Brian Murphy

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the leader of the NDP for his view on whether the privilege, paramountcy and supremacy of Parliament is important in this debate. It seems to me that we might know a lot more if we had all of the documents before the committee responsible for this question. There seems to be some inordinate delay and some admission that the full documents will never be produced in full to the committee itself.

Is it an abrogation by the government of the supremacy of Parliament not to forward those documents in total to the committee responsible so that Parliament can, at least before a royal commission is ordered, get to the bottom of what has been alleged, what the defences are, and what the truth is?

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do have a concern when he says that the documents will be handed over when they are vetted for reasons of national security. Is he not aware that section 38 of the Evidence Act makes it very clear that the Attorney General and/or the defence minister will go through documents if submitted by a person like Mr. Colvin for redaction, which, apparently, is what happened?

Is he also not equally clear that the Canada Evidence Act does not apply to hearings of committees of Parliament, that Parliament is supreme to the laws that it enacts, unless it mentions itself in those acts, which is the case here? The Canada Evidence Act, which good lawyers, like the member for Fundy Royal, use every day, is a law that is under the supremacy of Parliament.

Is he not aware that all productions to a parliamentary committee should not have any redaction whatsoever and, therefore, they are ready to be provided immediately?

I am not sure if he can tell the House, as he has a semi-cabinet responsibility, why there is such a delay in getting the documents.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, certainly from what we are hearing, it is a happy day when the Conservative government is seeking out its new-found friend, the CBC. We can all praise that as an epiphany.

I want to ask the hon. member, who brings forward a very important point, are we not just discussing what is the proper venue? Certainly the Minister of National Defence as a former Crown prosecutor would know the importance of full disclosure. It does not appear that we have had, except for the CBC, full disclosure.

As the prerogatives of the Parliament of Canada are outside section 38 of the Criminal Code, which the Attorney General and the Minister of National Defence may be relying on, as Mr. Colvin says, does the member not think that eventually we will have full disclosure of full documentation? That may preclude the necessity for his royal commission inquiry.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Where did you read them?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 1st, 2009]

With regard to seniors’ pensions and benefits provided by the government: (a) what is the government doing to assure a proper level of compensation for retired seniors dependent on government support; (b) is the pension amount in line with seniors needs and increases in the costs of living; (c) what is being done to ensure that an increase in one area of government support is not clawed back or eliminated by a decrease in another area of government support; (d) what are the benchmarks used in determining the levels of support needed by a senior citizen; (e) are these benchmarks different from region to region and, if so, how are the differences determined; (f) is the government planning pension reforms, and if so, what will the reforms entail, when will they be made known, when will they be implemented, and will they adequately support the number of qualified seniors; (g) has the government predicted how many people will become qualified for these programs in the future and, if so, what projections has the government made in this regard; and (h) what increases does the government predict for contributors to these programs over the next ten years?

[Criminal Code, November 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the member, who serves with me on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I very much appreciated his speech.

The response to my friend from Newfoundland and Labrador was incomplete.

For better preciseness, the question was under what circumstances fingerprints and mug shots would be taken, that is, for what crimes, and whether that would apply to the arrest phase of the offence. Under what circumstances, if there is no charge, would those fingerprints and mug shots be returned?

[Afghanistan, November 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should read all of Mr. Mulroney's remarks because he said, “Whether someone was or was not a Canadian-transferred detainee is a very important issue. We were not able to determine that”.

This is simple. If no one knew who was or was not transferred to the Afghan authorities, how can the government claim there was no proof that Afghans transferred by Canada were tortured? Is the government simply trying to cover up its approach of hear no evil, see no evil? Is the government being wilfully blind?

[Afghanistan, November 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government is making false claims that there is no proof that Afghans detained by the Canadian Forces were tortured.

Yet Mr. Colvin clearly stated that because of the nature of the detainee transfer system, it was not possible to make such a claim.

The Red Cross confirms what Mr. Colvin said, and yesterday, David Mulroney confirmed it as well.

When will the government finally admit that Mr. Colvin, the Red Cross and Mr. Mulroney are right?

[Privilege, November 26th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that it is interesting that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in his opening defence of these egregious ten percenters, made some interesting comments which were along this line.

It is interesting that the minister said that he condemns anti-Semitism, then he said that we as Liberals participated in an anti-Semitic conference, but he will not say that we are anti-Semitic. How does he get himself out of that?

If he says that we all participated willingly in an anti-Semitic conference, and that is the impression that was left with the voters of Mount Royal and why the Speaker has ruled on the contextual aspect of the ten percenter, if he says we supported it and participated willingly in an anti-Semitic conference, how can he not conclude that we are anti-Semitic and why would he not say it? He knows it is not true.

That is the question.

[Privilege, November 26th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary a couple of questions.

It is ironic. He is speaking with this vein in that he made such disparaging comments himself about aboriginals for which he was forced to apologize, so he knows all about saying something and then having to backtrack.

I want to ask him, does he understand what defamation is? I know that he has no legal training. I know he went to various universities before making a career of politics and the drive-by smear his life's blood. But does he understand that defamation includes publishing a comment, coupled with a damaging comment, coupled with a lack of a qualified privilege that this publication would not have, in distributing an untruth?

Does he agree with the words of the Speaker who said, at 3:16 this afternoon that the critical role that context played in shaping the cumulative net effect of the words was damaging?