Marlene Jennings

[October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I recently asked the Minister of National Defence a question about the government's decision to challenge the authority of the Military Police Complaints Commission tribunal. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence responded to my question, and at one point he said that the allegations were completely ridiculous and that I should be ashamed of myself.

The Military Police Complaints Commission was established in 1999. I was in the House of Commons when that legislation came through. Prior to coming into politics, I was a member of the Quebec Police Commission. Then when the whole system was hauled through an innovative legislation adopted by the Quebec government in 1989, which came into effect in 1990, I was deputy commissioner for police ethics. I actually presided over public complaints into allegations of alleged police misconduct.

I know what it means for a commission to have a mandate. I know what the federal court stipulated when the government challenged the mandate of the commission. The federal court very clearly said that the commission's mandate was restricted to military police and their investigations.

The complaints are that members of the military police transferred Afghan prisoners to Afghan authorities, knowing that they would be subject or that there was a reasonable possibility of them being subject to torture. To protect the credibility of our military, of our wonderful, brave men and women in the Canadian armed forces, we need to have independent governance when complaints come through. In order for the commission to properly do its work to determine whether the military police knowingly transferred Afghan prisoners to torture, it needs to hear what the military police would have known about whether there was torture taking place in the prisons.

A Canadian diplomat, Richard Colvin, wants to testify as to what he knows and the government has issued an order that he is not to testify. It has issued an order under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. Everyone knows that section has to do with terrorists. I am not sure if the parliamentary secretary was here when that legislation was adopted, the Anti-terrorism Act, in 2001, but I was here. It was not adopted in order to prohibit government public servants from testifying to what they know in an independent tribunal's public inquiry into serious allegations.

If the commission cannot do its work properly, then whatever its conclusion is has no validity, has no credibility and therefore the allegations, as serious as they are, remain. That is one of the reasons why Quebec brought in an independent system with real authority.

[October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member has just shown how the Conservatives do not answer questions that have been put very simply. I was not partisan. I simply stated the facts and I simply asked if the government could provide an update and provide actual figures.

Rather than respond to that, the member attacked me. I am not even going to respond to those attacks because they are ridiculous; they are not true. I will come back to my question. Has the government purchased, through the Canadian secured credit facility, any asset-backed securities? It is simple, has it? Yes or no?

On May 8 the minister said the government could purchase, through the CSCF, up to $12 billion. Has any money actually been used by the facility to purchase asset-backed securities, yes or no?

[October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on April 30, my Liberal colleague, the member for Guelph, and I asked the Minister of Finance whether or not the promised Canadian secured credit facility would be open on May 1 as the Conservative government had promised.

It had made the announcement in December 2008. At that point, it said that it would be up and running for business by May 1, 2009. Five months later, on April 30, we asked whether or not it was going to be on schedule for May 1. The minister refused to respond. Instead, he tried to poke fun at the Liberals, et cetera.

On May 9, one week after the deadline that the government had set for itself, the minister welcomed the rollout of the credit facility. Being one week late may not be a major concern, but the government did not even have the moral courage to state on April 30 that the facility would be rolled out, but not until May 9, 2009, one week late.

When the government rolled it out on May 9, the minister announced that the government would purchase up to $12 billion in asset-backed securities backed by loans on vehicles and equipment. This is important to Liberals and to many Canadians because our car dealers need credit to sell their vehicles and consumers need credit to purchase or lease vehicles.

I would simply like to ask the parliamentary secretary how much of the $12 billion that the government said it would purchase in asset-backed securities backed by loans on vehicles and equipment has actually been spent.

[Government Advertising, October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the government is refusing to give exact numbers. Is that because it does not have them, or because it is hiding something?

Yesterday, the president of the Canadian Medical Association asked this government for an advertising campaign to explain how Canadians can protect themselves from the H1N1 virus.

Instead of spending millions of dollars to win votes with their partisan advertising campaign, can this government spend that money on the well-being, health and lives of Canadians?

[Government Advertising, October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have asked the Conservative government repeatedly how much taxpayer money it has spent for its own self-promoting political advertising, but there are still no numbers and still no answers.

My question for the Prime Minister is quite simple today. How much money has the government spent promoting itself to get more votes instead of spending it on H1N1 prevention to save Canadian lives? Was it $60 million, $80 million, $100 million? How much was it?

[October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what stands out very clearly is that the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of his government, did not deny that over 61% of the money in the enabling accessibility fund went to Conservative ridings. He did not come back with any statistics to show that 61% of disabled Canadians live in those Conservative ridings. He did not at all counter that. That is looking at the whole picture. That is looking at whether or not the projects went to those people and communities that need it or whether the first criteria was whether or not it was a Conservative riding.

Second, when one looks at the action plan, there again the government has overwhelmingly approved projects in Conservative ridings. The statistics have been made public. The government has not been able to counter those statistics so it makes personal attacks.

[October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your French. It is getting better by the week. I know that you are working hard at it.

On April 29. I asked questions of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development about the enabling accessibility fund. This was a $45 million, three year commitment to expand opportunities for people with disabilities. The fund was to support community based projects across Canada that improve accessibility, reduce barriers and enable Canadians, regardless of physical ability, to participate in and contribute to their community and the economy.

The approved projects were to have strong ties to their communities and to support their communities. A bit of investigation by the Liberal critic for human resources and skills development, who represents the riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour in Nova Scotia, revealed that the overwhelming majority of the funds went to Conservative ridings.

I think most Canadians would be astonished to learn that the overwhelming majority of disabled Canadians appear to live only in Conservative ridings. This appears to be a pattern with the Conservative government. It sees contribution programs, which are there to help all Canadians or certain segments of the Canadian population, in this case the disabled, as reward programs for members of that government, members of the Conservative Party.

In fact, when we looked into it we noted that overall a total of 61% of the approved projects were in Conservative ridings and only 10% of the total number of projects went to Quebec overall. Four projects were approved in the riding of the government House leader, four projects were approved in the riding of the Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification) and three projects were approved in the riding of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development herself. There were $15 million of the $39 million, which were approved, that went to the riding of the Minister of Finance.

I would like the government to explain how it is that the approvals of applications appeared to have been overwhelmingly slanted to Conservative ridings. It appears to be, as I said, an overall trend of the Conservative government to be using and spending public money as if it is a rebate rewards program for the ridings that have elected Conservative MPs.

When the Liberal critic for infrastructure looked into what happened with the infrastructure projects, it found that the overwhelming majority went to Conservative ridings, not opposition ridings, notwithstanding that money was supposed to go to ridings that have clear needs in terms of infrastructure.

When one looks at a whole series of contribution programs, it appears the Conservative government thinks that public money is a rebate rewards program for those ridings that are held by Conservatives. It is shameful.

[Afghanistan, October 5th, 2009]

There has only been one previous commissioner.

[Afghanistan, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this government is trying to crush the life out of the Military Police Complaints Commission by indicating that it will not renew Peter Tinsley's mandate as chair. The government knows full well that having an independent commission guarantees the credibility of our military men and women.

Why does the government want to stop this investigation into allegations of bungled investigations by the military police? Why is it compromising the credibility of our armed forces?

[Afghanistan, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Military Police Complaints Commission is conducting an investigation into allegations that the Canadian military police knowingly sent Afghan prisoners to be tortured.

Why did the government order all its employees to refuse to testify under oath before the commission? Why is this Conservative government trying to muzzle our diplomat Richard Colvin?