Peter Julian

[Privilege, January 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the intervention by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons only reinforces the argument that the member for St. John's East just made.

I say that because it is not about the rhetoric that the House leader for the government applied, who seemed to think this was some kind of debate, but a very serious consideration of the breaches of the privileges of the House. At no point did he really contradict the essential arguments put forward by the member for St. John's East.

I will briefly refer back to the facts of September 30, which are important, when the Prime Minister said in the House that the role of our soldiers would be to advise and assist. It was not to accompany, meaning to be in combat zones. He later responded to the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the NDP, by saying, “I just said that Canadian soldiers are not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat.”

That was a clear, factual statement that he made, and in the last few days we have had equally and completely contradictory factual statements made in which the Prime Minister has very proudly said that they are engaged in combat, that they are engaged in killing.

It is not an issue of debate around the question itself. There is a very clear breach, as the member for St. John's East has said very eloquently. There is a very, very clear contradiction between the facts as laid out by the Prime Minister back on September 30 and the facts that he has been announcing to us. There has never been any explanation of that.

I will end just by reciting what the member for St. John's East said. It is from Erskine May at page 63:

...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.

There has been no correction. There has been no explanation, and the merits of the argument advanced by the member for St. John's East, I think, have just been enhanced by the reaction of the leader of the government in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope you will give serious consideration to what is a very well-thought-out argument by the member for St. John's East on the breaches of the privileges of the House.

[Points of Order, January 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be asking for unanimous consent to table an important document.

The Minister of Industry in question period referenced Dan Kelly, who is president and CEO of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Here is the real quote from Dan Kelly on the NDP plan. “Cutting the small business tax rate by nearly twenty percent will provide a big boost to—

[Privilege, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard made her presentation this morning.

I would like to focus on three elements that the minister just mentioned. First, before receiving any information in response to her access to information request, the member was unaware of the extent to which the minister interfered with the work of his officials, who said that the work was perfectly feasible. Once she received that information, she decided to raise this question of privilege here in the House, so in terms of time, the documentation was already there.

Second—and this is the most important point—as the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard said this morning, officials had replied that the work was perfectly feasible. Then, on May 2, 2014, information was released following her access to information request.

I would like to quote what the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard said this morning.

An email dated the next day, May 2, 2014, then ordered the officials who worked on this issue to stop their work because “...[the] (minister’s office) has come back to advise...[the] (office of the assistant deputy minister for operations) that we will use the same response we provided to Q-359.”

It was therefore quite doable and the question was relevant. As the member pointed out this morning, this relates directly to parliamentary proceedings and her work as a parliamentarian. The minister said that it would take more time, while officials from the department said they could provide an answer. Furthermore, as the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard showed this morning, this directly relates to her work and she was deprived of standard information that she requested through this process.

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 26th, 2015]

With respect to the evidence requested from the Department of Justice by the Costa Rican Attorney General, to which the latter referred in his statement of October 3, 2014: (a) does the Minister of Justice or his Department have any information regarding an amount of $200,000 sent to the Aria Foundation for Peace in 2008 and, if so, what are details, including the identity of the sender and the relationship between the sender and Infinito Gold, Ronald Mannix, the Norlien Foundation, and Coril Holdings Ltd.; and (b) did the Department of Justice answer the Costa Rican Attorney General's questions in the first request letter (#08-000011-033-PE) sent on Tuesday, December 10, 2013, as well as in the second request letter (#12-000124-621-PE) dated Tuesday, February 4, 2014, (i) if so, what answer was provided, (ii) if not, why not?

[The Environment, January 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, climate change continues to be a threat to our future and costs our economy billions of dollars, but the Conservatives continue to evade any action on the climate crisis.

The Prime Minister promised to introduce regulations on oil and gas emissions. For years, that was his stock answer: “Just wait for the regulations.” Then one day, the Prime Minister decided his own plan was “crazy”. Despite promising a cap and trade system in the 2008 campaign, Conservatives now say they are opposed to dealing with the climate crisis.

What about the Liberals? Just a few days ago, the leader of the Liberal Party announced that he did not believe in any federal role in dealing with climate change. Shame. This is the voice of a corporate party that champions the Keystone pipeline and says that carbon pricing is for others.

Only the NDP can be counted on to take action on climate change. Later this year, with a new NDP government, we will take action because Canadians deserve better from their government.

[Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, January 26th, 2015]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-518, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 16 on page 1 with the following:

“ceases or has ceased to be a member and who, on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force, is either convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code mentioned in subsection (4) or sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more for an offence under any other Act of Parliament, if the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member, a”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-518, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 25 on page 3 with the following:

“ceases or has ceased to be a member and who, on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force, is either convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code mentioned in subsection 19(4) or sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more for an offence under any other Act of Parliament, if the offence arose out of conduct that in whole or in part occurred while the person was a member, a withdrawal”

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you and all of the members here today a happy new year. We have a lot of work to do in the House of Commons over the coming months. Even though I was sad to leave my friends and family in Burnaby—New Westminster, I am pleased that we are all here to work for the people, for Canadians.

I think that this bill will be of great interest to Canadians. The Conservatives' amendments to this bill will also be of interest to people across the country. I am therefore pleased to rise in the House to deliver the first speech of 2015 and talk about Bill C-518.

As members know, the NDP was in favour of the bill in principle. In fact, when the bill was originally presented, we raised the fact that the former NDP government in Nova Scotia was a pioneer in this regard. It presented legislation in the Nova Scotia legislature that took away the ability of representatives who have been convicted to be able to fall back on a pension, coming out of that conviction. We supported it in principle, and we supported bringing it to committee.

Then, what I can only consider to be the centralized control of the Prime Minister's Office kicked in around this particular bill. That is why we are offering the amendments that have just been proposed by the Speaker. They are amendments that seek to close the loopholes that were opened up in committee. We certainly hope that the Conservative members of Parliament will support the amendments we are bringing forward. We believe that most Canadians support those amendments as well.

When this bill was brought forward, we raised the very clear concerns about loopholes around acts of Parliament that are violated. As we know, when an act of Parliament is violated, it is a serious breach of trust by any member of Parliament. We have seen it particularly in the Senate with Conservative and Liberal senators, but also here in the House of Commons. We can think of the former member Dean Del Mastro, who resigned just before Christmas.

Crimes were committed. In the case of Mr. Del Mastro, he was convicted in court. Crimes were brought about by this particular member of Parliament, and we felt it important that the legislation, Bill C-518, actually reference those criminal violations, which result from a violation of an act of Parliament.

To our surprise, in the heat of the scandal around Mr. Del Mastro, Conservative members at the committee that was given the task of studying Bill C-518 actually put in place an amendment that would simply subtract these types of criminal violations from the overall thrust of the bill. I do not fault the member who proposed the bill for this. I think he is very well meaning in this regard. I have a sense that he believes that the bill should cover every member of Parliament convicted of serious criminal violations including acts of Parliament.

However, at committee, the order came down, as we have seen with other pieces of legislation brought forward by Conservative members. The order came down from the Prime Minister's Office, I can only assume, and it basically subtracted any criminal violation of an act of Parliament from the overall thrust of the bill.

What does that mean? It means that there is the Del Mastro loophole, which is a sizeable loophole in this legislation. If this legislation were passed as is, it would allow the Conservative and Liberal senators the violations that they have committed, as well as violations that we have seen in the case of Dean Del Mastro. Even when it is a serious criminal conviction, the bill, as amended by the Conservatives in committee, would not allow for their retiring allowance to be withdrawn.

What we have is this curious cherry-picking of what offences would and would not be included. That is why we decided to bring forward the two motions, the amendments we have brought forward today. The idea is to assure that any serious violation or criminal conviction that includes violations of acts of Parliament, which are certainly breaches of trust by any member of Parliament as part of our duties to uphold the acts, be considered in withdrawing the retiring allowance.

That is why we are moving these two motions, and we hope the government members will support them.

The motion reads in part as follows:

...is either convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code mentioned in subsection (4)...

This covers offences already included in the bill, as amended by the members of the committee, which has a Conservative majority.

The motion continues:

...or sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more for an offence under any other Act of Parliament....

We would then be able to strip these members of their pensions.

Currently, there is a list that includes certain offences and of course refers to provisions of the Criminal Code. Certain sections are mentioned; however, offences under acts of Parliament, which we are supposed to uphold as MPs, are not included.

Of course, that is why we want to repair the damage done by the Conservative majority on the committee, because some acts were eliminated, which changed the scope of the bill. These amendments would make the bill more just, especially when it comes to serious offences, including those that carry a sentence of five years or more in prison. Such offences should be included in the scope of this bill.

It is just common sense. This is hardly a radical idea. I think the vast majority of Canadians agree with us on this. We are here to support federal laws and the Criminal Code. In both cases, if a serious offence was committed, then it must be dealt with accordingly.

In this situation, that is not the case. The bill refers to a few Criminal Code offences, but not offences under acts of Parliament, such as a violation of the Canada Elections Act.

In the case of former Conservative MP Mr. Del Mastro, it was a serious offence. The bill came before the committee that very week, and it was certainly the time for the Conservative members to send a message. The Conservatives undermined their own bill. We are repairing the damage.

Under the leadership of our very experienced leader of the official opposition, we are ready to take action. In the months to come and this fall, we will repair the damage caused by the Conservative government. That is our plan.

Today we will move motions and propose amendments that make sense, in order to repair the damage caused by the Conservative members of the committee when they removed offences under acts of Parliament and thereby changed the scope of Bill C-518.

[Business of the House, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it really is profoundly moving to show our appreciation to the security guards who showed such incredible bravery on October 22.

When we come back in January, we will sit for 15 weeks, and there are just 30 weeks left before this government falls in the 2015 election.

There are only 15 sitting weeks, and 30 weeks in all, before the next election. I know many people are looking forward to it.

I am pleased to rise to ask the Thursday question, the last one before Christmas, and to thank all of the people who work so hard and contribute to life here at the House.

Today, I would like to borrow the words of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain to thank those who work here:

I am pleased that we will all be able to get back to our ridings to work on behalf of our constituents, to celebrate Christmas and the holidays with our family and friends and to reflect on the work we do here on behalf of all Canadians, particularly those who are having a hard time making ends meet this holiday season.

Today I would like to extend wishes for a merry Christmas and happy holidays and to offer a very big thanks to everyone in and around the House of Commons.

Of course, that includes my colleagues on all sides of the House and all of our staff, who make us look good most of the time.

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 is you, Mr. Speaker, and your staff, along with the unbelievably helpful 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 the incredible pages[, who do a wonderful job].

There is the Sergeant-at-Arms and everyone from security, [whose courage we just recognized in the House,] as well as traffic operations, the drivers of our green buses, dispatch operators, mail room staff and messengers.

There are also the cafeteria staff and all the food services and catering team. There is the maintenance staff, the trades people 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 human resources, finance, travel, and pay and benefits. There are the folks who document all our words in Hansard, and those who translate and interpret them from one official language to the other. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and everyone who works so hard in this place.

I wish a merry Christmas and happy holidays to all.

Merry Christmas and happy new year everyone.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals who have shown once again how out of touch they are with the needs of Canadian families, the NDP has had another great parliamentary session.

We have achieved tangible results for Canadians, such as compensation for thalidomide victims and the phasing out of DOT-111 cars, which were involved in the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

We launched an affordable child care plan with the goal of ensuring that parents do not pay more than $15 a day for child care. After 20 years of empty promises, it is time.

We fought to maintain home mail delivery for Canadians and called for a moratorium. We stood up for veterans, and we stood up against constant Conservative corruption. We held the government to account for the military mission to Iraq.

We will continue to hold the Conservatives to account and to build a government in waiting for 2015, because Canadians deserve better.

We cannot wait for 2015.

[Veterans Affairs, December 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep attacking veterans in court and veterans deserve better.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to the veterans charter as a previous Liberal policy, but his government has been pursuing this policy for the last eight years. We have also learned that the biggest clawback in spending for Veterans Affairs was in health care and disability payments for services veterans sorely need. The Conservatives overspent by 17% for internal services, such as propaganda, advertising and executive bonuses. What poor management. It is crazy to keep this minister.

Why does he still have a job?

[Veterans Affairs, December 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a crazy response.

After his about-face on climate change, yesterday the Prime Minister also changed his mind on the veterans charter. After eight years in power, the Prime Minister now describes the charter as a Liberal policy. It is time to take responsibility.

Does this mean the Conservatives are no longer in favour of the lump sum payments? Will the government finally drop its current case against Canada's veterans?