Marlene Jennings

[Liberal Government, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago this week, having been elected by the Canadian people, this government formed its first cabinet. With your permission, I shall highlight some of our achievements.

In the last three years, under a Liberal government, Canadians have seen their income taxes decrease and the national debt shrink. They have witnessed the creation of an impressive number of jobs.

They have seen impressive financial commitments for health, ratification of the Kyoto protocol, measures to fight terrorism, and increased aid to international development.

We have a lot to be proud of. Nevertheless, I can guarantee that we are ready to do more, so that our fellow citizens can enjoy a promising future.

[Justice, October 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the Correctional Service of Canada takes its role, its duties and its responsibilities very seriously. The question of public security is a prime goal and mandate of that service. The Correctional Service of Canada also takes the concerns of victims very seriously and will continue to keep the victims apprised of this offender's case to the extent that our Privacy Act permits.

[Justice, October 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Solicitor General cannot discuss the specifics of any offender's case, but I do wish to assure this House on behalf of the Solicitor General that the Correctional Service of Canada is managing this case in accordance with the law. Risk assessment processes were used to evaluate this offender and he is currently in a facility that meets his security and programming needs and those of the Canadian public.

[World Trade Organization, October 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's security cost policy framework is clearly premised, as is known by the local law enforcement agencies and provincial and municipal governments, on the fact that local police services are responsible for ensuring public safety during major events in this jurisdiction.

As I already mentioned, the City of Montreal was informed well in advance of the holding of the meeting that the meeting did not meet the clearly defined criteria of this security cost policy framework.

[World Trade Organization, October 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member opposite indicated, the Solicitor General is responsible for implementing the government's security policy, known as the federal government security policy framework.

I would point out, however, that the City of Montreal was informed well in advance of the WTO ministerial meeting that the criteria were not met. I would also like to mention that the meeting—

[Jordin Tootoo, October 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House I would like to commend an outstanding young man who has been making some big news in the National Hockey League. I am talking about Jordin Tootoo, the first NHL player of Inuit descent.

Mr. Tootoo grew up in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. He made his debut in the National Hockey League this past month on the Nashville Predators team.

Hockey fans across Canada and in Nashville are excited about Jordin Tootoo's style and ability. As a junior, he had a record setting season before entering professional hockey. His positive story means that regional and other barriers in our national game are falling. It proves that ability is what counts.

I am sure that all my colleagues in the House will join me in extending our congratulations and best wishes to Jordin Tootoo.

[Fisheries, October 30th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the answer is simple. The answer is to let the commission, an independent body, do its job. The commission has the authority to review the investigation of the RCMP of this complaint and then the commission has the authority to conduct its own public inquiry into the complaint if it is not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the RCMP. That is the first thing.

Second, one only has to look at what happened after the APEC summit where there were allegations that pepper spray was used by members of the RCMP and that there was an abuse of authority enforced by members of the RCMP. It was that very commission that conducted a public inquiry. When its report came out there was no one, not the media nor opposition members, who did not applaud the report of the commission and say that it was a fair, transparent and credible report--

[Fisheries, October 30th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in response to the question and comments that have been put to the House by my hon. colleague, the member for Dauphin--Swan River.

I am pleased to see that the government's efforts and the efforts of Mr. Arar's wife have led to his safe return to Canada. I also want to inform the member for Dauphin--Swan River, the other members in the House and all Canadians who may be listening right now, that the government has in place a strong review mechanism for the RCMP.

Review of the conduct of the RCMP members is provided by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

On October 23, just seven days ago, Miss Shirley Heafey, the chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, announced that she had initiated a complaint regarding the RCMP's conduct in the deportation of Mr. Arar to Syria.

Ms. Heafey has publicly indicated that the complaint requires the RCMP to report on the following matters: whether RCMP members improperly encouraged U.S. authorities to deport Mr. Arar from U.S. territory to Syria; whether the RCMP failed to discourage U.S. authorities from deporting Mr. Arar; whether they improperly divulged information or conveyed inaccurate or incomplete information about Mr. Arar to the United States and/or Syrian authorities; and finally, whether the RCMP improperly impeded the efforts of the Canadian government and others to seek the release of Mr. Arar.

For those who do not know, the commission was established by this Parliament in 1988. Its primary role is to receive and review public complaints about the conduct of RCMP members. I would like to emphasize that the commission is an independent body. It is not part of the RCMP. Ms. Heafey herself has noted that this independence is essential to ensure that the public complaint process is conducted with impartiality and fairness.

As required by the RCMP Act, the chair has referred her complaint to the RCMP for investigation. Now let us allow this process to unfold in the appropriate manner.

Once the RCMP investigation is complete, the RCMP commissioner has to report the results to the commission, including a summary of any action that will be taken by the force.

The chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP may then take further action deemed appropriate by her. There are several options available to her, including a review of the complaint based upon relevant materials provided by the RCMP, a request that the RCMP investigate further and/or provide additional information, and the chair also has the authority to further investigate or to conduct the holding of a public hearing.

The commission has indicated its commitment to make its conclusions publicly available once the process is completed.

Given the sensitive nature of police work, information provided by the RCMP to the commission for the purpose of this process must be properly held. I will conclude by saying that prior to--

[Fisheries, October 30th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for St. John's West for his continuing interest in this matter.

I support wholeheartedly any measure that would improve the viability and the conservation of fish stocks inside and outside the 200 mile limit.

However, I believe that even with custodial management on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish cap, we will not solve the overfishing problem. I am not the only one to think so.

Custodial management, whether the initiative is unilateral or results from negotiations, would be problematic and difficult to enforce and many believe that it would even be contrary to the interests of Canada.

Any unilateral initiative in that direction would run into strong opposition from countries who fish outside the Canadian 200 mile limit. The international community would consider it to be contrary to customary law and it could bring about some serious judicial, political and even military consequences.

Furthermore, this proposal would be costly. Canada would have to pay for new scientific activities, monitoring and law enforcement operations in a much larger area of the ocean.

We would also have to look at the possibility that some countries would ignore the extension of Canada's jurisdiction or oppose it. We would have to spend considerable amounts of money to defend ourselves before international courts in the event of prosecutions by other countries.

It would be just as difficult to have custodial management in the context of negotiations, which is the second possibility for putting such a policy and such a management in place. Once again, the international community would strongly oppose it.

Custodial management would hurt Canada's interests on another important level. This initiative would greatly diminish Canada's influence on the international level, as well as its ability to bring about positive changes within international organizations such as NAFO.

Whether opposition members like it or not, Canada shares the oceans with other countries. We must effectively promote conservation and sustainable management of oceans. Custodial management would considerably diminish our ability to voice our concerns, that is the concerns of our Canadian fishers, and to improve the way our stocks are managed. Canada must remain at the decision making table if it wants to ensure a bright future for the fishing community.

This does not necessarily mean that fish management in high seas must not be improved. However, the work done in the recent by DFO and the hon. minister gives me hope that we can improve the situation.

For example, in 2002, the department put forward Canada's position at meetings with NAFO countries. Canada closed its ports to fishing vessels from the Feroe Islands and Estonia, because they did not abide by the regulations. We also announced a new approach to banning offending vessels that fish in the NAFO regulated area from accessing our ports.

In February of this year, experts gathered at a round table to analyze various options for improving conservation and management of straddling fish stocks. In June, the minister reported to his North Atlantic counterparts on Canada's grave concerns about non-compliance with regulations and on the need to unite their efforts in order to find solutions.

Finally, this September, Canada made important progress at the NAFO meeting in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

Outcomes of this meeting included the drafting of a long term conservation and restocking plan for the Greenland halibut, adoption of a pilot project on compliance and increased conservation measures and enforcement of NAFO regulations.

And that is not all. This year, Canada has embarked upon a series of bilateral consultations with most of our NAFO partners, insisting on the urgent need for vessels to comply with NAFO rules, and encourage governments to take action against those who do not obey.

In addition, Canada continues to collaborate closely with other countries to achieve ratification of the United Nations Fish Agreement, the UNFA. When it is ratified, this agreement will become a precious tool to compel fishing countries to comply with very rigorous standards of conservation and respect for regulations.

In the longer term, the DFO is redefining its strategic orientation in order to make important changes and give Canada the means to influence NAFO's orientation in the years to come. A working group of advisers from the provinces and industry has been established to analyze options and define the strategic orientation.

These measures show clearly that the Government of Canada takes this issue very seriously. They also show that we are able to work—and work well—with our partners at home and abroad to make substantial improvements in the management of open ocean fish stocks.

Establishing a custodial management strategy in the nose and tail of the Grand Banks is not a realistic solution and will not serve the best interests of Canada nor the best interests of our fishers.

Canada has every reason to improve the situation through collaboration and concerted efforts with its international partners.

That is why I cannot support the hon. member's bill, although I congratulate him on his efforts.

[Supply, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is ascribing Machiavellian characteristics to me that simply are not there. Anyone who has seen me and listened to me in the House since 1997 knows that I am very direct. If I say I support the motion, it means I support the motion, which means that when the vote is called I vote in favour.

I am amazed that it was not clear to members of the opposite side. The only thing I can believe is that they are ascribing to me characteristics that they themselves have, which is non-clarity and Machiavellian philosophy and characteristics. I am very direct. If I say I support something I support it.