Marlene Jennings

[Afghanistan, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when the government apologizes for using the military the way it has, as props for its cover-up, that is the day that the sun will rise and descend on the same day. It is nonsense.

Last week, the bureaucrats claimed the government, the minister, had a role in the redaction of documents. Now the government and that minister are claiming they do not. Who is telling the truth?

The minister knew about the allegations. He tried to cover up. He should explain to Canadians why he continues to hide the truth. Why does he not fess up? His fingerprints are all over those documents.

[Afghanistan, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government is the one saying that these two soldiers are not telling the truth.

During his testimony, Richard Colvin, another of the people it is attacking, stated that his briefing notes included allegations of torture. However, in the heavily-censored documents, these allegations suddenly seem to have been blacked out. It is now clear that the minister himself played a significant role in censoring these documents.

Can the minister explain to Canadians why he tried to hide the truth by censoring these documents?

[International Day for the Abolition of Slavery, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to point out that today marks the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery.

The abolition of slavery represents more than just freedom for millions of people. It also represents the fight against poverty, illiteracy and violence against women and children.

Unfortunately, this system of slavery, thought to have been entirely eradicated, still exists in our world today. Slavery continues in Benin, Chad, Ethiopia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan and Togo, to name just a few countries.

Today should be a celebration marking the end of oppression, which unfortunately still exists, and the beginning of a new world in which all people can live without fear of discrimination, and with the enjoyment of equal human rights.

[Privilege, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A debate was going on concerning the movement to concur in a committee report regarding breach of privilege that was moved by my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh. At that time, I rose with a desire to speak but we were informed by, I believe, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that the minister concerned by this motion for breach of privilege should be allowed the opportunity to speak. Therefore, at that time, I requested that I be allowed to reserve the right to speak once the minister had risen and spoken to this particular issue.

It is my understanding that the minister has spoken, has offered his full and unreserved apology and, as such, I will waive my right to speak to the issue so as not to hold up the Speaker's ruling on this.

I also wish to underline for the Speaker that when I rose earlier for clarification on a statement made in this House by a member which mirrored the contents of a document that the House had already deemed to be a breach of privilege of a member's privileges, I was not in any way challenging the Speaker's ruling that he had made earlier. I would not wish him to take it as a challenge of his ruling, as I respect the Speaker entirely. I was simply seeking a question of clarification with regard to a decision taken by this House yesterday evening. However, if the Speaker took that to be a challenge of his ruling, I apologize unreservedly and wholeheartedly to him.

[Points of Order, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I really am struggling to understand this. You found a prima facie case, but it was up to the House to determine whether or not there was in fact a breach of privilege. The House did find a breach of privilege based on the content of the mailings. It was not just that they were mailed. It was the content of the mailings.

Therefore, if the contents of the mailings are being repeated in the House, could that again constitute a prima facie case of privilege?

[Points of Order, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, once the Speaker has ruled that there is a prima facie breach of privilege and the House votes on a motion deeming that there is in fact a breach of privilege that has taken place and has referred it to the procedure and House affairs committee, for a member to subsequently rise and dispute the facts which were laid before the House and voted on in the House, would that not be a continuation of the breach of privilege?

[Afghanistan, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another new version of events from the Minister of National Defence. His version changes every day.

The Conservatives deliberately hid the fact that, for 18 months, they regularly turned Afghan detainees over even though there was a real and serious risk that they would be tortured.

How can the Prime Minister go to China and defend human rights, particularly with respect to Tibet, when his own government is guilty of violating those same human rights?

[Afghanistan, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, despite receiving warnings that began in May 2006, the government did nothing to put an end to the transfers for 18 months. Canada's reputation as a world leader in justice and human rights has been damaged by the actions of these Conservatives.

How can the Prime Minister talk to the Chinese government about respect for human rights—in Tibet for example—if he cannot lead by example?

[Privilege, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to speak on this issue, as I am a member of the justice committee and I fully support the question of privilege raised by the member from the NDP.

I would however take note that the government House leader has requested that you set aside this issue until the minister responsible has an opportunity to rise in the House and speak to this issue. If that is your ruling, I would wait to make my statements until I hear from the minister.

If on the other hand you rule that you are not going to wait, then I request that I be afforded the opportunity to speak at this time. Otherwise, I will withhold my remarks until the Minister of Public Safety has an opportunity to speak to this issue.

[Election Expenses, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, two elections ago, the Conservatives tried unsuccessfully to pass off national expenses as local expenses.

The Conservatives are the only ones to have used this strategy. The proof is that they were the only ones to have their headquarters searched by the RCMP.

Their arguments are so weak that only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has the audacity to use them in public. Does this not speak volumes about their credibility?