Marlene Jennings

[Marriage, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today we have the rare opportunity to congratulate the Conservative government. Let us savour it. The government is ending its rhetoric and finally embracing the status quo on same sex marriage in Canada.

The government and the Canadian Tourism Commission have begun an advertising campaign targeted at our American neighbours, celebrating Canada as a vacation destination for same sex couples.

May we now take it for granted that the Prime Minister has no intention of reopening in the House the issue of same sex marriage?

[Points of Order, June 14th, 2006]

The President of Treasury Board.

[Points of Order, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since the Speaker of the House has officially recognized, in this chamber, that the English translation of the term “bras d'honneur” was erroneous, I hope that Hansard will reproduce in English the proper English term, which is also “bras d'honneur”.

[Points of Order, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in oral question period, I asked two questions. Those two questions were asked in French. In French, the correct term for the gesture made by the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is “bras d'honneur”. There is no exact translation in English, so when we refer to this gesture in English, we use the French term “bras d'honneur”.

First, I think that the translation should be changed to accurately reflect the expressions I have used.

Second, since I was born in Canada, I have Canadian citizenship. I have also been an Italian citizen since 1974. As an Italian citizen, I would have been furious to hear someone use, in English, the term used in the translation. I never used that term, either in French or in English. The correct term is “bras d'honneur”. That term has nothing to do with an ethnic group or a foreign country. “Bras d'honneur” is the correct term.

As for the hon. members on the other side of this chamber—especially those in the Conservative government—who do not understand the French official language, I would like to see them take a few courses. That way, when questions are asked in French in this House, they listen—

[Decorum, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that alleged apology was based on his own words, “—the House misinterpreted my gesture” … If what I did was misinterpreted, I apologize”.

That is not a genuine apology.

The Prime Minister should answer today, in this House, and say that he does not tolerate behaviour of this kind. He should immediately dismiss the parliamentary secretary, whom he personally selected.

When will the Prime Minister dismiss the parliamentary secretary for his “bloopers”?

[Decorum, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière did not apologize. He said that we had misinterpreted his vulgar, crass and uncouth gesture.

As well, he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and he voted against the measures that protect Canada’s dairy farmers. When he voted, he gave the finger to all members, to all Canadian dairy farmers, and to supply management. This is disgraceful. He should apologize. The Prime Minister should dismiss him immediately.

[First World Outgames, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last week the sports minister said that his government had no money for the 1st World Outgames Montreal 2006. Happily, he was wrong. The Government of Canada is contributing some $1.5 million to these outgames, supporting the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.

Hallelujah, the Conservatives have seen the light. Now will the Prime Minister take his courage into his two hands and attend the outgames or is he afraid of the reaction of his caucus?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do understand that today is the last day the government can table a motion to extend the hours. I also take note that one of the reasons being given by some members in the House who have spoken is that it is absolutely necessary to ensure Bill C-2 is put through.

I listened to my hon. NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. I sit on the legislative committee that is reviewing Bill C-2. I have to say that I have found some of his statements quite astounding in terms of the hidden enemy to ensure that there is no real accountability and transparency. I have been sitting on that committee since its inception and I do not believe there is any conspiracy on the part of any of the members on the committee to impede the adoption and implementation of Bill C-2.

I think a great desire has been clearly exhibited by members of that committee, particularly Liberal and Bloc members and the NDP member himself, the member for Winnipeg Centre, to see that the objectives of the bill are actually achieved and that there are no unintended consequences. I have tabled a whole series of amendments that touch on the constitutional autonomy of the House and its members. The member for Winnipeg Centre tabled identical amendments.

That is one little piece of evidence that there is no hidden agenda on the part of members of the legislative committee. The agenda of each and every member, and I take them all in good faith, is to see that the government bill does in fact achieve what the government says it wants it to achieve, and I believe what all parties want it to achieve, to ensure that there is real accountability and transparency.

I would also like the member to comment on the issue that the committee has in fact been sitting extended hours. He himself made the point that in the space of one week the committee was doing the equivalent of four or six weeks' work of a normal committee. The committee also adopted a motion that it would sit throughout the summer were that required, but I do not believe it will be.

I would like the member for Winnipeg Centre, in the spirit of well balanced, well founded facts, to at least say that this conspiracy he sees is not within the committee members. I do not think the facts would back him up on that if he is basing his statements on committee members. I believe that the government members would also state that there is an honest desire on the part of all of the members to see that Bill C-2 is strong and achieves the objectives. In fact at the pace we are going, the bill will be reported back to the House prior to the last week of the sitting of the House.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my colleague speak, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord and deputy leader of the Bloc. I was sorry to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board just said. It is perfectly absurd in many ways. I would like know what my colleague has to say about this.

It seems to me that yesterday, during the clause by clause deliberations in the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-2, a committee that my colleague and I are members of, if it had not been for the excellent work done by the four Liberal members and the two Bloc members, the government would have been in trouble three different times. Three times the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board tried to push, pull and force the rhythm of the work instead of sitting down and thinking things through. If we had used his work method, we probably would have quickly passed amendments and provisions that would have impacted on other provisions or clauses of the bill down the road.

It was government experts, following questions that I asked and you and your critic asked—

[Member for Calgary West, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that this Conservative government, which claims to champion responsibility and accountability, refuses to say what it will do with an hon. member of its own caucus who is under serious allegations of misusing public funds. I would like my question to be answered, please.