Marlene Jennings

[Firearms Registry, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is typical of the Conservative government not to tell everything. The Auditor General actually said that the for last two years the gun registry has been working very well.

There has been no shift in the attitudes of Canadians toward Canadian gun control. If anything, the resolve of Canadians is stronger than ever. The majority of Canadians and the majority of members of Parliament in this House want strong gun control.

The Prime Minister has no mandate to weaken our gun control laws, yet he is intent on pushing ahead. Is he aware that he does not answer to the gun lobby? He answers to Canadians, and Canadians will--

[Firearms Registry, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if we follow their logic, we would have to remove the Criminal Code clause that makes it illegal to drive under the influence.

Elections Canada just told us that during the 2006 election, the gun lobby spent more than $133,000 to support the Conservative campaign aimed at reducing firearms control. Does the Prime Minister intend to reduce firearms control because he owes it to the gun lobby?

[Challenger Jet use, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last fall, while in opposition, the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary criticized going from Ottawa to Edmonton “aboard a luxury jet that costs $11,000 an hour to operate, rather than share a commercial flight with ordinary taxpayers”.

While ordinary Canadians are barely coping with high gasoline prices, the Prime Minister and his privileged backbenchers did not share such mundane concerns when they went to Edmonton.

Will the Prime Minister cut a $50,000 cheque to taxpayers and pay back the money wasted on this luxurious boys night out?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member of the NDP. I apologize for not recalling off the top of my head the name of his riding, but I appreciated many of the comments he made.

I would like to point out that I have been listening to the debate on third reading. I believe I have listened to all of the speeches. When I was not seated in my place I was in the opposition lobby watching them on the television screen.

A point that virtually no member has raised is the issue of how the opposition members saved an important constitutional reality for members of the House of Commons and for the House of Commons itself, which is that under the original Bill C-2 presented by the Conservative government, it would have diminished and impeded constitutional autonomy of the House and its members. It was Liberal amendments and NDP amendments, put forward by myself and the member's colleague from Winnipeg Centre, which re-established the historical parliamentary constitutional authority of the House and its members.

The government members initially were opposed to that. It took a significant amount of arguing and a brief presented by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to convince them that those amendments should go through. I would like to hear what the member from the NDP has to say about that victory, because it was a historic victory.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Bloc member's speech and comments, particularly about members who are elected under a certain political party's banner and then cross the floor of the House to sit as independents or to join the ranks of another political party, which could even include a newly created party.

In Canada's recent history, the largest group of members to cross the floor was made up of a number of Progressive Conservative MPs, who had been elected in Quebec as such. They crossed the floor to become members of the Bloc.

I was very glad that the Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra introduced an amendment to Bill C-2. This amendment would have resolved this problem by creating a process through which voters who had voted for a member who then crossed the floor could have forced a byelection. Unfortunately, the chair of the committee decided that the amendment was out of order. In committee, I was happy to see the two Bloc members vote with Liberal members, agreeing that the committee chair's decision was unjustified.

I would like to know what this member thinks of these former colleagues who were elected under the banner of the Progressive Conservatives, but then crossed the floor of the House to become Bloc members.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the NDP member's comments on Bill C-2 and I share a number of his views. I definitely share his comments regarding the public appointments commission. Happily, opposition members who sat on the Bill C-2 committee did see fit to reinstitute that public appointments commission.

It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister ran on a platform of accountability, integrity, ethics and that a promise made would be a promise kept, but when his choice of a chair for the future public appointments commission was rejected by the appropriate standing committee of the House, he picked up his toys and said that he would not play the game anymore.

When the committee reinstituted the public appointments commission in Bill C-2 it gave very clear directions in the legislation as to what the commission's mandate would be and what authority it would have. The committee also stated:

Before making a recommendation to the Governor in Council that a person be appointed to the Commission, the Prime Minister shall consult with the leader of every recognized party in the House of Commons. An announcement of an appointment shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons for tabling in that House.

Now that the Prime Minister has stated that he will not appoint anyone to the positions in the public appointments commission, notwithstanding the fact that opposition members reinstituted this commission and that we are confident that it will stand the test of the other House, is that not just sheer arrogance and hypocrisy on the part of the Prime Minister? Is that not the kind of behaviour that actually breeds the cynicism in the Canadian public that the hon. member of the NDP was speaking of?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do believe the bill would create a gridlock.

Expert witnesses have said that many of the new structures that have been put into place did not need to be put into place. The new authorities, if that was what the government wanted to create, could have easily been embedded in existing structures. I will give two examples.

The first example is the public appointments commission. We have the Public Service Commission which already has expertise in establishing criteria for hiring, for promotion, et cetera, within the public service. The Liberals proposed amendments that would have taken the authority of the public appointments commission and embedded that into the Public Service Commission. The government and the NDP voted against those amendments.

The second example is the public servants disclosure protection tribunal. We had unions telling us that should go to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board because it has the expertise. The government and the NDP voted against that. They preferred to create an entirely new structure.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's opinion entirely regarding the excellent movies made in Quebec. I am very proud of them, being a Quebecker myself. However, those two American movies perfectly illustrate my point. I am glad, in a sense, that we do not have Quebec movies that portray such hypocrites, like the characters in the two movies I mentioned.

As for the returning officers, I fully support the notion of granting the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada the power and authority to appoint returning officers in the ridings. I am a Quebecker and live under the Quebec Election Act, under which, the Quebec chief electoral officer makes the appointments in the ridings.

When I began my political career in 1997, the returning officer in my riding had been appointed by my predecessor. Not only did he not give me any preferential treatment, he definitely got in my way on certain occasions.

It is not because someone is appointed by a predecessor from the same party that that person is going be partisan. I am, therefore, happy about this change.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say how happy I am that the member asked me this question. I thought I had covered it in my introductory remarks, but she has allowed me the opportunity to go at it a second time, to ensure that everyone in this chamber and anyone who is watching understands.

Not only did I have a problem with it, I had such a problem that I brought an amendment to Bill C-2 to establish the minimum legal age to donate to be 18. What was my surprise? The member for Winnipeg Centre, who is the colleague of the member for Halifax of the NDP who just asked me this question, voted against that amendment. He is the same person who stood in this chamber day after day, saying it was reprehensible of that leadership candidate to accept donations from 11 year old twins and a 14 year old. He voted against the Liberal amendment which would have established 18 years of age as the minimum age to legally donate.

That is the first thing. I could not understand it. How hypocritical to stand here and denounce the Liberals because one member accepted donations, which were legal by the way, and then when a Liberal member attempts to correct it, he votes against it.

However, he then went even further. He tabled his own amendment which would have allowed day-old babies to donate legally. I would like that member to explain to me how she could condone her own colleague putting an amendment through that would have allowed day-old babies to donate.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, to the credit of the Conservative members sitting on the committee, who finally found an ounce of decency and honesty within them, they voted against the amendment of the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre. That was only after an impassioned speech by the four Liberal members and the two Bloc members. Only then were we able to convince the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Treasury Board, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, a third parliamentary secretary and the two little backbenchers. However, I am pleased.

I hope the second chamber of sober thought, the other place, when it receives Bill C-2, will examine the possibility of instituting amendments to the bill, which would deal with floor-crossing and which would establish a minimum age for making legal contributions to political parties.

Having dealt with those two issues, I cannot stop myself from saying this. At times when I listened to the member for Winnipeg Centre and some of the government members who sat on the legislative committee on Bill C-2, in their overblown hyperbole of righteous indignation about whether it was political financing, it reminded me of two very famous films. One will date me, the other one will not.

Elmer Gantry was played by that wonderful American actor Burt Lancaster. Anyone who saw it will remember that Elmer Gantry was a preacher. He had the golden word and was able to seduce people into believing what he had to say by using those buzz words that capture the hearts and minds of ordinary, good, decent people. However, Elmer Gantry was a faker. Elmer Gantry was a seller of snake oil. Elmer Gantry was out for Elmer Gantry, like the so-called five priorities of the Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party, can talk about accountability, transparency, oversight, but when one looks at some of the provisions of Bill C-2, they in fact create more secrecy. More power is concentrated in the centre, or for those who do not know, the executive, or the Prime Minister and his little gang. It has absolutely nothing to do with accountability. It has everything to do with trying to pull the wool over the eyes of ordinary, decent Canadians that it is the party of openness and transparency.

We have already heard of some of the first decisions taken by the Prime Minister. What was one of his first decisions? Was it to appoint an non-elected individual to his cabinet and to the Senate, the very Senate the Prime Minister, when in opposition, denounced day after day, year after year. He said that it was not a valid chamber because it was not elected, it was not democratic. He said that if he ever came to government, he would abolish it or create an elected Senate. His first act was to appoint a non-elected individual to the Senate and then to bring that person into his cabinet.

Where is the accountability? I forgot, that individual was a major fundraiser, if not the chief fundraiser for the Conservative Party in Quebec. Where is the accountability there? Where is the transparency? Where is the oversight?

Ministers of cabinet are supposed to be accountable to Parliament. They are supposed to be accountable in the House of Commons. That minister is not accountable here. He may not step foot in the House. He is not allowed to step foot in the House. He is not permitted to take part in question period, as members of the Conservative Party know very well.

So much for accountability. So much for transparency. So much for oversight. Hello, that is the Conservative Party, the snake oil seller, the Elmer Gantry of 2006.

Let us talk about another movie that might ring a bell, The Nutty Professor. The original starring Jerry Lewis, considered to be one of the greatest actors by the French in France. There was a remake starring Eddie Murphy, so the younger crowd will also know The Nutty Professor.

Anyone who saw the original or the remake will remember that there is the archetypical villain and that was Buddy. Buddy was good looking. Buddy was a sweet talker. Buddy could seduce anyone with his sweet-talking and make them believe anything, but Buddy was found out in the end.

I must say that when I listen to the Conservatives spin out their line on accountability, transparency, integrity, and ethics, their own conduct belies every single one of those fundamental principles, and I am reminded of Buddy. We must not forget Buddy's demise. Everyone ended up seeing through him.

I would like to get to a couple of points within the legislation which we Liberals and the Bloc members feel are very important. I believe the NDP believes at least one point is important as well. The first is the public appointments commission.

I know that the member for Halifax, the former leader of the NDP, raised the point. Another member of the NDP, who is currently in the House, also asked questions about the Public Appointments Commission. He asked the government, specifically the government whip, whether the Prime Minister intended to implement this commission and proceed with appointments once Bill C-2 is passed in the Senate, has received royal assent and is in effect.

It was interesting to hear the government whip's answer. He blathered on that a standing committee of the House had done its duty, which was to review the appointment that the Prime Minister had made prematurely, because the act was not even in effect. The Prime Minister had the arrogance—the only word I can use that is parliamentary and acceptable in this House—to appoint an individual to the position of chairperson of the Public Appointments Commission before the commission was even in place, before it was even a legal entity. What arrogance.

In spite of this, the committee duly welcomed the appointment, summoned this man, Gwyn Morgan, to appear, proceeded to examine his credentials and qualifications and determined, in its judgment, that he was not qualified to occupy the future position of chairperson of the Public Appointments Commission.

When Bill C-2 was referred to the legislative committee created specially to study it, only one clause in the bill dealt with this Public Appointments Commission, which, according to the Conservatives and the Prime Minister, was nonetheless the cornerstone of their policy of integrity, accountability, and so on.

That one clause, number 228, the only text about that institution that is so important to the Conservative policy, can be found on page 175. It amended section 1.1 as follows:

The Governor in Council may establish a Public Appointments Commission, consisting of a chairperson and not more than four other members—

The bill said nothing about the commission's mandate, powers or objectives—nothing.

An NDP member who sat on the committee, the member for Winnipeg Centre, introduced a motion, an amendment, as did the Liberals.

Since my time has run out, I will conclude by saying that thanks to the opposition members, the Public Appointments Commission will have real powers. I strongly encourage the other place to have a look at page 148, clause two-twenty-some—