Shawn Murphy

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2011]

With respect to the government’s target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2020: (a) what is the government’s assessment of how Canada will meet this target; (b) what are the government’s estimates of Canadian emissions levels in megatonnes for each year in the period from 2006 through 2020, specifying the year in which emissions are expected to peak; (c) how many emission credits does the government estimate it will need to purchase to meet this target, from where does it intend to purchase them and how much it will cost; (d) what does the government estimate will be the carbon price under the carbon pricing scheme that the government plans to use for each year from 2010 through 2020; and (e) what, given the Minister of the Environment’s October 29, 2009 statement that it is possible to meet the target with a carbon price of $28 per tonne, are the details of all documents and assessments in the government’s possession that examine how the target will be met with that carbon price and when and how does the government plan to implement that carbon price?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 31st, 2011]

With respect to persons who have accompanied the Prime Minister on foreign and domestic trips, for the period January 1, 2006 to October 11, 2010: (a) in what capacity does image consultant Michelle Muntean travel on transportation provided by the government; (b) does Ms. Muntean receive any remuneration from the government; (c) on what trips did Ms. Muntean travel with the Prime Minister; (d) what was the total cost associated with Ms. Muntean’s travel, broken down by the amount spent on (i) transportation, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (e) which government department or agency paid for expenses incurred as a result of Ms. Muntean’s travel; (f) have any outside individuals, groups or organizations paid for any of Ms. Muntean’s travel expenses; (g) what bills have been sent to individuals, groups or organizations for Ms. Muntean’s travel expenses; (h) what are the names of the individuals, other than Ms. Muntean, not employed by the government, excluding the Prime Minister’s spouse and children, who have accompanied the Prime Minister on domestic or foreign travel; (i) in what capacity did the individuals in (h) travel on transportation provided by the government; (j) on what trips have the individuals in (h) traveled with the Prime Minister; (k) for the individuals in (h), what was the total cost associated with their travel, broken down by the amount spent on (i) transportation, (ii) accommodations, (iii) per diems, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (l) which government department or agency paid for the expenses in (k); (m) have any outside individuals, groups or organizations paid for any of the travel expenses in (k); and (n) what bills have been sent to the individuals, groups or organizations in (m)?

[Committees of the House, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in relation to a study of the privacy implications of a street-level imaging applications.

[Democratic Representation Act, December 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member across for his comments. They were certainly well researched, thoughtful and very reflective on this issue.

However, I have one curiosity that I would ask the member to address. That is, given the importance of the bill, the previous member stated in his opinion that it was the most important bill to come before the House in 10 years and as such it would deserve the discussion in the House, the discussion in committee and probably consultation in the general public.

I do not think we have heard about the bill since at least April. It is the government House leader who decides what the legislative priorities of the government are. Here we are 125 minutes before adjourning for Christmas break and we are discussing this bill.

My question for the member is, and again I want to thank him for his very thoughtful comments, is there any reason why the bill did not receive any priority from the government?

[Christmas Greetings, December 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, to all my colleagues in the House of Commons, the people living in the riding of Charlottetown and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, I would like to extend my best wishes to each and every one for a very special season.

Christmas is a few days away and this joyous season helps us all to rekindle happy memories with family and friends. We should remember to take time to enjoy those very special people in our lives during this busy and sometimes hectic time of year.

At times like this we should always take time to pause and reflect on the true meaning and significance of Christmas. I am very much looking forward to spending my holiday with family and friends in Charlottetown. Returning to Charlottetown helps me rediscover how truly fortunate I am to serve the residents of Charlottetown and work with and for them on a daily basis.

My message for all Canadians is that their Christmas season and new year be filled with peace, health, happiness, serenity and joy.

[Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, talking about the victims of white collar crime, I submit that the biggest victim of white collar crime is me, it is you, and it is every other Canadian taxpayer.

We have a situation in Canada now where there are thousands upon thousands of rich Canadians who are taking their money offshore for the sole purpose of not paying Canadian income tax and there is absolutely no mechanism to go after these rich individuals. In fact, if or when they are caught, there is total immunity granted to them. All they have to do is walk into the nearest CRA office, their income for the last three years is assessed, there are a few penalties, a bit of interest, and they go to their next cocktail party. There is total immunity, and as a result, you and I and every other Canadian taxpayer pay more taxes.

Therefore, my question for my friend whether he is as disturbed about this issue as I am.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 6th, 2010]

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) investigation of cases of possible tax evasion in Liechtenstein: (a) for the 26 cases reassessed by the CRA as of June 10, 2010, what is the breakdown of the $5.2 million (i) in unpaid taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (b) how much of the $5.2 million has been collected; (c) how many of the 26 cases are under appeal; (d) how many of the 26 cases remain open; (e) in how many of the 26 cases has the CRA collected the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties owed; (f) for each case identified in (e) how much was collected (i) in taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (g) how many of the account holders in the 26 cases have made partial payment; (h) of the partial repayments made (i) what was the largest repayment, (ii) what was the smallest repayment, (iii) what was the average repayment; (i) how much does the CRA anticipate it has yet to collect (i) in taxes, (ii) in interest, (iii) in fines, (iv) in penalties; (j) of the amounts of money contained in the Liechtenstein accounts declared to or discovered by the CRA, what was (i) the largest amount, (ii) the smallest amount, (iii) the average amount; (k) on what date was the CRA first made aware of the names of Canadians with accounts in Liechtenstein; (l) on what date did CRA begin its investigation; (m) on what date did the first audit of an individual account holder begin; (n) of the 106 Canadians identified as having bank accounts in Liechtenstein, how many have (i) had their accounts audited, (ii) not had their accounts audited, (iii) had their accounts reassessed, (iv) not had their accounts reassessed, (v) been the subject of a compliance action, (vi) not been the subject of a compliance action; and (o) how many tax evasion charges have been laid?

[Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a previous question was about the delay in some of this legislation. I would like to refresh the memories of the hon. members in the House on the way things worked out.

A lot of this legislation was introduced back in late 2007 or 2008. The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, which meant everything disappeared from the order paper. It was reintroduced and debated and he called an election in violation of the fixed election date act, and that again removed everything from the order paper. About a few weeks or a month after our return, he prorogued Parliament again. Then we were back for another six months, and in January of this year, after this legislation was reintroduced, discussed and debated and some of it sent to committee, he prorogued Parliament again, which meant everything was dropped from the order paper. So we can see the whole sequence of event.

My question to the member is whether this sequence of events, these many, many prorogations and the election that was called, contrary to the fixed election date act, in any way contributed to the delay in the legislation.

[Points of Order, December 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the response from the government House leader has absolutely nothing to do with my point of order and my point of order has nothing to do with the member for Ajax—Pickering.

The point of order is that the answer is an attack on the dignity of the House. It is a violation of our collective privileges as a member. It is a very serious issue and it is an issue that I, as a member of Parliament, urge you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on.

[Points of Order, December 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, during question period today, the member for Ajax—Pickering questioned the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about an alleged cabinet leak that may have affected the share prices when that matter was dealt with by cabinet.

The minister did not answer. The government House leader told the member to take the matter outside. That was his answer.

This is question period. It is a legitimate part of our system of parliamentary accountability. Any mechanism that limits a member from asking a legitimate question limits the accountability of this institution. It renders the whole concept of responsible government illusionary. It restricts members from asking legitimate questions and it restricts members and the public from getting legitimate answers.

Every member of the House stands equal. They have the right, and I submit the obligation, to raise and advance issues of the public concern. Any answer that attempts to shift the issue from the parliamentary forum to the legal or the public forum is wrong. It is illegal. It certainly degrades, and I submit denudes, the accountability and answerability functions of the government.

In summary, it undermines the accountability of the House. It violates our collective privileges as a member. It is an assault on the dignity of the House. It is a very serious matter, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on that.