Marlene Jennings

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague opposite for his complimenting me so profusely today. I am almost at a loss for words, but not quite.

The hon. member said that my whole speech was on the democratic system and how our electoral system ensured that democracy is at work. True, but I also addressed the main issue of your motion suggesting that only by limiting to individuals the right to contribute to party financing will we be able to ensure the system's integrity. I quoted very specific instances where financial contributions were made by individuals under the Quebec party funding act, the Loi de financement politique au Québec. I am not the one who said the integrity of Quebec's electoral system was sullied, quite the contrary.

I said that if I were to follow the logic of my dear colleague opposite and say that the elections act should be changed to limit the right to make contributions to individuals, this would mean that the system in Quebec is weak, and I gave a few examples. Under the Quebec system, only individuals are allowed to contribute to party financing, yet that did not prevent fraudulent action. It did not prevent questionable situations. So, it is not logical, nor well founded and I will conclude on that.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Now you get my point. It is not by limiting individual contributions that we are going to guarantee the integrity of the system of financing political parties. Rather, it is by ensuring that, first of all, the legislation itself contains adequate provisions for ensuring control of all contributions and the accountability of political parties and individual candidates receiving contributions, and for ensuring that they are properly and openly reported and that this process is open to taxpayers, voters, the public and residents of the country.

Now you get it. It is not by limiting the contributions to party financing to individuals that you will ensure the integrity of the system. That is the point of my speech. Now I am sure you see what I mean. I will close with that point.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Yes, finally. It was said time and again that the very fact the solicitor general had not been informed by the Minister of Human Resources Development of the allegations to the effect that fraudulent actions were allegedly committed proved there was something fishy about the whole thing. On the contrary, this demonstrates the system's transparency and integrity.

Bloc members say Quebec must serve its citizens. If so, how can the Bloc Quebecois justify its mission to partition Canada, given that Quebeckers have twice said they wanted to live in a united Canada? All the questions asked by opposition members lead us to think they do not believe in the integrity of a police investigation.

Is it true? For years, surveys conducted across the country have been showing that the public has a high level of confidence in our police forces and in the integrity of their investigations. I find it reassuring that these allegations are being investigated by the police, and I hope other members of this House will also find it reassuring. Given the professionalism of the RCMP, I am confident the investigation will shed light on the whole issue and will establish whether there is enough evidence to lay charges.

Would we be protecting our democracy by allowing only contributions to political parties from ordinary taxpayers, from individuals? Let me point out some facts. If the financing of political parties works so well in Quebec, why did the Bloc Quebecois change it to increase the amount of eligible contributions?

How can the Bloc Quebecois justify that, in 1994, Bloc Quebecois members and candidates accepted 27 corporate donations of over $10,000?

The Bloc Quebecois can sing the praises of the Loi québécoise sur le financement électoral, but that does not mean there are not serious discrepancies. If the Bloc Quebecois wants to suggest that corporate financing can have an unlawful impact on the awarding of government contracts, perhaps we should remind it that, despite Quebec's legislation on financing political parties, the Parti Quebecois still manages to reward contributors and sympathizers generously.

As an example, we have only to recall the sorry episode of the Le Hir report and the irregularities observed in the contract awarding process. Yvon Cyrenne, one of the authors of the Le Hir report, contributed $900 to the Parti Quebecois in 1994. Yvon Martineau, who was appointed president of Hydro-Québec, made a contribution of $1,000 to the Parti Quebecois in the year preceding his appointment.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Bear with me, I will be glad to explain. My family always said I had the gift of the gab and that it is not easy to get me to shut up, but I do respect authority. So, as soon as the Speaker will indicate that my time is up, I will stop.

Our political system is such that it encourages thousands and thousands of Canadians to do volunteer work. That is right, even Canadians living in Quebec. In past elections, including the last federal election, these thousands and thousands of Canadians played an active role in the political process, as campaign workers for the candidate of their choice and the political party of their choice. Our electoral system allows and promotes this.

As I said earlier, if we in Canada did not have the legislation that this government passed, many of the members of this House would not be here today, and this is true for our colleagues opposite as well.

Any discussion about a democratic electoral process with integrity must address the principles openness, transparency and accountability, and that is what we have today with our electoral system in Canada. It is precisely because the Canada Elections Act guarantees a transparent process by providing control over the amount of contributions. Anyone can have access to a candidate's report and check the figures. It is because such measures are provided in our legislation that the process, and democracy, are protected.

What does transparency mean? It means precisely what took place last week and today in this House. Had it not been for our election system and the Canada Elections Act, those who reported these alleged offences under the act would never have openly talked, the Minister of Human Resources Development would never have been informed, and no police investigation would ever have taken place.

Just look at countries that are known for being corrupt. Their citizens, whether they are company officials or ordinary individuals, do not dare inform authorities of any alleged corruption, because they know their system condones and covers up such acts. It is not the case here. A police investigation is going on.

So, unlike Bloc members, I believe that the mere fact we are discussing alleged fraudulent practices, and I insist on the word “alleged”, shows the integrity of our institutions. I am a lawyer by training, and having worked in Quebec on a code of ethics for the police, I have some knowledge of the issue.

I know a thing or two about the integrity of our institutions, professional conduct and ethics. That is why I choose my words very carefully when I talk of “alleged” practices during the last election campaign. So, the very fact that we are having this discussion proves the integrity of the existing Canadian electoral system.

Perhaps you are wondering who I am—I just said a few words about myself and my professional background—to be stating so confidently that our Canadian electoral system is open and transparent and makes sure that all who are governed by the elections act are accountable.

Before taking up politics this year, as I said a moment ago, I worked in police deontology in Quebec. And, by the way, I was not appointed only by the Liberal government. The PQ government saw fit to reappoint me on the basis of my qualifications and to suggest that I get involved at the national and international level on the issue of civilian monitoring of law enforcement, at my own expense and not at public expense of course. They had enough confidence in my expertise in these matters to reappoint me.

I am coming to the motion, so you should be happy now.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment since this is the first opportunity I get to do so. For the next few minutes I would ask you to be patient because, as this is the first time I have had the opportunity to take part in debate, I would like to offer a few thanks.

As you mentioned, I am the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. First, I would like to thank my constituents. Then I would also like to thank the team of volunteers who worked with me during the election campaign. For most of them, it was their first experience in politics and all of them marvelled at our political process, our political system.

I would also like to thank my family, my husband Luciano, my daughter and all the other members of my extended family who supported me and will continue to do so during this mandate.

Now I would like to give you some of my background to explain what I am going to say about the Bloc's opposition motion.

I am the daughter of a Black American man from Alabama who emigrated to Canada in 1944 and who was able to vote for the first time in his life in Canada, thanks to our democratic system and to the election system we had at that time.

My mother was a French Canadian from Manitoba, of Belgian, French and Metis descent. The Metis background is Cree, Montagnais and Attikamek. So, my roots in Canada go back to the natives, to the first nations, and my French roots go back to an ancestor who came from France to Canada, to Quebec, to New France, in 1868.

The reason I give you this description, these details on my past, on my life and on who I am, is to point out that, if it were not for the election system we have in Canada, I would not be here today. I swear, I would be willing to bet with anyone in this House, that the vast majority of members here in the House today would not be here either if it were not for the election system we have.

One of the pillars of a real democratic system is the election system that allows residents, citizens to make themselves heard and to decide which political party will form the government and which political parties will sit in opposition.

This political system must allow the widest access possible to all citizens, not only to make themselves heard on voting day, but even also to participate in the process, whether as candidates, organizers or volunteers.

Our system allows this. I was able to see that myself during my first experience in politics in the last election campaign. About a hundred citizens came to work as volunteers, the vast majority of them working for the first time in an election campaign, and they did it wholeheartedly.

The Bloc Quebecois contends that only by limiting to individuals, private persons, the right to donate to political parties will it be possible to ensure integrity in our election system. I must say that I beg to differ, in fact I completely disagree.

[Consumer Affairs, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, inquiring Canadians across this country would like to know, what the minister responsible for consumer affairs plans to do to protect Canadian consumers from the kind of unscrupulous business practices in long term vehicle leasing that was reported in today's and yesterday's media.

[Audio-Visual Production, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage released a first report on the new television and cable fund for the production of Canadian programs.

This government initiative resulted in the production of over 2,200 hours of Canadian programs in the past year. In 1996-97, over 376 projects received financial support from this fund, for a total investment in excess of $624 million.

While all regions of the country benefited from the fund, audio-visual production more than doubled in the Toronto and Montreal areas.

Audio-visual production creates over 30,000 direct jobs and 72,000 indirect jobs in Canada. Our government is very proud to have been the instigator of a project which, while creating jobs, also supports and helps—

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I take part in this dispassionate debate on the creation of linguistic school boards. I say with “great pride”, because the constitutional amendment proposal introduced today by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, whom I will not name, is an important step in a debate which, in Quebec, lasted 30 years before a consensus could be reached. Therefore it is not with indifference that we should welcome this day but rather with a deep satisfaction.

On April 15, the National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a constitutional amendment to section 93 of the Canadian Constitution. The aim of this amendment was essentially to restructure the school system along linguistic rather than denominational lines. Our government supported this initiative and, on April 22, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs introduced a motion to that effect here in this House.

However, because an election was called, which brought us back to power on June 2, it became impossible to pursue this initiative. This government is therefore addressing the situation today.

We should not only be pleased that the debate is entering a new stage today but also that a majority of Quebeckers, francophones and anglophones, support the establishment of linguistic school boards.

A consensus has been forged, and as the intergovernmental affairs minister has noted that consensus is sufficiently broad for us to go ahead with the proposed change.

Today, in tabling the resolution for a constitutional amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Minister announced that it would be referred to a special joint committee that would report back to Parliament in the next few weeks. This is a logical initiative that should have the support of all hon. members of this House. We should certainly be glad that all stakeholders were able to achieve a consensus but, in accordance with parliamentary custom, we have to provide an opportunity for these stakeholders and others to be heard on such an important constitutional amendment.

This is so obvious that no one can object in good faith to the approach taken by our government without flouting the democratic values of Canadian society from coast to coast. I would certainly not accuse any of my colleagues of having such intentions.

Dissenting voices have the right to make themselves heard. We as members of Parliament have the right to inform them and to try to convince them of the merits of this constitutional amendment.

For those who already support it, striking the joint committee will give them the opportunity to reiterate their support. This is a democratic exercise that is not only healthy and necessary but also respectful of the opinions generated by all sides in this debate.

A minute ago I was talking about our democratic values. Quebeckers have always shared and espoused these values. In fact, if our country is so widely respected throughout the world, it is partly because of its respect for this heritage that generations of Canadians have preserved over the years. The motion before us today seems like a golden opportunity to emphasize our respect for democracy and our institutions.

There is another reason for creating this joint committee, as the minister has pointed out in the past few weeks. Some time ago, the official opposition in the National Assembly asked the Quebec government to set up a parliamentary committee on this issue. That request was rejected. All the more reason to create a committee that will allow the various groups, experts and concerned citizens to express their views.

This approach would allow us not only to comply with parliamentary procedure but also to promote a better understanding of the changes that would be effected through this constitutional amendment.

Despite the consensus forged on this issue, obviously some groups and citizens are worried about the disappearance of denominational school boards. Our government is sensitive to that aspect of the issue. Moreover, we are fully aware of the uncertainty felt by some groups and citizens in Quebec's anglophone minorities.

For example, in light of a disturbing demographic situation we are well aware of provisions that limit access to English schools. As the minister has pointed out so well, we cannot ignore the secessionist ambitions of the Government of Quebec.

In these circumstances is it too much to offer those groups and citizens a forum so they can make themselves heard? Not at all. That is why our government will go ahead with its proposal to strike a joint committee.

I now come to the main point of my comments. Certain Quebeckers are worried about this constitutional amendment. However, as the minister has said, the proposed changes do not run counter to the interests of the anglophone community.

Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees linguistic minorities the right to instruction in their own language, will continue to provide solid guarantees to Quebec's anglophones as it has in the past.

Moreover—and the minister has highlighted this reality—the Government of Quebec is not seeking to root out religion from education but rather to secularize the administrative structures.

This debate has not arisen for no reason. In recent years the repositioning of Quebec's society has been modified by the contribution of newcomers at the same time as secularization has increased. At that point the need has been felt to reorganize school structures along linguistic rather that denominational lines.

The constitutional amendment tabled by the minister takes account of that evolution.

Such debates are nothing new; it is not the first time Quebec society has felt the need to review its school system. But the evolution of Quebec society with all its characteristics has seen a consensus emerge in both the francophone and the anglophone communities. We should seize this opportunity to set up school boards along linguistic lines.

One last question, if I may, before I conclude. It concerns co-operation between both levels of government. Being used to recriminations from the Quebec government, we see in this debate a meaningful example of what we could all achieve if the secessionist rhetoric gave way to true co-operation.

Another important point deserves to be mentioned. This constitutional amendment on linguistic school boards is considered a bilateral amendment in constitutional legalese.

There is some irony here. While the 1982 Constitution is still being condemned by secessionist leaders, this same Constitution allows them to request this amendment today.

Clearly, we can achieve a consensus, change our federation and even our Constitution without tearing this country apart. I urge all my colleagues in this House to support the motion before us.

I forgot to tell you I was sharing my 20 minutes with my colleague for Broadview—Greenwood.

[Quebec Premier, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is often said that travel broadens the mind, but I did not think that the Premier of Quebec could be so transformed after fewer than two days away.

I had to keep rubbing my eyes when I read in the paper this morning that Lucien Bouchard boasted to his French hosts about the bilingual nature—I repeat, the bilingual nature—of the Quebec labour force.

One might think that the leader of Quebec's separatists, who never misses an opportunity to do battle on the linguistic front, has two different personalities: one international and one local. Outside the country, he recognizes the virtues of bilingualism, while in Quebec, he is against it.

If he goes on like this—

[Speech From The Throne, September 24th, 1997]

I wish to advise the House that my constituents are delighted with the initiatives of the government with respect to the Canadian unity file.

I want to assure the House that I intend to continue to contribute and encourage my constituents to actively support these very welcome and timely initiatives.