Brian Murphy

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member almost was my university professor in Halifax. I do not know if that is his loss or mine. However, I was very enraptured by his comments, especially as I come from New Brunswick, which has put a lot of its power generating eggs in the basket of the nuclear power future.

Is the government and its climate change policy in step with the policy for nuclear power in the future and this bill in particular? What is it about this climate change policy of the government that in any way meshes with the nuclear aspects of his comments?

[Canada Border Services Agency, May 2nd, 2008]

What is transparent, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no plan to distribute budgeted money fairly to airports across the country. But fairness is not the government's strong suit. It has cherry-picked some small airports to be open 24 hours. Meanwhile, others are losing out on contracts with air carriers that need to operate beyond the nine to five hours set out by the empire of CBSA.

Why is the minister determined to separate the A cities from the B cities?

[Canada Border Services Agency, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, small cities across the country are experiencing serious customs staffing shortages at local airports. Penticton, Fredericton, Prince George, Moncton, Regina, Terrace and Mont-Tremblant are losing out because the public safety minister cannot be trusted to make sound airport staffing policy. He seems to be in a daze.

The minister's reaction is symptomatic of Conservative blindness to the economic needs of smaller cities. Can the minister explain why his customs policy does not give our smaller cities even a chance?

[Floods in New Brunswick, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this week New Brunswick has been hit by the most serious flooding it has experienced in more than 30 years, with warnings of high water levels in areas all along the Saint John River.

The spring rains and snow melt runoff have endangered more than 1,300 homes. The forecast looks the worst for the city of Fredericton.

Rising waters threaten to swamp bridges and force closure of dozens of roads. The Red Cross, EMO, fire departments and police forces are all working hard to warn and assist residents.

Many remember the floods of 1973 and 2005 with horror. The good news is that the rain is supposed to ease off today with clear skies for Friday.

I know that I speak on behalf of all the members of the House when I offer my sincerest sympathy to all those in need right now.

I say to New Brunswickers to face this challenge head on with the true maritime strength and determination that they are known for, take care of each other, and know that April showers are almost behind them.

[Minister of Foreign Affairs, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last week the minister embarrassed Canada, just like that last response did, and put the government of Afghanistan in an impossible position. If it removes the governor of Kandahar, it looks like it is caving into NATO pressure. If he stays, its ability to combat corruption has been seriously compromised.

How many mistakes of this magnitude will it take before the incompetent Minister of Foreign Affairs is finally fired for his incompetence? How long will it take?

[Minister of Foreign Affairs, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is an embarrassment to Canadians. The minister has done nothing to help Brenda Martin, who is still in a Mexican prison. The minister has done nothing to ban cluster bombs. In the only matter in which the minister has decided to take action, Afghanistan, he created an international incident last week.

How can the Prime Minister still have confidence in this minister? When will he ask the minister to step down?

[April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, these papers are very important to the work I do and they will be archived. Also, I do not think it is fair for him, the young, spritely fellow that he is, to make fun of an ocular deviation that I have and I cannot see as well.

I would ask my friend for, I think, the 153rd time now and counting, to at least address the question. What does he think financial considerations meant? These are the Prime Minister's words. I know he was very careful to say on air, in the public domain and in the Commons so many times that they had not heard the whole context of the tape and that the context was important.

The fact is that the term “financial considerations” was used by the Prime Minister, the leader of the governing party in the House, the government to which Canadians look up to.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to come clean. What were the financial considerations if they were not financial security for his vote in favour of the Conservative--

[April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 3, I asked the parliamentary secretary whether he and his party were trying to twist Chuck Cadman's words or deviate from the fact that offers were made to the Cadman family to ensure that Mr. Cadman would place a crucial vote in their favour.

The reason I ask this question is that it appears that the Conservatives are thriving on a system of double talk and half truths. In the past few weeks, it has become apparent that the Conservative Party is willing to use whatever means it can and any means it can think of to get what it wants, including bypassing the election laws for which we now see the RCMP, regretfully, has had to become involved.

It has become obvious to all Canadians that the Conservatives have a policy of saying and doing one thing behind closed doors and on tape and then vehemently denying, some 150 times we are told, or apologizing in a cursory manner for their words and, most important, for their actions.

The problem is that none of their public denials, apologies or announcements ring true, which is why I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary will be motivated by some source of inspiration and be clear this time, on the 151st time perhaps, that the Cadman family already knows and has told the Canadian public regarding offers made to them by the Conservatives. The parliamentary secretary knows that no members of my party, including the former prime minister, made any offers to Mr. Cadman.

What he has not answered directly is whether he and the members of his party, including the Prime Minister, knew of the financial offers that had been made to Chuck Cadman, as corroborated by his wife and the Conservative candidate in that riding. Why will the parliamentary secretary not elicit from his notes and his conversations with the Prime Minister or why will he not even listen to the tape of the Prime Minister and come up with some better answer on the 151st time?

He blames the opposition for asking the question 150 times but if we keep getting a denial 150 times, we will keep asking the question.

I will help the parliamentary secretary out in finding his way here. His answer should include some reference to the fact that the current Prime Minister had been taped saying to the author of the Cadman book, Mr. Zytaruk, that he was aware of financial considerations, namely, the payment of an insurance policy, being made to Mr. Cadman. What are financial considerations in this context? Why will the Prime Minister not rise to the questions from the member for York Centre? Why will the Prime Minister not answer the question?

We now have the parliamentary secretary who must be very fatigued giving the same answer 150 times.

I will also help out the parliamentary secretary to ensure he does not deviate on a tangent of half truths by saying that the Conservative Party was only trying to help Chuck Cadman out, that it was not at all concerned about its electoral concerns or whether it became the government. Oh, no, it was all about Chuck Cadman.

We are not talking about just help here. We are talking about financial inducements, financial considerations. The Prime Minister of this country is on tape. At first the parliamentary secretary and others said that they had not heard the whole tape. It was Nixonian. They should have learned the lessons from the last time a right wing government got in deep trouble.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to come clean, to have his conscience serve the Canadian public and, finally, on the 151st time, tell us what the financial considerations were. Would he?

[The Prime Minister, April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's RCMP raid on the Conservative Party was not the first time the Prime Minister has had trouble with election laws.

In 2005 the Prime Minister broke election rules by donating more money than was legally allowed to the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party had to refund the money to the Prime Minister so he could avoid prosecution.

What is it about this country's election laws that the Conservatives cannot live with? The Prime Minister has never found an election law that he did not want to change, circumvent or ignore.

Years ago he launched a legal action against the nation of Canada to help right wing groups get around election laws. Now he is doing it again and the taxpayers of Canada are paying to defend Elections Canada.

Instead of going to war against election laws and the people who enforce them, why does the Prime Minister not just try playing by the rules like everyone else?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of disagreeing with a colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood said that crime was decreasing. We know from breaking news that there is a bit of a surge in crime today in that the RCMP is executing a warrant at Conservative Party headquarters. I would like my friend's comment on that aspect of crime increasing.

As a former city councillor, he knows or should know that it is universal for city councils that there is a lot of pressure on police budgets. The Conservatives have been in the job for two years and four months. If getting the job done is waiting two years and four months for more police officers, which has been called for throughout the cities of this country, then what is not getting the job done?