Shawn Murphy

[THE BUDGET, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, one of the major disappointments in this budget has been the lack of mention of, or any activity in or money for, environmental issues. This is the Conservatives' fifth year in government. The government has had three environment ministers and three plans, and we just have not seen anything at all.

The only two things that the government did do was to eliminate any reference to climate change on its websites and eliminated $6 billion in existing funding.

I know there are Canadians who do not believe in the concept of climate change. In fact, the Prime Minister thinks it is a socialist plot. However, there are another 75% of Canadians who believe it is a serious issue that ought to be dealt with by the government.

Does the hon. member have anything to say to those 75% of Canadians who do think this is a serious issue?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the member across has talked a lot about the brave men and women who are in Afghanistan, and I agree with what he has said. However, they are there for certain purposes, to protect the values that are near and dear to us, values such as democracy, our Constitution and the rule of law.

One of the linchpins that is in our Constitution is the right of Parliament, the right of this institution, to send for persons, papers and records. That is as old as Parliament itself.

The Speaker gave a very clear ruling this morning that this cannot be lessened or affected by statute law. That is exactly what that member and the Minister of National Defence have been arguing for the last six months.

We have a legal opinion from the parliamentary law counsel. We have a second legal opinion. Also disclosed this morning was that the Department of Justice has the very same view.

Why, in light of the advice from the Minister of Justice, the Speaker and the parliamentary legal counsel, is he continuing to argue that—

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I find this whole debate somewhat disturbing. You made a ruling earlier that the law is very clear that Parliament has the unfettered right to seek the production of persons, papers and records, and if it is to be banned by statute, that statute has to expressly make reference or restrict that fundamental right.

Up until now we have heard answers and comments from the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence saying that this was all covered by section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. We have had one opinion from the parliamentary legal counsel. We have a second legal opinion from the parliamentary legal counsel. I understand yesterday it was disclosed that the lawyers who work for the Department of Justice, who work for the previous speaker, agree with that opinion. It seems to me that this whole House has been misled for the last six months.

Does the minister agree that that premise has been misleading this House, and if so, does he not agree that the conventions of this House dictate that the minister should resign?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 7th, 2009]

With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between April 1 and 30, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 7th, 2009]

With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between May 1 and 31, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 7th, 2009]

With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between June 1 and 30, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 7th, 2009]

With regard to government advertising, how much money did the government spend on television and radio advertising between July 1 and 31, 2007 inclusive, giving particulars of (i) how much each department or agency of government spent on such advertising, (ii) the subject and nature of each advertisement, (iii) the broadcast outlet on which each ad was broadcast, giving the name and location of the station, (iv) the dates on which the advertisements aired?

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, how can we force our will on Ontario and British Columbia when we did not--

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, rather than get into the merits of the debate, I would like the hon. member to address one point. She did mention that taxpayers should be allowed to speak for themselves. This is a provincial issue. We are talking in this case about the governments of Ontario and British Columbia. They are democratically elected governments. They did have elections. They did debate, discuss and vote on this issue. Each province came forward with the decision to implement the HST.

I find it difficult that the federal government should say no, when it already said yes to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Quebec to a certain extent--

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, since the previous questioner talked about the economy and the GDP of this country I just want to get a comment from the member.

It just seems that we are in a time warp here. I know when the Conservatives were in power before, when they left power, the annual deficit was $43 billion, interest rates were 12%, and unemployment was 11%.

The member for Markham—Unionville, as the previous speaker indicated, helped straighten those things out and we had 10 years of surpluses. Interest rates were lowered. The member came in 2000 and did a lot since then. We had 10 years of surpluses, low interest rates, and high employment. Now it just seems we are right back to where we were: deficit at $56 billion, interest rates are increasing, and unemployment is double digit.

I will put the question to the member. Just what went wrong? Why are we right back to where we were in 1993?