Peter Julian

[Privilege, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome you back to Parliament, as well as the government House leader, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and all other members of Parliament.

This is an important issue and I am rising in support of the question of privilege raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This is an issue that has been raised before. I want to flag at the outset that O'Brien and Bosc, which is our bible, as we know, describes time allocation as allowing for specific lengths of time to be set aside for the consideration of one or more stages of a public bill. The term “time allocation” suggests primarily the idea of time management, but the government may use a motion to allocate time as a guillotine.

As we know, we have had a reference from the government House leader saying that time allocation is somewhat different from closure. He is right, technically, but as we know, in both cases we are talking about the use of time by the government as a guillotine. That is the point the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has raised and it is a valid point to be considered as you look at her question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

It is true that the government has used both time allocation and closure as a guillotine. In this Parliament alone—this is the sad record of the government—it has shut down debate 75 times. That is more than any other government in Canadian history.

Seventy-five times, Mr. Speaker, that is incredible. Clearly, this is an attempt to hamstring the democratic process.

I want to quote somebody who should have a lot of credibility with the government, and that is the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism. He said in the House, back in 2002, the following:

I am displeased that the bill represents the 75th time that the government has invoked closure or time allocation since it came to power in 1993, abusing that very significant power to limit and shut down debate in this place more than any other government in Canadian history.This is parliament. Parliament is derived from the French word “parler” which means to speak. It is the place where the representatives of the common people speak to issues that affect the common good.For the government to, for the 75th time, prohibit members from speaking on behalf of their constituents and to the national interest on matters of grave concern, such as the budget implementation bill, is yet more unfortunate evidence of the government's growing arrogance and contempt for our conventions of parliamentary democracy.

That was said by the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism. I believe that intervention from the government side obviously raises the major concerns that the membr for Saanich—Gulf Islands has raised. I should add that when the Minister for Multiculturalism raised the 75th time back in 2002, that was over four mandates and four Parliaments. We are talking about 75 closure and time allocation motions in one single Parliament, an abuse and contempt of democracy that we have simply never before seen in Canadian history.

Many times it is Conservative MPs who have their rights thrown aside by the extraordinary use of time allocation and closure. In fact, on most bills now, as we know, there is only a handful of Conservative members who even get up to speak, which means their constituents in their ridings are deprived of the ability to express themselves on government legislation and there are many Conservative MPs who simply have not been able to speak on a single government bill.

Mr. Speaker, O'Brien and Bosc quote Maingot on the subject of questions of privilege. I know that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands takes this issue very seriously. Maingot said:

The purpose of raising matters of “privilege” in either House of Parliament is to maintain the respect and credibility due to and required of each House in respect of these privileges, to uphold its powers, and to enforce the enjoyment of the privileges of its Members. A genuine question of privilege is therefore a serious matter not to be reckoned with lightly and accordingly ought to be rare, and thus rarely raised in the House of Commons.

As the House knows, in November 2011, the NDP brought forward a motion that aimed to provide the Speaker with a level of discretion in granting the government leave to introduce closure or time allocation on legislation before the House, preventing the government from abusing it as it certainly has over the last year and certainly has over the course of this Parliament in an unprecedented way. The Conservatives at that time rejected that proposal.

That was not the opinion of the current Prime Minister on November 26, 1996, here in the House of Commons, when he said:

In my view, the procedure of using time allocation for electoral law, doing it quickly and without the consent of the other political parties, is the kind of dangerous application of electoral practices that we are more likely to find in third world countries.

I would also like to point out a report, which was cited by O'Brien and Bosc, prepared by Yvon Pelletier, a parliamentary intern from 1999-2000. The article was based on his research essay, which was awarded the Alf Hales Prize as the best paper submitted by the 1999 and 2000 interns. He spoke of time allocation in the House of Commons:

Accordingly, it became necessary to set up mechanisms to manage the time allocated to debate so that a final decision could be made in a reasonable period of time. However, a balance had to be struck between the right to speak for an appropriate length of time and Parliament's right to reach decisions.

The only notable change to that provision was made in the fall of 1989, when the House of Commons renumbered its standing orders. Time allocation is now covered in Standing Order 78. Since the governing party has shown no desire to change this standing order, which is very much in its favour, the use of time allocation continues to be this government's preferred time management strategy. Unless changes are made to this standing order, time allocation will continue to be the strategy of choice for muzzling the opposition.

That is why we are rising in the House to support the question of privilege raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

What we are seeing here is unprecedented: 75 times in a single Parliament. This is an abuse of time allocation and closure. There is no doubt about it. This violates the rights of MPs, both in opposition and in government, to rise in the House to speak and represent their constituents.

That is why we are rising to support this question of privilege.

[Petitions, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table petitions from hundreds of residents of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, both in NDP-held ridings and in Conservative-held ridings. They are joining their voices together to say “no” to the cuts to home delivery service to five million Canadian households. They say that eventually this reduction in service will result in the privatization of Canada Post. We are talking about thousands of jobs lost. The petitioners are saying that the government is breaking its promise by cutting back on home service delivery. Hundreds of people in Conservative and NDP ridings in British Columbia are saying “no” to the cuts and the elimination of home delivery service in Canada.

[The Environment, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the participants said no and the communities said no and the government should be saying no. The only people the Conservatives are trying to help are their friends at Enbridge. By approving the northern gateway, they made it clear they do not care what British Columbians want. Time and again, they have made it clear they do not care what scientists say. They have also made it abundantly clear that they do not care about the thousands of jobs that depend on a clean environment in British Columbia. How do the Conservatives justify approving this threat to the economy and to the environment of British Columbia?

[The Environment, June 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives learned that northern gateway would endanger woodland caribou and grizzly bear populations, they said it was justified under the circumstances.

At least this time we can say that the Conservatives are not beating around the bush. They could not care less about the fauna, the environment, aboriginal communities, or British Columbia.

Why will they not listen to concerned Canadians and British Columbians and say no to northern gateway?

[Employment, June 20th, 2014]

You are ashamed of your changes.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the parties, and I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 12 midnight.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

Since her arrival in the House, she has done a wonderful job with the economic development files, which can be extremely complex at times. She is one of the MPs who knows the most about industry and co-operatives. I want to commend her on the extraordinary work she is doing.

Her speech was both very detailed and very impressive, and in it she mentioned cuts and the possibility of strengthening the legislation.

Could she share her thoughts on the cuts to border services and the public service, which are eroding the public sector as a whole?

Could she also talk about strengthening the bill's provisions?

[Business of the House, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the last Thursday statement before we break tomorrow for the summer, I would first like to pay tribute to the NDP caucus. For the past four weeks, we have been having evening sittings. The Conservatives and the Liberals missed about 200 opportunities to speak. However, the NDP members were always there for their shifts. What is more, they did the job of the Conservatives and the Liberals. The NDP has a strong and extraordinary caucus. I want to recognize the hardest working caucus that Parliament has ever seen.

I am not finished because I also want to say that I really appreciate the work of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. He is very knowledgeable and has a lot of energy. I hope he has a good summer. I would also like to thank the House Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Beauséjour, who has a lot of experience as an MP and as the House leader of the Liberal Party. I wish both of them a good summer.

As my colleague from Hamilton Mountain did two years ago, I would also like to recognize all those who keep the House running. Canadians watching at home might not realize it, but there is a huge network of talented and professional staff who work tirelessly to make this place run like clockwork.

First, there is you, Mr. Speaker, and your staff, along with the procedural experts in the clerks' offices, the table, the journals branch, the committee directorate staff, the Library of Parliament staff and, of course, all of our incredible pages, who do a wonderful job.

There is the Sergeant-at-Arms and everyone from security, as well as traffic operations, the drivers of our green buses, dispatch operators, mail room staff and messengers.

There is the cafeteria staff and the food services and catering team.

There is the maintenance staff, the tradespeople in the Parliamentary precinct, materiel management and room allocation.

There is everyone in information services, including telecom, ISSI, printing services and the broadcasting team.

There are the people who deal with HR, finance, travel and pay and benefits.

There are the folks at Hansard who transcribe and edit all of our words and those who translate and interpret them from one official language to the other. Given that the NDP is a bilingual caucus, we really appreciate all the work that is done by the interpreters and translators.

The official opposition wishes to one and all a happy summer with lots of door-knocking.

[Natural Resources, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is continual disrespect for B.C.

The Prime Minister keeps saying that Enbridge will carry out thorough consultations with first nations. That is not Enbridge's job; that is the crown's job. In other words, it is the government's job. The Conservatives will alienate aboriginal people across the country and will end up preventing other energy-related projects that depend on good relations with first nations from ever seeing the light of day.

Why is this government not listening to British Columbia first nations? Why?

[Natural Resources, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there is only one thorough thing about this whole process, and it is that the Conservatives have thoroughly bungled it.

From environmental protection to first nations consultation to community involvement, in every sector the government has failed, and each time it turns around and blames the company.

The minister said, “The proponent clearly has more work to do in order to fulfill the public commitment it has made to engage with Aboriginal groups and local communities along the route”, but who is responsible for this? The government is. Does the government really not understand that consulting with the public and first nations is the government's responsibility?