Peter Julian

[Privilege, April 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much time, but I want to respond to the government's response to the question of privilege raised by the member for Victoria earlier this week. Having consulted the blues—and I hope this will be part of your decision-making process over the next few days—I can say that very little of what the government actually raised is relevant or pertinent to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Victoria.

The Conservatives cited some studies that they say purport to reinforce what the Minister of State for Finance might have said, but the reality is that we are dealing with a matter of grave importance, and it is the right of parliamentarians to base our decision-making on sound evidence provided by members from all sides of the House. That is of paramount importance.

There was precedent cited by the member for Victoria that is clear on the point of the importance and the right of parliamentarians to have sound evidence provided by ministers. What we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, aside from citing a few procedural citations, does not in any way conclusively provide a rebuttal to that point.

The reality is that when there is a matter of debate—for example, the citation of studies that draw different conclusions—it is true that there is no role for the Chair to arbitrate. The parliamentary secretary's evidence on the CPP in this morning's intervention might fall into that category. He cited a report that we may disagree with, but it is fair for him to cite that report.

That is not what the Minister of State for Finance did, and the member for Victoria stated this. The minister clearly misstated the findings of the report done by his own department, and from the access to information request that was concluded, and cited by my colleague from Victoria, it is clear that he did so. The Minister of State for Finance clearly misstated the findings in the knowledge and with the intent to mislead his fellow parliamentarians.

We have not heard an explanation from the minister of state himself as to how he could have been so completely off the mark in citing the study that he did, and because we have not heard that response, I do not think we can reasonably dispose of this matter in any other way besides holding a hearing at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The Minister of State for Finance could come back to the House and say he was not briefed on the file properly and that is why he misled the House, or that he mixed up the facts, or even that he did not understand the conclusions of the report done by his department. It happens sometimes that the members opposite on the government side misstate facts. He could have stated that in the House. He has not done that. Therefore, the intervention this morning by the parliamentary secretary citing numbers from another report simply does not change the fact that the Minister of State for Finance stood in the House and deliberately tried to mislead it in citing a report that simply does not provide the conclusions he stated.

The government may not like the fact that the finance department study confirms the NDP's position that, “In the long run, expanding the CPP would bring economic benefits”. The Conservatives are stuck with that. Just like the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, as members will recall, could not get away with presenting false evidence to support the government's agenda, neither can the Minister of State for Finance do the same. The minister misled the House intentionally. The ATI request proves that fact and despite the intervention by the parliamentary secretary this morning, the reality is that New Democrats believe a prima facie case of breach of privilege exists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the government House leader stood up and gave a speech, one of the few from the government side, and then promptly shut down debate for most of the government and most of the opposition members by putting in place time allocation measures, which means that most Conservatives and most opposition members will not have an opportunity to speak on the bill.

We might ask why, when it is a Conservative budget bill, the Conservatives would want to shut down debate on it. Here is one of the reasons: the foreign account tax compliance act, which is something that has been protested by a million Canadians of American origin in this country, Canadians upon whom penalties are being imposed unilaterally by the IRS.

The Conservatives said that they would stand up against this kind of unilateral action by the American government. In fact, I went to see the American ambassador myself, along with a number of NDP MPs, and we advocated strongly for those one million Canadians.

This Conservative government has sold them out. Basically it is shipping that information to the United States, even though there are constitutional issues and privacy issues.

My question to the hon. government House leader is simply this: is that why the Conservatives want to shut down debate? Is it because they are afraid of those one million Canadians finding out that they were sold out on FATCA?

[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.