Peter Julian

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2014]

moved:

That Standing Order 11(2) be replaced with the following: The Speaker or the Chair of Committees of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, including during responses to oral questions, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her intervention, and if then the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker shall name the Member or, if in Committee of the Whole, the Chair shall report the Member to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the intelligent and well-spoken member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. She will take the second half of my time, and I have no doubt that her speech will be excellent.

We moved this motion today in response to the public's reaction to what happened last week in the House. People from all across the country called in to radio shows, sent emails, and shared their thoughts on television and in newspapers. They were all saying that question period needs to be improved so it can become an answer period too.

All Canadians want is that the government give intelligent and transparent answers when we ask an intelligent question—a question seeking transparency in an area of public administration, such as the questions that the leader of the official opposition asked last week. These answers enhance the debate so that everyone in this great country can understand the direction the government is taking. The answers also give the government a chance to defend the decisions it has made. It does not get any simpler than that.

That is why we are proposing today to amend Standing Order 11(2) to include the answers provided during question period.

The NDP is not trying to make a huge change today. We are simply saying that we already have rules about the relevance of debates in this House. As you know, Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions you have enforced the rules on relevance that already exist for debates in the House, as you have also enforced the rules on the relevance of the questions we ask. The NDP is proud of the fact that we ask relevant and intelligent questions in the House. However, Mr. Speaker, you also have the right to say whether these questions are relevant.

All we are asking and all we want to do is to fix the loophole surrounding the answers to questions during question period and to ensure that the answers are just as relevant as the questions the minister was asked.

This is also not a huge change because these practices are already in place in other parliaments around the world. As we know, the speaker in the United Kingdom's legislative chamber has the right to question the relevance of answers. The level of debate is higher because the questions must be relevant, of course, but so must the answers.

On the weekend, like any good New Democrat, I did some research. That is usually what we do: we use research to delve deeper into the subject. I watched several clips from the Australian parliament, and the speaker of the house called the prime minister to order because his response was irrelevant.

What we are proposing today already exists in our Standing Orders, as well as in the rules governing other parliaments around the world. What is more, we feel it is a matter of respect. What we are asking is that the government and this Parliament respect the fine Canadians who have been questioning the standards in recent days. We want the House to support this motion, which is designed to establish guidelines for the answers provided during question period.

I would like to mention something else that I feel is important. There are fewer than 49 weeks before the election is called. In 2015, on approximately September 12, the writ will be dropped for Canada's 42nd national election. We hope that the NDP will form the government after Canadians across the country cast their votes. It will be up to Canadians to decide, and we will have to respect their decision, just as we respect the fact that recent comments from across this country have been very clear. We need to hear relevant answers to the intelligent questions that are asked in the House. We need to respect the will of the people of Canada.

I would like to take a few moments to mention another worrisome issue. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will rise to speak in a few minutes. It is not yet clear whether the Conservatives support this motion. I hope that they will support it. Public opinion is clear. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has said that there is plenty of accountability in the House during question period because the ministers are always present to answer questions.

Good New Democrats that we are, we did our research over the weekend. We found that, since the beginning of this sitting of Parliament on September 16, parliamentary secretaries have responded to nearly 50% of the questions asked of ministers during question period. How can we speak of accountable government if parliamentary secretaries answer nearly half of the questions asked of ministers? Parliamentary secretaries are not supposed to be making decisions. They are not accountable to the people. They have no executive power. Ministers are the ones who are accountable. The Prime Minister is accountable. It is up to them to answer the intelligent questions people ask in the House. Nothing less. It should not be half and half. Ministers should not be answering just one out of every two questions. Ministers should be able to answer every question. From time to time, a parliamentary secretary might answer, but that is happening systematically and it shows a lack of respect for Canadians.

I was first elected in 2004 with my colleague from Hamilton Centre and was very proud of being elected. My first seat was right over there, in the corner. I had to get a shoehorn to get into it.

I remember the first time I asked a question in the House. I remember standing and thinking that it is a strength of Canadian democracy that I can ask a question and that a minister has to answer. However, I quickly realized, as all rookie MPs do in the House, that the question, yes, is powerful, but until we get to the point where the response has to be equally intelligent and equally relevant, we have not completed what is a fundamental part of Canadian democracy.

I represent one of the most diverse ridings in the country, where over 100 languages are spoken and people come from all over the world. They come to Canada because they believe in our democratic system. Even people in my riding who are strong Canadians, proud Canadians, new Canadians, many of them believe that question period should be improved. They believe that Canadians should be treated with the respect they deserve. They believe that intelligent questions asked on this side of the House merit equally intelligent and thoughtful answers from that side of the House.

Transparency requires that when any opposition member or government member asks a thoughtful question, the government's answer should be as transparent and complete as possible. It is not an idle dream. This is the basis on which our country developed. These are the parliamentary traditions, which came from other countries, that have helped to broaden and deepen, hopefully, the debate in the House.

Sometimes we reach the level that Canadians expect of us. One of them was just last week when the leader of the official opposition spoke very passionately on Iraq here in the House of Commons. That was a high moment for so many Canadians.

However, we also have low moments when answers do not correspond to the intelligent questions that are asked. That is why we are offering the motion today. We want to make question period a question and answer period so that all Canadians can benefit from transparent, thoughtful answers to thoughtful questions asked in the House.

We hope we get the support of every member of the House.

[Privilege, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of my colleague. My concern is because the votes were scheduled by the government at the same time as we had the protocol that was put into place that was not followed. As my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst has clearly said, it is something that has come up before. Why did the government not plan to ensure that the votes on time allocation did not take place at the same time as the visitors were arriving on the Hill?

[Business of the House, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the majority of members present in the House were NDP.

Thanks to that majority, we were able to set aside the government's agenda and we debated an issue that we think is extremely important: the fact that 1,200 aboriginal women have been beaten or have disappeared over the past several years.

This is a national crisis, a national tragedy. We think this issue is extremely important. A public inquiry for these women and their families is needed. Some eloquent speakers have addressed this important issue, even since yesterday evening's vote. We will continue to raise these questions.

That is one of the files we have discussed in recent days.

Would the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons like to tell us what the government has planned for the coming week?

[Privilege, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the case of jurisprudence and tradition in the House, particularly in 1989, former Speaker Fraser ruled that a prima facie case of privilege existed. That is when a roadblock on Parliament Hill prevented members from accessing the House of Commons. In 2004, as well, a question of privilege was raised regarding the free movement of members within the Parliamentary Precinct.

Therefore, the member for Acadie—Bathurst is absolutely right to raise this question. The reality is the government planned these votes and the visit. The government was responsible for both and it could have understood, given the importance of these precedents, that stopping members from coming to the House of Commons is an insult to the privilege of members.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to cite O'Brien and Bosc, because this has been a repeated problem. The member for Timmins—James Bay just cited it, as did the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Under “Unparliamentary Language” on page 618, it says very clearly that personal attacks are “not in order” in the House of Commons. The Minister of Justice has responded to every question with a personal attack, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you enforce what are clear guidelines that personal attacks of the nature that the Minister of Justice seems to be throwing around are simply inappropriate for the House of Commons, particularly in a matter of such seriousness as the bill we are discussing.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 25th, 2014]

Six or seven times it was rejected by the court.

[Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister said that the government wants to get it right, but the experience contradicts that claim.

This is a sad record. It is the 76th time, as the member for Gatineau just mentioned, that the government has invoked closure. That is a sad record that is even worse than the former Liberal government's record in trying to ram through legislation.

Here is the real kicker. The government also has the record for most pieces of legislation rejected by the courts. Half a dozen pieces of legislation have been thrown out by the courts so far this year, because the government did not get it right. It has botched legislation. It has more product recalls than any government in Canadian history. Now it is trying to tell us that somehow it has it right, even though we know, as the member for Gatineau just mentioned, that it refused any amendments from the opposition, except for one, and it refused the valuable testimony that was given by witnesses.

The question is simple. How can we trust the government on this when it has so badly botched legislation to the point where the courts have rejected half a dozen pieces of legislation this year? Does the government intend to just get this rejected by the courts again?

[Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, rose in the House last Friday. He touched Canadians with a very personal, very real, and very touching story about his brother, his mother, and the experience of so many indigenous people across Canada. This type of tragedy and injustice is far too common.

We were sent to this House to speak up for all people living in this country. New Democrats take this responsibility seriously, and although the Conservative government may try to shut us down and limit debate, we will continue to find innovative ways to break through and make those voices heard, as we did last Friday.

We will continue to bring indigenous voices to the House of Commons and repeat their call for a full public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. One year from now, in 2015, within 100 days of taking office, Canada's first New Democratic Party government will take action and put into place that much-needed public inquiry.

[Business of the House, September 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we always take the first week to get back into shape for the fall and winter.

It has been a big week for our Parliament. On Monday we had an important debate on the Ebola epidemic that is currently affecting West Africa and has claimed thousands of victims. We thank the NDP member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for having requested that debate in the House.

On Tuesday we heard a memorable, very important speech from the Leader of the Opposition on the Canadian military mission in Iraq.

On Wednesday, as everyone knows, we had an important visit from the President of Ukraine, President Poroshenko.

That is what has happened this week. I would like to ask my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, what the government has in store for us next week.

[Ebola Outbreak, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have met with people in my constituency who have family members in Sierra Leone and in Liberia. Their stories are absolutely heartbreaking, such as talking with their loved ones back home, hearing about some of the quarantines, concerned about the health and safety of strong friends and family members who are in those countries.

Canada is not untouched by this epidemic, as the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has rightly pointed out. Canada is very much touched by this. Even if it is touched by family and friendship links, we are touched by this massive epidemic that is spreading throughout Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, and potentially other countries in West Africa.

I listened to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie's wonderful and important speech in this regard, and I am glad that she has triggered this emergency debate because this is something that all of us should be seized upon. It is an extremely important issue. What specifically should Canada be doing now to help those countries? What should the Canadian government and Canadian parliamentarians be saying to those people of Sierra Leonean, Liberian and Guinean origin who have family members who are in peril by this epidemic in their countries of origin?