Brian Murphy

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Repeat offenders.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, could the member comment on the following proposition?

The current Minister of Finance having had such a deleterious effect on the finances of Ontario while he was there, does the member feel that in his current capacity perhaps he is wilfully replicating his role or reprising his role as the destroyer of a once proud economy? Could he not compare that $6 billion a year are more than $5 billion over five years?

Could explain how the current Minister of Finance has not taken his own simplistic advice?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments on the Senate and this incremental reform were thoughtful.

I want to ask him a fairly big vision question. If this is an incremental step, what is it an incremental step toward? Will the Senate mirror the House of Commons in representative make-up, that is gender, race, linguistic and regional issues, and will it mirror the Commons in terms of its power? Is there a possibility of deadlock? The overall question is, if we are going to have two animals of the same sort, why not join in with the NDP, not that I agree with it, and eliminate the Senate?

What assurance could the member give the House and the people of Canada that the regions of Canada and the minorities of Canada, by linguistics and race, will be protected as they are in the Senate? What is wrong, as the Americans do, in giving small places representative power beyond their numbers? Who ever complained that a senator from Maine might be the president of the United States some day? What is so wrong with representing minorities and regions in a fashion that is not first past the post by the most people, which would result in a make-up like this chamber, which is primarily white and male?

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in today's Globe and Mail the Prime Minister is quoted selectively. I would ask the member for Windsor—Tecumseh if he agrees with the Prime Minister's selective use of statistics and whether he was aware as he was attentively listening to Professor Doob and others indicate that overall gun related crime but overall homicide is not increasing?

I would ask him to recall to this House that the chief of police in metropolitan Toronto with the adequate use of resources used existing laws to crack down on a very serious situation. Maybe more to the second point, what does he feel the government is doing to back its rhetoric of laws with resources, 2,500 police officers for instance?

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Hochelaga on his speech. I know that he was present when the evidence was presented to the committee. He knows that there are no other studies or statistics.

On the other side, we have the Conservative members of the committee. There is the member for Wild Rose who was very honest and clearly stated—he is probably the most honest member in this House—that he does not need any studies or statistics to support this bill.

Then we have once again the parliamentary secretary who said in this House that there are studies and statistics in support of Bill C-10.

Do studies or statistics exist, were they submitted at our hearings and do they basically support the bill?

[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that the Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice missed the conference marking the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Charter is an integral part of the Canadian identity. As part of our Constitution, it is the fundamental law of the land. It is a basic guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. Because of the Charter, we can all live in peace in this great, beautiful country we call Canada, knowing that our government has the duty and the responsibility to protect us against any threat to our fundamental rights and freedoms. In exercising these rights and freedoms, we have built a society that has become a great place to live.

The Charter protects us against abuses. Everyone in this House has a duty to defend it against those who would weaken it and infringe on our rights and freedoms.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, after the comments from the member for Peterborough I suppose I should meekly get up and say on behalf of Atlantic Canada that we are proud to be part of Canada. We are proud to be part of a Canada social transfer program, CST, that was developed in 1977, that transferred tax points to the provinces, and which has been very favourable to all provinces.

I wonder what my Newfoundland colleague thinks about keeping the Canada social transfer--

[Université de Moncton Blue Eagles, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Moncton is a hockey town. Today, I would like to recognize the success of the Université de Moncton women's hockey team. The Blue Eagles are the Atlantic university women's hockey champions. They proudly represented Atlantic Canada at the Canadian university championships held in Ottawa a few days ago. Congratulations, ladies. We are proud of you.

Today, the Cavendish Cup, the men's university hockey championships, is underway in Moncton. Good luck to the men's hockey team, the Université de Moncton Blue Eagles. Go, Moncton, go!

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member if he thinks things have changed for Canada and for Atlantic Canada? When I was young, there were heroes for Atlantic Canada in this place, Allan J. MacEachen, Roméo LeBlanc, and they led.

The chief minister who represents this region does not seem to hear the editorials. He does not seem to hear the rancour, the disappointment and the frustration that Atlantic Canadians have with the government.

The Prime Minister said that we had a culture of defeat in Atlantic Canada. He still believes it.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my friend's comments were reasoned and they were, after some emotion in the chamber, welcome.

I do want to pick his brains somewhat on what I consider to be the crux of the issue. When most of us were handling red hot copies of the decision on Friday around 9 or 10 o'clock we saw that there are provisions in other acts that deal with the war on terror Canadian style, which is much more deliberative cooperation between the judiciary, the investigative and the legislative branches.

There is a growth in terror legislation and how it is being interpreted. We have talked a lot about the 2004 Vancouver Sun case on section 83.28 vis-à-vis investigative hearings. We are up in the air with respect to preventive arrests. We saw on Friday that legislation was attacked successfully in part.

I can tell from my colleague's speech that this debate is very important to him. Does my colleague concede that we need, in addition to this debate, to take a holistic approach to anti-terrorism legislation in this country as the Senate report says?