Joyce Murray

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my words were that the former chief electoral officer was forced out, resigned under pressure, and if I said “fired”, I will correct that and replace it with the words “forced out”.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member points out the absolute difference between the Conservative Party approach and the Liberals' approach to problems when they were in government.

The government's approach is to obfuscate and attack and, in doing so, to try to fend off legitimate concerns about its activities that are undermining the integrity of government. The previous Liberal government, when the sponsorship issue was brought to the attention of the then prime minister, Paul Martin, immediately took steps to cancel the program, bring in the RCMP, call for an inquiry, and in every way be open and accountable and make sure that those who were responsible for breaking the law were identified and charged.

We have seen that happen. That is leadership. That is the responsible thing to do. Leaders who deny, obfuscate and attack are being irresponsible and are not transparent. The comment made by Justice Gomery that his recommendations are not being fulfilled is absolutely correct. It is just further to that pattern of the lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the Conservative government.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak in support of the Bloc opposition motion:

That the House express its full and complete confidence in Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

Noting that six of the British Columbia Conservative MPs participated in this in and out scheme, I wanted to share time with my colleague and speak in support of the motion.

The Conservative Party appears to have devised a systematic scheme to cheat the Elections Canada rules with respect to financing campaigns. Elections Canada caught the Conservative Party red-handed with this and is investigating.

The key that I want to bring to this debate is the lack of accountability by the Conservative Party and government, which I believe is at the heart of its response to the issue of having perhaps been caught cheating.

There appears to not only be a systematic scheme to get around Elections Canada laws, but this ties into what appears to be a systematic scheme to undermine democracy in Canada. One of my colleagues, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, spoke earlier about a number of officers of Parliament who were fired or forced to resign by the Conservative government when they criticized or did not support the Prime Minister or the Conservative Party in some way or another. That is a very long and now growing list.

I want to point out that the president of the Law Commission of Canada was fired in September 2006. A scientist with the Geological Survey of Canada, Andrew Okulitch, was fired in September 2006 for objecting to an order that he praise Canada's new government in supposedly non-partisan correspondence. Allan Amey, the president of the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency was fired and his agency dismantled. Jack Anawak, the ambassador of Circumpolar Affairs, an important area and issue in Canada, was fired and his position eliminated in September 2006. The ambassador for the Environment was fired in 2006, and I wonder to what she was objecting.

We have a systematic pattern of the Conservative government not wanting people in positions of neutral responsibility and respect to comment on the its activities.

The ethics commissioner, Bernard Shapiro, resigned after several run-ins with the Prime Minister over the appointment of the trade minister. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, “resigned” in December 2006 after forcing the Conservatives to admit they violated election financing laws. It looks like forced out to many people. John Reid, the Information Commissioner, was forced out in September 2006 after criticizing the Prime Minister. The chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board “resigned” in March 2007 because of government's attempt to politicize the Immigration Review Board.

The list goes on. The ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces was forced out, only two years into a five year appointment, after months of not seeing eye to eye with the government.

We could then go to the muzzling of a respected Environment Canada scientist, Mark Tushingham, who was prohibited by the government in April 2006 from promoting his book on global warming, probably because the government had cut most of the Liberal programs to deal with the challenge of global warming and reduce greenhouse gases.

I am pointing to a systematic scheme to undermine democracy by treating commissioners and other officers of the House and other respected non-partisan members of the fabric and network of democracy in Canada of undermining them and their ability to scrutinize the government and to comment on the activities and actions of the government and the Prime Minister.

The decision to take the Chief Electoral Officer to court when that office discovered a possible systematic scheme of cheating the taxpayers of Canada through this in and out scandal is just one in that lineup of the undermining of our democracy here in Canada. It is certainly not something with which Canadians can be comfortable.

I am looking forward to having Elections Canada shed light on what actually happened and begin to stop this systematic scheme of suppressing, firing and forcing to resign, and specious lawsuits against anyone who has the courage to speak up about the activities of the Prime Minister and the Conservative government.

[Ethics, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, financial considerations were offered to Chuck Cadman to influence a critical vote.

The Prime Minister's own words are published in a book for sale right across the country. The Prime Minister has shamefully evaded answering questions on this issue time and again.

On the tape, he talked about financial considerations Chuck might use due to an election. What were they?

In the absence of an answer, how does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to trust him?

[Ethics, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the Minister of International Cooperation boasted about the Conservatives' meaningful commitments.

Here is one we know about. Financial--

[Ethics, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, another one of the Prime Minister's puppets who usually has his pants on fire and perhaps that is why we had fire trucks here today.

On the tape, when the Prime Minister was asked about the offer made to Mr. Cadman, he said, “I don't know the details. I know that there were discussions.”

Why is the Prime Minister refusing to answer? Will he explain what he said in the recording?

[Ethics, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Chuck Cadman's wife, his daughter and his son-in-law have each confirmed that Mr. Cadman was offered a bribe by Conservative Party officials. The Prime Minister was caught on tape saying: “the offer to Chuck was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election”.

What were these financial considerations and why does the Prime Minister refuse to explain the tape?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, people who attended my round table in the Chinese community had a lot to say and have a lot of concerns about this amendment, but other Canadians who are ringing alarm bells include: the Canadian Bar Association, Toronto mayor David Miller, the Canadian Arab Federation, the Ontario premier, the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, the Regina Leader-Post, the Vancouver Sun, the Victoria Times Colonist, La Presse, the Ottawa Citizen and many others. There is a growing consensus. This is a bad idea.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite was talking about perpetrating dastardly deeds, I was awaiting the rest of the sentence, which would have been about the government's blatant broken promise to investors in income trusts. I heard that on doorsteps again and again in Vancouver Quadra.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's welcoming comments. It is a great privilege to be here.

Unlike NDP members of the legislature in my province of British Columbia, the member and his party will never form government, so it is easy and predictable to vote against and oppose everything while never having to put forward the needed constructive solutions were one to assume the reins of responsibilities of government.

I appreciate that the member supports the criticisms that I and my colleagues are making on the immigration amendments. We do not trust the Prime Minister. He has been quoted as saying that “immigration should be essentially economic in nature” when he was chief policy officer of the Reform Party, so how can we trust that these amendments will be applied properly?