Marlene Jennings

[Ethics, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in 1996, Brian Mulroney denied, under oath, having any business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber. He claimed that they had a coffee once or twice. What he failed to mention was that his coffee was sweetened with envelopes stuffed with cash.

Justice Oliphant called Mr. Mulroney's testimony patently absurd.

Given Justice Oliphant's report, why has the Conservative government not undertaken legal proceedings to recuperate that $2.1 million, plus interest, paid to Mr. Mulroney?

[Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say from the outset, on behalf of the official opposition, that the Liberal Party intends to support the motion moved by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

We believe this is a commendable initiative. We believe it is time, once again, to look at the way oral question period is set up and its purpose.

We are quite pleased that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills has confirmed to the House that he is open to suggestion and changes. He wants his motion to be adopted in the House and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. He also wants members of this committee, of which I am one, to do a comprehensive study in order to improve the content and the form of question period.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills was just asked if he had had an opportunity to check other jurisdictions to determine what kinds of rules they have in place for their question periods. He responded regarding New Zealand, I believe it was, where he stated that their standing orders allow the speaker to compel the minister to respond, again, to a question if the speaker deems that the minister has not properly or adequately responded to the question.

I would just like to give a little bit of information to this House regarding Australia and the United Kingdom. It is my understanding that in the United Kingdom, the prime minister's questions take place every Wednesday when the British House of Commons is sitting for a period of 30 minutes, and that this particular practice was established in 1961. Members of Parliament wishing to ask a question must submit their names on the order paper. The names are then drawn by lottery to produce the order in which they will be called by the speaker.

The leader of the opposition is traditionally the first member of Parliament from the opposition benches to be called after the first question, and that is whether that first question comes from the government or from the opposition benches. As well, the leader of the opposition is allowed six supplementary questions in two groups of three. Finally, if the prime minister is away on official business, then a substitute answers questions. Those are just some of the procedures that exist in the British House of Commons. It is a stark difference from what we have here in Canada.

In Australia, question time is an institution in the Commonwealth, the federal Parliament and in all state Parliaments in Australia. Questions to government ministers normally alternate between government members and the opposition with the opposition going first.

The House of Representatives standing orders allow the prime minister to terminate question time by moving that further questions be placed on the notice paper. It appears that it is possible for the prime minister to prematurely terminate question time, although this is almost unheard of due to the criticism it would generate.

There is also no time limit for answers in the House of Representatives of Australia and of its members states, but a time limit applies in the Senate of Australia.

Finally, the Parliament of the State of Victoria allows for a set number of “questions without notice” to be asked of ministers, proportionately from each party represented in the House

I found the point that was raised by the hon. member from the Bloc quite interesting, which is that should this motion be adopted and sent to committee, and should the procedure and House affairs committee adopt this motion in its current state, that there would be a danger that members of the opposition might not receive the number of questions proportionate to the number of seats that they hold in this House.

I think that is a very important point, and I think that is something that definitely, and I am hopeful that this motion will be adopted and sent to PROC, as we call it, would be something that the members of PROC, and I know I will, would advocate. We should look at how to do it in a way to ensure that each opposition party would receive their proportionate numbers. There might be a lottery for the Liberals, a lottery for the Bloc, and a lottery for the NDP, and they would have the proportionate number of questions.

I also think that it would be interesting for PROC to look at the legislatures here in Canada.

In the legislature of my province, the beautiful province of Quebec, during oral question period at the National Assembly, the time allotted for questions is much longer than the time we are entitled to in the House, as is the time allotted for answers.

I was a great fan of the National Assembly before coming to Parliament Hill and I must say that, with a few exceptions, it truly allows the opposition parties and the government to get into a topic and address it in a more detailed manner. I found that this gave those watching, including myself at the time, a better understanding of the issues. I understood the issues better and the reasons why a party adopted a position on a particular issue and why another party defended a different position. I understood better why the government had made a certain decision or adopted a certain policy. The members of the opposition had more time to ask questions and the minister had more time to answer.

I have three minutes left and I want to say that the Liberals, who represent the official opposition, will support this motion as written. We hope the House will adopt it.

I am sure that many of the members here in this House recognize me as someone who at times has contributed to the noise volume in the House. Yes, I have. There have been times when I have been very sorry for it and there have been times when I have risen in my seat and apologized for something that I had said. I have not needed to be forced to do so by a question of privilege or a point of order. I have done it because I have recognized on my own that my behaviour was not correct. I would hope that other members in the House would do the same. Some do; some do not. That is a personal choice.

When I was growing up, I was one of eight children. When my parents used to have friends and family and guests over, there was not enough room around the dining room table. Many members may probably know this. In the kitchen we had the big table and that was for my parents and the big kids, and then we had the small table which was for the youngest.

When my parents had friends over and they were in the dining room, it meant that there was no adult supervision. One of the games that my brothers and sisters and I created was called no manners included. The rules for no manners included created great mayhem in the kitchen and there were times where it required my parents, or one of them, to come into the kitchen and tell us to knock it off, to tone it down, or we would be sorry for the punishment that we were going to get. But it did create a great deal of amusement.

At the same time, the second part of that was manners are included, and that was a game that actually allowed my brothers and sisters and I to develop, what I have been told for many years since, wonderful table manners and a great deal of civility around the table. When I am not quite as civil as I should be in this House, I will try to remember manners are included and apologize for that.

[Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills on his initiative. It concerns an issue that, for quite some time now, many people in this House have said should be addressed. I congratulate him for taking this first step.

I would like to ask him a question. He said the motion contains six proposals, but he did not think it should end there. He added that if the House were to adopt the motion, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could decide to expand on the ideas, possibilities and measures to be studied. Does the member have any specific measures in mind?

[Business of the House, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to ask the government House leader about the government's intentions regarding the parliamentary agenda in the days going forward.

Second, does the government have any new information or policies that it wishes to announce similar to the policy the government House leader announced earlier this week, to the effect that it would no longer allow political staffers of ministers to appear before committees when duly called by committees in accordance with the ruling laid out by the Speaker not that long ago on the Afghan detainee documents and the supremacy of Parliament? I am wondering if the government has more surprises on the policy front with regard to government accountability to Parliament through its committees, and the supremacy of Parliament and its committees in requiring persons, including ministers and political staffers and public servants, to appear.

I wonder if the government House leader would also address the issue of one of his members who was invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on a reference sent to it by the House of Commons regarding the breach of privilege of the member for Mount Royal and an NDP member by ten percenters sent into their ridings by a Conservative member. When the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs duly requested or invited that Conservative member to appear, the member declined to appear because, as a member of Parliament, under the rules of Parliament, he does not have to appear unless the House itself orders him to appear.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is a complete fabrication. It is that party and that government that is the bully. It is not the opposition. It is that government and that Prime Minister.

The policy to protect Dimitri Soudas contravenes the principles of political sovereignty. The Conservatives are choosing which minister to send, even though that minister may not be from the same department as the invited employee.

How can the Minister of Natural Resources appear before one committee instead of his assistant and yet refuse to appear before another committee?

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, your ruling on the supremacy of Parliament was applauded by all sides of this chamber and beyond, but just a month later the Conservatives are trying to do an end run around the power of Parliament by blocking senior staffers from appearing before committee.

This new, out of the blue Conservative policy is yet another direct affront to the powers of Parliament; it is censorship and blocking of information.

When will the Prime Minister read the Speaker's ruling and understand that it is Parliament that is supreme, not him and not his government?

[Paralympic Athletes, May 25th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I wish to draw attention today to the accomplished Arly Fogarty, the 27-year-old Canadian Paralympic ski team athlete living in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Arly was part of the 16-member Canadian para-alpine ski team, which competed in the Vancouver Paralympics this year. This was Arly's second Paralympics following her debut in Turin in 2006. Arly was named the 2005 para-alpine female athlete of the year. She also scored her first World Cup podium, a bronze, in Austria in 2008.

Throughout the games we were impressed by the prowess of all the Canadian athletes. We saw some truly remarkable performances by each and every one of them, including Arly.

I want to congratulate Arly on her accomplishments and wish her much success in the years to come.

[Ethics, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep changing their story.

Yesterday Derrick Snowdy accused the Prime Minister of misrepresenting information he provided them, so they countered by insisting the Prime Minister acted on information from more than one source. But the Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that Snowdy was the sole source of the Prime Minister's allegations.

There is a really easy way to clear this matter up and establish the truth. The Prime Minister could simply release the letter he wrote to the Ethics Commissioner. Will he do it, yes or no?

[Ethics, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he acted based on “serious” and “credible” allegations of a criminal nature when he fired his minister, kicked her out of his caucus and called the RCMP.

Nonetheless, the private detective that the Prime Minister's Office used as justification denies ever making such allegations.

This casts doubt on the Prime Minister's judgment. Is a criminal investigation under way? Why did he dismiss his minister? Who is his source?

[May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that does not take away from the fact that internal department documents show that an early draft prepared by public servants after extensive consultation contained the following references: homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005. The minister had all of these statements.

The wonderful things that are in the publication do not take away from the fact that those internal documents also show that the minister ordered the sections the public servants had put in the first draft of the citizenship guide to be removed and that after the minister ordered them to be removed, the deputy minister in August 2009 recommended that they be inserted.

Canadians are proud of their country and they are proud of the rights given to all Canadians regardless of their sexual orientation.

I am again dismayed by the attitude of the government.