Skip to main content
Start of content;
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 23, 1996

.1109

[English]

The Chairman: Order. Good morning, colleagues. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Colleagues, as you know, on March 18, 1996, the House of Commons passed a motion that the matter of the communiqué of the member for Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995, with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is therefore seized of this matter because of an order of the House. It arose from a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt, Mr. Jim Hart. The Speaker of the House decided on March 12, 1996, that a prima facie case of privilege existed.

.1110

Colleagues, as you know, parliamentary privilege is part of the Canadian Constitution. Moreover, it is fundamental to our parliamentary system and to our system of democratic government. All members of Parliament have a duty and a responsibility to uphold the privileges of the House.

We on this committee have been entrusted by our colleagues with the responsibility to investigate this matter and to report back to the House of Commons. This is a very serious responsibility and our task is to report back to the House our findings and recommendations. The final decision rests with the House of Commons.

The issue before this committee is whether there has been a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons or whether a contempt of the House has occurred. In particular, the focus of our hearings is whether the actions of the member for Charlesbourg, in sending out a communiqué on October 26, 1995 regarding the Canadian Armed Forces, constitutes a contempt of the House or a breach of privilege.

As I stated at our first meeting on this matter on March 28, this committee is not a court of law but rather a parliamentary inquiry. We are not here to re-fight past political battles or to debate political ideologies or the actions of any political party. At the meeting on March 28, I made an opening statement in which I set out the parameters for the committee's consideration of this matter, as I saw them.

After considerable discussion last Wednesday and Thursday, committee members made certain amendments and modifications to the proposed guidelines, and we agreed that they would govern the work of the committee.

I would like to quote from the guidelines that were approved by the committee. First:

[Translation]

The issues relating directly to the communiqué are part of the committee's terms of reference. This involves establishing whether Mr. Jacob's behaviour breached the privileges of the House or whether it can be considered contempt of the House, and determining what is to be expected from an MP.

[English]

The committee's duty is to establish the facts that surround this matter and determine whether, in its opinion, there has been a breach of privilege or contempt of the House. The committee, colleagues, has asked me to guide myself in accordance with the opening statement I made on March 28, and I will attempt to do so.

This is a highly charged and political issue. It involves very sensitive matters. Serious allegations have been made against a member of the House by another member of the House. It is particularly important that care be taken in light of the fact that these proceedings are televised.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee for their cooperation and their patience so far. I would hope we will be able to continue to work together, respecting each other's opinions, with a view to carrying out the task entrusted to us in a fair and expeditious manner.

On your behalf, colleagues, I would now like to call upon Mr. Hart to make a brief opening statement if he so desires.

Mr. Jim Hart, MP (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm here today to give testimony in respect of a matter of grave concern to members of Parliament, the Canadian Armed Forces and all Canadians. This matter concerns a communiqué that the member for Charlesbourg sent to members of the Canadian Armed Forces on October 26, 1995, in which he stated:

.1115

I raised my point of privilege on March 12, 1996 because I felt an investigation into this communiqué was warranted to determine whether or not it was in contempt of Parliament. I do not need to go into the detail here discussing the concept of contempt.

Last week, Diane Davidson, chief legal counsel for the House of Commons thoroughly covered that ground. She framed contempt as including ``any act which has a tendency to directly or indirectly bring the House into disgrace, shame or ridicule'', as any ``affront to the authority of the House'', or ``any behaviour which has a tendency to undermine the institution of Parliament or its Members and to bring either into disrepute''.

Given the wide-ranging implications of this matter and the fact that the Speaker of the House himself has called this one of the more serious matters we have faced in this 35th Parliament, I believe the committee must pursue a thorough investigation of all circumstances relating to the communiqué. This certainly seems to have been the intention of the House.

I would remind members of the committee that the Speaker ruled that my motion constituted a prima facie case of privilege. It was referred to this committee by a vote of 158 to 36. Members of the House obviously considered the matter to be of great concern, and they expressed the desire for a thorough investigation by this committee.

In your speech to the House, Mr. Chairman, you promised that the committee would make a full investigation and would adduce the accurate and complete evidence concerning the actual events in question.

I am here today to testify before the committee as to why, in my opinion, the communiqué is a serious contempt of Parliament and to offer direction as to how the committee might fulfil the government's promise of a full investigation of the complete evidence.

I am here not only as a parliamentarian but as a former member of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces, as someone who can bridge the gap between those two worlds, between soldier and legislator. I will argue that this communiqué was offensive to Parliament because of its potential to undermine the integrity of Canada's military in a most reckless fashion.

Further, because the armed forces represents Parliament's ultimate tool for defending Canadians, any tampering with it is a direct affront to the authority of Parliament. The honour and the dignity of the House of Commons demands a much higher standard of conduct from its members.

The members of the Canadian Armed Forces have had their oath of allegiance compromised by the communiqué. The communiqué contradicts the oath of allegiance sworn by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I have sworn the Canadian Armed Forces oath of allegiance. On April 12, 1973, I said:

Upon taking this oath, you are willing to lay down your life for your country. Others, such as members of Parliament, take an oath of allegiance to our country. But members of the Canadian Armed Forces and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are the only ones who take an oath of allegiance to our country where they could lay down their lives, such as the 11 Canadians who died during the United Nations protection force mission in the former Yugoslavia.

I want to deal briefly with the question of timing of the introduction of my point of privilege. The Speaker has ruled that the timing is moot because of the serious nature. I did broach the topic in the House on November 21. Since that time, I have felt that I was acting responsibly by allowing the Liberal government to exercise its power of the authority of the House and deal with the communiqué.

.1120

After we learned of the communiqué, since the Reform Party is the government in waiting, I was waiting for the government to defend the dignity and integrity of the Canadian forces and the dignity and integrity of the House.

At first the Minister of National Defence seemed ready to accept his responsibility. In November he called the communiqué ``shocking'' and promised to consult with the justice minister and the judge advocate general, saying ``It's a matter that has to be looked into seriously. We just can't have members of Parliament...saying those things''.

By the end of the session in December, however, the defence minister's initial outrage had vanished. He was quoted as saying ``I'm surprised that none of my colleagues in the House of Commons has raised this, since it might be more appropriate to deal with in that manner''.

By the time the House returned after the ten-week Christmas break, it was clear the government hoped the whole problem would just go away. It was then that I took steps to introduce my motion. I believe I acted responsibly and the Liberals demonstrated a sorry unwillingness to defend the interests of Canada, our military and the House.

The letters and faxes I've brought with me today are a sample of the reaction of Canadians to the communiqué. For example, I have a letter from Michael Anderson of Vancouver, B.C., stating ``Don't know why the charge has not been made before''. I have a letter from London, Ontario stating ``...my frustration is because of no action being taken by the government to demand of the `Loyal Opposition' wherein its loyalty lies''.

The reply from the defence minister's office to similar letters from Canadians states ``...these actions represent a truly unfortunate breach of the long standing practice of insulating CF from partisan politics''. These Canadians waited for the government to govern. These Canadians were disappointed.

The minister's reply begs the following question: what is the long-standing practice the minister speaks of and why was it not followed in this case? What steps have been taken to prevent future unfortunate breaches of long-standing practice?

Let me come to the point. How is the communiqué in contempt of Parliament and an offence to the House of Commons? Was it a harmless offer of employment, or might it reasonably have been foreseen to have grave and disruptive consequences, as the communiqué states itself, the day after a yes?

I would like to discuss four issues directly relating to the potential impact and consequences of the communiqué: first the political vulnerability of the Canadian forces in matters of such grave importance to the life of our nation; second, the potential for instability; third, the need to respect democratic limits; and fourth, protecting parliamentary sovereignty.

First, the military's political vulnerability. The Canadian Armed Forces, like any military, are vulnerable to internal challenges as well as external attack. This is certainly why the Criminal Code is so concerned about protecting the military from anything that impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of its members. If men and women are going to put their lives on the line for their country through their oath of allegiance, they must have absolute faith in the chain of command and the leadership must have absolute control and instant obedience.

How does the communiqué directly relate to this? Without any doubt the communiqué placed soldiers in the position of having to make individual decisions about their loyalty. The lives of soldiers are regulated in almost every respect. There are regulations on every aspect of military life, including a dress code. There are policies governing how to respond to harassment. Apparently the Canadian Armed Forces have absolutely no way to respond to the communiqué, because of the lack of guidance in regulation and policy.

.1125

The communiqué forced Canadian forces personnel to choose sides in the secession debate. This is offensive to the authority of the Canadian Armed Forces and it is offensive to most Canadians.

Importantly for this committee I once again stress the close relationship between Parliament and the military. The use of the Canadian Armed Forces is the ultimate expression of the authority of Parliament and of Canada. The communiqué was an affront to Parliament and, as such, an affront to the Canadian Armed Forces. Therefore it was offensive to Parliament.

Second, the committee must consider the communiqué's potential to create instability within the ranks of the forces. This is not an idle concern. Who would have been giving orders on bases the day after a yes vote? Allegiance would have been in question. All that is certain is that there exists a potential for confusion and division. We have all heard the media report saying that some students at the Royal Military College were packed and prepared to leave the day after a yes vote. What other problems might arise?

The communiqué would have compromised the process of negotiation and discussion by spreading confusion and subverting authority. In doing so, the communiqué would have undermined stability and the prospect for peaceful transition in the event of a yes vote. This is something that no member of the House of Commons ought to accept, let alone encourage. I urge this committee to hear witnesses on this point.

The third point follows from this, and that is the need to respect democratic limits. Very few countries would be so tolerant of a separatist movement, but some limits must be respected. It is in the best interests of everyone, federalists and separatists, to treat the military as off limits and to make sure the military remains neutral, far removed from political manipulation. This would prevent the creation of confusion within the only group in our society with the equipment and the power to protect Canadian sovereignty and Canada's interests abroad.

The fourth point: protecting parliamentary sovereignty. The Canadian Armed Forces takes its orders from the Parliament of Canada. The Crown is advised by the Privy Council together with the two Houses. Let us be clear why this is important, because thankfully we do not have to think of it often in our peaceful society. The armed forces are the ultimate means for Parliament to protect the people of Canada and to maintain its own sovereignty and the rule of law, whether against outside aggressors or domestic trouble.

It should be obvious that anything that undermines the good order of the forces and that subverts discipline and order is striking at the power and the authority of Parliament. This is both offensive and contemptuous.

What does all this mean for the committee? It is universally accepted that this committee is not sitting as a court, so the question of whether the communiqué violated any provisions of the Criminal Code will not be addressed.

But I observe that many people, including, I note, a number of government members during the House debate on the motion, argue that the member for Charlesbourg certainly flirted with the edge of the law. I suggest that one important focus of the committee's deliberations should concern the standard of conduct expected from a member of the House of Commons.

I suggest that the Criminal Code defines the lowest standard of behaviour accepted in our society but that much more is required from a member of Parliament. We have the responsibility to preserve the authority and dignity of this House on behalf of the Canadian people. I believe it is this yardstick that the committee should apply to the matter of the communiqué.

Similarly, I suggest that the committee must be careful to consider the complete evidence concerning the actual events in question as the chairman himself has promised. I have tried to point a direction for this and show that the direct consequences of the communiqué very much involve questions of discipline within the armed forces, just as these consequences involve discipline in the House of Commons.

.1130

In order to examine this thoroughly, the committee must call witnesses with positions of command in the Canadian military in order to discuss the potential impact of the communiqué and the means or lack of means that the commanders and all those in authority have in order to respond. Therefore, today the Reform Party members of this committee have submitted a list to the clerk of the committee.

Finally, I suggest that the committee must not only look back to consider past events, but look forward to determine the importance of this communiqué for providing future guidelines for Canada's military when it comes to a secession debate. The Reform Party wants to safeguard the interests of Canada, and we can think of nothing more important than ensuring that our military personnel's oath of allegiance is not contradicted by a communiqué from this House on the letterhead of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

To this end, we have encouraged the Government of Canada to develop a plan for negotiations in the event of a yes vote. This committee would do great service if it used the October communiqué in order to establish, at the very least, the sort of conduct required by members of Parliament in times of crisis over national unity. Again, it is necessary for the committee to call witnesses to explore such a standard of conduct.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I am speaking here today as both a parliamentarian and a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces. I know what my oath of allegiance means to me. I know the sort of crisis of conscience that an invitation such as this communiqué would have created in the minds of thousands of service personnel throughout the Canadian Armed Forces.

This communiqué placed service personnel in a compromised position. I believe the communiqué is absolutely unworthy of this House, and I encourage the committee to examine the issue as widely as possible in order to evaluate the direct relevance of the communiqué for the Canadian Armed Forces, for the authority of the House of Commons, for parliamentarians, and for all Canadians.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would refer to the words of Winston Churchill, who said in 1905:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hart.

Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): I have a quick point of order concerning the witness.

Mr. Hart, you should know that I have okayed the distribution of your speech to all the members of this committee. I hope you have no objection to that.

Mr. Hart: None whatsoever.

Mr. Ringma: There might have been a difference between what you've read and what we've seen.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): I do not know if the Liberal members have received this statement, but I did not receive it. I find it odd that the member has raised a point of Order saying that he has authorized the distribution of the statement when we do not have it.

[English]

The Chairman: As the chair conducting the meeting, I was having the same problem as other members in terms of following what Mr. Hart was saying. I was trying to get that statement, and I did get it halfway through.

.1135

Thank you, Mr. Hart. We'll proceed to questions.

Since our time is limited and I'm sure there are many questions members would like to ask, I intend to proceed in the traditional manner by recognizing a member from the official opposition first, then a member from the Reform Party and then a member from the government side. Members may choose to share their time with colleagues. It is my hope that we will be able to rotate so everyone present will have an opportunity to ask a question. The clerk will be recording the times and reporting to me in order to keep a fair balance.

Mr. Bellehumeur, would you please begin?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: After having heard the member's statement, I realize that they still have not understood anything at all. They did not understand the communiqué, the debate in the House, nor the 20 hours of deliberation in this committee.

To facilitate the debate and promote understanding, I would invite the clerk to distribute, in both official languages, the referendum question of October 30, Bill No. 1 of the National Assembly, the tripartite agreement dated June 12, as well as the communiqué. So we don't waste any time, I would like to start questioning Mr. Hart.

Your statement today is practically the same as your speech of March 12 in which you backed up and supported the question of privilege you raised before the House.

Again today, your speech leads me to the conclusion that you studied and consulted a great number of individuals and documents before putting this issue to the House.

What I remember above all from March 12, 1996 - it is perhaps not as clear today - , is what you said to influence the Speaker of the House. I quote:

So that we are all on an equal footing, today, I invite Mr. Hart, who stated on March 12, 1996 that he had a specific charge, to reformulate it before this committee, as precisely as possible.

[English]

Mr. Hart: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, the first question of the day has a slight attack from the member, saying there's a lack of understanding in the proceedings of this committee. It is my understanding that this committee is exploring the events surrounding the communiqué itself, and if there's any lack of understanding, maybe it comes from the member himself.

As to the question of the activities regarding the member for Charlesbourg, I would simply invite him to review the charges I put forward on March 12. It simply stated that I found what the member did very offensive.

The actual motion, as you are well aware, was changed, and I went in with a very narrow question that I asked the House to look at. I now agree with what the House did when it came back. The House broadened the issue to a much wider debate, a debate in which we now find ourselves talking about whether the privileges of the House were breached. It expanded the debate.

So my answer to the question is simply that we have gone past what I originally brought forward to the House. We've expanded the parameters of that entire debate, and that's what this committee is charged with doing.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: What is your charge? You did not answer my question. There must be a specific charge. What is it? Is it a breach of the privileges of the House, of your privileges or contempt of court? What charge flows from the statement and the communiqué?

[English]

Mr. Hart: What this committee has to do is very simple. Three things have to be done here. First, this committee is charged to find if there is contempt of Parliament.

.1140

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Answer the question. What charges are you laying?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I am answering the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Explain the charges to the committee. Do not say what you've already said. What are your specific charges with respect to my colleague Jean-Marc Jacob? That is my question for now; others will follow.

[English]

Mr. Hart: That there is a contempt of Parliament from the member for Charlesbourg. That is the question this committee is dealing with.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: If I understand you correctly, Mr. Hart, you are putting yourself in an awkward position and you are contradicting your leader, Mr. Manning, who said on March 12, 1996, on page 653 of Hansard:

Are you contradicting your leader?

[English]

Mr. Hart: No, not at all.

We should look very carefully at the words of Diane Davidson, the chief legal counsel, who was the first witness in this committee. She was very specific. She said what this committee is looking at - and this is what I wish the committee to look at - is the question of whether the communiqué offended the dignity and authority of the House of Commons. I say yes, it did. That is my testimony, which you've heard today.

Did the communiqué offend the integrity of the House of Commons? Yes. Did the communiqué bring upon the House of Commons disgrace, shame and ridicule? My testimony is yes, it did. It brought disgrace, ridicule and shame to the House of Commons, and I'll tell you why.

In my riding of Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt there is a large number of retired military personnel. I'm sure every member in this House and in this room today has received many letters from constituents and has talked to many constituents regarding the issue of how this could happen to our Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Bellehumeur: Okay, Mr. Hart.

Mr. Hart: How could a letter on the letterhead of Her Majesty's official opposition be sent to Canadian military forces -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Look, you're repeating yourself.

[English]

Mr. Hart: - that totally contradicts -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: You are repeating yourself.

[English]

Mr. Hart: - the oath of allegiance and the National Defence Act of Canada?

No, I'm not repeating myself, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: You are repeating yourself. I do not know why you are saying that.

[English]

Mr. Hart: How can the authority of the House not be questioned, as far as its integrity goes, when that happens, sir?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Hart, please pick up the communiqué of October 26 which is before you. I'm going to ask you some questions on that topic. Since we are examining the communiqué, which I have understood, contrary to you, let's look at it closely. You said on March 12, when you raised your question of privilege in the House, that you had backed up your proof then convinced the Speaker that there was a prima facia question of privilege. You said that the communiqué invited all francophone members of the Canadian forces to join the Quebec armed forces.

I have a very simple question for you which invites a brief response. Could you indicate where, in this communique of October 26th, Mr. Jacob invited the francophone members of the Canadian Forces to join the army. Where?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I would state that I made an error at that time and that error has been corrected. It was Quebec-born members.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Ah! First error.

Secondly, in order to convince the Speaker of the House that there was a prima facie question of privilege, you made the speech found on page 563 of the Hansard for March 12, 1996. I would like you to clearly tell me where in Mr. Jacob's communique there is a call to arms. The answer should be easy.

From the outset, you make these statements and accusations against Mr. Jacob who is here, saying that he asked people to stand up and take their weapons. Where?

.1145

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, if you read the communiqué, the translation I have in front of me has a line that says:

Mr. Chairman, my interpretation of that comment is that the member was not only suggesting that Quebec-born members of the Canadian Armed Forces should go against the National Defence Act, go against their oath of allegiance to Canada, and transfer their allegiance to the new Quebec forces the day after a yes vote, but it is also saying bring your uniforms, bring your rifles, bring your equipment, bring everything you have. It says ``the resources already deployed''.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Where in the communique?

[English]

Mr. Hart: It says ``the resources already deployed'' on Quebec territory.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Come on, Mr. Hart, is that your interpretation? Are you basing your charge on that?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I'm sorry. That's the interpretation you handed me today. That's your translation.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Hart, where in this communique does Mr. Jacob ask men and women to desert the Canadian Armed Forces with their weapons? That is part of a speech you made on March 12th to convince the Speaker that Mr. Jacob had made some mistakes, that Mr. Jacob had even committed sedition, to use the term that you used.

Where does it say that in the communiqué, Mr. Hart? Is it another interpretation on your part?

[English]

Mr. Hart: The second page of your communiqué says: ```The day after a YES win,' he says, `Québec should immediately create a Department of Defence...''', and your translation is wrong here. It says ``the embryo of a major state''. The translation that I have, the proper translation, is ``military staff''.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: According to you, Mr. Jacob's sentence referred, the day after a ``yes" win, to a desertion from the Canadian Army; those are the terms you used.

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: I have not finished my question, Mr. Hart.

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, is my testimony on trial here? Am I the one being questioned? I believe that the communiqué is the one - the writer, the drafter, the intent of the communiqué. These are all germane to what this committee has to look at. I'm more interested in the intent of Mr. Jacob and the Bloc Québécois leader, Mr. Bouchard, and the members of the caucus of the Bloc Québécois. What was their intent when they said ``The day after a YES win...''?

The Chairman: Colleagues.

Mr. Bellehumeur, do you want to wrap up this round of questioning?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes. Mr. Hart, if I've understood correctly, when you talk about contempt, you're talking about contempt of Parliament. Your leader clearly contradicts you on this point. As for the arguments you advanced to raise the question of privilege with respect to francophones, you admit that it is an error on your part.

As for the call to arms and the deserting of the Canadian army by men and women with their weapons that Mr. Jacob allegedly requested, that is your own interpretation. Nothing is clear in this communiqué. Do you not think that these gratuitous charges have been prejudicial to Mr. Jacob and all parliamentarians?

It if was so clear to you, why did you wait until March 12? Is there not a link with the by elections which were held less than two weeks later, on March 25?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, the pieces and parts and lines and individual words of the communiqué itself are not what we are questioning here. We are questioning the entire communiqué and what its intent was. It is not my interpretation. It is the interpretation of those who received the communiqué and -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: You're charging that...

[English]

Mr. Hart: - what their thoughts were. And I can tell you -

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: They're your charges...

[English]

Mr. Hart: - Mr. Chairman, what has happened here is that the House of Commons has sent two distinct and conflicting messages from the House of Commons.

.1150

One is this document, the oath of allegiance, that Canadian Armed Forces personnel swear to and are willing to lay down their life for. They are the only public service employees in Canada who are asked actually to lay down their life if they have to, and they are asked to do that because of an order that their government gave them; in other words, the House of Commons.

The other conflicting and contrasting document is the communiqué from the leader of the official opposition, which came, as we know, from the House of Commons. It's on official letterhead and was distributed to Canadian Armed Forces personnel.

These things are in direct conflict -

An hon. member: So what.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bellehumeur. Mr. Ringma, please.

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Hart, I have listened to the Bloc's question to you about what was said in the communiqué and your interpretation of it as you put forth when it hit Parliament on March 12. You admit that you did not read ``francophone members''; in fact, the communiqué says ``Quebeckers''.

I wonder if you could pick out from the communiqué the words that you read in it that gave you to think that indeed it was a call to if not francophones then Quebeckers.

The other thing brought up was a call to arms. Where was there a call for desertion?

I can read the communiqué and put myself in the position of a francophone or a Quebecker - it doesn't matter - as a member of the Canadian forces. If I put myself in that position, then I can read those things out of it, and I assume that you did the same.

So perhaps you'd like to underline some of the sentences in that communiqué that would lead you to that interpretation.

Mr. Hart: As I stated to the previous questioner.... I would like to state again that it is the document in its entirety that is offensive to me and to Parliament.

If you want to cherry-pick some key phrases, then we can do that.

I would go to the first paragraph, which says that they could not maintain or create an expensive military capacity, land, sea, and air force, similar to Canada's in the current economic conditions. That indicates that if there was a sovereign Quebec, then they would definitely use the resources that are available to them there. That is offensive.

What we're seeing here today is a lack of knowledge by some members on this committee who do not see the direct conflict between the oath of allegiance by the Canadian Armed Forces and this communiqué that was sent out. Both of those were directed from the House of Commons, albeit the communiqué was not under the authority of the House, and that's why the integrity of the House is in question here.

They can sit there and behave in an unparliamentary manner if they want to, but I'm here to deliver testimony today, and I'm saying that in its entirety I found the document offensive, as a military person and as a parliamentarian.

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Hart, in your own words, and without reference to speeches, what should we be trying to achieve here? What can we, as a committee, produce through witnesses? What can we do for the future or for this House?

Mr. Hart: I respectfully submit to the members of the committee that I am hoping that this committee will achieve three things.

.1155

First, you will find the actions of the member from Charlesbourg in contempt of Parliament for the issues I have raised today.

Second, I would hope that new rules of acceptable behaviour would be established for members in this House of Commons, which will guide members of Parliament when they are faced with a secession debate on what they can and cannot do in relation to the Canadian Armed Forces, which should be insulated from partisan politics.

The third thing I would hope this committee would do is instruct the Canadian Armed Forces to draft policies and regulations to guide Canadian Armed Forces members when faced with a communiqué of this nature, a communiqué that, again, conflicts directly with the oath of allegiance and the National Defence Act of Canada.

There are policies in the Canadian Armed Forces, as I suggested, on things such as the dress code for members. We have training manuals on things like leadership for officers. We have policies and regulations in place in the Canadian Armed Forces on employment equity. We have policies in place in the Canadian Armed Forces, manuals and training for our Canadian Armed Forces personnel on things like harassment. The list goes on and on. We have policies and training for the Canadian Armed Forces on things like racism. Yet, Mr. Chairman, I would submit to this committee that there are no policies and no regulations in the Canadian Armed Forces on how to deal with a communiqué on the letterhead from Her Majesty's loyal opposition to members of the Canadian Armed Forces that puts their oath of allegiance and a document like this in direct conflict with each other.

Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Hart, I would like you to explore for me the importance of the role of the official opposition, the loyal opposition that is the government in waiting. Could you explore the importance of that relative to this question? You've placed an emphasis in your testimony here that the document came, via a member of the Bloc Québécois Party, from the leader of the official opposition, which is the Bloc Québécois. Would you discuss the importance of that relative to any kind of intent or directive to our armed forces? I think that would be significant information for this committee in terms of the seriousness of this matter.

Mr. Hart: It's because the official opposition is sanctioned under the authority of the House of Commons. They hold a particular place in the Parliament of Canada and their job is to keep the government - some people would say hold the fire to the feet of the government - to make sure their policies are in line.

The significance for me as a parliamentarian is that it seems odd that we would allow in Canada a situation where we have an opposition party, which is sanctioned by the powers and authority of the House of Commons, sending out communiqués to the Canadian Armed Forces, which are also sanctioned and empowered through statute and through the oath of allegiance to perform tasks for the House of Commons and the Government of Canada. Therefore, it's outrageous to me, and certainly the letters that I've received from across the country, not only from constituents but other people from coast to coast to coast, have expressed their outrage that the office of the leader of the opposition would be behind the drafting, approving and sending of this out to military forces.

The Chairman: We'll then go to Ms Catterall.

.1200

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): I wanted to clear up one other thing. You were asked about your reference to francophone Quebeckers and you said it was obviously an error. If it was an error, do you have any explanation for why the leader of the Reform Party the next day made exactly the same error and talked about the communiqué as inviting Quebec francophone members of the Canadian forces to join the Quebec military?

Mr. Hart: I will take responsibility for the error. I think it was a translation error. We didn't have translation in both official languages when I received the communiqué. It was translated from independent sources, and, as I say, I'll take responsibility for that. I still think the thrust of Quebec-born is just as serious as francophone and -

Ms Catterall: I'm confused by the line of discussion you're getting into.

Mr. Hart: Could you restate the question? Maybe I don't understand the question.

Ms Catterall: The question was clearly why, if it was an error to imply that the communiqué referred only to francophone members of the armed forces, did your leader make exactly the same mistake?

Mr. Hart: I honestly don't know. I can only assume that it was an error in translation of the document and I don't have another explanation for it.

Ms Catterall: Do you have a translation that might have led you to make that error?

Mr. Hart: To be quite honest, I don't know what relevance that has to the discussion, but I'm not sure that it wasn't just in a translation we received that was wrong; it was incorrect. As I say, I'm willing to take the responsibility for making that error and I really don't have an explanation for it.

Ms Catterall: I wanted to go back to your very first statement to the House on the matter. You said ``...I have a specific charge...'' to make. ``The question to be answered is whether the member is guilty of offending Parliament.''

The next sentence is the one I'd like to explore a bit: ``In the opinion of the House is the hon. member for Charlesbourg guilty of sedition?'' It sounds to me as though you're saying that if the member is guilty of sedition, then the member is guilty of offending Parliament. When I read those two sentences, that's the conclusion I draw from them. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Hart: No. What I was saying in the original document, the original motion - which I believe is not under discussion today but if you want to talk about it we can - is ``in the view of this House''. I was asking parliamentarians to decide if in their view it was seditious or if it was offensive to them. I wasn't accusing, as some of the later debate had it. I was asking the House of Commons, the members of Parliament in the House, to decide if in their view those were what we were going to discuss. But as we know, that motion was changed and all the words before and after the word ``that'' were replaced with what we're discussing here today.

Ms Catterall: Nonetheless, you do seem to be saying much the same to us today as what you said in the House, regardless of the change in the motion. What you said was: ``...I have a specific charge and a substantive motion''. Can you tell us what your specific charge was?

Mr. Hart: Yes, I will. It seemed to me that what we were looking at related to section 62 of the Criminal Code. I will point this out to the members of the committee today because I've been asked the question and it relates to offences in relation to military forces.

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that no other federal government agency, no other federal government employee, enjoys the protection of a section in the Criminal Code except for military forces, and it says, under subsection 62(1):

(a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,

(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force,

.1205

Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. He is reading from the Criminal Code. Are we then to interpret whether his interpretation of the code is criminal or not? If so, then it will be out of order according to our guidelines.

Mr. Hart: I was answering a question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: In fairness, I think I hear the worry of the member, but I'd permit the witness to continue to answer this question as far as it relates to Ms Catterall's question.

She asked, as I recollect, the specifics of his charge as they related to the debate, and he's giving us the specifics. Is that right?

Ms Catterall: I think we can perhaps shorten the time a bit by saying that what the member was saying in the House and is repeating here is that his charge is a criminal charge of sedition, which is not, of course, within our jurisdiction.

Mr. Hart: No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that at all. I said ``in the view of''.

I would like to point out one thing, Mr. Chairman. That original motion was changed and we are not dealing with that original motion. Originally I was coming at this from a very narrow point of view in regard to sedition, and I would like to thank the wisdom of the House of Commons...some of the members of the Liberal Party, the chairman himself, and members of the Bloc Québécois said this is a much wider issue and we should be charged with looking at the wider issue of offensive to Parliament, the privileges of the House, and contempt of Parliament, which is a much wider issue.

So I would urge the member - and I appreciate the question - to try to remember that the motion was changed. We are now dealing with this motion, which is much wider and broader than the original motion.

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, I'll probably want to come back to this because I think it's fundamental to our deliberations here.

But I do want to clarify one thing the member from Charlesbourg said. If I follow his logic, his point is this, and I think I'm quoting him accurately: Parliament directs the armed forces and therefore any interference with the armed forces as alleged by the communiqué is offensive to Parliament.

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

Mr. Ringma: A point of order, before the witness answers. I think Ms Catterall mistakenly said the member for Charlesbourg.

Ms Catterall: I'm sorry.

Mr. Ringma: Just for the record.

Ms Catterall: I was referring to the communiqué.

The Chairman: On the question, does the witness wish to answer?

Mr. Hart: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, the government is certainly a part of the House of Parliament. They hold seats in the House of Commons. The armed forces actually has the Governor General of Canada as a figurehead, as the commander in chief.

The Government of Canada is the body that sends our troops to Bosnia and Haiti and other countries around the world to perform their duties. Through the National Defence Act, which is an act that the armed forces have to abide by and set their guidelines and rules...is under the authority of the House of Commons. That's the connection, I would submit.

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chairman, I did ask the member to be a little more clear about where he got this interpretation, because in fact part of our whole constitutional arrangement in this country is that the executive, that is, the government, is very carefully separated from Parliament. Parliament has authorities that the government does not.

Mr. Hart: They are members of the House of Commons. They sit in the House. They vote.

Ms Catterall: No, the government is not. The individual members are.

Mr. Hart: The individual members are. That is correct.

.1210

Ms Catterall: But I want it to be very clear. The member said Parliament directs the armed forces and therefore any attempt to interfere with the armed forces is an offence against Parliament. That was one of his arguments in favour of a finding of contempt. Therefore it's important for us to be clear that Parliament does not direct the armed forces and that this argument, if he has other ways of making the argument, has to be made differently. It cannot be made on the basis that Parliament directs the armed forces. If he can expand on it or clarify it -

Mr. Hart: I would have to say we have a defence act in Canada, for which the authority came from the House of Commons...and look carefully at the defence act. I urge you, as a committee, to call expert witnesses to look at that testimony. The defence act was something that was given to the government through the House of Commons, through the Senate, through the Governor General, through the Crown. Therefore it is directly related.

Ms Catterall: Will the witness agree, though, that it is not Parliament that directs the Canadian Armed Forces?

Mr. Hart: It's a cornerstone of any democratic system that we, the civilian side of any society, instruct and give instructions to our military. The military is not a power unto itself.

Ms Catterall: I think I can leave this. But I do believe, Mr. Chairman, we should get some expert advice on this. I don't necessarily know.

The Chairman: I've noted your concern.

Mr. Milliken, please.

Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hart, in your statement to the committee you said the communiqué forced military people to choose. Your statement is ``Without any doubt, the communiqué placed soldiers in the position of having to make individual decisions about their loyalty''. Which words in the communiqué do you rely on in support of that contention?

Mr. Hart: As I've said before, Mr. Chairman, it's the entire communiqué, the meaning of the entire communiqué, that gives life to the concern...and I think we all know it did concern many of our Canadian Armed Forces personnel. We have reports of the people at RMC who had their bags packed, ready to go back to Quebec after a yes.

Mr. Milliken: Could you provide us with copies of those reports? I've never seen such reports. I do live in Kingston and there is a Kingston newspaper. I don't recall seeing such reports. But I'd be delighted to see any reports you have.

Mr. Hart: As a matter of fact, we will. There are newspaper articles and we have an extensive library on these comments.

Mr. Milliken: I presume you're suggesting they were packing and leaving for Quebec and not for the United States or some other place. I was aware that some members of the military felt if the country was breaking up they weren't going to stay here. Maybe that's what they were planning to do.

Mr. Hart: Either way, I would submit that the communiqué does exactly what I said it does. It doesn't matter where they go. It caused division and confusion within the Canadian Armed Forces, and that's the point. That is in contrast to the defence act and the oath of allegiance those personnel take.

Mr. Milliken: Of course, Mr. Hart, I think you'd admit such confusion existed over the referendum among the general population. There were many Canadians who were very concerned about the future of their country during the referendum regardless of this communiqué. Is that not true?

Mr. Hart: I would submit again that the difference with Canadian Armed Forces personnel is that they swear an allegiance to Canada. They swear an allegiance and they are the only group in Canada willing to lay down their lives - lay down their lives - for their government if their government asks them to do so. I ask you to reflect carefully about the 11 Canadian soldiers who died under the direction of the Government of Canada in the former Yugoslavia with the United Nations protection force.

.1215

Mr. Milliken: I do, Mr. Hart, but I ask you to reflect very seriously. These people have taken this oath. Why would they feel that they were - I'm going to quote you because I don't want to alter your words - ``Without any doubt...placed...in the position of having to make individual decisions about their loyalty''? They've made their decision about their loyalty, Mr. Hart. They swore allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.

I had not read this communiqué with such care until I read some of your statements in your remarks this morning. It says - and I want to quote it in English:

It doesn't say they have to transfer. It doesn't say they are going to be presented with a choice for once and for all. It's an offer.

Now, some may regard this communiqué as the rantings of a lunatic. Some may think it's very serious - and I assume you treat it very seriously. I frankly prefer the former interpretation, although I don't want to be unduly harsh on the member for Charlesbourg. He is an hon. member.

But whichever way it is, these people swore an oath of allegiance. What makes you think this communiqué puts them in a position in which they have to make individual decisions about their loyalty when they made that decision when they took the oath?

Mr. Hart: Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, the communiqué said they could when in fact they can't.

Let's go through this step by step.

Mr. Milliken: But it said they could after a yes win -

Mr. Hart: I'm trying to answer the question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Milliken: - and only after a yes win.

Mr. Hart: Members of the Canadian Armed Forces swear an oath of allegiance to their country. They then sign contracts, most of which are for five-year terms. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces don't have the ability to simply say, the day after the yes vote, I'm packing my bags and going somewhere. They have signed a commitment, a five-year commitment, to serve their country.

Mr. Chairman, the committee should also know that there is a possibility that they could voluntarily request a release from the Canadian Armed Forces, but it would take a six-month period for that administrative process to go through. It would not occur the day after. They couldn't do that.

This communiqué put them in conflict with what they've sworn in an oath, what they've signed in a contract, and with what the official opposition was saying they could do - and they were wrong.

Mr. Milliken: But could they offer it to them?

Mr. Hart: It's not a simple job offer. Are you asking if it was a job offer? I would submit it's not.

Mr. Milliken: You have to look at the words. I urge the member to look at the words. It does say, ``The day after a YES win...Québec should'' -

Mr. Hart: They have no authority. No one has the -

Mr. Milliken: It didn't say that. It said ``should''. But if somebody thinks this is what should happen in the future, we may disagree with them. I think it's crazy myself, and of course it didn't happen. The hon. member, however, put this forward apparently saying that they should be able to do that. He didn't say they could, that they had to, or that there was going to be an offer made and they had to make a choice. The words are much more benign than I had thought. I therefore wonder if the hon. member has read them recently, because they do seem a little different.

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, western democracies are very concerned about their militaries and about this type of thing happening. I would submit to this committee that the proof of that is found back in 1934 - in or around that time - when section 62 of the Criminal Code was drafted. It specifically and only relates to members of the Canadian Armed Forces - not to postal clerks, not any members of crown corporations, but to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Members of this committee must ask themselves why the legislators of the day chose to give this special privilege to only members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Why did they do that? What was the purpose of it?

The Chairman: Last question, Mr. Milliken.

Mr. Milliken: I will be very brief on this one, as I assume the witness will be brief in his answer.

Where is your list of proposed witnesses? Can we see it? I presume it contains a list of some of the qualifications that they might bring before the committee in terms of their expertise and the kind of testimony they will be delivering to the committee.

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am not a member of the committee. The members of the committee submitted the list. I only mentioned the remarks, but, yes, I believe all those things would be included in that list.

Mr. Ringma: A list has been tabled.

.1220

The Chairman: A list was tabled before the meeting began, Mr. Milliken. I'll see that members get a copy of it.

Just to remind all colleagues, I said in a memo that, procedurally, if you have names you want the committee to consider, they should be submitted to the clerk. Just before the meeting began, I did receive a list, and the Bloc has indicated to me that they have prepared a list that will be available tomorrow. I thought I understood them to be saying that.

Mr. Milliken: The witness referred to it in his statement. That's why I was asking.

The Chairman: Right. Well, I'll make sure you have it before the end of questions today.

Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): A lot of air has been let out of the ball; there is not much left. The thrust of what I retain from Mr. Hart's testimony, following the question from Mr. Bellehumeur, Mr. Milliken and Mrs. Catterall, is that the witness invented these words himself saying that it was a call to all francophones in the army and that he is unable to quote the text referring to the call to arms allegedly made by the member for Charlesbourg and to the call to desert. The witness has failed these three tests.

There is nothing left of his interpretation of the communiqué. Moreover, the witness said that the communiqué should not be interpreted section by section, or paragraph by paragraph, but that it was the spirit of the communiqué that should prevail.

The question is now much more serious than examining a simple communiqué which stated what would happen in the succession of the State in Quebec, in the event of a positive outcome during the October referendum.

What worries me the most is that statements of opinion in Canada are considered as an offence. We often complain about the current government; we want to compare it to a frying pan. We can complain that our frying pan is not made out of teflon and the thing sticks from time to time, that we have trouble flipping our eggs. But the alternative - and they claim they are the alternative - to this frying pan, is to use the burner directly. They give us the opportunity to get burnt by limiting our freedom of expression. They come out in favour of calling members to order and referendums which must rally the people and they leave it up to the people. Today, through their appeal issued 12 last by the member for Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt, they want to sanction members who are only doing what they were elected to the House of Commons to do, that is defend the interests of Quebec and promote Quebec's sovereignty.

My question will be much broader in light of everything the witness has said. He does not seem to appreciate what the 53 members of the Bloc Québécois are doing.

Section 128 and the 5th annex to the Constitution of 1867 provide for an oath that we took as members of Parliament. Is the member for d'Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt of the view that the members of the Bloc Québécois, by acting as they have since the start of the 35th Parliament, honour their oath as members of the Parliament of Canada?

[English]

Mr. Hart: That may be something the committee may want to explore. I honestly don't know. I do know that as an elected member of Parliament, I think the thing I should be talking about is how to hold the country together. If there is a secession, a separation of Canada, and there's nothing wrong - this isn't about separatists or anything like that - my job as an elected member of Parliament would be to make sure that the integrity of the Canadian Armed Forces stays intact. I shouldn't be talking about how to tear one of the institutions of Canada away from Canada.

Morally, I guess that's something you have to wrestle with yourself. I know what I would do. What you would do is up to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Hart, your colleague, the member for Beaver River, turned towards the members of the Bloc Québécois and called us domestic enemies. Do you share her point of view?

[English]

Mr. Hart: As I said, we're not talking here about.... The separatists are not on trial. I think Mr. Bellehumeur also made that point very clear in the House.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Ah, no.

.1225

[English]

Mr. Hart: What we are saying in the House of Commons and what we are saying here today is that we have to explore and investigate this communiqué and the events surrounding this communiqué. Quite frankly, I don't understand your question, because I don't have any problem with any one in Canada at all.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: You say that you don't have any problems. May I refresh your memory, Mr. Hart? The French translation of page 689 of Hansard reports your comments as follows:

This debate is much more than about the honourable member for Charlesbourg. It is much more than a debate about the former leader of the official opposition. It is much more than a debate about the separatist caucus in the House. This debate is about Canada.

Basically, by saying "this debate is about Canada", you want the debate on Canada to be from your perspective. We have another vision, the Liberals have theirs and the people from the other party have one as well.

This tendency, this obsession with trying to impose your view of things as the only one with any truth scares me, Mr. Hart. In the tradition of democracy in Canada, there is always room for alternative solutions, for nuances, and for differing views when they are needed. But fundamentally, you only accept one truth and I'm afraid that one day, under a Reform government - as this happened in other Western democracies - , the members of the opposition will be gagged. That worries me.

Although you say that this debate is about Canada, basically, by scaring the members of the opposition, you want to silent people who don't share your political views.

I'd like to hear you speak to a statement of opinion as an offence, Mr. Hart. In your view, how far does freedom of speech go in Canada? When they were advocating sovereignty in the West, did the members of the Western Canada Concept Party commit the same kind of violation as those in Quebec?

The issue before us is an issue on which voters in Canada and Quebec will make their views known, not a question of privilege, but a debate on a political argument, an exclusively political issue. In fact, if we continue going in this direction, all minority parties in the House of Commons might well be pushed aside and forced to accept the views of the majority.

You were treading on very thin ice. Since there was absolutely nothing there and because you did not understand, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge your good faith for the word francophone.

Mr. Hart, could you situate me with respect to democracy and freedom of expression? How far would you allow sovereigntist members of Parliament to go in expressing themselves?

[English]

Mr. Hart: If I understand you correctly, you're asking me if this is a debate on freedom of speech. My answer to that question is no. This isn't about restriction of freedom of speech.

As we all know, freedom of speech of a member of Parliament is restricted by various means. There are procedures for the House of Commons, whether it's in committee or in the House and whether or not you can say the same things in the House of Commons as you can outside the House of Commons. There are already limitations to what can be said inside and outside of the House, not just for the Bloc but for every member of Parliament. That is already in place.

Freedom of speech in our society is also limited in a number of ways. One of them is the Criminal Code of Canada. Another one is cabinet secrecy. We have CSIS, the access to information, the RCMP, the National Defence Act, and documents that can be identified as secret or confidential. There are many ways in which members of Parliament have what they want to say limited by the House of Commons or by the laws of Canada.

The issue the committee should be looking at is the conduct of a member of Parliament. The authority of the House must not be violated by the actions of a member of Parliament. The authority of the House to control the Canadian Armed Forces should be protected. The issue before this committee is the failed duty of the member of Parliament from Charlesbourg, not freedom of speech.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Langlois, very quickly.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Hart, the spirit in which you made your charges earlier is very clear. You asked the committee to find the member for Charlesbourg guilty of contempt of Parliament and to subsequently define the rules governing members' behaviour. You found Mr. Jacob guilty when there are no rules. You admit yourself that there are absolutely no rules.

.1230

You want to limit his freedom of speech because you feel he goes too far and then you ask us to establish rules.

Basically, where is the true contempt of Parliament? Is it not in attempting to limit the freedom of expression of all members of Parliament, including the member for Charlesbourg?

[English]

Mr. Hart: No, not at all. The first witness we heard from was Diane Davidson, the general legal counsel for the House of Commons. We have to review what she said, and I would urge the member to do that.

She asked this committee to look at a few questions. First of all, did the communiqué offend the dignity and authority of the House of Commons? My submission is that yes, it did. It did that because it sent out two signals from the House of Commons, one in the National Defence Act through the oath of allegiance and one in the communiqué from the official opposition. The two conflicted. They are diametrically opposed to each other, which left confusion in the minds of military forces. That has to be addressed. So my submission on that question is that yes, it did.

Did the communiqué bring disgrace, shame, and ridicule to the House of Commons? I say it did. As a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I am ashamed of what the official opposition has done here to the integrity of the Canadian Armed Forces.

One of my constituents, Colonel Don Deeprose, used to fly the Queen in his last job in the Canadian Armed Forces. I had to explain to him why the official opposition of Canada would do such a thing as to cause this conflicting confusion in the Canadian Armed Forces.

So yes, I would submit to this committee that it's shameful and disgraceful, and it brought ridicule upon the House of Commons. We have all tried to answer these questions for our constituents, each and every one of us. I would be surprised if there is one member of Parliament who hasn't tried to answer this.

The Chairman: I'm going to jump in, in the interests of time here, because we have a number of people who want to ask some questions, Mr. Hart.

Dr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You admitted a mistake in one of the passages during your testimony, and you have agreed to take responsibility. Should the committee find otherwise, would you apologize to the committee?

Mr. Hart: I think we're going in fast forward here, Mr. Chairman. This committee has been challenged and has been given the task of exploring the information that came forward. The motion that came forward does not even include what the member is mentioning here.

Yes, of course, I will apologize for that error. I made an error.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Thank you.

I would like to go to my second question, which is on the communiqué. Obviously you have made a statement that the communiqué compromised the members of the armed forces. Of course, you are to present evidence regarding that statement before the committee. I suggest to you that a body of evidence that we, or at least this member, would like to have is a survey of the armed forces about whether indeed the communiqué compromised their oath. Are you aware of any such survey?

Mr. Hart: No, but I think the Reform Party has asked that expert witnesses come forward and talk about the effects the communiqué would have on members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Are you suggesting, then, that the commanders of the various regiments and squadrons who are on this list, which you have submitted to your co-members, have been in contact with you or that you have been in contact with them?

Mr. Hart: No, not at all.

Mr. Pagtakhan: There has not been any communication?

Mr. Hart: No.

Mr. Pagtakhan: So you have no evidence from them whatsoever.

Mr. Hart: No. That's why I'm asking you to investigate it.

Mr. Pagtakhan: You said in your statement, on page 6: ``Without any doubt, the communiqué placed soldiers in the position of having to make individual decisions about their loyalty.'' Will you admit that now you have doubts?

Mr. Hart: No, I don't have doubts.

Mr. Pagtakhan: What is the basis of saying ``without any doubt''?

.1235

Mr. Hart: I'm saying it quite simply because, as I said earlier, I am here to bridge the gap between a person who served in the Canadian Armed Forces and a legislator. I have both of those experiences and have knowledge behind both of those, as a parliamentarian and as a former service person.

As a service person I know that the communiqué comes in direct conflict with what I have sworn to do for my country. That is how I can say that without a doubt it did cause this in the minds of people serving in the military.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Taking you as an example, Mr. Hart, knowing the strength you had when you were a member of the force, can I assume that the other membership of the force would have similar if not greater strength? Wouldn't you agree to that?

Mr. Hart: No, I wouldn't agree, because the communiqué has the authority of the House and therefore causes confusion.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Are you saying that in terms of strength of loyalty, you have far greater loyalty than other members of the force?

Mr. Hart: I am saying that the communiqué itself - -

Mr. Pagtakhan: No, I am asking you the question. Did you have a greater strength of loyalty to the force when you were in service than the current members of the force?

Mr. Hart: No, I wouldn't say that.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay. Do they have less?

Mr. Hart: I wouldn't say that either.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Then how can you conclude that thousands of the membership of the force would be compromised? Where is the evidence?

Mr. Hart: The evidence is what we're talking about - the communiqué. The communiqué is from, and it says right on top, the office of the leader of the opposition. I want to explain this to the member and I'm quite serious about this.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes, maybe you could explain it this way. Your colleague, Mr. Ringma, asked you to state the elements that reflect the serious allegations you made. I did not hear any answer to that question from your own colleague in your own party. So my question is this: for the benefit of the committee, so that we could be guided by your answers, could you state in point form the elements that reflect your allegation?

Mr. Hart: The elements are quite simple. What this committee is challenged with is reviewing this communiqué.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Can you speak to us?

Mr. Hart: I want to explain this. I want you to understand from a former military person, from a person who has sworn allegiance, from a person who has served in the regular force and the reserve force and the Canadian Armed Forces. When they swear the oath of allegiance, this one right here, which I mentioned in my comments -

Mr. Milliken: It's the same one we take.

Mr. Hart: It's the same one we take, but there is a caveat; there is something different. That's what the Bloc members don't seem to understand, and that's what some of the members of the committee, by the end of this thing, must try to grapple with and understand. The difference is that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are willing to lay down their lives for their country.

There's another thing I will bring up right now: the National Defence Act itself. The National Defence Act has a whole separate section on another justice system that only members of the Canadian Armed Forces must abide by. Somewhere here I have some pages from the National Defence Act. It talks about crimes that can be committed by members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Maybe members of this committee aren't aware, but there's only one group of Canadians in this country that still has the death penalty as a punishment for going against the laws of the land or the laws of the justice system. That is the members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The following punishments may be imposed in respect of service offences. The first one is death -

Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman -

Mr. Hart: - and then it goes down to imprisonment and then a variety of other things.

Mr. Pagtakhan: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not find such an answer helpful. This member is seeking direct answers and is therefore posing direct questions and asking for direct answers. I would like to know, in point form, what the elements are.

Mr. Hart: Those are the elements. I'm telling you that for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who serve, their oath of allegiance means a different thing to them. They live under a different set of rules and circumstances. They do not have the ability, as the communiqué suggests, to leave the day after.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Are you suggesting, Mr. Hart, that the strength of loyalty of the membership of the force is such that it can be shaken by a communiqué?

.1240

Mr. Hart: That is the fear I have, yes, and I ask this committee to explore that fear and to call witnesses and to find out. Explore it - that's your challenge.

Mr. Pagtakhan: So you have no evidence. You have a fear. You have an apprehension.

Are you suggesting that there should be a new parliamentary concept of apprehended breach of privilege?

Mr. Hart: We can provide media reports. There are articles. There are editorials. There is evidence such as that, if this committee wishes to explore that evidence.

I'm saying that you should call the witnesses. That's what your task, your challenge, is. You've been sanctioned by the Parliament of Canada to explore this, and I urge you to do just that.

Mr. Pagtakhan: During your presentation you indicated that you would like the committee to find the communiqué to be in contempt of the House or of the membership, or both. You indicated as well that new rules must be established so they can determine what can and cannot be done by members of the House.

Are you confident that the new rules that you envision can be forthcoming will cover this particular subject matter?

Mr. Hart: I hope that what the rules would do is draw the line in the sand for members of Parliament so they will know what conduct is appropriate and what conduct is not appropriate when we're talking about our Canadian Armed Forces.

The minister said in his letter - and it was a form letter and I've seen it several times; it has been sent out in wide circulation - that the Canadian Armed Forces have to be insulated from partisan politics. In this case it was not. That was violated.

Mr. Pagtakhan: So you're suggesting that the present rules make us unable to distinguish whether the subject matter before us is indeed in breach?

Mr. Hart: If the rules are in place, then I would have to ask why they weren't used. If the rules and regulations for Canadian Armed Forces personnel are in place - like the manuals for the dress code, like the manuals for harassment....

The military have these things. When they have a problem, they create a manual. They instruct their Canadian Armed Forces personnel on how to deal with certain issues.

This issue, on secession of any province, is a major issue on which the Canadian Armed Forces should have instruction and manuals. Some time should be spent in instructing those people, who are willing to lay down their lives, on what to do.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Hart.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: On a point of order. Mr. Hart said something rather important.

I would like it to be noted that the accuser has been unable to provide one single proof on the accusations he is making, as a result of the questions that have been raised by the Liberal member.

[English]

The Chairman: I don't think that's a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): I would like to ask the witness what form of contempt of the House he's referring to in the legal advice received by our committee.

The evidence from our experts included examples of four forms of contempt of Parliament. What form of contempt of Parliament is the witness referring to? Is it breach of acknowledged privileges, misconduct in the presence of the House or a Committee, disobedience of rules or orders of the House or of a Committee, or any behaviour which has a tendency to undermine the institution of Parliament?

I would like to know what form of contempt the witness is basing his charges on.

[English]

Mr. Hart: The chief legal counsel for the House of Commons provided ten areas in which this committee could find the member for Charlesbourg in contempt of Parliament.

It is my opinion that the committee could find that eight of those apply in this case. I have mentioned those in my remarks. I would say that the communiqué itself brought disgrace on the House, shame and ridicule to the House of Commons. It impeded the House of Commons in the discharge of its functions. It was an affront and an insult to the House of Commons, and it put the House of Commons in disrepute.

.1245

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I do not believe that the expert who appeared before this committee said that the communiqué resembled or did not resemble one of the forms of contempt.

Our expert simply gave examples and it is up to Mr. Hart who is appearing before us to tell us to what point he is referring to prove that the communiqué truly constitutes contempt. To which of the four points can the communiqué relate?

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, I would say I have answered that question.

I would further like to point out that it is not my job. I'm here to offer testimony and to offer guidance where I can. But surely that is the role of this committee: to decide if Mr. Jacob's actions and the communiqué in question fell into the categories Ms Davidson brought forward to this committee to examine. I urge that the committee call witnesses to examine that.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I am surprised to see that the witness who has made these accusations is now saying to the committee: I said something, now see if what I said may be accusatory and prejudicial to Parliament. It is odd that the witness cannot define more specifically what he was thinking when he made these accusations, because this is very serious.

I would like to compare Mr. Hart's charges to the comments of one of his colleagues, Mr. Jack Frazer, who said that the communiqué had been misinterpreted. Mr. Frazer said that Mr. Jacob's words had been misinterpreted. I am quoting The Toronto Sun from November 4th, 1995:

[English]

[Translation]

Do you not share Mr. Frazer's opinion? Do you think that Mr. Frazer misunderstood the communiqué whereas you understood its meaning?

[English]

Mr. Hart: I would say I'm not an expert witness on the comments Mr. Frazer made to the media. I would also like to point out that during the debates in the House of Commons, probably all members of Parliament were educated about the events surrounding this entire affair. So I suppose the member should request that they call Mr. Frazer if he would like to comment.... Maybe Mr. Frazer would like to comment on the testimony. I don't know.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I would like to remind Mr. Hart that Mr. Jack Frazer is a colonel and member of the army. Why was a member of the army not apprised of the supposedly seditious comments made by a member of the Bloc Québécois? Do we not have proof that everything happened in the witness's head, and solely in his head, since the member of the army did not react the same way to the communiqué and interpreted it in an entirely different way?

Nothing has been proven. My colleagues' questions clearly prove that the witness couldn't find anything specific in the text of the communiqué which corresponded specifically to the content of the accusations he is making. He simply is attributing ulterior motives.

.1250

Mr. Hart has told us today that in his view, Mr. Jacob undoubtedly wanted to say such a thing, that he undoubtedly thought... We do not need Mr. Hart to see what Mr. Jacob thinks. Mr. Jacob will appear before the committee and he's the one we will ask what he thought and what his opinion is.

We are here to judge the facts and Mr. Hart has not been able to show us anything that corresponds to the charge that he his making today.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you wish to respond to this?

Mr. Hart: I don't think there was a question. I suggest that the member ask Mr. Jacob, and I hope they do call some expert witnesses who have an intimate relationship with the Canadian Armed Forces. That's what we've suggested.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Next we have Mr. Boudria and Mr. Godfrey, and that concludes my list.

Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Mr. Chairman, the statement of this morning, the testimony presented by Mr. Hart, a copy of which is before us, is certainly very severe in its criticism. I would argue that it's certainly our duty to ensure that what has been said here this morning in that statement, a copy of which was distributed to the media, is indeed fair and accurate.

I want to ask our witness if, to his knowledge, this communiqué was distributed on military bases and at other installations.

Mr. Hart: Yes. That is our information.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to point out that during the debates the Bloc Québécois stated that it was distributed to the media as well. We took the time to check with the parliamentary press gallery for the period of October 26 to October 31. They log each and every one of their press releases, and we found that indeed there was no record in their logs of a communiqué or press release at that time.

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

Mr. Hart: I can tell you that our information is that it was distributed to Land Forces Command Valcartier.

Mr. Boudria: So according to your information, it was distributed at Valcartier. Thank you. Is there anywhere else that you know of?

Mr. Hart: No. I assume, and I take the word of the members from the Bloc, that it was distributed to all other military bases in the province of Quebec.

Mr. Boudria: I don't recall hearing those words, but -

Mr. Hart: I believe Mr. Jacob has said that.

Mr. Boudria: - we'll verify that when Mr. Jacob is a witness.

I want to ask about the communiqué itself. Here we have the language situation. I read the release in both languages and I saw a difference. I will assume, for the purposes of my question, that the original one was written in French and translated into English. I think it's reasonable to make that assumption.

I want to draw your attention to the second paragraph on page 2, which says the following in French:

[Translation]

[English]

and so on.

I translate that to mean in English ``following a yes vote''. In French, au lendemain has a different nuance than le lendemain, from my knowledge of what is my mother tongue and how to translate it into English.

There is what I would qualify as an inaccurate translation and there is no criticism of the translator intended. But the release says, in English, ``The day after a YES'' win. That isn't the same. In your opinion, does that make any difference? One interpretation is saying ``in the aftermath'' or ``following'' and the other one is saying ``the day after''. Does that make a difference, in your view?

Mr. Hart: I believe ``the day after'' does make a difference, but again I would like to point out that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are not able to make that decision in a short period of time.

Mr. Boudria: I'm not asking you if they're able to make such a decision. The question is, does it make a difference? I think you answered yes. Which one would you consider to be the most serious, the text that says ``following'' or the one that says ``the day after''?

.1255

Mr. Hart: I would say ``the day after'' because of the relationship with the military's inability to deal with it the day after.

Mr. Boudria: For the record, Mr. Chairman, it's the English text, then, that is viewed, according to this testimony, as more serious than the French text.

I have both texts in front of me, the English and the French.

Mr. Hart: It is also still serious.

Mr. Boudria: Oh, I'm not denying that.

Mr. Hart: The other version is still serious.

Mr. Boudria: Okay, but the more serious, according to your information, is the English text, or actually the words I've described to you as the ones in the English text.

I'll move on from that, because I do think that ultimately this could make a difference, particularly in view of the original testimony made by the leader of the Reform Party. He said in the House that this had something to do with Quebec francophone members of the armed forces. Am I to assume then that the French text was deemed to be the one that was mainly destined for that kind of readership?

Mr. Hart: As I mentioned earlier, the only explanation I have for that is there was an error in translation. I can't, quite honestly, explain it.

Mr. Boudria: Thank you.

It was said a little while ago that this communiqué has the authority of the House. Those were the words from Mr. Hart. Could you tell us why a press release from an opposition MP has the authority of the House?

Mr. Hart: Well, although I will qualify that by saying it's unauthorized authority because it wasn't voted on in the House and wasn't approved by the House, what I'm saying is because it was on the official letterhead of the office of the leader of the opposition and he commands authority in the House of Commons, it was indeed under the authority of, although not authorized by, the House of Commons.

Mr. Boudria: I think you mean under the authorization of, presumably, the leader of the opposition.

Mr. Hart: The leader of the official opposition, that's correct.

Mr. Boudria: But in your opinion, is it normally the case that the leader of the opposition speaks for the House?

Mr. Hart: He speaks for the opposition party, but I am saying this communiqué, received by people in the Canadian Armed Forces, is an official document from the House of Commons, in particular the office of the official opposition, which is sanctioned by the House of Commons.

Mr. Boudria: Well, that's a different nuance, with respect.

I want to get to the testimony you gave us earlier this morning. On page 8 of your text, the second-to-last sentence of the second paragraph reads:

Mr. Hart: I don't know. I'm not an expert on that.

Mr. Boudria: It's just that those words were uttered by a member of Parliament yesterday, Mr. Randy White.

Mr. Hart: I would urge you to call witnesses. I'm not a parliamentary expert, and that's why we had Diane Davidson here. If this committee requires further people to look at the linguistics of the communiqué or to look at the procedures of the House and statements in the House, then I urge this committee to call those witnesses.

Mr. Boudria: I have one last question, if I may. When you originally proposed your motion in the House, you referred to ``sedition'' and then you were critical of that word having been removed from the text of your motion. You heard the testimony of our legal counsel for the House, Maître Diane Davidson, who said:

.1300

Mr. Hart: We're not dealing with that right now, but if you want a direct answer, my motion said ``in the view of the House''. I don't think I was accusing anyone of anything. I was asking the House to make a determination. I think Diane Davidson also said we could look at the issue of sedition; this committee could do that. It can't look at it in the context of the Criminal Code. That's my understanding.

The Chairman: Colleagues, Mr. Godfrey will have our last question, but I have notice from several of you asking for additional questions. What I would propose is that at this time, due to time, we conclude with Mr. Godfrey's questioning of Mr. Hart and Mr. Hart would presumably be available at some other point in the future if the committee wished to recall him.

Mr. Hart: Absolutely.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Before Mr. Jacob.

[English]

The Chairman: That's right.

Ms Catterall: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I realize we have people waiting, but several of us have preparation work to do for Question Period. I wonder if we couldn't adjourn now, if Mr. Godfrey would agree to put off his questions.

Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): I have a quick question. Given the urgency of what you have described - sedition, privilege, contempt, offensive documentation, your conscience, and so on - one of the problems I've had is the time elapsed between October 26 and March 12. You explain that by saying you raised the issue, you broached the topic, in the House on November 21 and you then waited for the government to respond to the cry of alarm you put forward at that point.

My question goes like this. I went to the debate of November 21, discovered that you indeed spoke that day for about 25 minutes, 18 in the original intervention, 5, and then 2, and the sum total of what you said about this dangerous, offensive, urgent matter is the following:

My question is this. If this was such a big deal, why did you ask only Mr. Jacob to reflect on his actions and not ask the government to take urgent action? Yet that's the only reference. Are we supposed to be mind readers? If that was all there was for urgency on November 21, what events have since transpired, what new evidence has come forward, to indicate that this matter has now got to the level it has?

Mr. Hart: Mr. Chairman, my first reaction is that the Speaker of the House has ruled that the time is a moot point. In other words, this committee does not have the authority to overturn the Speaker's decision in the House of Commons.

The Chairman: That's another question.

Mr. Hart: I know, and I'm willing to go further on this point, because it is important.

On November 21 I did make the statement the member has offered to this committee. At that point, and rightfully so, I was cautioned by the Speaker of the House. He cautioned me.

At that time I was also under the impression, through media reports that are available to this committee, again, that the Minister of National Defence was outraged and shocked at the events of the communiqué. He had said he was going to go to the judge advocate general to have the judge advocate general report. He said he was going to go to the justice minister to have the justice minister report. I was expecting, and I think Canadians were expecting, that this information would come back to the House of Commons and it would be tabled or referred in the House of Commons so it could be dealt with.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, what I was hoping for is that the Government of Canada would protect the dignity of the House of Commons by taking some actions in regard to this communiqué. I was shocked, quite frankly, to find that after the ten-week break there was nothing from the government. There was no word from the government.

.1305

At that time I contacted the office of the judge advocate general through my office, asking for a release of the report of the judge advocate general, which I feel this committee should look at and review, but I was told that it's unavailable.

The reason I was given was that the judge advocate general is the chief legal adviser to the Minister of National Defence and that report was confidential.

I don't think a report of this magnitude should be left as confidential.

I don't know what's in the report.

In other words - to answer very quickly - I waited, hoping that the government would do its job and govern.

Mr. Godfrey: My only point is this. You say that you were warned off this subject by the Speaker. Did he warn you before you gave the speech? He didn't seem to do it during the speech.

I would have expected that if you were sailing close to the wind the Speaker would have stood up and said, ``You're going too far''. Instead, the suggestion here is that this is simply de passage. This is not the main thrust of your attack, and you had 25 minutes to make it.

How were we supposed to know that it was that alarming if you didn't tell us and there is no indication that the Speaker warned you off when you could have told us so?

Mr. Hart: I received a note from the Speaker, and rightfully so, saying that I should not continue with what I was saying.

The Chairman: The Speaker wrote you a note?

Mr. Hart: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: We will ask the witness to table this note, since he has just mentioned that the Speaker wrote it to him during a speech. The note is dated 21 November 1995, and I invite the witness to table this note with the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you have the note, Mr. Hart?

Mr. Hart: I don't have the note with me today, but I do have it.

The Chairman: Do you agree to comply with the request?

Mr. Hart: I don't see any reason. I think the Speaker was offering it in the spirit of another parliamentarian. I took it in that way, as an offering saying, ``You're getting kind of close; back off a little bit''. That's the way I took it.

Mr. Godfrey: But you've got off the topic.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey, you're finished.

Mr. Bellehumeur, you've asked for the note.

To complete the record here, Mr. Hart, are you saying that you are not going to provide the note?

Mr. Speaker: I have a point of order. I think a note in that sense is a private note between the Speaker and the recipient of the note. Certainly the Deputy Speaker or the Speaker would have to give their approval for that kind of thing. That's a very informal communication.

The Chairman: On the point of order that Mr. Speaker has raised.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: The committee has the authority to ask the witness to table documents which will help our analysis, and since the witness himself spoke of this note, he has no other choice but to table the note with the committee if he asked to do so. It is necessary to understand the importance of the government member's question. It is even included in the legal advice that Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Marleau gave us when they appeared.

[English]

Mr. Hart: In my recollection, the note was labelled personal and confidential, so I would submit that I will not -

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: I'll take the issue on this particular point of order under advisement and I'll give a decision on it at the next meeting.

I guess that concludes this particular meeting.

Mr. Bellehumeur, perhaps I misspoke. Mr. Hart will not be back until.... Mr. Jacob is currently scheduled for Thursday. The problem we have is time. Mr. Jacob is next on the schedule. Are you requesting that this be changed?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: At the very least, the basic rules must be followed; you will see what I mean when I say that we at least have to hear from the accuser before hearing from the accused.

[English]

The Chairman: That's right.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: As for the one on Thursday, at 3h30, you can just put 11 o'clock. Mr. Hart would continue providing his evidence, which wouldn't change the schedule, and Mr. Jacob's appearance would be postponed until next week.

.1310

[English]

The Chairman: I've listened to what you've said. I don't have a problem with that. Does anybody else?

The next witness, Mr. Jacob, will now in fact ask the clerk to arrange a convenient schedule for him. We still have some more questions for Mr. Hart.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I raise a point of order before we wrap up. I would like to remind you that in the legal advice we received it says on page 11 that there are legally no grounds upon which a witness can refuse to answer a question. Witnesses are quite literally at the mercy of the committee and its collective wisdom. For example, a witness cannot refuse to answer...

[English]

The Chairman: I've already heard the point of order on that. I will rule on the issue of the note. I've taken notice of it and I'll report back to the committee at the beginning of the hearing on Thursday.

Thanks. We're adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;