Marlene Jennings

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a Liberal Party interpretation, but that of the head of Elections Canada. He is not answering my question.

The Conservatives broke the rules. They got caught in the act. They had the gall to deny it but they can no longer do so, as they attempt to rewrite the law to make their illegal actions legal.

What kind of fools does the President of the Treasury Board take Canadians for?

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board blows in the wind so much that he is beginning to look like a weather vane. Today, the Conservatives are admitting that they were caught breaking the law when they tried to hide some $2 million in political donations from the Chief Electoral Officer.

Are they prepared to admit guilt? Is the President of the Treasury Board prepared to stop his attempts to make his gimmickry retroactively legal? Is he prepared to admit guilt? Is he prepared to stop—

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the comments of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois concerning Bill C-2 as amended by the Senate.

We know that the government wants to restore several sections and retain the wording of the bill as it was when it left the House to proceed to the Senate.

I also know that your former colleague from Repentigny, Benoît Sauvageau, and your deputy House leader, whose constituency name I cannot remember, and I worked almost as a team on several sections of Bill C-2. At the House legislative committee, we tried to make some amendments but because of the alliance between the NDP and the Conservatives we were not successful.

I would like to know today whether the member is still of the same view concerning certain amendments that we tried without success to include but which the Senate has proposed.

For example, I point to sections 115 and 116, where we tried to add the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Technology as a body that could refuse to disclose its scientific, technical and trade secrets. At the legislative committee, we tried unsuccessfully to provide that protection to the foundation. The Senate has included an amendment to that effect. Does the Bloc Québécois still believe that this foundation should have that protection?

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, and I look forward to hearing from my other Bloc Québécois colleagues. As the member just said, the Bloc and Liberal members of the House legislative committee that studied Bill C-2 worked in concert. I think that we did good work, considering the limits the NDP and the Conservatives put on us. The Senate committee compensated for those limits.

My question for my colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe is this: The President of the Treasury Board claims that the Senate tried to slow down the whole Bill C-2 evaluation and study process and that it tried to interfere with the government's good intentions. Does he think that the President of the Treasury Board's assessment of the Senate's work—

[Firearms Registry, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, who could be more expert in technical affairs than the chiefs of police?

The Minister of Public Safety is going out of his way to silence the voices of police chiefs when it comes to his gun control plans. He has excluded them from his advisory committee and anyone else in favour of gun control, but has kept semi-automatic weapon owners and gun dealers. Members of his committee are paid for their expenses, yet the minister refuses to divulge their names, their mandate, or their meeting schedule. Why?

[Firearms Registry, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous to see that the Minister of Public Safety kicked the police chiefs off his firearms program advisory committee, but kept the collectors and vendors of semi-automatic weapons. This minister wants to silence the police because they keep saying, and rightfully so, that the firearms registry works well and that it is very helpful to them. Why is the minister doing this?

By the way, will the Prime Minister finally agree to meet with Hayder Kadhim?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Indeed, Mr. Chair, I would like to share the remainder of my time with my colleague.

The Chief of the Defence Staff publicly stated before a House of Commons committee that he was prepared to use all our military resources to honour Canada's commitment to Afghanistan.

However, the current Minister of National Defence contradicted General Hillier's remarks. Why?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, at one time, all these businesses were clients of the current Minister of National Defence, and they are now at the centre of public contracts with the federal government and the Department of National Defence.

Will the minister not admit that he is in a conflict of interest situation, given his past relationships and his current position? Yes or no?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, perhaps the Minister of National Defence could answer this question with a simple yes or no.

Did General Dynamics and General Atomics join forces to submit a tender to supply unmanned aircraft, yes or no?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, can the minister tell us whether Stewart Stevenson, one of his former clients, submitted a bid for military vehicles, yes or no?