Marlene Jennings

[Premier Of Quebec, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, once again yesterday the new Premier of Quebec attempted to prove that Canada is not working, serves no useful purpose, and has done harm to the economic development of Quebec. Nothing could be further from the truth, as he well knows.

Not only has Canada not done harm to the economic development of Quebec, it has done much good. One need only think of the international WTO agreements, and the Team Canada trips and their benefits to businesses.

If Mr. Landry considers Canada a hindrance to the growth of Quebec, why is he insistent that sovereignty include an offer of partnership with that same Canada?

We invite Mr. Landry to stop looking for hidden motives and to give up his separatist rhetoric in order to work along with the Government of Canada for the betterment of the people of Quebec and of Canada. That it what the public wants of us.

[National Defence, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, recently Canadians had the pleasure to learn that the government will inject an additional $624 million into the defence budget. We on this side of the House know just how much this infusion of new money is welcome.

Could the Minister of National Defence or his parliamentary secretary explain to the House and to Canadians just how this money will be used and will further improve the lives of men and women in our military?

[Emancipation Day, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to participate in the debate and exchange views with my colleagues on the motion to proclaim August 1 Emancipation Day in recognition of the heritage and contributions of Canada's black community.

Anyone sitting in the House can see for themselves that I am a descendant of Africans. I am a descendant of African slaves brought to North America during the system of slavery, so the question of Emancipation Day in Canada is a personal issue for me. I want to commend the member on the other side of the House for his motion and for his initiative in tabling the motion and calling on the government to declare August 1 Emancipation Day.

The timing of this debate makes the subject all the more important. The Anti-Slavery Society of Canada was launched 150 years ago in February. The great American abolitionist, Frederick Douglas, was in Canada at the invitation of this society, as were other speakers. The society sent delegations to Britain, lobbied churches and politicians and organized meetings in support of the cause of slaves.

Let me start by saying that the heritage and contributions of Canada's black communities are integral to the economic, political, social and cultural history of this country and its people. Therefore the spirit of the motion is a reflection of what my government has been saying all along, that the heritage and contributions of Canada's black communities have made our country what it is: multicultural, inclusive, prosperous and the best country in the world to live in.

I would like to quote Martin Luther King and something that he said about Canada in one of his lectures in 1967:

Canada is not merely a neighbour of Negroes. Deep in our history of struggle for freedom, Canada was the North Star.

I am sure Martin Luther King was sharing the same sentiments Harriet Tubman felt during her various dangerous trips to bring her people, African-American slaves, to freedom in Canada through the underground railroad.

While we recognize the heritage, contributions and achievements of blacks in Canada, we must also recognize their struggle and challenges. The struggles of my people, the challenges my people have faced, are a part of our history as Canadians and it is not very well known by many Canadians.

However, if we want to build a fair and equitable society we have to start by acknowledging that our history is not perfect, that Canadians have suffered injustices at different periods and that it is regrettable that this otherwise compassionate and welcoming country also has a history of injustice. This country has a history of slavery.

I am sure that hon. members have already heard that slaves existed from the time of the first explorers, under la Nouvelle-France. My first French ancestor came here from Rouen, France in 1668 at the same time that African slaves were here and were being sold and, in some cases, executed at the will of their owners. Journey to Justice , a new film by the National Film Board of Canada, charts the little known history of the struggle for black civil rights in Canada. The history of our country has had regrettable aspects, but Canada was a safe haven for some 40,000 to 60,000 slaves who escaped slavery in the United States in search of freedom in Canada.

Why did they search for freedom here? Because Canada had the saving grace that slavery was abolished in 1833, over 30 years before it was abolished in the United States. In the United States it took the American civil war to bring an end to slavery. As we all know, the American civil war is the war in which more Americans lost their lives than in the combination of the world wars that we knew in the 20th century. Canada did not require a civil war in order to bring about prohibition of and an end to slavery. I think that is to our credit.

Some historians say that the underground railroad would not have been possible without the co-operation of the Canadians who ensured that there would be help for runaways once they made it to Canada. Speaking of the underground railroad, we must also recognize the role of the slaves themselves who engineered the entire escape route, which included trails, rivers, swamps, caves, barns and woods that led runaways to freedom at great risk to their own lives.

My message to my colleagues here today is that Canada is proud of the heritage of Canada's black communities. We value the contributions of my community to Canada's development. At the same time, we must draw an important lesson from our history to make sure that Canada remains the north star, not just for blacks but for all Canadians of every ethnocultural origin.

As citizens and leaders we should remain vigilant and be committed that injustice never happens in our society again. Every Canadian must have a place in our society and must be afforded the opportunities to contribute to building the future of this great nation.

Our government has made this commitment to Canadians and I would like to say that we have demonstrated our commitment by taking concrete steps in many areas. Let me give hon. members a sample of what we have done.

In December 1995, a motion was passed in the House of Commons officially designating February as Black History Month.

In 1998, Parks Canada and the U.S. national parks signed a memorandum of understanding committing their services to a number of projects, including the underground railroad. Under this agreement we will ensure that the story of the underground railroad is adequately commemorated and communicated to the public. The multiculturalism program has assisted Parks Canada and the black communities in the formation of an underground railroad network to facilitate co-ordination among historic sites, to improve conservation and to promote information sharing and marketing of sites, nationally and internationally.

The multiculturalism program of the Department of Canadian Heritage annually supports local activities organized by communities in different parts of Canada to celebrate Black History Month and will continue to provide the necessary support for such activity.

In February of this year, the month that just ended yesterday, the National Archives of Canada opened a very special exhibition about the history of the anti-slavery movement in Canada. Historical figures like Josiah Henson and leading abolitionist Harriet Tubman are featured in this exhibition.

I am pleased to say that three institutions, the National Archives of Canada, the National Library of Canada and the National Film Board of Canada came together to produce this work in co-operation with a local organization called J'Nikira Dinqinesh, an education centre that promotes awareness of black history and experience.

On February 26, Journey to Justice , a film of the NFB of Canada, was premiered at the National Library of Canada.

The Ottawa Citizen wrote about this exhibition and said:

Canada was Canaan,the Promised Land for thousands of black Americans fleeing slavery. It was then, in the Fugitive Slave Act, that the U.S. declared open season on runaway slaves—even those in the North, who has previously been considered free—sparking a rush to the border and galvanizing the fledgling abolitionist movement in Canada.

I am quite proud of the multiculturalism program of the government. The program continues to work with communities, institutions and different levels of government to promote social justice and equity in our society. The multiculturalism initiative addresses local issues at the grassroots level, promotes institutional change so that our institutions are reflective of the makeup of our society and are responsive to the growing diversity and facilitate public education so that Canadians appreciate the rich diversity of our society.

We also have the March 21 campaign for International Day for the elimination of racism. The multiculturalism program also supports many initiatives.

I want to end by again commending the member opposite for his motion. I think it is great. Given many of the statements made by members of his party who sit in the House, statements that were very derogatory toward the black communities, other ethnocultural communities and government initiatives, I would encourage him to support multiculturalism and attempt to change the minds and policies of his members.

[Minister Of Public Works And Government Services, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, recently in this House, members of the Bloc and the Alliance have attacked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services without justification on an immigration matter.

They have accused the minister of using his status as an MP for unjustified purposes and of maintaining links with the Mafia.

I find it unacceptable that some are doing everything possible to tarnish the reputation of a man known for responsible and honest work, a devoted MP concerned for the welfare of the community. These accusations are also tarnishing the reputation of the Italian community.

I am, however, pleased that some members of the opposition have withdrawn their remarks, admitting that their attacks had gone too far, but I deplore the fact that they have yet to officially apologize to the minister, and I encourage them to do so without further delay.

[Research And Development, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the last throne speech the government promised to double research and development as part of its innovation agenda. We on this side of the House have every confidence that the government will honour this promise, as do Canadians, after all they increased our majority.

Perhaps the Minister of Industry would like to explain to the other side of the House how the government will honour its promise.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before making my comments and observations, I would simply like to reread the motion, because we have heard many things, particularly from members of the opposition parties. The motion introduced by the government House leader has been somewhat distorted. This motion reads as follows:

For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

Our job today is to limit your role but to increase your responsibilities, but the amendment moved should also considerably speed up the work of the House and thus improve its effectiveness for the general well-being of the public, which we are all here to serve.

It is a question of correcting a flaw in our parliamentary procedure which arose over the years in the course of daily practice, rather than through any rule. We are all familiar with the practice of delaying as long as possible the passage of a bill which, for various reasons, does not meet with the approval of our own constituents.

When I say our own constituents, I am speaking from the point of view of individual members and sometimes of a particular party. As I said, we are very familiar with this practice, the purpose of which is simply to delay passage of a bill as long as possible.

In all honesty, we have to acknowledge that there are many among us, on both sides of the House, I have to say, who use this practice and not simply to abuse procedure. We are not laying blame on anyone here. Our actions in this House are all motivated by the mission we have been given: to serve our electors.

Whatever the aims of a given political strategy, they are in accordance with the hopes of those who chose us to defend their interests to the best of our ability. Nevertheless, the end does not always justify the means, because in order to look after the interests of one, we sometimes, even often, neglect those of others. We necessarily impinge on precious time that should belong to the House as a whole in order to administer the affairs of the nation.

Certainly, the major parliamentary reform of 1968 provided for this eventuality and gave the Chair the authority to strike it. However, your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have tended bit by bit to give way to the expression of democracy to the point that, over the years, this trend has become a parliamentary tradition and the practice has taken root. It is clear that in many cases it has been nothing more than an abuse of the practice. I repeat: it is clear that in many cases it has been nothing more than an abuse of the practice.

Earlier, the minister mentioned that the proposed amendment was not the result of a unilateral decision. After consulting with parliamentary leaders, we recognized the situation and the need to correct it. However, the way to correct it remains problematic. There were a number of options, but they did not allow for targeted solutions on other rules that had to be changed. Therefore, the minister simply chose to go back to the comprehensive reform of 1968, which offers the best solution in that it allows us to solve the problem without having to amend other rules that have proven their effectiveness.

Indeed, it is simply a matter of reaffirming the powers that the Chair already has, but that it no longer exercises to better protect freedom of expression. I really want to emphasize this point.

The opposition claims that, through this motion, the powers of the Chair will be restricted and even constricted. That is not so. In fact, the motion strengthens the powers and the authority of the Chair. This is at the core of the issue.

Under the standing orders, once a standing committee of the House has completed its review of a bill, a process that already includes amendments, the bill goes back to the House for what is called report stage. In other words, the standing committee submits a report on its review of the bill in question.

We all know that when a bill is reviewed in committee, public consultations take place and any committee member can propose amendments or changes which, in his or her opinion, will improve the bill.

This applies equally to a government bill and to a private member's bill that has succeeded in getting through the House for referral to a standing committee.

This is the appropriate time for members, particularly those who were not on the committee, to express their opinion on the bill and propose amendments they would like to see made, provided of course that they have given written notice of them. The only exception to this rule is bills relating to supply or ways and means motions.

Since the reform in 1968, there have been a variety of amendments in the standing orders relating to the report stage, on the length of speeches in particular. However, if the original intent of this report stage was mainly to broaden the debate, it was not in any way intended as reconsideration of what has already been considered by the committee. Yet that is exactly what is happening at present, and has been for some time.

As we are well aware, the present strategy consists precisely in repeating in the House the arguments that have already been raised in committee, and that have already been the subject of discussion, exchanges of views, debates and comments in the committee. It even happens that certain arguments are knowingly advanced before the standing committee responsible for considering the bill as a means of bringing them before the House as a whole.

The last major procedural reform had taken that into account. The standing orders conferred upon the Chair the power to group together the amendments proposed in order to avoid repetition and also to judge the merits of the amendments and thus their admissibility.

In practice, however, our Speaker's predecessors bowed to the benefit of the doubt and, gradually, out of concerns about limiting freedom of expression, they delegated their decision making power to the House as a whole, with the negative results we are today attempting to correct with this amendment.

This power comprises all the rights necessary for the solution we seek. The Speaker therefore has the right to reject a motion the committee has already declared inadmissible, unless he personally believes that it merits attention. If he deems it appropriate he can call upon the motion's sponsor for sufficient explanations to facilitate his decision. He must retain only those amendments which, for a variety of reasons, could not be debated in committee.

Finally, to shorten debate, he may group together motions which concern the same topic or are in some way similar.

At this point, two criteria come into play: the content of the proposed amendment, and where it fits in the bill. It should be pointed out, however, that the Speaker is not required to voice an opinion on the purpose or substance of the proposed amendment, or even comment on whether it merits discussion. His sole task is to decide whether or not the amendment is in order according to the rules of procedure on admissibility.

In connection with this aspect of the rules of procedure, the British parliament has an imposing jurisprudence, built up over many long years of experience, which, I am sure, would serve as a very valuable guide to our Speaker. The responsibility is heavy, however, I agree. It presupposes what are sometimes some very difficult situations.

We must bear in mind the fundamental reason for the existence of this chamber: to serve, to the best of our abilities, the public, which has put its trust in us to improve its living conditions.

It is also a question of a responsibility we must all assume for the collective good of society. I think that this proposed amendment to our parliamentary procedure will make our job and the Speaker's easier and will enable us to exercise the responsibility falling to us with greater rigour.

Were we to do so, I think that the general effectiveness of this parliament would benefit and, ultimately, the esteem in which Canadian politicians are held.

We have heard many claims from members of opposition parties. One of them was that the amendment will actually restrict the ability of backbenchers and simple members of parliament to bring amendments to the legislation and that it will actually restrict the Speaker's authority. The authority is already there. What has happened is that through the years, from 1968 until quite recently, preceding speakers chose not to use that authority. We are talking over 30 years ago.

I would defy members of the opposition to name one court, whether it be judicial or administrative, where frivolous actions can be brought in and where the judge, whether a judicial judge or an administrative judge, does not have the authority to dismiss out of hand on the face of the evidence or the file, a frivolous or an abusive action.

One only has to look at some of our commissions, for instance, both at the federal and at the provincial level, whether it be governance or civilian oversight of law enforcement agencies, where there is that authority. It is a well established practice and concept that frivolous, abusive and repetitive actions have no place in proceedings.

It is already part of your authority, Mr. Speaker. This amendment simply re-establishes that it is within the Speaker's authority to deem motions, which been brought before the House and which are frivolous, abusive or vexatious, out of order. In many cases, the sole objective of these motions is simply to delay the proceedings of the House.

There are members on the opposite who claimed that this was somehow limiting democratic expression of members. I fail to see how being forced to vote for hours on end on frivolous or in some cases vexatious motions, or changing a comma from here to there, allows me as a member of parliament to express the views of my constituents. It does not.

In fact, it actually limits the amount of time that I or any other member of the House have to actually debate issues. It reduces the amount of time that the House has in order to deal with the substantive issues and to deal with them in a substantive way.

Returning to my point, this amendment does not in any way limit, constrain or lessen the powers of the Speaker of the House. On the contrary, it reinforces his powers which, while already in existence, have been affected by a practice which has set in and prevented him, in a way, from exercising them and putting them into application.

I believe that this amendment would provide not just the government but the House as a whole with more facility and more means for the democratic expression of the points of view of their constituents.

This would, I believe, also give more time. We are always hearing complaints about insufficient time for private members' business. If we are not tied up, if our time is not taken up, with votes about changing a comma we get more time. The sole objective of such motions, which often originate with the opposition and let us hide nothing here, is merely to hold up, to block, the legitimate work of the House, the legitimate work of the members.

It is all very well to speak of the government, but there are members of parliament here. We too have work we want to get done, whether through bills or through motions. Procedures and amendments which are, in my opinion and that of many others, frivolous or vexatious ought to be declared inadmissible. The Speaker has the power. This amendment reinforces that power. It hearkens back to the source.

In closing, therefore, I call upon all colleagues on both sides of the House to support this motion by the government.

[Foreign Affairs, February 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, one of our government's aims in international politics is to lighten the debt load of the poorest countries.

In many of the countries considered the poorest, the debt is borne by the people. At the moment, 17 of the world's most indebted countries owe Canada some $1.1 billion. We recently declared a moratorium on the repayment of $700 million in debt for 11 of them.

This specific action is helping make Canada one of countries most committed to reducing human suffering in the world on behalf of Canadians everywhere.

[Canada Post, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister of public works about the status of a complaint filed by two Canada Post employees and the former president of Alliance Quebec, alleging that Canada Post in Montreal violates the language of work provisions of the Official Languages Act.

It is clear that Canada Post must respect the law, and this includes the Official Languages Act adopted by parliament over 30 years ago.

What progress is Canada Post making to address the rights of its French speaking employees outside Quebec and its English speaking employees inside Quebec?

[Petitions, February 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, once again it is my honour to table two petitions in the House calling for a moratorium on the cosmetic use of pesticides, one of which was actually taken by an elector in my riding.

As with my private member's bill, the issue of the non-essential use of pesticides, or what we like to call cosmetic use of pesticides, is a significant danger to the health of Canadians.

We do not have the science or the medical proof to show that it is not dangerous. We are putting our children's lives and pregnant mothers in danger. We are calling for a moratorium on the cosmetic use of pesticides.

It is with great honour that I table these two petitions that support my private member's bill. I call on the House to adopt the legislation and to do it quickly.

[Canada Well-Being Measurement Act, February 14th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-268, an act to develop and provide for the publication of measures to inform Canadians about the health and well-being of people, communities and ecosystems in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today on St. Valentine's Day to present to the House a bill entitled the Canada well-being measurement act. The greatest testimony to love is giving the next generation the protection, education and the necessary assets so that it may take its flight into the world.

It is significant, therefore, that the Canada well-being measurement bill is being introduced in the House on Valentine's Day.

The purpose of the bill is to expand the way we measure the well-being of the country, so that it will encompass social, economic and environmental factors. These factors affect the health of Canada's people, communities and ecosystems.

Such factors will increase awareness of challenges and successes facing our country and will thereby enable the people of Canada and the House to steer more carefully toward a secure and satisfying future.

I offer this bill as a Valentine's Day gift to our beloved young people and to all future generations.

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