Peter Julian

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

You said tonight.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We have not been in agreement with the Conservatives' use of closure and time allocation. They have used it not once, or 12 times, or 70 times, but 79 times. This has been the reality of the current government. The Conservatives invoke closure and time allocation at a snap of the finger.

The point we have been making, and the point the members for St. John's East and Jeanne-Le Ber just made, is that the government has changed the focus of the debate that we were to have yesterday and today, and instead we are now having a debate around the 79th use of closure by the government. It is absolutely unacceptable.

No, we do not support the use of closure. We think the government was wrong-headed in bringing this in. It just shows how the Conservative government likes to impose its view rather than have the kind of debate that should be part and parcel of what we do as parliamentarians here in the House.

We will not agree to closure. We will not agree to time allocation. We will not agree with the 79 times the current government has snapped its fingers and tried to impose its will on the opposition. It is simply wrong to do this.

The government should be allowing the discussions to continue. Rather than having a debate on closure, we should be debating the mission and our disagreement with the government's approach right now in the House of Commons. However, we cannot do that because of the government's closure motion.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very perplexing move on the part of the government. It is a sad move. It is now the 79th time that time allocation, or closure, has been used in this Parliament, and 79 times is a sad record that has never been equalled before by a government. There has never been a government that has been so inclined to impose closure and time allocation on this House.

It is perplexing, because we already had agreement for a vote this evening, so for the government to then move to try to shut down debate, when there has already been agreement, is perhaps a way of keeping their own members of Parliament from speaking, as the member for St. John's East suggested. I do not know, but it is a perplexing imposition of closure, the 79th time in Parliament. In this case, it is completely unnecessary, because there was already broad agreement in this House to have a vote tonight.

My question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is very simple. Since there was already agreement for a vote tonight, why is the government now imposing closure, time allocation, for the 79th time?

[Business of the House, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we had the latest chapter of this sad government's record on the vote that was held Tuesday night.

It was not a very radical question. It was really a common sense question. We asked that we have relevant answers to intelligent questions in question period.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, all members of the opposition parties and the independent members voted for that NDP motion, including three Conservatives. We certainly congratulate the three Conservatives that stood up and voted for it. However, 144 Conservative MPs voted against the proposition that answers should be relevant in question period. It was as if the Conservative caucus was being whipped to vote against the laws of gravity. It makes absolutely no sense. We are talking about a common sense proposal that was voted against by the Conservative caucus.

There is no doubt that these kinds of decisions by the Conservatives help to undermine public confidence in the government. The government has only 23 sitting weeks to address that. My question for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is very simple. What is the government going to do next week to try to repair the tattered, torn and ripped sense of lack of public confidence in the government?

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, October 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen for the 78th sad time the use of time allocation and closure by the government. It is a sad record that stands even worse than the former Liberal government's record. There is an appalling lack of respect for the Canadian public, discussion and debate.

The problems with this bill, though we agree with it in principle, are the questions around constitutionality and the government trying to ram through the bill without due regard for putting in place the kinds of amendments that make it constitutional and avoid the problems that the government has seen half a dozen times so far this year, with courts rejecting government legislation. With this idea of ramming the bills through, unfortunately, there are things like a court system and constitution that have to be respected.

Does my colleague from St. John's East feel the government has done its due diligence in this bill, given that it is so controversial, that there are concerns about its constitutionality and that there are real concerns about the impacts that go far beyond cyberbullying?

[Business of the House, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear that Canadians want answers in question period. What do the Conservatives not understand about that?

Far from being a straitjacket, it is the public business that is being conducted here, and the Conservatives have a responsibility to answer. All we need to do is give the Speaker the power to enforce relevance rules. We know we have the support of some Conservative members, and hopefully that is growing.

I will repeat the question because we did not get an answer. Will the government allow a free vote on our motion to have relevant answers in question period?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, for anyone who thought, with the outrage that came back from Canadians from coast to coast to coast after the profound disrespect by the Conservative government in the House of Commons, or after the apology on Friday, or after the government actually was trying to answer questions in the House, that this government was actually turning over a new leaf, I think any thought of that nature has now been exposed as just idle thinking.

Obviously, the Conservative government does not intend to, in any way, be respectful to the Canadian population. The Conservatives do not intend to actually respond to what Canadians want to see, which is thoughtful questions, of course, and occasionally answers that are actually relevant to the questions that are asked.

There is so much wrong with what the government House leader just said, I do not know where start. He has been the government House leader for a long time. The pretense that somehow relevance does not apply to questions is absolutely absurd, and quite frankly, he should be ashamed of himself for even saying that in the House. He knows that questions are routinely ruled out of order by the Speaker because they are not relevant to public administration.

Putting that aside, which was the only reason he really gave for opposing this motion, what the government House leader has just said is that the Conservative government is doubling down. We will have even more absurd and irrelevant answers in the weeks to come. Government members should be ashamed of themselves.

Will the government House leader now confirm that the Conservatives will now double down and be even more disrespectful to Canadians in question periods to come?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we never ask exactly the same question.

I should point out that we noticed the exact same intervention three times last week.

If the member opposite were to listen closely, he would see that questions about complex and complicated issues might be asked from several different angles. As the official opposition, our role is precisely to ask questions like that to get an answer.

After the next election, when the Conservative Party falls to third place and the NDP is in government answering intelligent questions, I hope that the Conservatives will ask intelligent questions. It would be so nice to have that kind of exchange between two parties in the House.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on our 10th anniversary of the class of 2004.

I believe the Speaker has dealt with these issues in the past. We have had a number of points of order around members' declarations. What the member states is true, about it being too partisan. There has been some improvement in that. There is still a ways to go.

The biggest hole right now in our Standing Orders is the hole that says it does not matter what the answer is. The question has to be relevant. Debate has to be relevant. Even members' statements have to be relevant, but an answer can be whatever it wants.

That is why we are offering what is a modest contribution. It is only half of a line, but it gives the Speaker the power to say: that is not a relevant answer, that is repetition. That will improve the aura of this place, improve the tone of debate, and it will improve above all the transparency of the government. It is a modest contribution that will make things work better here in Ottawa. That is what we are all about.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is because you, as Speaker, already enforce the rule of relevance on questions. The member has been in the House long enough to understand that. The first day I stood as opposition House leader there were a couple of our questions that the Speaker chose to disqualify. We certainly raised them in points of order afterward, but the Speaker already has that power.

This is what is completely dysfunctional. The questions are thoughtful. They have to be relevant, have to be pertinent, but as we heard from some columnists as far as some answers are concerned, I am quoting Michael Den Tandt who said, with the reasoning of last week:

...it now becomes acceptable for a government MP to say anything at all in Question Period. [A member from the government] could, when confronted with an opposition question, begin chanting in ancient Greek. He could speak in Sanskrit, or in tongues; he could say “Lalalalalalalala” while plugging his ears, the way kids do. He could read his grocery list. He could recite the ageless “To be or not to be” soliloquy from Hamlet.

He could do anything he wants.

That is disrespectful. That is why we want to have intelligent answers to intelligent questions. That is all we are—