Marlene Jennings

[Public Safety, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to spend $13 billion on megaprisons based on made-up statistics on unreported crime. It is no wonder that the government wants to abolish the long census. Facts and numbers are unimportant to the Conservatives.

Canadians are worried about their jobs, their pensions and the economy. Meanwhile, the government recklessly borrowed billions of dollars to give tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations and cut millions in funding for crime prevention programs. Why?

[Public Safety, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to insist on building new mega-prisons and keeping Canadians in the dark about their price tag.

Kevin Page estimated the cost of implementing just one of the Conservatives' many crime bills to be “one billion dollars annually...at a time when we are still generating deficits.”

What will these mega-prisons cost? Can the minister tell us?

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, prorogation is part of a much larger trend of the Conservative government trying to silence the opposition. The government has a record and a history of attacking what it calls fringe groups. Clearly, for the government, women's organizations are part of these fringe groups.

One only has to look at the fact that the very first act of the Conservative government in 2006 was to cut the funding to the court challenges program, a program that was specifically designed to provide financial assistance for important court cases that advanced equality rights and language rights guaranteed under the Canadian Constitution. Then, on April 1, 2006, it closed down 12 of the 16 Status of Women Canada offices. Today, only four regional offices exist.

Meanwhile, while all of this is happening, Canadian women only earn 71¢ on the dollar earned by males. Yet the government says that it does not need to help women's groups. Funding has been cut to women's groups and those groups and their voices are being smothered by the government. That is the first terrible step in eroding democracy.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member did not have an opportunity to hear the actual motion that was delivered by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, nor my amendment.

Both the principal motion and my amendment make it clear that the committee would take into account any report that may be tabled by the procedure and House affairs committee to the House in its own work, the work of the special legislative committee that we hope the House will support.

My colleague, who I sit with on procedure and House affairs, is being histrionic. Part of the work of that committee is done only on the aspect of prorogation. It does not deal with all the other aspects of the Liberal motion being debated today.

[Business of Supply, June 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, the House leader of the official opposition, has very clearly and succinctly explained the reason for this motion on this Liberal opposition day.

I have listened to the questions that have been asked by a member from the government side and a member from the NDP. It is clear that they are looking at it from a very narrow point, because our motion and the statement that has been made by the House leader for the Liberal opposition and the amendment that I will be moving will make clear that this issue of prorogation goes beyond simple prorogation.

The Prime Minister's latest tactics to cover up his government's role in the Afghan detainee scandal was to stop the business of Parliament dead. Everybody knows that. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians rose up in protest to that.

While the Prime Minister attempted to claim that the prorogation of Parliament was routine, I believe that my colleague, the House leader for the Liberal opposition, made quite clear that from 1867 to 2008 no previous prime minister had ever abused prorogation or had ever used it to try to hide from the will, decision and authority of Parliament. Not until the current Conservative Prime Minister did we see abuse of prorogation.

Our motion is not outdated. Our motion goes beyond the scope of what the procedure and House affairs committee is dealing with. In fact, the study that is being conducted as we speak in that committee is a motion that I brought to that committee. So, I know very well what is happening.

The current Prime Minister now holds the record for shutting down Parliament for 148 days over just four years in office. That is compared to the second place prime minister, Jean Chrétien, who prorogued 145 days over 10 years, a full decade.

My colleague also talked about how it goes beyond simply flouting the authority of Parliament, the supremacy of Parliament. Let us talk about the statement that the government has tabled that it will no longer permit its political staffers to appear before standing committees of this House who have been duly called before those committees.

Let us talk about how the government is stifling and smothering any kind of dissent. Let us talk about how, in a democracy, freedom of expression is one of the very principle tenets of a democracy, of democratic institution. Let us talk about how freedom of expression means that dissent is healthy, and how the Conservative government and the Conservative Prime Minister refuse to see dissent and healthy, objective, fair criticism as being an integral part of a democratic system, an integral part of all of our democratic institutions.

Let us talk about how we have what the government considers to be fringe groups, not-for-profit organizations and non-governmental organizations, that do excellent work, provide services to Canadians here in Canada and services to people in impoverished countries outside of Canada, but because they have criticized some of the government policies they have been smothered. Their funding has been cut.

Women's groups are considered to be fringe groups. A member of the Conservatives' own caucus, the senator from the other house, Nancy Ruth, told the truth to a gathering of women's groups when she said, “I have to tell you, shut the f-- up because, if you don't, I'm afraid that my own government, my own Prime Minister will come down on you even harder”.

The issue of prorogation goes well beyond just the supremacy of this Parliament. It goes to the issue of freedom of expression, supremacy of Parliament and the need for dissent in a democracy.

I move:

That the motion should be amended:

a) by adding after the words “during any prorogation” in section (d) the following:

“that the special committee also take into account any report on prorogation that may be forthcoming from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and provide an analysis of the consequences of the use of prorogation as a device to avoid accountability or to silence voices that may wish to express disagreement with the government;

that the committee consist of 11 members which shall include 5 members from the government party, 3 members from the official opposition, 2 members from the Bloc Québécois and 1 member from the New Democratic Party, provided that the chair shall be from the official opposition;

that the committee have all of the powers of a standing committee as provided in the standing orders;

that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party's members of the committee no later than June 23, 2010;

that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and

b) by deleting the words “June 23, 2010” and substituting the following:

“November 2, 2010”.

[Canada Elections Act, June 17th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-553, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (special quarterly allowance).

Mr. Speaker, my bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to provide a special quarterly allowance for registered parties in which a certain percentage of the members elected are aboriginal people, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities.

In addition to the quarterly allowance given to political parties, which is currently set at $1.95 a year per valid vote, my bill would provide a special quarterly allowance to parties in which 10% of their elected representatives are part of a designated group. A threshold of 10% was chosen because visible minorities were approximately 16.2% of the population in 2006, which was an increase over the 2001 level of 13.4%. In 2017, it is estimated that between 19% and 23% of Canadians will be from visible minorities, while aboriginals account for 1.2 million Canadians and persons with disabilities, 4.4 million. For each quarter, the allowance would be calculated as follows: 10¢ per year if the proportion of people from these groups is between 10% and 19% of the party's total elected members, 20¢ per year if that proportion is between 20% and 29%, and 30¢ per year if the proportion of people from these groups is more than 30%.

I hope that my colleagues will support both these bills.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Elections Act, June 17th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-552, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (representation of women).

Mr. Speaker, for a number of years Canadians have been demanding democratic renewal of Canada's Parliament.

With a changing cultural landscape, Canada's Parliament should be representative of the diversity that is celebrated in this country. Sadly, the reality is that today, less than 25% of the total elected members of the House of Commons are women. That is why this morning I am tabling a bill that would alter the formula of special allowances per vote received by political parties.

My bill would amend the Elections Act to provide a special quarterly allowance for registered parties in which a certain percentage of the members elected are women.

In addition to the existing quarterly allowances paid to political parties, which is $1.95 per year for each valid vote cast, the bill provides for a special quarterly allowance for parties in which women represent 20% of the elected members. The 20% threshold was selected because it corresponds to an overall average in the House of Commons, where for several decades now, women have held at least 20% of the total number of seats.

The proportion of women in the House has never been higher than 30%. Although it has been as high as 25% or 30%, it has since fallen and now varies between 20% and 25%.

This would be a special quarterly allowance of 20¢ to 40¢ per year, depending on the percentage of women elected for each political party.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Business of the House, June 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as is the practice in the House, I would like to ask the government House leader about his plans in terms of government business for the next week.

I also have two very quick questions, the first one about Bill C-34 concerning the museum of immigration at Pier 21. The Liberals fully support the bill and are ready to expedite it immediately. I would like to know when the government intends to schedule the debate so we will see the bill passed at its earliest opportunity.

My second question concerns a report on the Order Paper and Notice Paper relating to Bill C-391, the long gun registry, which means that we could have a debate and a vote before summer recess. I would like to know if the government intends to take the necessary steps, working with you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure this happens.

I look forward to the minister's response.

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, they say that “Lake Waste” will cost just $57,000, but we know that is not true. That $57,000 is for the plastic pool liner and the water to fill it. Their sneaky accounting leaves out all kinds of associated costs: design and construction of the fake lake and the giant screen hanging over it.

When will the Conservatives confess to the true cost of their fake campground?

[G8 and G20 Summits, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the government to disclose the full extent of this huge waste of money, which Canadians of all political stripes find scandalous.

When will the Conservatives reveal the total cost of these summits? When will they disclose the whole budget to Canadians? Canadians have the right to know where their money was spent. When will we get a detailed budget?