Joyce Murray

[March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Transport a question a couple of weeks ago that was not well answered. In fact, his answer was very dismissive. I asked about the seven out of seven infrastructure projects that had been announced in British Columbia that were all in Conservative ridings and suggested there might be a bit of pork barrelling going on. The minister responded that it is not surprising to have all of the projects in Conservative ridings given how many Conservative ridings there are in British Columbia.

I would like to give the Minister of Transport an arithmetic lesson. Counting up the number of Conservative ridings, it is actually 61%. I hope that the minister is not someone who would get 61% on an examination, and go home and tell his parents and friends that he got 100%. There is a large gap between those two numbers and to justify all of the announced investments going into Conservative ridings on that completely misleading and fallacious basis is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, I am seeing in the House a decaying of the tone that we were setting. After prorogation, the Prime Minister appeared to have learned the lesson that this is a minority government that actually needs to work with its colleagues in the best interests of Canadians. There is an economic crisis that needs us to band together and think about why we are here as members of Parliament. We are not here to spend government money. We are here to serve taxpayers and think about their well-being.

I remind the Minister of Transport that the funds we spend are the taxpayers' funds. They are not the government's funds. As such, they have to be handled with the utmost transparency and integrity, not with arrogance and duplicity. Unfortunately, the tone of cooperation that we saw in January has severely eroded. We are getting back to the kind of non-answers to questions that were so prevalent when I was first elected and, to my shock, found that this was a House where the government members could taunt rather than answer.

Not only do we have concerns about the targeting of infrastructure to Conservative ridings, we also have the situation of a $3 billion fund that is being put aside. There is a complete and utter unwillingness to be accountable for that money. That is a betrayal of the trust of taxpayers and it is simply not acceptable. The Prime Minister and his team do not do justice to the trust the taxpayers and voters put in us. The basis of our democratic system is that trust. We need to rebuild it, not undermine it.

[Public Safety, February 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the recent explosion of gang crime in metro Vancouver. Crime has always been part of human society but that does not excuse government ineffectiveness in controlling and reducing it. On the contrary, we must continuously improve and strengthen the complex network of resources, policies, processes and laws designed to protect citizens. That takes partnership, coordination and progress by politicians at every level of government and all political parties.

We collectively represent each individual citizen, and citizens have a right to expect their representatives to work constructively together on their behalf and to not engage in divisive partisanship and to not hide behind rhetoric about who is and who is not tough on crime. On this issue we cannot afford to play games. On this issue we must find common ground because it is literally a matter of life and death for the innocent victims of drive-by shootings and for the young gang members themselves.

When B.C.'s ministers came to Ottawa to tell us what new crime laws B.C. needs, I met with them not once but twice. I stand here today to confirm that I will work with the province, my colleagues and government to make those laws a reality.

[Public Safety, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously strong on spin, though weak on crime.

At a time of escalating gang violence in B.C., unfortunately we do have a Conservative government that is weak on crime. On the Conservatives' watch, the situation has become worse. They have been three years in power and communities are experiencing the reeling from their failure.

The Conservatives have weakened prevention programs, weakened the gun registry and killed a number of important crime bills that the Liberals were supporting.

Why is the minister not giving my community of Vancouver and all Canadians the tools and the resources they--

[Softwood Lumber Industry, February 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Southern Governors' Association has passed a motion attacking the already crippled Canadian softwood lumber industry. It calls on President Obama to take new extraordinary measures to punish a sector that has done nothing wrong and is hanging on by a thread.

Within hours our trade critic met with Governor Barbour and many of the other governors in order to defend Canada's forestry sector. But where were the Conservatives? Why are they not standing up for Canada and for its forestry workers?

[Justice, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and it is 150 years since he published his theory of evolution in the seminal book The Origin of Species, which has contributed so much to our understanding of the natural world and human behaviour.

Social scientists have used Darwin's theories to better understand the root causes of crime. It is one thing to understand those causes though and it is another to take action. In my community of Vancouver Quadra, people are deeply concerned with the recent crime wave being described as an all out gang war. Six gang shootings in one week and at least seven homicides since late January in greater Vancouver. This is unacceptable.

The Liberals are deeply concerned. The Conservatives, for political reasons, defeated their very own crime bills through prorogation and other procedural means.

I call for an evolution of Conservative priorities on crime. It is time the Conservatives put the public good above their own partisan gain.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I want to acknowledge the member as being a master of righteous indignation. I appreciate the member's list of deficiencies of the current government, and I share those views. I agree with much of the critique of the budget. It could have been much better, and I would give it a C-. It was disappointing to see what was tabled.

The member talks about principles. Listening to all the speeches about the past 20 years, the past fall, and so on is all very interesting, but for people who has lost their jobs, it is not very relevant. The member's principles seems to be to oppose, no matter what. That was demonstrated when the NDP members stated they would oppose the budget well before it was written.

The choice is clear. Have laid off sawmill workers in his riding asked the member to make people wait for months for any assistance at this time, or would they prefer the member clear the way for immediate action to stimulate the economy, help people—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's dilemma with respect to his province and the unwarranted attack by the Prime Minister on Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, I would like to correct a statement about the Liberal Party agenda. The Liberal Party agenda is pretty straightforward. It is the well-being of Canadians. In our view, there is absolutely no question that that well-being is best served by immediate help given to Canadians facing this historic economic disaster.

Does the member believe that holding out for a perfect budget, which is a chimera, something we may never see, is a better strategy for the people who are losing their jobs than giving them immediate help rather than waiting months for the implementation of some other potentially perfect budget?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a comment about there being only one real difference between last November's budget and today's budget, and that the Liberals will not be opposing the budget this time. That seems more than a little myopic. I presume the member opposite does not believe the only thing of significance is the voting that is happening in the House.

In fact, there are two very major differences, and they are affecting Canadians' lives, including the lives of his constituents in Sudbury. First, one real difference is that the situation for people is far more urgent today than it was in November, albeit it was serious then, and the historic job losses in January are evidence of that. Second, this budget, although so flawed that I gave it a C-, does incorporate some of the stimulus measures called for by the opposition, including the member's party.

My question is whether the member has taken the time to ask the folks laid off in Sudbury if they would prefer the outcome the member is vigorously defending and advocating, which is yet another delay of several months before a federal Parliament can possibly authorize action on their concerns.

[February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the member opposite has come with a full-blown message box and is apparently not responding at all to the concerns I am raising. He talks about announcing funding. That is the very problem I am pointing at. The Ottawa Congress Centre was announced in 2006, 2007 and 2008, before a single dollar ever flowed.

I will repeat my questions about accountability to the member opposite. Will the minister table a list of all building Canada fund projects that have been announced, the dates they were announced, all of those dates if there were multiple announcements, and the dollars that have actually been delivered?

Second, will the minister commit to this House that the ridings receiving the funds will be proportional to the seats in this House and not skewed to Conservative ridings as they have been so far, with 78% of the dollars going to Conservative ridings—

[February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, on January 29 I asked a question in the House and I did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I asked whether the Conservative government was actually getting money out the door for crucial infrastructure projects across the country or simply conducting serial photo opportunities. Specifically, the minister could not confirm for me whether the federal government's $50 million contribution to the Ottawa Congress Centre had been delivered, although there had been three announcements, including one from the Prime Minister.

In addition to that, the minister gave a cynical and misleading response. He stated, “Mr. Speaker, this government was very pleased to support the Canada Line that goes through guess whose riding”. I would hope that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities knows his geography well enough to know that the Canada Line does not go through this member's riding of Vancouver Quadra. It actually begins in a Conservative member's riding in Richmond, and it was a project that was approved and funded by the previous Liberal government.

In fact the Evergreen Line, for which the Conservative government recently announced funding while not putting it in the budget, strangely enough, is primarily in the riding of the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, a Conservative member.

For three years the government has failed to act in good faith for all Canadians, putting partisan advantage ahead of principle, and it is doing it again. Members will remember the broken promise around income trusts, which cost seniors billions; the Cadman bribery scandal; the RCMP raid for cheating on election advertising; the broken fixed-election-date law; and the massive cynical Senate appointments. That is why the Liberals have put the Prime Minister on probation.

For three years the Prime Minister has failed Canadians through his mismanagement of the economy of the country, spent wildly to try to buy his way to a majority government when economic times were good, drained the structural surplus left to him by the Liberals by cutting the GST, denied Canada would be impacted by this global crisis, failed to act, and tabled a fudge-it budget in November showing surpluses on which there had to be an about-face within a couple of weeks. That is why the Liberals are putting the government on probation.

The Liberals recognize the urgency of moving forward on behalf of Canadians whose jobs are lost or at risk. That is why the Liberals have supported this budget, flawed as it is. Now the Conservative government actually has a chance to redeem itself. What I would contend is that the Conservative government has to change to honesty, competence and non-partisan government for all Canadians, which it has not been demonstrating.

The Conservatives have two options now. One is to exploit this crisis and the misery of Canadians who are losing their jobs, their companies, their pensions and their homes with a program of partisan photo opportunities, announcing and reannouncing cynically their building Canada fund projects while not cutting cheques. The second option is for Conservatives to redeem themselves by stewarding Canadians' tax dollars into investments with openness, sincerity and non-partisanship.

I would first ask the minister to tell us whether a cheque has been cut for, and delivered to, the Ottawa Congress Centre; second, to table a list of all building Canada fund projects that have been announced, and the dates they were announced; and third--