Peter Julian

[Points of Order, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on my first day as opposition House leader. I look forward to working with the government House leader and the House leader of the other party.

I will say I am a bit dismayed. We had two very relevant questions that were being raised by the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. In both cases they were speaking to public funds that are part of the estimates tabled and discussed in the House of Commons.

In both cases, Mr. Speaker, you did not really wait for the question, which was extremely relevant, before you cut both of them off. I would like to ask on this first day that you allow our members in the official opposition to ask the question before you cut them off, Mr. Speaker, because we are always relevant and we are always trying to press for a very effective use of public funds.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 6th, 2014]

I suggest the member read the human rights reports.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I like the member for Labrador, although the reality is that most Canadians believe oversight comes from some body other than MPs themselves. The Board of Internal Economy is secretive, and it is MPs policing themselves.

We put forward a motion on June 18 and Liberals and Conservatives voted for it. It passed unanimously. Obviously, Liberals and Conservatives at that time agreed with us and the vast majority of Canadians that we cannot have a self-policing system and have the same legitimacy, no matter how good people are.

I mentioned earlier in my speech that MPs are generally very good at managing their own budgets, but the reality is that self-policing is not a go. That is why the Liberals and the Conservatives voted for the NDP motion. We are just asking them to follow through and keep their commitment of June 18. We are asking them to vote for NDP motions. Let us do away with self-policing and bring in the Auditor General.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2014]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is absolutely right. This is the problem. After a motion was adopted by all parties at the procedure and House affairs committee, the Conservatives said, “We are going to do away with the self-policing”. Once the cameras were shut down and the lights were turned off, they decided to take a completely different stand.

Today, members saw my amendment. We had a bit of a dialogue about it. All that we moved was that the Auditor General be invited to audit the disclosure. Is there nothing more motherhood and apple pie than that: bring in the Auditor General just for this disclosure? The Conservatives spoke strongly against it. They rejected that.

I can just say, shame on them. Shame on them for refusing to have the Auditor General come in and monitor MPs' expenses. Shame on them to have to answer to their constituents.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I find this really funny. The Conservatives said something that actually was not accurate. Now they are being caught up on it. There are dozens of Conservatives who did not even participate in their partial disclosure scheme, let alone actually have a direct link from their website to their annual House of Commons expenses. Now that they have been caught out on this, they are saying, “My goodness. We are going to try to blame somebody else for the problems that we as Conservative MPs have in refusing disclosure”.

As I mentioned earlier and will say again, and I know the Conservatives do not like this, every single NDP MP has a direct link from his or her annual expenses that are verified through the House of Commons. As of April 1, it will be every three months, and that is wonderful.

However, more importantly, every single NDP MP believes that the Auditor General should be allowed to have jurisdiction over MPs' expenses. We actually believe we should be doing away with that secretive Board of Internal Economy that the Conservatives want to hang on to, to have MPs policing their own expenses.

Every single NDP MP believes in transparency, and we hope, some day, the Conservatives will join us in that.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, for the last eight years my expenses have been put online every year. My constituents can actually look at my expenses. In a very proactive way, that is what the NDP has been doing.

Until very recently, other parties were not doing that. Now we are starting to see other parties starting to put their verified expenses online. That is welcome. It is something we all support.

As of April 1, that will be happening every three months. Every three months my constituents will be able to go online and see, with the improved disclosure as of April 1, exactly what I have been spending as an MP.

Again, that is something that most MPs do not do, but every single NDP MP does this. That is the distinction.

People do not have to take my word for it. They can take a few minutes and actually check MPs' websites. They will see who actually provides disclosure of expenses and who does not.

Some may say that it may be found in a party website somewhere. We just do not think that is acceptable. What our constituents need to be able to do is go on our website, which is the website address they get through all of our mailings. For every single NDP MP, people can see the verified expenses from the House of Commons.

That is what Canadians deserve. I hope other parties do the same.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in this case, what I will do is again propose, seconded by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, for unanimous consent, that the motion be amended by adding after the words “ministerial expenses” the following: “and call on the Bureau of Internal Economy to invite the Auditor General to audit this disclosure”.

I am hoping for unanimous consent for this motion, which would be in order.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent, it can be considered in order.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, you are saying it is not in order because it is out of the scope of the motion. I believe that is incorrect. It is not because it is out of the scope of the motion, but because there is another amendment on the floor.

Could you clarify that for me, please?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you consult the table, you will find that it is in order. What may not be in order is the fact that there has been another motion put on the floor. In that case, unanimous consent would be required.