Shawn Murphy

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first occasion to speak in the House since you have been appointed to this position, I wish to congratulate you and wish you all the best as you assume your new duties.

I want to thank the other speakers who spoke on this particular issue. When we look back and listen to what everyone is saying, we come to realize what a large and diverse country Canada is. We come from many cultures, with two founding languages, and it certainly adds so much to the richness of this country and the richness of this debate.

I want to spend the limited time allocated to me today to speak briefly on the environment in all its forms: climate change, water, clean air. I certainly read the budget and I am a little disappointed in what I have read. I think there was a half a page or a page and a half on the environment. Some people would say there was little done and some people would say there was nothing done; however, regardless, it was pretty thin.

I know for a fact, and everyone knows, that environmental issues rise and fall with the economy. When the economy is doing well, the environment becomes a major concern with people and of course when the economy starts to slip, the environment becomes less of a concern. This is very unfortunate. It is up to us in Parliament to provide that leadership and provide that vision that is needed in these times.

I am not going to repeat in this House what everyone knows about the whole issue of climate change. It is, according to Sir Nicholas Stern, the greatest market failure the world has ever seen.

This is the fourth year the government has been in power. If it were four months, six months or eight months, we probably would not expect much action; however, this is the fourth year. The first environment minister who came to the House preached that we would have a made in Canada plan. However, we never saw any plan, let alone a made in Canada plan.

We then had a second environment minister, who said that he was going to regulate. We really never saw any regulations; although there was a lot of talk.

Now we have a third minister, after four years, and he has taken the position that we are going to now have a North American solution. The bottom line is that we really have not seen a lot. Looking at this budget, I believe there is a reference to the environment on page 269, although I may be incorrect on the page number. In any event, I am, like most other people, very disappointed in what is in this particular budget.

Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, I neglected to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Beaches—East York.

I am very disappointed in what I have seen and I am very disappointed in what has been done, and I will give a few examples. One example that came vividly to light last week is the $1.519 billion trust fund. This was announced several years ago amid much applause and many press releases. There were a lot of self-congratulatory statements, a lot of rhetoric. There was going to be a reduction of 16 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. However, what was not explained to the Canadian people at the time was that these funds were going to be put into a complicated trust and the trust, in turn, would go to the provinces and there was absolutely no requirement--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech my learned friend talked about the lack of merits of a national securities regulator and said that various provinces, including Quebec, have a great system now. This is 72 hours after the Caisse de dépôt announced that it lost $38 billion last year. One of the reasons for that loss was the investment in asset based commercial paper. The regulators in Quebec, Ontario and every other province did not understand the product, did not understand the rulings from the rating agencies, did not realize that these were toxic products. This caused a lot of losses and damages to ordinary working Quebeckers and Canadians.

Given the facts that have come to light in the last little while, does my learned friend think the system can be improved?

[Spud Hockey Tournament, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this upcoming weekend marks an exciting time for Atlantic Canadian minor hockey fans as the 34th Spud Triple A Minor Hockey Tournament begins in Charlottetown. This event will host 120 teams playing in 9 divisions.

I have been attending this tournament for many years and I love to see the excitement it brings to families, players and fans. Not only is the hockey exciting and the competition great, but the many players and fans forge relationships that in many cases last lifetimes.

I want to congratulate all organizers of the Spud Tournament for all their hard work, time and dedication. Their energy is inspiring.

For the players, families and friends attending the event this weekend, I want to welcome everyone to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and wish everyone a great and enjoyable experience and a safe journey home.

[Excise Tax Act, February 3rd, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (no GST on bicycles).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to table my private member's bill which, I should point out, was tabled in the previous Parliament but died on the order paper. I believe the federal government can encourage people to make these good transportation choices by supporting my bill which calls for an amendment to the Excise Tax Act to eliminate the goods and services tax on the sale of bicycles.

By giving people the incentive to choose environmentally friendly modes of transportation, we will be doing the right thing for Canadians and for the environment. I hope the House will support this initiative when it comes before it for debate.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Excise Tax Act, February 3rd, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (no GST on carbon offsets).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a private member's bill for the consideration of this House.

At a time when Canadians are trying to lower the negative impact they have on the environment, it is the role of the House and, I would suggest, the obligation for the government to incentivize people to encourage good behaviour. That is why I, seconded by the member for Random—Burin—St. George's, are calling for an amendment to the Excise Tax Act that would offer an exemption to the goods and services tax on carbon offsets.

I believe this would be a good way of encouraging Canadians to reduce their environmental impact and I hope the House will support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to give the member another opportunity to answer the first question asked about the actions of his own leader back in September 2004 when he was meeting with members of the Bloc Québécois and members of the New Democratic Party. He had meetings and he had agreements. They all signed a letter addressed and delivered to the Governor General asking her to consider other options.

I sat through that period of time, as did the member across, and I do not recall any anger in his speeches about the actions of his own leader. I do not recall him getting up in the House and vigorously objecting to what his own leader did. At the time, he sat there and said nothing day after day.

Why did the member not say anything back in September 2004?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for his election to the House. The previous member from Wild Rose was a colourful character, and the member has big shoes and a big hat to fill. I do want to welcome him to this chamber.

I want to remind the member that when the last Conservative government was in power, we did have a $23 billion deficit, unemployment was over 10% and interest rates were over 11%. It did get straightened out, but now we have another Conservative government here. According to all the projecting agencies, it would appear that we are right back in the very same boat and on the same path that Canadians soundly rejected before, and the deficit again is somewhere between $20 billion and $50 billion.

It appears to me that I have seen this movie before and it does not end well for working-class families, and that is both in the technical sense and in the real sense.

In the last election, the Prime Minister went to every province and every city and he gave us a steady dose of pablum that there would be no recession and no deficit and that anyone who suggested otherwise was ridiculous.

Days after the election was over he changed his tune and said that not only was a deficit essential but that people who did not support a deficit were being overly simplistic in their thinking.

Obviously the Prime Minister knew this--

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the leadership of the Prime Minister. One question I want to pose is on the whole issue of the deficit.

We just went through an election campaign, from September 2 to October 14. That question was asked of the Prime Minister almost each and every day and each and every day he said that there would be no deficit, that it would be irresponsible for the government to go into deficit and that the suggestion was ridiculous.

Now we are hearing that the suggestion is not ridiculous, that a deficit is essential. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it was not caused by world economic events, but by policies of the Conservative government. Obviously the Prime Minister knew.

Considering that the Prime Minister knew exactly the financial situation of the government, knew exactly we were going into deficit, why did he not tell the Canadian people?

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to welcome back my colleague from York South—Weston to the House.

He talks about equalization, the Canada Health Act and the employment insurance program. Those are all federal programs that were enacted by the Government of Canada under the federal spending power. If that particular provision that is being mentioned in the Speech from the Throne were back there in the 1960s when Tommy Douglas and others were formulating that, we would not have had that particular legislation and perhaps we would not have had the great country that we have today.

The equalization formula is part of the overall role of the federal government. It gives every province the ability to offer comparatively equal services at comparatively similar rates of taxation. It is controversial. A number of changes have been made in the program over the past two or three years. There are elements of unfairness and it depends on which way one is looking at it as to whether the glass is half full or half empty.

I know Ontario is now an equalization-receiving province, which is unfortunate, but if there is any element of unfairness, this should be worked out in this House.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, November 24th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies whatsoever for my comments about a strong central government. I believe that vision is accepted in most parts of Quebec.

The member asked about voting for it or against it. The Canadian people do not want an election over a Speech from the Throne.

We are dealing with a situation now where people are worried about their families, their jobs, their savings and their pensions. They want us to look at what is going on in this country with the economy and in the manufacturing industry so that this whole thing does not collapse. As a result, we do need, now more than ever, a strong central government that is able to respond to every Canadian, including all Canadians who live in the province of Quebec. We need a strong central government for all provinces, including Quebec.