Brian Murphy

[Air-India Inquiry, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, no answer. No apology. No class.

Yesterday, the minister falsely claimed, and the government House leader did today as well, that allowing the two anti-terrorist provisions to sunset would impede the Air-India inquiry.

The terms of reference of that inquiry state that the inquiry may produce findings or recommendations, but the inquiry itself would never use those provisions. This means that the sunsetting has no effect on the inquiry.

Would the government like to take the opportunity to correct the minister's and the government House leader's misleading statements to the country and this House?

[Prime Minister, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Prime Minister not only tried to cast aspersions on an hon. member, but he also cast aspersions on the integrity of the executive branch of the Canadian government.

Members of the Privy Council have access to top secret documents. Their security clearances are among the highest in the world. They are subject to detailed investigations.

Why did the Prime Minister attack the integrity of the Privy Council and the executive branch of this government?

[Diana Palmer, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Diana Palmer of Fredericton died on February 7, 2007. Born in Havana, she never lost her love of Cuba. Schooled at Havergal in Toronto and nursing in Hamilton, Ontario, she met the love of her life, Dr. Marven Palmer, of Douglas Harbour, New Brunswick in Montreal in 1955. Moving to Fredericton later, she was a pillar of the community and a close confidante of progressive Premier Richard Hatfield.

The proud mother of two daughters—one a kindergarten teacher and cultural activist, and the other a renowned director—and a son who became a physician, she was among the most progressive people in her province. Her daughter-in-law and world renowned author, Anne-Marie Macdonald, stated in her eulogy:

This tropical flower, this English rose, this bird of paradise became a Canadian. Many waters cannot guard love. Love never dies. Marven and Diana are a love story; more than half a century of a romance partnership fanned out through us all.

Diana Palmer lived an immigrant's dream with respect for all, a model to all parliamentarians and Canadians.

[Human Trafficking, February 22nd, 2007]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

In 2004, the former Liberal justice minister estimated the annual revenues from human trafficking to be $10 billion worldwide.

Furthermore, Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland and current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said, “little has changed for those caught up in this sordid trade. More people are being trafficked than ever before".

A number of governments around the world are currently planning to implement modest initiatives to curb the wave of human trafficking. This is not enough. Governments and community associations have found that it is difficult to deal with this problem in part because this is a specific practice that has to be differentiated from illegal aliens who are seeking a safer life.

Another obstacle to raising public awareness about human trafficking is that the traffickers are rarely caught. Furthermore, when they are arrested, they are usually charged with offences such as “living off the avails of prostitution” rather than being charged with human trafficking.

I join with the voices in this House in supporting Motion No. 153, which calls upon the government to immediately adopt comprehensive strategies to combat the trafficking of women and children across international borders.

The previous speaker hit the nail on the head when he said that very few Canadians are aware of how this problem is a worldwide problem which has a Canadian dimension.

Allow me to congratulate the member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul for this motion and for getting government support on it.

That member of Parliament and others in this House have pointed out that human trafficking is a foul crime perpetuated against the world's most vulnerable people for the purposes of sexual and economic exploitation.

Sadly, this abomination is growing. It is the dark underbelly of increasing levels of global trade in goods and services. Along with it, we see a rise in this global trade, if we can call it that. Many governments around the world are trying to act and many of their modest initiatives are simply not enough. For Canadians, in particular, this foul crime cuts at the very heart of our most cherished notions of justice and morality.

Now, a few words about Canada's international pride and its international history in being a leader in human rights. Canada has consistently been a strong voice for the protection of human rights and the advancement of democratic values around the world.

This nation took a central role in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1947. Today, Canada is party to all six major international human rights conventions, as well as many others. Human rights is a central theme of our foreign policy; it always has been and we hope it always will be.

The basic truth is that Canadians expect their government to be a leader in the field of human rights by reflecting and promoting Canadian values, including respect for diversity on the international stage.

Canadians have good sense. They recognize that their interests are best served by a stable, rules-based international system. Countries that respect the rule of law respect the rights of their citizens and are more likely to benefit from development. They are much less likely to experience crises which require interventions, such as peacekeeping, emergency assistance or refugee resettlement missions.

The UN charter and customary international law impose upon all countries the responsibility to promote and protect human rights. This is not just a question of values, then, but a mutual obligation of all members of the international community, as well as an obligation of a state toward its citizens.

For these reasons, and all of the others, Canada must stand up and be counted as a world leader, committed to fighting the atrocity of human trafficking. Members of this House must stand together to fight for an issue that is beyond the partisan accomplishments of a day, a week or a month. This is a lifelong issue. This is a national issue. This is an international issue. This is a moral issue.

Motion No. 153 is an important tangible step in the right direction. I call on my colleagues to support the motion and to work to put an end to the illegal, immoral trade that robs human beings of their dignity, liberty and humanity.

Think of it. Many of us have young children or grandchildren, as the case may be. I see the member for Fredericton in particular is a proud father of a young child.

What if it were to happen to one of us, one of our children or one of our grandchildren? What about the story that has just been recounted about the young Canadian tourist, or the young Canadian model who is in effect stranded in a foreign country, and turns to a practice toward self-sufficiency that lures her into slavery? What if that happened? Would that not be a tragedy? Is this not the tragedy that plays out in the world?

We may have victims in the thousands and that is a shocking reality. That is horrible. Think of the number cited by the various agencies of 27 million people on this planet who are in the bondage of slavery, who are working to subsist within the chains, the domain, and the rule of someone else, some other masters, whose exploits are only for their own monetary benefit and the tools of exploitation are primarily sexual and predatory.

Let us visit upon the world our nation's values toward human rights and our vision of Canada, that of a safe, community-driven society that protects those who would be exploited: children and women. Let us export that value to the world.

Let us join with the government motion and do all we can to protect the international society and to stand up for human rights, along with the 1947 universal declaration of human rights, which was our last great international exportation on the subject.

[Human Trafficking, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her motion, her efforts and her vision.

Human trafficking is defined by the United Nations as the recruitment of persons by means of deception or use of force for the purpose of sexual or other exploitation.

It is estimated that 80% of victims are women and children and that there are between 700,000 and two million victims every year throughout the world.

An organization known as Anti-Slavery International estimates that at least 27 million individuals are slaves at the present time. An exhaustive UNICEF field study estimates that 1.2 million children are victims of trafficking every year. This is a serious problem. The majority of the victims of this type of economic exploitation, about 46%, are found in the prostitution sector and in domestic servitude, farming, manufacturing and hospitality, that is restaurants or tourism.

According to Irene Sushko, of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress , human trafficking “constitutes horrific acts of slavery, the shameful assault on the dignity of children, the exploitation of the vulnerable for profit”.

It is also obvious that human trafficking has grown at an alarming rate in the past ten years. In 2004, Irwin Cotler, the former Minister of Justice, estimated—

[Electoral Reform, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, PR seems like a great idea. Being a neighbour of Prince Edward Island and now physically linked to the Island, where politics are like religion and are taken very seriously, I think that one of the reasons the experiment failed was that it became very complicated. When we get talking about MMP, STV and SMP, all the various methods of PR, is there a way of making this more communicable to the Canadian public and therefore more acceptable?

[Judicial Appointments, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this non-answer shows that this government is trying to divide Canadians.

Canada has never needed to question judges' ideology because our citizens know that the independence of our judicial system has never been called into question, except by this new government.

Perhaps the minister will have an answer. Will the minister present a specific list in this House of the judges with whom he does not agree and the decisions he does not like?

[Judicial Appointments, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has shown his disdain for judges long before now.

In 2004 to CBC television the Prime Minister said, “I have been somewhat of a critic of the courts from time to time. If I am Prime Minister, people will be relieved to know a little bit more about appointments that I would make”.

Why is the Prime Minister using the courts to push his social Conservative agenda against the beliefs of the vast majority of Canadians?

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am always wanting to be charitable to another member of the House of Commons, but in this case I must disagree with my friend and perhaps underline to him that there is a word called “minority” and there is a word called “majority”.

His argument seems to be that if they get the most votes, they can make the laws they want. That decries the whole aspect of minority rights. Even though I was elected by a majority of people, I still have a duty, an obligation, and a moral responsibility to take care of the minority who did not vote for me.

It is the same with respect to relations in the multicultural community. That he has some supporters from the multicultural community is not the point. Do the multicultural communities he represents support his government's decision to eliminate the court challenges program?

I can tell him that in the fall I was in Saskatchewan and Alberta, which to my knowledge has no Liberal seats now. The francophone communities in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba, it was part of our official languages trip, were unanimously against the government decision to eliminate the court challenges program. So, I am not sure where he gets his information.

I do wish to be charitable to him. I could suggest a list of reading material which would perhaps illuminate for him the concept of minority rights. That is the charity.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I did focus on official languages. It is where I come from. It is what I have lived as a municipal politician for some time. However, I do understand the growth of minority communities, in general, in Canada, and I do understand that there are language needs that surpass the Official Languages Act, but are nevertheless met with the Canada Health Act.

We were quite gratified to meet officials in western Canada who provide, in British Columbia, for instance, at the provincial level, services in health and education in many languages. If those were to be denied, the court challenges program would be in place to guarantee that a member of a British Columbia Sikh community, for example, who was denied health care in his language so that he could understand what the doctor was saying to him and the doctor could understand what he was saying, could use it if it was egregious.

I compliment the Government of British Columbia but I do not think that is the case. But if it were, if it were flatly denied by policy, by a government agency, board, commission, then the court challenges program would have been there to respond to the needs of all minority populations in this country.

What a shame that the Conservative government does not care about the Acadians in Moncton, New Brunswick, and it does not seemingly care about the Sikh community in British Columbia. What a shame that it just does not care.