Brian Murphy

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wonder if the member would agree with me that we should send a telegram to the President of the Treasury Board, who this morning bragged about 41% of the public service being female. Fifty per cent or more of the population is female. We should send him a telegram if she agrees.

Second, the minister responsible for the Treasury Board said that the cost to the litigious process of getting pay equity rights effected was $4 billion. He may have misled the House, because their own document said--

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from the NDP a few questions about the asset management aspects of the economic update.

First, in short form, it seems to me, to use the words of the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, that this is a fire sale of public assets. Would the member comment on the rationale contained at page 52 of the document presented by the Minister of Finance, where it states “an asset purchased in the 1950s may no longer be relevant to the core responsibilities of the Government more than 50 years later?”

Second, the government says that it would employ a considered approach, taking into account the condition of the markets to make sure a fair value could be achieved for these assets.

In a down in the economy, in a buyer's market, does the member think that any of these assets will be sold and if so, does she think there will be any fair market value? Does she think there will be any value to the government in disposing of such assets?

[Atlantic Salmon, November 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the stock of Atlantic salmon in Bay of Fundy rivers has dropped radically in the last decade. This is in spite of the fact that they were placed on the species at risk list. What is missing is a meaningful recovery plan and adequate government resources dedicated to the implementation thereof.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has held a number of public consultations, yet it still has not come up with a plan to protect Atlantic salmon.

I hope this government will devote the same resources to protecting Atlantic salmon as to protecting Pacific salmon. One type of salmon does not deserve more protection than the other.

My childhood friend, fishing buddy, hockey and football teammate, Bill Taylor, and the Atlantic Salmon Federation, which he heads, have raised awareness and money to put what should be government initiatives in place.

The government should not back out of protecting one of Canada's most precious natural resources. The government cannot back out of doing its job.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side honour the member's time as parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry. He knows the file.

He would have read and seen on television that emissaries of the government went to Washington. I wonder what he makes of the fact, given his experience working with senior ministers of industry, effective Liberal ministers of industry, that they were unable to meet with anyone of influence in Washington? What does he make of the fact that in the United States the bailout bailouts, so-called, the economic stimulus packages, are in the percentages of GDP which, calculated by Canadian terms, would be in the billions of dollars? And if there is not an economic stimulus package delivered today to the workers who need it, the savers who need it, the pensioners who need it, in the order of billions of dollars for Canadians, what would he make of that, given his experience?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 21st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member for Wetaskiwin before on various committees and I appreciate his insight on various matters.

One issue that I know must be important to him, as I think his background is in computer technology, is the need for reform of our Copyright Act, which was in process in the last Parliament. Obviously, since the Speech from the Throne is a guideline and not a fleshed-out document as to what the actual budget and program of the government will be, I want to ask him for his thoughts on the government direction in this regard.

Connected to it, with respect to the cultural and arts side of things, I want to hear from him on what the government proposes in the field of arts of culture because it was hardly addressed in the Speech from the Throne. He must know, as I do, one does not have to be from a big city to understand that the impact of cuts to arts and cultural groups across Canada is profound. It is not a deleterious effect just to the artists and the gala-goers. It has a very bad effect on the people who are in the entertainment industry, the bars and restaurants, and in the carpentry and other trades who are so dependent on the arts and cultural sector.

What are his thoughts on where the government is going in this regard?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it has been since 1785 when New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were one. We have had many rivalries as provinces, but there is one thing I am sure the member will agree with and that is shipbuilding is a current industry very well thought of in both provinces and Atlantic Canada in general.

I ask my friend to refer to page 7 of the Speech from the Throne which speaks about the Canadian manufacturing sector and the automotive and aerospace industries, not shipbuilding. It talks about traditional industries and does not mention shipbuilding. Does he think the government has given up on shipbuilding? Does the government think that shipbuilding is a sunset industry?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Toronto—Danforth on his re-election. While I have lots of respect for the work he has done in the past for municipalities and, of course, his Albert county, New Brunswick roots, which may make me partial to him, I have a quarrel with him.

In his response he said that he wanted to work well in this Parliament and that he wanted to be cooperative but it seems that at every measure he would be determined to vote against the government. Is that not a replay of the last campaign we just went through where the NDP could be so irresponsible on environmental solutions, not supported by the Sierra Club, economists or anybody credible in the environmental field, and yet those members banter and beat their breasts and say that they will do all the things that they want to do knowing they will never be the government? They sit in the House and criticize knowing they will never, ever be the government.

Will the leader of the NDP come clean and say what he would do if he were in government in this current economic crisis with respect to taxing corporations for being polluters? Would he bail out any of the corporations that are in so much need of assistance in order to keep the companies of corporate Canada alive? What would he do in this crucial time as prime minister, which, of course, he never will be?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Bloc leader a question about the throne speech. It contains this sentence, in which the member can replace the word “Canada” with “Quebec” if he wants: “Canada's institutions are the cornerstone of our democracy, our freedom and our prosperity.” As a Liberal, I agree completely with this statement, but I think that the Prime Minister does not believe these words. He broke his own fixed election date law, he went against his own process for selecting a Supreme Court justice and, at a recent Conservative Party convention in Winnipeg, nearly all the members of his party chose to vote against the principles of this country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Does the Bloc leader think that this Prime Minister believes in the laws of Quebec and Canada?

[Conservative Party of Canada, June 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as MPs return to their ridings this summer, Conservatives have a lot of questions to answer.

On the Couillard affair, why did the government say that it was not putting security at risk during an ongoing security breach? Why do Conservatives treat questions of national security as gossip?

On the Cadman affair, why did they try to take advantage of a dying man's love for his family by offering him a bribe in exchange for his vote?

On Mulroney-Schreiber, why did the Conservatives go out of their way to protect their political idol and favourite lobbyist, Brian Mulroney?

On the in and out scandal, why did they cheat taxpayers with their advertising money laundering scheme? How could Elections Canada, the government body that certified that Conservatives won the last election, be biased against them?

On Omar Khadr, why does Canada's government want its citizens to continue to be abused by the internationally discredited American military justice system?

The Conservatives attack anyone who asks questions in this House of Commons. Let them try that at home with their constituents this summer.

[Main Estimates, 2008-09, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member. We have served on committees together. I know he has many more years of experience in life and at the bar than I do.

I want to ask him very plainly, does he not think that Bill C-19, Bill C-20 and any of the other bills the government is proposing with respect to Senate reform need to pass muster by way of reference to the Supreme Court of Canada or in each province, as the case may be?