Marlene Jennings

[Criminal Code, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thought my Conservative colleague's speech was very interesting. However, I would like to ask him some questions.

He mentioned and emphasized that there are cases where an impaired driver of a vehicle involved in an accident causing death or injury is not charged under the Criminal Code for having caused death while operating a vehicle.

Are there studies showing the prevalence of this situation where the individual is not charged with an offence requiring a minimum sentence, including life imprisonment?

Are there studies to that effect? If yes, why do attorneys decide to proceed with charges of impaired driving and not of causing death or injury while operating a vehicle?

[Justice, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Québec publicly stated that he was concerned about the fact that the arm's length status of screening committees could be changed.

Will the minister take into consideration the criticisms of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Québec, and of judges and lawyers across the country? Will he stop appointing to judicial advisory committees only those people who are affiliated with the Conservative ideology?

[Quebec Bridge, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government has got everything wrong. That is particularly true for the Minister of Transport.

Last December 19, in a speech given in Quebec City, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, “It's not surprising when the Minister of Transport cannot even have a bridge painted”.

Now, almost a year later, the current Conservative minister has had the brush in his hand for a year but seems to have forgotten to dip it into the paint, unless he has secretly decided to go with rust-coloured polka dots.

[The Environment, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government ordered the evaluation of 23,000 toxic substances and created a legislative framework to eliminate toxic substances once the report was completed. We did all the work. All that remained was to act, but once again, this Conservative minority government found a way to put it all off till kingdom come.

The Conservatives prefer to preach at everyone rather than do what the scientists have asked them to do. Why?

[The Environment, December 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of the Environment will listen to this. In an open letter, 700 Canadian scientists urged the government to include mandatory targets in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Since neither the government nor the minister wants to do anything, will they at least let the committee rewrite the act to include what the 700 Canadian scientists are asking for?

[RCMP Commissioner, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, here is what former RCMP legal counsel Alain-Robert Nadeau said:

Personally, I can see only two alternatives that would restore the confidence of Canadians: a royal commission of inquiry into the operations of the RCMP or, more simply, the minister's resignation. Such is the price of our freedom.

I would like to know what the minister thinks of Mr. Nadeau's advice?

[RCMP Commissioner, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister and that parliamentary secretary can keep saying ”the dog ate my homework”, but it is now painfully evident that the minister knew that Canadians were being misled and did nothing about it. The minister is desperately trying to change the subject by saying that “anything I could have done would have been called political interference”. This is nonsense.

Canadians want to know why, when there was evidence they were being deceived, the minister did absolutely nothing to get them the correct information. Why did he aid and abet this deception?

[RCMP Commissioner, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are very clear, and they were clear long before last Monday.

There were two letters indicating that Commissioner Zaccardelli was about to change his testimony. One was even addressed to the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. The minister's officials knew that the commissioner was going to change his testimony. In addition, Commissioner Zaccardelli says he told the minister himself directly.

Why, then, is the minister continuing to maintain that he knew nothing? How can he continue to deny the truth?

[Points of Order, December 7th, 2006]

I will. It is in Hansard.

I would refer the Speaker to Hansard of November 19, 2002 and the then member of the official opposition, who is now the Minister of Public Safety, in which he specifically refers to “answer concerning Maher Arar and his possible terrorist ties”, and it goes on. The quotation that I gave is accurate. It comes from Hansard.

I also made reference to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and I will refer the House to Hansard of November 18, 2002, in which the member, now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, states, “Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government.” She is referring to the Canadian government and says, “It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the United States had to clue it in”. The member, now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, went on, but I would refer Mr. Speaker to Hansard of November 18, 2002.

I also made reference to the present Prime Minister having equally called Mr. Arar a terrorist or having made reference to Mr. Arar having possible terrorist links. I wish to inform the House of where the reference comes from. I refer the Speaker to Hansard of November 18, 2002, in which the present Prime Minister, who I believe was then the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I could be wrong, or of some party, said:

Mr. Speaker, the government's right hand does not know what its left hand is doing when it comes to national security.

The foreign affairs minister said for two months that the United States had offered no justification or information for the deportation of Maher Arar. Yet we now know that the RCMP knew of [Mr.] Arar's activities. They questioned him nearly a year ago and they were notified weeks ago by the RCMP of its information.

My question is, when did the minister know of the RCMP's holding of information on this matter?

The present Prime Minister also stated on the same day, November 18, 2002, that:

--he said he did not know. It would be nice if there were somebody here to actually answer a question on this.

While the minister participated in high level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist, it apparently took a trip by the U.S. Secretary of State for the minister to admit what he really knew.

The present Prime Minister made that statement in reference to Mr. Arar as a “suspected terrorist” on November 18, 2002.

When I asked my questions, my questions came from the official transcript, Hansard, wherein the now Minister of Public Security, the now Prime Minister and the now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance referred to Mr. Arar back in November 2002 as either a suspected terrorist or an individual having links with possible terrorists and, at that point, accused and denounced our government for, in their own words, trying to secure the liberation and freedom of a “suspected terrorist”.

When I ask these questions and the Minister of Public Security, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and just about every Conservative there laughs and makes jokes, and when we are talking about a Canadian citizen who was tortured, possibly as a result of their own statements in this House in 2002, it is appalling and it is a question of privilege.

[Points of Order, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during oral question period, I asked the Minister of Public Safety two questions in which I referred to some comments he made in 2002 regarding Mr. Arar.

In light of the admonition you have just given, indicating that members must ensure beforehand—before asking a question—that they are accurate in how they present the facts, I would like to read to the House the quotation I attributed to the Minister of Public Safety, and emphasize that this quotation is from November 19, 2002, and is definitely accurate.