'm just wondering if there isn't a way of accomplishing exactly that to everyone's satisfaction.
[Translation]
If we agreed on what the Chairman said the other day and accepted the parameters mentioned in the committee proceedings - I'm not saying that this is the case but let's give it a try for the sake of argument - someone, myself or someone else, could simply move that the parameters described by the Chairman at the last meeting govern the proceedings of our committee. It can be moved and accepted and if these parameters are not followed, then someone will raise a point of order and say: Mr. Chairman, this is not in keeping with what we agreed to the other day.
That might be the best way of going about it. If we're satisfied with the guidelines proposed by the Chairman the other day, then we can move they be adopted and we can give a copy to each of the committee members. If they are not followed, that can be the subject of a point of order. Is that agreeable?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that we may have the cart before the horse here. We are going to get expert advice from the clerk, from our legal counsel and from Mr. Maingot perhaps. Shouldn't we leave this type of resolution until after we really know where we're going on this thing?
The Chairman: The chair's predisposition is the following: what will be directly related - if you reread what I said, I have it in front of me, I have the blues here - it does talk about exactly what you suggested.
.1010
It talks about the fact that we want to hear from all of those people. We agreed we should hear from the following people and should invite those people. The chair will be fully cognizant of comments that are made, just as this briefing document came out this morning. I'll be evaluating it as the thing evolves.
It's a fluid situation. We're not nailing something to the wall here. As we hear from people and as we hear from witnesses, we'll be guided. As your chairman, I will be guided by Mr. Maingot if, for example, he's engaged by the committee to give advice. If he isn't, that's fine.
Maybe we don't need a Mr. Maingot. That was just a suggestion your chair made at the time. I was looking for ways to get us out of the hole we were digging ourselves into. I say ``we were digging ourselves into'' because as your chairman I don't want to eulogize this any further. But we are members of Parliament and this is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I think you're judged by the company you keep and we're all MPs, all members of Parliament, all members of this House.
So that's why I'm trying to develop this consensus and that's why I scoped this out at the last meeting. Frankly, I didn't discern from you, Jack, that there was grave concern other than the word ``relevancy'' as opposed to ``directly relate''. I've made that point. You may not agree on that one point and as a result vote against that particular issue.
That doesn't mean that in questioning you won't still try to put forward points and the chair may rule them out of order. I may hear from any member that you're not following your guideline,Mr. Chairman, but as the chairman I'll listen carefully. I'll listen to your argument. I may agree with you, I may agree with Mr. Bellehumeur, I may agree with Mr. Boudria, or I may agree with nobody. As any chair, as with any committee, we all can't get so legalistic. You can kick me off as your chair.
Mr. Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: It is important for us to have something in writing that is agreed upon by committee members and not merely a statement of principles or an opinion expressed by the Chairman of the committee. You said that that was how you intended to proceed. However the committee has never adopted any position on the way it would like to be guided by you in its proceedings.
Today we could approve a resolution relating to the procedure you suggested in your opening statement. We could write it down and say: Mr. Chairman, we agree to have you impose discipline as you stated at the outset and this practice must be followed throughout our proceedings; failure to do so could result in a call to order as you mentioned.
In other words, this is not a decision that you will be able to change on your own at any time. You will not be able to say that that was my position then but today it's different. If you decide to change procedure, the committee will first of all have to establish new parameters and ways of proceeding. This will give us some protection and help us carry out our work in a much more democratic fashion.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Chairman, we don't seem to be getting anywhere. It seems to me you have - and I even sense agreement with the Bloc Québécois here - a proposed outline. If we put to this committee tomorrow that we're going to adopt it or put caveats in, that should be our order of business for tomorrow's meeting; that is, to adopt your proposed rules.
.1015
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, why don't I give notice of this motion that I'd like to propose for tomorrow? Let's examine it. We would say something like this: It is moved that the rules of conduct proposed by the chair of the committee at the meeting of March 28, 1996 be concurred in. In other words, they may be the rules of this committee.
Mr. Ringma: We may have exceptions to it. We may want to modify it. The Bloc may want to do that.
Mr. Boudria: Okay, but this is just a notice so that people can prepare themselves. Tomorrow, we can adjust that, if necessary. I think we've gone some distance now.
The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Bellehumeur, on that point.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I intend to table a notice of motion that I've shown my colleague. Basically this motion repeats and sums up what you presented at the beginning of the March 28th meeting. It is more precise and provides some parameters. I believe that the government and the Official Opposition are in agreement on that.
I give notice of a motion that might read as follows:
- That the Order of Reference relating to the communiqué of the member for Charlesbourg dated
October 25, 1995 be interpreted in the following manner: a) that questions put to the witness and
considered to be in order by the Chair relate exclusively to the said communiqué; b) that its
examination exclude any reference to sedition; c) that its examination exclude whatever may
have been said outside the Chamber of the House of Commons and whatever has no direct
bearing to the said communiqué.
Mr. Boudria: Tomorrow, we'll have two copies, the one I tabled and that tabled byMr. Bellehumeur. We can choose. We have time to debate the matter here and tomorrow we can choose the one we prefer.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Once again, Mr. Chairman, this is to protect you. It's for you that I did this drafting during the Easter break.
[English]
The Chairman: Oh, my good friend. Colleagues, I'm shedding crocodile tears this morning.
I have to tell you that I'm more comfortable with Mr. Boudria's suggestion only because I believe there's a tone that I tried to set out as your chairman.
Frankly, I know you were trying to help me, colleague, but I found your comments not quite on the same mark as where I was. But I'm happy to receive them.
Mr. Boudria has given us notice of what he's suggesting. Mr. Bellehumeur, you've given us a notice for tomorrow's meeting.
We have the Clerk of the House and the House legal counsel coming forward tomorrow as the first two witnesses for this committee. So we're proceeding despite ourselves.
Yes, Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the clerk provide all members of the committee with the specific terms so everybody knows exactly what we're talking about.
Mr. Ringma: We should get that today.
Mr. Frazer: Yes.
The Chairman: The blues are available.
Mr. Boudria: And the draft motion.
Mr. Ringma: It would include Mr. Boudria's motion and that of Mr. Bellehumeur.
The Chairman: Okay. I will perhaps.... No, I'm not going to say any more. Ms Catterall just stared at me. I appreciate that. She has a wonderful effect on me.
Okay, colleagues, we do have a motion on the floor, which is Ms Catterall's. I'll read it to you: ``That, the Committee retain the services of Joseph Maingot at a per diem rate of $550/day...''.
Then there's Mr. Langlois' amendment to that motion. I believe there was already a fair amount of debate on that, so we would virtually vote on Mr. Langlois' amendment.
.1020
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: With my colleagues consent, I'll withdraw my amendment and replace it with one which is clearer in its intent.
I'd like your consent then to withdraw my amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Does everybody agree to allow Mr. Langlois to withdraw his amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: There is no amendment, so we have Mrs. Catterall's motion -
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I announced that I would replace it with another amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I'll submit it to the Clerk.
[English]
The Chairman: There is an amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: It reads as follows. I drafted it in my mother tongue. I have a few copies here.
I move that Mrs. Caterall's amendment be amended by replacing all the words following the word "That" by the following.
- the committee invite the honourable Edward Watson McWhinney, member of Parliament for
the constituency of Vancouver Quadra, to assist it in the examination of the Order of Reference
relating to the question of privilege raised in relation to the communiqué of the member for
Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995.
In the question we are dealing with, there is much more than parliamentary privilege at stake. There is also the fundamental matter of the respect for democratic values.
Dr. McWhinney sat on the European Court on Human Rights in La Hague. His experience enables him to enlighten us on Western views relating to the respect of democratic standards.Dr. McWhinney is 72 years old and has extensive experience. I myself have studied his works and I respectfully submit that we should not limit ourselves...
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, just for clarification, did I hear correctly that the amendment is to delete all the words after the word ``committee''?
I would like to raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is essential -
The Chairman: Is this a new motion?
Mr. Pagtakhan: - because it is really killing the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: It's the same strategy as our's.
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: It is out of the principle of amendment.
The Chairman: I'm afraid I have to agree. I've listened to you very carefully in terms of whether it's an appropriate amendment, and I frankly think that it guts the motion. It is in effect,Mr. Langlois, a contrary or new motion. Dr. Pagtakhan has raised a very valid point. It's not that we disagree or agree with it. I think you're making some very important and good points about a colleague, but it's not an amendment; it doesn't sound like an amendment to me. It's a valid point of order.
Mr. Frazer: If I may refer to our order of reference and your amendment to that order of reference, you left the word ``that'' in it and then you went from there. Relate what you're saying now to what you just said.
The Chairman: The chair at the time, your Speaker, agreed. You had a different chair.
Mr. Boudria: There's a more fundamental point, Mr. Chairman, which is the fact that the -
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: It's the same thing.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: No, no, it's not the same thing. I'm sorry, it is not. I'll contend that it is not. By the way, I don't disagree with the text of what's here.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: It's her text.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: No, no, come on - that's not the issue. The issue is that in the case of the amendment in the House, the result of having passed the amendment was that the subject did not change. The subject remained the same. In this one, another subject is substituted for the subject of the amendment. The form is the same in that in both cases the word ``that'' is retained, but the substance of the one in the House remained the same whereas the substance of this one has been altered.
I think this is a new motion. I don't disagree with it, by the way, but I don't think it's an amendment. I don't disagree with that motion. There are a few problems with it that I'll have to check out and they are of this order: for instance, whether or not Mr. McWhinney could give that kind of advice, given that he is a parliamentary secretary and an extension of the Crown. There are things like this that I'd have to check out between now and tomorrow, if this were a notice for a motion to be passed tomorrow. I don't think it's an amendment, but I think it's a good motion.
.1025
The Chairman: I want to say that I'm going to rule that it is not an amendment. Dr. Pagtakhan is quite right.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I'd like to answer that.
[English]
The Chairman: It is just....
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: A point of order. I don't quite exactly know which order but I'd like to say something about that. Mr. Chairman, I'm not in agreement with the whip on this. The principle of the motion is identical. The purpose of the motion presented by the Liberals was to obtain the services of a specialist. The only thing we change is the name and it means saving money for the House of Commons. That's the only difference.
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: No, I am not a Liberal but I am a former Liberal. Perhaps you should listen to me, Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: This time you're wrong.
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: You were a Liberal, though.
I want to say, colleagues, that I've listened and I'm ruling that it is not an amendment. The chair is prepared to receive it as a motion, but it's not an amendment. There is a motion on the floor. I'm asking colleagues to deal with Mrs. Catterall's motion. If you have comment or debate on that motion, please put it forward; otherwise we will vote on the motion and we will hear new motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I'm not challenging your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I always take your rulings with respect, particularly when you take the time to justify them, which you have done in this case.
However, I have provided a notice of motion and I now intend to include the ``That'', and the motion would thus read as follows: ``That the committee invite...''
I have been swayed by the arguments of the whip, Mr. Boudria, so that we can give some consideration tomorrow to the advisability of inviting Dr. McWhinney.
[English]
The Chairman: Did you not understand the ruling of the chair? You say I didn't give you enough reasons as to why I made the ruling.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: No, on the contrary. If I've understood you correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong, you say that the motion is a main motion and cannot be moved as an amendment. That is what I conclude from your ruling. I may not share you view but I respect it.
Although I do not challenge your decision and do not ask that we report to the House on your conduct, I simply wish to give notice that I will be tabling this motion tomorrow including the term "That" which was not in the amendment. This is a notice of motion similar to that given earlier byMr. Boudria and Mr. Bellehumeur.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Langlois. Merci.
We have a motion on the floor from Mrs. Catterall. Are you ready for the question?
Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3
The Chairman: Colleagues, that's all we have on the order of business for today. I want to advise you that pursuant to the last motion passed, Mr. Hart and Mr. Jacob will be invited next week to appear before the committee.
At tomorrow's meeting we have the House legal counsel and the Clerk of the House appearing, commencing at 3:30 p.m. On Thursday there will be the main estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer, and the following week we'll have Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hart.
.1030
A number of notices of motion have been put this morning.
Mr. Boudria: So we should delay our witnesses for half an hour to pass the motion.
The Chairman: I would be happy to receive a suggestion of the chief government whip that we delay receiving the witnesses tomorrow, the legal counsel, by half an hour and invite them to appear for 4 p.m. At 3:30 p.m....
I see Jack laughing and I'm almost laughing....
Mr. Frazer: I think you're optimistic.
The Chairman: I accept that, but as your chairman, in spite of you all, I'm going to move ahead. Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hart are going to be here next week. We're going to hear, come hell or high water, tomorrow from the legal counsel. Mr. Maingot will be talking to him this afternoon.
Mr. Frazer: That's an awful lot of lawyers in one room at the same time.
The Chairman: Well, it's a start.
Ms Catterall: Can I just ask that the clerk get those motions to us as quickly as possible. If they come through the normal distribution system, I won't see them tomorrow.
The Chairman: I've instructed the clerk that everything is to go by hand or by fax, not through the distribution system.
This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.