Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee
Content of Flyer–Speaker’s Ruling

Madam Speaker, I would only ask the member to tell this place whether he agreed with the position of the government at the time.

 

The member, quite frankly, is introducing irrelevant issues. He is contending that the Government of Israel asked the Canadian government to stay. I have information to the contrary.

 

If I am not mistaken, the member opposite left Durban in disgust before its end and could not persuade the Government of Canada to do the same. I understand his frustration but what he is talking about are issues of normal public debate.

 

I will quote again the Victoria Times Colonist which said that the presence of the previous government, right to the bitter end, helped “to legitimize what has become a propaganda forum for some of the worst anti-Jewish hatemongering since the Second World War”.

 

That is a legitimate point of view. It is my point of view and it is the point of millions of Canadians. It is the point of view of many of his constituents. He is just uncomfortable with that fact and I understand his discomfort.

 

 

Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): 

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the word “uncomfortable” came up at least seven times in the minister’s speech.

 

I could ask him if he is uncomfortable with the fact that his own Prime Minister called my people, the people of Atlantic Canada, “people with a culture of defeat”.

 

I could ask him if he is uncomfortable with the comments made by the member for South Shore—St. Margaret’s regarding the people on the streets of Halifax.

 

I could ask him if he is uncomfortable with the slurs against gays that a member from Saskatchewan posited on the public recently. I would love to know what his sincere response to that was.

 

If the member is such a defender of what is said by members of his own party that are wrong, where was he when those things were said?

 

One of the questions that arises f from the ruling on the prima facie case of privilege is the means by which a population in Canada was targeted. The member for Mount Royal made a very good point in making that a very big part of his point of privilege.

 

I know the minister will not answer the first questions, but how did his party target the people of Mount Royal? Is his party willing to table the documents that prove the modus operandi of the service on the Jewish population of Mount Royal with its ten percenter in the efforts of having a full discussion of what ten percenters, and it is quite apparent, are doing to decimate the public process here?

 

Hon. Jason Kenney:
    
First, Madam Speaker, I am not a specialist in the distribution of ten percenters, but that is not the issue.

 

Second, I think these are issues of interest to all Canadians, not just to Jewish Canadians. They are certainly of interest to me. I have spent much of my parliamentary career as a non-Jew working on these issues.

 

Third, I presume the answer to his question is that the means used to select constituencies and areas for distribution of this ten percenter were precisely the same as the ten percenter with the Israeli flag on it distributed by Liberal members of Parliament on the same issues. Sometimes the fog of hypocrisy is so thick in here that people cannot even hear.

 

The ten percenter in question was distributed after a ten percenter on issues of concern to the Jewish community by members of the official opposition. If the member would like an investigation into how that was distributed, I suggest he speak to the people in the Liberal research bureau.
 

To view the complete debate in the House of Commons click here