Marc Garneau

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

[Points of Order, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the point of order that was raised earlier this week by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands concerning Bill C-38.

Simply stated, I wish to reiterate that we in the Liberal Party also have deep concerns about this legislation. That the government's argument for putting it forward in its current form is that it is all essential in order to help us stimulate our fragile economy is completely disingenuous and frankly very misleading.

For example, the government's plan to change the age for receiving old age security from 65 to 67 beginning in 2023 is hardly a critical budget decision that must be taken at this time and within this bill. I dare say most of us will not even be here 11 years from now.

Another example has to do with all of the changes to environmental and fisheries legislation. The government would have us believe that these changes have to happen right away to protect our fragile economy, but these laws will have serious repercussions and must be debated in the context of their own bills.

What has happened with Bill C-38 is quite astounding. This now infamous budget megabill has caused outrage from one end of the country to the other and the remarks of the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands certainly mirror the concerns expressed by Canadians. Simply put, there is no common thread uniting all the elements of this massive bill. What is more, many of the elements are not even of a budgetary nature, even by the wildest stretch of the imagination. As such, Bill C-38 is not a legitimate omnibus bill.

We know that budget bills can be quite lengthy, but clearly, this government has brought the meaning of the term “omnibus” to an unprecedented level.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons can tell us that the bill does have a common thread—the budget—but I beg to differ. The government should not be using the budget as a catch-all to introduce everything including the kitchen sink.

For example, if we look at clause 52 of the bill, we will see that it enacts an entirely new piece of legislation called the Canadian environmental assessment act, 2012, within a single clause of a 753 clause bill. This clause only received a maximum of 15 minutes consideration at committee.

The rules and practices surrounding omnibus bills are in place for a reason. How can members of Parliament adequately study such a bill when its content is so wide ranging and disjointed. Dare I say it, perhaps that is what the members on the other side were counting on.

I must underline, in the strongest possible terms, the fact that legislation such as this makes it almost impossible to scrutinize properly. A budget bill dealing with financial measures and taxation is one thing. The hodgepodge of clauses impacting more than 60 pieces of federal legislation before us is a completely different proposition.

In conclusion, I truly hope that the government splits this bill into several parts, because the fact is that Canadians want several parts of Bill C-38 to be addressed separately. I trust that you will rule accordingly, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for that.

[National Defence, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think I hit a nerve.

I will say it again, in French this time. This minister spent $47,000 getting photographed in an F–35 fighter jet. We know that he likes to be photographed, so I have a proposal for him. I can arrange a trip to Houston so that he can be photographed in a space shuttle. He can even land the shuttle on the condition that he promises to not spend and waste any more taxpayer money. I can even arrange a trip to the space camp on his behalf.

[National Defence, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence loves having his picture taken, and in fact spent $47,000 of hard-earned taxpayer money to get a photo op in the cockpit of an F-35.

Since he loves photographs so much, I have a deal for the government. I can arrange for the minister to get a ride in the space shuttle simulator and he can even land the thing, for free, if he promises not to waste taxpayer money. Heck, I will even throw in a trip to Space Camp.

[Census, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, people can still be thrown in jail if they do not fill out the census. I raise this because of the chorus of righteous indignation that came from that side of the House two years ago about this matter. It is still on the books. People can be thrown in jail if they do not fill out the short form census or the agriculture census.

Recently a dyslexic man in Pembroke was visited by the police and told he was being arrested because he did not fill out his census. His wife, who is learning-disabled, was also charged. Is there no end to the hypocrisy of the House?

[Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the comment by the House leader for the government, I want to make it categorically clear that we were not opposed to having this take note debate. That is why I am getting up today and asking for it to take place tonight.

[Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of the crisis in Syria, given all our concerns for the situation, I would propose the following motion: That a take note debate on the subject of the ongoing and reprehensible violence in Syria pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 take place this evening, May 31, and, notwithstanding any Standing Order of usual practices of the House, when the House begins proceedings under the provisions of Standing Order 53.1 on Thursday, May 31, no quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent or dilatory motion shall be received by the Speaker, and any member rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Speaker that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member.

[National Defence, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, watching the government on the F-35 has been like watching somebody digging a very deep hole. For the past 22 months the Liberal Party has been saying start with a solid statement of requirements based on solid foreign policy and defence objectives, and then hold an open and transparent competition. That way we will get the very best plane for the best price and with the best industrial benefits, but the Conservatives keep digging that hole deeper and deeper.

My advice to them is to stop digging the hole, start over, and save the Canadian taxpayer billions of dollars.

[Search and Rescue, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, after so many years, we have learned there will finally be a competition to replace the search and rescue aircraft. The reason for this is clear: the operational needs for this aircraft were referred to the National Research Council for review and modification in order to guarantee an open and transparent competition.

If the process is good enough for that kind of aircraft, then why not for the CF-18s? Will the operational needs for the aircraft to replace the CF-18s be referred to the National Research Council for review, and will there be an open and transparent competition?

[Petitions, May 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Montreal who are opposed to the closure of the Canada Post office located at 3575 avenue du Parc, in Montreal.

The post office provides very useful services to individuals, businesses and organizations located in the area it serves.

The petitioners are asking the minister to instruct Canada Post not to close the post office located at this address.