Peter Julian

[Public Safety, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the more questions we ask on this, the fewer answers we are actually getting. Canadians deserve better. They actually deserve concrete and complete answers to the questions we are asking.

Allowing CSIS to go beyond the collection of intelligence and into the business of enforcement and the disruption of threats is a major shift. It is the duty of the government to clearly explain what is meant by this change and why it is necessary. What kinds of activities would Bill C-51 allow CSIS to undertake? Who will determine when charter rights—Canadians' rights and freedoms—are threatened and judicial oversight is required?

[Public Safety, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the minister a simple question about the new anti-terrorism bill. Once again, we did not get an answer.

Bill C-51 would extend CSIS' powers beyond intelligence activities, to enable the agency to disrupt terrorist acts, or interfere somehow, before they happen.

Could the minister clearly explain the types of activities that will be authorized?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for a very eloquent speech. What she has brought forward is an amendment that the government actually should have brought forward in the first place, if it were not trying, as many observers who understand the security situation on Parliament Hill have noted, to interfere and wreck that division of powers that have existed in Confederation since 1867. The government should have brought forward a motion that would read: “...call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to prepare and execute, without delay, plans to fully integrate the work of all partners providing operational security throughout the parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, including the ultimate authorities of the speakers of the Senate and House of Commons over access and security of Parliament and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected parliamentary security staff.”

That would have been the motion brought forward if the government really intended to work with the opposition, rather than trying to interfere or attempting to lessen the very clear divisions of power that have existed since the beginning.

Canadians will have some time to bring some pressure on Conservative MPs, who are being whipped right now not to vote for the NDP amendment.

Does the member feel that Canadians believe that we need to have this separation of powers and that the brave work of our men and women on the parliamentary security precinct should be applauded, not treated the way the government is treating it today?

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

It is imposed.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the former sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers, would never have stood for this. This does not come from the Speaker. According to The Globe and Mail, sources have said that this decision is being driven by the Prime Minister. This is a major override of the legislative principle of the separation of power that has existed since the beginning of Confederation.

We have had a statement as well from the president of the association that represents our brave security guards. The message stated that a possibility of this move by the government would be, “in the view of the association, an indefensible and dangerous interference of government into the independence of the legislative function, as well as a solid breach into one of the foundational pillars of our democratic system: the principle of separation of powers”.

This came from our brave security guards themselves, who laid their lives on the line on October 22. The current government is giving them a slap in the face and is moving to demote them, after they showed such bravery and courage on October 22.

I would like the government whip to confirm that this comes from the Prime Minister's Office. Will he confirm it? Also, will he admit that this is a major interference in the separation of powers under which this Confederation has existed since 1867?

[Business of the House, February 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament will have 13 more weeks of sittings and then Canadians will have their say about this government. The election will be held on October 19, eight months from now.

Canadians know very well that this government continues to use processes and to head in a direction that the vast majority of them do not agree with, as we saw for the 86th time this week with the closure and time allocation motion.

It would not be that serious if not for the fact that, at the same time, half a dozen government bills have been struck down by the courts in the past year. We can see that the government wants to pass its bills very quickly without any real parliamentary oversight to ensure that the bills are coherent.

Once again, we must ask the government to work with the official opposition. This will ensure that the courts reject fewer flawed bills and improve the legislative process for everyone.

My question is quite simple: what is on the government's agenda for the next week?

[Privilege, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

The Conservatives are trying to defend government policy in a kind of bizarre way. They are not touching in any way the question of privilege raised by my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you will be taking under serious consideration the concerns that have been raised by the member.

Quite frankly, I hope that the government has a better thought-out intervention than simply going off politically and saying that the traditions of this place do not matter. They certainly do matter. Democratic institutions matter and we will defend them, because that is what we are all about.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, February 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I had to rise to correct some egregious misinformation coming from the other side. The fact, as the member for Gatineau pointed out at the beginning, is that this is the 86th time the current government has used time allocation and closure. There is no precedent in the history of the Canadian Parliament of a government that is so willing to use its procedural weapons to shut down debate.

The fact is that there have been three and a half hours of debate at this stage. The other fact is that the opposition parties presented dozens of amendments to try to improve the bill, and the Conservatives shot down every single one. They are not looking to improve the bill. They are not looking to do anything other than score political points.

The reality is that we have now seen under time allocation half a dozen bills rejected by the courts after the Conservatives rammed them through Parliament. It is not even good law-making when they have bills that are basically product recalls, that are rejected by the courts because the Conservatives did not get them right in the first place.

My question is very simple. Why have the Conservatives rejected every single amendment brought forward by the opposition to improve the bill? Why are the Conservatives risking having yet another bill rejected by the courts because they are not allowing appropriate parliamentary scrutiny?

[Business of the House, January 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say, as a British Columbian, go Seahawks. We will have to see what the result is.

There are 14 sitting weeks left before Canadians decide on the fate of this government. There will be a pre-election period at the end of those 14 weeks.

As far as the NDP official opposition is concerned, the leader of the official opposition this week talked about the NDP plan to kick-start good jobs in Canada. He talked about measures to help small business, the manufacturing sector, and research and development. Those are some of the NDP priorities.

I would like to ask my colleague, the government House leader, what the agenda is for the government in the week to come and when the budget is going to be tabled in the House of Commons.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, January 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, this is the 85th time that the government has invoked time allocation and closure.

We are now talking about a sad record that we hope will never be repeated in Canadian parliamentary history. Invoking time allocation and closure seems to be the only thing the government has been able to run up.

We have lost 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. There has been a lack of respect for Parliament by the government. The government has managed to outdo the former Liberal government by invoking time allocation and closure 85 times, showing its lack of respect for Parliament, which so many Canadians are seeing.

Bill C-44, which is very controversial, heard only four hours of witness testimony in committee by experts who came forward and identified problems with the bill. Only a handful of members of Parliament have been able to speak to this bill and, already, after only a handful of speakers, the government wants to ram the bill through.

As we know, the government also has another record, having more recalls of bad pieces of legislation than any other government in Canadian history.

My question for the minister is very simple. Why does the government not get it right? Why does it not listen to experts, and look at and entertain the kinds of amendments that have been brought forward by members of the opposition? Why is the government always trying to ram through legislation that has controversial aspects and should be fixed?