Shawn Murphy

[Privilege, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Edmonton--St. Albert:

That the House of Commons find Barbara George in contempt of Parliament for providing false and misleading testimony to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts on February 21, 2007; and that the House of Commons take no further action as this finding of contempt is, in and of itself, a very serious sanction.

[Privilege, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on February 12 of this year, I, on behalf of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts, tabled in the House the third report of that committee. In the report, the committee was of the unanimous opinion that then RCMP Deputy Commissioner Barbara George provided false and misleading testimony to the committee on February 21, 2007, and the committee further recommended that the House find her in contempt and that no further action be taken.

Marleau and Montpetit, on page 862, state:

--the refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not.

I rise today on a question of privilege. Based upon the unanimous report of the committee, I would ask that you find that a prima facie case of contempt has been established. Should you so rule, Mr. Speaker, I would then be prepared to make the appropriate motion.

[Anne of Green Gables, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the publication of the well-known story Anne of Green Gables. To mark this anniversary, there will be many events in Prince Edward Island to commemorate and celebrate this event.

The celebration of this anniversary offers my province and readers from around the world the chance not only to celebrate the character of Anne Shirley, but also to celebrate all things Montgomery's book has made famous, the creativity, optimism, determination and the beauty of Prince Edward Island.

The publication of Anne of Green Gables a century ago has inspired great musicals, plays, television shows, movies and other books that are thriving today. The imagination found in this book transcends the world, as it has been translated into 30 languages.

I extend an invitation to all to come to Prince Edward Island this year to celebrate the anniversary of this wonderful book, Anne of Green Gables.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my last question, I am sure that people watching this debate on TV are thinking that this is a very bizarre situation we are dealing with in the House of Commons today.

The federal government, led by the Minister of Finance, has made a full frontal attack on the province of Ontario and the workers, families and people who live in that province. The premier has been called the small man of Confederation. The Minister of Finance has stated publicly that the province of Ontario should be the last province in which a person would look to invest.

I pointed out previously in my question the history of the Conservative Party in dealing with debt. There are younger members who do not recall the situation that we went through back in 1993. The annual deficit was $43 billion, and that was annual, not accumulated. Interest rates were in the 11% to 12% range. Unemployment was over 10%. The debt to GDP ratio was 73%. The World Bank had an active file on this country. In other words, we were probably minutes from bankruptcy.

The right monetary and fiscal policy was implemented and thankfully, things were turned around. I am not going to go over the statistics on that particular issue, but another thing happened too, when the present Minister of Finance became the minister of finance for the province of Ontario. His government left an annual deficit of $5.6 billion.

We are all left asking ourselves, what policies, programs and initiatives led to the Conservative Government of Canada having an annual deficit of $43 billion? What policies, programs and initiatives led to the province of Ontario having an annual deficit of $5.6 billion? Does anyone in this assembly or in Canada know the answer to those particular questions?

It was an unfortunate time for the people living in Canada back in 1993. I recall it vividly. It was an unfortunate time for the people living in Ontario at the end of the Michael Harris Conservative government era. Thankfully, that has been corrected also, so we do have a new era in this province, but we have this crazy attack by the federal government on the province of Ontario.

Everyone I talk to just shakes his or her head and asks what is going on in Ottawa. Why is the government doing that? What is it attempting to accomplish by attacking one of the provinces? People are asking, would it not be interesting if the Minister of Finance and the government House leader went to the province of Quebec and attempted a similar attack in that province? Would it not be interesting if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, accompanied by the government House leader, went to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and attacked Premier Williams on that basis? Would it not be interesting if those parties went to the province of British Columbia and had a similar attack?

It is going on right here in Ottawa against the province of Ontario. I and a lot of people in this House, and a lot of people right across the country of Canada, are just shaking our heads, some in amusement, some in shock, and a lot in disappointment. It is certainly not the work of this House. We are just puzzled. I listened to the debate all day and I am trying to get some semblance of why this is going on. What is the purpose of it? What is behind it? What are we trying to accomplish by this attack on the people who live in the province of Ontario?

I listened to every word and all we are getting is a bunch of statistics that really do not go to why this is going on. I am still shaking my head as to why the government is attempting to do this.

A situation that I find equally bizarre is that not one Conservative member of Parliament elected by the people of Ontario will get up in this House and disassociate in any way with the remarks coming from the government House leader and the Minister of Finance. They are just given a bunch of statistics and prepared documents to read. The people watching this on TV, especially the people of Ontario, are saying, “Maybe the member is standing up for Canada, but we in this riding elected that member to go to Ottawa to represent us, to represent our interests, our businesses, our families, our workers. We did not send the member to Ottawa to read speeches prepared by the office of the Prime Minister”.

If there are any Conservative members of Parliament from Ontario in this House, they should take the last few minutes of the debate to clarify their position. They should tell the people they represent that they do not associate in any way, shape or manner with those comments from the Minister of Finance, who I pointed out is a member of Parliament from the province of Ontario. Members should take this opportunity to disassociate themselves because people are shaking their heads.

I submit that the House collectively and the government are not working in the best interests of the people who live and work in this province.

I am thankful to have participated in this debate. As I said, I do not live in Ontario, but I am shaking my head as to the nature of the attack that has been going on over the last four or five weeks. I am wondering when this attack is going to stop, or if it is going to continue. I hope for the sake of this House and for the sake of the people who live in Canada and Ontario that the attack stops today.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member across cites a number of statistics, but I want to remind the member that the last time his party was in power, it left an annual deficit of $43 billion, interest rates were at 12%, unemployment was at 11%, the GDP to debt ratio was 73%, and we were all left wondering what programs, what policies, and what initiatives caused this to happen.

Then of course, when the present Minister of Finance was in Ontario, he left a deficit of $5.6 billion, and we are all left wondering what policies, what programs, and what initiatives caused this momentous disaster for the province of Ontario.

Now we have this bizarre situation of the Government of Canada attacking the province of Ontario. My question to the member across, is this a policy issue or is this really an ongoing dispute that started in the Ontario Legislature that spilled over to this assembly and leaves most Canadians shaking their heads?

My second question to the member, as an Ontario member of Parliament, does he agree with those statements? Does he agree with that stance? Does he think it will help the workers and families who live in the province of Ontario?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament who is not from Ontario, I find this debate somewhat bizarre. We have a federal government attacking one of the provinces. It seems to me that a dispute which probably arose in the Ontario legislature has spilled over to this assembly. It has reached new lows in the last month. The premier of Ontario has been called the low man of Confederation, and the Minister of Finance, presumably speaking on behalf of the government, has said that Ontario is “the last place” that a person should look to for investment.

Therefore, my question to the member across is very simple. It should get a very simple answer. It has to do with the last statement I referred to made, by the Minister of Finance, which was that the province of Ontario is “the last place” that a person should look at for investment. Is the member in agreement with that statement? Is he prepared to tell the residents of Peterborough that he agrees with it?

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, it would. It would depend how it is implemented.

Right now, the way it works is that if a prospectus is approved in each Canadian jurisdiction, there is a fee levied by each province. It depends a lot on the fees implemented by the individual provinces, and that is another issue.

Those fees and taxes would have to be built into any type of a national program and those fees would have to be spread out among the provinces. It would have to be revenue neutral. I think every province would want that. To answer the question, yes, that would have to be built into the system.

Going back to the smaller provinces, it is my understanding that they basically adopt whatever opinions, decisions and directives that come out of the Ontario system. It probably makes a lot more sense in the long run if we would just formalize what is going on in the street at any particular time.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I see a lot of change going on in international securities regulations and sale. There is a lot of consolidation and globalization.

The point that I attempted to make in my brief remarks is that I do not see any way that 13 separate jurisdictional regulators, with their own laws, policies and regulations, will work.

The hon. member talks about my province. It is a very small province of 135,000 people. It does technically have a director of securities or a securities commission, but I know from personal experience that it basically rubber stamps whatever decisions, whatever opinions, come out of the Ontario situation, which in and of itself is not an effective way to go forward.

This country represents a very small number of people. Thirty-four million is an extremely small number of people compared to the world's population. It needs, it cries out for, one national securities regulator. Whether that will ever happen, I do not know. We do not know in this debate, but as we leave the debate, that should be the goal of everyone here.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion. At the outset, I am totally against it.

It is my premise that Canada needs to advance its productivity and prosperity agenda. Canada needs an efficient, effective economical securities regulator that meets the needs not only of the companies both large and small operating in our great country, but also, and perhaps more important, meets the needs of investors looking to invest in Canadian companies rather than non-Canadian companies. My premise is the only way this can be done is through a national securities regulator.

From a geographical point of view, Canada is a very large country. From the population point of view, it is an extremely small country. We have 34 million people spread out across a vast geographical area. I think we comprise between 1% and 2% of the world's equity markets. Right now we have at least 10 different regulators. We are the only country in the world wherein we would find this type of a system. It cannot work, and I do not think it will work going forward. It is disjointed and duplicitous.

From personal experience, what happens is a lot of the smaller provinces rely on the rulings of the Ontario Securities Commission. I happen to come from a small province. We have approximately 134,000 people, and this is a good example. Are we expected to have our own securities commission, our own securities regulator, our own rules, laws and policy guidelines to deal with any securities issue that comes across our desk?

Again, any person would realize that it is not workable not only in Prince Edward Island, but in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It will not and can not work.

Another issue, which has been written about extensively, is the inability of our securities regulators to adequately enforce the existing rules. We have had a number of scandals over the years where investors have lost a lot of money, and no one seems to ever be convicted.

Perhaps the most grievous example is Bre-X. I believe capitalization in that case reached approximately $3 billion. There is more gold in my hand than there was in that mine. Investors from one part of Canada to the other part of Canada were fleeced of large amounts of money, and as far as I am aware nobody was convicted. This repeats itself over and over again.

The only way the country will move forward, so we have a very effective and efficient system of capitalization of our companies, is to have a national regulator. That is what I would like to see.

We have seen it. We are into an era of globalization. We have one in Vancouver, one in Alberta and in Montreal. Again, it is consolidation. However, if we do not take steps to have a national securities regulator in place in Canada, what will happen in the long run? If the present trend continues, companies and investors will not look at any of the Canadian provinces. They will bypass the Canadian provinces and look to the New York Stock Exchange.

A lot of resource-based companies in Canada rely on the capital markets. A lot of investors and pension funds rely on opportunities to invest their money. A lot of people want to invest in Canadian companies. If we have 13 separate regulators with their own 13 separate sets of rules, laws and regulations, that will create a lot of uncertainty. I do not think it can work in the long run.

This is very close to the productivity and prosperity agenda. I believe everything that goes on in the House should be looked at through the lens of whether it would enhance the prosperity and productivity of our country. With a national securities regulator, there is no question that it would.

As an aside, and this is related to other issues that perhaps are not in the motion, we have the whole economic union issue which calls for a national securities regulator, but just as importantly, it also calls for the reduction and hopefully the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers that exist.

In this particular country, we have 13 separate jurisdictions, and as everyone in this House is aware, there are many barriers put up to the trade of goods, the movement of goods and people, and services across interprovincial boundaries. There are many barriers in the interprovincial sense that are causing many problems with our productivity and prosperity.

It is good to see some of the initiatives being taken by the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. They recognize that. They do have an agreement and hopefully other Canadian provinces will emulate those particular agreements that do exist.

Hopefully, if we look back and we are here in 10 years time, many of those interprovincial barriers will disappear. However, if we have 13 different securities regulators, that in and of itself will be a very serious issue that will be looked at.

As I said previously, Canadians are investing more. This is how people, indirectly through their pension funds, fund their retirements, through RRSPs and other instruments that are available. It is natural that Canadians are looking for Canadian opportunities.

We know the land. We know the companies. We know what resources are out there. We know what ought to work and we know that it might not work, but again, if Canadians do not see that there are proper regulations, laws and policies, they will just move on and they will look of course not only to the New York Stock Exchange but the European stock exchanges, Tokyo, and others.

This relates to a larger discussion on what I call the need for a strong central government. We cannot build a country based upon 10 semi-autonomous jurisdictions with a moat or a firewall around each jurisdiction, each one speaking for itself.

Canada needs and cries out for a strong central government, a government with a pan-Canadian vision, a government that speaks for all people wherever they live, whatever sector they are employed in, and this whole issue of a national securities regulator cries out for that.

I realize there are some jurisdictional issues. I know this is an issue that has been worked on by successive governments of different political stripes. We have not been, as of today's date, successful in our quest for this objective, but I do hope that we move toward that.

I know there are always trifle issues as to where this office is going to be located and where that office is going to be located, what this office does and what that office does, but I am hopeful those issues can be resolved through negotiation.

However, if anyone leaves this debate thinking that this country will benefit through the development and expansion of 13 separate security commissions, with their own laws and regulations, then I submit to this House that they are mistaken.

In conclusion, I say to this House that this motion, in my respectful opinion, does not make a lot of sense. It does not advance the prosperity and productivity agenda of this country. The efficiencies and effectiveness that one would like to see in the system will not be present. I urge everyone to vote against this particular motion.

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer with my impressions only.

Again, this is a very complex issue. Sometimes the difficulty is when we try to boil it down into very simplistic statements. Right now I would agree with the member that I would not want to see negotiations take place with the Taliban. Perhaps in five or ten years time it might not be ruled out.

However, I would ask the House to look at what happened in northern Ireland. That went on for generations and generations, killing after killing. Both sides were very set in their opinions. There was not a military or a violent solution to the problems in northern Ireland. The solution came when the parties got together and there was a negotiation between people. The thought of those two people speaking to each other, being in the same room, or even being in the same city was unheard of twenty years ago.

Right now, with the actions of the Taliban, I agree with the member's premise. However, in eight years or ten years, or in two year or five years, I do not know.