Joe Comartin

[Privilege, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I delivered to the Table last evening a letter requesting the opportunity to raise this question of privilege during this period of the House sitting today.

The allegation I am bringing forward is that the chair of the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, released to the media, specifically to the National Post and reporter Andrew Mayeda, the substantial contents of the interim report of that subcommittee.

That interim report has been dealt with and reported out of the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be very careful because I do not want to breach the confidentiality that the chair of this committee did. I believe it is simply appropriate for me to say that it has been reported out of the subcommittee and has been dealt with at the full committee. It is awaiting delivery to the House, which is expected shortly.

But in the interim, the chair took it upon himself to release to the media basically the contents of it, the principal recommendations in particular, as already mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, if you wish, you can look at yesterday's Quorum at page 10, where that article is reproduced. It was also on the front page of the National Post yesterday morning.

It is quite clear from the history of Parliament, this House of Commons, for quite some time that the breach of confidentiality is a breach of my privilege and that of every member of the House. It is a breach because it allows certain members of the House to have information in advance of the balance. That is the reason for the rule.

I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the comments in Marleau and Montpetit at page 884. At the very bottom of the full text in the last full paragraph, it is stated:

Committee reports must be presented to the House before they can be released to the public. The majority of committee reports are discussed and adopted at in camera meetings.

That is what occurred on this occasion.

Marleau and Montpetit go on to say:

Even when a report is adopted in public session, the report itself is considered confidential until it has actually been presented in the House. In addition, where a committee report has been considered and approved during in camera committee meetings, any disclosure--

I highlight “any disclosure”.

--of the contents of a report prior to presentation, either by Members or non-Members, may be judged a breach of privilege.

Marleau and Montpetit go on to emphasize the seriousness of this conduct on page 885 and state:

It is not in order for Members to allude to committee proceedings or evidence in the House until the committee has presented its report to the House. This restriction applies both to references made by Members in debate and during Oral Question Period.

We cannot even talk about the interim reports at that stage.

Based on that information, it is quite clear that there has been a breach of confidentiality and the privilege of the House.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to a ruling by Speaker Parent in the 2000-04 Parliament. The facts of the situation were similar to what you heard earlier today in another matter of privilege. It was raised, successfully, by the member for Provencher, who is now our justice minister. That was a situation where, again, the government of the day had given information to the media. The media released that information prior to the bill--this was a bill rather than a report--coming into the House. Speaker Parent found at that time that this was a clear breach of members' privilege and it was dealt with by referring it.

I want to make one additional point with regard to the conduct. Again, I am trying to be very careful not to breach the confidentiality as the chair of the subcommittee did. The report, which I have in my hand right now, is 25 pages long. At the top of every one of those pages is the word “confidential”. Every single page has it.

There is no ability on the part of that member, the chair, to claim any lack of knowledge of the importance and the significance of maintaining the confidentiality and following the rules of the House.

Let me cover one last point. Then I will conclude. One can ask if we are just being technical here, if this is a technicality. It is not. If we are going to function properly in the House, if we are going to be able to do our jobs as MPs, we have to be treated equitably. Every member has the right to have access to the information that is in that report.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was approached repeatedly by media about this interim report. I spoke to the member of the Bloc who sits on the committee. He also was approached. We knew we were not to release it in spite of the pressure put on us, because we respect, and rightfully so, the right of every member in the House to have that information at the same time. That time is when it is tabled in the House.

Mr. Speaker, if you rule in my favour that our privilege has been breached, I am in a position to present the motion as to how it should be referred and dealt with.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the President of the Treasury Board repeatedly, in his bombastic fashion here in the House, say that the Conservatives were happy about getting at this program and killing it because almost all the money went to Liberal lawyers.

We know the facts. A good deal of the money does not go to lawyers at all. It actually goes for court costs and expert witnesses in these court challenges. A great deal of the legal time is donated time by lawyers across the country from all political parties, including my own.

Does the member have any facts that substantiate the accusations that a large number of Liberal lawyers were recipients of funds? What percentage of the money spent on this program actually went to lawyers as opposed to court costs and expert witnesses, et cetera?

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeatedly that the major reason the government cancelled the court challenges program is the government's pronouncement that it is perfect. The government states that there will be no need for the court challenges program because any law passed by the current government, and one has to presume also laws that will be passed to correct mistakes made by the previous government, will all be perfect and there is no need for a court challenges program.

The second statement of fact that is generally accepted now is that more than half of the court challenges that have occurred up to this point against governments have been against provincial governments and not the federal government.

Based on those statements I ask my colleague if she has any information that explains how the government became perfect. I do not know if there is some divine inspiration or pronouncement from on high that the government is perfect, but I would like her to share that in light of all the groups that she listed that have indicated that they do not see the government as perfect and want the court challenges program to continue.

Even if the federal government is perfect, does the member have any idea of what methodology the government is going to deploy to make sure that provincial governments are also perfect when they pass legislation that affects individual citizens and groups?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 6th, 2006]

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is driven by the ideology of the government. It has nothing to do with good, sound business practice; it is all about ideology. It is not fair trade. It is free trade, but it is not fair trade.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at this in terms of the forestry sector because it tends to be the dominant industry in smaller communities. It is totally dominant.

I have the same experience in my community, which is a reasonably large city by Canadian standards, in terms of the dominance of the auto industry. Currently, because of this trend, because of the willingness of the government, not for sound, practical business reasons, but for ideological reasons to enter into these kinds of agreements that have such devastating impacts, we are extremely worried, because of NAFTA and the effect it has had on our community, about the loss of jobs.

The province of Ontario alone lost 200,000 jobs in the last five years in manufacturing. In my city there was a big meeting last Sunday with about 2,500 people. It was about the announcement of some more job losses form the Ford Motor Company. The fear is that because of these kinds of trade arrangements, we would lose somewhere around 2,000 very high paying jobs in the manufacturing sector, and at least five to six additional jobs for every one of those in the auto parts supplier section and in the community generally. That is just with that one announcement. We know another announcement will be coming a little bit later next year, and other ones could be coming. By 2010 to 2012, we could see a reduction of over 5,000 jobs just from Ford in my community. Multiply that number by five or seven and the total number is up to 25,000 to 35,000 jobs that we could lose, not to mention all of the families that go with those jobs.

In the forestry sector, a small community of maybe several thousand or a small town of 10,000 is affected. In my community, the effect is multiplied by those proportions. We have a great deal of fear, just as we have a great deal of fear of what the government will do to the Wheat Board and what the farming community will suffer as a result. We know what the government is doing with regard to not protecting the steel industry. It ripples through the entire economy.

It is time for us to stand up and take a position. That position is not to vote in favour of Bill C-24

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on the amendment to Bill C-24 which would have the effect, if the amendment were adopted by this House, to prevent the government from taking action to, in effect, sell out the softwood lumber industry in this country.

The length of time that Canada and the United States have been dealing with this issue almost boggles the mind. It heated up over the last four or five years, resulting in some very offensive tariffs by the United States against Canada and against this industry, tariffs and trade actions that have unanimously been shot down in every tribunal that the U.S. has gone to in order to justify their actions. The rulings have consistently been against the Americans and, I must say, to my own surprise as a lawyer, in their own courts.

It was always thought that Canada's position was absolutely solid before the WTO and under NAFTA, which the U.S. government and the U.S. forestry industry were not prepared to accept. However, there was almost a solid belief that if it ended up before the domestic courts of the United States that the Americans would prevail and that they would use those decisions or decision to justify their ongoing unfair trading practices with regard to softwood lumber between the two countries.

However, it came as a surprise when in June of this year the court in the United States ruled in Canada's favour and stated that Canada was not performing any improper practices in the softwood lumber sector and that the United States had no basis on which to levy these tariffs, none whatsoever.

It is also interesting, from the information that we have at this point from experts in the field, that the decision made can only be appealed once and that it is mandatory that the appeal be dealt with within 12 months.

Therefore, by June 2007 there will be nothing left for the Americans to contest. We will have closed every avenue in the courts, including their domestic courts, and Canada will have won in every one of the tribunals and courts.

In spite of that, we see, quite frankly, the unconscionable conduct by the Canadian government to negotiate a trade arrangement on softwood lumber that would see Canada faced with a reduction in the amount of money the Americans need to return to us, which is over a billion dollars, and a new protocol that would be to Canada's great disadvantage as there is no certainty in the arrangement. Our trade experts, who have studied the agreement and know the area well, have strong feelings that the agreement encompassed by Bill C-24 would not protect the industry on an ongoing basis.

The agreement would allow the parties to pull out. Because of the money that we will be leaving in the United States, over a billion dollars, it is expected that a good half of that will go to the U.S. softwood lumber sector and be used against us to mount additional challenges in the very near future.

The agreement buys us nothing in the way of certainty. It provides no sense of stability in the industry, to the companies or to the workers, and it leaves wide open the ability of the Americans to come after us again if we sign this agreement with them.

When we see the negotiations that have gone on by the Minister of International Trade, it begs the question of what it means for other sectors. I want to spend a minute or two on that because it has become very troubling for the auto sector, which is a major industry in my hometown, to see what has happened with the government, and that particular minister supported by the government, in negotiating the softwood lumber deal with the United States.

Will we be faced with the same kind of treatment, the same kind of wimpishness in the negotiations with South Korea that are going on right now, as we are faced with on softwood lumber with the Americans, and a willingness on the part of the government and the minister to trade off Canada's interests and, in effect, get nothing in return?

Our fears were enhanced when we saw the minister refuse to divulge information on the negotiations because a study was done by his department and he consistently refused to release it. Finally, another study, commissioned by the sector and by the CAW, the union in particular, showed what would happen to the auto sector in Canada if we were to enter into this trading agreement with South Korea. The effect would be quite devastating with regard to employment and to the traditional companies that have been producing cars in Canada. It would be very devastating to the auto parts sector with massive losses in all areas occurring in a very short period of time.

When that study became public, all of a sudden the minister released his department's study and was extolling the virtues of the agreement based on the study. Although the study was very favourable, obviously couched in that way, it also showed that the auto sector would suffer in Canada. It would not be advanced at all and would, in fact, decline if we went ahead with the negotiations. If we were to sign a treaty with South Korea and put it into place we would begin to suffer.

The minister has been asked a number of times in the House why he would even consider continuing on with the negotiations? We have had nothing but blandishments and clichés about wanting trade but nothing about the merits of the agreement.

The reason the auto sector's fear of the government and the minister is so high is that when we look at the softwood lumber deal and at the negotiations that the minister led and carried on, we then see the results that are so damaging to the softwood lumber sector right across the country. However, there seems to be a willingness, almost an obsession with going ahead with what is a very bad deal for the country.

The NDP will be very strong on voting against Bill C-24 and supporting the amendment that would have the effect of turning this around and getting us out from under this agreement.

[Points of Order, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that particular amendment, which was moved at committee, was moved by one of our NDP colleagues, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, who is not in the House today. We had no advance notice that this attempt on the part of the government would be forthcoming at this time.

I think it would only be fair to the member and, quite frankly, to the committee, Mr. Speaker, that you be given the opportunity to hear a contrary argument from what you just heard from the government. I would ask that you take no decision on this matter and that the member for Burnaby—Douglas be given the opportunity, when the House reconvenes after next week, to speak to this amendment.

[Automobile Industry, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, while we watch plant closings and auto sector jobs bleed to foreign markets, the industry minister and the government sit and do nothing.

It has taken the minister more than eight months just to call a meeting with the Canadian Auto Partnership Council. At the same time, the champion of the softwood sellout, the Minister of International Trade, has had enough time on his hands to set up the sellout of the Canadian auto industry, this time to South Korea.

As a Liberal, this minister promised Parliament and Canadians an auto policy, but never delivered. Now as a Conservative, he is finally delivering. The problem is, it is a sellout of the auto sector.

Will the minister drop the negotiations with South Korea--

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think I understand the logic behind the Bloc's position to support Bill C-24. I clearly do not agree with it but, as I understand the Bloc's logic, it is that if we do not support Bill C-24 and put this really distasteful deal into place, companies like Tembec, the corporate side of it, will suffer further casualties in the way of bankruptcies and closing plants, and, obviously, the workers in that industry will continue to be negatively impacted.

I want to put this question to him in all honesty. Given what has happened in the last month or so, where corporations across the country have made it clear that they will not drop their lawsuits, that they will continue to pursue those lawsuits in spite of that being a precondition of this agreement going into place, should the Bloc not be looking at the alternative of bringing in government action on this side of the border to support the industry, to support the workers to tide them through this period of time until we can finally enforce all the orders, the determinations and the decisions that have been made against the U.S. side on this? Is the strategy just not wrong?

[National Security, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, according to the FBI's own information, due to the high volume of investigations it was conducting on Canadians, it gave clearance to its Buffalo office for routine investigations up to 50 miles within Canadian territory. That is all the way up into Toronto. An astonishing one-third of those agents came across the border without Canada's permission and not according to any agreements. They did it illegally.

What is the government going to do about it?