Brian Murphy

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments, but I am not sure I want to thank him for the prediction that I might be sued some day and join the “I've been sued by Tories” club, which the member for West Nova and Ajax—Pickering have printed T-shirts.

I want to ask him a question with respect to the terms “contingent liability” contained in Mary Dawson's report, which is an expansion of black letter law that says “liability”, the term “private interest”, a term in the Conflict of Interest Code now and can be plainly read, the term that has been used by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre of “legitimate lawsuit” and, finally, the term used by the member for Dufferin—Caledon about a “potential conflict”.

It seems to me, and this is the question, the Conservative side has put on blinders. Those with immense legal experience, experienced lawyers, and have taken the silk, like the member for Dufferin—Caledon. They seem to be morphing from what the black letter law says, that private interest leads to a conflict of interest and exclusion or recusal.

What Conservatives now say is that it is a pecuniary interest. If one knows about a lawsuit from reading the paper and a person has not been served yet, this is a legitimate lawsuit. How do the members opposite know that? How does anybody know that until it goes to court and creates a potential conflict of interest?

Is the whole Conservative view of this not really far away from what the Conflict of Interest Code says, and even what Mary Dawson said when she expanded it to include contingent liabilities? I would like his comments on that.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the Bloc member with regard to the definition of private interest.

We know that Mary Dawson wrote in her decision that the member for West Nova had a private interest and that it constituted a contingent liability because of the lawsuit by former prime minister Brian Mulroney.

In my opinion, Ms. Dawson erred and I am concerned about two comments from Conservative members. The member for Dufferin—Caledon said that the member for West Nova has a potential conflict of interest. For his part, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre stated that, in the case of a legitimate lawsuit, there would be a conflict of interest.

I would like to know if the Bloc member agrees with these comments. It seems that it is the Conservative Party and the two members who have determined whether there would be a legitimate lawsuit or a potential conflict of interest. They obviously agree with Ms. Dawson who stated, in fact, that there is a contingent liability.

That is rather different than the current wording of the rule which clearly states that there would be a conflict of interest if there is a private interest, period. Would the Bloc member like to comment on what I just said?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I want to give him the opportunity to flesh out this privilege. It seems very clear from his speech that he is saying there is no more important job as members of Parliament than to represent the people. We are here for the people. The people will judge us at election time.

Is that not what we are doing when we speak in Parliament or at committee? We are speaking for the people. Given that there is history here, that kings have lost their heads, that in Singapore such protections do not prevail in parliament and therefore people who oppose the government can be shut down by lawsuits, is not the most important thing that we do as parliamentarians to act for the people? Is it not that we are the people and therefore what the hon. member from Regina said is very consonant, which is that our role is for the people and that is primordial?

[Parliament of Canada Act, June 4th, 2008]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (vacancies).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce Bill S-224.

It is my pleasure to speak in support of this bill, which is beautiful in its simplicity, to compel the government to fill Senate vacancies that are hindering the representation of many provinces, including my own. A second part of the bill indicates that the Prime Minister shall call byelections in the order in which the seats of the House become vacant, so that no party may play checkerboard politics with the representation of people whose ridings are not represented by a member.

I do hope the House will see, in a non-partisan way, that this is a wonderful bill to modernize and regularize the representation of all people in all ridings, in both Houses, for all of Canada.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

[Government Policies, June 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, government members need to be on their best behaviour in the coming days. A big cabinet shuffle is coming and there are big rewards for those who are willing to say the ridiculous in defence of the incompetent.

After all, the Prime Minister cannot give every job to the new foreign affairs minister, can he?

The member for South Shore—St. Margaret's is awfully chipper lately. Bob Fife has said that there is a car and a driver in his future, so it must be true.

Alas, this is bad news for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Yes, she should enjoy her title and her nice office while she can, because they are going to someone else soon.

In fact, there are several members who are going to have to forget their titles and remember the names of their ridings. They might even have to remember that they are representing the needs of all Canadians and not their party's single-minded tactical pursuit of electoral advantage.

What Canadians have received from the government and its ministers in the last few months is a series of gaffes and blunders.

No matter how hard the government tries to shuffle people around, the truth is that they cannot do the job.

[June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, just to assuage my imagination and the imagination of the Canadian people and hundreds of writers who are on this story, perhaps the government could table documents with respect to the meeting, the calendar of the former minister, what was intended to be discussed, whether Quebecor figured in any of the briefings to the minister at the time with respect to the important issues in play. It would be very important for the Canadian people to know whether the minister knew anything of Mr. Mulroney's business when he agreed to meet with him socially, in private, in a Montreal restaurant.

[June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the adjournment proceedings to take up a question that I asked of the then minister of foreign affairs. The golden boy that he was was asked a simple question about whether there was any contact between ministers or government representatives and Mr. Mulroney that may have been organized or facilitated by Mr. Mulroney. We found out that Mr. Mulroney met in private with the former minister of industry, now the former minister of foreign affairs.

We asked at that time whether that would be part of the public inquiry. The answer, simply put, by the former minister was that we are trying to make up stories and there were never any meetings and that scandals were being made out of thin air.

Now the fish has been hooked and there is an actual scandal involving that minister and it is time to follow up on the question: Did Mr. Mulroney meet with the former minister? It is time to come clean about that meeting. Why this question is more pertinent now than when it was asked and not answered is that the credibility of the two participants in the meeting is highly an issue now.

There is no doubt that Mr. Mulroney was less than truthful when he gave evidence about what he did with the money that he received. There is no doubt that Mr. Mulroney was less than truthful about the total sum of money he received. There is no doubt now that Mr. Mulroney told his closest highly paid professional spin doctors something different from what he eventually told the public. There is no doubt that Mr. Mulroney told Norman Spector, his chief of staff, that Bear Head in Cape Breton was dead, yet he let one of his closest friends, Fred Doucet, the lobbyist, bill the entire year's worth of lobbying activities in pursuing Bear Head. Mr. Mulroney has a serious credibility issue. In a court of law and in this House the credibility of the party should always be an issue.

Then we move to the minister, the other party in this meeting that took place in Montreal regarding, I would expect, the interests of Quebecor. The upcoming issues with respect to wireless telecom and deregulation in general might have been very much of interest to Quebecor. I cannot fault Mr. Mulroney and his employers wanting to know about that. I can fault, however, the then minister of industry for meeting with such a high level representative of such a high stakes player in the private sector with respect to telecom.

The former minister says that nothing ever happened, that it was a scandal made out of thin air, but he has credibility issues too. That former minister kept on insisting that he did not know of any potential security breach until media interest arose and the story was sparked. He stated that he thought there was nothing wrong with the private affairs that he was conducting as they were.

We all know that a former famous Liberal prime minister said that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. We also know now, which may be the Prime Minister's contribution to that legacy in rule, that the papers of state have no business in the bedrooms of former ministers' girlfriends.

What is really at issue and what I would like to have an answer on is what happened at that meeting? Why would the government accept at face value the word of the two participants whose credibility is seriously at issue?

[Ethics, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to see why the government is having trouble finding someone to lead the inquiry. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said that the person to get that job is a poor soul. He implied that no sane person would take that job. That is quite a recruitment campaign they have over there.

Many have said that this inquiry is not a priority for the Prime Minister. We know the truth is not a priority for the government but protecting Brian Mulroney is a priority.

When will the government make a full inquiry a priority and name a commissioner, bientôt?

[Ethics, June 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, seven months ago, the Prime Minister promised Canadians a public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal. The government promised to appoint a commissioner soon. Every time we ask about it, the answer is “soon”.

When will the government stop covering for Brian Mulroney and appoint someone to oversee this inquiry?

[International Aid, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, during question period on Monday, the hon. member for Sudbury raised a question on the government's announcement to match Canadian contributions to the victims of the May 2 cyclone in Burma.

The government's initial announcement only covered donations made between May 15 and June 6, just three weeks, and would not be retroactive to the date of the cyclone, yet the Minister of International Cooperation had said that the program would cover six weeks. When asked when this became policy, the minister could not respond. In a point of order following Monday's question period, the hon. member for Wascana pointed out, with proof in hand as usual, that the government's own website stated that the period covered was in fact three weeks and was not retroactive to the date of the cyclone.

If people look at the website today, they will see that the date has been changed in an attempt to hide the incompetence of the government.

Thanks to a Liberal opposition, matching contributions that reflect the generosity of Canadians will now be retroactive to May 2.