Marc Garneau

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, after that long string of self-congratulatory comments about their finances, I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question.

After the first two years the Conservatives were government, by 2008, after inheriting two years of massive surpluses from the previous Liberal administration, they started building up a debt, which today has added $160 billion to our national debt.

From 2008 to 2013, five years, that works out to a little over $30 billion per year that the government has added to the national debt. That is equivalent to $1,000 for every man, woman and child every year since 2008. Of course by the time that $1,000 gets repaid, it will be a lot more than that because it is part of a huge debt with a lot of interest.

I wonder if that has been communicated to the Canadian public.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, several times my hon. colleague mentioned a record to brag about. I want to ask him whether he feels the following is something to brag about. Under the current government, we have added about $160 billion to the national debt. It was very difficult to add to the debt the first two years because the Conservative government inherited massive surpluses from the competent Liberal administration that preceded it.

However, since that time, the Conservatives have added $160 billion to the debt. That works out to about $30 billion every year, which means $1,000 of debt for every Canadian every year has been added to the national debt. I wonder if the member feels that is something to brag about and something that his children will be happy to inherit.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that budget implementation plans are required to put into place the necessary legislation related to the budget.

However, I would like to ask him why this particular bill contains the description of the necessary requirements for a lawyer from the Province of Quebec to become a member of the Supreme Court. Why does it touch on labour relations in the public service? The matters are not related to the budget. They are quite separate and should be dealt with in separate bills.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, October 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, apart from the habit of calling for time allocation, and this is about the 50th time since the Conservatives have had the majority government, there is another undemocratic process that occurs every time one of these budget implementation bills comes forward. The last two both exceeded 400 pages. This one has about 308 pages and involves much more than budget-related issues. It talks about labour relations with the public service. It talks about procedures for deciding whether a lawyer from Quebec is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. These are all issues that should be dealt with but should be treated as separate bills to allow democracy to flourish in the House of Commons. That way we can treat each of these very separate issues separately instead of bundling them all into one single vote wherein, if we disagree with one aspect of it, we still have very little choice in terms of being squeezed because, unless we vote for it, the government will say we are against the entire bill, which is patently ludicrous.

Why is the government continuing this process of having these mammoth omnibus bills?

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I know the motion is about the Senate, but more broadly speaking it is about accountability. I would like to ask the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl if he considers it acceptable for a parliamentarian to go on parliamentary business, at the expense of taxpayers, to help in a by-election.

[Business of Supply, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up something I heard yesterday that, I have to admit, was a bit of a surprise to me. The member for Oak Ridges—Markham, in answering a question in question period, talked about how the NDP had once asked for six senators. I was totally flabbergasted by this, but maybe it was because I have only been here for five years.

Can the member enlighten us on either the truth or the falsity of that particular comment?

[Ethics, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is refusing to answer any questions about the Wright-Duffy scandal. He denies knowing anything about the $90,000 cheque even though other members of his office knew about it.

Does the Prime Minister really believe that the residents of Bourassa, where a byelection is being held, are going to buy that? Thank goodness Mike Duffy has finally started to talk. We are listening, Mr. Duffy.

When will the Prime Minister finally tell us what actually happened in this sordid scandal?

[International Trade, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has not provided any details on what the CETA deal means to Parliament and to Canadians during the past four years. In fact, the Conservatives did not mention it in the throne speech in terms of getting us any further details. All we have heard has been through leaks in the media.

I would like to ask the government what information it has shared with the provinces because obviously the provinces have to sign on. Would the Conservatives share that with the rest of Parliament, please?

[International Trade, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Canada's dairy farmers indicated that they are concerned about the free trade agreement with the European Union and its effect on supply management.

In the throne speech, the government made a commitment to continue protecting supply management, but it did not provide details.

Can the government explain how this agreement will affect our country's dairy farmers?

[Ethics, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the list of Conservatives under police investigation just keeps on growing. Now we have learned that Hubert Pichet, a former employee of Conservative Senator Nolin, is under investigation in relation to Parliament building renovations. However, two years ago, ministers opposite assured us that there had been no political interference in that file.

Why did they hide the truth for two years? Can they assure us that they will co-operate fully with the RCMP?