Proposition 52K1711

Proposition visant à instituer une commission d'enquête parlementaire chargée d'examiner si le respect de la Constitution, en particulier le principe de la séparation des pouvoirs, et des lois a été observé dans le cadre des procédures judiciaires entamées à l'encontre de la sa FORTIS.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Servais Verherstraeten
LE Christian Brotcorne
MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Bart Tommelein
PS | SP Thierry Giet

Submission date

Jan. 7, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

bank committee of inquiry financial institution separation of powers

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA LDD

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 15, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen members of the government, dear colleagues, it is my duty to report on the work of the Justice Committee on this Tuesday 13 January last, during which various proposals aimed at the establishment of a parliamentary commission of inquiry on the Fortis case and/or on the financial and banking crisis were examined.

Initially, the authors of these different proposals had the opportunity to present them and to recall their content and objectives. Our colleagues Giet, Vanvelthoven, Annemans, Van de Velde, Jambon, Landuyt and Verherstraeten spoke.

They will appreciate in a few moments the opportunity to come to this tribune to tell you more about their proposal and their respective positions, especially since one of the main points of the discussions throughout the day has also been around the question of whether this parliamentary commission of inquiry should be limited to the part separation of powers or have a wider object and also include the part financial and banking crisis.

For some, it was necessary to group everything together due to interference that would exist between the two parts and in an interest of maximum transparency. For others, these are different things. I remind, however, that in December last year a special Chamber-Senate commission was established to look precisely at the financial and banking crisis and that if necessary, depending on the circumstances, the latter could also be transformed into an investigative commission.

Furthermore, the separation of powers has a punctual character and needs to be clarified as soon as possible, since some people have been publicly convicted before they have had the opportunity to defend themselves. However, the financial and banking crisis component will require a longer time, not to mention that it also concerns other institutions than Fortis.

In a second time, a procedural debate took place in order to determine the proposal that would serve as the basis for the discussions and, there too, the opinions were quite divergent and depended on the content that one and the other wanted to give to the commission.

Furthermore, it was necessary to regret at this point that some report clearly confidential documents, not communicated to the other Commissioners, and have thus sought to open the debate on the substance, mixing the two parts without nuance.

After numerous exchanges, the committee expressed itself by one vote: 12 members opted for proposal no. 1711, that is, the one signed by the heads of groups of the majority, 3 members voted against and 2 abstained.

In a third period, the general discussion followed by the discussion of the articles of Proposal No. 1711, aimed at setting up a parliamentary commission of inquiry to examine whether compliance with the Constitution, in particular the principle of separation of powers, and the laws was observed in the legal proceedings initiated against SA Fortis and not "Fortis Holding", the title having been changed by amendment.

Fourteen amendments were submitted by Mr. Landuyt, Annemans, Jambon, Verherstraeten, Nollet, Van de Velde, Giet and consorts. Their authors will ⁇ take advantage of the discussion that will follow this report to talk to you more about it.

The discussions focused mainly on Article 1, i.e. on the very object of the committee, on the exact place and role of the four experts and on the number of commissioners to be held.

With regard to these experts, it has been specified by the authors that they will have the task of drawing up a preliminary report to enable the members of the Investigative Committee to carry out their mission. This is a preparatory work.

It is important that the work of the committee is marked to avoid compromising ongoing judicial proceedings. On the other hand, experts are under no circumstances required to carry out the investigation work in the place of the committee or to replace the committee in any way.

Furthermore, it has been reminded by the authors of the adopted proposal, but also by other stakeholders – I specify it so that there is no ambiguity – that the commission of inquiry will obviously have all the powers provided for by the law of 3 May 1880 on parliamentary investigations and will be able to submit all the acts of instruction which it will deem necessary to carry out its work.

Of the amendments submitted and adopted by the authors, we will pinpoint three that aimed to meet the concerns of other members of the committee.

The first, itself sub-amended twice, replaces Article 1 § 1 with the following text: "A parliamentary commission of inquiry shall be established to investigate contacts that have taken place between representatives of the executive power, members and collaborators of the judicial power and members of the public prosecution and members of the legislative power concerning the judicial proceedings initiated against the SA Fortis".

A second amendment was also adopted. In order to enable it to prepare its mission, the Parliamentary Investigation Committee shall designate four experts who, within three weeks of their designation, shall have the task of drawing up a report which shall cover in particular the various missions.

Finally, a third amendment, sub-amended, concerns the mission of experts and replaces clauses 5 and 6 of § 2 as follows: "(...) contacts between representatives of the executive power, members and collaborators of the judicial power and representatives of the public prosecution and members of the legislative power concerning judicial proceedings against SA Fortis".

Following the vote on the numerous amendments submitted and the vote on the articles, the whole proposal 1711 was adopted by 12 votes for, 2 against and 3 abstentions.

The joint proposals then became unobjective.

I thank you for your attention and allow me to refer to the test of the written report that was deposited on the banks during this session.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we already discussed the question of the commission of inquiry when the new prime minister came to present his government program. Indeed, in his statement of government policy, the Prime Minister had allowed himself to make a few recommendations to the House.

In the debate we held on 2 January, I had pointed out, on behalf of the Ecolo-Groen!, five chains placed to limit the powers of this committee and the capacity that parliamentarians would have to actually investigate.

As a reminder, the five chains I had then cited are, first of all, the removal of the part of the management of the financial crisis from the tasks entrusted to the Commission. Second, it was the transfer to care experts to hear ministers and write a preliminary report; in short, as the text said at the time "to perform the work", work which belongs to parliamentarians. The third chain was that this report should be preliminary to the beginning of the commissioners’ work. The fourth was related to the fact that the majority was manifestly unwilling to take into account the possible proposals, reflections of the opposition. The majority already distributed between the members of its various parties who the mandate of president, or even co-president and who the name of experts. The fifth chain was related to the fact that the commission could only make political proposals for the future and not for the past, on the conclusions to be drawn, on the responsibilities to bear. Only the terms “political proposal” were included in the Government Policy Declaration made here on 31 December 2008.

The text has been submitted to the work of the Justice Committee, as the rapporteur has just explained. On two of the five chains identified, changes can be seen. First, in minor mode on the "responsibilities" panel. The word itself does not appear in the text as adopted in the committee and as it is submitted to us in the plenary session but next to the word "recommendations" came to stick the word "conclusions". Behind this word, we hope to find sufficient openness to unleash political and other responsibilities in the important question of the separation of powers and possibly in other issues. The fact that this word "conclusions" appears in the text submitted to us while it did not appear in the government statement is a first way to open one of the five chains mentioned in this statement.

The second evolution is more important. Mr Maingain, you have been ⁇ attentive to this aspect of the committee’s work. You can even say that the chain has jumped. It is about determining the exact role of the experts, the precise mission entrusted to them. Remember: in the original text, as it was deposited, the majority proposed to the experts to carry out the tasks entrusted and referred to in paragraph 1, those which were actually the tasks of the committee.

Let us not turn around the pot: it would have been contrary to the law of 1880 amended in 1996, the law that establishes the commission of inquiry. The law of 3 May 1880 explicitly reserves the investigative powers to the House or the Commission. During the parliamentary work of 30 June 1996, prior to the amendment of this law, it was specified by the deputies as by the minister of the time, already Mr. Stefaan De Clerck, that it could not be a matter of a delegation of all or part of the commission’s mission to a third, whether he was a magistrates, whether he was an expert, whether he was a professor of university.

The law provides for two types of intervention for experts:

- or a magistrat, who may or must, in certain types of acts, be appointed pursuant to Article 4. He is therefore only given a special delegation to perform separately the one or the other duty of instruction decided by the commission and not by himself in his capacity as a magistrat;

- an academic expert, whose assistance may be requested by any parliamentary committee. But let us be clear! This type of expert does not have the power to investigate and the commission can not grant it, which is why the text has had to evolve sufficiently on this aspect and has, today, set the role of experts.

Of course, we would have wanted to go further by not forcing the committee to work throughout its work with the same experts. We wanted to repeat the number. But as to determining their role, limited by the law of 1880, the terms now held in the text submitted today to our vote allow us to say that the cadenas jumped. Indeed, we have moved from a text specifying that experts should perform the tasks to a text that only indicates that experts must prepare the mission and therefore help parliamentarians. In fact, this is exactly what is happening in the Tax Fraud Investigation Commission, whose work is ongoing.

For the rest, chains continue to pose us a serious problem, mainly the one filed by the majority and the government with regard to the tasks entrusted to the commission of inquiry.

When the government spends more than €20 billion in a project, even if it is a rescue of banks from an announced bankruptcy, citizens are entitled to know why and above all how things happened; citizens are entitled to check whether everything has been done correctly and in their best interests. What is true for citizens is also true for ⁇ and for the economy. When 20 billion euros are released, it is an impressive amount that requires that all transparency can be made.

And, indeed, we have doubts, we have questions about how the government has managed this crisis, especially around the Fortis case. We want to see this clearly and we want all transparency to be brought into it.

On December 4th, the House adopted the establishment of a special commission. Like others, we supported this text, but by default. By default, at the time, because we found it impossible then to get a majority to go further. Already at this time, we clarified with others that, if new elements should appear, it would be necessary to very quickly transform the arrangement of a special committee into a parliamentary commission of inquiry, with all the powers conferred on such a committee. It was December 4th.

On 17 December, like you, Mr. Verherstraeten, we estimated that new, sufficiently serious facts had emerged: the prime minister’s letter reporting multiple contacts and, the next day, the letter of the first president of the Court of Cassation stating a manifest will in the head of some members of the government to interfere in the work of justice.

Like you, Mr. Verherstraeten, on 17 December, we took the case and cause to group all the missions within one and the same commission of inquiry charged with investigating both the part of separation of powers and the part of management of the financial crisis.

Allow me to repeat your remarks from December 17 last time: “The government wants to provide clarifications because it is imperative to make clarity both in terms of disciplinary law and in the political field. In order to ⁇ this, there are not 36 solutions: it is necessary to create a parliamentary commission of inquiry which, in addition to the tasks incumbent on the special commission, would be entrusted with a complementary task consisting in checking whether all pending procedures concerning the banking crisis have been carried out in accordance with the rules of art and in respect of the Constitution.”

Like you, Mr. Verherstraeten, and like others, on December 17th, we took the cause for the creation of a single commission of inquiry in charge of both sides.

But after that date, obviously, other things played out elsewhere. In this context, we can no longer follow you. On December 4th, we were able to follow you. This was also the case on December 17. But we can’t follow you in the reverse walk you operated. This step back has also been made by those who, in October, were the first to submit a text aimed at creating a parliamentary commission of inquiry, not on the question of the separation of powers, but on the whole aspect of the management of the financial crisis.

Why is what was true in October, Madame Lalieux, no longer true today? Why the necessity mentioned and argued at the time in your text of law – and we did not file it because your text was good, I said it in commission – ...

( ... )

I would like this issue to be clarified. Tell me what allows you to say that we did not support your text? At the time of consideration, we stood up. We supported your proposal. At the time the text of the sp.a was deposited, we supported the request for emergency. Can you tell us when we did not support your text?

Mr. Nollet, you did not support the text submitted, while we were in negotiation within the majority. Furthermore, in a Belga of October 1, 2008, you say, speaking of our parliamentary commission of inquiry: "You should not put the chariot before the oxen. What we demand are just hearings in the Finance Committee” and you naturally insist on the need for the transparency that the taxpayer needs and “in this regard, there is a need to carry out a legal review regarding the possibility of organizing an investigation that does not endanger banks”. These are your words, Mr. Nollet! You did not support us for this to be adopted by the majority. The only party that has supported us, because it has signed this proposal with us, is the sp.a. Since the beginning, the sp.a has supported this parliamentary commission of inquiry.

Mr. Nollet, we are not looking for the conflict here. We ask you not to rewrite history continuously, while you were in the mistake in October!

Madame Loyola, I recognize the fact that you had submitted a text. The text itself was interesting. It has been said! This is also one of the reasons why we have not submitted our own text.

I hope that, with this text, you do not intend on your side to put the banks at risk, but you never know! I don’t think that was the intention of all the authors.

At first, it was possible to make full transparency on the matter. When it was necessary to decide on the basis of which text we were going to work on, we supported the text you had submitted at the time, because it seemed to us to be the best. Then, the PS completely changed its position and you started on the text of the majority. That is the problem! When you have to go to action and vote, you are no longer present!

We therefore risk having two commissions: on the one hand, a commission of inquiry and, on the other hand, a special commission whose powers are bridged, whose ability to investigate is not total. I admit that you did not formally position yourself but, on 17 December 2008, you could also find yourself behind the words of Mr. Verherstraeten and say, in view of new elements, that it is necessary to establish an investigation committee charged with investigating all the files.

The majority’s reasoning that the pressures on justice are alien to the way the case was previously handled by the government is properly false. I heard it again in the mouth of the prime minister yesterday: “These are two different things. There is, on the one hand, the management of the crisis and, on the other hand, the problem of the separation of powers.”

Obviously, if the file had been properly managed at the base, it would have been superfluous to put pressure on the judiciary or anyone else!

But no, Mr Nollet! Certainly, we did not offer you to sign our proposal to create a parliamentary inquiry. In the Senate, Mr. Van der Maelen can confirm my words, Mr. Vande Lanotte had suggested the Ecolo-Groen group! signing the proposal. and green! He had accepted and had to withdraw his signature because Ecolo asked him not to sign it. These are simply facts. I would like you to recognize them. Try to recognize what is.

You did not want to sign at that time. You want it now, because a commission is being prepared, but I think the facts are there. Ecolo did not want to take the train on. Recognize that you were against the creation of this parliamentary commission of inquiry at the time we proposed it!

Co-signature must be distinguished from voting and support, which must, at a given time, intervene in a committee and then in a plenary session! I will even go further than you by saying that you have proposed this co-signature to the Chamber too. Contrary to what you have just said, it is not only the Senate that you have proposed it. In fact, we did not make the choice to co-sign the text. We discussed the idea of extending its formulation. It does not matter! The text was enough to allow us to go further! But is it necessary to co-create everything? No to No! But that is another problem! Admit at least, in intellectual reasoning, that co-signature is something other than the act of voting and supporting a proposal when the time comes! I assume my words: not only in the Senate, but here in the House, you have suggested us to co-sign the proposal. We have refused. But at the time of the vote, on Tuesday, in the Justice Committee, you were no longer there, but we were! He is a member of Green. who voted as an effective member.

I would also like to illustrate the need to work in a parliamentary commission of inquiry on this aspect after 4 December.

Having been aware of the fact that the agreement signed by the Government with the Netherlands regarding the sale of part of Fortis to the Netherlands could pose problems and possible problems posed by some royal orders, we wrote to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister for access to all documents.

Mr. Jeholet, you may be surprised but that an opposition party, concerned about having all the information, is informed by the chairman of the board of directors of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister, Mr. Jeholet. Hans D’Hondt – you know him; ⁇ better at the time than now – seems to me to be a correct, healthy approach.

We asked him to receive a copy of all the documents exchanged within the government on this matter, a copy of the conventions and a copy of the different versions of the royal decree. He answered us, on December 16th, the day before the day when everything was played here in the plenary session – we will remember that day; even Mr. De Croo who has already experienced a lot of things will remember those days. He also indicated that he did not see the need to communicate to us the documents submitted to the Council of Ministers and to deviate from the principle of secrecy of federal government deliberations.

At that time, he thus put us in the impossibility of trusting only the procedure linked to a special commission. Obviously, a series of basic documents that we were asking at the time are clearly refused to us by the chairman of the board of directors.

Madame Lilly, this is another element.

This monitoring committee has not yet been established. This special committee has not yet been established. You have requested these documents as an Ecolo group. We must wait until this commission is set up – it will be tomorrow; I hope in any case – to see if there is collaboration from all the actors.

You are asking for this collaboration. You know we are asking for it too. You also know pertinently that in case of lack of collaboration, we want this monitoring committee to be transformed into an investigation committee.

Do not draw any conclusions before this special committee is created!

If I heard you correctly, you say you asked for information. It is as the group leader of Ecolo-Groen!, it is not as a member of the commission, if I understand correctly.

To answer you on this point, I have requested access, as a member of Parliament on the basis of the Act of 11 April 1994 on the publicity of the administration, to a series of documents. That said, I understand what you say to me, basically to reformulate my request through the special commission so that it is accepted. Is it that?

I really hope you get it!

I also hope that we will get this information through the commission, but I’m not sure.

Do not draw any conclusions today.

The only conclusion I draw today follows the response I received from the Chancellery of the Prime Minister. It is the only one I can afford to shoot today, but it is revealing, in my opinion, the state of mind of this chancellery: it refuses me access to this document. I point it out as a new element, in addition to the letters of the Prime Minister and the First President of the Court of Cassation. This is a new element that occurred on 4 December. But you tell me that I will have this information.

I clarified that I did not speak on behalf of the chancellor of the prime minister or the government, far from that. You know very well that by accepting a special committee, we showed ourselves very clearly and stated that in the absence of a collaboration of all parties including the executive, we would request the immediate transformation of the committee into a parliamentary commission of inquiry which may require the communication of this information. That’s all I say today. I will not speak on behalf of the government, of course.

The support provided by your remarks is sufficient for me to hope to have access to all the documents that are refused to us for the moment according to the response of the Chairman of the Management Committee. This obviously poses a problem for us: how to judge correctly without having access to all the documents?

I would like to reiterate your remarks: you also said you hope that this committee can meet tomorrow. I too . It is very important that the special committee can meet, but this is also the case for the investigation committee.

It doesn’t bother me at all that you are here, Mrs. Vice-President, but I would have wanted to talk about this point to the President in person. Can you pass it on to him or reserve two minutes for me to intervene as soon as he is among us, because I had a series of questions to ask him on this point and on the organization of the work. I can ask them now, but then I will not get their answer. I would like to reserve this question to the President.

I would like to conclude my speech with the cadenas that remains on this committee and I will address here to all the heads of groups of the majority: it is the one posed on the mandates of president, of co-president, the positions of experts that you would distribute among you.

I read this noon on the website of "La Libre Belgique", very well informed, that you continue to distribute the posts between you. Mr. Bacquelaine, you seem surprised, but I will read you a few excerpts. Clearly, some tensions persist: the MR does not want a CDH presidency and supports the Open Vld; on the other hand, the CD&V wants a CDH presidency and is supported by the PS. All this revolves between the majority parties.

Attention, Mr. Bacquelaine, let things be clear: Ecolo does not ask for anything and is not a candidate for the presidency! It is a pity that Mr. Tommelein may be absent, but you will remember that at a time not so far away – and ⁇ still in a relatively near future time – you occupied the banks of the opposition; it must be remembered, for these are pedagogically interesting periods. In such a moment, the opposition was able to chair the commission of inquiry, called the Dutroux commission, via Mr. He is a member of the opposition. If the head of the CDH group had been present, I would have reminded him that Mr. Langendries, then in the opposition, had chaired the Sabena commission.

Mr. Bacquelaine, we are not the only opposition group. Before you come to the tribune, I would like to hear you about this possibility of entrusting the presidency to a member of the opposition. In addition to our group, the opposition has competent people, able to assume this task as did Mr. Verilghen and M. and Langendries. It is a matter of independence, credibility and additional guarantee offered. I would like to hear you on this point as well as on the names of the experts.

Mr. Bacquelaine, if you have not yet read the article of "La Libre Belgique", I let you know the experts you will appoint tomorrow. These include Edith Van den Broeck, a former member of the Higher Council of Justice, Jan Velaers of the University of Antwerp, Annemie Schauss, Michel Franchimont and/or (there remains a doubt) Mr. Franchimont. Van Drooghenbroeck from UCL. You have the full panel.

Mr. Bacquelaine, I am giving you the challenge.

No, because it is explicitly indicated that there is an incompatibility. I’m sorry, but you can always suggest his name. by Mr. Uyttendaele is not in the nominations, I regret it for him, it must be hard to live. It is not listed on the website of "La Libre Belgique".

Mr. Bacquelaine, I challenge you to tell us...

The [...]

No, it would be too easy.

The challenge I put on you is to prove to us in the hours or days to come that you have not already arranged everything between you, that you have not already agreed on the names of the experts, and that you will effectively give the opposition the opportunity to formulate and retain proposals.

I am ready to discuss this with you soon.

The President, Mr. Nollet cited names of candidates; let him go to the end and make proposals. Mr. Nollet, quote us a few names of experts who are pleasing to you!

In fact, others have cited it. As I said, I will come with proposals in the committee. If you wish, we can already talk about this at the Conference of Presidents.

We will come up with proposals so that the opposition can also participate in the designation of these experts. It is necessary that the names that are formulated here are not already concrete within the majority.

When the President returns, I would like to ask him, as part of this general discussion, about the organization of the work.

Mrs. Speaker, dear colleagues, unlike some in this assembly – I can’t help but say, Mr. Nollet – I will not rewrite history. I will limit myself to reminding a few facts.

The financial crisis has been ongoing since the burst of the housing credit bubble in 2007. But it was in mid-September last year that the markets really overwhelmed. Lehman Brothers is bankrupt in the United States. In our country, the mastodont Fortis sees its stock price dropping dangerously to collapse to 5.20 on September 22. Everyone who counts in the Belgian financial world has cold sweats. There is no longer confidence in the interbank market. Our banks no longer find liquidity in the financial markets. The unimaginable could happen. Venerable banking institutions are two fingers away from bankruptcy. Tens of thousands of jobs are threatened. Hundreds of thousands of citizens could see their savings disappear.

The weekend of September 27 is a real catastrophe plan that the government is deploying to avoid the worst, to prevent a social drama and an economic catastrophe.

Different public authorities (kern, Council of Ministers, ECB, members of the Dutch government, European Commissioners) spend their weekend in the bed of Fortis to prevent the pure bankruptcy of the latter and inject 4.5 billion in Fortis. This is the weekend of September 27th!

Since the end of September, several disaster plans have been deployed by the government to repair the errors of a crazy financial economy. From an euphoric financial economy that delighted in vertigoous returns under the benevolent eyes of the Belgian supervisory authorities and supervisory authorities, we went to the panic finance that came to seek help from the public authorities.

The state had to intervene massively, every week, almost every day, for more than two months, at the big Belgian banks to protect jobs, to save savings, to guarantee credit to individuals and ⁇ , simply to save the economy.

Billions of dollars were injected, hundreds of billions of dollars were provided as guarantees, agreements with major foreign groups were concluded.

Mr. Nollet, I return to the date of 24 September. From that date, the Socialist Party demanded that Parliament set up a parliamentary commission of inquiry because what happened was not, in our opinion, a coincidence, not the accident of a large bank.

Without making the trial of this or that particular institution, of this or that, we wanted to denounce the derivatives of the casino economy, of crazy finance, of the disconnection of finance from the real economy, of the harmfulness of often unhealthy speculation. The neoliberal model and sacred self-regulation showed the faults that announced bankruptcies, their own bankruptcy.

Do I have to recall for the second time, dear colleagues, that not only were we the first, at the end of September-beginning of October, to request the establishment of a parliamentary commission of inquiry? Yvan Mayeur was the first to ask for it! Should I remind you that with the SP, we were the only ones? Do I have to remind you — Mr. Nollet, I have already reminded you — that when we asked for a commission of inquiry, you asked for a meeting of the commission of Finance and Auditions?

Should I explain to you for the 25th time that we have never made a step back and that, in the face of our loneliness, Mr. Nollet, we have chosen to support – just as you voted – a special commission to shed light on the financial crisis and its management, a commission to provide answers to why and how we have arrived there? Should I remind you that we have demanded that at least this special committee be immediately transformed into an investigation committee, if the commissioners – of which you may be – have to find it difficult to complete their work, when they have begun? We demanded that, Mr. Nollet, and you know it! But we do not have a priori like those you explained earlier. We are very hopeful that this commission of inquiry can be set up from tomorrow.

We demanded from the beginning that they work in parallel and not one after the other. You know it and we repeat it here at the tribune, we hope that the commissioners will be able to work properly and that all actors, both the executive and the banks, will play the game. Otherwise, we will not need you to bring us back to order to request an investigation commission. We will ask for it immediately!

Weeks have passed, disaster plans have had to be deployed urgently by the government, lawsuits have been introduced, sentences have been issued, calls have been passed, etc. The financial crisis, whose devastating effects are already visible in people’s everyday life and in the economic sphere, also caused, a few weeks ago, a political crisis. Fundamental questions were raised in the wake of the judgment of the Court of Appeal: has the separation of powers been respected, has the executive put pressure on the judiciary, has the judiciary fulfilled its duty of reserve? These are fundamental questions in a democracy, questions that must be answered in a democracy! We will vote today on the creation of a commission of inquiry that will answer these questions.

We have heard of a commission to whiten one another. We have heard of a commission without a commissioner and we have had the impression of a rehearsal just recently with my colleague Mr. by Nollet.

Mr. Nollet, you said that you still had plenty of reservations about certain things, if I understand you correctly!

Let’s be clear: the section “commission without dismissed commissioners or commissioners” appeared in the original version of your text, when the experts themselves were in charge of carrying out the work. But you did not hear the beginning of my speech, which signaled the evolution in the matter.

We immediately supported the proposal. by Landuyt. You know how much the majority worked quickly to draft this bill and it was obvious that the goal was not to dismiss commissioners from their powers – we know the law as well as you. We have been entirely open to the modifications of the sp.a because the intention has never been to dismiss commissioners or to have a too narrow field of investigation; it will be real and wide.

My group believes that all these manoeuvres are part of a somewhat sterile opposition strategy.

An investigation is carried out at the expense or discharge of a person. We’ll audition, we’ll listen, but before we say anything, let’s work first! To do this, we will benefit from the support of experts to better prepare our mission, it is indispensable, and not to replace us. Even the first version of the text does not mention that the purpose of their presence is to replace us or to do the work for us. They will present to us a report on the very concept of the separation of powers, on the range of manoeuvre that we have available, in order not to vicious the judicial, criminal or disciplinary proceedings in progress and to inform us about the course of judicial proceedings.

They will have three weeks to prepare this report.

Dear colleagues, did you notice in the text that we will vote that they will conduct the hearings in our place? Of course not! They will ask questions for us. Of course no! They will assist us as the experts you have accepted in the Joint Committee will assist MEPs and Senators.

The opposition is calling for a single commission of inquiry. But, in parallel, everyone agrees to say in this assembly that we must work as quickly as possible and recognize that, from the end of April, the climate of the electoral campaign will no longer allow us to guarantee the serenity necessary for our work.

That these two committees work in parallel is precisely a way to move forward quickly! We are faced with a double problem arising from the financial crisis. On the one hand, we have questions related to respecting or not respecting the separation of powers; on the other, questions related to the consequences of the bankruptcy of a financial system, its control instruments. Let us discuss these two aspects in these two committees in parallel.

If the mixed committees were to encounter difficulties, for example, to have access to this or that document, my group would be the first to ask that they turn into an investigative committee. No one would dare to question this fact.

Today we have only one desire. At the end of September we asked for it, today we are on January 15th. Let’s finally establish these two committees! Let us try to shed light and work to put everything in place to find solutions that would prevent such crises in the future!

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be brief.

I think all the arguments for, against and between have been exchanged. A lot of people in the country, savers, shareholders, investors or employees of one of the banks, have been dealing with the financial crisis in some way, and if it wasn’t with the financial crisis, it was at least with its consequences, especially the economic crisis. We ourselves as parliamentarians are obliged to conduct a thorough investigation into all that has to do with the financial crisis. I have heard everyone here use the same words, namely that there must be transparency and openness of affairs, that the bottom stone must come up and that a thorough investigation must take place.

The discussion we have held over the past few months has been about whether we can get the bottom stone up by a special committee or by an investigative committee. So simple is it.

If one wanted to avoid repeated discussions week after week about what is the best way to find out the truth – investigative committee or not – then, in my opinion, the majority would have done better to approve here today an investigative committee that investigates everything.

I heard the prime minister yesterday say that those who are against a special committee, but for an investigative committee, play a political game. I don’t have to pick that from anyone. The prime minister easily pleads for serenity from his seat. I also advocate for serenity in this case. Let us stop accusing each other of things that are not right.

Serenity and openness of affairs means that one makes clear to the people who follow the evolution of this matter via television – at the moment there will be few – and who are interested in the debates on the matter, why one opts for either an investigation committee or for a special committee.

I have to repeat to my boredom that I heard all majority parties in this hemisphere four weeks ago advocate for an investigation committee on everything. These are not the words of the opposition. These are not the political games of the opposition. Those are the words of the majority group leaders – one by one they came to the speaker’s panel – who then found that the population had a right to open affairs and that this was only possible with an investigative committee.

Four weeks later, they are just as strongly advocating for that openness, for that transparency, but suddenly they say that that investigative committee is no longer needed and that it must be a special committee without special investigative powers.

It is not illogical that the people, the victims of the financial crisis and we as parliamentarians ask the majority parties why you change your minds? Why did this happen?

I have already asked the question four or five times, here on the tribune and in the committee, and I do not get an answer. If I don’t get an answer, no one will get an answer.

What is the consequence of the silence of the majority? As a result, everyone begins to look for dark reasons behind the sudden change of behavior, the sudden change of point of view. In this way, colleagues of the majority, you are constantly fueling the suspicion that something has changed in the last four weeks so that the investigation committee that you all wanted should not come today.

In those four weeks, only one thing has changed. That is that a new government agreement had to be made and that a new government had to be formed. It is then quite logical that we and the people in this country think that the government could only come there on the condition that there could not be an investigation committee on the overall financial crisis.

I am no longer angry about it today. I was angry about it before. I would like to ask the speakers of the majority who are still speaking. Now make it clear. Why Why ? Give that clarity that you have always talked about yourself now also to the people.

I predict to you, not for the sake of political games, that every week or every two weeks there will come up a document or a novelty that will prove that there should have been an investigative committee. It would have been much better if you had the wisdom to see that today, the wisdom to equate the openness of affairs with an investigation committee as you yourself proclaimed all four weeks ago. This wisdom is far sought today.

I predict that, despite the fact that I want that serenity, she will not be there through the approach of this majority. I have already warned you about this. I do it again today. If the serenity is far-seeking in the coming weeks, it lies to this majority and it will ⁇ not lie to the opposition.

Yes, a parliamentary commission of inquiry because the events that led to the government crisis, the resignation of the government and the resignation of the prime minister deserve special clarification.

I hear that some already have some prejudices about what the work should be, or even the conclusions of such an investigation committee. By being a member of an investigative committee under ⁇ painful circumstances and having learned some lessons from it, in particular on the willingness of some to make it a place of extreme mediatisation, I know that a parliamentary investigative committee, if it does not scrupulously respect the legal limits imposed on it, becomes more a place of political debate than a real parliamentary investigative work.

I had the opportunity to say in a committee that the parliamentary commission of inquiry is not situated above the powers; it is an emanation of the legislative power and it can only respect itself the principle of the separation of powers. It shall therefore not be able to assume an investigative mission which would undermine the independence of the judiciary and which would attempt to undermine in any way the exercise of the judicial function by magistrates, in particular by magistrates of the seat. All those who believe that through the work of the parliamentary investigation committee, you can force the magistrates to come to explain, for example, how the deliberation of the eighteenth chamber of the Brussels Court of Appeal took place, are mistaken. They would make such an attempt that they themselves would violate the principle of the separation of powers.

It also means how much the parliamentary investigation committee will have to carry out prepared work. This is where the role of experts is important, Mr. Nollet. Many traps can arise on the path of the work of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee on the legal level. The worst service to be rendered to the parliamentary commission of inquiry would be to see at some point the legality of its work itself being questioned.

Experts will be selected within the committee. You have quoted names: I do not know whether they will be held or not, we will talk about them when the committee meets. Among them, I already distinguish some people, but I do not know any of them personally, who can by their scientific work provide a useful contribution and expertise to defeat certain traps set on the path of the work of this commission.

I have had the opportunity to say in a committee that, as soon as the Parliamentary Investigative Committee itself will want to take instructive measures, it will undoubtedly be exposed to many difficulties. by Mr. Landuyt has already raised it during the debate in the committee, in particular to know who will be the first chairman of the Court of Appeal that we will have to address to designate an instructor magistrate. We will see if such measures are needed, but I call for caution. A good work of a parliamentary commission of inquiry generally exempts from the use of investigative measures such as those available to the investigative judges.

It will also need to work within a very short timeframe, since the final deadline is 15 March, to try to draw the first conclusions. This may sound short, but I believe that this deadline is useful if we want to avoid that as the regional and European elections approach, the Parliamentary Investigative Commission turns into a place of electoral debate, which would only undermine its credibility.

I hear that the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee should be a rehabilitation chamber of one or another minister of the previous government. They assumed the political responsibilities they had to assume at that time and brought them to our assembly.

I read the words of Robert Henrion, a prominent figure of this Parliament at a certain time, when, during the Heysel crisis in 1985, there had been a debate on the political responsibility of an interior minister at the time, to know the conclusions he had to draw from the parliamentary commission of inquiry. I quote Robert Henrion in this message which remained memorable for all those who experienced this very vivid debate in 1985. He made three statements: "He who has let himself be brought to the top of great jobs, whether it be the state or a large city or even a major enterprise, must know that he will bear the fate of the institution and will assume everything that is done or not is done under its auspices. He must also know that when a great failure arises in the sphere of his competence, even if in good faith he believes himself innocent, he will nevertheless have to bear the weight of it, and that then he will have few friends, if not a few obliged allies, in front of a large number of more or less malicious curious. He must know, finally, that on that day, it will be to him to decide in the face of conscience; in these painful moments, he will be the only judge of what his conception of honor commands him."

There was an extra style at Robert Henrion!

The members of the government who have assumed the responsibility to assume the consequences of the facts that were brought to the knowledge of our Assembly, now almost a month ago, have or have not adhered to the principle so recalled by Robert Henrion but have, in any case, assumed the political responsibility that was theirs.

The film will not be returned during the work of this parliamentary commission of inquiry.

This parliamentary commission of inquiry will have as its essential principle to verify how, in order to restore trust and credibility to the institutions, the rule of law can be strengthened and in particular the principle of the separation of powers, principle little codified in definitive, which falls more within the constitutional custom, which is not better specified in our Constitution and whose limits are not otherwise specified nor for a certain number of relations between executive power and judicial power.

We have to know whether the credibility of our legislative power will come out reinforced from this work of the parliamentary commission of inquiry by coming to strengthen the rule of law, or whether, on the other hand, we will want to reopen a political debate that has been settled by the responsibility that belonged to those who held the highest functions of that state and who drew the consequences from it in view of the facts that they themselves had committed.

Mrs. Speaker, dear colleagues, in this debate, which is still a shadow of the debate we had last week in the Justice Committee, there is only one question central: what can be hidden? That is the question that concerns us. The former government-Leterme Un was proud to be the protector of the savers and shareholders of Fortis.

How many times have we not been able to hear that the crisis was well addressed, that the matter was resolved, that the strong government had the matter in good hands? Fortis was the best file that allowed Leterme to squeeze the blast of his fox government a little. Unfortunately, unfortunately, the dark contacts between the executive and the judiciary threw dirt into the food, resulting in the resignation of the government-Leterme Un.

What could the majority say differently at that dramatic moment? He admitted that unacceptable things had happened. A basic principle of the democratic rule of law was violated and stumbled. Not only did this require an in-depth investigation, but also the banking crisis. We have already heard quotations here from a whole series of colleagues from the majority who then, in the conscious plenary meeting of 17 December, said that the special committee should be transformed into an investigative committee in its entirety. Mr. Verherstraeten has said this in very many words, Mr. Tommelein has gladly joined and also Mr. Bacquelaine and Brotcorne have spoken in the same sense. Let it be clear: at that time the majority, at all costs, wanted a parliamentary commission of inquiry on both the separation of powers and the banking crisis. It is black-on-white in the report of the plenary session of 17 December.

What is shown now? Despite all the beautiful statements, the majority has spoken with split tongue all that time. I hear the majority think loudly that an investigation committee on the banking crisis could be difficult. You do not know it so well. Would it be done? Who knows what would all come up? Per ⁇ Mr. Reynders is even in trouble. That might lead to the next fall of the government, which would be better avoided. It was a strong staple of the better curvature. I cannot understand that the CD&V can agree with such a disabled commission of inquiry, which deals only with its ministers and leaves the ministers of other parties, Reynders by excellence, out of fire. I can’t understand that CD&V is so “loyal.”

This government, led by a new prime minister, is truly a worthy successor to the previous one. This government also deals with the matter in this file in half-work, as was the case with budget formulation, as was the case with the asylum policy and as is the case with the state reform. The established money laundering action, which a number of ministers must defend in connection with the violation of the separation of powers in the sale of Fortis, must not simultaneously lead to the demonstration of the failure of the former prime minister and the minister of finance in the same case, the sale of Fortis.

Reynders must stay out of shooting. We can’t qualify this otherwise than half fatigue. Both cases, both the Court-Fortis case and the sale of Fortis, are indisputably connected. They both talk about the dramatically outgoing sales of Fortis.

That the majority here decides to separate the two matters and to have the failure of the banking crisis dealt with in a powerless special committee, is not the proof of the proper functioning of democracy, as the committee claimed, but is the proof of the arbitrariness of the majority. The underlying reason is well known. The majority wants to disprove at all costs that the Fortis crisis was deceived.

Meanwhile, the majority’s promise that the special committee on the banking crisis could still be transformed into a real investigative committee is unbelievable. Why does the majority not do this suddenly? Why is she waiting with a real commission of inquiry on the banking crisis? A real investigative committee is many times clearer and fairer. A real commission of inquiry does not put Parliament out of play. In addition, a real commission of inquiry will only benefit the confidence, to which the Prime Minister has called in his government statement numerous times. With the refusal to set up this genuine commission of inquiry into the banking crisis, this confidence is again, once again, crushed.

Colleagues, that, in addition, excludes the opposition from a full participation in the parliamentary investigation committee by limiting the number of members to fifteen, instead of seventeen, as in all the permanent committees of this Parliament and as in the investigation committee on tax fraud, provides only proof of the arbitrariness of this majority.

Moreover, the speed with which everything comes along does not predict much good for the outcome of the investigation committee. It is as if a flame investigation committee is set up to borrow the highest need, a flame investigation committee by analogy of the flame legislation, alias emergency legislation, necessary to keep the BOM law and the assistance procedure at a faulty level. Rapidly, everything needs to be pursued by an investigation committee so that everything is off the track by mid-March at the latest and everyone can go to the elections in June with a calm spirit.

Furthermore, the involvement of the four experts, who in three weeks of time, you will see, must prepare a report, so to speak, in order to maintain the serenity of the debate and to bring the truth up, is neither side nor side. What additional contributions should four experts make if the investigation committee, i.e. the Parliament itself, has the opportunity to assume the role of expert? The Parliament can invite experts to hear them. The involvement by the majority of experts is therefore an additional manoeuvre to diminish Parliament’s research capabilities and responsibilities.

No, I can’t go through the next determination. On the one hand, it is very peculiar and paradoxical that it takes years before one addresses certain matters in the field of Justice and one is suddenly forced by a judicial ruling to quickly address those wrong cases. On the other hand, some matters, which do not have to go so quickly – namely, to float it to the ground, to the bone, what has gone wrong in Fortis – are resolved remarkably quickly. The underlying reason for the speed and the results of the investigation committee are now known. The washing operation must be carried out. The rest of the Fortis story must be covered. We take much better enough time so that the whole case-Fortis, including the banking crisis, is searched to the bottom.

For all these reasons, we vote against the majority proposal to establish an investigative committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the CDH, which has co-signed the text of establishment of the Investigative Commission, will of course support it. The banking and financial crisis that we are going through has been added to a political crisis. Indeed, on the occasion of this financial crisis, the government fell, because some believed that the negotiations to which the banking crisis gave rise, beyond the technical management of this crisis, were marked by the non-respect of corporate law or the power entrusted to the general assemblies. Those who insisted on it took justice. During these proceedings, it was possible to highlight possible obstacles to the separation of powers and the normal functioning of the judicial system.

It is very legitimate that the public opinion is questioning itself and that it expects Parliament – which has the powers to do so – to give full light on these events. It is imperative that this parliamentary commission of inquiry investigates the possible faults, errors or omissions in the separation of powers. We need to be quick to find out what caused a government to fall. This is why it is essential that two committees can work together.

First, the special commission that we set up in December must question how the crisis has developed, must determine whether the signals that should have warned us have worked properly, whether the controls have operated, whether the crisis has been managed properly, whether the decisions taken have been in the general interest and must draw lessons for the future. This is a long-term work that deserves consideration but must be started immediately. This commission has been created; it remains to be established and it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to do so quickly.

At the same time, we need a commission to investigate the notion of separation of powers. These are obviously two different things and this committee will have to assess, in the light of the elements it may find, whether this tacit notion has been defrauded. We must not wait to set up this commission and we must believe in the capacity of this Assembly to give full light on the issue. I can’t stand to hear some go out with a priori, considering that the only goal of this commission is to “whiten” the people involved – this is the term we’ve heard.

On the contrary, I find that all the members of the committee must be able to sit and work there in all serenity, leaving them a priori in the dressing room. At least this is what the representatives of my group will work in.

Mr. Speaker, just recently – but you weren’t present at this meeting – I wanted to question you on a specific point in connection with the commission of inquiry that we want to set up.

My question is about the schedule. If we vote on the text just recently – which is likely because a majority seems to be out there – I would like that before the session closes, you designate all the members of the committee. Indeed, if this is not the case, if you do not indicate today the names of the members of the said commission, it is "black" to say that one wants the latter to start its work quickly and work quickly! In fact, then it will have to wait a week more since the plenary session needs to meet to validate the names.

This is also the reason why I recently made contact with the services. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I want to be assured that after you have voted on the text, you will announce the names of the various members of the investigative committee so that the work can actually start tonight or tomorrow.

I ask you this question because I think it is important for the organization of our work.

I would like to tell the meeting that yesterday, in fact, we assumed that if this plenary session approves the proposals, we would convene a conference of group leaders to examine the circumstances under which both committees can start as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with this. You can later convene the conference. It is about the time when both committees will be installed. I understand correctly that the committees can only be installed if the members are called out here in the plenary session. I think that’s the question of Mr. Nollet, that we just appoint members today. Then we call them off. We can then later determine that tomorrow, at your discretion, the commissions will be effectively installed. If not, we will lose a week of time. In the commission of the investigation committee it is stated that we are already very limited in time, namely 15 March.

I consult the meeting. I think that is a good suggestion. If we set the green light today for the Parliamentary Investigative Committee, we must make them operational as soon as possible. If possible, we can now get to know the members who would be part of it. Is there unanimity on this proposal?

I would like to add this to the special committee. So it is not just the investigation committee, but also the committee that was approved in December. The same demarche should also be taken here. These names also need to be filled in so that we can get started.

You know that some colleagues from the Senate are also part of it. I have to contact the Senate tomorrow morning. If we want to set up this committee, this must be done in consultation with the Senate. Colleague Van der Maelen, I do not know whether it should or not, but it would be of some respect to at least consult with them.

Both committees are expected to be formed tomorrow afternoon. For the committee on the separation of powers we are setting up now, that means that we should know the members in the course of tonight so that we can install the committee tomorrow. Is everyone agreeing? (the approval of)

Mr. Speaker, if you have to wait for the Senate to get members appointed, I would just sit a little behind.

This is not just an investigative committee. What we have experienced in the period of September-October-November goes beyond what could be called a special or exceptional situation. It is much more than that.

What happened with the sale and dismantling of Fortis is important for the entire Belgian and Flemish economic tissue. There was clearly a lack of respect for the law. Remember the moments when the board of directors was put out of play, the shareholders were put out of play and the company law was flagrantly violated.

At the same time, a very disadvantageous situation has arisen for a number of groups. I think of the shareholders, who have seen 30 to 40 billion of market capitalization disappear. Then we can say in a cynical way that only 20% of the shareholders were in Belgian hands, then we are talking about ⁇ 6 to 8 billion euros that have been washed away in Belgium, in Flanders.

I do not only think of the shareholders, but also of the employees. The situation inside the bank is not super pink at the moment. The management also asks questions and is looking for anchor points, for clarity, for certainty. The management fears, even in the new situation – I will talk about it later – that the damage will be considerable.

Our international image has been severely damaged. We, as a single country, should have allowed banks to shoot. As a single country, we have been so severely out of the whole financial crisis, with a few judicial procedures that can also result in a judgment for breach of contract.

I will provide the proof, by means of three gs, that a full-fledged investigation committee is necessary. This whole dossier is filled with a lack of knowledge and preparation, this whole dossier is filled with gross mistakes, this whole dossier is filled with god-called political games.

I will provide proof that a full-fledged investigation committee on the decisions in the Fortis dossier is necessary. In this case, bad choices have been made. Based on these bad choices, wrong commitments have been made. This resulted in judicial proceedings, which in turn required influence. This was because it worked on a completely wrong basis, eventually accompanied by political games.

Indeed, colleague Vanvelthoven, political games, not by the opposition, but by a majority that from day one has tried to disguise and camouflage its shortcomings.

I will cite a few small elements. I will not repeat the entire dossier. I have already stood here enough with what there was to say about the Fortis file. Mr. Verherstraeten and Mr. Tommelein, you might better listen for a moment: you might still be able to see the light and yet become convinced that you effectively want to get the bottom stone up.

The CBFA, dear gentlemen, who came here to say that in the summer of 2007 it monitored the liquidity of the banks, that same CBFA has very thoroughly explained the Fortis file, the acquisition file of ABN-AMRO, at the same time. If one starts checking the liquidities of banks, then one knows that there is “piep” at the knikker. I try to keep it clean and clean: every bird sings as it is baked.

In any case, you are not going to tell me that an organization, a regulator, which is monitoring bank liquidity, does not ask questions about a €23 or €24 billion acquisition, an acquisition for which there was not enough liquidity at that time. What is happening? There is no signal. No signals at all! There are capital increases in the course of 2007-2008, even with borrowed money. What is happening? and nothing. There is no signal! Minister Reynders was tired of the community debate in September and then said he was going to campaign. The same man says two weeks later that he was sitting with his hands in the hair and over his ears in the bank file. No, dear ladies and gentlemen: that man was campaigning!

The contradiction with the Netherlands is huge. In the Netherlands, a kind of war room had already been compiled in 2007. It consisted of the DNB and its Committee on Finance. With us, the National Bank of Belgium will be informed on 26 September and only then involved in the file. September 26 is the time when the water stood up to the lips, for the first time, in the bench. Only then will the National Bank be notified. On the weekend of September 28th, our Belgian specialists will meet on the subject, initially on Saturday, with the Luxembourgers sitting around the table. The Dutch are forgotten to inform the Dutch and it is only Sunday that the Dutch are asked to come and play with them. Much too late, with the consequence that the Dutch at all unthoughtfully together with our Belgian team have been able to clarify the matter. With as known consequences: the breach of the contract of the Netherlands after 1 October.

Then another lack of knowledge and preparation: the rules of valuation. If we look at the way the valuation has taken place of all the different entities of the bank, we come to a pure fraud situation.

Either it was fraud, or it was a lack of knowledge. In general, some artwork and aircraft were delivered quickly.

A second "g" is the "g" of gross errors. All parties made serious mistakes in the case. Think first of all of the contract breach of the Dutch after the weekend of September 28. Collega Van der Maelen has swung with the A4 that was eventually assembled on 3 October. There must be half a cat in the file somewhere. That half-cats bell regulated the capital interventions of the Belgians and the Dutch in the weekend of September 28. Doodleuk wipes Bos his feet to this agreement. Two to three days later, he makes statements that lead to a lack of liquidity.

Unthinkable decisions have been made in the case. The way it has been sold to the Netherlands with the well-known A4 ticket, the way the revenue has been distributed and the way the negotiations have been conducted by the Belgian government, with the cents of others, is a pure shame. We forget the closing of the credit lines by the Dutch banks - Rabo, ING and even ABN - to Fortis. All this happened at the same time. Was this coincidence? Do we want to know what happened in the Netherlands between 1 and 3 October? Apparently not. If we hit the firepile by gross error, we get the influence of the court. It was a Molotov cocktail in my face.

Subsequently, political games were played. Several documents were detained. I think of the contracts with the Netherlands, the contracts with BNP, and the letter from Hessels that says very clearly that the way the board of directors was put out of play could not and that they could not accept the deal. At a certain point, Reynders simply did not answer the questions asked him. There have been contacts with the dish and not only from the CD&V corner. The Open Vld kept behind the facts and a month after date they demanded an investigation into the Dutch situation.

The most beautiful thing follows, namely, the gathering with the committees: the special committee, an investigative committee, a full investigative committee, a small investigative committee which had only to investigate the violation of the separation of powers. There were two prominent players, namely CD&V and the MR. He changed his mind twice in a week. Within a week, the MR spoke in favour of the proposal for a limited commission, for a full-fledged investigative commission to eventually land at a limited investigative commission for the violation of the separation of powers.

Another clear signal that this majority does not know where to crawl in order to stay out of the storm was the ringing with the texts of the bill setting up this investigative committee.

The node, dear colleagues, is in the duo Leterme-Reynders. If Leterme hangs, Reynders hangs. In the house of distrust, built by both gentlemen, Leterme was the contractor and Reynders the architect. Therefore, we very clearly maintain our position that the plan, as it looks today, is a pure deaf pot operation. The basis of the whole happening are the choices made in the file that are not examined. The characters Leterme and Reynders go out together and come home together. That is the essence of the way the investigation committee is composed.

For these two reasons, we maintain our request for a full-fledged investigation committee for the full Fortis dossier. In our society, flight crime is punished, theft is punished, theft is punished. Well, whoever corrupts a bank with a balance sheet of 800 billion for an apple and an egg, puts the shareholders out of play and purely robs, goes free. He goes on a bicycle in the sun or he goes deadly forward to his cabinet.

Even today—because it doesn’t stop—the majority still has the pretense to assert the given word. “That’s normal, right?”No, damn, that’s putting yourself above the law. I repeat it again. There is a judgment from the Court of Appeal that says that shareholders should be heard. Today, no one in this government has the right to say that the given word must be confessed. It is the shareholders in accordance with the normal operation of a company that will determine which option is chosen. When you know that the economic situation of the company has changed drastically and that, based on the procedures and the commitments taken, there are clear judicial rulings, then you no longer have a voice and then you must remain silent, wait and seek a solution in a drastic way.

For us, the resources of the investigation committee are too limited, but I swear to you: the bottom stone will surpass. The banditism of this government must be put to an end. So we maintain our proposal and will clearly vote against this half-washing and joke show, which will never be a real investigative committee. We maintain our proposal for an investigation committee on the entire situation at Fortis.

Mr Terwingen has the word. Then there are the gentlemen Van Hecke and Annemans, after which I propose a short suspension of fifteen minutes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, allow me to speak for a moment on behalf of my group to try to explain why we are in favour of the present bill establishing a parliamentary investigation committee, in accordance with the proposed modalities set out in the bill.

Especially after the spectacle we were allowed to experience in the committee meeting on Tuesday, I realize very well how political and media-sensitive this dossier is. I am empathic enough to realize that the opposition must take advantage of all this problem. In the meantime, however, the political game must be played out.

Mr. Dedecker, our Minister of Justice and then the entire government have taken their responsibilities in this file. This should end the political game.

However, this does not exclude the fact that the file itself needs to be examined further. CD&V has always suggested that in this file on the alleged violation of the separation of powers, the last stone must be taken up and that it should be investigated in a correct and serene way how Jo Vandeurzen and Yves Leterme acted in these. In order to make this possible, the present bill is the only right way.

Let me come back to a few pain points that were discussed during the committee meeting. The first point was the discussion of the number of members from which the committee should consist. Some groups spoke of 19 members, while others spoke of 11 or 17 members. Why Why ? It is obvious that this is important for every group. This determines, in fact, how many members of it are part of which group, whether or not with voting rights.

In other words, the plea on the number of members is a plea pro domo, a plea of each group for its own interest. In my opinion, 15 is indeed the correct number, because that is the number that has always been used in the research committees of recent years, but also and above all because this is a working number. It is also politically correct, especially since the bill explicitly provides for the designation of a non-voting member for each political group that would not have been represented in that way.

A second point of criticism during the committee concerned the split – I have already heard it today in this plenary session – between the special committee responsible for investigating government policies conducted during the banking crisis and the current parliamentary investigation committee specifically responsible for investigating the alleged violation of the separation of powers.

However, I think that split is correct for the simple reason that both committees will have a very different subject. This has also been shown here today.

Indeed, the special committee will need to focus further on the circumstances and motives under which the government has made strategic choices throughout the banking crisis. On the other hand, the investigation committee that will be set up today will have to find out what has happened in the contacts between the judicial and executive powers, in the context of judicial proceedings that have taken place following the political decisions that have been taken. The latter investigation is therefore in no way intended to substantially verify the opportunity or desirability of the political decisions taken. This investigative committee deals with the alleged violation of the separation of powers, one of the basic principles of our current democracy.

Mr. Terwingen, Mr. Van de Velde wants to interrupt you.

Mr. Terwingen, can I ask you something? This week BNP Paribas said it is willing to even return a portion of the insurance it has unjustly obtained – let’s not assume it for a moment. Think of every negotiation you have already conducted in your life. Will you return something if you don’t feel like you’ve stolen someone else? Is this not a sign that needs to be investigated urgently? Who will in such a large file, after a few judicial proceedings, say to himself that one wants to return a piece? Do you not feel that our people have been robbed and robbed? Do you, then, as a lawyer and legal expert, not feel that an injustice has occurred here, which needs to be thoroughly investigated? Or does that feeling pass on to you?

Mr Van de Velde, I can confirm that I also have feelings, even in this file, but I think your comment just makes clear what my point is here. You talk about the substantive decisions made by the government in the context of the banking crisis. You are talking about that. This should be examined in a separate committee. That is the core of our party’s argument. On the contrary, the investigation committee, as proposed here today, stands. This investigative committee will not discuss the decisions taken correctly or incorrectly, on the substantive level, in the financial-economic story, but rather the alleged violation of the separation of powers. This should be discussed separately. You may not even be with this. You may have a different idea about this, but that is our position and that is the explanation why we support this bill.

I think you are making a serious mistake. You exclude the substantive elements which ultimately resulted in the violation of the separation of powers. They cannot be examined as thoroughly. This is what we think it is about. The substantive decisions are superficially transferred to a special committee, at the discretion of a majority which today has too much to hide. To that discretion is left today the substantive discussion.

Mr. Van de Velde, you have already made your point. Now Mr. Terwingen may continue his speech.

As I said before, there were three points of criticism in the committee. I discussed the first two. The last point was about the college of experts, as this is described and whose task is described in the bill. In this regard, I should not follow the criticism of the opposition parties.

Working in an investigative committee with a number of experts is quite common. That this also happens in the current investigative committee which, because of its subject policy, may be the most important investigative committee of the last decades, is even less surprising, especially now that you will agree with me that this investigative committee will have to work in the context of various pending disciplinary procedures and other judicial procedures. The investigative committee is therefore interested in ensuring that appropriate legal guidance is provided by any academic, so that its functioning will not interfere with other ongoing judicial procedures or disciplinary procedures.

Colleagues, by working with a college of experts, exactly the necessary buffer is built in. The Prime Minister has already said it. It is necessary to come to a serene and politically correct treatment of the problem of the alleged violation of the separation of powers.

According to the opposition, this is an attempt to cover up matters. These kinds of statements are very premature and very inexpensive as long as we do not know the identity of the experts who will watch over the proper operation. On the contrary, by working with this kind of college of experts, it will be watched for the proper functioning of the investigative committee, without covering pots, in all objectivity and independent of any form of party policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us point out, this investigation committee does not investigate futility. This investigative committee examines one of the basic elements of our democracy, in particular the principle of separation of powers.

We have been debating this issue in the Justice Committee for a long time.

Colleague Terwingen, I have a lot of respect for your speech, but if you say that there have been three points of criticism, you are mistaken. There were more points of criticism in the committee.

I would like to highlight five elements that have also been discussed.

First, there was a discussion about whether one or two committees should come up. This has been treated extensively. Our position on this is clear. We want a single committee. That is also logical. If we want to examine this issue very thoroughly, we cannot work with two committees. For example, we run the risk that one committee in certain investigations will refer to the other committee and the second then again to the first, and so on. We will have a ping-pong game between the two committees.

Second, the discussions in the committee also showed the real need for much more powers to investigate the handling of the acquisition and the response to the financial and banking crisis.

We discussed the document, the agreement concluded with the banks. Mr Nollet explained how he attempted to access that document by the normal route. He received from Mr. Hans D'Hondt, of course not involved in this case, a note stating that it was not possible to deliver that document to parliamentarians.

If we have to work in such a way in a special committee, we will of course not go far. This alone already shows that it is necessary that the entire investigation, the two parts, be dealt with in a single investigation committee.

In this way we perfectly follow the very constructive proposal that Mr Verherstraeten and Mr Tommelein launched on 17 December.

Mr. Terwingen, you have made a call to cooperate across the boundaries of majority and opposition in this file. I have already told you. We accepted that hand. We accepted the proposal of Mr Verherstraeten and Mr Tommelein. They stretch out their hand, we want to hold that hand, and they pull back their hand. They make a 180-degree curve and that’s where we stand.

I hear Mr. Verherstraeten still say that they would pick up the bottom stone. Mr. Tommelein wondered – I don’t see him, he’s probably in the basements looking for that bottom stone, or ⁇ , there he stands – how to get that bottom stone up without an investigation committee. Everything is not so credible.

There is always reference to that special committee and what it can do. This special committee was set up a month and a half ago, but it has not yet gathered. It has become a virtual community.

We ask ourselves how this all actually happens. I think it is very clear. The majority parties, the gentlemen Tommelein and Verherstraeten in the first place, are slaves of the government. They have received orders, directives from the government.

This morning I read in the newspaper that the government also dealt with the file of the investigation committee yesterday. Then I wonder what the government should actually decide about that investigation committee. It is a parliamentary investigation committee. The debates are held here. Yesterday, however, the government also put a point on its agenda over the investigation committee.

This goes on, because Martens, who also went on a trip as an explorer, also had a package of investigation committee in his bag. Mr. Van Rompuy also had a good point on his list when making his government: how will we organize that investigative committee?

It is clear that the soldiers must march in Parliament. The government has decided. So is it and so will it be. Look at all the proposals made in Parliament. Four experts will be given three months. This will be a preliminary report. All of this is beautifully stated in the proposal. It is beautifully preformed. These were proposals from the government. In practice, however, these are government dictates that had to be executed.

What will we get in the committee? A preliminary report from experts. Then one in the committee will have to say that those four experts did not do well if one does not agree.

The majority will, of course, put the above-mentioned, pre-scorched report in the forefront. It will indicate a certain direction. A number of conclusions will be pushed forward. This way the tone is set.

Our fundamental criticism was also that Parliament and the Commission cannot accept that such contracts are outsourced and subcontracted to experts. The law does not allow such behavior. We have tried in the committee to resolve the above-mentioned problem through amendments. Unfortunately, this has only been achieved for a very small part, because the majority of course wants to persist in their proposals.

Colleagues, the Investigative Committee is one of Parliament’s most powerful weapons for controlling the government. We must take them seriously. All Members of Parliament together must assume their responsibility to properly use the aforementioned powerful instrument. We must do so across the boundaries of the opposition and the majority. However, I have the impression that we are not on the same line in this matter and that the majority wants to go in a different direction.

Another point of criticism was the timing. A very tight timing is being pushed forward. The experts will have three weeks to prepare their report. However, they have already been given a lot of powers and tasks. The question is whether they will be able to do all that. Can they thoroughly perform all tasks and investigations, hear and interrogate all persons concerned and view all documents?

We must take into account the fact that the experts cannot work on their report full-time. They also have a job. We read the names in the newspapers today. For example, I read that the chairman of the training committee, the Institute for Judicial Training, will act as an expert. I thought that the presidency of the aforementioned institute was a full-time job. However, the aforementioned person will no longer be able to exercise his presidency for three weeks. He apparently does not have much work in the aforementioned institute. After all, he will immediately drop his work and be at the disposal of the investigation committee for three weeks.

I read another name, namely the name of a professor at the University of Antwerp, who is also an assessor at the Council of State. He will also apparently not have much work for three weeks and will be able to work full-time.

So everything will go well. The four appointed experts are set to work and within three weeks they will complete their mission. That is not realistic, unless, of course, they have already begun their tasks, have been appointed informally for a long time and, therefore, the report may already be half-finished.

The second deadline is 15 March 2009. At that date, the final report should be completed. Mr. Nollet has already made a good suggestion to meet the aforementioned deadline. He proposed that the names of the members of the committee be announced today. If we do not do so today, the names may not be announced until tomorrow or next week, and the committee may not meet for the first time until next week. Then the President must be elected and the Bureau must be composed. Experts must also be appointed. Of course, the opposition can also make suggestions. In addition, the experts must first accept their task.

How can a three-week investigation be done? We are now in March 2009. Until 15 March 2009, the committee may close the books on a majority proposal.

In this way, of course, the committee will be forced into an election slide, which it will find difficult to get out of. The majority has already arranged everything very tightly. It is an unacceptable situation.

Working fast is not the same as working thoroughly. Working quickly is not equal to working well. We have already noticed this in various, other problems that have emerged. Look at the bomb law.

Finally, a major gap in the proposal to establish a parliamentary investigation committee is the mandate. A lot of tasks can be assigned to the committee. However, one of the most important tasks in our eyes is that the committee must also be able to define the political responsibilities. The above assignment is not included.

That is bizarre. Per ⁇ the majority has forgotten the intended task. However, I suspect not. I suspect that it did not intentionally incorporate this task in its proposal.

It is bizarre because in many other investigative committees that have passed here over the years, the task of recording political responsibilities is explicitly mentioned. This was explicitly the case, for example, for the committees on Sabena, Lumumba and the dioxin crisis. It is important that this also happens in this dossier. After all, we will already have many other studies. The High Council for Justice will set up its own investigation, there will be disciplinary investigations and several other reports have already emerged. We will not conduct a disciplinary or criminal investigation, we will not look at how the internal disciplinary and criminal law has gone, as Parliament we will also have to judge about political responsibility. That is the big gap in this proposal. This indicates that this majority does not want the political responsibilities to be specified in this file. If she wishes, she will have the opportunity to approve a subsequent amendment from us to specify it explicitly in the mandate so that this investigative committee can judge in all independence and the political responsibilities – if there are – can also define.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, my group is of the opinion that at some point it should end the debate on the debate or the way the debate should be conducted. Our group will abstain because, of course, we want to emphasize that despite the establishment of a parliamentary investigation committee, that investigation committee has started and started under a very poor star.

I’m not going to describe it again, but we have stood in the branding of all that history. We have had the scandalous twist and ultimately the 180-degree twist of the majority against the twist they had taken before. That is why we are now back to the starting point, namely a majority that does not want a parliamentary commission to investigate the management they had over that banking crisis. So the starting point has now become the end point: no parliamentary commission of inquiry on the management of the banking crisis. This does not build confidence. It would have been easy to just do it. The opposition and the majority would not have misused the means of the parliamentary investigation committee in an unreasonable way. That would not have been the case. We, as the opposition, would also have agreed with the fact that, of course, at first, the question of Leterme, Vandeurzen and the so-called violation or non-presence of the principle of the separation of powers would have been immediately and immediately dealt with.

The fact that the parliamentary investigation committee was subsequently again mutilated and restricted to that first leak does not raise confidence. Finally, when we noticed that the government has devoted its government declaration and also its government negotiations to the functioning of a parliamentary investigation committee or to the functioning of the Parliament on the control of the management of that banking crisis, when the government came here with it and came from the chancellor declaring that they themselves are the champions of trust, which immediately makes all those who disagree with the course of affairs the champions of distrust, it was naturally pulled out of the pot to claim that it is the fault of the opposition that there is no trust in this matter.

They turn the world on their head. One puts on the label “confidence” and thus tries to put others in the corner of “confidence”. These are methods that we know from the past and which ensure that both the parliamentary investigation committee and the special committee that investigates the management of the banking crisis start under a poor star.

In any case, we note that there is a willingness of the majority. There have already been intense discussions within the majority. I don’t know if you are familiar with the House, but if you see things like the chairman surrounded by the chairmen of his majority group, if you see how he writes names and how the chairs walk down, pick up names and give them to the chairman, and so on, then you can already know who will be chairman of the special committee tomorrow and also who will be chairman of the parliamentary investigation committee. Only, we cannot yet know. This is not an open house, such a parliament. Everything is being arranged behind the scenes and we, opposition members, will hear it tomorrow, although behind me there are people who already know how it ended.

So I may not yet know who it will be, but you, Mr. Tommelein, you who are just entering, maybe you know who will be the chairman of the parliamentary investigation committee? You also do not know? No to? However, you should know. Behind me, I think you already know.

You were just there. I thought you would at least know. Do you want to say nothing about it?

Do not be too curious, colleague Annemans. Just continue with your speech.

Exactly yes. I just wanted to say that the parliamentary investigation committee is leaving under a poor star. The champions of “confidence” do not trust the opposition and push us into the corner of “confidence.” I have heard from the President that he is even willing to meet with the Senate tomorrow afternoon. These two committees are starting. I think that is a good sign.

I call on all the members of the opposition who were stuck in the corner of “contra-faith” to – as they say in Antwerp – cut out their nails and rub their muscle balls. After all, it is also up to us. Whether they escape in their parliamentary investigation committee or in their special committee, it is up to us to bring out the truth. We must use all means, in that special committee, with or without senators, and in the parliamentary investigation committee, even if they take place simultaneously. Colleagues, there are tremendous possibilities, so that we can already today promise to the population that surely a very large part of the truth will have to come out.

The truth is hidden by the great manitoes of “confidence.” They try to hide the truth behind the scenes of their theatre, but they will not succeed. If we, members of the opposition, do our best, the fallecant will end for them.

One thing is clear, when the government disappeared and then reappeared, everything had changed on the Flemish side. CD&V had to go under all latte, months after months, and now went under the last latte, the latte Leterme. They dumped Leterme, or they dropped him or put him in quarantine, they themselves do not yet know exactly. They left him behind and replaced him with Van Rompuy. On the French side, however, nothing changed.

Reynders was mentioned. Initially it was even said that one should compensate for that departure with a French-speaking gift, because one could not sacrifice two CD&V’ers and no one of MR or PS. On the French side, nothing happened. They did not want anything to happen. They did not want the government to fall.

The government came. There came another prime minister, this time a prime minister of trust, as he himself claimed. He had to restore confidence and remove distrust. In short, away with Leterme, long live Van Rompuy! It was a Rompregnering government, which no longer had a program and had no other message than “we are the champions of trust.” However, I feel that confidence has yet to come, Mr. Van Rompuy. You are not here, but we are talking to you. You will have to accept it from us.

Let me come to the quite innocent trouble of Mr Van der Maelen and what happened yesterday in the committee. Van Rompuy came here this afternoon and then say that he did not even mean sp.a. Everyone knows that it was about you. I actually found it innocent. What did Mr. Van der Maelen do? He showed the contract for the sale of Fortis and he said there were even two companies on which the managers had not signed. It was a small detail, a small introduction to the questions that should be raised in a special committee. Suddenly everyone was shouting “shame,” “members will have to learn to be clever and honourable and not swing with documents.” Mr. Van Rompuy immediately began again, from his high post of trust, to say, “You will arouse mistrust, if you continue this way.”

If he continues to interfere with the work of Parliament, the special committee and the parliamentary investigation committee in that tone, if he thinks he can afford to tell us what needs to be done – he has also illustrated this afternoon again with his expansion of the experts – and if he thinks that a parliamentary investigation committee in that sphere will be able to start well, then we can assure him that this will lead to a conflict between the confidence he thinks he can radiate, and the distrust that we will have in these measures.

If one re-read those passages about the experts – the experts must make sure that this is not and that is and not sister, but so – it turns out that he already has a whole idea of what is the disadvantage of parliamentarians dealing with the banking crisis, and that he already has a whole idea of why those experts will be inclined to do what he thinks they should do, while parliamentarians will not be inclined to do what he thinks they should do. We, as Parliament and as a parliamentary investigative committee, do not want to be empowered by a government that wants to use us to play a stage and to perform theater performances in that special committee or that parliamentary investigative committee in order to restore confidence, according to the scheme he proposes. This will not be the case if it belongs to the Flemish Interest Group.

It was pronounced in a wonderful way last week by someone who knows Van Rompuy very well and has known for many years, Frans Crols, in Trends. He describes the role of Herman Van Rompuy, as the savior of the confidence in the Belgian kingdom. He analyzes it in a typical French Crolian way, which you will surely know, Mr. De Clerck. He concludes as follows: “Herman van Rompuy rides in front of the establishment, which he knows is empty, bloody, poor in ideas, in panic.

As a result, he leads the rubble group called Belgium. CD&V is a party of speakers and treasurers who feel called every time, out of fear to ask the question of life what the added value of Belgium is for its voters and its countryside, to thumb forward and glimpsingly depane the kingdom. Thus she feels cluttered, frightened, oblivious and outdated. After the next punishment in the polling halls, she will again, perplexed, indignant, and insulting, continue her path of suffering into superfluity. Those who do not respect themselves, do not respect themselves, lose the respect of the voters. An unfortunate 2009 is offered to you by Prime Minister Van Rompuy and the Last Carré of the Blind.

The report is written, the report is ready, it is embedded, there are still four names of specialists missing. Actually it is that.

But he is going to cut his nails, I understand. His fingers . I think a significant part of the cleaning has been used.