Marlene Jennings

[Criminal Code, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member who presented Bill C-277 for not rising to the attempts of his colleague to bring partisanship into the debate on the bill. His bill received support from all parties and members on the justice committee.

The reason why Bill C-277 received that support was because the bill was based on fact, on science and on evidence. The member was able to show all of that before the committee. The bill was not based on fearmongering. The bill did not risk bringing into disrepute or even worse, in some cases, destroying a very strong tenet of our criminal justice system. Therefore, I appreciate the response the member just gave to his colleague.

I will simply repeat that, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, the caucus, we will support Bill C-277, as we did in committee and as we did in the House to send it to committee.

We had concerns about one aspect of it. That was corrected in committee, with the agreement of all members of the committee. I commend the member for bringing Bill C-277 before the House.

[Criminal Code, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on bringing forward the bill. As he knows from his appearance before the justice committee, there was pretty much a consensus, if not unanimity, on the part of the members of the justice committee concerning the issues his bill addressed. There was concern about the summary conviction and the committee dealt with that.

Why was it only this one specific issue rather than a range? As we know, many other offences fall into similar categories and his bill does not address them. However, the member knows the Liberals supported the bill in committee and we will support it now.

[Afghanistan, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we should believe him when he has already misled the House and has had to apologize for it.

He has misled us once again with regard to the Afghans. Last week he stated that his department was not attempting to interfere in the investigation into the condition of detainees. However, a letter confirms that DND is actively attempting to block the Military Police Complaints Commission.

When will the minister own up to his political interference?

[Afghanistan, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives used the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission as a shield, claiming to have funded it when in fact they have paid it nothing. The director of the commission in the Kandahar region says he cannot monitor all the prisoners and that torture and abuse are rife in Afghan prisons.

The defence minister is either grossly incompetent or he callously disregards human rights. He is not fit to run the Canadian armed forces.

When will the Prime Minister start supporting our troops, do us all a favour and fire the defence minister?

[Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, March 23rd, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-416, 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, it is quite an honour for me to table this bill, 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.

The bill, called modernization of investigative techniques act, or MITA, is intended to ensure that telecommunication service providers build and maintain an interception capability on their networks that allows for the lawful interception of communications by our law enforcement agencies, like the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but also our national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, our provincial and municipal police.

Similar legislation is already in place in many countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom—

[Afghanistan, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Conservative government claimed it was funding the Afghan Human Rights Commission to monitor detainees. Again, that claim is completely false.

The only Canadian money that commission has ever received is $1 million from the Canadian and Liberal government five years ago. The Conservative government has not given the commission a penny.

Will the defence minister do our troops and Canadians a favour and resign?

[Afghanistan, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's incompetence is astounding. Yesterday, he affirmed that Canadian troops and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission were going to supervise detainees in prisons. Yet, the United Nations Secretary-General said, and I quote:

Access remains a problem for the commission.

The minister still does not know all the facts and continues to speak nonsense. When will he resign?

[Afghanistan, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has already had to admit that he misled the House on Afghan detainees and now it appears he has done it again.

This week he claimed his department was not trying to block any inquiry into the treatment of detainees, but a March 13 letter from the Judge Advocate General says just the opposite. It confirms that national defence is actively trying to block the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The minister is obviously incapable of handling his duties or even knowing what they are. When will he resign?

[March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing to listen to that member justify the use of taxpayers' money in the way that the minister used it.

I also find it interesting. Is the member prepared to justify the use of taxpayers' money and the possible misuse of parliamentary budget money by her own party and government in order to pay off a member of Parliament to resign his seat in order to make way for the member of Parliament who is now the Minister of Public Safety? Is she prepared to justify that? Is that ethical behaviour? I would like to know.

Is it ethical behaviour on the part of her own leader, who is the Prime Minister, to make scurrilous accusations in the House about Maher Arar in 2002, which are in Hansard, and then deny--

[March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 2007, during question period, I asked the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question.

This was my question.

Mr. Speaker, that is not all. To arrive in style at a county fair last September, the very same minister rented yet another limo, spending $862 so she could take in the sights for four hours.

The minister spent more on one four hour limo ride than her Conservative government gives to parents in one year. How does she justify that?

My ears were shocked to hear the minister's response. The minister's response was:

Mr. Speaker, where I live and where I travel there is often very limited access to public transit. Where I live there is no public transit.

No one is asking the minister to travel by public transit.

The minister, who is now the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, was the minister of human resources and social development when she tabled and spent all that money.

I will give a couple of examples of the expenses of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: $2,496.98 at the Pan Pacific Vancouver Hotel for the minister, at $720 a night, and for her Conservative staffer, $285 a night, to attend the World Urban Forum which was held from June 18 to 20, 2006. Then she cost the taxpayers $805 for Canada Limousine Incorporated in Kitchener and gave a $105 tip on April 20, 2006. That is really nice.

I am sure a lot of Canadians would like to keep the so-called $100 per child under age six entirely in their pockets, but as they are doing their 2006 income tax reports, as we speak, they are finding out that the new government and the Prime Minister has pulled the wool over their eyes. The now know that the $100 child allowance per child under six years old is taxable and, guess what, the families that earn the least income get to keep the least of that $100.

However, the minister did not stop there. On the same day, April 20, 2006, her staffer rented a car from Budget car rental for $39 a day. Why could her staffer, at $39 for the entire day, not have driven the minister, instead of costing the taxpayers $805 so that she could have a uniformed chauffeur driving her in a limousine?

On March 19, 2006, there is $345 for Canada Limousine in London, Ontario--