Robert Aubin

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I am amazed to hear the minister and many others before him talk about the beauty of the island and the beauty of his bill, when we should be spending the half-hour that we have talking about the Standing Orders and the 42nd time allocation motion—if I have counted correctly—that the government has imposed.

Over the past several months and even years, we have become used to the fact that the government thinks that the laws and the rules are there for others to follow. When laws and rules do not fit in with the Conservatives' agenda, they change them.

My question is very simple. Should we expect a bill to change the Standing Orders of the House to be introduced in the next few days or can we expect the Conservatives to one day follow the rules?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for her speech.

With one omnibus bill a year, I think we could at least expect the government to be consistent from one omnibus bill to the next.

I have a hard time understanding how in one bill it can tell Canadian seniors that they will not only have to wait another two years to retire, but they will also have to properly prepare. Then, in the next omnibus bill the government tells them that it is doing away with the benefit provided by labour-sponsored funds, one of the best tools they have to plan for retirement.

Am I missing something there? Does that make sense?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa South for his speech.

I get the impression that the Liberals will vote against Bill C-60. Although we are talking about the Liberals here, it can sometimes be surprising to see a change in direction.

My question is very simple. The Liberals have been strongly opposing Bill C-60 all evening, so I would like to know how many amendments they presented at report stage.

If my calculations are correct, I think you could count them on the fingers of an armless man. I do not understand how they can be so staunchly against Bill C-60, when they did not try to improve it.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Don Valley West, and I have to say that he raised a number of topics related to the economy that we could debate. That is even the purpose of tonight's debate.

Why does the government not make a budget bill, instead of an omnibus bill that includes all kinds of things that they refuse to talk about tonight?

For example, no one has been able to explain to me how the President of the Treasury Board's interference in negotiations at crown corporations can help our economy. There are many more examples, such as issues related to citizenship, the merger of CIDA and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and so on.

Why does the government never talk about the 50 acts that were slipped into this budget implementation bill? Why are government members suddenly talking only about infrastructure and a few topics that would ultimately be worth debating?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Essex for that mixed bag of Conservative talking points on Bill C-60.

My question is on the part of his speech that had to do with infrastructure. If possible, I would like the response not to start with “There has never been a government that has done more for infrastructure”, because, really, if the measure the Conservatives are putting forward does not fix the problem, then we are hardly any further ahead.

The program was originally supposed to be for seven years and now the government is extending it to 10 years without doing the math and increasing the amount of money allocated to the program so that the objectives are at least maintained. What is more, most of the money will be spent at the end of the program instead of at the beginning.

Does the hon. member not see that this is basically a cut disguised as a new program?

[Points of Order, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, of course I will apologize if my comments offended anyone in Quebec. That was not even remotely my intention.

[Infrastructure, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' new building Canada plan simply does not do enough to tackle the $171 billion infrastructure deficit facing Canadian municipalities. We now know that the announcement of billions of dollars over 10 years actually represents a cut.

When Montrealers have to boil their water and drivers wonder whether they are on the streets of Beirut, not those of a major city in Quebec, we have every right to wonder when the government will invest enough money so that we can upgrade all of our infrastructure.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I also attended the meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Strangely, as he looked over his documents, the minister appears to have forgotten the many amendments that were proposed and rejected. I do not want to get into that debate, however, because we are now discussing a time allocation motion. Day after day, minister after minister and bill after bill, we are witnessing the same thing.

I really feel as though the government is operating backwards. It is taking an exception and turning it into a rule. Since we are talking backwards, I will ask my question in a backwards way.

Can the minister speak on behalf of his government and tell the House what the acceptable procedure would be so that a bill on any subject at all could follow the normal process?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking some clarification.

I think the debate at this time is supposed to address the time allocation motion, which is a procedural issue, but for several days I have been observing the Conservative benches. They are using their time to talk about the bill as if this 30-minute period were available for advertising.

In addition, if I add them up, we have debated at least four time allocation motions in barely a week. In the end, that takes away two hours of debate on bills we could have been discussing. Instead, the government wants to discuss procedure. However, it does not do that, because it uses the time for a great big infomercial.

My question is simple. Can we return to the House's ordinary procedures and only use time allocation measures when there is an exceptional, well-justified situation?

As it stands, I would hazard a guess that if we could fine the Conservatives every time they employed such motions, the deficit problem would soon disappear.

[Securities, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are still trying to ram a single national securities regulator down the provinces' throats. The Minister of Finance says he wants to press ahead with his plans for a common regulator over the objections of Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta. Worse than that, he is moving forward after being told “no” by the Supreme Court. Even the Maple Group, which controls the TMX, has said that the current systems works well.

Why is the Minister of Finance trying to impose a common securities regulator on the provinces when the current system is working well?