Peter Julian

[Business of the House, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, last week and this week, we saw a host of unprecedented attacks by this government. It makes us wonder what is in store for next week.

The government and the Prime Minister attacked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Before that there were attacks on Kevin Page, the Chief Electoral Officer and even Sheila Fraser. The Chief Justice has now joined the group of eminent Canadians who have been criticized by this government.

Now, as we saw earlier, the government is even attacking our democracy. It is limiting MPs' speaking time after 10 minutes of debate on the electoral “deform”, Bill C-23. After 10 minutes of debate, the Conservatives informed us that they would be reducing MPs' speaking time. Thus they have cut the speaking time of 290 MPs representing 290 ridings across the country.

After the attacks this week against the Chief Justice and the attacks we have seen in the past against Kevin Page and Marc Mayrand, and even Sheila Fraser, a Canadian hero; after the attacks on democracy that we saw this morning, with the government imposing, after 10 minutes of debate on Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, time allocation of closure and forcing that through this morning; after these deplorable attacks, the question is very simple. Will the Conservatives stop their attacks on eminent Canadians who happen to disagree with them and what will the government do in the next week to restore badly shattered public confidence in the government?

[Fair Elections Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely disgusting. This is the 63rd time they have used time allocation or closure to shut down debate. As we know, the government cannot seem to come up with bills that hold water.

In the past six weeks, the Supreme Court has rejected four government bills. I think that we are heading the same way with Bill C-23. I think the people will reject it, and so will the judicial system.

We are talking about 130 amendments that have been tabled to this bad bill, 130 amendments that were supposed to be considered by Parliament, and we got notice of time allocation after 10 minutes of debate for 130 amendments.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the result of this closure, this steamroller that the government is putting in, because it realizes now just what the reaction has been from the public across the country, is that 290 members of Parliament will not be permitted to speak on the bill. For those who choose to vote for this motion, Conservative MPs are muzzling themselves. They are muzzling 290 ridings across this country.

My question is very simple. What kind of disdain comes from a government that invokes closure after 10 minutes of debate and why is the government muzzling 290 members of Parliament on this bill?

[Government Response to Petitions, May 7th, 2014]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto—Danforth did provide notice. He did mention yesterday that he would be coming back on this matter. We understand your ruling is very important, but at the same time, it is important for the member for Toronto—Danforth to make the points that he wanted to make to help to guide the decision that you will making ultimately.

[Government Response to Petitions, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, you had notice of this point of order from the member for Toronto—Danforth, and you know the importance of making sure that the information is actually received by your office.

Also, we seem to have a lack of decorum from the other side again in the House. I hope that they will start to—

[Points of Order, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. As my colleague and hon. member for Toronto—Danforth just said, we also want the opportunity to come back to these issues.

I would like to respond briefly to the comment made by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to the effect that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands wanted to expand her rights beyond those of other members in the House.

Mr. Speaker, you are well aware that independent members do not have the right to be on committees, unless by unanimous consent. They are not given the opportunity to question witnesses, unless the committee allows them to do so. This is a category of presence and rights that is lesser than that of members from recognized parties.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Conservatives tried to make their sales pitch by saying that if they made amendments to bills, they would have an opportunity to make representations in support of those amendments. Once again, the government created the problem. A number of bills have been rejected by the Supreme Court. Moreover, you have questioned the procedure involved in some other bills. Therein lies the problem.

The government tried to make its sales pitch and put a process in place. However, the process is not being followed. This is an important issue that you have ruled on, Mr. Speaker. As others have mentioned, we might be coming back to these issues shortly.

[Employment, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, only a government this bad would say it is okay for Rob Ford to access Canadian private information any time he wants.

Let us get back to the Minister of Employment and Social Development who has repeatedly failed to answer questions.

Today, we learned of yet another employer mistreating TFWs since 2011. The employer never had his permits pulled, never had his name put on the blacklist, never faced criminal charges. The government failed to act for years.

Why does the minister wait for front page stories before acting to clean up the mess he has created?

[Business of Supply, May 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the member for Terrebonne—Blainville, who does a lot for her constituents. I witnessed that on a few occasions when I went to her riding. She is also responsible for some major files in the House. This is another example of her wonderful work.

We can see that the Conservatives do not really want to ask questions. Members will recall that, in the last election, the Conservatives complained about a census question and said that asking how many washrooms Canadians had in their homes was an invasion of privacy. The Conservatives said that it was not appropriate.

Since coming to power, they have submitted more than one hundred thousand, actually more than one million, requests for personal information to telecommunications companies. We do not even know what kind of questions were asked.

Today, when we are simply asking for a process and a mandate to be outlined, why does the member think that the Conservatives seem to be rather reluctant to prevent the type of abuse that has been taking place for some months?

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, why are the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the Anishinabek Nation, which is three dozen communities in northern Ontario, and the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador all opposing this bill? Why are first nations across the country opposing the bill?

Clearly, the answer is that there has not been the consultation that the government has pretended it did. The consultation has simply not been there. That is why first nation, after first nation is objecting strenuously to both the form and content of this bill and also this complete disregard of any adequate and thorough consultation with first nations.

[Employment, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Kevin Page, Marc Mayrand, and even Sheila Fraser, have all seen how ugly the government can get. It is time to change the government. Here is another reason why.

Its mismanagement on temporary foreign workers has led to Canadians losing their jobs. Here is more breaking news. We have learned that the number of temporary foreign workers in the manufacturing sector has doubled, from 8,600 in 2006 when the government took power, to almost 17,000 in 2012.

Why has there been such a staggering increase? Why is the government showing such clear incompetence?

[Justice, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice deserves better than these attacks.

The Chief Justice states that she did not try to contact the Prime Minister while the matter was before the courts, but in an unprecedented, and frankly petulant, statement released late last night, the Prime Minister's Office implies that the Chief Justice did just that.

This statement from the PMO was clearly inappropriate. Will the Prime Minister explain why he has launched this attack on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and will he stop his inappropriate petulant attacks?