Marlene Jennings

[Firearms Registry, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing nothing from the Prime Minister for several months, Hayder Kadhim decided to go on the road, and he has come to Ottawa today to meet with the Prime Minister.

Hayder first sent the Prime Minister a letter by mail: no reply.

He sent it by electronic mail: still no reply.

He sent his letter through the Minister of Public Safety: again no reply.

Has the Prime Minister no heart? Why are the victims of this tragedy still waiting for a reply from the Prime Minister?

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member across the floor for his comments. In my opinion, it is very important to underscore once again that the indépendantistes, the separatists, will vote in favour of this motion. However, they clearly did not hide the fact that they tried to shift the meaning of the word “nation”. Rather than forming a nation in the sociological sense of the word, Quebeckers would form a nation in the state sense of the word.

The hon. member agreed earlier, by shouting “yes” when I made this point. I think it is very important that we, as federalists from Quebec and federalists from elsewhere in Canada, do not allow the indépendantistes, the separatists, to create confusion in the minds of Quebeckers and other Canadians about the sociological sense of the word. They will claim that, if Quebeckers form a nation, they can no longer remain within the country called Canada. This is absolutely not at all the case.

I thank the hon. member for his comments.

[The Québécois, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the fact that I have to speak to this motion, but at the same time I wish to make it clear that I will be supporting the motion. I think that the motion was not necessary, the same as I felt that the resolution that was brought within my own party was unnecessary. However, the motion is before this House and as a Canadian and as a Québécoise, it is my duty to speak to it and to explain why I will be supporting it.

The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville expressed it better than I ever could when he explained the three definitions that can characterize the term “nation”. He said that when one looks in the dictionary, for instance, and when one researches documents from researchers and experts who have looked at the whole issue, three definitions come forth.

One is a definition of a group of humans who share a common ethnic origin. He gave the example of French Canadians. French Canadians within Canada form a nation. Primarily the majority of them are within the province of Quebec, but there are French Canadians outside Quebec. That is the ethnic definition of “nation”.

There is a second definition of “nation” which is that of a group of humans constituting a political unit within a defined geographical territory and personified by a sovereign authority.

As he very clearly explained, that is the definition of nation-state.

In fact, Canada falls under that. In the second definition of “nation”, that of a state, the only nation within the geographical territory of Canada that has a legal and judicial existence within international law is that of Canada and only Canada.

There is in fact a third definition of “nation” and that is the definition of nation in the sociological sense. That term refers to a group of humans who are characterized by their desire to live in common and a collective conscience.

The Québécois and Québécoises form that nation. Is it symbolic? Yes, it is. Is this motion symbolic? Yes, it is. Will the separatists attempt to use this motion, voted on and I hope adopted in the House this very evening, in order to fragment and divide Canada? Yes, they will. We just heard it from one of the Bloc members. They definitely will, in the same way that they used distinct society. The separatists have one goal and one goal only. That is to divide Canada, to create an independent country which may or may not have the name of Quebec, which is completely sovereign, which is recognized on the international scene. That is their sole goal. The Bloc and separatists have no desire, no wish whatsoever to work to ensure that the nation-state Canada remains united. They have no interest in that whatsoever.

The fears and preoccupation of some of my colleagues are well founded but my answer to these very same colleagues is that it is up to us, and me in particular as someone who identifies as being a Quebecker, a Québécoise, and who also identifies just as strongly with the Canadian nation and with my Canadian identity, to ensure that Canada remains united. It is up to us to ensure that the separatists' discourse has to make it clear that they wish to fragment our country and that the separatists have to justify why that should happen. It is up to them to justify it. Because Canada is a great country. It is a great nation-state and it is a nation-state within which we find other nations.

In my personal view, one of the most enriching characteristics of our country is the fact that we can belong to various nations within one nation. It allows us to do that and it does not in any way diminish our attachment for instance to the Québécois nation or to the Canadian nation in any way. That would be like saying to me and to many other Canadians, Quebeckers who live within Quebec, many French Canadians, that they have to choose. They will either be a member of a nation or they will have a certain gender. They will either have to choose between, in my case, being a woman who is of African descent, or a woman who is of aboriginal descent, or a woman who is of French descent, or a woman who is of Belgian descent.

I do not have to choose. All of those identities are found within me and they all make up who I am. I believe that they enrich my life in the same way that having a nation within Canada, and it is not the only one, but we are talking about the Québécois nation right now, enhances the Canadian nation and Canadian nation-state, but the Canadian nation and the Canadian nation-state enhance the Québécois nation.

Our duty is to ensure that the separatists are put on the hot seat to explain and justify why they would want to fragment Canada by removing the Québécois nation from Canada. It is up to them, not up to us.

I urge my colleagues in the House, those who have these preoccupations and worries, to vote in favour of this motion. I also wish to reassure Canadians from coast to coast that we federalists, whether we be francophone, anglophone or allophone, are committed to a united Canada that is in no way diminished by support for this motion.

I would simply like to say to Canadians who are listening to this debate that before they allow their anxiety to overtake them and before they sweep this motion away in a negative way, that they actually read, if possible, the speeches that have been given, in particular the speech given by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, who is the father of the clarity bill, the bill that ensured that neither Canada nor Quebec would ever again be subjected to a referendum with an unclear question, a question that tried to hoodwink the Québécois into thinking they were voting to remain in Canada but with a special status, when the objective of the separatists was to divide Canada and remove Quebec and Quebeckers from Canada. Never again can that happen. The clarity bill was the result of the courage and intellectual rigour of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

I urge members in the House to read the blues and read what the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville had to say on this motion and to support it this evening.

[The Economy, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, a past master in the art of creating deficits as Ontario's finance minister, should know that overvaluing profits is the best way to create a deficit.

By manipulating the numbers, the government is acting like a homeowner who has a $100,000 mortgage on a $200,000 home and claims to have no debt. That is ridiculous.

Did the Minister of Finance not learn his lesson after his Ontario disaster?

[The Economy, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, financial projections have always been prepared by private sector firms. This year, in an effort to fool Canadians, the Minister of Finance is touting his own projection, which is $2.5 billion higher than private firms' projections for the next two years.

Can the minister explain this huge difference? Does he not realize that by doing this, he is setting Canada up for a deficit situation?

[Government Programs, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, and now the Prime Minister himself, has the nerve to say that the transfers have increased. The increases he mentioned are those made by the previous Liberal government, such as the $41 billion increase in health transfers.

Does the Prime Minister realize that when he says that the transfers increased he is paying tribute to the previous Liberal government?

[Government Programs, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the prudent fiscal management of the previous Liberal government, the Prime Minister was able to make expensive promises to Quebec last December. Even though we have a surplus, he prefers to cut programs that help the most disadvantaged and to reduce federal support to the Government of Quebec.

Why is the Prime Minister withholding $800 million for day care and $300 million for the Kyoto protocol from Quebec?

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was quite interesting listening to the President of the Treasury Board talk about the number of hours the House of Commons legislative committee sat on Bill C-2 and the number of hours members of the Senate sat. Then he said he did not want to reproach them, but in effect he kind of did.

I have been a member of the House of Commons since June 1997. I have had the opportunity of sitting on at least one, if not more, legislative committees prior to this one. The experience I had under this legislative committee for Bill C-2 was literally horrendous.

I sat on a legislative committee that dealt with an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. The committee was allowed the time to fully hear witnesses. The committee was given the time to hear witnesses when they brought forth briefs. Sometimes those briefs literally contained hundreds of pages. They were very dense and dealt with very complex matters. We had the time to sit, to read and to study them and to go to committee prepared. It also allowed the parliamentary staff, our researchers and our clerks, to properly do their job. It meant that the quality of the work, which was done at the end of the day, made up for the time that was taken because the legislation was not flawed.

The legislative committee on Bill C-2 was literally forced by the majority held by the government, with the cooperation of the NDP. When votes were tied, the chair, who is a Conservative member, broke the tie and sided with the government. We were calling witnesses a maximum of 24 hours before the date of the committee hearing, asking them to provide a brief on a grave issue that required serious research and reflection. In some cases they were told they did not even have five minutes to explain their position. Witnesses were leaving the Bill C-2 legislative committee, some of them almost in tears, saying that they did not have an opportunity to express themselves and that they wanted to come back. Guess who refused it? It was the Conservatives members with the help of the NDP.

I gained no pride whatsoever from the work of that legislative committee of the House of Commons. We were denied the possibility of doing quality work. We were denied the possibility of ensuring that the legislation did in fact do what the Conservative minority government had promised, which was it would provide transparency, it would provide real protections for whistleblowers in the public service and it would ensure that Canadians could have access to information and that their personal information would be protected. That bill did none of this.

The Senate attempted to correct as much as it could. Even the Senate was limited. Certain rules and regulations did not allow the Senate to do everything. The Senate was not given the scope to do everything.

What is the government trying to do now? It is trying to reinstate virtually the identical bill that went out of the House and into the Senate, knowing full well it was a flawed bill.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

I would like to underscore the work done by the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord, who is also the Bloc’s deputy leader in the House of Commons, and her former colleague, the late Benoît Sauvageau, who was a friend, a professional colleague, and a man who made a real contribution to the work of this legislative committee.

Despite the genuine effort that the members of the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party put into Bill C-2, the Conservatives called it in French the Loi fédérale sur l'imputabilité. This is prime example, I think, of a government in such a hurry to prove that it is doing something that it has made an elementary mistake. In English it is possible to say the Federal Accountability Act, but anyone with the least knowledge of French should know that in this language it would be the Loi fédérale sur la responsabilité.

I should add that it was Mr. Sauvageau, the hon. member for Repentigny at the time, who moved an amendment to the bill to correct the French title. Although I thanked him at the time, I would like to thank him again posthumously.

This is an ideal example, I think, which shows, first, that the Conservative government has no understanding at all of accountability when it comes to being responsible, and second, that this government’s discourse is basically dishonest.

For example, the parliamentary secretary to the President of Treasury Board just delivered a speech in which he repeated ad nauseam that the Liberals want to get illegal donations and that by amending the Canada Elections Act, the Conservatives are ensuring that registration fees for political conventions will not be included in the definition of a contribution. He claimed as well that only the Liberals interpret the existing law in this way. So they are being dishonest in this regard.

People who are listening to the work of the House on television but cannot easily get the Canada Elections Act will think it really is illegal to claim registration fees for a party convention as a political donation for which a receipt should be issued for a possible tax credit.

What the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board failed to mention is that, since being appointed the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada over 10 years ago if I am not mistaken, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley has interpreted section 404.1 of the Canada Elections Act to include registration fees for political conventions.

Consequently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board is trying to mislead Canadians by claiming that it was the Liberals who misinterpreted the law in an attempt to have taxpayers foot the bill, which is not true.

The Chief Electoral Officer interprets the statute. He decides whether or not the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the former Progressive Conservative Party, the former Reform Party and the former Canadian Alliance acted appropriately and within the law with regard to reporting convention fees.

The parliamentary secretary is trying to distort the debate. The Conservative government knew that the Canada Elections Act requires a political party to disclose the registration fees for its conventions to the Chief Electoral Officer. Then why did it not do so and why did it hide these registration fees? Today we learned that these fees totalled $2 million. This party hid the $2 million from the Chief Electoral Officer and it is now under investigation. If he really wanted to speak honestly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board should have mentioned it in this House

When we, Liberals and Bloquistes, put questions on the interpretation of section 404.1 to the chief electoral officer and to political party officials, everyone unanimously agreed that the interpretation of the chief electoral officer was the correct one. Convention fees should be considered political contributions and, therefore, they should be declared by the party to the chief electoral officer. The government is omitting to mention this in the House in order to create a false impression in the minds of Canadians.

When the Senate, because of the dishonest behaviour of that party, makes the law very clear on this issue, what does the government do? It wants to reject the Senate's amendment, while claiming that the Senate has dragged its feet, has engaged in filibustering, etc. This same government does not want to tell Canadians that the quality work accomplished by the Senate has made the government realize that some fifty amendments were necessary to correct the legislation, otherwise its own bill would not make sense in a number of areas.

Here is a little reminder of the facts. The Senate heard over 140 witnesses during 98 hours of hearings. It came to the conclusion that the accountability bill was seriously flawed, and that amendments to this legislation were required to live up to the commitment made by the minority Conservative government. Of course, a number of amendments were made. Some are accepted by the government today, but others are not, which explains why the Conservatives are attempting to make their gimmickry retroactively legal. Hiding political donations of $2 million from the chief electoral officer is indeed engaging in gimmickry.

If this government were honest and thePresident of the Treasury Board were an honest man, he would admit it in this House.

The Speaker of the House has already ruled, saying that if the person were honest, he would do something. So it is parliamentary. I said it, if the President of the Treasury Board were an honest man, an honest person, he would say that it is not true that this government wants to shed light on the federal government’s work. It is not true. If it were true, certain amendments that the Bloc and the Liberals tried to make as part of the House legislative committee—for example, to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act—would not have been blocked by the Conservative members, with the support of the NDP. Still the Senate was able to adopt them.

So I return to my subject. Concerning political financing, the Senate suggest setting the limit on political party donations at $2,000 a year. This decision was made because the government was not able to demonstrate that the current limits undermined electoral procedure at the federal or provincial level, where the limits, when there are any, are much higher than those proposed in Bill C-2.

Second, donations made to political parties play an important role in our democratic system. Limiting them too strictly might affect the participation of small parties in political life. Furthermore, limiting the amount of these donations too strictly reduces the resources which political parties must have to fulfil their legitimate role in debates in Canada, and this leaves more room for third parties that wish to influence the debates. This is interesting. The Prime Minister, who was formerly, I think, the CEO or president of some federation, of an NGO, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada for third parties to be allowed to advertise and spend during a federal election campaign, claiming that the limits the former government had put in the Canada Elections Act on spending by third parties during an election campaign were unconstitutional.

It is interesting because this Prime Minister has still not disclosed who the donors to his own party leadership race were. He still has not disclosed who the donors were to the federation which he led before returning to politics. It is interesting for a Prime Minister and a party that pride themselves on wanting to ensure accountability and transparency. But they are hiding things.

With regard to access to information and privacy, the Senate and the senators are proposing to remove the Canadian Wheat Board from the coverage of the Access to Information Act so that the board can stand up to international competition better when representing Canadian farmers. Here again, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board is claiming that the Liberals are supporting an amendment that will remove the Canadian Wheat Board from the coverage of this act because they have something to hide. He knows that this is completely untrue.

The Canadian Wheat Board represents Canadian farmers on the international stage against competitors from other countries. Obviously, these competitors would love to have commercial, scientific and other information that helps the Canadian Wheat Board represent Canadian farmers effectively.

Wanting to remove the board does not mean hiding something from Canadian farmers. It means protecting Canadian farmers who want the board to sell their products on the international market.

I would also like to address the issue of better protection for personal information on donors to the National Arts Centre. The members of the House of Commons legislative committee in charge of reviewing Bill C-2 had understood—at least the Bloc and Liberal members had understood—that some donors to the National Arts Centre wanted their identities to remain confidential. That is their choice.

Artists may also donate their time and talent or charge much less than the regular market rate. But they do not want potential clients to know that they donated their time or gave a concert for no charge or for half price for charitable reasons or because they want to promote a certain type of music or activity. They do not want this information made public. A potential client could say the artists billed only so much and that it will therefore pay them only a given amount.

The Senate brought into place many excellent amendments. It pains me to see the government continually talk about how the senators have attempted to block the legislation, that the senators do not want to see transparency, that the senators do not want to see accountability and that Liberals, the official opposition, also do not want to see it. Nothing is further from the truth.

Let us look at it. It was a Liberal government that adopted whistleblower protection legislation, Bill C-11. It was never brought into effect by the current government. There were witnesses who came before us who said they would like to see that legislation enacted immediately. I remember Mr. Sauvageau and the member for Rivière-du-Nord asked that the government proclaim it and bring it into force immediately while we had the opportunity to study and work properly on Bill C-2. The government refused.

We then attempted to bring amendments here. Here are some of the amendments the Liberal members tried to bring forward and the government, with the aid of the NDP, blocked: one, to provide a reverse onus so that any administrative or disciplinary measure taken within a year of a disclosure would be deemed to be a reprisal unless the employer showed otherwise; two, extend the time limit to file a reprisal complaint to one year instead of the 60 days that the Conservative government proposed and is now trying to bring back; and three, remove the $10,000 limit on awards for pain and suffering and increase the amount for legal advice from $1,500 to $25,000.

Those are reinforcements that we attempted to bring forward and the Conservatives and the NDP blocked them, yet they say they are for protecting public servants who divulge wrongdoing on the part of government.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to take part in this debate.

The hon. members of this House and our fellow citizens who have followed the work of the legislative committee of the House of Commons dealing with BillC-2 know well that I was on this committee together with other members of the Liberal caucus. I would also like to underscore the work done by the hon. member for—