Shawn Murphy

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know all the facts but my understanding is that there was nothing wrong with that at all. It was fully disclosed to the public. The public knows exactly what Mr. Rae borrowed. He knows exactly what the terms were, who he borrowed it from and that, under the existing legislation, it has to be paid back within a certain period of time in accordance with the legislation that does exist.

There is something that I would really like to know. Back in 2002, the present Prime Minister went through a leadership campaign where he received millions and millions of dollars from companies, organizations, associations and people across Canada but he will not disclose who gave him the money. The public has been left to wonder who financed him, what the people received in return, what he demanded in return, and what access these people have.

We need to get to the bottom of that and to root it out so the public knows, or even right now, root it out and disclose it. My answer to the member is that tomorrow he should sit down beside the present Prime Minister and tell him to disclose the names of the people who financed his leadership campaign.

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to the legislation relating to the accountability with respect to loans to political candidates and political parties.

I want to say at the outset that I do support the legislation but, like other speakers here this afternoon, I have some concerns, but the general thrust of the legislation is good. Anything that enhances transparency in the way politics is done in Canada is good. The public has a right to know who is lending money to any political party or any candidate for office, how much they loaned that particular person or party and what the terms of the loan are. The very same concept applies to guarantors because a guarantor, in most instances, is the actual lender in fact.

In my experience with political parties and political organizations, the banks do not have a big appetite to lend money to candidates or to political parties and they usually require a guarantor. The guarantor actually is the de facto lender of the money, so that is a positive development too.

The whole issue of the treatment of unpaid loans should be codified and understood so that everyone, including the public, understands how these issues are being dealt with, that the rules are known and that the public has a right to know what exactly is going on.

I should point out at the outset that we are really not breaking new ground because many of the issues have already been dealt with. Over the last six years there has been a major groundswell on the whole issue of political financing. It is very positive and most of the credit, I would submit, goes to the previous prime minister, Mr. Chrétien, who decreased, substantially, the amount that any person could give to any political candidate or party and also increased the amount that came from the government.

When we contrast what goes on in Canada to what goes on in the United States right now, it is dramatic. A congressman in the U.S. gets elected every second year. When those votes are counted and the person wins the election, everyone knows they have to start at eight o'clock the next morning raising money for the next election. They spend 23 months raising money for their next election, which is scheduled in 24 months' time, and the amount of money that is spent there, with no obvious limits, boggles the mind.

I am glad that I do not participate in that kind of environment. For many candidates, including myself, it is not one of the jobs that I find particularly attractive, trying to raise money, so I do think, to the credit of many people over the last five or six years, we are in a much better environment because of a number of changes and this is just one small additional aspect of the issue to give full disclosure to any loans.

I should point out to the public watching that under the existing elections financing legislation, each candidate is entitled to a rebate, which is approximately 50% of the legitimate expenses that a candidate spends in an election. I do not have my figures exactly correct but let us assume a candidate spends $60,000. In that election, the candidate is entitled to a rebate of 50%. Sometimes the federal party, depending on which party one belongs to, may take some of that back, but there is a rebate going back to that candidate whether the candidate wins or loses. However, I do believe the person needs to get over a certain threshold of the votes, which is not that significant.

There is a legitimate borrowing exercise because if candidates are with one of the major parties, Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois, they are reasonably certain they will get over the threshold and be entitled to the rebate and that they will have money coming in. It usually does not come in for about 12 months after the election is over but they will have the money coming in so there is nothing untoward in borrowing against that future rebate. That puts the whole debate into context.

However, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy going on with this legislation. I shake my head when I look at what is going on. What I am concerned about is what happens when people break the law and do not follow the Canada Elections Act. What happens to those types of individuals?

From my experience and from what I have seen going on over the last number of years, nothing or very little happens. We have a member of this House who was found in the election of 2004 to have overspent his limit by $31,000. I am speaking of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

I have a certain amount of sympathy because I have been involved both as a candidate and as a campaign manager. Sometimes we ride our horse close to the cliff and sometimes at the end of it we just do not know exactly what is being spent. If a certain campaign goes over $1,000 or $2,000, it is unfortunate, there should be sanctions, but I personally have some sympathy for those situations because I have seen them happen.

However, in the case I mentioned, it was $31,000 he overspent. According to the report from Elections Canada, the money came from his car dealership. What happened? He was fined $500 and had absolutely no sanctions whatsoever. It is a joke. He is laughing at it. Nothing has been done in this particular situation, which is what I find very disturbing. The member is sitting today as a Conservative member laughing at the act and he is probably laughing at this particular debate. I find that somewhat hypocritical.

Another piece of hypocrisy that is going on in this House with regard to elections financing is the in and out scandal that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been trying to get to the bottom of. I will describe it very briefly.

In the last election, the Conservative Party, to get the benefit of rebates, to which it was not entitled, would transfer money to a riding or a particular candidate and five minutes later the same amount of money would be transferred back to the central agency or the major party. When the candidate filed his or her election expenses return after the election, the candidate said that the money was a legitimate expense and wanted the 50% rebate. However, any person with any common sense and half a brain would realize that the rebate should not be given, and that was the position of the Chief Electoral Officer. This dispute is ongoing right now.

A parliamentary committee is trying its very best to get at this, to hold hearings and hear from witnesses to find out and report to Canadians what exactly is going on. However, the committee is being stymied by the Conservative Party. What is going on now are filibusters. People stay for five, six or seven hours simply so that this will not come to the public's attention. I find that very hypocritical and unfortunate.

A certain amount of hypocrisy is going on in the debate today and, if anyone is watching, I am sure they have come to that conclusion. However, coming back to the bill, as I said when I began, anything that increases the transparency of how candidates are financed and how they spend their money, which includes loans, guarantors and the terms of the loans, is beneficial. The public, in the long run, will be the winner.

However, I hope, at some point in time in the future, that we will have a look at sanctions because if a candidate overspends his or her election limit by 40% or 50%, then I would like to see a little more teeth in the particular legislation.

[Government Policies, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that every day the Prime Minister has introduced a new confidence motion.

In his party's campaign promises made two years ago, he promised that only the budget and the Speech from the Throne would be confidence votes. This, like most of the promises he made, was broken.

The government continues to promise one thing and do the opposite. In fact, in a quick review I have found that the government has not kept at least 55 of its promises to Canadians. Other examples include: its promise to establish a public appointments commissioner to curb political appointments; its promise to honour the Atlantic accord; its promise to not tax income trusts; its promise to put 2,500 police officers on the streets; its promise on patient wait times guarantees; its promise to create 125,000 child care spaces; and the list goes on and on.

I may be old fashioned in my thinking, but keeping a person's word is part of that person's honour. As I have shown, the only issue of confidence in this town right now is the government has no honour.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 13th, 2008]

With regard to services to airports provided by the Canadian Border Services Agency in 2006 and 2007: (a) what was the average amount charged to airports for non-core hour service fees; (b) what was the amount charged to the Charlottetown Airport Authority; (c) what was the amount charged to the Greater Moncton International Airport Authority; (d) what was the amount charged to the Halifax International Airport Authority; and (e) what was the amount charged to the Val-d’Or Regional Airport?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, here is my answer to the member across. Why do we not try to take the bold approach? Why do we not try to do what is right?

We know the constitutional constraints face us, but that should not stop us from having a discussion with the people, as the member for Wild Rose has said, and with the provinces, as our Constitution says. If we do not do that, this whole exercise and this whole discussion are doomed to failure.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to disagree with the member across. I think it is important to consult with the people. It is important for each member in the House to consult on what the people that he or she represents want as far as a reformed Senate is concerned, if a reformed Senate is wanted.

However, I want to point out to the member that in this country we have a Constitution which specifically states that no amendment to the powers of the Senate can be made without the consent of at least 50% of the provinces representing at least 66% of the people.

With that constraint facing us, why would we just ignore it? It is there. It is in the Constitution. We cannot change the Constitution unilaterally, so we have no choice but to consult with the people. The member is quite right. However, we have no choice but to consult with the provinces too, because if we do not consult with the provinces this is not going anywhere.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-20, which talks about what I would call an advisory election. It is a piecemeal effort on Senate reform.

First, I am not opposed to Senate reform. The Senate has been with us many years now and it is something on which perhaps Canadians and parliamentarians, both federal and provincial, should have an open and honest debate. We attempted it during the Charlottetown accord and Meech Lake discussions. Unfortunately, we did not make it all the way, but I thought we had some good discussions and very constructive proposals were put on the table, which perhaps would have solved this issue once and for all.

These discussions would have to be broad reaching. They would involve the powers of the Senate. If we look at the constating documents of our country, the powers of the Senate are not really set out as to how senators are appointed or elected, the term of the Senate appointment, whether appointed or elected, and the numbers, which is a big issue for many provinces across Canada. If we look at the United States or Australian models, we would be heading toward an equal effective model. In Canada we do not have that, which is a big issue. All of these issues are worthy of discussion, debate and, hopefully, resolution.

However, to deal with it on a piecemeal basis, is the wrong way to go. At this juncture, when we have never had a discussion about Senate reform or at least a recent discussion, it would be my recommendation for the present government and Prime Minister to call the provinces together and discuss this entire issue. There has been absolutely no consultation, no discussion, no meetings, nothing, zilch, regarding any form of Senate reform and no consultation on this bill.

If we do not have consultation or meet with the provinces, the first thing that happens is the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Yukon and New Brunswick are up in arms and against the legislation. It is difficult for people to support it. I do not think the piecemeal approach is the way to go. I would urge the government, if it is seriously interested, to try to reform the Senate and move on that basis.

We have to look at the history of the institution when our country was established in 1867. The Senate was created to represent the regions. However, the western regions did not exist at the time. In fact, there was a higher population in the Atlantic region on a percentage basis than there is now. That is the way the Senate was adopted then. It reflected the dual cultural and linguistic nature of the country. Since then, it has not evolved to meet the changing nature or fabric of Canada.

The people who debate this issue should look at what happened in Australia and the United States. United States senators were originally appointed, I believe, by the state legislatures. Eventually there was an evolution to an elected Senate. In that case there is an equal Senate with the powers defined. In this case, we would not have that. There would be nothing to deal with the powers involved, which would be a quagmire. I suggest there be some effort made with the provinces to discuss Senate reform.

I realize there were efforts made in the Charlottetown accord and the Meech Lake accord and these efforts did not bear fruit. I know that. I believe Charlottetown was the last accord. Ever since those accords were voted down, there really has not been an effort. Probably people were sick and tired of it and just did not want to go into the discussion about Senate reform again. It was put on the back burner. It was not a priority for the provincial governments. It was not a priority for Canadians.

However, perhaps it is time to dust off the briefing books. It is time to dust off some of the position papers to look at this whole issue and it is time to call the provinces together. That is the most important point I will make in my debate this afternoon. To try to do this as the federal legislature without any consultation, without any meetings, without any discussions with the provinces, I submit is foolhardy.

I find it a little hypocritical for the government of the day to be doing this. I was really quite offended at the actions of the government, because in his very first item of business upon being sworn in after the election, the Prime Minister appointed to the Senate his campaign chair, who continued to be the campaign co-chair in the federal election of 2006. There was no talk of an election. There was no talk of a consultative process. The Prime Minister appointed him to the Senate.

Perhaps I would not have been offended at that, as it has certainly happened before, but the next thing the Prime Minister did was appoint him as an unelected Minister of Public Works and Government Services. For the last 25 months, he has been around Ottawa as the unelected Minister of Public Works and Government Services. He spends approximately $43 million each and every day. He answers no questions in this House. He answers no questions in the Senate.

I have absolutely no idea what this gentleman looks like. I have no idea what he does and I never will. No one else in this House is any wiser than I am insofar as that particular person. He is, I submit, accountable to absolutely no one.

I do not want anyone here to get me wrong. I do not have any problem with a discussion on Senate reform. I think it would be healthy for the nation, but I certainly think it is not going anywhere unless we involve the provinces. I submit and suggest that the government should call a first ministers meeting with one item on the agenda: Senate reform. They should talk about the powers, the numbers, the appointment process and the term.

The government should put everything on the table and just see if there is any common ground. It should just make an effort. It may be unsuccessful, and it would not surprise me if it were unsuccessful, but the government should see if there is any common ground that can be worked at between the federal government and the provincial governments representing all provinces. So if there is any resolution to this issue, certainly it would be advisable.

Again, on dispute resolution, as I said, when we look at the Constitution we see that there are the powers of the House--and we can only have one confidence chamber--and the powers of the Senate. They really are not delineated, so if we had followed this process to its nth result, we would I guess have a Senate that is elected by advisory elections. How is any dispute to be resolved in future years? These are unanswered and disturbing questions.

Again, let us look at other jurisdictions, especially Australia. I would urge members to look at this and bring Australian experts here to see if there is any common ground so that we can move forward.

As my time is up, let me close by saying that the tenor of my comments and my position are clear. I believe that the time has come and that maybe we should have a broader discussion rather than trying to accomplish this on a piecemeal basis.

[Autism, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last year the House, with the support of all Conservative members, passed a motion calling for the creation of a national autism strategy. The government has totally ignored this motion.

This week, Stephan Marinoiu, a father of an autistic child, walked from Toronto to Ottawa to raise awareness of the government's failure to live up to this commitment. Over the last couple of days, it would have been a tough cold walk.

My question is for the Minister of Health. How many more Canadian families will be left out in the cold by the Conservative government as costs rise for family members dealing with autism?

[Committees of the House, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts entitled “The Testimony of Deputy Commissioner Barbara George before the Public Accounts Committee”.

In this report, the committee found that the testimony presented by Deputy Commissioner Barbara George was either misleading at best or untruthful at worst. As such, the committee is recommending that the House find Deputy Commissioner George in contempt of Parliament. As this is sanction enough, we are also recommending that no further action be taken.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2008]

With respect to the Clean Air and Climate Change Trust Fund: (a) what was the amount each province and territory received from this trust fund in 2006-2007; (b) what conditions were attached to the transfer of funds to the provinces and territories; (c) what programs where funded by the Clean Air and Climate Change Trust Fund since January 1, 2006; and (d) what is the amount of emissions reduced from the programs funded by the Clean Air and Climate Change Fund by province and territory?