Marlene Jennings

[Privilege, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for coming back to the chair in order to take my question of privilege.

On Monday, February 1 at 10:59 a.m., I received on my House of Commons BlackBerry an email from the member of Parliament for Ahuntsic. This email, from the list of names to whom it was also sent, appears to have been sent to all members of this House.

When I perused the articles and images contained in the email from the Bloc Québécois member of Parliament for Ahuntsic, it immediately became clear to me that it contained text and images supporting and glorifying three organizations that the federal government has deemed to be terrorist organizations.

That is not all. Several of the text and the images contained in this email can only be characterized as hate propaganda against a religious group; that is to say, they incited hate against Jews.

I am proud to have been part of a government that amended Canada's Criminal Code to include the criminal offences of hate crime and to provide a legislative framework with a clear, objective criterion for determining whether an entity is a terrorist organization and thus be listed as such with all of the legal ramifications that follow.

However, even more to the point, it is a privilege to be elected to this House of Commons, which is a point I made today in my Standing Order 31 statement. In my view and, I believe, in the view of all members of this House of Commons and reflected in our standing orders, is that part of the privileges that ensue from being elected to the House is that we are each allotted moneys through a member's operating budget and equipment that we are allowed to use in fulfilling each of our parliamentary duties and privileges.

We have a Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament. We also have the standing orders that explain and determine how these resources can be used. However, beyond that, we each have an ethical and a moral duty, beyond any requirement under our Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament, beyond but including our standing orders, to use the resources, material and human, provided to us as members of Parliament through the House of Commons and which are paid for from the public purse, wisely, prudently, legally and in full respect of our laws and the rules of the House of Commons.

The content of the email from the member of Parliament for Ahuntsic can only expose and did expose myself, other members of this House, communities within my riding and communities in the ridings of other members of Parliament to anti-Semitic propaganda. They were an incitement to hate and, in my view, constitute a clear misuse of the resources of the House of Commons.

It was not even sent to my House of Commons email. It was sent to the BlackBerry, which is the personal email address of each member of Parliament which normally is given to us precisely so that we can screen out and ensure that we only receive emails from certain individuals and certain organizations, and it is not widely publicized. It is only publicized to other members of Parliament as a matter of course through the whips' offices and then each member of Parliament can determine to whom else they will allow access to the BlackBerry email address.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to actually view and peruse the email that was sent from the member of Parliament for Ahuntsic. I believe it will become clear to you that there is an incitement to hate against Jews, clear anti-Semitic statements and images that are contained in that email, and that there is a glorification of three organizations that have been deemed to be terrorist organizations by the federal government under our duly adopted and constituted laws.

I believe that it was a clear misuse by the member for Ahuntsic to have used parliamentary equipment and parliamentary services, i.e. our intraparliamentary Internet service, in order to disseminate this information.

The member apparently has stated that she had not viewed all of the images. Given that we do not pay for this equipment or the services and that it is paid from the public purse, I do not know how she was raised, but I was raised by my parents to take care of whatever was given me. If it belongs to someone else and I am using it through the good graces of someone else, in this case the public, it is a privilege that is given to each and every one of us as a member of Parliament to have access to a member's operating budget, to have access to all of the services provided to us, including Internet services and intraparliamentary Internet services through the House of Commons, then I have an added duty to ensure that I do not intentionally or unintentionally expose members of the House to incitement to hate, to anti-Semitic comments, statements and images, and statements and images that glorify terrorist organizations that are all dedicated to the eradication of a certain population, the Jewish population.

If the member did not do so intentionally, then she was derelict in her duty because when using parliamentary services and resources she must ensure that anything that she sends out is not contrary to our laws, is not contrary to our morals and is not contrary to the privileges of every other member in the House.

I have not heard an apology from her because the statement she sent the following day was not an apology. Nowhere in that statement did I see the words “I apologize for not having carried out my duties, to ensure that I did not expose my colleagues to hate and to the glorification of terrorist organizations, and that I used parliamentary resources in order to do so”.

Everyone who was sitting in the House when I made my statement about Black History Month now knows why I take that kind of hate propaganda and that kind of incitement to hate seriously. I find it repugnant that a member of the House would misuse services, which are paid through the public purse and which are a privilege to each and every one of us, to expose other members and other Canadians to that kind of hate propaganda and incitement to hate.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will rule that it was a misuse of parliamentary services and it did indeed constitute a violation of my privilege as a member of Parliament and as a Canadian.

[Petitions, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition in favour of Bill C-545, An Act to amend the Textile Labelling Act. This bill is identical to Bill C-271, a new bill that I introduced in the House last week. It would require labels on clothing to include a reference number that consumers could use to identify the name and address of the factory where an item of clothing was produced. This bill has the support of the Ethical Trading Action Group and Amnesty International.

I would also like to congratulate Samuel Bergeron, a young man from Nicolet, Quebec, who took the initiative to circulate this petition and collect more than 500 signatures for a cause that he believes in. Young people like Samuel, whose conviction is catching, give me hope for the future.

[Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, February 4th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-285, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to facilitate the lawful interception of information transmitted by means of those facilities and respecting the provision of telecommunications subscriber information.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud to present this bill again in the House. You have already mentioned the title of the bill, but it is also commonly known as the modernization of investigative techniques act, or MITA.

The modernization of investigative techniques act, MITA, would ensure that the law enforcement community in Canada and our Canadian Security Intelligence Service would maintain an ability to investigate crime and terrorism in the face of rapidly evolving communications technology. The bill would reduce the ability of criminals, organized crime members and child pornographers to use sophisticated technologies to carry out their activities undetected. Under MITA, telephone and Internet service providers would be required to include an interception capability in new technology.

The bill is about ensuring that Canadians and their communities are safe. Police and CSIS need to have the tools necessary to intercept, legally, new communication technologies. If adopted, this legislation will ensure that criminals can no longer take advantage of new technologies to hide their illegal activities from the law.

I hope that the bill will receive the support of my colleagues on both sides of the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Black History Month, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, February is a special month for me. Black History Month allows us to celebrate Canada's accomplishments and recognize the remaining challenges.

I was 16 years old when Hon. Lincoln Alexander became the very first black Canadian elected to the House.

I am grateful, beyond measure, that my own daughter witnessed my election in 1997 as the first ever black Quebec MP and that she, at 16, also witnessed the election of the very first black President of the United States.

We still have a long way to go. Right now I am the only black MP sitting in the House. However, it is the capacity of democracies like Canada's to effect fundamental change based upon the belief in equality that brought me to this chamber and my daughter to a world where she, and not the colour of her skin, will choose her future.

[Equalization Payments, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservative government is showing its inability to properly manage our federation. Not too long ago, the Minister of Finance, who is sitting over there, announced that the days of bickering between federal and provincial governments were over. He should go and tell that to Quebec's Premier Jean Charest, who is upset with this Prime Minister for reneging on the promise made to Quebeckers.

Why does the government view reneging on promises as the best way to manage our country and this federation?

[Equalization Payments, February 2nd, 2009]

Shame on the Conservative government, Mr. Speaker, for changing the equalization formula without any consultations. The government's decision totally ignores the principles of accountability and transparency. The Prime Minister has challenged a majority of Quebeckers with this kind of attitude.

Need I remind the right hon. Prime Minister that he is the head of a federation, not a republic?

[Mathieu Da Costa Day Act, January 29th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-272, An Act to establish Mathieu Da Costa Day.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me, as a Canadian and a Quebecker of African descent, to introduce this bill, which would make every first Monday of February Mathieu Da Costa Day. For those of my House colleagues who may not have heard of him, Mathieu Da Costa was an interpreter. He is credited with being the first black man in Canada and was likely an important player in European exploration of the continent. Da Costa is believed to have worked alongside both Pierre du Gua de Monts, a leader in the establishment of French settlements in eastern Canada, and Samuel de Champlain, who selected the site for the settlement that later became Quebec City. As we all know, Quebec City is celebrating a major milestone: its 400th anniversary.

I hope that I can count on my colleagues' support in passing this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Textile Labelling Act, January 29th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, An Act to amend the Textile Labelling Act.

Mr. Speaker, my bill would require labels on clothing to include a reference number that consumers could use to identify the name and address of the factory where an item of clothing was produced. This measure has been highly recommended by a number of advocacy groups, including the Ethical Trading Action Group and Amnesty International.

If the bill passes, Canadians would have access to even more information when making their purchases.

For those of us who believe that under no circumstances should we benefit from the exploitation of workers in poor countries, knowing exactly where a piece of clothing was produced will allow us to vote with our feet by refusing to buy clothing made in factories where conditions are unacceptable.

According to Amnesty International and the Ethical Trading Action Group, if the public knows exactly where products are being manufactured, businesses will then have to self-regulate for fear that civil society will use this new tool to publicize the names of the companies responsible for unfair employment practices.

I hope the House will i support this private member's bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustement Act, January 29th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the electoral district of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine—Dorval. I have introduced this bill in each new parliamentary session since 2004, when Dorval was added to my riding, but the Electoral Boundaries Commission has refused to add the word “Dorval” despite the municipality's request and despite petitions from voters in the entire riding. This is the fourth or fifth time I have introduced this bill. I am doing this at the request of a large number of my constituents from Dorval as well as Lachine, Montreal West and NDG who are asking that Dorval be added.

I hope that all members will support this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 29th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (victim — trafficking in persons).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend section 24 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by adding subsection (3).

It is important to underscore one aspect of this subsection. With this amendment, an immigration officer would no longer be able to take into account the possible participation of a victim of trafficking in persons in a criminal investigation or proceedings in respect of that criminal offence.

I will explain why I am proposing this. Currently under the legislation, when a person is a victim of human trafficking, the immigration officer takes into account whether the alleged victim will collaborate or not in a criminal investigation into the criminal offence. The problem, however, is that many of these victims are so traumatized that often they do not have the physical, psychological or mental ability to participate in an investigation or possible criminal proceedings.

I hope this bill will enjoy the support of my colleagues. I may say that those organizations, NGOs in Canada that work on this issue, are very supportive of this amendment.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)