Marlene Jennings

[Privilege, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something on the same topic. I think there is rather clear evidence that the government, the ministers of the Crown, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister himself and the Minister of Public Safety have breached the privilege of all members.

The question of whether parliamentary privilege of members extends to witnesses duly called to testify before a committee duly formed by this House is quite clear. We need only refer to page 114.

On page 114 of O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009, it says:

In a ruling given on February 20, 1984, the Speaker stated:

A threat emanating from any government department or public corporation to withhold information or cooperation from a Member of Parliament would undoubtedly hinder that Member in the fulfilment of his or her parliamentary duties and therefore constitute a breach of privilege.

It goes on:

In 1992, a witness who had testified before a subcommittee was advised by a Crown corporation employee that the issue of her testimony was being referred to the corporation’s legal department.

If I look at footnote 240, it says:

Journals, December 4, 1992, p. 2284. Don Boudria (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell) contended that witnesses before committees enjoy the same privileges as Members of the House and are accorded the temporary protection of the House. In the Member’s opinion, if such threats were to go unchallenged, it would imply that witnesses before committees could not testify without the threat of being sued or intimidated (Debates, December 4, 1992, pp. 14629-31).

If we go on to page 115, the Speaker found a prima facie case of contempt and referred it to the House of Commons Standing Committee on House Management, as it was called at that time, for consideration. The committee reported to the House on the question of privilege. The report of the committee stated:

The protection of witnesses is a fundamental aspect of the privilege that extends to parliamentary proceedings and those persons who participate in them. It is well-established in the Parliament of Canada, as in the British Parliament, that witnesses before committees share the same privileges of freedom of speech as do Members. Witnesses before parliamentary committees are therefore automatically extended the same immunities from civil or criminal proceedings as Members for anything that they say before a committee. The protection of witnesses extends to threats made against them or intimidation with respect to their presentations before any parliamentary committee.

It is clear. Mr. Colvin was duly called as a witness before the special committee on Afghanistan, which itself was duly constituted by the House of Commons under our rules and procedures, and Standing Orders. That committee called Mr. Colvin. Mr. Colvin came to testify. The committee also required documents from Mr. Colvin and Mr. Colvin received a letter from the representatives of the Minister of Justice, a minister of the Crown, informing him that they would take legal action against him should he file the documents before the committee.

It is a prima facie case of violation and breach of privilege. It is wilful intimidation and wilful obstruction of the members of Parliament of that committee in the performance of their duties, functions and responsibilities, and it is a prima facie breach of the privilege that is extended to the witnesses before that committee.

[Privilege, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing the issue to the House.

I just received a transcript of the actual clause by clause proceedings of the justice committee during question period, prior to him raising his question of privilege. I had an opportunity to speak with my colleagues, both within my party and within one of the other opposition parties, and they confirmed that I had abstained throughout clause by clause, except for the final vote where they confirm, as had been alleged by a member of the Conservative Party during questions and comments to me during the debate on Bill C-36, that I had in fact said nay.

Therefore, in that case, as I also stated, and the member did not mention it, if in fact I had voted and it was accurate that I had voted, that I would apologize. I do apologize. I was wrong in my recounting of the information. The member for Burlington was correct. My memory was faulty and I apologize to this House.

The records of the Standing Committee on Justice on clause by clause are correct. I abstained throughout all of the votes except for the final vote, which stated, “Should this bill, as amended, carry?”. It was a recorded vote and I did say nay, so there are not two versions before the House. There is one version, the version that was originally given by the member of the Conservative Party for Burlington.

I apologize for having doubted his word and I beg the indulgence of the House. I apologize to everyone. I have now corrected the transcript and the official record of the House of Commons that there is only one version.

[Afghanistan, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Allan Cutler also said yesterday that the Conservative Party, the party for which he was a candidate, “never listens to the message. They attack the messenger. Nothing has changed”.

Why should Canadians trust that Conservative Prime Minister and his government when they continue to hide the truth, cover up and put the muzzle on anyone else who wishes to come forward and corroborate Colvin's testimony?

[Afghanistan, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Richard Colvin is one of those diplomats of whom we are proud.

What did Allan Cutler, former whistleblower and Conservative candidate, have to say yesterday when asked about Richard Colvin? “His career is dead. He doesn't have a career. He's never going to recover from this, never”.

The government's smear campaign against Colvin is a blatant attempt to intimidate other witnesses from coming forward and corroborating Colvin's testimony. Why is the Conservative government so relentless in its cover-up?

[November 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I wonder what the member has to say about his government attempting to cover up the allegations that Canadian soldiers handed over Afghan detainees to torture at the hands of the Afghan authorities.

We had testimony from a reputable diplomat who was promoted following his experience in Afghanistan. What we have had to listen to in the House for this past week and a half is the Minister of National Defence and his lackeys, and that is what I will call them, trying to smear that diplomat's credibility, reputation and intelligence. This is from a government that said that it would protect whistleblowers.

It now has a whistleblower on its hands and what is it doing? It is attacking that whistleblower. It is trying to smear his reputation and, in so doing, it is trying to intimidate other potential witnesses.

[November 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, on September 14, 2009, I asked a supplementary question in this House directed at the Prime Minister, regarding a closed-door speech he had made and that had been recorded.

In the speech that the Prime Minister gave, he said that “judges are left-wing ideologues”; he also referred to women fighting for equality as “left-wing fringe groups”.

During question period, I said that women are not marginal left-wing groups, and that the judiciary and judicial discretion are very important.

The Prime Minister in that closed-door speech also made this point speaking about the Conservative Party, “If we do not win a majority this country will have a Liberal government propped up by the socialists and the separatists”.

This is another quote: “This country cannot afford a government like that. If they force us to the polls, if they get together and force us to the polls, we have to teach them a lesson”.

This is another quote: “Imagine how many left-wing idealogues they would be putting in the courts, federal institutions, agencies, the Senate. I should say, how many more, they would be putting in.”

This is another quote: “Instead of...subsidizing lawyers to bring forth court challenges by left-wing fringe groups, we have been bringing in laws...” and then he goes on to laud himself and his party.

These so-called fringe groups and left-wing idealogues are people who brought court challenges based on equality rights and language rights that are guaranteed under the Canadian Constitution. One has only to look at the issue of the Montfort Hospital.

Because of the court challenges program, which was abolished by the Conservative Prime Minister as one of his first actions after coming into power, the Montfort Hospital, here in Ontario, is still open.

If we look at the issue of women's equality rights, it is because there was a court challenges program that an ordinary female worker who is not unionized but who is suffering gender discrimination has been able to bring a pressing case before the courts and has been able to win on that. It is the same thing for the issue of gay and lesbian rights.

We see a government that closed 12 of the 16 Status of Women offices on April 1, 2006. There are only four regional offices now, rather than sixteen. We see a government that has abolished the court challenges program. Under pressure from ordinary Canadians, the Conservatives brought in some milquetoast program that is a faint shadow of the court challenges program.

I would challenge the Prime Minister and the Conservative government to cease and desist with their ideology, which they use to attack those who do not agree with them.

[Afghanistan, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, here is what one authority said about protecting whistleblowers:

--we want to ensure that those public servants who wish to report unethical or illegal behaviour they witness in government can do so without suffering retribution.

Who said that? It was the Conservative Prime Minister in 2006.

Why has he broken his promise of protecting whistleblowers and why did he fail to treat these allegations of torture seriously when first informed about them?

[Afghanistan, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, honest democratic governments have nothing to worry about when it comes to accountability and transparency. They know that those are the only ways to guarantee they are legitimate.

This government should encourage everyone who knows the truth to come forward.

Instead, the Conservative government treats whistleblowers like Mr. Colvin with contempt, and try to create a diversion.

Why is this Conservative government so afraid of the truth?

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the member had not done his homework. The member had stated that it was reported to him, so I informed him that the reports were incorrect.

If in fact the minutes of the November 16 meeting of the standing committee indicate what he has said, I will ensure that those minutes are corrected because every single member at that meeting knows very well that I did not vote on any of the questions that were put to the committee regarding Bill C-36, including whether or not the title should pass, whether the bill should pass, or whether 500 new copies should be printed. Therefore, I will see that those minutes are corrected to in fact reflect what took place in the committee.

I do not blame the member. He is quoting from what appears to be a perfectly valid transcript and based upon that, he made his statement in good faith, but I am informing the member that those transcripts are not correct. We have a meeting this afternoon. I will ask that they be corrected to reflect what actually took place, which is that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine did not vote on any of the votes on Bill C-36.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the question that has been asked by my colleague from the NDP, who also sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, is quite serious. I will not speculate on what the government's future intentions might be.

As to the issue of the appropriate sentencing for first degree and second degree murderers who have been convicted of those charges, I can say that I have been in the House since 1997 and there were members of the previous Reform Party who did, in fact, express a wish for the return of the death penalty. I do not believe that they sit in the House at this time. I believe that some of them have been defeated, either at their nomination conventions or in an election, or have retired.

I am not going to speculate on what the government's medium- and long-term intentions on that should be, but I am dismayed when we have a minister, whom I actually respect and I cannot say that for many of the Conservative ministers, who comes before the committee and does not appear to be intimately aware of, understanding of, and knowledgeable about his own legislation that he is bringing forth.

The member is entirely right. The Minister of Justice, when he came before our committee with the arguments that he gave wanting to save victims' families from having to relive the pain, the anguish and, I can imagine, the terror over and over again, had to be informed by members of the opposition, myself included, that in fact his bill did not remove that reality because it was not retroactive.

That was the point at which I asked the minister about whether or not he had considered the possibility of making the repeal retroactive, period, finished, if he were that concerned about the victims' families.