Peter Julian

[Business of the House, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that it has been a tough week for the government.

Ms. Sheila Fraser, who is a personal hero to many Canadians for standing up and speaking the truth, has condemned the unfair elections act as an attack on democracy. Her voice is joined with those of current and former chief electoral officers, current and former elections commissioners, many witnesses, and Canadians who are speaking internationally as well. These individuals are all speaking out against this attack on democracy, Bill C-23.

The government's reaction is to try to impose the bill on the House. They have done this about 60 times. It is a sad track record, if not the worst track record in the entire history of all the governments in the country.

Unfortunately, as members know, the government's legislative agenda has been unravelling in the last two weeks. Two bills have been rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada because they simply were not drafted correctly.

In light of the government's unravelling legislative agenda, on behalf of the NDP official opposition caucus I would like to ask the government House leader what he will put forward next week to start to restore the confidence that Canadians have lost in the Conservative government.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. We are not ministers yet, but it is certainly coming, especially after this quite despicable act. It is coming. On October 19, 2015, you will be calling many of the folks on the NDP side as ministers, so we appreciate your getting the practice in right now.

We had the government House leader, soon to be opposition House leader, rise in this House and speak to the budget. This is a rare thing. He has not done this very often.

The problem with time allocation is that he is now shutting out most members of Parliament from being able to speak to this budget bill. Most members of the opposition, but also dozens of Conservatives, have not spoken to a single government bill since the beginning of the session. They are being told by the government House leader that their constituents do not have the right to be represented in the House of Commons. If their constituents do not have the right to have them stand up on their behalf and speak to this bill, most members of the opposition and most members of government are being disenfranchised. That is appalling. It is over 60 times now that the government has shut down debate. Hundreds of members of Parliament will be disenfranchised by this action.

The simple question is this: given how low the credibility of the current government is with the Canadian public, how does it have the nerve to cut hundreds of members of Parliament out of the budgetary process?

[Privilege, April 3rd, 2014]

It is hard to know where to start, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, as happened last week, the parliamentary secretary is avoiding the real issue. It was the basis of the point of privilege raised by the member for Victoria. There is no document such as the minister attested to. Quite simply, the parliamentary secretary has reinforced the fact that the government does not have the document it has attested to having.

I will be reading the statement by the parliamentary secretary in the blues very carefully, and I will be coming back later today with a response.

[Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-23, April 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, you have recognized the member, and the member should then be allowed to speak. That point of order, unfortunately, is irrelevant to the discussion we are having. You have recognized the member. The member has risen to speak in the House. Please let her continue.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the comments made by the member for Windsor West.

The member raised the issue of cutbacks to veterans' services. Earlier today, we had some Conservatives trying to avoid the issue of the misuse of government planes. They tried to tie it in as somehow being something that was appropriate for the military and because of that, veterans would be supporting this misuse of government aircraft.

I want to ask the member for Windsor West a question. I am certainly talking to veterans in my riding who are extremely upset, as I have never seen before, with the government. How does the member think veterans will react to knowing the government systematically misuses government planes at the same time it is cutting back on veterans' services?

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening attentively. I think you have been very patient. We have been very patient. Again, the member has a speech, which he has obviously crafted, that has nothing to do with the motion before the House. It is not relevant, Mr. Speaker. I would ask, through you, that the member speak with some relevance to the motion, which is that government planes, and in particular the plane used by the Prime Minister, should only be used for government purposes.

If he objects to that, then he should state that. If he supports us on that, he should state it. However, he should be relevant to the debate in the matter before the House.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this has absolutely no relevance to the matter that is before the House. The member cannot just stand and start talking about a subject that has no relationship to what is clearly the motion today, that, in the opinion of the House, government planes should only be used for government purposes.

I am not sure why the Conservatives object to that, but I would hope, Mr. Speaker, you would ensure that the member actually speaks with some relevance to what is before the House.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. These are entirely inappropriate comments coming from the parliamentary secretary. He should know better. He should be sticking to the subject of debate, which is the use of government aircraft.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the remarks my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot made. She talks about important issues frequently in the House, and she speaks very eloquently on behalf of her constituents. I would like to thank her for that.

Like the member for Ottawa Centre so aptly mentioned, the motion states that the plane used by the Prime Minister should be used only for government purposes. That seems pretty straightforward. However, the Conservatives and the Liberals would rather dismiss this motion because they think it is up to them to decide what justifies using the government plane.

In the past, the Prime Minister criticized the Liberals for using the plane to transport contributors, which he said was inappropriate. Now he seems to have changed his mind. My question for my colleague is simple.

Why did the Prime Minister change his mind, and does he want to use the plane for whatever purpose he desires?

[Privilege, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but as a placeholder, I would like to say that we will be responding when the government responds.

I think the response from the parliamentary secretary did not deny that the minister did stand in the House and reference a key study from Finance Canada, not once, but a number of times. The parliamentary secretary seemed to cite something else out there that may come from outside of government.

The reality is that I think the point of privilege that has been raised by the member for Victoria is very sound. The minister stood, did not table a document afterward, and very clearly cited, a number of times, a study that clearly does not exist.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will take that into consideration as you deliberate. We reserve the right to come back to the House to speak further on this as well.