Peter Julian

[Employment and Social Development, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that they have lost 500,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector since they came to power. The Minister of Employment and Social Development admitted that he had no idea about the state of the labour market in Canada.

We are right to have serious concerns about the Minister of Finance's report on the labour market that was tabled at the same time as the 2014 budget. What information did the Minister of Finance use for his report? If the government has no idea what is going on, why should we trust it?

[Employment and Social Development, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that western grain farmers have been abandoned by these Conservatives, just like workers have been abandoned.

Governments should use sound data to develop sound labour market policies. Instead, the Conservatives use information from Kijiji. They ignored warnings that the data they used was not accurate.

We actually have factual data from Statistics Canada and the PBO, and it is paid for by taxpayers.

Would they acknowledge that their data does not show what they claim and does not justify their regressive labour market policies that are only backed up by Kijiji?

[Business of the House, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take on the role of House Leader of the Official Opposition. It is a pleasure to work with the Speaker, the Clerk, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House leader of the third party.

We must have great respect for parliamentary traditions, and I hope that in the coming months, we will show respect for these traditions that are so important to everyone. The Canadians who elect us want Parliament to work well and to respect tradition.

Unfortunately, after my first few days on the job, I can see when we look at the current government that its members do not seem to have a lot of respect for parliamentary functions. Unfortunately, this week up to now we have had, for the 60th time, closure or time allocation, stopping debate. Some Conservatives are proud of that, but the reality is that last week we had the Supreme Court reject two bills from the government. So ramming this legislation through does not mean that it is better legislation. It means that it is worse legislation and, as we see from the Supreme Court, we have now had two rejections of legislation brought forward by the current government. Now, we have a budget implementation act that is on notice.

My question for the government House leader is the following: Will there be any legislative mistakes tabled next week in the budget implementation act, and have the Conservatives actually checked this bill against the Constitution, which should be governing our actions in the House of Commons?

[Privilege, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we find this government's lack of transparency very problematic, and we have repeatedly said as much. This issue is of interest to us as well, so we will come back to it later. We reserve the right to speak to it.

[Privilege, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we know that you have ruled on this issue in the past. Responses are often lacking in quality. However, you are not necessarily able to rule on the quality of the government's responses.

We will likely have more to add later. I simply wanted to reserve the right to revisit the issue.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is now the 58th time that closure, or time allocation, has been brought in this Parliament. We are talking about a sad record that has never occurred before in the history of Parliament.

There have been 58 times where debate has been shut down, and this is on a bill that has not been debated for months. Despite this, the Conservative government is trying to impose this bill and shut down debate, although there have been few speakers on the bill and it has not been debated for months.

I want to quote the Minister of Justice, from a comment he made back in 2004.

At that time, the minister made the following statement:

The speed with which the government has acted in this fashion in bringing about closure is a true signal as to how the Prime Minister and the government are going to treat the so-called democratic deficit that the Prime Minister has had a revelation on in discovering that a democratic deficit exists in the country.

This government is the democratic deficit. Fifty-eight times. That is totally inappropriate. When will this government start respecting Canadians and allow Parliament to debate important issues?

[Privilege, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have four points I would like to make, but ultimately, as you know, this is something that is in your hands and for you to judge.

Mr. Speaker, I want to cite a number of items from House of Commons Procedure and Practice to help round off the decision that you will have to make in this. It is fair to say that all of us, all parties here, all members of Parliament, share the concern about the human rights abuses that are taking place in Russia, and an unprovoked military invasion of the Crimea. It is fair to say that we all have great concerns about the response from the Russian government, which was entirely inappropriate. Rather than wanting to sit down, discuss, and resolve the issues, it seems to be notching up hostilities.

As far as the question of privilege is concerned, as you know, Mr. Speaker, it is your responsibility to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of the members, and the House as an institution. When we look at House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, it is quite clear, on page 111, about the obstruction and intimidation of members of Parliament. I will quote this for your records, as part of your decision process:

A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities. If, in the Speaker's view, the Member was not obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties and functions, then a prima facie breach of privilege cannot be found.

Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its members free from intimidation, obstruction, and interference. Speaker Lamoureux, one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, stated in a 1973 ruling that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation”.

Speaker Bosley, another predecessor, noted the following in a ruling on May 1, 1986:

If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege. Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions, that he or she has been threatened, intimidated, or in any way unduly influenced, there would be a case for the Chair to consider.

Ruling on another question of privilege, again, Speaker Bosley further stated, “the threat or attempt at intimidation cannot be hypothetical, but must be real or have occurred”.

If we agree that the motivation and intention behind the sanctions of the Russian Federation were indeed to intimidate all parliamentarians, then I believe this would be something that should be considered by the Speaker, but the link then needs to be made between the sanctions and the discharge of MPs' duties

Finally, a ruling was handed down earlier this year under your auspices, Mr. Speaker, on January 28, 2014, regarding the way in which Senator Dagenais rather maliciously lashed out against the member for Terrebonne—Blainville. The Speaker did not find a prima facie beach of privilege had occurred because the direct link could not be established between the disrespectful and hostile letter that Senator Dagenais had sent publicly to the member for Terrebonne—Blainville on her parliamentary functions.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that you referenced page 109 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states:

In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member's claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament. In some cases where prima facie privilege has not been found, the rulings have focused on whether or not the parliamentary functions of the Member were directly involved.

In conclusion, we all are concerned about the actions of the Russian Federation. We support the members of Parliament and members of the civil society who are the targets of these sanctions. We give only cautious support to the notion that this is a question of privilege because that is in your hands, Mr. Speaker. You have heard from the various sides of the House as to whether this does indeed constitute a question of privilege.

[Privilege, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say, given the final comments, which were rather frivolous, that the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie really does not have much of a defence.

What happened is very clear. He put an advertisement in local newspapers. He did not invite just the people of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who live in his riding, he invited all residents of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and the residents of Montreal West, whom he does not represent at all. That was not clear in the ad.

As I mentioned yesterday, in 2004, former Speaker Milliken ruled on the same matter and said that that there was a clear, prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. Mr. Speaker, as you review all the facts, I hope that you will find that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine was perfectly correct in raising this matter in the House.

[Privilege, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the arguments presented by my colleague.

The advertisement clearly pertains to a neighbouring riding, but nowhere in the ad does it mention that this person, this member, does not represent the communities in question. I am talking, of course, about Montreal West and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

Archived rulings include that rendered by Speaker Milliken on November 23, 2004. He had to rule on the same type of situation. At the time, the member for Montmorency-Charlevoix-Haute-Côte-Nord saw a misleading advertisement in his riding. The ad made it seem that a former MP was still a member of the House of Commons, even though he had been defeated in the previous election in June 2004. On November 23, 2004, Speaker Milliken ruled on the issue stating that the ad made it look as though the individual was a member of the House when in fact he no longer was. In that case, an individual was trying to attract people from a riding he no longer represented. The case before us is similar in that it infringes on the privileges of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I hope that you will rule on this matter, Mr. Speaker, and that you will share your ruling with us.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to rail safety in Canada: (a) how many railway employee reports relating to safety, or to other safety concerns, has Transport Canada received since the amended Railway Safety Act came into force on May 1, 2013; (b) with regard to the reports in (a), what is Transport Canada's process for (i) reviewing, (ii) investigating, (iii) reporting, (iv) corrective measures, (v) safety advisories or bulletins; (c) with regard to the reports in (a), how many Transport Canada inspectors (i) have been assigned to review the reports, (ii) have performed on-site inspections as follow-up to the reports; (d) how many railway employee reports relating to safety, or to other safety concerns, has the Transportation Safety Board of Canada received for the period of 2006-2013; and (e) for each year since 2006, with regard to the reports in (d), how many (i) were for unsafe conditions, (ii) were for unsafe procedures and practices, (iii) required corrective action, (iv) were satisfactorily resolved?