Shawn Murphy

[April 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to attempt to get an answer, an answer I have been trying to get for the last month. I want a straightforward, honest answer to a commitment, which was set out in the federal budget tabled by the finance minister on March 4.

Before I get into details, I want to remind the House that the budget is the financial agenda of the government for the upcoming fiscal year. Literally thousands of hours go into the preparation of each budget, and thousands of eyes see and review the budget before it is tabled. Facts are checked, double-checked and triple-checked. Millions of dollars of man and woman hours are spent preparing the budget. As a result, members of this House, members of the Senate, and all Canadians are entitled to assume that the budget is accurate, correct and factual.

On page 242 of the budget, which the government wants passed by this House and the Senate, it contains the following commitment:

Upgrades to infrastructure at the University of Prince Edward Island will create over 300 jobs and inject about $30 million into the economy.

The announcement was received enthusiastically by UPEI and all people living in Prince Edward Island. Then things started to get a little wobbly. The Minister of Finance in the House said proudly that the budget was accurate, but the department of industry was a little bit different. It said it was not $30 million, it was $2 million. All we had to do to get to the $30 million was use a multiplier of 15.

When this was explained to be absolutely ridiculous, it came forward the next day with another explanation that we could take another project at the college that was done a year before, add them up and we would get to $10 million or $11 million, that would be close enough, and we could forget about it.

No attempt was ever made to compute how the 300 jobs were calculated or arrived at. I am going to read it again because I want to be absolutely clear. The budget stated:

Upgrades to infrastructure at the University of Prince Edward Island will create over 300 jobs and inject about $30 million into the economy.

One would think that I, as a member of Parliament, and the people living in Prince Edward Island, along with the people affiliated with the University of Prince Edward Island would be entitled to an honest, straightforward answer.

If it was a major screw-up, tell us. If the decision was correct, or the statement was correct in the budget, and it was subsequently reversed by the finance minister or the Prime Minister, tell us. However, we are not getting that.

I am asking people who are watching this on television tonight to listen to the answer. What we are going to hear is spin. It will not deal with the question. It will not deal with the $30 million. It will not deal with the 300 jobs. It will go on and talk about other projects.

The parliamentary secretary tonight will read a statement, prepared by the department of industry, approved by the Prime Minister's Office and will, over the next four minutes, continue this culture of deceit that we are seeing with the government.

I am going to read it again for the third time:

Upgrades to infrastructure at the University of Prince Edward Island will create over 300 jobs and inject about $30 million into the economy.

My question is straightforward and simple. Is the $30 million commitment and the creation of 300 jobs accurate? If it is not accurate, and we know it is not, why was it included in the budget?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 26th, 2010]

With regard to contributions for the Atlantic Innovation Fund in the fiscal year 2008-2009: (a) what is the fiscal breakdown of the program objectives; (b) what is the explanation of the program objectives; (c) what are the results of the program objectives; and (d) what are the performance indicators and targets used to audit the performance of the program objectives?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 26th, 2010]

With regard to individuals working at the Canadian International Development Agency earning in excess of $80,000 per annum, for the fiscal years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009: (a) what percentage of these individuals received at-risk pay and what was the average annual amount of this at-risk pay; and (b) what percentage of the same class of individuals received annual bonuses, and what was the average amount of these bonuses?

[Stephen Turner, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday Prince Edward Island lost a unique, special and wonderful person when Stephen Turner died at the young age of 27.

Stephen Turner was unique in his passion for politics. He lived, ate and breathed politics 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He did so in a positive, friendly, almost jovial manner. He always had a smile on his face.

In his mind the only distinction between a Conservative and a Liberal was that the Conservatives were all very good people, whereas the Liberals were great people. He left this world with many friends and not a single enemy.

He worked as the executive assistant to P.E.I. education minister Doug Currie, where he will be greatly missed.

Less than four weeks ago, Stephen sat in the gallery enjoying every minute while listening to the debates. He knew most of the members here, although most of the members perhaps did not know him. He loved politics and everyone involved in the world of politics.

Although he lived a short life, he made a lasting impression on many people.

On behalf of this House, I offer to his father, David, his mother, Gloria, and his sister, Kathy Ann, our deepest sympathies.

[April 19th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member across indicates that I am confused. However I am going to read this again, and I am going to read it very slowly:

Upgrades to infrastructure at the University of Prince Edward Island will create over 300 jobs and inject about $30 million into the economy.

I asked if that statement was accurate. The minister said it was. The parliamentary secretary obviously just said it was not accurate. He has just told this House that the correct information is not $30 million but $2 million. When you add another $2 million coming from the provincial government, that totals $4 million.

We have a grossly inaccurate statement. I am not confused. I read it three times in the House. No one in Canada is confused right now.

My question to the member across is: As it is very clear what that statement said, why was the inaccurate and false information included in the budget?

[April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, over the past several years, the University of Prince Edward Island has formulated a proposal to establish a centre for rural excellence. The project would benefit the university greatly, as well as other areas of Prince Edward Island.

On March 4, the finance minister tabled the federal budget. On page 242 of the budget, it states:

Upgrades to infrastructure at the University of Prince Edward Island will create over 300 jobs and inject about $30 million into the economy.

It was positive news, as it suggested the university could proceed with creating the centre.

On March 25, I asked the finance minister in this House whether the statement that was in his budget was accurate. His answer was, “The budget is accurate”.

Around that time or shortly thereafter, things started to slide, particularly the information we were receiving from the Department of Industry, as it attempted to explain the statement given by the minister in the House and the statement in the budget.

The Department of Industry explained that UPEI had previously received a small grant of $2 million and that by using the multiplier of 15, we could get to $30 million, and this was the promise. Obviously, that was ridiculous. It was next suggested that the $30 million referred to other projects, which did not add up to anything close to $30 million and also did not involve the University of Prince Edward Island.

This was a total fabrication. It was not correct. One would expect that statements in the budget would be accurate and that the minister's answers to questions put to him in the House would also be accurate.

This issue is reflective of a fundamental problem with this institution; namely, there are no repercussions for making these types of statements.

My question for the parliamentary secretary or the minister, whoever is answering the question, is extremely simple. I would appeal to him to not just read the text of the answer given to him by the Department of Finance or the Department of Industry, but to rise and answer the question, which I will ask very slowly and simply. Is the statement on page 242 of the budget, “Upgrades to infrastructure at the University of Prince Edward Island will create over 300 jobs and inject about $30 million into the economy” accurate?

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the eight report on Chapter 6, Selected Contribution Agreements, Natural Resources Canada, of the spring 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada; and the ninth report on Chapter 2, Intellectual Property, of the spring 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to both these reports.

[Committees of the House, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in the House, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the fourth report on Chapter 1, Gender-Based Analysis, of the Spring 2009 Report of the Auditor General of Canada; the fifth report of the committee on Chapter 1, Safeguarding Government Information and Assets in Contracting, of the October 2007 Report of the Auditor General of Canada; the sixth report of the committee on Chapter 3, Human Resources Management--Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, of the May 2007 Report of the Auditor General of Canada; and, finally, the seventh report of the committee on Chapter 4, Interest on Advance Deposits from Corporate Taxpayers--Canada Revenue Agency, of the Spring 2009 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to these four reports.

[Midget AAA Hockey, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 21, the Charlottetown OK Tire Abbies won the Atlantic provinces midget AAA hockey championship. Teams from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island participated in this Atlantic tournament. The Abbies went undefeated during the tournament and won the championship for the second straight year.

The Abbies defeated their hosts, the Summerside Hemphill GM Capitals, in a 5 to 3 victory in the championship game. Their victory on Sunday marks the end of a very successful season. The team dominated the Atlantic midget AAA hockey circuit, winning the Monctonian, the Sherwood-Parkdale Early Bird, the Charlottetown Spud and the Prince Edward Island midget AAA tournaments. The Abbies were capably coached by Mark White, Mike White and Steve Ramsay, and were managed by Jerry MacKenna and Kevin Ramsay.

I would like all members of the House to join me in congratulating the Charlottetown AAA midget Abbies for their tournament win and their very successful season. Every member of this team has every reason to be proud and I do want to wish them all the best in their future endeavours.

[Committees of the House, March 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: First, “Following up on Recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session”; second, Chapter 2, The Governor in Council Appointment Process of the 2009 Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada; and third, Chapter 7, Special Examinations of Crown Corporations—2008 of the Spring 2009 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the second and third reports only.