Peter Julian

[Justice, May 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court warned the Conservative government in July that Justice Nadon's appointment would be problematic.

As we know, the Prime Minister decided to do what he wanted and appointed Justice Nadon anyway.

Does the Prime Minister realize that without his stubbornness, we would not have wasted so much time and money? Furthermore, we would have avoided a battle with Quebec and last night's crisis caused by the prime minister's office attacking the Chief Justice in a very inappropriate manner.

[Business of the House, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this was not a good month for this government: three of their bills were rejected by the courts because they were flawed.

Given that the government is routinely invoking time allocation and closure, the work on the bills has been sloppy.

This morning, another flawed bill, Bill C-30, was sent back to committee because this government did not do a good job in the first place. Mr. Speaker, you were obliged to reject the manner in which the government put in place this bill.

The government's process is not working. The courts and even the Speaker of the House have to call this government to order.

Now the government seems to be doing the same thing with Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. The committee was working to address many of the problems that exist in the bill. The NDP, as it always does, offered sound amendments to bring forward on this bill so that it would actually work for Canadians and Canadian democracy. However, we have the government now setting an artificial deadline. When the committee still has over 200 pages of the bill to scrutinize and still has hundreds of amendments to consider, the government is saying that the committee has to finish its work within just a few hours.

This is obviously going to be another bill that the government is going to screw up. How can the government expect bills to stand up to scrutiny if it will not allow proper scrutiny in committee and in the House?

My question is very simple. What will the Conservatives do next week to start restoring the confidence of Canadians that has been sorely lost by the amount of botched legislation we have seen coming from the government?

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by this for Canadians and for first nations.

I am first saddened by the fact that this is now over 60 times that time allocation and closure measures have been brought into this House of Commons. There is absolutely no question that is an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of the democratic framework that Canadians adhere to.

However, what is even more important is that first nations are strongly opposed to Bill C-33. Many first nations are saying that it is not in line with what they want. Opposition to the bill is beginning to mount right across the country. It is clearly an abuse of Parliament. It is obvious that first nations are having a hard time accepting this bill. Instead of consulting them, the minister and the government want to impose this bill on them and shut down debate, ending the discussions that should be held in the House. My question is simple.

Is it not because of the growing opposition from first nations across the country and the growing concerns about the bill that the government wants to shut down debate using closure, basically ending the discussion that should be held in the House? It is shameful.

I would like the minister to explain to first nations who have expressed so many concerns about the bill why he does not want to hear debate in the House of Commons.

[Privilege, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not wish to delay the business of the House, I would like to revisit the issue raised yesterday in the House by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform in response to the question of privilege I raised on April 10.

I raised that question of privilege based on the fact that the minister made misleading statements in the House. He said that there were multiple reports on the Elections Canada website of people using their voter information cards to vote multiple times.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister responded to that question of privilege in the House, and I must say, I was troubled by his response, which was nothing more than an attempt to confuse the Canadian public even further on this issue, without offering any kind of real response.

The minister of state decided to respond to my question of privilege by citing seven cases of people voting supposedly multiple times that led to compliance agreements in the 2011 election. I would argue that citing 7 cases of approximately 15 million voters is quite a weak argument to begin with. It gets worse.

Only two of the cases cited by the minister were actually associated with voter information cards. What the minister did not mention was that these two cases were from the TV show Infoman. As we have said many times, these two examples cannot be used as the sole justification for banning the use of voter information cards, since they were taken from a comedy show. Furthermore, the problem is that the minister claims there are many cases, although he can only cite two, which were taken from Infoman.

The minister himself stated that although the voters in question tried to vote a second time by using their voter information card, they were not able to vote. In fact, in both cases, the voters in question were told that they could not use their voter information card because their address had been crossed from the list and transferred to the second polling station they had tried to vote at.

In addition, I would like to point to the fact that only three examples used by the minister even refer to the 2011 election. Two of the examples he used were from 2006 and two were from 2004.

I also noticed that the minister avoided mentioning the names of the voters involved after his first three examples, without saying that the remaining four anonymous cases were not valid. This does raise some questions.

I believe the minister's response to my question of privilege was nothing more than an attempt to confuse Canadians with a quite long-winded statement, citing very few cases, some of which were already well known and which did not address the issue at hand. Even if the two cases from Infoman, where people tried and failed to use voter information cards to vote, are counted, that does not count as regular reports, which, to bring back my original point, is what the minister claimed in the House. I believe the minister might have known that his confusion tactics might not work, which was why he offered us a second argument yesterday, which in my opinion is as flawed as the first.

The minister claimed in his response that in his original statement he was making two separate points: (a) that there were regular reports of people receiving multiple cards; and (b) that there were regular reports of people voting multiple times. Thus, every case of people voting more than once would count as evidence of his original statement, but that is clearly not the case.

What the minister originally said in the House was, “There are regular reports of people receiving multiple cards and using them to vote multiple times”.

It is blatantly obvious, as evidenced by the use of the word “them” in the second clause of this statement, that the minister was not making two separate points. The question the minister was asked when he made this statement was specifically about voter information cards. He clearly claimed in response that there were regular reports of people using voter information cards to vote multiple times.

Yesterday the Minister of State for Democratic Reform attempted to confuse the public and to throw mud on this whole issue instead of apologizing for what clearly appears to be misleading comments to the House. Canadians and the parliamentarians representing them deserve to be told the truth, especially by ministers and especially by the minister responsible for modifying Canada's electoral law.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to your ruling on this matter. I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

[Points of Order, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie for raising this point of order in the House.

Of course, since we had no notice either, we will verify what he said and consider the various points of view. Then we will come back to the House to discuss it. This is extremely important. One million Canadians are affected by these massive changes and a growing number of people across the country are opposed to this.

Therefore, when the government House leader stands and says that we have to look at the objective or the purpose, the objective or the purpose, I imagine, of hiding this tax information exchange agreement inside a larger omnibus legislation is simply to hide it from the million Canadians who are profoundly impacted by the government's action.

The reality is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that bilateral tax information exchange agreements are filed in the House. It is quite correct to say that the practice has been to bring it forward to the House and not to hide it in omnibus legislation.

We have seen these practices here for years. There are also the practices the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie was talking about, such as the Ponsonby Rule. That rule comes from another Parliament, but a Parliament that we are modelled after nonetheless. In both cases the practices are the same.

I will come back to this point later today. I think it is extremely important and I hope that you will carefully consider this matter before coming back to the House.

[Hon. Jim Flaherty, April 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Jim Flaherty was genuine, decent, and kind.

It is with great sadness that the NDP family learned of the death of Jim Flaherty. I would like to join our leader and all New Democrats in offering our deepest condolences to his wife, Christine Elliott, and his three sons, John, Galen and Quinn—the family that gave him so much support—as well as to his other family members and many friends.

We recognize his contribution and his dedication. Everyone will agree that, in his 20 years of political life, he fulfilled his responsibilities with courage and determination. We will always remember him as a devoted and intelligent man who contributed to the country's well-being. Most of all, I will remember his joie de vivre and his Irish sense of humour.

One of my favourite stories about Jim is his talking about his family background and the city gates of Galway, where it is inscribed in Gaelic: From the ferocious O'Flahertys, Lord deliver us. Jim would deadpan, “You know, that's not bad training for a finance minister”.

However, as MP, as MPP, and as minister of finance, Jim Flaherty was a man who repeatedly demonstrated his love for public service. He served his constituents, and all Canadians, with dedication, with conviction, and with hard work.

In a speech he gave to students at the University of Western Ontario, in 2011, Jim laid out his own thoughts on the importance of public service, and this he demonstrated every day of his public service career. He said:

Public service reminds us all there exists a genuine concept of the public good in the broad public interest. While we value individual liberty and protect it, as Canadians we also maintain a strong tradition of the public good, that is, what is good for society as a whole...”

He reflected, then, on his experience listening to Robert Kennedy 40 years earlier. He said:

Today, about 40 years after I heard Kennedy speak, my message is the same: Canada needs you—your skills, talents, idealism, energy and enthusiasm—now, more than ever.

Jim's sudden death is also a dramatic reminder that, although we were all elected for partisan reasons, we are all human beings and we have much more in common than the sum of our differences. Like Jim, we are here because we want to serve Canadians and give our best.

Jim Flaherty's friendly and engaging demeanour, even in the face of the health challenges we saw, showed his great strength of character.

He was always affable. He was always friendly in the members' gym, in the elevator, whenever you met him—the one exception being question period, where he was affable, often, but very strong and eloquent as a debater.

As one of the many finance critics he faced over the course of his career here, I can say we, all of us, had to be very well prepared when we came up against Jim Flaherty in the House of Commons.

All great people are profoundly motivated to make life better for others. With Jim Flaherty, among many other talents, that profound motivation led him to be a passionate advocate for people with disabilities.

His deep love of his son John and his keen understanding of the challenges and obstacles that Canadians with disabilities face every day and through the course of their lifetime led him to push for the creation of the registered disabilities savings plan.

This did not garner headlines, but it will benefit the lives of Canadians with disabilities for years and for decades to come.

With that understanding, with decency, and with common sense, Jim Flaherty made a difference in the lives of Canadians who are, far too often, marginalized, forgotten, and ignored.

A few years ago, Jim wrote a column in the newsletter for the Canadian Association of Community Living, about his son John, and the joy John gives the entire family. He wrote:

[John] sees clearly what we often miss in the cacophony of our lives. A few years ago, we were underwater in a submersible at the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland looking out the window at the sun’s rays shimmering through the turquoise water on the colourful fish and plants, when John said simply and eloquently, “That’s what heaven looks like”. So now I know.

Wrote Jim, “Now I know”.

After nearly a decade of devoted service to our nation in one of the toughest jobs that exists, he looked forward to spending much more time with his loving family.

Sadly, he was taken from them and taken from all of us at far too young an age.

We will miss Jim Flaherty.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for her question. She is one of the most eloquent and experienced members of Parliament in the House of Commons. I appreciate her raising a question on this issue, because I know she has a very substantive knowledge of the importance of the work of a parliamentarian.

The point the member raises is absolutely valid. It is hard to determine which party is worse. The Conservatives have used time allocation and closure over 60 times and the Liberals have done it over 75 times, so we have the Conservatives racing the former bad, corrupt Liberal government to the bottom. They are trying to decide who can be worse in terms of abusing Parliament.

Of course, when we look at the Liberal record of badly botched legislation and the Conservative record of legislation that is being rejected by the Supreme Court, again we see that race to the bottom. Both parties seem to be willing to sell out their voters to a remarkable extent.

The reality is that if people want a strong, hard-working MP who speaks out for them and their riding, in the next election people should be voting New Democrat.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for his question, and I think the best person to cite is a former Conservative, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

After the member left the Conservative caucus, which I thought showed real courage as the one Conservative member who stood up for rights and democracy, he said, “I fear that we have morphed into what we once mocked.”

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert was absolutely right.

I can recall when my riding was represented by a Reform member who would send us information saying that the party was going to speak out on constituents' behalf and fight for their constituents in Parliament. Under the current Conservative government, that no longer happens. Backbenchers simply vote however the PMO boys tell them to vote. They just follow that line.

However, what is most reprehensible is that they have even sold out their own ridings by refusing to speak on government legislation and themselves shutting down their own ability to speak on behalf of their constituents. Shame on them.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to match the eloquence of my friend and colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I will start by repeating what the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said: We will be supporting this motion.

Certainly we welcome the Liberal Party to the issue of the unfair elections act. The Liberal Party has been strongly criticized in civil society groups and community organizations across the country for not having been on this file at all. It is important that the Liberals are now getting involved in what is a pretty fundamental issue.

There is no doubt that what is happening on the unfair elections act is a travesty. We are seeing this every day in the House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Outremont, has time after time raised questions about how the Conservative government has approached trying to ram through these changes through the unfair elections act. Members saw yesterday in the House of Commons the Prime Minister refusing to answer those questions, simply sitting in his chair. That shows a profound lack of responsibility.

Now this has blown up. We have heard from very learned Canadians such as Sheila Fraser who is undoubtedly a Canadian hero. She is a person whom every Canadian stands behind because of her past history of exposing the deplorable Liberal sponsorship scandal. Her name was evoked all the time by Conservatives when she was exposing what was widespread and profound Liberal corruption. She has spoken out and said this is an attack on democracy. The Prime Minister is not even willing to stand in the House and answer questions. His minister is not even willing to evoke the name of Sheila Fraser, to mention her name, and instead condemns her and tries to attack both her and the Chief Electoral Officer.

Therefore, there is no doubt that the travesty of the unfair elections act, now spreading across the country, is something that needs to be dealt with. We need to shut down the attempts by the government to railroad or bulldoze through the bad legislation that would simply allow the Conservatives to try to steal the next election. There is no doubt about that.

That is why we support the principle of the motion overall, though it is so very limiting. It is my concern that we see with the Liberals, unfortunately, an alliance developing with the Conservative government. We have seen it on their use of Standing Order 56.1, which is a very punitive measure. In the 10 years I have been in this House of Commons, there has traditionally been support by all members of the opposition to stop the abusive use of Standing Order 56.1, and yet the Liberals have joined with the Conservatives in that kind of abuse.

We see that as well in the Bureau of Internal Economy. We believe, on this side of the House, that the Bureau of Internal Economy's secretive and partisan decisions are simply not appropriate for a modern democracy. We believe the BOIE should be done away with, and MPs' expenses should be handled independently and impartially. We have also raised the fact that we believe the Auditor General should be monitoring MPs' expenses. Yet we have seen, from the Conservatives and Liberals, systematic blocking of those attempts for real reform that would allow the Auditor General to be brought in.

I am a bit skeptical, because of what we have unfortunately seen from this alliance between Liberals and Conservatives, about the real intent to modify what is undoubtedly an abuse of Parliament. The use of time allocation and closure has been invoked more than 60 times by the current Conservative government. It has often been used to bulldoze and ram through bad legislation, certainly legislation that is not in Canadians' interest, more than 60 times.

I cited just a few minutes ago a 350-page budget implementation bill, and after 25 minutes of debate—the first speaker had not even finished—the government had already given notice of time allocation and closure. That was after 25 minutes, and we are talking about a 350-page bill with more than 500 articles modifying 40 laws.

Every single Conservative said, “That is okay. I do not want to speak up on behalf of my constituents. I do not want to modify this legislation. I do not want my voice, whether it be from Oxford or any other riding, heard. I do not want to speak out on behalf of my constituents. I just want to be silent. I want to vote the way the Prime Minister's Office tells me to vote”.

That is not the principle of representative democracy. That is not the principle of why Canadians send us here. New Democratic Party MPs, the official opposition, take our jobs seriously. We want to scrutinize legislation. That is why these time allocation measures and closure measures are so bad for the Canadian public.

It is because it shuts down the ability of Canadian members of Parliament to do their job. We have seen the result in the last few weeks with two laws that have been rejected by the Supreme Court because they were badly botched by the Conservative government.

Time allocation and, indeed, closure motions do not allow for that proper scrutiny. The government has to then come back in with amendments and change the laws, because it did not do them properly in the first place.

Our opposition to time allocation and our opposition to closure motions is not just based on the theory that it is important for members of Parliament to speak out on important legislation. I include, as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said, members on the government side, dozens of whom have never spoken in this parliamentary session on a single government bill.

They have abdicated their responsibility to speak out. They never speak out on government legislation, and I am sure the voters, come October 19, 2015, will remember that these members have never risen in the House to speak on government legislation, either for or against or to modify.

That is clearly an abuse of Parliament, and I think it is an abuse of the voters.

The Conservatives have used time allocation more than 60 times, but the Liberal Party was worse when it was in power. It used time allocation 75 times. That is appalling. It shows that the Conservatives and Liberals want the same things, which is why Canadians are so impatient to see the kind of change an NDP government would bring in 2015. That is when we will have some real debates in the House.

Even though the Liberals' motion has to do with electoral “deform”, it does not address all of the other bills that need to be addressed. The Official Languages Act, the Supreme Court Act, the Canada Health Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act are all fundamental laws. However, the Liberals seem to approve of the government's use of time allocation.

Mr. Speaker, you yourself moved a motion on November 23, 2011, calling for time allocation motions be moved in collaboration with the Speaker of the House. The government must defend its use of time allocation and present appropriate justifications for a time allocation motion to be adopted in the House of Commons.

This would enable members to speak and would also ensure that we avoid the kinds of mistakes this government has made since it came to power. It has introduced bills that do not work and that have been struck down by the Supreme Court. These bills should be subject to a serious verification process to ensure that they are valid.

We moved this motion in 2011 in your name, Mr. Speaker, and we still stand by the principle of holding debates in the House. If the government wants to move a time allocation motion, it must provide a justification and get the consent of the House of Commons. That is an important change. The Liberal motion is just more of the same and does not propose any real change.

The real change will come in 2015, when we can have a government that respects parliamentary and democratic rights.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member has stated that it is just used to further the government agenda.

We had a 350-page budget implementation bill with 500 clauses amending more than 40 laws in Canada, and the government brought in time allocation after 25 minutes of debate.

How would the member's constituents react if they knew that that 350-page omnibus bill, amending 40 different laws, was invoked with time allocation and closure after 25 minutes of debate?