Peter Julian

[Privilege, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, with regard to the guilty verdict of October 31, 2014, against the member for Peterborough on four counts of violating the Canada Elections Act, (a) the House immediately suspend the member of (i) the right to sit or vote in this place, (ii) the right to sit on any committee of this place, (iii) the right to collect his sessional allowance as a member of Parliament; and (b) this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study of appropriate measures concerning the member for Peterborough's membership in the House of Commons.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, who will deliver the second part of my speech.

This is an unprecedented situation in our history. Before I present my arguments in support of our motion, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about what happened on October 31.

Since we are talking about something that is rare in the House, unprecedented, I think it is useful to start off the important debate on this issue by citing the various violations of which the member for Peterborough was convicted last Friday.

First off, the member for Peterborough was found guilty of personally paying an election expense, thereby willfully exceeding his contribution limit, contrary to subsections 405(1), 497(3), and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act. Just to reference those important subsections, 405(1) says, very clearly:

No individual shall make contributions that exceed

(a) $1,000 in total in any calendar year...;

(a.1) $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates...,

Every person guilty of that offence, knowingly contravening these subsections, is guilty of an offence under sections 481 and 482.

Second, the member for Peterborough and his official agent were found guilty of willfully incurring election expenses in excess of the campaign expense limit, contrary to subsections 443(1), 497(3), and 500(5) of the Canada Elections Act. Subsection 443(1) stipulates:

No candidate, official agent of a candidate or person authorized under paragraph 446(c) to enter into contracts shall incur election expenses in an amount that is more than the election expenses limit calculated under section 440.

This is an important part of the Canada Elections Act and is an extremely important violation the member has been found guilty of.

Third, the member for Peterborough was found guilty of providing an electoral campaign return containing a false or misleading material statement in omitting to report a campaign contribution, an election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(a) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5). Again, 463(1) stipulates very clearly:

No candidate and no official agent of a candidate shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a document referred to in subsection 451(1) or 455(1) that (a) the candidate or the official agent, as the case may be, knows or ought reasonably to know contains a material statement that is false or misleading;...

Finally, the member for Peterborough has been found guilty of providing a campaign return that did not substantially set out the required information by omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(b) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5).

Among the convictions on three counts, the final count was stayed, at the crown's request, following the finding of guilt.

Each of the three counts of which the member for Peterborough was found guilty carries a maximum penalty of $2,000, one year in prison, or both.

This is not a little event in the life of the House of Commons. There is a serious criminal conviction, in three cases, under the Canada Elections Act. The judge stated that the evidence provided by the member for Peterborough was incredible and full of inconsistencies and improbabilities and that the member for Peterborough frequently obfuscated.

Justice Lisa Cameron was very clear in terms of the guilty verdict she rendered on three counts for the member for Peterborough. What was the response from the member for Peterborough? I heard it myself on the radio. The member for Peterborough said that it was just her opinion.

This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of the law of the land not being respected by the member for Peterborough. The House is now seized with this question and has to make a decision about what comes next. There is no doubt that this is a serious violation of the Canada Elections Act, and it should be treated seriously.

Yesterday we had, from the government, its initial response on how it is going to respond to the important issue of convictions on three counts of violating the Canada Elections Act. I am certainly not going to reproach the government House leader for being very clear on where the government wants to go, but I think it is important to note that the government said very clearly that it wanted to do nothing. The Conservatives want to tuck it under a carpet and refer the whole matter to the procedure and House affairs committee.

On this side of the House, we believe that the serious violations of which this member has been convicted require serious measures. That is why we are putting forward a motion today that says very clearly, given the serious violations of the Canada Elections Act, that this House should immediately suspend the member.

That is our approach. The government has seemingly not wanted to take this approach. Seemingly, the government has said, no, it just wants to tuck it over to the procedure and House affairs committee. We disagree profoundly with that approach. We believe that these serious violations demand a serious response from this House of Commons.

Given the current government's track record, it is not surprising that the Conservatives would want to, in effect, by putting it over to the procedure and House affairs committee, try to sweep this under the carpet. However, when we couple this with what we have seen as a systematic pattern of behaviour by the Conservative government, members can begin to understand why we are concerned that the government's approach is to tuck this away in a committee rather than deal with a very serious series of violations and a guilty verdict that is very clear on three counts. Rather than tucking it under the carpet, we believe that serious measures are required.

On the Conservative government's history, when we look at the last three federal elections, I think, to a certain extent, there is diminished public trust in how the government approaches violations of the Canada Elections Act.

In 2006, the first election in which the current Conservative government was elected, we had the in-and-out scandal. What we saw following that were a number of Conservative Party operatives found guilty of breaking Elections Canada rules. They had to pay more than $52,000 in fines. Taxpayers spent more than $2.3 million for the investigation, which led to a five-year legal battle.

For the 2008 election campaign, we have the conviction we have just seen. The member for Peterborough has been convicted on three counts.

In 2011, we saw the robocall scandal. A former Conservative staffer has been found guilty. We have also seen the former member of Parliament, the former minister from Labrador, very clearly overspending and seeing that the Canada Elections Act did not apply.

There has been a systematic pattern of breaking the Canada Elections Act.

The Canada Elections Act is a fundamental Canadian value. It sets a level playing field for all candidates. It sets the rules for our democracy. Given these systematic violations we have seen over the course of the last few years, we say that on this case now coming before the House, it is important for the House of Commons to say that it is a serious violation. These three counts are serious in nature, and as a result, the House of Commons should be moving to immediately suspend the member from the right to sit or vote in this place, the right to sit on any committee in this place, and the right to collect his sessional allowance.

I have two final points I would like to make.

First, the procedure and House affairs committee is now nine months behind on its consideration of Motion No. 428.

Second, as we saw today, and as the leader of the official opposition mentioned, on Bill C-518, what we have seen is the government moving to extract from the Canada Elections Act a series of violations that would lead to the end of the sessional allowance. We do not stand for that on this side of the House, and the member for Toronto—Danforth will comment further.

[Committees of the House, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we have been very patient. The member has been ruled out of order on three consecutive days because he has this obsession of attacking the official opposition. He just loves to go into that.

He was doing well. For the first time, he was actually speaking to a report. Given that it was a report on which he had moved concurrence, we would have expected that. However, for three days in a row he has been ruled out of order because he has gone off on these weird, bizarre tangents, belching all kinds of personal insults. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to have him respect the rule of relevance by speaking to wills, testaments, and land tenure in first nations.

[Committees of the House, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this motion is actually in the name of the member for Winnipeg North. I assumed he had actually read the report that is before the House, because he actually moved concurrence on this particular report. Therefore, it should not be a surprise. Since he moved concurrence on this report, he should have at least read it.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for raising those interesting precedents. Unfortunately, much of what he has said is most appropriately part of the debate we will have depending on your ruling. Therefore, I want to be clear that if you rule there is a prima facie case that there is a question of privilege here, and you will of course be ruling on the question of privilege that we have raised, the government members might have their own opinions to give to the House and we will find a lot of debate on the appropriate course of action to take.

It is your role, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether you believe there is a prima facie case of a question of privilege. If you do decide there is, I will be moving the following motion: That, with regard to the guilty verdict of October 31, 2014, against the member for Peterborough on four counts of violating the Canada's Election Act, the House: (a) immediately suspend the member of: (1) the right to sit or vote in this place; (2) the right to sit on any committee of this place; (3) the right to collect his sessional allowance as a member of Parliament; and, (b) that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study of appropriate measures concerning the member for Peterborough's membership in the House of Commons.

This is the question of privilege that is at the origin of the discussion.

You have an important ruling to make, Mr. Speaker, and we certainly understand that you may want to take some time, given the precedents around this issue. However, that is the motion we will raise if you believe there is a prima facie case. As the government House leader has just done, which is express his strongly-held opinion, he will be given the opportunity, as will all members, to express their opinions on this important case.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about our question of privilege.

Today we must deal with an unprecedented problem. The member for Peterborough, who was also the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, was recently found guilty by the Ontario Court of Justice, under the Canada Elections Act, of several offences connected with the 2008 federal election.

A judge found the member guilty of the following. First, he was found guilty of personally paying an election expense and thereby wilfully exceeding his contribution limit contrary to subsections 405(1), 497(3) and 500(5) of the Elections Act. Second, he violated, by willingly incurring election expenses in excess of the campaign expense limit, subsections 443(1) 497(3) and 500(5). Third, he was found guilty of providing an election campaign return containing a false or misleading material statement in omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(a) and 497(3)(v) and subsection 500(5) of the Elections Act, and violating by providing a campaign return that did not substantially set out the required information by omitting to report a campaign contribution and election expense, contrary to paragraphs 463(1)(b) and 597(3)(v) and subsection 500(5).

This count was stayed at the Crown's request following the finding of guilt.

Each count carries a maximum penalty of $2,000, a year in prison, or both. I am sure the Speaker has already read the document dealing with this conviction.

These are extremely serious offences. By being found guilty of breaking the very electoral laws that put him in this place, the member has shown contempt for our democratic institutions and has undoubtedly tarnished the dignity of the House.

The second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Bosc and O'Brien, states at page 134:

Parliamentary privilege holds Members responsible for acting in character with the function they fulfil as elected representatives.

It also quotes Bourinot, 4th edition, page 64, stating that:

The right of a legislative body to suspend or expel a member for what is sufficient cause in its own judgement is undoubted. Such a power is absolutely necessary to the conservation of the dignity and usefulness of a body.

Page 135 contains other references to Maingot, second edition, page 221, which states that expulsion is advised and “extends to all cases where the offence is such as, in the judgement of the House, to render the Member unfit for parliamentary duties.” Nothing exemplifies a member's unfitness more clearly than being found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act.

As I said before, this is an unusual matter. There have only been four cases since Confederation where members of the House were expelled for having committed serious offences. We can look to the more recent events in the Senate where three appointees of the present Prime Minister were suspended without pay, and they have not even been found guilty of criminal acts in a court of law.

The second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice clearly sets out, on pages 244 and 245, all the details of the next steps to be taken by the House of Commons:

By virtue of parliamentary privilege, only the House has the inherent right to decide matters affecting its own membership. Indeed, the House decides for itself if a member should be permitted to sit on committees, receive a salary or even be allowed to keep his or her seat.

It also states:

The power of the House to expel one of its members is derived from its traditional authority to determine whether a member is qualified to sit.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to our collective privilege that requires us both to act in a manner that upholds the dignity of the House as well as to regulate our own internal affairs and membership, I am asking that you agree that this matter constitutes a prima facie case of privilege and that you invite me to move the appropriate motion. Should you do that, Mr. Speaker, I would propose a motion that would seek to immediately suspend the member for Peterborough, without salary, and refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study on the status of his membership in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that a member of this government has faced charges of election fraud. However, it is the first time that a member has been found guilty by the court of these offences and has publicly stated that he intends to keep his seat in the House of Commons, as well as all the inherent privileges.

The in-and-out scandal of the Prime Minister's senior electoral advisors, the voter suppression through illegal robocalls by Conservative Party staff, the electoral fraud of the Prime Minister's disgraced former minister of intergovernmental affairs, and the spending scandal involving the Prime Minister's appointments to the Senate all advanced Conservative interests and asked the Canadian public to pick up the tab. These are all cases that have been raised in this House.

However, this is the first time that a member has been charged and found guilty.

In closing, although the Prime Minister expelled his former parliamentary secretary from the Conservative caucus as soon as he was charged with these serious offences, other measures are required now that he has been found guilty of four counts of election fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will agree that this matter constitutes a clear prima facie question of privilege, a question on which this House ought to debate and make a decision.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there goes the member again. Not only is it irrelevant, it is false. He is misleading the House, because he knows fully well that all committees can meet.

I again do not understand the reasoning behind the member for Winnipeg North and his insistence on wanting to take House time just to listen to himself speak. He has to be relevant and factual, and I hope that he will start factually addressing the report that is before us.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is doing the same thing he did on Thursday, and he was ruled out of order. Friday he was ruled out of order. He has some kind of bee in his bonnet. He knows that committees can meet. We have been urging chairs to have committees meet. Ultimately, he has to be relevant to the committee report. He was not on Friday. He was ruled out of order.

It is not a question of the quantity of words. In fact, the members who have been most active in previous Parliaments, with the most words, are the ones who get defeated come election time. I think a lot of members in the House are looking forward to having Daniel Blaikie here in the House.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, a motion or amendment the member for Winnipeg North brought forward was ruled out of order, which he should have known was out of order. On Friday, he was ruled out of order, because he did not speak to the relevant report. As the Speaker has pointed out, he has access to all committee reports tabled daily in the House.

There has been a real problem with relevance. I fear that the member is wandering off, yet again, down some sidewalk that has nothing to do with the report we are considering now.

[Ethics, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is about the Prime Minister's judgment and who he chooses to administer the government. As we saw with the changes in electoral laws, the Conservatives will do anything to win, even violate the law repeatedly.

The conviction against the member for Peterborough is just part of the culture around the Prime Minister. This is about the Prime Minister's judgment. He hand-picked the member for very important positions in his government. In retrospect, does the Prime Minister think it was a good idea to appoint the convicted member for Peterborough as his personal parliamentary secretary and ethics spokesperson?

[Ethics, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, after the Liberal sponsorship scandal, the Conservatives promised to do better, but they failed.

Since 2006, there has been the in and out scandal, the fraudulent phone calls scandal, and the overspending in Labrador. Now, the hon. member for Peterborough has been convicted of electoral fraud and forgery.

When will the Conservatives acknowledge that there is an elections law in Canada that must be obeyed?