Brian Murphy

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, following on the question from the member for Peace River, I wonder if the member agrees with me or thinks it is possible that this really is about three initials, whether it is AIG or CPC.

Giving money, $3 billion in this case, without strings is very much like a bailout given to a company and having it do what it will with it, which we are now seeing with approbation by the United States and by all the world, the bailout of AIG resulting in bonuses to their executives.

Does she see an analogy here that we are letting the CPC, that is the government, spend $3 billion without any conditions whatsoever? Who will it bail out? Who will it compensate, unjustly perhaps, all the members who hold CPC ridings?

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague and seat mate from Newton—North Delta is a trained engineer and very hard working man.

Does it make sense if we are to build a bridge, that we do not show people the plans? Does it make sense that if we to put together a great big meal, that we not have a recipe or show anyone who cooks the meal the recipe? Therefore, does it make any sense to the good people of Newton—North Delta, to the people of downtown Surrey, who want projects done and completed, to say that we will spend $3 billion, but we will not tell them how we will spend it and that we will keep it and give favours to our friends? Does that make any sense to the member? Is that the proper way to administer $3 billion of taxpayer money?

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the word might be “hubris”. The word might be “arrogance”. Whatever it is, the member opposite gets up in his place and says it is shameless and sad that members of the opposition want to know how the Government of Canada is going to spend $3 billion. I do not think it is shameless and sad to want to know that. I think the people of Canada, in his riding and in my riding and all the ridings, want to know how that money is to be spent.

First, the Conservatives hide behind the skirt that it will all have to go through Treasury Board. All money spent by governments in Canada have to comply with Treasury Board guidelines. Big deal. That is defence number one gone.

Second, he says that it is a burden for the civil servants. We are not attacking the civil servants; we are attacking the hidden agenda of the Conservative government that will spend $3 billion on friendly projects and have the audacity not to tell the opposition parties and the Canadian public what it is spending the money on.

Finally, by way of a question, if it is as simple as looking in the economic action plan and saying everything must come out of that plan, why can the member over there not stand in his place and tell us what specific expenditures in the economic action plan the $3 billion is made up of? Will he do it now, or will he be shameless and sad and avoid the question?

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has been doing a lot of work listening to and meeting with members from FCM. I, myself, have spent some time at FCM on FCM boards. I know that they know best what will work and what will distribute infrastructure funding better, quicker and more equitably.

I ask the hon. member whether it is enough for him that the big city mayors, which include the mayors of Kitchener, Calgary, Vancouver, Surrey, Winnipeg, St. John's, Halifax, London, Hamilton, Brampton, Windsor, Mississauga, Toronto, Ottawa, Gatineau, Longueuil, Montreal, Saskatoon and Edmonton, all signed a letter saying that the best way to flow the money to the municipalities was under the gas tax transfer model. Does he have any indication that they are wrong and that the government is correct in doing it backwards, slow and possibly a parochially crooked way?

[Annette Leger, March 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of a remarkable woman who gave a great deal of herself to this House and her country.

Annette Leger passed away on February 23 in her native Moncton, her dear mother, Betty, nearby.

Annette had a long and notable career on Parliament Hill. She was the executive secretary to several members, Maurice Sauvé, Donald S. Macdonald, Lloyd Axworthy, Paul St. Pierre, as well as Postmaster General Eric Kierans, and House Sergeant-at-Arms Gus Cloutier.

Annette is best known for her work as the coordinator of the parliamentary page program from 1979 until she retired in 1994.

When she accepted the position, women were just starting to take their place as equals in the labour force, and that battle continues to this day.

Annette travelled the country to recruit young Canadians, looking for that special spark in them, the treasure of our country.

I ask all members of the House to join me in celebrating and acknowledging Annette's life and her deep service to this country.

[Justice, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have another question on a separate topic for the Minister of Justice. Has he ordered the Government of Canada to seek clemency for a Canadian citizen held on death row in Montana?

The courts are doing the government's job. Will the Minister of Justice report to this House today or tomorrow on how he plans to respond to this ruling by the Federal Court in defence of human rights?

[Correctional Service Canada, March 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Ashley Smith of Moncton was jailed at age 13 and died cold, alone and uncared for in a Kitchener jail cell at the age of 17.

Today I sat with her family as they expressed support for the recommendations of corrections investigator, Howard Sapers, in what he called a preventable death.

Will the minister immediately endorse and implement those recommendations? Will the government keep Mr. Sapers around long enough for him to finish his investigation so there will not be another preventable death like Ashley's?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his speech. I agree with him: we can feel the optimism from the President of the United States, Mr. Obama.

However, the only thing we have to go on is the words spoken by the president in a television interview. It was not something he said in a major speech before the Senate. It was not something he said in front of the Leaders of the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Is the hon. member confident that the Obama administration will go before the Senate and the House of Representatives with those words that will ensure a period of global cooperation? Is he confident that the president will win the support of American politicians who, for the most part, are democratic but have a history of being protectionist?

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remarks. The comparison was unfair.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the leprechauns that I have known are perhaps much more jolly than the minister and the comparison was not fair.

In short, will the hon. member--