Claude Bachand

[Afghanistan, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to give us the facts regarding the extension of the Afghan mission. It is the same thing with the heavily censored documents that it released this morning. The government pretends to be cooperating, but in fact it is hiding the truth.

Why does the government refuse to comply with the order of the House, which requires that all documents on the torture of Afghan detainees be made available to it in their full version?

[Afghanistan, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we learned that the U.S. government is about to ask, through NATO, that 500 to 600 Canadian troops be maintained in Afghanistan after July 2011. However, the Conservative government has said repeatedly that no Canadian troops would remain in Afghanistan after that date.

Can the Conservative government assure us that it will not follow up on this request and that it will respect the July 2011 date for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan?

[Points of Order, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I rose in the House on a question of privilege on the issue we are addressing today.

The Bloc Québécois is extremely disappointed in the government's attitude. This is just another example of the government's bad faith when it comes to handing over all the legal documents and it is becoming a broken record. The thing we do not see eye to eye on is the precise definition of legal documents. Are they the 2,500 pages of censored documents that they just tabled, but are in fact totally useless to the members of the committee? We are still at square one.

When the committee receives witnesses who have read all of these uncensored documents and we, as members of Parliament, are to ask them questions, we are not on the same wavelength. We cannot get to the bottom of things if the documents to which we have access do not allow us to effectively question the witnesses.

I want to remind the government that Parliament's House of Commons is usually the grand inquest. Legal research proves it. The House of Commons is the grand inquest that gets to the bottom of things to see whether the government is being accountable. That is what democracy is all about.

For their part, the government and the cabinet are the protectors of the realm. At this time, I find that the protectors of the realm have many more advantages than the grand inquest. They are paralyzing the grand inquest.

I wish to remind members that the December 10 motion is clear, “...the House hereby orders that these documents be produced in their original and uncensored form forthwith.”

By submitting 2,500 pages of censored documents today, they are not complying with the motion of December 10.

Was it so difficult for the government, having had all night to prepare this obstacle, to bring photocopied documents and distribute them to the opposition?

This shows once again the bad faith of this government, which continues to throw up road blocks to prevent us from getting to the bottom of the matter.

Not only did they not give us the copies this morning—the documents were tabled in the House, and they must be photocopied immediately—but, furthermore, having looked through the documents behind the Speaker's chair, I can say that they have been censored. Therefore, they are of no use to us.

This is another sign of contempt. It proves that the Speaker's ruling is urgently needed. The government's constant hoopla and all kinds of theatrics are attempts to delay examining the fundamental issue.

What this government is doing is putting up smokescreen after smokescreen after smokescreen. Last week, I quoted a number of authorities who have the right to order the House to produce documents. I will quote Bourinot:

...there are frequent cases in which the ministers refuse information, especially at some delicate stage of an investigation or negotiation; and in such instances the house will always acquiesce when sufficient reasons are given for the refusal.

I could cite several other passages, which I cited when raising a point of privilege last week. But we always get back to square one: only the House can say whether these documents are confidential or not.

The motion we want to introduce would allow members of Parliament to judge whether a document should be kept confidential for security reasons or made public. Not only will the members be able to judge, they will be helped by other people. There will be no additional filter.

The government’s tactic is to give the documents to an eminent judge, Mr. Iacobucci, who will decide which ones parliamentarians will get. That is not the way things should be done. The opposition parties are unanimous in their view that it is the members of Parliament who should decide which documents can be revealed publicly and which are too sensitive from a national security standpoint. That is the basic principle we are asking the Speaker of the House to investigate.

Mr. Speaker, there is a pressing need for you and your colleagues to reach a decision because there are more and more cases in which the government shows its contempt for the House.

It is the 308 members of the House of Commons who represent Canadians, not one judge. In a democracy, it is the members of Parliament who represent the citizenry. They can always ask senior public servants or the courts to help them, but it is their decision to make. We are the ones who were elected to the House. We are the ones who are accountable when things do not go well. We are the ones who are accountable for the well-being of the nation.

Here is the evidence that this government is not concerned about the nation's well-being. It tries instead to use national security to hide the fact that ministers may well have made mistakes. And how does it do this? It provides documents and then censors them.

The other day I showed a document on camera in which an entire page had been blacked out. Then I asked how long it had taken to translate the document. It did not take much time. They just made a photocopy and said it was the French version.

This is another stunt staged by a government that is just trying to gain time and conceal the possible incompetence of some of its influential members. That is not good for democracy and that is why we are taking up the cudgels again and saying that the government’s current approach is meaningless, unacceptable and contrary to the motion of December 10, 2009.

[Privilege, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on December 10, 2009, the House passed a motion requiring the government to produce a series of documents, in their original and uncensored form, related to the question of Afghan detainees.

This motion, which I will not read in its entirety, said:

That, given the undisputed privileges of Parliament under Canada's constitution, including the absolute power to require the government to produce uncensored documents when requested, and given the reality that the government has violated the rights of Parliament by invoking the Canada Evidence Act to censor documents before producing them, the House urgently requires access to the following documents in their original and uncensored form—

I will spare my colleagues the list of documents. The motions ends with the following:

—and accordingly the House hereby orders that these documents be produced in their original and uncensored form forthwith.

I should mention that the motion lists documents belonging to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of National Defence and the Attorney General of Canada.

I would first like to say that under Standing Order 49, this order of the House was not cancelled by the prorogation and is still valid in the current session.

To date, the government has not complied with this order of the House and it has stepped up efforts to show that it has no intention of following through. The most recent tactic was the tabling by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, on March 16, of the government's terms of reference for the review of documents by Justice Iacobucci, which did not include a timetable. I believe this particular gesture was the government's way of signalling to the House that it would not produce the documents. It was also this gesture that convinced me to raise a question of privilege in order to bring to your attention, at the earliest opportunity, a breach of Parliament.

What is at stake is that the government is challenging the law and Parliament's authority to ask for documents, under the pretext that these documents are confidential and that providing them to Parliament would endanger national security and the successful conduct of Canada's foreign relations.

I completely disagree with the government's position because there are ways of doing things properly. I believe that the refusal by the government, particularly the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General of Canada, who are responsible for these documents, to comply with the order adopted by the House on December 10, 2009, strikes at the dignity and the authority of the House.

The authority of the House to require the production of documents is a well-established right. In fact, O'Brien-Bosc states on page 136:

By virtue of the Preamble and section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament has the ability to institute its own inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents, rights which are fundamental to its proper functioning.

In this sense, the rights are part of and protected by parliamentary privilege, as indicated by Maingot on page 190 of the second edition.

The right to institute inquiries is part of the lex parliamenti, which is included in the “privileges, immunities, and powers” expressed in s. 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act and referred to in s. 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

I do not have to tell my colleagues that parliamentary privilege is one of the cornerstones of our parliamentary system. Privilege, as May indicates on page 60 of O'Brien-Bosc:

—is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively…and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the general law.

Given that Parliament's right to institute inquiries is a matter of parliamentary privilege, it is up to the House, and the House alone, to determine how it will exercise that right.

This is Bourinot's opinion. As early as 1892, on pages 337 and 338 of the second edition of his book, he addresses the issue of the confidentiality of documents.

...there are frequent cases in which the ministers refuse information, especially at some delicate stage of an investigation or negotiation; and in such instances the house will always acquiesce when sufficient reasons are given for the refusal.

He goes on to say:

“But it must be remembered that under all circumstances, it is for the House to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient. The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public question is undoubted and the circumstances must be exceptional and the reasons very cogent when it cannot be at once laid before the Houses”.

In short, by virtue of parliamentary privilege, the House clearly has the authority to demand that documents be handed over, and this authority is not subject to common law. Furthermore, it is up to the House alone to decide what documents it should have access to, however confidential they may be, in order to properly carry out its duties.

This is not the government's role, nor that of a government-appointed independent adviser, no matter how respectable and distinguished he may be. To allow the executive branch to decide what documents to disclose would amount to giving the executive branch control over the exercise of legislative power and denying one of the primary functions of this assembly, recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid case, that is, holding the government to account.

Accordingly, given that one of the most vital roles of the House of Commons is holding the government to account and that, in order to do so, it has the right to demand that documents be handed over when necessary, I believe that anyone who does not comply with its orders is therefore in contempt of the House.

O'Brien and Bosc define contempt on page 82 as follows:

—any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands—

Page 240 of Maingot indicates that:

Disobedience of rules or orders is an obvious contempt and would include refusing to attend at the Bar of the House after the House had so ordered, refusing to personally attend and to produce the documents requested by a committee—

The text of the December 10, 2009, motion called on the government to immediately produce a series of documents. On March 18, 2010, it is clear that these documents still have not been produced and that the government is using tactics and manoeuvres to buy time and avoid producing them.

If the government truly had any intention of producing the documents, it would have done so a long time ago. It has had more than enough time to talk in good faith with parliamentarians about coming up with a strategy that would take into account the confidential nature of the documents, which it has not done.

Three months after the motion was adopted, after an abusive prorogation and with threats of contempt hanging over it, the government decides to appoint an independent adviser to review the documents. This is not an act of good faith. It is just another attempt to buy time. The government is acting in bad faith and is showing contempt for Parliament.

I find this situation to be intolerable, and the House must take action in order to preserve its dignity. By refusing to produce the documents requested by an order of the House, the government, more specifically the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General of Canada, is undermining the authority and dignity of the House and must suffer the consequences.

If the Speaker decides that there is a prima facie case for my question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

I would like to add a nuance to what my NDP colleague said. We worked together on this motion, and I am ready to move it when you deem the time is right.

[Petitions, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on the same subject as the one just submitted by my colleague. The petitioners want to enhance and maintain postal services in smaller communities. This petition was signed by about 300 people who are concerned about the future of their post offices in Saint-Grégoire, Saint-Alexandre and Saint-Valentin. I am pleased to present these two petitions today on their behalf.

[Petitions, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

The first one, signed by about 100 people from my riding, is in support of a universal declaration on animal welfare.

[Afghanistan, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to shirk its responsibilities by asking Justice Iacobucci to have a look at the documents concerning the torture of Afghan prisoners.

Yet on December 10, 2009, the House called upon and ordered the government to hand over those documents.

Does the government not see that in order to respect the will of this House and protect the secrets that could jeopardize our soldiers, it could simply hand over those documents to the parliamentary committee, which could first examine and study them in camera?

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, having learned that the government was warned back in 2005—that was five years ago—about the possible abuse of Afghan prisoners, in violation of the Geneva convention, we now have to get to the bottom of things.

Now more than ever, there has to be a public inquiry to look into this sordid affair and have all documents turned over to the parliamentary committee as soon as possible.

What is the government waiting for to comply with the motion passed by this House on December 10?

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as early as 2005, the former second-in-command at the Canadian embassy in Kabul warned the previous Liberal government that detainees transferred from Canadian to Afghan custody were at risk of torture. While in Afghanistan, she wrote three different reports to sound the alarm.

How can the Conservatives deny having, like the Liberals, turned a blind eye to abuse perpetrated in Afghan prisons since 2005?

[Afghanistan, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence himself, who just spoke, acknowledged that the Afghan authorities used torture, but supposedly not on detainees turned over by Canada. We now know that is not true. At least one detainee who was handed over to the authorities in 2006 was tortured. The minister has lost all credibility. He is visibly trying to conceal things.

Will the Prime Minister demand his resignation and call a public inquiry immediately?