Brian Murphy

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I know that, for historical reasons, Quebec is considered an important partner in the Confederation, but this motion has been moved by the Bloc, and the Bloc is against Canada. It does not want a single seat more for Quebec, because it does not want Quebec to have any seat at all in this federal institution.

Obviously, we are opposed to this motion, but at the same time, we are also against the attitude of the government that keeps going against the regions of Canada, therefore against me, and against the Maritime provinces.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here four years and I have only been in opposition, so to pin that on me is not even a grade 6 antic. That member is typical of the other side. As good a person as he is, those members have an inculcated sense to insult people from the Maritimes or Quebec and imbue them with the culture of defeat that they think they have.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, they are not my words. Donald Savoie has characterized the concerns of many Maritimers. If he does not respect Donald Savoie, then he does not deserve to get into grade 7. Mr. Savoie said:

As a Maritimer, I’m deeply offended and if we keep going down this road, I’m worried about the future of my country.

I know Donald Savoie well enough to know that he could be taken out of context. Maybe he is not against the principle of the bill. Maybe he is saying that we have to look at democratic reform and ensure that all the regions are respectfully represented in this nation. That includes the Senate and this place. No one wants to deny British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario the reward for the fact they are growing.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government bill is really the subject of this motion. It seeks to increase House seats by 30, which would probably give an advantage to some provinces because they have grown and they would have a larger number of seats.

The principle of representation by population, that everybody's vote should count the same, either has to be a pure principle followed exactly to the letter, or it has to take into account variations that come from our foundation as a nation, our special interests within a nation and the aspect of geography, which is one of the key components of our country.

If we were to have representation by population purely, then some vast regions of our country would be impossible to represent because the number of people required to make, let me say 108,000 electors, would be so vast that it would be half of northern Canada. We have already de facto decided that we will make exceptions to the representation by population principle.

Therefore, when I hear members, including the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, talk about it being a pure principle and how could anybody be against it, I want to remind them that we have already made exceptions to it. We have to take into account that there are special circumstances to special regions, special populations, special language groups and special historical facts.

I was attempting to outline that people as eminent as Donald Savoie in my region have talked about the diminution of the influence of Maritime Canada within the federation. I am sorry that defending where I come from upsets people. As a Maritimer, I hearken back to the days when the Maritime provinces were the economic engine of this great federation, and that day will surely come again. If Danny Williams has his way, it could come tomorrow or the next day.

If this federation is a give and take relationship, then we all have to be respectful. I am being very respectful when I say for my members from British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta that it is a wonderful thing that their communities have grown and contributed to the economic engine that is Canada. It is a wonderful thing to support representation by population. It is also a wonderful thing to respect the old partners of Confederation, special language groups and the geographical fact that we are a dispersely populated country.

If we have already made exceptions to the rule of representation by population, the government saying that an exact principle has to be followed in every case does not hold water.

Let us look at our neighbour to the south. Would we say, as a characterization, that Americans are overly generous when it comes to the democratic representation principle, that they would say on the larger stage that they do not care about democratic equality? They have fought wars on these issues. Yet in the United States of America, Rhode Island has two senators just like the great state of California. The House of Representatives is a pure representation by population body, but the senate, which some would argue is the more powerful body, is not representation by population.

Perhaps we have to go back to the drawing board and decide what we want in this bicameral state we call Canada. We know the Senate is either something that the government really wants to get rid of totally, or it is something that it wants to reform into an elected representation by population body, so we would have two of us, as if one is not enough, or we decide we will have one rep by pop body and one Senate representing regions, ethnicities and languages, a historical fact upon which our great country was founded.

That is the real debate we should be having in the House. We should not be debating some government drive-by bill written in a Tim Hortons somewhere with a camera on saying that the government is doing democratic reform now. The government is doing it because in 19 Conservative ridings out of 30, the Conservatives would be gaining an advantage.

The bill that this motion is the subject of is nothing but political opportunism. For that reason, we want real democratic reform from that side, not just another press conference.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Thank you for coming to my rescue. I so needed that, Mr. Speaker.

When I talk about New Brunswick, when I talk about the maritime provinces, I do not need any defence. I can say to anyone that I am a very proud Maritimer, I am a very proud Canadian and I believe in the principles of our country and the ones on which they were founded.

Some of the principles the country was founded on, which came from the four founding partners, were principles of fairness and principles not to marginalize other regions of the country.

I said in French at the beginning of my remarks that I found it disconcerting that the Bloc Québécois members always bring forward motions that would marginalize the rest of Canada. That is what they believe. They do not want to be part of Canada, so they want to marginalize any aspect of Canada. There is a certain honesty in that, but I do not agree with them. I also do not agree, however, with language that comes from the other side with respect to the great federal system that we have or had.

What I think is important to—

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. First, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

I will start by reading the motion before us:

That the House denounce the fact that the government seeks to marginalize the Quebec nation by introducing a bill to decrease Quebec’s political weight in the House, and that it affirm that Quebec Members of Parliament, who represent a nation, must hold at least 25 percent of the seats in the House.

An amendment to this motion has been moved, but discussions today will focus on the motion.

I agree with the part of the motion which states that “the government seeks to marginalize”. I would say that it seeks to marginalize every region in the country. The people of New Brunswick are very proud to have an Acadian population and they believe that, through its actions, the government is seeking to marginalize not only the Acadian nation, but also the regions of Canada, including the Maritimes.

I would now like to address the rest of the motion, with which I do not agree. I am a proud federalist. I come from New Brunswick, this country's only bilingual province. I believe in this country, in Canada.

This motion benefits Quebec only and marginalizes the rest of the country. The Bloc Québécois' motion and this government's actions are marginalizing me as a politician from the Maritimes.

Let me explain. Our country was founded in 1867. The four founding provinces were Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. If I hear catcalls and it is a joke to talk about the founding of our country, if it is a joke to talk about four founding provinces coming into a deal and having expectations—

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I have a question on the meaning of the amendment and will mention a couple of hypothetical situations.

Let us say the Maritime Union took hold and the Maritimes left Canada. Would Quebec, according to the member, be happy with 24.35% or more?

The second question I have is hypothetical but is not that much of a stretch. Quebec is doing immensely well on the world stage and could grow in leaps and bounds. Would the member envisage this motion if passed preventing Quebec from having more than 24.35% should it be the province to grow? Finally, would it be fair if Quebec had this spurt of growth, which we all think could occur, if it was held back in its number of seats by percentage?

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I have a few questions I would like to ask the member with regard to the question raised by the member from Ontario. I believe it is important to recall the history of this country. When Canada was founded, there were four provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario. At the time, it was clear that other provinces could join. However, the country was founded with those four provinces.

I would like to ask the member if it is important to highlight and remember the fact that this country was founded by four provinces, with the sensibilities, ideas and hopes of that era and with rights that would be preserved through the years.

Does the member think that the idea of proportional representation means that our territory should have no MPs whatsoever, maybe half an MP, or a quarter of an MP?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister some pretty simple questions. They have to do with the annual review of human rights both in Canada and Colombia, which has been grafted on to the tree of the bill, I suppose, making it more palatable to many.

First, does he think that takes away a lot of the concern there might have been with respect to the bill? Second, why was it not contemplated in the first place? Third, in the future will the government graft such automatic reviews in any bilateral agreements that it undertakes?

[Public Safety, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there has been three years of discussion. We need some action.

Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe has been well-served by Codiac RCMP but costs have soared and municipalities are now urgently forced to look at changing the model. The main reason is the government's lack of action on a request for the same cost-sharing agreement that 269 other communities in Canada enjoy.

Would the minister tell us why he does not care at all about policing concerns in southeastern New Brunswick? Why the delay, the deceit and the discrimination?