Debates of Feb. 4th, 2002

Business of the House

[The Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 81(14) to inform the House that the motion to be considered tomorrow during consideration of the business of supply is as follows:

That, since the government has failed to give effect to the motion adopted by this House on March 31, 2001, calling for the establishment of a sex offender registry by January 30, 2002, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill reflecting the spirit and intent of that motion;

That the committee shall make its report to the House no later than June 1, 2002;

That in its report, the committee shall recommend the principles, scope and general provisions of the said bill, and may include recommendations regarding legislative wording;

That the tabling of a report pursuant to this order shall be an order to bring in a bill based thereon; and

That when a minister of the crown, in proposing a motion for first reading of a bill, states that the bill is in response to the recommendations contained in a report pursuant to this order, the second reading and subsequent stages of the bill shall be considered under government orders; or

When a private member, in proposing a motion for first reading of a bill, states that the bill is in response to the recommendations contained in a report pursuant to this order, the second reading and subsequent stages of the bill shall be considered under private members' business and the bill shall be placed immediately in the order of precedence for private members' business as a votable item.

The motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford will be votable. Copies of the motion are available at the Table.

The House resumed from February 1 consideration of the motion.

Privilege

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, usually we would say that it is with some honour and privilege that we rise on debate in the House. I am not sure that is the case this time. The debate that started last Friday over sending the Minister of National Defence to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is a very serious debate, and one to which I am sure most members of parliament would like to add a few of their thoughts.

This is a greater issue than the fact that the Minister of National Defence misled the House. That is a serious issue and one we want to look at, but there is a greater issue behind this. It is the question of why the minister misled the House.

I do not think it is any surprise to any members in the House that the government had been fielding questions on the status of prisoners of war who may have been or could be captured in the future by Canadian forces, in particular JTF2 forces in Afghanistan, or by troops of the Princess Patricia's Light Infantry, which were sent over there this past weekend.

The issue surrounding possible capture of prisoners of war has been fielded by the government. Repeatedly it has said it is not an issue, that it has not captured anyone, therefore it does not have to deal with those sticky and messy items, such as the Geneva conventions, which our Canadian forces in the field would want to adhere to the Geneva conventions.

It all boils down to a pretty simple read of the Geneva conventions. Civilized nations follow the rules of the Geneva conventions because they expect their soldiers, if and when captured in battle, to be treated under the same set of rules. This is not a complicated thought process.

However last Wednesday, January 30, was the first time that the Minister of National Defence admitted to the capture of prisoners by Canadian troops on January 20 or January 21. Not only did he admit knowledge of it but he admitted that he knew within 24 hours.

The expansion of the issue becomes the fact that it is inconceivable that the Minister of National Defence would have known that JTF2 troops had captured Taliban fighters or al-Qaeda fighters and not reported that to the Prime Minister for eight, nine or ten days. It is very difficult to believe that the Prime Minister was that far out of the loop. The reasoning behind it again was simply that the government did not want to discuss the issue of treatment of prisoners.

If we look at the chronology of events, on January 29 the Minister of National Defence said to the Speaker at the time:

I first became aware of the possibility on Friday. It required further examination to determine whether in fact Canadians were involved. I informed the Prime Minister and my colleagues in cabinet this morning to that effect.

Apparently he informed the House last. In fact, he even informed the Privy Council and the Prime Minister last . However we are far beyond the point in this debate where I think anyone would think the Prime Minister or the Privy Council did not know prior to January 29 or January 30.

The fact that Canadian troops were put in a foreign battlefield under American command was something with which this government was not comfortable. It was not comfortable with the treatment of prisoners or how to explain that.

During questioning, the minister of defence actually referred to the chief of defence staff being in full control of our troops. It would have been impossible for the top ranking officer, who we obviously believe is in full command of the troops, not to know we had taken prisoners. Being a good military man, I am certain that without question he passed that on to the minister immediately. The minister doing his job, as I expect he should have, passed that on to the Privy Council and the Prime Minister.

The end of the quote by the minister of defence was: “However, at all times the chief of defence staff retains full command over the battle group and the work that it does”. This was in answer to queries about who was actually in charge of our troops in Afghanistan.

It is important to look at the take note debate where again the minister of defence misled the House, after misleading the House for several days, but he was much more careful in his wording because he knew at that time we had taken prisoners and had transferred them to U.S. forces. Yet he only mentioned that we met our obligations when transferring them. He said nothing about what happened once they have been transferred.

He said:

Let me assure members of the House that the Canadian forces will treat detainees in accordance with international law and always fairly and humanely. International law, as reflected in the Geneva conventions, establishes requirements for all detainee states when transferring detainees. The Canadian forces will meet its international legal obligations on transferring detainees.

At the same time, the minister was obviously laying the groundwork to protect himself should the issue of the death penalty for prisoners that we handed over be raised in the future. Clearly he knew then that prisoners had been handed over to the U.S., which has the death penalty. The minister's exact words in his statement were:

They have every right, though, for a tribunal to determine whether in fact they have status as a prisoner of war or have status as an unlawful combatant. Canada stands by that determination process in accordance with international law. International law does not prohibit the use of the death penalty with respect to military tribunals.

We can already see a very uncomfortable minister of defence laying the groundwork to admit to the fact that not only have we handed prisoners of war over to the U.S. but it could well come to be realized that these prisoners would face the death penalty.

There are civilian prisoners languishing in Canadian jails that we will not send to the U.S. because they use the death penalty. It may be a matter of debate whether that is approved of or not, but that is Canadian law.

The minister of defence, in full realization that we had taken prisoners and turned them over to the U.S., was clearly separating some of the fact from the fiction as well as what we would do when we had them and what would happen to them when we turned them over. He said very clearly in the take note debate:

--we will not keep detainees. We do not have detention facilities. None of the other allied forces in Afghanistan do.

I guess he was referring to the fact that the Brits intend to follow the Geneva conventions.

He went on to say:

The only one that has detaining facilities and the capability of taking these people is the United States, but when they are under our jurisdiction or care they will be treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions.

It is interesting to look at some of the other statements that the minister of defence made in the take note debate. He stated:

Canada will not be party to any violations. We intend to abide by international law and abide by Canadian law.

He further said:

We are not about to outsource our moral obligations. With respect to the Geneva conventions, we will be following the Geneva conventions.

I would like to know how? I would like to listen to the logic of that statement.

We have a situation where a member of the House, and may I say an important member of the House, none less than a minister of the government, deliberately misled his fellow MPs when he knew differently. He has admitted that in the House of Commons. We can send this to committee. I realize this is not the place to be judge and jury but the minister of defence fully realizes that is the only door open to him, the only option that he can take to save face.

This is not about blaming this series of events on the Canadian military nor about risking operations in Afghanistan. We have good military men and women on the ground in Afghanistan who will do and have done their job. Without question, the military part of the chain of command is working and fulfilling its obligations. It has passed information on to the people to which it is supposed to pass it on to. There is a weak link in the chain of command. We all know exactly where that weak link is in the chain of command.

The sad fact is that what should have been a story that Canadians could take pride in, that we are pulling our weight and doing something in the fight against terrorism, has turned to further embarrassment over the minister's inept handling of the situation. He has taken away that sense of accomplishment and pride that Canadians should feel when their troops are in the field doing the job that is put in front of them. Instead, he has taken any sense of pride and accomplishment away and turned it into a sense of misgiving toward the government. Certainly there must be some sense of misgiving from the troops in the field toward a government that is supposed to support them.

It is our job as members of parliament to support our troops in the theatre, not to cast aspersion or doubt, particularly in a time of war. This is not casting aspersion or doubt on our troops in the theatre. They have done their job.

The process went up the chain of command. Someone needed to be a scapegoat when it got to the ministerial level and I suspect when it got to the prime ministerial level. They had to admit the truth, that they knew prior to when they said they knew, otherwise it would reflect badly upon the Privy Council and, lo and behold, the Prime Minister. I do not think anyone seriously considered the second option in this case, that somehow the Prime Minister did not know.

I have outlined fairly quickly and concisely the chronology and series of events of how this event unfolded as we understand it in the House. I move:

That the motion be amended by striking out the words “the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs”, and substituting “a special committee of the House, the membership of which will be on the same party ratio as the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and be elected in each caucus by a secret ballot to be conducted under the direction of the Speaker in a process similar to that used by the House to elect the Speaker.”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The Speaker will consider the motion to be under deliberation and will come back to the House as soon as possible.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from South Shore for putting forward such a succinct position with respect to the Minister of National Defence.

I had an opportunity over the past weekend to talk with a lot of people about this particular issue, people who had no political agendas and who simply wanted to know what was going on with respect to our soldiers in Afghanistan. Their comments were quite open. They asked why it was so important that the Minister of National Defence tell the Prime Minister when, and what happened, and what kind of prisoners were taken.

It is important that Canadians know that this is not specifically about the Prime Minister knowing or not knowing. It is about a defence minister who has the responsibility to put forward rules of engagement for our soldiers who are on the ground. Some of those soldiers come from my community. I have a Canadian forces base in my community and some of those people are currently in Afghanistan.

It is the defence minister's responsibility to make sure that when those soldiers are put into a theatre of war, not peacekeeping, that we know how those soldiers will be treated should they ever, heaven forbid, be captured by Taliban forces. Does my colleague from Shore Shore believe that soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan have been put in jeopardy because of the lack of direction from the Minister of National Defence?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague. It is a more complicated question than one might think upon first hearing. I believe we have to break it into at least two, possibly three, categories.

Without question there is a question of confidence in the government and in the military because when the government acts badly it reflects upon the military. That should not be the issue and we can disclaim that aspect of it. Canadians realize that the military has done its job. It is not the proverbial weak link in the chain of command. It is higher up. Where we have an issue of confidence is when it get to the Minister of National Defence, the Privy Council and the Prime Minister.

As far as the treatment of Canadian forces if captured, that is something we cannot ignore. In no way shape or form am I trying to pretend that war is some type of a civilized exercise. Obviously the thin veneer of civilization falls away completely when we engage in acts of war, but in this case it was a result of the terrible events of terrorism on our own North American shores. It was something we could not ignore.

Yes, there was a legitimate reason to commit troops to the field and to the theatre of war. Yes, it does endanger our troops when we are up against an enemy who we know does not follow the rules of engagement, the rules of war, or the Geneva convention.

However, that taken aside, if we do not adhere to the Geneva convention then we cannot expect our opponents to adhere to it. The ability of the Geneva convention to protect non-combatants, to protect the very soldiers who are engaged in battle, is legendary. The point of following the convention is to make sure that in the case of capture our troops are treated as fairly and humanely as possible. They risked their lives the day they signed up for the Canadian military. They understand the risk involved. Without question, in this conflict and every other conflict our soldiers have ever been in, they have fought with honour and distinction as I am sure they will here.

The question on the Geneva convention cannot be ignored. It is absolutely essential that Canadian troops follow the Geneva convention so that we can expect that anyone who captures Canadian forces would follow it as well.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that what my hon. colleague and friend from South Shore is saying is that if the troops pay the ultimate liability, government and parliamentarians must pay the ultimate responsibility for their well-being. I agree with him that this needs further review and serious consideration about the competency of the government.

It has come to our attention that a lot of depleted uranium is being used in Afghanistan. We saw what happened with depleted uranium being used in the gulf war. Does the hon. member' party support the use of depleted uranium in the conflict in Afghanistan.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member I would like to remind members that the question has to do with the Minister of National Defence and not necessarily what is happening in Afghanistan. I will let the hon. member answer very briefly if he wishes.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, any use of depleted uranium by Canadian troops would need to be authorized by the government. I expect it is.

The first part of the question I can answer very quickly. If the minister did not know then he was incompetent. If the minister did know and deliberately withheld the information from parliament then he is completely untrustworthy, and that is a totally different issue.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports the motion, which reads as follows:

That the charge against the minister of defence, for making misleading statements in the House, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

To begin with, we have the facts, which I feel it would be pointless to repeat. It is our conviction that the minister deliberately misled the House. On January 28 he made the following statement concerning prisoners during the take note debate in the House of Commons:

Let me assure members of House that the Canadian forces will treat detainees in accordance with international law and always fairly and humanely.

He went on to say:

The Canadian forces will meet its international legal obligations on transferring detainees.

On January 29 we had the first changed version. He told the House that he had been informed on the previous Friday of the possibility that Canadians had taken prisoners.

On January 30 his version changed once again. He told the House that he was first informed about the detention of prisoners within 24 hours of when it actually occurred. As we know, this probably occurred on January 21, since that was the date on which the infamous photo of Canadian Special Security Forces personnel with the prisoners was taken. Some people were able to recognize that the personnel in question were not Americans, despite the Globe and Mail caption to that effect.

He told the House on January 30 that he was informed of the arrests within 24 hours of the event.

We find ourselves in a situation where the Prime Minister was maintaining up until January 28 that the Canadian Forces did not have any detainees. He denied this vehemently, in the style for which we know him well “Come on now, this is a hypothetical question”. This means that while the Prime Minister was saying, “We will see when we have prisoners”, the Minister of National Defence already knew that Canadian soldiers had detainees in their custody.

Is this serious? I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say “In any case, what difference would it have made?” Allow me to say, on behalf of the constituents in my beautiful riding of Mercier, that it does make a difference that the Prime Minister should say “we will see, this is a hypothetical question”, when already prisoners had been detained by Canadian soldiers. It would have made a difference if the Prime Minister had known and had not answered the way he did, if he had to deal with the substance of the issue, instead of brushing off the question.

We find this issue extremely important, not only because it put the House in a situation where a minister was not telling it the truth—and we have every reason to believe that this was intentional—but also because of the matter involved. The treatment of prisoners, not just those in Guantanamo, but also of the other prisoners who are still in Afghanistan in conditions that we do not really know, and under the “protection” of the Americans.

We know that the Canadian soldiers who left on Friday will be deployed within the next two weeks in the Kandahar region. They will be in a position to capture other prisoners. These prisoners will not immediately be sent to Guantanamo Bay under the rather close scrutiny of the media but will be treated in a way and subjected to conditions in Afghanistan that are unknown to us.

Why is it important to talk about prisoners of war? I am sure this issue has not often been debated in parliament. In fact, I did not discuss it often during my life.

Since September 11 and since President Bush declared that the United States felt at war and justified in terms of the means taken to overcome the Taliban and then the al-Qaeda network, there has indeed been a war going on, and I do not think anyone can deny that.

We find ourselves in a situation where we could take prisoners. It is possible that Canada will find itself in that situation, since this time we are not only taking part in a peacekeeping operation, but also in an operation designed to restore peace, which is a high risk operation. Those are the words used by the Minister of National Defence in the House. He himself said that this was a high risk operation.

Why is it important to talk about this issue of prisoners of war? It is important because it has to do with Canada's international obligations. The Geneva conventions were signed following extensive talks after World War II. The parties were looking for something that would be fair for those who have taken part in a war, who have been defeated, but who have served their country, regardless of what one might think about the other country which has been attacked or which has been victorious, so that a law could be established for those who fight for their country.

Over the years, this law has also been extended to include resistance fighters. The purpose of the law—this is a view held by many—is to assure all countries that if soldiers or those who fight for their country are taken as prisoners, they will be treated as provided for by international law, according to principles known to everyone and, everyone hopes, respected by all nations.

According to these rules, any prisoner captured during a state of war in the role of combatant must first be treated as a prisoner of war. As such, he may be required only to answer a limited number of questions and only until he is brought before a tribunal, which may be military or regular, for soldiers or for civilians, of the country in which he is being detained. I could describe the conditions at some length.

The problem we are having in the House is that it is obvious that the United States is not respecting these ground rules. I have read and reread the answers that I have been given. We have been told that the prisoners are being held under humane conditions. That is not what we are asking.

We are asking whether Canada, which gave an undertaking when it signed the Geneva conventions, has in fact respected them or, when it transfers prisoners to another country, has undertaken to ensure that that other country respects the Geneva conventions. And, should that other country no longer be respecting them—therefore, Canada needs some means of ensuring that the other country really is respecting the conventions—Canada must be able to repatriate the prisoners and ensure that the Geneva conventions are respected.

Clearly, this is not the situation right now. But I would like to go back to the dates.

At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade held on January 17, the Minister of National Defence said that no agreement had been concluded between Canada and the United States. We know that the prisoners we saw in the photo—fortunately, because, had we not seen that, we might never have known—were under the authority of Canadian soldiers on January 21.

The questions are quite simple: When was the agreement concluded, by whom, and how? We have yet to get any answers, no matter how many times we ask the questions.

What we do know for sure is that during the week of January 21 to 28 the issue was hotly debated in the United States, between the U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell—he can be named because he is not a member of parliament—who said that the prisoners should be treated according to the Geneva convention, fully, and not in part, and defence secretary Rumsfeld, who was supported by President Bush.

We saw on the news for a week that there was a debate going on. Even the weekend prior to the House's return it was on the news, and the folks on the right in the United States, such as Mr. Safire, were very pleased by the fact that Colin Powell was holding his own.

We arrived here, in the House, to be told by the Prime Minister that there was an agreement reached on January 29.

How and when did this happen then, that Canada agreed that prisoners would not be treated according to the Geneva convention, when was this agreement reached?

If there was an agreement by which the Geneva convention would be respected, then it is safe to believe that the prisoners handed over by Canada would not be treated in the same manner as those taken by American soldiers.

This is not an issue about dates. It is not simply an issue of the Minister of National Defence seemingly not having told the Prime Minister the whole truth, which kept him unaware that there were prisoners, which should have prompted him to answer the question that he was trying to brush off. What this boils down to, is that Canada has been placed in a situation where we have not respected the Geneva convention.

The government can tell us that Canada respects international law. I would respectfully point out that it should really tell us when and how, because it is not the case.

There is also an aspect that I would like to stress. We dealt with it in the debate we had last Monday night in the House, a debate on the sending of troops. All those considerations should bring us back to the troops now in Afghanistan.

I indicated many times that it is extremely unfortunate that the House did not have to vote on the sending of troops. Then all of us, including government backbenchers, would have been interested to know what kind of a mandate those soldiers would be given. It is a serious thing to send soldiers into a situation where they will not be able to respect Canada's commitments. That is the truth of the matter. Those soldiers are entitled to respect from the House and the government.

Besides having to live in excessively difficult conditions, which everyone agrees with, besides having to do humanitarian work and demining work and to live through a highly risky situation, those soldiers should at the very least know that the mandate we are giving them is consistent with the international conventions that Canada is committed to respect. However I do not see how the government will convince us of that.

Since my time is limited let me simply add that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that it is illegal to extradite an individual to the United States if capital punishment could be applied. We know the rules of the American military courts, which are set up by ministerial order, do not provide for a full defence of prisoners, far from it. We are not even sure prisoners will have a lawyer. It appears that their lawyer could be appointed by the court or the American defence secretary. These prisoners could be sentenced to death. Judicial proceedings will be held behind closed doors. Need I say more?

Right from the start, the Bloc Quebecois, along with many other international actors, has pleaded repeatedly for the creation, by the UN Security Council, of a criminal court to try the prisoners when the war in Afghanistan is over. I think it is obvious now how important it would have been to make sure the prisoners get a fair trial. This same debate will take place in other countries, but I know Britain, France, Spain and other countries, have shown their disapproval by asking the Americans to hand over the prisoners who are their nationals so they can be tried according to the laws in their own country.

This is a very serious issue. We have to know what happened. We should know all the truth. I tend to think that the Canadian government, instead of having our troops under UN command, preferred to have them under American command without paying any attention to the implications for Canadian soldiers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before proceeding to questions or comments I would like to inform the House that the motion that was tabled a while ago is receivable.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier and foreign affairs critic for the Bloc Quebecois, who is doing an excellent job. Thanks to her insistence on bringing up the lot of prisoners, questions were asked by the Bloc Quebecois in the House, which in turn allowed members to have a discussion about the way prisoners, and in particular those captured in Afghanistan, are being treated.

I would like my colleague to inform us of the impact that the government's decision had on Quebecers, our sons and daughters, who are—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I wish to remind members that we should stick to the subject matter of the motion, namely the charge against the Minister of National Defence of making misleading statements to the House.

If the hon. member has a question for his colleague, I suggest he should put it. Otherwise, I will have to interrupt him again.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the discussions concerning the position taken by the minister, the question is, what impact will it have on our soldiers, our fellow citizens from Quebec, who are in Afghanistan?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague is raising an important point.

Actually, if, and I say if, the Prime Minister had known as early as on the 21st that prisoners were being detained by Canadian soldiers, he should have tried to find answers to the questions. He would probably have been able to add support to the pressure brought to bear by Colin Powell, or make a different decision about the Canadian troops who were to leave at the end of last week. Those are important matters. Canada's reputation is at stake, for one thing.

It is also a matter of how easily our troops will be able to perform their duties in Afghanistan. Again, all prisoners will not be sent immediately to Guantanamo but will be captured and detained in Afghanistan.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when does the member believe the Prime Minister knew? I think that is essential to the debate.

The debate so far has only focused on the Minister of National Defence but there is a real question here as to when the Prime Minister knew. He has said, I believe, that he knew on Tuesday, January 29, yet the government would have us believe that he only found out on the 29th even though the government had a caucus on Sunday and a cabinet meeting on Friday prior to that Tuesday.

Does the hon. member honestly think that somehow the Prime Minister was not in the loop and that he did not know until Tuesday, or is he simply using the Minister of National Defence as a scapegoat?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking a very important question. Frankly, when I look at the course of events, I find it extremely difficult to believe that a Minister of National Defence, who is competent, concerned and aware of all the consequences we are now mentioning, would not inform the Prime Minister earlier than he did.

The member's question is twofold. As I have shown, it is a serious matter for the Prime Minister not to be informed and it is absolutely unacceptable. I cannot understand how one can maintain one's confidence in the Minister of National Defence. This is not a matter of personality or considerations of that nature. What he has done is quite serious.

However, if the Prime Minister was informed and did not act accordingly, that creates a completely different spectrum of possibilities which, naturally, I consider to be very serious. That is why the committee is so important. We will see how it will work and how it will get to the bottom of the matter. We know that it is never an easy task. In this House, we do not have the powers and the checks and balances that are available in the United States or in other parliaments. It is not easy for this House to get to the bottom of things and find out all the truth.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the motion was debated for the entire sitting day on Friday following the Speaker's ruling. All members have had ample opportunity to take part in the debate. On several occasions the Speaker has had to intervene to refocus the debate so members could stay on topic.

At the beginning of the debate the government indicated that it would be supporting the motion unequivocally. There is very little that can be further added to the debate at this time. I suggest the real work needs to be done in committee.

I would therefore move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the government House leader to let us know whether this particular issue will be coming back to the House and that it will not be adjourned for a long period of time. The question of privilege in the House is important. It is a precedent.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House leader of the official opposition and all members of the House, I am happy to indicate that we do intend to return to this matter at the earliest opportunity, obviously subject to discussion among House leaders. The government indicated at the very outset that it supports the motion. We are anxious to have the matter ventilated in the appropriate standing committee. Following the appropriate consultations, we will endeavour to come back to this matter.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to draw some considerations to your attention.

If I am not mistaken, when a question of privilege is debated before the House of Commons, this debate has priority over any other activity that may be occurring and is the subject of routine proceedings.

I do not know whether there is a precedent, but before you rule on the matter, I would like to ask what precedent the Chair may use to suspend the debate on a question of privilege to go on to routine proceedings, as though nothing has happened. Personally, I am not satisfied with the government leader's commitments.

I would like to know why, suddenly, this debate should be suspended and we should revert to it at the earliest opportunity. Is there an urgent matter, a state matter, that does not allow us to discuss here in the House the fact that a minister of parliament has allegedly misled members? I think this is the most serious misdeed that can be committed in this parliament.

The question of privilege is in order and it seems to me that this debate has priority over any other situation, including, of course, discussions about a Senate amendment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I wish to inform the member for Roberval that the motion is in order. There are many precedents, since it says in Marleau and Montpetit :

During the proceedings on a privilege motion, motions to adjourn the debate, to adjourn the House, or to proceed to Orders of the Day are in order, as are motions for the previous question...for the extension of the sitting—

I believe the standing orders are quite clear.

I also wish to inform you that first thing tomorrow morning the debate on the main motion will resume.

The question is on the motion that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.