Marlene Jennings

[Mathieu Da Costa Day Act, February 6th, 2008]

asked for leave to introduce Bill C-501, An Act to establish Mathieu Da Costa Day.

She said: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian of African descent from Quebec, it is an honour for me to introduce this bill which would designate the first Monday in February in each and every year as Mathieu Da Costa Day.

An interpreter, Mathieu Da Costa 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.

Given this is the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City, it is my hope that my colleagues in the House will support my efforts at having Da Costa's contributions to our country's history recognized.

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

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government recently used the Special Economic Measures Act. This is an act of cabinet. The act was invoked against Burma.

There are other tools the government has at its disposition, whether with regard to Sudan, Iran or, for instance, Burma. Let me list some of them, if I may.

The Canadian government can invoke the United Nations act to issue all orders and regulations necessary to limit or curtail trade, financial transactions, air links or any other ties between Canada and a targeted country. Canada should actively be lobbying the members of the UN Security Council to adopt the third round of sanctions against Iran.

Canada also has imposed, as was mentioned, sanctions in cases where such actions were not authorized by the UN Security Council. We championed the need for sanctions against South Africa, as I mentioned earlier, and Haiti, once there was an international consensus on the need for such measures. We did not wait for the Security Council to come to an agreement on it. If there was an international consensus and as a country we helped build that consensus, we acted on it. Canada should be doing that right now.

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in the debate on my colleague's motion. It is unfortunate that he did not have enough time to give all of his speech.

His motion calls for Canada to take the lead, to become a real voice against crimes against humanity, against the genocide that is taking place in Sudan as I am speaking right now, as he was just speaking, and the potential genocide that the president of Iran is calling for against Jews, against Israel and possibly against anyone who does not share his point of view with the nuclear armaments and nuclear capacity he is building up.

I am not going to repeat what my colleague whose motion I am now discussing has already stated, but I would like to give a couple of facts. In Sudan why should Canada divest?

On January 7, only a week after the UN African Union hybrid peacekeeping force began operations in Darfur, the Sudanese government fired on a clearly marked UN supply convoy.

On January 21, the Sudanese government confirmed that Musa Hilal, leader of the Janjaweed militia, was named adviser to Sudan's ministry of federal affairs. I want to quote Rick Dicker of Human Rights Watch, who said, “Musa Hilal is the poster child for Janjaweed atrocities in Darfur”. He said that naming him to a senior government position is a new “slap in the face to Darfur victims and to the UN Security Council”. The UN Security Council imposed travel and financial sanctions against Hilal in April 2006.

Over the weekend of January 12, not even a month ago, a Sudanese government Antonov aircraft bombed two villages in west Darfur killing at least three civilians. Twenty-two World Food Program vehicles have been attacked and stolen during the month of January alone, threatening to cut food rations for more than two million people in Darfur.

The first genocide that China helped to underwrite was Pol Pot's in Cambodia. The second now is in Darfur, Sudan. Chinese oil purchases have financed Sudan's pillage of Darfur. Chinese made AK-47s have been the main weapons used to slaughter several hundred thousands of people in Darfur so far and China has protected the Sudan in the United Nations Security Council. It is because of China's support that Sudan felt it could get away this month with sending a proxy army to invade neighbouring Chad.

Some 60% of Sudan's oils flow to China. Beijing has a close economic and even military relationship with Khartoum. Women and children are being torn apart by bullets that come from China. It is happening in Darfur and now it is happening in Chad. China bears a responsibility in fostering the murderous regime in Darfur which is committing genocide and creating instability in that region.

Now let us go to the Arab League. They met last month in Sudan. By meeting there they legitimized the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Muslims in Sudan. Fatema Abdul Rasul in The Daily Star of Lebanon wrote this month, “For the entire Muslim and Arab world to remain silent when thousands of people in Darfur continue to be killed is shameful and hypocritical”.

Let us go to Russia. There were photographs released last August which showed Sudanese soldiers in the Darfur region moving containers from a Russian made Antonov cargo plane onto military trucks.

According to Amnesty International, these findings reinforce the suspicions that Sudan continues to violate a UN imposed arms embargo. The photographs also showed Russian supplied Mi-7 and Mi-24 military helicopters in the town of Geneina in Darfur.

On Iran, one simply has to listen to a few quotes from the President of Iran inciting genocide against Jews across the world and inciting genocide against any people who support the state of Israel, including Muslims, and refusing to abide by UN resolutions, accords and protocols regarding nuclear armament.

How would divestment be an effective tool in Iran and Sudan? If Canada plays the leader and divests from Sudan, that would reduce state revenue that is being used currently to sponsor Sudanese military and Janjaweed militia aggression in Darfur. Currently, 70% of Sudan's oil reserves are used to give arms and supplies to the Arab militias engaged in violence, in genocide in Darfur.

Moreover, in Iran, companies have invested in Iran's oil and natural gas sector and account for 80% of the country's hard currency. That currency is the currency that Iran needs to fund its nuclear weapons pursuit and to support terrorism.

I think Canada has a role to play. We played that role when we divested from South Africa. I have to say it was a proud moment for me as a Canadian. Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, before people started talking about divestment and abolishing apartheid, I was participating in demonstrations, as were some of my other colleagues on this side of the House. Most Canadians could not even find South Africa on the map and did not know what apartheid meant.

Canada stood up. Canada was a leader. Canada needs to stand up again. It needs to stand up as a leader and divest from Sudan. It needs to stand up as a leader and divest from Iran. Both. One for committing genocide as I speak, the other one for inciting genocide and for creating nuclear weapons which it is threatening very--

[Government Boards, Agencies and Commissions, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that this government has no respect for scientists. The Conservatives offhandedly dismissed the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They then muzzled scientists at Environment Canada and, most recently, they just forced the National Science Advisor into retirement.

When scientists do their job correctly, based on science, they end up getting fired by the Conservatives. Who will be next?

[Death Penalty, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite moved, as I imagine all hon. members in this House were, to hear our hon. colleague from the NDP share with us some very difficult moments of his life. I want to thank him very much for sharing his life experience with us.

Many people have spoken on the issue of the death penalty and whether the state itself should engage in the practice of killing people. I would like to use my time to put before the House and anyone listening the words of others who can speak much better than I can on the issue of the death penalty.

However, I would like to say that I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty. I believe that Canada and the Conservative government must reinstate the policy of seeking clemency on humanitarian grounds for Canadians who have been sentenced to execution, capital punishment, in jurisdictions outside of Canada. I also support the proposition that Canada should continue its leadership role in promoting the abolition of the death penalty internationally.

I would like to read some quotes for members. The first is as follows:

I want to say to the House, without reservation and without qualification that I do not support the motion to reinstate.

I will be voting against capital punishment on moral and logical grounds. I believe that it is wrong.

I am not persuaded the death penalty works as a deterrent. Nor am I persuaded it is appropriate as a punishment. On the contrary, I believe it is repugnant, and...I believe it is profoundly unacceptable. It is wrong to take life, and I can think of no circumstance excepting self-defence to justify it.

The effect of this resolution, if enacted...would be to confer upon the state the ultimate power, that of executioner. Moreover, if this motion were carried, the state, in the exercise of that responsibility, could indeed put to death an innocent man or an innocent woman.

...before all else, we uphold one simple principle: the inherent dignity of a human being, the inherent worth of a human life. I will resist with all of my strength, all of my life, any action that would diminish that reality and would lessen that value.

Those words were spoken in the House on June 22, 1987, by the then prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.

That is not all. Martin Luther King stated, “The death sentence is a barbaric act”. Mahatma Gandhi said, “The old law of an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”.

Coretta Scott King, the wife of Martin Luther King Jr., stated:

As one whose husband and mother-in-law have both died the victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offences. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by legalized murder.

John Diefenbaker, on April 4, 1966, stated:

From my experience at the bar I say that anyone who says an innocent man cannot go to the gallows is wrong, because I know differently. It is a frightful thing when a man you believe to be innocent and whose attitude is, Don't worry about me, God will not allow it, walks to the gallows and months later the truth comes out.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau stated:

I do not deny that society has the right to punish a criminal, and the right to make the punishment fit the crime, but to kill a man for punishment alone is an act of revenge--nothing else. Some would prefer to call it retribution because that word has a nicer sound. But the meaning is the same.

Are we, as a society, so lacking in respect for ourselves, so lacking in hope for human betterment, so socially bankrupt that we are ready to accept state vengeance as our penal philosophy?

...my primary concern here is not compassion for the murderer. My concern is for the society which adopts vengeance as an acceptable motive for its collective behaviour. If we make that choice, we will snuff out some of that boundless hope and confidence in ourselves and other people which has marked our maturing as a free people.

That is not all. The current leader of the official opposition said:

The Conservative government is not representing the views of the majority of Canadians nor is it respecting long-standing Canadian law and policy on the issue, and I believe it is my responsibility to make those views known and to uphold the law.

By refusing to seek the commutation of the death sentence of Canadian citizens on death row in other countries, and by reneging on Canada's decision to co-sponsor the UN resolution opposing the use of the death penalty, the Conservative government has changed Canada's policy by stealth.

I am opposed to the death penalty. I believe that the use of the death penalty undermines the human dignity of not only the individual who is killed, but of all involved in the process. I believe that the evidence supports the position that the death penalty has little to no value as a deterrent of crime. I can think of no acceptable justification for the taking of a life by the state. While there is obviously a strong argument for opposing the death penalty due to the risk of the state killing an innocent individual, I believe that it represents an injustice even when it falls on someone who is unquestionably guilty of crime.

The fact that this government doesn't even want to try [asking for clemency] shows me what this government would try doing to Canada if it had a majority. We could see the return of the capital punishment debate in Canada.

This government continues to show a complete lack of respect for Parliament. If they want to change the policy on the death penalty, they should debate the issue in the House, and let Canadians see the real face of this government once and for all.

There are sitting members in this House on the government side who have made statements in support of capital punishment, in support of reinstating the government, the state, executing Canadians. The Minister of Public Safety has made those statements. I have the quotes here.

The Minister of Justice has made those statements. Not only that, but when he was a member of Parliament in the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney and the vote took place in 1987 on a motion to reinstate capital punishment in Canada to have the Canadian state resume executing Canadians, that member, the Minister of Justice, voted in favour of the motion.

The Minister of Labour was a member of Parliament in 1987 with the Progressive Conservative government under the then prime minister, the right hon. Brian Mulroney. That member, who is now the Minister of Labour, voted in favour of the motion.

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice rises here to speak to this motion and states that the government has absolutely no intention of reinstating the death penalty, he is giving bafflegab to this House and to Canadians. He knows full well that the Minister of Justice already voted in favour of the reinstatement of the death penalty. He already knows that his government has changed the policy and is now going to cherry-pick which Canadians for whom, as a government, they will seek clemency when a Canadian is under a death penalty in another country. They will cherry-pick and they will decide. If they do not like someone's face, they will not ask for clemency. If they like someone's face, they will ask for clemency. Who knows what criteria the government will use to determine. How easy will it be once Canadians get used to having Canadians executed in other countries to then bring the death penalty back into Canada?

I am opposed to the reinstatement of the death penalty. I want my government to be an active--

[Death Penalty, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to ask a question of my colleague whose motion is being debated in this House.

I would like to ask why did you table this motion for debate in the House?

[Youth, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I would like to offer our deepest condolences to the family of Kaydance and Santana Pauchay and to the community of Yellow Quill reservation in Saskatchewan.

I now would like to share the wonderful story of young Jessie Krejcik from NDG. On February 9 and 10, she will attempt to become the youngest person to earn the Coureur des Bois Gold Bar in the Canadian ski marathon.

Young Jessie, who is 13 years old, will cross-country ski 160 kilometres in two days, while carrying a back pack weighing at least five kg and camping outside overnight on February 9.

The individual effort required to complete in such a race is remarkable and that she is doing it to raise money for children's cancer treatment and research is truly commendable.

I am proud to support Jessie's campaign and call on my fellow parliamentarians and all Canadians to make a donation in Jessie's name to a children's hospital of their choice.

[Privilege, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism in the same statement where he impugned the integrity of two Liberal members here also made mention of the justice critic.

When he referred to the justice critic, was he referring to me because I held that position right up until Wednesday of last week? I can assure this House and all Canadians that I have never disagreed with the decision of the current government not to participate in Durban II.

I have been a vocal critic of Durban I, precisely because of the racism that took place there. I am a former chair of the Canada-Israel parliamentary committee. I am a former vice--

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2008]

With regards to the recent statement in the House by the Minister of Public Safety that the government will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law: (a) how many Canadians are in prisons abroad and in which specific countries and penitentiaries; (b) how many Canadians are currently subject to this reversal of government policy; (c) what does the government consider to constitute ''democracies'' that would meet this new condition for not appealing for the commutation of death sentences in democratic states; and (d) were these new directives communicated to officials in Canadian consulates abroad?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2008]

With regard to crime prevention initiatives: (a) how do the departments of Justice and Public Safety currently define “crime prevention initiatives”; (b) what are the specific eligibility requirements, admissibility conditions or criteria and evaluation criteria established for each program; (c) what was the process by which eligibility requirements were changed; (d) what was the total spending between January 1, 2006 and September 13, 2007, by the departments of Justice and Public Safety, on crime prevention initiatives, including previously existing programs and initiatives, new programs and initiatives, but excluding those programs which have been announced but not yet implemented; (e) what was (i) the number of applications for funding in each program, (ii) the number of applications deemed eligible, (iii) the number of applications approved for funding; (f) what was the percentage of amount requested, represented by the actual funding approval; (g) what was the median length of project life; (h) what was the number of applications approved for (i) 1-year funding, (ii) 2-year funding, (iii) 3-year funding, (iv) 4-year funding, (v) 5-year funding, (vi) 6-year funding, (vii) 7-year funding, (viii) 8-year funding, (ix) 9-year funding, (x) 10-year funding; and (i) what is the current projected annual cost of crime prevention programs and initiatives for the years 2007 and 2008?