Brian Murphy

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my friend from the NDP. I ask him though at this time to sort of search his soul and have him tell me if it is not true that the budget that we are assessing this evening has more of a Galbraith-Roosevelt feel to it than a Friedman-Flanagan feeling to it. And whether in fact he thinks that it was at all conceivable that a year ago the government would ever come up with such a budget, would ever say yes to the inevitable stimulus funding that is in the budget, had it not been for the threat of failure and the final opening of its eyes to the good small l liberal ways of budgeting that have served this country so well?

Is it not the combined opposition, and in particular the articulateness of the Liberal side, that brought the little leprechaun who poses as our Minister of Finance to see his pot of gold.

I am Irish. That cannot be an insult. Does he not see that this--

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has experience on elected municipal council, so he brings to this House that breadth of experience. He also has enjoyed the hospitality and fine infrastructure and recreational facilities in the city of Moncton, so he brings that asset to this House as well.

I do want to dig down, if I may, on his comments about and definition of shovel ready. I would like to turn that over and ask him, in his experience, whether municipalities, provincial governments and federal governments always agree on the priorities for infrastructure funding. What happens if a municipality, for instance, has applied for a project but the province does not agree with it? I am talking about the three party funding. Conversely, what if the province wants something and the federal government wants something but the municipality has not papered it yet, has not applied for it? Does he see a possibility that those projects can get completed even if they are not papered or applied for?

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the member for Mount Royal has penned comments to the effect that there are no human rights that do not include women's rights.

I am astounded at the answer that was just given in response to a question from the NDP member, that because the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora has not experienced discrimination as a woman working in a profession, somehow that makes it all right. The statistics indicate that 71¢ is what women earn for every dollar that men earn.

This is not up for debate. This is a chamber of debate. What is up for debate is how that member can stand there and say that the government has addressed pay equity in a reasonable fashion. Maybe she misunderstood the question. Maybe she could answer it in the vein that I know my friend from Mount Royal would have answered it had he been given the opportunity.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member, and I know he was a member of the Canadian Forces, but I must ask him two simple questions.

The first question goes to the issue of arrogance and honesty that he said were so important in a leader. Did the Prime Minister tell the truth when he said that there were no flags behind the table where the three signatories to the coalition entente took place? Did he tell the truth?

I have a second question. If the support of the Bloc Québécois is so heinous and awful, why did his government rely on that vote 140 times in the last Parliament? Why did they accept the support 140 times for bills they thought were important to move their agenda forward if it is so awful to accept the support of the Bloc Québécois on bills before Parliament?

I hear a member from Alberta raising an issue that is divisive to the country. We, in this chamber, want unity in this country.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I deeply respect my friend's former involvement in municipal politics. As a former mayor, I know that he also knows grassroots politics at that level. He should therefore know that 36% is not a majority. In my riding, 32% is not what it took to win. We are all members of Parliament who were elected with different percentages by the electors in our ridings.

The Conservative Party did not get a majority of the seats, yet they rule as though they did. As the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley said, the leader over there does not understand people. He does not understand that people can only be pushed around for so long. What is worse is that he has not acted on the important parts of the economic policy for Canadians.

People from car dealerships and distributorships in my riding are writing to tell me they are worried about the future. They know, as the government ought to have known, that in September and October there was need for action. During the campaign, the Conservatives denied there was any need for action. Shortly after the campaign, they said they would act, but the real action will only come, if the government survives, in January.

The government has made the good people in my riding who are depending on economic stimulus wait from September to January. It is unfair. Why did the Conservatives not act sooner?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. We have served on committees together, and I have a great deal of respect for him today. However, he seems pretty excited about things, and I want to make sure I do not make him more excitable by asking this very simple question.

Will he acknowledge that the Prime Minister’s party received only 36% of the vote in Canada? I do not know what happened in Burlington. I congratulate the member, but 36% is not a majority. The Minister of Industry on the other side once won an election by 20- or 30-some votes. He was no less an MP than others who won by big landslides.

We do not carve up democracy by percentages. We follow a system. Is he repudiating the Westminster system? Does he think that the Minister of Industry, when elected that last time, was less a minister than any of the others who had big landslides? Was he less than the member for Wild Rose, who had every man, woman and animal in the riding voting for him? Is he less of a minister?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as upscale as I can.

I am refreshed that the member uses the memories and the nostalgic throwback to men like Douglas, Laurier and Trudeau. I suggest had that side used those names and those men's thoughts more often, we may not be in the situation we are today.

I really caution my friend about using words like coup d'état when the Constitution of this country and our conventions, which are part of the Constitution of this country, will be followed in all cases because we have a Governor General system of government.

He does say that Atlantic Canada, Quebec and the big cities are ganging up on western Canada. That is not quite fair. Let me tell members something. In Atlantic Canada, the Conference Board of Canada predicted a 1.3% growth for P.E.I., a .7% growth for Newfoundland, a .5% growth for New Brunswick and a 1% growth for Nova Scotia for 2009. Those are not good figures. They do not in fact support the economic update foundational information. As one western journalist, who is not friendly to Liberals, said, the figures in the economic update were carved in cotton, and they appear to be. That is not a rosy picture in Atlantic Canada.

What I want to ask my friend very pointedly is, if he had an economic crisis in his home, in his community, in his province, would he wait from September, when the Prime Minister campaigned saying there was no problem, until the end of January to do something about it? Is that reasonable? Is that not why the other people on the other side are in the position they are?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend if he thinks the party over there, whose last experience with deficits during the Mulroney years brought in a whopping total deficit of $42 billion, is fit to manage the crisis that we are getting into economically.

The member did not have enough time to expand on the buyers' market it is for assets. I know he is from a small place in P.E.I. and does not know about big cities like Moncton but he knows that in hard times one does not get good prices for what one is selling. Is that not what the government is doing? Is it not a fire sale?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague on one aspect, and that is with respect to the regulation of securities throughout this country. The provinces have a lot of work to do on that.

With respect to his rhetoric about a coalition government and what Canadians did not choose, I am pretty sure that Canadians, or at least the Progressive Conservatives in my riding, did not choose a Reform-Alliance-Progressive Conservative government.

We have to wait and see what happens. We have to understand that parties change. I would have thought those members would know more about parties changing their titles and working together than anyone else.

I have a serious question. It is a very simple one. The member went on many times about the many Liberal governments in the past and the correction that had to be made for the deficit that was left them. Can my colleague admit to the House and to the public what the Mulroney deficit was, and how long it took to get rid of the Mulroney Conservative deficit?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions on pay equity and I suppose it is fair to say that if the response is to wait for the legislation, then that is the response. However. there were too many forceful statements made in the House, particularly by the President of the Treasury Board, which leads me to believe the legislation has been reviewed. The hon. member who spoke on the topic must have some knowledge that there will be a change.

The language in the document talks about getting rid of litigious, adversarial and complaints-based approaches to ensure that gender is not a discriminatory factor with respect to paying people what they are worth.

The minister responsible said that the cost of litigation was $4 billion. The document itself said that the equity settlements were $4 billion.

Would the hon. member agree with me, as his own documents imply, that the $4 billion went to make more equal pay to women who do equal work to men in the workplace and not to the costs of litigation and the adversarial process? If his answer is he does not know, I will accept that with respect.