Claude Bachand

[Privilege, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I listened carefully to what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the Minister of Justice had to say about the question of privilege I raised concerning the December 10, 2009 motion.

I would first like to respond to a point raised by the parliamentary secretary. He claims that the government does not have to comply with the motion of December 10, 2009, because it is not an address. He quoted from page 1121 of O'Brien-Bosc to support his claim. I would like to quote another passage from the same page:

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to ensure that the motion proposed is appropriately worded so that it can achieve what it intends to do.

On December 10, 2009, which was a Liberal opposition day, the House debated and adopted an order to produce papers. Early that day, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader tried to have that motion ruled out of order, without ever saying that it was improperly drafted.

When you ruled on the issue on December 10, 2009, you even talked about the scope of Parliament's power to obtain documents, and you quoted the following passage from pages 978 and 979 of O'Brien-Bosc:

The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the type of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist—in hard copy or electronic format—and that they are located in Canada.

...

No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in the House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.

By bringing forward new arguments, the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government is trying to have the motion ruled out of order and inoperative after the fact.

He concluded his speech by needlessly stating that you cannot unilaterally change the wording of a motion once it has been adopted by the House. That goes without saying.

But it also goes without saying that you cannot rule a motion out of order and inoperative once it has been adopted by the House, especially almost four months later.

If the parliamentary secretary wanted to argue about the wording of the December 10 motion, he should have done so before it was passed. But, he did not do that.

And now, I would like to briefly respond to the Minister of Justice's arguments. The minister is saying, first, that there is no prima facie question of privilege and that the government has taken the necessary measures to provide the documents requested.

In saying that there has been no prima facie breach of privilege, the minister is claiming that the members have not been prevented from doing their jobs.

I believe that the minister is asking the wrong question. Obviously I raised a question of privilege, but that was to bring your attention to a situation which is related to contempt of Parliament.

In this case, there are two questions: is there a House order related to producing documents? And is the government, acting through the ministers who have these documents, refusing to comply with this order?

This debate over whether the members have been kept from doing their jobs is not pertinent in this matter. If you were to decide that it is pertinent, it seems to me that members are being prevented from doing their jobs.

The majority of members agreed that the House should pass an order to produce documents so they could have access to the necessary information and hold the government accountable on the Afghan detainee issue. The members still do not have access to these documents and, consequently, are unable to do their jobs.

Lastly, the minister alleged that the matter of which documents should be made available to Parliament was debatable, thereby demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of the role of this House. The fact is that the government must be accountable to Parliament. Parliament has broad powers and the means to compel the government to respect those powers and deliver accountability.

During my last interventions, I discussed at length the House's power to compel the government to produce documents. I quoted a number of authorities to support my argument, and I will not revisit that today.

The matter before the Chair today is fundamental. This is not just a difference of opinion or an issue up for debate. This is about preserving Parliament's power to hold the government to account. Subordinating Parliament's power to the government's whims regarding information it provides to Parliament is the same as subjugating legislative powers to executive powers. This is not a matter for debate. This is about ensuring that the House can play the part assigned to it by the Constitution.

I am not a fool. The two statements we heard yesterday, which came two weeks after the point of privilege was raised in the House, are nothing but another government delay tactic. No matter what the Minister of Justice says, the government is not acting in good faith on this issue. It has used every parliamentary tactic available to prevent the opposition from getting to the bottom of things on the Afghan detainee file.

I think that we have heard all of the arguments on this subject. That is why I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to rule as quickly as possible on these issues.

[Privilege, March 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of the House's time. As I said earlier, we reserve the right to come back to this topic tomorrow and comment on everything the ministers said today. We are going to do a more thorough study and focus perhaps more on points of law than political points.

With your permission, I will give the floor to some of my colleagues, who would like to take over. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.

[Privilege, March 31st, 2010]

Is that the Governor General calling me?

[Privilege, March 31st, 2010]

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply to the speeches from the two ministers.

When talking about this subject, I often begin my speech by talking about the protectors of the realm. They do an excellent job. Once again, the castle doors have been locked after what has just happened. We, the members of the grand inquest, must investigate the government's behaviour in all matters. It is important that we call on the government to table documents.

I will talk about the debates shortly because we must all have the same information in order to debate. If we do not have the same information, how can we debate effectively?

We have already said it, and we will say it again: Parliament has undisputed privileges that are recognized in the Constitution. Under these right and privileges, members can demand documents to ensure that the government is behaving properly in all matters.

Since we are not getting the documents—it has been almost four months since the motion of December 10, 2009—what are we waiting for to act on the motion moved on December 10?

As was the case last month and last week, they are scaling up their efforts.

On March 16, back in the House, the government realized this was a hot file. It did not know what to do and did not want to release the documents. It decided to appoint a highly skilled judge. We are not disputing his skills. He is indeed intelligent and competent, but this appointment is not a satisfactory response to the decision made on December 10, 2009. That is why we disagree with it.

What is more, the mandate given to the judge has no end date. We still think this is a case of contempt. In a dramatic turn of events, last week we learned that the government was going to table 2,600 pages of documents. As the members of the grand inquest, as parliamentarians, we had renewed hope. We were finally going to find out whether the government was behaving properly in this case. We waited with bated breath for the documents to be tabled, but only one series of documents was produced. They had all night to photocopy those documents in order to hand them out to the various parties. To everyone's surprise, at first, there was only one series of documents.

As the grand inquest, we were required to seek permission to go behind the Speaker's chair where documents are kept in order to consult these documents. We were astonished to see that what we were looking at were more censored documents. It was yet another delay tactic.

Today, we expected the ministers of the Crown, the great protectors of the realm, to explain their actions, to tell us that we were right, to release a certain number of uncensored documents, and to trust us.

That is not what happened. I am not interested in camping out in front of Buckingham Palace in order to convince the Queen that this is an important matter and that she must intervene. Nor am I interested in parking myself at Rideau Hall to inform the Governor General that I have something to tell her.

I have full confidence that the Speaker of the House of Commons will make the right decision in this matter. That is why I think they are stalling again.

The Minister of Justice did not let loose a river of words to evade the issue, it was more like a torrent. We could not stand it any more. We had to listen to him prattle on for an hour and a half. I will say right away that we reserve the right to revisit this matter. Out of respect, we will analyse what the ministers said. But for now, it would seem—

[Afghanistan, March 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Colonel Juneau's letter, along with the testimony of diplomat Richard Colvin and several other statements, is only further proof of this government's negligence in the matter of the torture of Afghan detainees.

Does this troubling information, which, I might add, is coming to us in dribs and drabs, not clearly show that all original, unredacted documents need to be handed over to the parliamentary committee, so that it can get to the bottom of this matter once and for all?

[Afghanistan, March 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government told us that the 2007 Afghan detainee transfer protocol was solving all the problems created by the previous Liberal protocol. Yet in November 2007, six months after the new agreement came into effect, Colonel Juneau, the Deputy Commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan, said he was unable to guarantee the safety of detainees transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities.

How can the government claim that it corrected the situation in 2007, when the highest ranking Canadian on the ground is saying the opposite?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I must say to my colleague that, according to our assessment, the opposite is true. We have to look at the underlying reasons.

When Canadian shareholders invest in a Colombian mine or when Canadian or American oil companies invest in Colombia, and their profits decline, they can sue the government.

The Colombian government will say that it cannot improve the lives of workers because that would increase costs for companies and decrease their profits. In addition, if the Colombian government realizes that these companies are degrading the environment, it will leave them alone because it does not want to be sued.

Therefore, the complete opposite will happen. That is the issue in this debate: the negative impact of this agreement on working conditions and the environment.

It is for this reason that we oppose this bill.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. If we do not sign this agreement, will trade between Canada and Colombia disappear? No. Will it continue to expand? Yes.

The problem lies with investment. We spoke about Colombia's natural resources, including mines, and the oil companies that will invest there. If we look to the recent and more distant past of our own country, Canada—as well as Quebec—we see that the mining and oil companies, with their oil sands, are not the most responsible companies in terms of environmental issues.

Here, in Canada, we nevertheless can access remedies to rein them in. However, in Colombia, there are no remedies. If measures are implemented in an attempt to protect the environment or if legislation is introduced to improve labour relations, investors can sue the Colombian government on the grounds that their profit has been affected.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2 today, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. No one will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of this bill.

In the next few minutes, I plan on talking about the absurdity of this agreement, which is not a free trade agreement or a trade agreement. As we read through it, it becomes clear that this is an investment agreement. We can understand to a certain extent that it is important to protect investments abroad.

When governments decide to nationalize a business, Canadian investors and others who invested in these countries must be fairly compensated. We understand that. However, we do not agree with going so far as to allow for investors to sue the Colombian government if its social decisions affect the investors' profits. This kind of country completely disregards human rights and labour relations by intimidating or killing union activists. We cannot agree with taking things that far.

As members of Parliament, we must be open-minded and not focus solely on the sacrosanct monetary and trade approach. When Parliament or the government signs an agreement, we must consider our social responsibility. We must ensure that a trade agreement or investment agreement will not have a negative impact.

The agreement before us now will set Colombian society back significantly. As members of Parliament, we must live up to our social and international responsibilities.

Bloc members feel that to vote in favour of this agreement is to repudiate our social responsibility and to let important matters go by the wayside. We must reaffirm our stand, not only on labour relations, but also on the environment.

Day after day, we are confronted by everything that is happening on the planet. With global warming and with the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, we must not move too quickly. We must even make the same kinds of decisions locally, in our constituencies.

In my view, the constituency of Saint-Jean would want nothing to do with a company that completely pillaged the environment in order to make money hand over fist and that paid no heed to labour conditions or labour relations. That is the point we have reached. In the past, everything was accepted. Now that is no longer possible because of the new problem confronting us: climate change. We must face up to our responsibilities.

Of course, we are told that there will be side agreements. But everyone understands that side agreements are not part of the real agreement. If side agreements were signed on the environment, on human rights and on labour relations before the agreement itself is signed, perhaps we would be more open. But there is no chance of that happening. The agreement will be signed and the side agreements will be negotiated afterwards. But it will be too late because we can no longer go back on our original signature.

For the Bloc, it is important for the agreement to show respect for the environment and to protect labour relations, but that is not the case here. This is why the Bloc has been opposed to this bill for so long. With the prorogation of the House, the bill has come back at second reading, and we are still opposed to it.

When the government signs an agreement, it has a responsibility. It knows that it is able to put significant pressure on the other government before reaching an agreement with it.

It can refuse to sign if the other country does not meet international standards in terms of the environment or labour relations. That is important. Some people call this the carrot and the stick strategy. Perhaps that is what it is, but if we want to live up to our responsibilities, we must tell the Colombian government that we cannot accept what it is doing and that it must change. We cannot accept the deaths of unionists and the degradation or complete destruction of the environment. We cannot.

It is important to say this and oppose it now. We have to say that we cannot agree to this kind of deal. We are not the only ones. Everyone knows how open the American Congress is to finance, trade and investments. Everyone knows that the American Congress is relatively liberal and acts quickly on these kinds of issues. Yet it is blocking an agreement with Colombia because it wants to ensure that minimum labour standards are met. It wants to protect the union movement.

Is this agreement a trade deal or not? It is very simple. A trade agreement means that we want to exchange things, that the economies are more or less equal and that the products are of interest to us. That is not the case. I have statistics and economic data here.

In 2007, Colombia's GDP was $256 million and Canada's GDP was $1,610 billion. That is not comparable at all. Colombia's per capita GDP was $5,314, while Canada's was $48,427. Colombia's inflation rate was 7%, while Canada's was 2.3%. Unemployment was at 11.8% in Colombia, 6% in Canada.

Thus, our situations are not exactly equal. What do we have to gain from this, in terms of trade? Not much. One of our research documents shows that it is more or less equal in terms of trade balance. Signing this will not make us rich. Why would some have us believe that Canada will make a fortune by signing this? The Canadian government, in other words Canada, is opening its markets to South America, which means that the direct impact on Colombia might not be significant. The repercussions will be felt across all of South and Central America. So this is more of an investment agreement.

In fact, I have the numbers right here. In 2008, foreign investors from Colombia invested $1 million in Canada, while Canada invested $1.158 billion in Colombia. That is what is very dangerous. There is a clear imbalance and this agreement protects investments a lot more than an agreement meant to foster trade. The government must be careful. We do not want this bill to pass at this time, because we want to live up to our responsibilities, as I said earlier.

We can also talk about the paramilitary groups accused of killing thousands of people there, not to mention the 30 or so members of the Colombian congress in prison and 60 or so who are under investigation, which suggests collusion between paramilitary forces and the government. Last but not least, Colombia is a narco-state. Everyone knows what goes on in Colombia.

I could go on much longer, for instance, about how workers are targeted by violence. We could talk about the meetings the Bloc Québécois has had with representatives of civil society and social organizations from Colombia.

We think this agreement is completely unacceptable. That is why it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill at second reading.

[First World War Veterans, March 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, by the time the roar of the machine-guns had died away, this war was known as the war to end all wars. We rise in the House today to commemorate the 93rd anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge.

Previously, the French and British had tried in vain to conquer what was called the ridge of death. But where the French and British failed, Canadians and Quebeckers succeeded. Between April 9 and 12, 1917, they mounted the ridge and conquered it in the face of 20,000 German soldiers, who pounded them with fire throughout the three long days of battle. It was a great honour to have succeeded in such an exploit.

Many did not survive, though, despite their courage. Of the 30,000 Canadians and Quebeckers who ascended that ridge of death, 7,000 were killed, or nearly 25% of the total. It was an enormous sacrifice. Sadly, these 7,000 soldiers did not live to taste victory.

These Canadians and Quebeckers were among 619,000 of their fellow citizens who fought in the first world war. Of these 619,000 Canadians and Quebeckers, 66,000 never returned to this side of the Atlantic.

It was the veterans who called it the war to end all wars. This was a heartfelt call to the ensuing generations, warning them against the folly of war, which brings only death and destruction. It is a cry we should never forget—never again.

The war traumatized all those who took part. They thought it would be a snap and it would be over in a few days. But the war bogged down and the armies faced each other in a new kind of war, called trench warfare or a continuous front.

It was an absolutely horrible experience. Thousands of men went to the front to end up in a trench a few metres away from an enemy trench. Historians say they did not fight very much but died a lot. Men who emerged from their trenches were killed on the spot. Their living conditions were worse than dreadful.

The soldiers in the trenches were called tommies, doughboys, poilus or G.I.s. Their lives consisted of hunger, fear, thirst, rats, mud and worst of all, a terrible new weapon that had just been invented, gas, which killed many thousands. That is what their daily lives consisted of and they could remain there for weeks under appallingly unhygienic conditions.

Never again barbed wire under the feet instead of grass. Never again families in tears, torn apart forever by the loss of a loved one to bombs, machine-guns or bayonets. Warfare was quite barbarous at the time.

Our soldiers may have fought with courage and valour and have been on the side of the victorious allies, but the first world war was nonetheless a great human tragedy. We have a duty to remember those who gave their lives so that we can live in peace and enjoy freedom.

Freedom does not always come easy, and at that moment in time, people had to fight to achieve freedom. That is what these individuals did, and it would be terribly ungrateful of us to forget that.

That is why we are pleased to see this appeal being made to the House today. I, too, urge all my colleagues to go and sign the Book of Reflection.

After the horrors of the 1914-18 war, a moral imperative emerged, which seeded in many the desire to achieve peace through means other than war. Countries got together to create the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations.

Out of these four nightmarish years of war came a breakthrough. Now we try to the bitter end to avoid war through diplomacy, talks and agreements. That was not possible before. Indeed, it is a positive outcome of that war.

Another outcome was the end of empires. Empires had to go so that legitimate democracies could be created. The attention of nations was called to these issues and, as a result, we at least have these forums now to discuss amongst ourselves.

So, we say, may the people forever have the freedom to decide their future, may nation-states forever be free, sovereign and independent.

Finally, my gratitude goes to those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we could enjoy such freedom and democracy today.

I will conclude the way I always do, “At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.”