Brian Murphy

[Committees of the House, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in the debate today as a citizen of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada, and also as a citizen of Moncton, the first officially bilingual city in Canada—although I have a great deal of respect for the citizens of Bathurst.

I am in favour of adopting this second report by the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Not only was I a member of that committee when we traveled through western Canada, but it was also the first time that the Standing Committee on Official Languages had traveled so that it could get a clear understanding of the needs of francophone communities outside New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario.

This caused me some concern, because I heard these groups say that they need a lot of important things when it comes to education and health care, but the number one thing on the list is to preserve the program we are talking about here. I was not so much concerned as surprised to see that the response was always the same, in Regina, in Edmonton, in Vancouver and in Winnipeg: the primary need is to preserve this program. I was also concerned to hear the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ask a question without mentioning the court challenges program at all.

Obviously this government does not like that program. I do not know the reason behind that denial, but I can guess where it comes from: they oppose it because the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health were involved in the Montfort case.

There is an award called the Prix Montfort. It is the symbol of the struggle to preserve francophone language rights in Canada. Every year, there is a big ceremony where the Prix Montfort is awarded. I know because the City of Moncton has won the prize. I had no knowledge of the Montfort case, but I know a lot more about it now because francophones in the Ottawa area fought against the closing of that hospital under the Harris regime, which included those three ministers. The struggle ultimately led to a huge success, thanks to the court challenges program.

It seems obvious to me that this is the reason why the government decided to eliminate the program. It is not a question of cost. At the Standing Committee on Official Languages meetings, we heard that out of the entire program, the part that goes to preserving language rights accounts for only $400,000. This week, Fredericton’s lawyers argued for two days before a Federal Court judge against the government that wants to eliminate this federal program, which costs $400,000.

I need to speak a bit about that court case that just finished. All the pleadings in the public view amounted to saying that this program was called useful by agents of the government before the United Nations. It was one of the best programs for safeguarding our linguistic rights and other minority rights. It only costs about $400,000, so it cannot be an issue of waste or the high cost involved in the program.

The duty in administrative law, which is very well-known from the Baker case forward, says that stakeholders, people who have a stake in the elimination of a government program, would normally have a reasonable expectation of consultation if a program were to be eliminated. Can anyone Imagine shutting down medicare and not consulting doctors and nurses? It would not happen. There would be consultations.

The only consultation that took place in this case was when the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the member for Saint Boniface and the other members of the committee travelled, for the first time in the history of the committee, throughout parts of Canada where there were minority language groups. These groups told us that their number one concern was the re-establishment of the court challenges program. There was no consultation whatsoever by the government and yet that is the number one duty in administrative law.

It is very clear that the champion of the court challenges program ought to have been the heritage minister. Looking at successive budget documents and successive press releases from the minister of heritage at the time, it is very clear that there was no champion there. That minister was not protecting the linguistic rights of minorities in this country.

Vibrant communities, such as Saint Boniface, Edmonton, Vancouver and Regina, are holding on to their language rights, whereas they could have asked Parliament for more money and more support for their schools and their health centres, which they did because there is the second round of the Dion plan that needs to be properly funded, not the pittance that was given in the first budget of the Conservative government. However, the number one concern for those communities was the protection of a legal vehicle called the court challenges program.

I wonder why? Because people in these communities know that it is vital and important to safeguard these rights. Money flows from these rights.

I listened to the member from Saint Boniface. I learned that, in 1870, in the province of Manitoba, the government eliminated the right to service in both languages. That bothers me a great deal perhaps because without past and future heroes, and without the court challenges program, we will step back in time. If we have a language right—no matter which one—we must fight each day, each morning, to protect that right.

I come from Acadia. I am not Acadian. I am Irish, Canadian in fact, but I know very well that, throughout history, Acadians fought governments and institutions for language rights in order to obtain health, education and other services in both official languages.

For that reason, our Constitution states that New Brunswick is a bilingual province. That is why I speak French in this Parliament, even though I bear an Irish name. It is because of the bilingual institutions of my province.

In closing, I would like to thank Messrs. Michaud and Doucet, the lawyers who have volunteered their services and are defending this case in court this week. I am certain that they will win the case. The government has many changes to make because if we have rights the court will recognize them. The constitutional rights, the language rights of official language minority communities are greater and stronger than the politics of this government.

[Committees of the House, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be short because, knowing my colleague, the answer will be long.

I know there was a court case in Ottawa to save the Montfort Hospital. I know that a cabinet minister of the then Conservative provincial government is now Minister of the Environment. Since that court case was funded through the court challenges program, I imagine that the word Montfort is one that the Conservatives do not like to hear.

I would like to know if the member believes that the Montfort case could be the reason for abolishing this program.

[Ethics, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, is there a problem with using the name of Brian Mulroney? Is he the individual? The only thing left is to hold a public inquiry.

In November, the Prime Minister promised to launch a public inquiry, but he did nothing. He also promised to define the terms of this inquiry, but he did nothing.

Will this government immediately launch a public inquiry in response to Mr. Mulroney's lack of respect towards this Parliament?

[Ethics, February 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in 1989 Brian Mulroney condemned the Chinese government for the “indiscriminate shooting” of peaceful demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. However, at the ethics committee, he claimed that three years later he was “warmly received” by the same government and tried to sell it armoured vehicles, in violation of an arms embargo that Canada initiated. It is not believable, but Canadians will never know the truth because Mr. Mulroney is arrogantly avoiding a committee of Parliament.

Will the Prime Minister publicly call on his former idol, his mentor, to be accountable and appear before the ethics committee?

[Official Languages, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in April 2006 in New York, the Prime Minister called the court challenges program a very valuable program. Four months later, he scrapped it.

Why does the Prime Minister claim to defend linguistic minorities when he is outside the country, but scorn those very communities when he is here at home?

[Official Languages, February 26th, 2008]

First, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government killed the court challenges program. Then, it went to court to fight groups who only wanted to protect their minority language rights.

Now, it is going where no other government has gone before. It wants these groups to pay the government its costs, which has never been done before.

The courts do not award these types of costs in public interest litigations. What has the government got against minority language rights?

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for the warm welcome he gave me this summer in Grosse-Île, Quebec.

In response to his question, I can tell him that on this side of the House, we respect the committee's work. We believe that the committees work long and hard on the issues that are before them.

The key issue that the Bloc and the Liberal Party agree on is Motion No. 3. It does not make a lot of sense to make the local association responsible for a candidate's debts. The Bloc and the Liberals agree on this. Why are all the parties not in agreement on this? It makes far more sense for the association and the candidate to have separate obligations.

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-29.

Under the wavering light of this corner of the House, I hope my comments are clear and constant in suggesting that the bill, as it came through committee, was the proper bill. What the government is trying to do now is ignore the good democratic conditions and precedents of good committee work.

The bill in review aims to establish a system of improved accountability. It certainly did that as it came out of committee. Its key elements include creating a uniform and transparent reporting regime for all loans to political entities, including mandatory disclosure of terms and the identity of all lenders and loan guarantors.

That much makes a lot of sense. It would also ensure that total loans, loan guarantees and contributions by individuals could not exceed the annual contribution limit for individuals established in the Canada Elections Act.

It would also allow only financial institutions and political entities the capacity to make loans beyond the annual contribution limit for individuals and only at commercial or market rates of interest.

Tightening the rules for the treatment of unpaid loans to ensure candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans was also an aim of this bill as it came back from committee. It would ultimately, as in its original sense, hold riding associations responsible for unpaid loans taken out by candidates. This is one of the cruxes of the problem, and I will get to the democratic deficit and the lack of participation that we have by good candidates in the electoral process if the government's designs are to be carried through.

The bill, by way of history, was first presented to the House during the first session of this Parliament as Bill C-54 and reintroduced in November of the past year with essentially the same content as Bill C-54.

The bill was very seriously examined during meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The members worked very hard and came to agree upon different elements. There was a great deal, I say in a spirit of non-partisanship, of unanimity with respect to some of the time limit terms and some of the technical aspects. It was thought, certainly by opposition members, that there was a good deal of consensus and agreement on a few other outstanding matters that were embodied in amendments to the bill.

On this side we thought the bill as amended, as it comes back from committee, is something that we, in the great traditions of the Liberal Party, in the great traditions of democratic reform and keeping the balance that allows people to participate in the democratic process, could support.

At those committee meetings, improvements were made, not the least of which, as a significant improvement, was now to have unpaid amounts of a loan to be considered contributions after three years from the date the loan was made. The original proposal was 18 months.

Now the government House leader, the minister responsible for undemocratic reform, is presenting motions that will completely disregard the other amendments that were passed at committee.

Government Motion No. 1 would delete the Liberal amendment to allow for annual contributions to a leadership candidate. Under this amendment, for example, person A would be allowed to donate $1,000, or $1,100 as the case may be, to leadership candidate B in each calendar year until leadership candidate B paid his or her campaign debt and formally and finally closed his or her leadership campaign.

Government Motion No. 2 would make it necessary for loans to be repaid annually rather than at the point when the loan becomes due. This effectively would prevent candidates from taking extended repayment loans. It acts as a foreclosure on the normal commercial manner in which loans are undertaken and paid back. It says that the way the market works with respect to loaning a person money to fund a campaign shall not be respected. It makes no sense to set up an artificial limit on repayment when the market will deal with that issue.

After all, the movement is from a loan from a friend to a loan from a commercial lender at a commercial rate. I do not know if there was enough evidence from the banking community on this but it would seem to me that the banks are not in the business of giving loans that are high risk. They are not in the business of giving loans to people who cannot repay them.

Why is it that Parliament shall say to the bankers of this country that they do not know how to underwrite risk and that Parliament will make it shorter in duration for the banks and different than the market conditions. It is clearly against the forces of the market, which I thought the party on the other side favoured, and it is clearly undemocratic because it will put a chill on candidates presenting themselves for election.

Considering the fact that elections are not something that somebody can plan for, I think we are living that right now, but often, in the normal course of events, we can plan when we want to buy a house, a car, start a family or put our kids through college, as the case may be. Those are events we can plan and save for and, from time to time, we can make loans from commercial lenders at commercial rates. However, it is very difficult for someone who is not in the House right now and who wants to stand as a candidate to predict when he or she may need to get a loan for a campaign or, as the case may be, a leadership race.

Because the election may be called at any time, January, April or October, it is unreasonable for someone to be asked to pay off a loan before the time limit established by the loan contract itself. We on this side stand for the principles of the market. The free market shall dictate when a loan is given and how it is prepaid. Why is the government interloping and saying to the free market, the lenders in this country, that the government knows best?

Here we see the Conservative government is pushing hard on its perception and not its reality of accountability.

The Accountability Act, Bill C-2, which was presented and passed, was really the window dressing for the government's new regime and for its patina, if one likes, of sincerity. I say patina because it is a very thin layer that can be pierced very easily and beneath the patina we can see the substance. Without proper regulations backing up Bill C-2, the Accountability Act, it is a very hollow instrument. It does not have any of the reality backing up the rhetoric with which it was introduced.

It would be an absolute hindrance, in terms of accountability, for us to say that these government amendments help the democratic process. It would be an absolute hindrance for anyone presenting themselves to have to focus on repaying the loan by the end of the fiscal year if that is not the date that was agreed upon by the lender.

Moving to government Motion No. 3, it would delete the Bloc Québécois amendment that would remove liability from registered political parties for loans taken out by candidates.

We can imagine that we are 308 members in the House, not all filled at the time, but all of us have different constituencies and all of us have been successful in getting here, some by a wide margin and some by a very large margin.

If one is contesting a riding that one does not hold, the spectre of the political association being responsible for one's debt, if one is unsuccessful, is again very undemocratic because it would pit the association against the candidate. In a riding where it is impossible to win, or does not look very likely that one could win, we can see very clearly that the bill and the government Motion No. 3 puts a chill on democratic involvement and is in fact very undemocratic. One would wonder why it is included.

Why would the Conservative government, which does not hold all the seats in Parliament and, in fact, will never hold many of the seats in Parliament, wants to put a chill on its own candidates in pitting their Conservative associations against their candidates? One wonders why because it does not do anything to help the participation of new candidates in ridings.

In short, we are not in support of these amendments that the government has reintroduced at report stage. We think t the committee worked very well and that its wishes and its motions should be respected.

[The Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic Representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's speech on Bill C-22, but I would like to ask him a few questions to clarify his position. I understand that the Government of Quebec is very concerned about this government's democratic reform agenda. This means that it does not support this bill, Bill C-20 or Bill C-19.

Just so I understand, I would like to know the Bloc's position on this. It is against this bill because it wants Quebec to be recognized as a nation.

Are there any other reasons it is opposed to this bill and to the fact that the government does not consult the provinces, including Quebec? Premier Charest said that we needed to consult before changing the Senate and the number of seats in the House of Commons.

Does the member think it is a good idea for this government, or any federal government, to consult the provinces, including Quebec, about such changes and their implementation?

[Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what hurts, and as I say, it is not about Ontario. It happens to be about Ontario because it is targeted by the government this time, but it could be New Brunswick next time. It could be some other province.

The point is, what is fair is fair. If we have growth in three provinces in Canada, the number of seats put in the package that those provinces should have should be fair. For these ministers, who are supposedly so powerful, to hide behind the skirt of Alberta leaders in the front row must be very embarrassing. I cannot wait to explain that during a campaign to the people in their ridings--