Shawn Murphy

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

At the outset, I am pleased to speak to the motion and I will support it.

This is a very important issue for all Canadians from coast to coast, particularly for Canadians who live in the regions, Canadians with linguistic minority communities, Canadians from remote communities and Canadian who live everywhere.

I am very pleased we are having this dialogue today. The issue of CBC and how it serves our country is tremendously important to all Canadians. I do not think we can look at the CBC and talk about the individual budget. I believe we have to look at it as to the role it plays in Canada.

Canada is an exceptionally large country, the second largest on earth. It is the most diverse country in the world. We have three founding nations. It is much stronger and much larger than its remarkably diverse and unique parts.

On the other side of the equation, we need the glue to keep us together. There is a social contract, for want of a better word, a shared destiny. As a country, we have to be cognizant of our history, our past and we have to go forward with a clear understanding that we build on that. We are different than other countries that surround us.

It is my premise in this debate today, and I am very pleased we are having this dialogue, that our national broadcasting corporation, the CBC, is one part, but not totally, of the glue that keeps the fabric of Canada together.

CBC is a national institution with a very important mandate. It provides an objective perception of current affairs in Canada. It serves the smaller regional communities, which the private broadcasting companies could not, would not and probably would not be expected to serve. It serves the linguistic minorities from all parts of the country and is responsible for the preservation of our culture, which makes us Canadians.

Many people are trying to a create a looser federation, a federation of self-autonomist units, each driven by the ideology of the government in power. However, my vision of Canada is larger than that. We need a strong federal government and a national broadcasting corporation.

That brings us to today's debate. I will not argue that there has to be a large dose of reality in this debate. I will not argue today for large increases to the budget of the CBC. It has to live within its means. We have economic realities in the country. I do not suggest for a moment that there should be a 10%, 20% or 30% increase in the CBC's budget. Its advertising revenues dropped dramatically. It knew it was faced with belt tightening, but it wanted to have a dialogue with the government of the day. Its proposal was that it be given $125 million bridge loan so it could make the cuts and the changes easier, more equitable and phase them in.

However, that was not the case. The CBC was met with total silence. As a result, we see the loss of 800 jobs, 393 jobs at CBC and an additional 336 at Radio-Canada. It is probably the case that this thing could not totally be avoided, but a lot of it could have been if the government had listened to public opinion on this issue.

I do not believe it is an unreasonable request. We all see what has happened to the economy over the last six to eight months. There was a dramatic decrease in its advertising revenues. It is my premise that the government should have entered this dialogue with CBC and probably should have granted the interim financing, the loan, to get it through this very difficult situation.

What has happened here is the continuation of the toxic relationship that has existed between the CBC and the Reform-Alliance wing of the Conservative Party, going right back to their constating meetings in 1994. A lot of those people who were part of that movement and part of those attacks on the CBC sit in cabinet, across the aisle.

I have a few quotes.

The first quote is, “There are subsidies to bloated crown corporations like the $1 billion annual subsidy to the CBC”. That is from the Minister of Immigration.

The second quote is, “The Liberals decided to throw millions and even billions in non priority areas, while ignoring vital ones....For example, the CBC will receive $60 million”. That is from the present Minister of International Trade.

The third quote is, “Do we need the CBC, in its current format, when there are so many private broadcasting channels available?” That is from the present Minister of Industry.

The fourth quote is:

I've suggested that government subsidies in support of CBC's services should be to those things that...do not have commercial alternatives...I think when you look at things like main English-language television and probably to a lesser degree Radio Two, you could look there at putting those on a commercial basis.

That is from the present Prime Minister.

I do not attribute any of these quotes, this ideology, this thinking to the Progressive Conservative wing of that party. That was not the case during the times when it was in power.

I see this as a continuation of the toxic relationship. I am sure if we spoke to many of the Reform-Alliance members, we would probably be dealing with a lot of happy campers here today. It started in the founding meeting and has continued every day.

As a member of Parliament, as a Canadian, I am disappointed with this attitude. It continues this attitude, this ideology that the federal government has no role in broadcasting or in culture, that it should withdraw its mandate to the narrowly defined issues of defence and foreign affairs and become a federation of 13 semi-autonomous units, having no shared destiny, no common purpose, no social contract.

As I said before, I am very pleased that we are having this dialogue. It is important for the fabric of Canada and what it means to be Canadian. I hope the public is watching.

It is my hope the House will support the motion as presented. It is also my hope the government will respect the will of Canadians, if the motion does pass. It is my hope a dialogue can then start between the government and CBC so we can sort of ease out some of these temporary problems. It is my hope this impasse can be overcome.

[Marine Liability Act, March 30th, 2009]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the premise of that question, that the elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act provisions that were included in the budget had nothing to do with the finances of Canada. It was not a budgetary matter. Why was it in that particular legislation? Canadians are just shaking their heads. They do not agree with that at all. It is the wrong way to go.

I understand that improvements perhaps should have been made. There are jurisdictional issues sometimes between the provincial legislation dealing with waterways and the federal legislation, but that could have been improved upon instead of just eliminating it altogether.

What should be done? Nothing has been done. As the previous speaker, the member for Mississauga South indicated, this is an issue of whether or not we just throw the whole thing out then suspend the House for six months and let it go through. There is nothing that has been done that cannot be redone by a new government. That is perhaps what Canada needs at this point in time, a new government.

[Marine Liability Act, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on the first point, my friend, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, talked about the economic impact. In one word, it is a mess.

He talked about the maritime regions and of course it is important for Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, as well as British Columbia, but I would suggest it is equally important for Quebec, Ontario and the prairie provinces because a lot of what we produce, whether it is lumber, minerals or grain, moves by sea. That is the most economic and environmental way to move product. A lot of it that comes into the country too comes by sea.

We are a large country. We are a country surrounded by three oceans so it is extremely important and vital. That is why we need a very vibrant marine industry, one that is competitive and one that does not discourage new entrants.

On his second issue, again I come back to the issue of balance. We have to balance the interests of the company and the interests of society to have a vibrant marine industry, but also the interest to protect the public.

If we did not have legislation like this, I believe it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a new entrant ever to get into the market. There would be all kinds of problems just legislating or dealing with this situation. With vessels from other countries and flags of convenience that come into our ports, what insurance do they have? Can they withstand a cull if there is an environmental problem?

This act seeks to create a balance so that there are international conventions that are respected, that there are both domestic and international funds, and so that things can move by sea. There is a similar process in the airline industry. It works well in that industry and certainly it has served us well in the marine industry.

As to the amendments, as previous speakers have already indicated, there is an issue around some of the tourist products that are exempt, and the committee may want to have another look at that particular issue.

[Marine Liability Act, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will not have enough time to answer this question. This is a very important and complex question.

The member is quite correct. There are real problems going on in our oceans. He talked about the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans convening a meeting with the provincial ministers. Yes, definitely, that is a good idea. She should do it as soon as possible but equally important is need for a stronger mandate in the international fora dealing with all the countries that go into these areas that are outside the 200 mile zone, rape the seabeds and catch everything in their midst. That is causing a negative cycle in the whole ecosystem.

As the member has indicated, many of the species that previously existed in the seabeds are gone. Once they are gone, they are not coming back. This is an important issue that requires national attention, the state of the fishery, the methodology used by the fishery and the environmental degradation, but it also requires extensive international co-operation and legislation dealing with the overfishing that is taking place in every ocean of the world.

[Marine Liability Act, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I will be supporting this legislation. It establishes limits and guidelines for liability for marine and domestic travel of people and cargo. It also puts our country in line with some of the other international protocol and codes dealing with liability at sea, including the civil liability fund, the bunkers convention fund, and the ship-source oil pollution fund.

Make no mistake about it: This is a major industry here in Canada. It is vital to our way of life. We are an extremely large country. We border three oceans. In terms of some statistics, 365 million tonnes of international cargo move within Canadian waters; 70 million tonnes of oil, 70 million tonnes of domestic cargo, 40 million passengers, and 16 million automobiles move within our ferries along the coasts. We also have the movement of 1.5 million cruise-ship passengers. It can easily be seen how large an industry this is for a country the size of Canada, with its many waterways and coastlines.

The bill tries to create a balance, and I believe it does to a certain extent. The country needs a very good, functioning, efficient, economical marine industry. We need a competitive industry. We cannot in any way, shape or form discourage new industry entrants that meet all the applicable legislation and guidelines. Probably most importantly when we are dealing with the carriage of people and cargo by sea, we have to protect the public and its environment—the wildlife, coastal sea properties, people's lives, the loss of cargo, et cetera.

I have first-hand knowledge of these issues. I come from an island. Until 1997, except for a few people moving by air, everything and everybody that arrived in the province came by ferry. It is very similar now for Newfoundland and for Vancouver Island.

A very important issue that is debated in the House and to which the bill is very applicable is the projected increase of marine traffic along our northern coast through the Arctic. Again that leads to a whole host of other issues, problems and challenges that this country will have to deal with, especially the potential for environmental problems.

There was some attempt to sell this bill as environmental protection legislation. I have read the legislation and I do not believe it is. It is basically to codify some of the systems that presently exist internationally and also to create a balance as to civic liability for damages to people or cargo.

Dealing with the environment, I want to point out that movement by sea is probably the most environmentally friendly way to move people and goods. It is an industry that is growing technologically. It is an industry that I see has a great future and it is one that we have to be careful about legislatively.

I am going to digress here for a minute. I have indicated how important this industry is, how big it is and how vital it is to our economy. However, for those people who look at the cruise ships going up the west coast, the cargo vessels going up the St. Lawrence River, and the many vessels going up and down the Atlantic seaboard, the unfortunate part of this equation is that the vast majority of those boats and ships are not built in Canada.

We have strategies for the automobile, forestry, agriculture and fishery industries. Shipbuilding, for different reasons, just has not received the focus or attention of this House, from the federal government, or perhaps in some instances the provincial government, that it ought to have. I am pleading with my colleagues here in the House of Commons to, please, let us get together and develop a national shipbuilding strategy so that this industry can become vibrant once again, as it was 100 years ago.

This act tries to create a balance between the civic liability imposed upon the owner and operator of the cargo vessel and what the public expects. If we did not have some sort of limited liability, I could see a situation where it would be extremely difficult for new entrants to get into the industry because liability is basically unlimited.

For a small ferry transporting 30 people across a small body of water, if some incident did happen, the liability would be in the millions and could extend to the billions of dollars. In carrying even a small quantity of bunker oil or petroleum products, the liability could reach the billions of dollars, as in the case of the Exxon Valdez, for which I understand the total tally was $2.4 billion. We are talking about horrendous situations that could go right off the map, which a private insurance carrier would not cover for a small operator.

The bill tries to balance that. It does limit the liability per passenger to a certain level so that the smaller company, the new company, and even the larger companies can then go to a private carrier and get insurance coverage for their activities.

It also codifies it. There is a lot of provision right now, but it provides for a fund for anyone transporting oil within Canadian waters. If there are incidents that occur as we have seen with the Exxon Valdez, or the tanker that ran aground on the Atlantic coast, the Irving Whale, there is a fund out there administered by the Government of Canada for these incidents. I believe the total liability under the legislation is $565 million per incident, to fund the liability. Of course, this is paid for by those companies that transport oil. Basically that is the fund and this codifies that situation.

It brings us in line with some of the other foreign conventions and protocol. Most of the ships that enter our waters are not Canadian made or Canadian owned, so there has to be an international protocol.

Of course, with any of the problems that do exist, even the situation in the Bay of Fundy now where vessels go through there with liquified natural gas, there could be jurisdictional issues between the United States and Canada. According to all the projections, there will be vessels in the Far North, and that could have jurisdictional implications between Canada and Russia and between Canada and other countries. These all have to be set according to international conventions and international protocol. That is dealt with in this particular act.

This legislation has been kicking around for a while. I believe it started as a white paper issued by the Department of Transport five or six years ago. The legislation was actually before the previous Parliament.

It is a difficulty we are seeing quite often in this situation where we have had three minority governments and a lot of prorogations. Legislation comes to the House and is debated and approved, but when an election is called or prorogation is issued, everything dies on the order paper and we are back here again. So I am hoping with this particular legislation that it will go to the committee.

It is not a perfect piece of legislation, but the committee will deal with it. They will try to correct any deficiencies they find and bring it back to the House and it will become legislation for this country. I am hoping that happens as soon as possible.

I should point out also that I believe when it started four or five years ago with the white paper there was extensive consultation with all the industry stakeholders, and it was brought to the previous Parliament.

It is something that the House should move on. It has to go to committee to be studied, but I would like to see it back in the House within the next couple of months.

It is not perfect. There are a number of issues that previous speakers have raised. I agree with the whole issue of the adventure tourism exemptions and whether they should or should not be included in the legislation. It should be reviewed again by the committee, allow it to hear from experts and come back with a final draft of this particular legislation.

As I said before, it is really not an environmental protection act. It is an act that creates a balance as between the legitimate interests of businesses in the marine industry and the protection of the public, which is the mandate of the Government of Canada.

In conclusion, this issue has been around for three, four, perhaps five years. We have gone through this before. I am hoping that this matter goes to committee, comes back and becomes the law of this country within the next short period of time.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member spent a lot of his time talking about the budget and how, in his opinion, it did not benefit the people of the province of Quebec and that Quebec did not get its fair share. However, I do not think the issue really deals with that at all. It deals with the way these estimates are being presented, the failure on the part of the executive to share with Canadians how this money is being spent and that they are not sharing it with the people living in Manitoba, Ontario or Quebec.

Does the member not agree with me that the issue here has nothing to do with Quebec as a region or any regional differences, but that it goes to one of the basic tenets of our democracy and does not have anything to do with regions?

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I would need more time to answer all those comments. One comment is we have to boil this down.

The $3 billion is a very important point. We agree with the Prime Minister that this should be spent as part of the stimulus package. This should be spent immediately. We agree with that. We agree with all the steps, but there is one step that we seem to have a major difference with, and that is the reluctance on the part of the government to tell us and all Canadians how it is spending our money. I am going to underline the word “our”. That is a fundamental problem. It is a violation of every democratic principle we all stand for.

I ask members across to reconsider their position on this issue and consider the repercussions when a government in power has asked for an unusual portion of the estimates process and once it gets approval will tell the Canadian people that it will not tell them how the money is being spent.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. My understanding of the process in the spending of government money is that there is the application process, the negotiation process, the due diligence process, and at some point in time there is the contract, for example, to spend $1 million on the Ottawa sewer system. Once the contract is signed, the work is done. The public servants have done a lot of work leading up to that, but once the contract is signed, all they have to do is go to the website and indicate that they have just approved $1 million for the Ottawa sewer system, push the send button and it is done. It might take four or six seconds or somewhere in between. All the work is done in the due diligence process. I agree that it does take some time, but to file it with Parliament immediately, we are talking seconds.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes allotted to me in this debate, I would like to frame the issue as part of a larger concept. The gist of this motion is that the government be required to tell Canadians how it is spending their money. It is a fundamental question that goes to the very essence of this institution, the House of Commons and Parliament, and by extension to the democratic institutions that we enjoy today.

It was not always this way. Our system of democracy, the Westminster system, got its roots on the banks of the Runnymede in the year 1215 when King John met an angry group of lords and noblemen. Before then the king or queen ruled by edict, but henceforth any taxation would require the consent of the people as represented and any expenditure of money would require the consent of the people. The governor, in this case the king, would have to meet the governed and be accountable for the taxes and for the way that money was spent. That was codified in the document known as the Magna Carta.

That is the system. Of course it has evolved considerably over the last 800 and some years and it is the system that we enjoy today. Fundamentally it is the basic system that if a government wants to tax Canadians, it has to be done by legislation that is approved by Parliament, and through Parliament by the Canadian people. It is the same when the government wants to take money from the general revenue fund. Through the estimates process, that has to be approved by Parliament. In other words the government has to tell the Canadian people how it intends to spend their money. I underline and emphasize the words “their money”.

In Canada our system of financial accountability starts with a budget which is the political document of the government in power that sets out the goals and objectives of what the government wants to accomplish. That has to be approved by the House, by the Canadian people. If there are any taxes, they have to be included in ways and means legislation which, before it becomes operative, has to meet the consent of the people. That is the raising of money, but then the spending of money requires the estimates process, the supplementary estimates or the main estimates. Again, that tells Canadians how their money is being spent. Before it is legitimized, it has to be approved by Parliament representing the Canadian people.

Of course there are the departmental performance reports, the departmental reports on plans and priorities which are all part of the supply process. That all concludes with the audited financial statements issued by the Office of the Auditor General which certify that the expenditure money is done in an accurate and compliant manner.

To the question at hand, the government wants to spend $3 billion. I assume it is a reasonable request but it is a breakdown in the chain as we know it. Because of the urgency of the matter, the government wants approval from Parliament to spend the money. Parliament has considered this. It has debated it and it has said it is a reasonable request. We will bypass the ordinary chain of accountability and allow the government to spend the $3 billion. Because of the time in which the Canadian public wants the money spent, there should be no delay. Everyone in the House of Commons agrees with that. There is no dissent on that.

However, in getting to the essence of what this debate is about, all we are saying is to tell us. Once the government has made its decision as to how, in what manner, where and when it is going to spend that $3 billion or any part of the $3 billion, it should tell us, tell the Canadian people.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why any member in the House, why any person in the country could be against that very simple concept. There is a $3 billion fund. It is going to be in the process of being appropriated. We, the Canadian people, have allowed the government to spend it on the general purposes that it has enunciated. All we have is a very simple request. It is understood by everyone. All we, the Canadian people, are saying is to tell us, once the decision is made, tell us how, why, when and where the money will be spent. I cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to this concept.

This comes back to a problem that certain members develop in the House after they have been here for a few years. They want to keep it secret because if it is kept secret, it cannot cause any problems. Where people get off the rails very seriously is that they have to come back and ask whose $3 billion we are talking about. Let us ask that question first. Does that money belong to the Government of Canada? Does it belong to the Conservative Party? Does it belong to the House of Commons? Does it belong to Parliament? Does it belong to the bureaucracy living and working here in Ottawa? No, it does not. In answer to the question as to whom the money belongs, it belongs to the Canadian people.

Through the representative democracy under which we operate, the Canadian people have allowed the executive to spend the money on their behalf. The Canadian people have a very simple request. They want the executive to tell them how, why, where and when the government is spending the money. That goes to the very essence of why we are here. We are all members of Parliament. For those of us who are not in cabinet, it is our fundamental job, duty and occupation to hold the executive to account that they spend the money in accordance with the authorities delegated to them and they tell the Canadian people through us as to how they are going to spend this money.

From what I heard today, the Conservative Party across the aisle does not want to do that. The Conservatives do not want to tell us why they want to spend this money. I am disappointed in the debate. Needless to say, they will be accusing me of all sorts of things in the questions and comments session. It is a very simple request. I think we should boil it down. What is wrong with telling the Canadian people why, where and how their money is being spent? I do not believe that this debate does anything to enhance the House. People watching this debate on TV will be shaking their heads asking what is wrong with the government telling them that it is going to spend $3 billion.

I should also point out that this time last year, Parliament legitimately appropriated $4.6 billion, I believe, to be spent on infrastructure projects. I stand to be corrected, and someone will correct me if I am wrong, but the fiscal year ends next Tuesday, March 31, and I understand that the government is only going to spend $1 billion or $2 billion of that money. It is going to leave $2 billion or $3 billion on the table. It is not even going to spend it. Now there is a great big urgency, and we agreed. We have a very simple request in return. We want the government to come back and tell us how it is going to spend the money.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are signalling that I am out of time. I just want to say that I will be supporting the motion. I believe the public watching and listening to this debate will have no appetite for anyone who gets up and argues that the government is not going to tell Canadians how the government is going to spend the money. I urge everyone in the House to pass this motion immediately.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this basic issue goes right to the fundamentals of our democracy. It has been a long tenet here that any tax on the Canadian people and any appropriations from the federal fund come as a vote in Parliament through the budget process or the estimates process. It is a little unusual to get the money out quickly.

The issue becomes that we, the Parliament for the Canadian people, want to be told. Just tell us how the money is going to be spent. I cannot see why we are even debating that. Then again, I think the concept goes back to whose money we are talking about. I ask my friend, the member for Markham—Unionville, to whom does the $3 billion belong?