Peter Julian

[Ethics, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's former parliamentary secretary has just been found guilty of electoral fraud.

This is the same person who, week after week in the House, defended the Conservatives' manipulations and their fraudulent calls even though Justice Mosley clearly established that the Conservatives' database was at the heart of the robocall scandal. Once again, they are not obeying the law.

Will the Conservatives admit that they have become masters at the art of electoral fraud?

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have been really patient. I do not think the member has the slightest clue of which report is before the House. We have offered him three opportunities to speak to the relevance of the report that has been moved. He continues to refuse and seems to be throwing out gratuitous insults. He is not respecting the rule of relevance in any way. Therefore, I would ask him to allow the important other items before the House to move forward.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. We have important legislation before the House that all members want to comment on. I am always interested in hearing the member for Winnipeg North, but one thing he has just said is incorrect, of course. The agriculture committee is meeting.

However, he is not speaking to the report. If he does not have anything to say on the report, he should just allow us to move on to the important business before this House.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to hear the member for Winnipeg North, but yesterday, he did not actually reference the concurrence report he said he wanted to speak to. He is doing the same thing today. Yesterday we gave him some latitude, but I think today he has to speak to the concurrence report. If he has opinions on it, we would be very pleased to hear them. However, he cannot just wander off onto whatever he wants to talk about today.

We have a concurrence report before us. We would like to ask that the member actually stick to it and speak to the report.

[Point of Order, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order, but I understand very well, given the importance of the point of order I am making, that you are not in a position to respond right away. I hope that you will be able to respond later today or on Monday.

This concerns the guilty verdict that was just handed down against the former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Peterborough. He was convicted this morning of violating the Canada Elections Act.

The Prime Minister's former parliamentary secretary has been found guilty on three counts: exceeding spending limits during the federal campaign in 2008, failing to report an illegal personal contribution of $21,000 to his own campaign, and knowingly submitting a falsified document.

As we know, this has been part of a pattern of behaviour we have seen from the current government, tragically, with the in-and-out scheme, the robocall scandal, and former Conservative minister Peter Penashue, who was found by Elections Canada to have broken the rules in the 2011 campaign.

The statutory provisions that render a member of Parliament ineligible to sit in the House of Commons are unambiguous, as we know. The Canada Elections Act, subsection 502(3), stipulates that a person who has been found guilty of an illegal or corrupt practice cannot be elected to or sit and vote in the House of Commons.

O'Brien and Bosc makes it clear that the decision to remove a sitting member is one for the House. I will quote from page 244:

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.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, understanding that this is unprecedented and that you will want to perhaps take some time to reflect, I would like to ask you to clarify what next steps should be taken by the House to ensure that we are abiding by these statutory provisions.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the history of this file is the government has dropped the ball completely.

Grain transport is important. It is important to farmers, it is also important to port communities, and it is important to local economies across the country, like Vancouver. Now the minister clearly promised $100,000-a-day fines, and then mysteriously they were reduced to $100,000 a week, and even that is only in theory, because the government actually has not levied any fines despite the continuing problems.

Canadians want a government that will stand up for them. Why are the Conservatives so reluctant, so resistant to stand up for grain farmers and port cities across Canada?

[Business of the House, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in caucus, the NDP MPs had the opportunity to thank the security guards, including Alain Gervais, who showed such courage during the events of last week, with which we are all familiar.

This week we are back to work. As the Leader of the Opposition just said, we continue to offer to work with the government on various files in the wake of last week's events. We will examine those files.

We continue to offer to work with the government, and we are still waiting for a reply.

For next week, I would like to know what the government is scheduling for its agenda. I particularly would like to know in terms of opposition days what the government perceives for the two opposition days that remain in this cycle.

[Committees of the House, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, not only did the member not speak to the report that was before the House, but he is also trying to add additional reports. He is combining a motion for concurrence in one committee report with a motion for another. That is not something that is practised in this House.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have known the member for Toronto—Danforth, since he first came to the House a couple of years ago, as being extremely effective and meticulous about legislation that is brought forward. We certainly saw that with the changes to the electoral act. On behalf of all Canadians, he did a fantastic job scrutinizing and meticulously going through each of the changes proposed by the government and looking at what was clearly a concern with respect to reducing the level of democratic participation rather than increasing it, which should hopefully be the goal of everyone in the House.

Given the fact that he has already raised the question of incorporation by reference that bypasses the normal scrutiny that should be put into the consideration of any government legislation, I would like to ask the member this. Taking Bill S-2 as an example, can he broaden his frame of reference and respond to the concerns of whether the government would be willing to do the consultation and the transparency that is necessary to make sure that the bill does subject itself to accountability and transparency?

Given his vast experience on the Elections Act, does he feel comfortable that the government understands the importance of consultation and accountability and would understand that it has to bring changes to Bill S-2 in committee so that regulatory changes that are brought in are in the public interest and reflect that transparency and accountability?

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, October 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I did not catch all of that excellent speech. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth has a renowned reputation in the House for speaking effectively on legislation. Therefore, I would ask him to give us the Coles Notes version of the bill itself. Could he take a couple of minutes and with the deep foundation of knowledge that he brings to the House, just provide the Coles Notes or the 30-second elevator response as to how the New Democrats feel about Bill S-2?