Peter Julian

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for asking. No, it does not. As I mentioned earlier, it is the issue of the precedents around not asking us the question and then pretending that the government needs to bring in time allocation. That is seriously a matter of parliamentary rights and privileges.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats stand firmly behind our democracy and our democratic rights and privileges that all Canadians enjoy.

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to say that we are glad that the government finally got its act together after six months and finally asked the question. Of course, our response was, as it has been for six months, yes, let us move it to committee.

[Points of Order, May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to a point of order concerning the time allocation motion that the House received yesterday in relation to Bill C-17.

As you know, yesterday the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stood and announced his intention to move a time allocation motion for Bill C-17. There has not been much debate about the bill in the House because all of the parties support it. Even more important is the fact that all of the parties are prepared to send the bill to committee.

As members also know, the short title for the bill is “Vanessa's Law”, in honour of the tragic death of Vanessa Young, who was the daughter of the member for Oakville. However, this week, I am very sad to say, that member levelled unfounded and partisan comments against the opposition for so-called delaying the bill. Given the prominence of the attacks from the government in question period and the members' statements lineup, it is clear he was doing this with the government leader's full endorsement and encouragement.

The problem is that the only reason the bill was not been sent to committee months ago was that the government House leader did not consider it important enough to qualify for debate. He, of course, sets the agenda for what bills are called and he is responsible for asking other parties to help expedite legislation when he wants to.

At the beginning of December, the bill was tabled in the House. The sad truth is that in the nearly six months since this proposed law was tabled, there have been only 60 minutes of debate in March and then a couple of hours of debate this week. In fact, in the March discussion, we moved on to another bill before the third party even had an opportunity to speak.

Questions need to be asked about why the bill has not been brought forward to committee, and here is a good example. With almost an hour left in government orders, the government has asked to move forward to private members' legislation. It could have brought Bill C-17 forward for debate at this time.

The problem is that we have never been asked, not once at any of the meetings we have had with the government House leader. One cannot say that one does not have agreement if one has never asked the question.

The government House leader actually has my cellphone number, although it is telling to note that I do not have his. I have been meeting with him regularly, and we have told him very clearly that Bill C-17 can to go committee without time allocation. The reality is that he has not asked me because he seems to want to play political games rather than deal with the fact that we want some debate on the bill before it is sent to committee.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to rescind that notice of time allocation given under Standing Order 78.3 because the government House leader simply has never asked us the question in the many opportunities he has had in the last few months.

We do not want to set a precedent around the use of time allocation, and the Conservatives have used it so abusively already. Sometimes they have asked us the question, but in this case, the question was never asked. The government seems to want to play political games with this bill rather than work with the opposition so we can improve upon it in committee and move it back into the house.

[Privacy, May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that the NDP will proudly vote against any Conservative budget that cuts veterans services.

The Canadian privacy community is speaking out against the Conservatives' choice for commissioner. Ontario watchdog Ann Cavoukian said:

...looking at someone whose expertise is in public safety and defence would seem the antithesis of the expertise you'd seek for privacy commissioner.

Yet again, of course, Liberals support the Conservatives' bad decisions, but the New Democrats stand with privacy commissioners.

Will the Conservatives do the right thing and withdraw the nomination?

[Veterans Affairs, May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, no apology is shameful; there is no other way to put it. What Canadians have seen from this minister and the government is a record of failure, mismanagement, and running full speed away from accountability.

Last January, the minister was caught belittling veterans. He spends millions of dollars on propaganda while closing offices that provide important personal services to veterans. Then, yesterday, he completely ignored the spouse of a wounded soldier, actually running away in the other direction.

When will this minister stop running away and agree to meet with veterans and their families?

[Veterans Affairs, May 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, after using strategies such as arriving late for a meeting and then insulting veterans, yesterday the minister adopted a new strategy: running away when the spouse of a veteran asked him for help.

All that veterans and their loved ones want is to be heard and respected, something the minister was incapable of doing yesterday. It is shameful.

When will the minister apologize to Jenifer Migneault?

[Business of the House, May 29th, 2014]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the member would have been right if he was not talking about speakers. He is wrong. Speakers actually show up in Hansard, so Canadians who are interested can go online, look at Hansard, and see how many members spoke.

The point I was going to make was that there were a number of speaking spots that Conservatives did not show up for. They did not even show up for their shifts. Most Canadians who do not show up for their shifts do not get paid. For the first two nights, a number of Conservative MPs did not even show up to speak for their constituents. Therefore, after two nights, we can see very clearly that New Democrats show up to work, they fight for their constituents, and they speak out for Canadians every night in the House of Commons, whether it is midnight or 9 p.m.

I still have some questions for my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

First, the government has just moved another time allocation motion. This is the 66th time. How sad. How many times in the coming days will the government use its majority to impose closure or time allocation?

Second, we debated Bill C-17 for a few hours this week. It was introduced in the House in December 2013, and the government refused to debate it for six months. When will the government hold another debate and a vote on that bill? Those are my two questions.

[Business of the House, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have particularly good news for Canadians today. We will recall that on Tuesday night, there were Conservatives and Liberals rejecting the NDP amendment to work late. They adopted the Conservative motion to basically handcuff the opposition. Conservatives and Liberals said at the time that they wanted to work late for Canadians.

The results are in. After two nights, it is no secret to anybody, that the majority of members who showed up to work have been New Democratic MPs defending their constituents and speaking up for Canadians.

It is not just that. The Liberals said they wanted to work. It turns out that there was one Liberal MP who eventually showed up to work on Tuesday night to speak and one Liberal MP who eventually showed up last night to work. What is interesting is not that lack of participation. What is really interesting is the Conservative MPs—

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats do not represent the government yet, but on October 19, 2015, this will be the government side of the House. There is no doubt.

What the minister just said is, I think, quite disingenuous. There were two very good questions from the members for Scarborough—Rouge River and Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, both of them saying that it is a real problem when 280 members of Parliament are cut off from being able to speak to a bill. It is not up to the minister to then say that the Conservatives will let a few of them speak, and somehow that makes it okay. This particular time allocation motion shuts 280 members of Parliament out of the debate on what the minister admits is a very important subject.

The Conservatives do not seem to want to speak to these issues or any others. They just do not seem to represent their constituents. However, New Democrats actually care about the quality of the legislation we bring forward and its impact on the lives of Canadians. How can the minister accept that 280 members of Parliament are being denied their ability to speak on behalf of their constituents on this bill and to offer improvements so that the bill can be fixed, unlike Bill C-15, which languished for three years until the government dumped it? How can he shut 280 members of Parliament out of this important debate?

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is another sad moment in Parliament. This is the 66th time that this government has used time allocation or closure in Parliament. In the past, the Conservatives complained about the corrupt Liberals imposing a record number of time allocation and closure motions, but the Conservatives have since broken that record. This is the 66th time they have used time allocation.

Here is why this is again not a very intelligent move, because we are talking about a bill about which the government has unfortunately not been able to bring good, solid legislation into the House. I can recall in 2008, Conservatives brought forward Bill C-15, and they were so embarrassed by the bill because it was so poorly drafted that they sat on it for three years. They never brought it forward. Bill C-15 went right through 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. Now they have introduced what they hope to be a better bill, a bill that does have some very positive aspects to it—there is no doubt—but a bill that has also raised some very serious questions.

Like Bill C-15, which they sat on for three years, they have been sitting on this, refusing to bring it to Parliament for debate for months. The issue is that we have a bill that has some flaws and also has some good things, and we certainly support the principle of the bill, but in the scant minutes of debate that the government has accorded so far, only a handful of members of Parliament have been able to speak and have been raising those questions.

Why has the government refused to bring it forward for debate? Why is the government so intent on refusing the types of amendments that need to be brought in to amend the bill? Why, for 66 times, has the government been running roughshod over parliamentary rights and democratic debate in the House?