Peter Julian

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in the gallery was saying “save Canada Post”. I can tell the House that at the town hall meeting I had last week, a hundred citizens in my riding were saying exactly the same thing. A lot of Canadians are very concerned about the government's mean-spirited destruction of Canada Post—

[Disturbance in gallery]

Mr. Speaker, citizens are concerned about Canada Post—

[Disturbance in gallery]

[Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the real question is accountability and transparency.

The responsibility of the government is to show that accountability and transparency in the House every single day. The point I am making is that the bill, which talks about accountability, says that Canada's legislators should abide by the law of the land. That is not reflected in the daily practice of government. I think that is a valid point to make.

As far as the concerns that have been raised regarding many of the senators, I will just go through the list. We have Senator Mike Duffy claiming to represent a province that he did not live in. We have Senator Pamela Wallin who was doing fundraising campaigns, again at taxpayers' expense. We have Senator Patrick Brazeau who has been charged with assault.

These are all examples of what happens when a legislator does not abide by the law of the land, and by the laws of Parliament.

The point I am making is this. It is all well and good for a government member to put forward a bill that says that if members violate the laws of the land, they will be punished. The responsibility that the government has is to make sure that the laws of the land are respected each and every day. It is not one private member's bill that makes the difference. It is the overall attitude of the government.

The government's actions every day undermine the bill that has been brought forward. That is the issue. That is what we are debating right here on the floor of the House of Commons.

We have gone one further, in terms of accountability and transparency, because that is what is purported to be proposed in the bill. What we said last June and what we brought forward to procedure and House affairs was a series of accountability mechanisms, as members will recall, in terms of members' expenses, which is also something that needs to be carefully governed by the law of the land and by the laws of Parliament.

We have said, in agreement with the Auditor General, that the Auditor General should be able to audit MPs' expenses. Unfortunately, Conservative and Liberal members have said no to this. We have also said that there needs to be independent oversight, doing away with the secretive bureau of internal economy and putting in place an independent oversight body.

There again Conservatives and Liberals have said no to that. In response to the Information Commissioner saying very clearly that MPs' expenses should be subject to access to information, we have said yes. Conservatives and Liberals have said no.

My point is this. The NDP has no lessons to learn from either of the old parties around accountability and transparency. It is not one bill that we put forward, it is the actions that we bring every day to the floor of the House of Commons that show the Canadian public that indeed in our case we believe in responsibility, we believe in transparency and we believe that Canadian values should be reflected on the floor of the House of Commons every day.

What are those Canadian values? Those Canadian values are fairness. Those Canadian values are truthfulness, actually having the Prime Minister respond truthfully to the questions that are put to him in the House of Commons. We also believe that Canadian values are that of responsibility. We take responsibility for our actions and we are transparent at all times with the Canadian public.

That is our approach. That is the NDP approach. Like so many other Canadians, I am excited that in 2015 we will get the opportunity to put those values front and centre in the House of Commons each and every day.

[Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-518.

As I mentioned in my question to the member a few minutes ago, members of the NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading.

However, I want to raise the caveats right off the top. The two caveats that we have raised are with regard to the Nova Scotia model. The Nova Scotia NDP government brought in the model legislation that basically stood by the principle that Canadian legislators should abide by the law of the land. That legislation was put in place by the NDP government in Nova Scotia and ensured that for a maximum of no less than five years any offence punishable by imprisonment would mean that the member, in this case the member of the House of Assembly in Nova Scotia, would see his or her pension benefits removed.

As members well know, what that does is allow, still, for the lump-sum payment on pensions, but what it takes away, if somebody has committed this criminal offence, is the additional pension top-up that the taxpayers normally would provide for a pension, whether we are talking at the provincial or the federal level.

We agree with the principle that once a member of Parliament is elected, the member of Parliament has the responsibility to abide by the law of the land. Because of that, we say that this kind of legislation is welcome.

However, as the member has already indicated, we would be looking and seeking amendments to change it to five years for a criminal offence and we have seen, I think, from the member, some willingness to compromise on that. That is welcome.

The other concern that we have raised, though, and it is not a little one, is that former spouses or dependents not be penalized by this.

In the case of the Nova Scotia law that the Nova Scotia NDP government put into place, it ensured that any entitlement a former spouse may have in court or a court-ordered restitution would be deducted from the MHA's pension. What that means, in the context of Bill C-518, is that it would assure that those expenses, in the case of a former spouse or a court-ordered restitution, would be taken away and sent to the spouse or to the victim who receives the court-ordered restitution. That is still an open question for Bill C-518.

Though we are in agreement in principle on second reading, we are certainly hoping at the committee stage that the flexibility that the member has shown with regard to the move from two years to five years would also be considered, in terms of former spouses or court-ordered restitutions.

We agree with the principle of the bill. We do believe some of the details need to be worked on. That is our role here in Parliament, in the House of Commons. NDP members work very diligently to correct, often, mistakes or weaknesses that happen in government bills. It is our pleasure to do it up until 2015 when, of course, we will producing the type of legislation that we are sure Conservatives will be supporting because we will actually do the work beforehand so that the problems are worked out prior to.

However, it does raise a question because here we have a bill from a Conservative member, which is a welcome bill, that says very clearly Canada's legislators should abide by the law of the land.

It just brings to mind the concerns that we have been raising in the House of Commons over a wide variety of offences that have taken place by Conservatives, and also Liberals, in the other place. We have seen this repeatedly. We have been raising these questions in the House of Commons, repeatedly, trying to get answers about the types of offences we are seeing.

To our mind, abiding by the law of the land has to start at the very top. It means answering clearly when questions are asked. In this House, we have been asking clear questions for a number of weeks and have been getting answers, but the answers, tragically, seem to change. Depending upon the day of the week or I guess whatever the Prime Minister had for breakfast, we are getting different answers back.

That is not the way Parliament should function.

We did, as members know, put out playing cards a month ago at the Conservative national convention, talking about some of the Conservative—

[Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the recognition. I thank the member for putting forward the bill, which the NDP members will be working to support at second reading.

The hon. member mentioned in his speech that he would be looking to change the convictions within Bill C-518 from two years to no less than five years, which is parallel to the Nova Scotia law that the NDP government put in place.

I certainly appreciate that the member brought forward that he will be bringing in those amendments, but the other concern that has been raised around the bill, and that is contained within the Nova Scotia NDP bill, allows for a former spouse having court-ordered restitution that can be deducted from the salary or pension of the member of the House of Assembly.

I would ask the hon. member if he is looking, as well, for those amendments, so that the spouses or ex-spouses of those MPs who are convicted would have access to that pension. That was the other concern that was brought forward in terms of his bill.

[Natural Resources, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is Conservatives have broken faith with first nations on education, and also in their failed approach to the northern gateway pipeline.

This project faces overwhelming opposition from first nations and local communities because people know it is not the right way forward for the economy or for the environment.

When the joint review panel delivers its verdict later this month, will the Conservative government respect local opposition to the project and will it finally start working to achieve co-operation rather than conflict with first nations in Canada?

[Employment Insurance, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of tourism went out of his way to call seasonal workers lazy and implied that they spend more time in the Caribbean than looking for work. How out of touch can he be with reality? It is his government that has pushed seasonal workers out of work, and it is its regressive cuts to employment insurance that have negatively impacted seasonal industries and have hurt so many Canadians. Seasonal workers are not on a beach somewhere. They are trying to put food on a table for their families. Will the minister stand up and apologize for these incredibly insulting comments?

[The Environment, December 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's tanker safety report identified major gaps in safety planning, leaving Canadians profoundly concerned.The panel found response time standards will not be enough to contain spills. Even in ideal conditions, at most, 15% of oil spilled into our water and along our coast can be recovered.

Yet Conservatives are ignoring the liabilities faced by taxpayers and stubbornly pushing for more tanker traffic, which increases the risk to our coastlines and to our communities.

Will the minister put aside the spin, start being responsible and at the very least enact these recommendations?

[Access to Information, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the Conservative caucus did not even bother. That is why we need uniform disclosure. That is what Canadians deserve.

Liberals and Conservatives refuse to let the Senate and House be subject to the Access to Information Act. That is shameful. The Auditor General has said there needs to be independent oversight of MPs' expenses and no more MP self-policing. The NDP agrees with the Auditor General.

Why are Conservatives and Liberals blocking the Auditor General's efforts for transparency around MPs' and senators' expenses? What are they trying to hide?

[Access to Information, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we do not have an answer.

Yesterday, the NDP proposed that the Board of Internal Economy be replaced with an independent monitoring system and that the Access to Information Act apply to the House of Commons and the Senate. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted against these attempts to improve transparency.

Can the Conservatives explain why they are refusing to allow the Access to Information Act to apply to their senators? What are they hiding from Canadian families?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I found the House leader's statements about the government's economic record a little funny. As we know, Canada has now fallen to 154th worldwide in terms of economic growth, so I do not think we can take any lessons from the Conservatives in that sense. They have dragged us down a number of spaces.

I want to ask who said this:

...the decision to invoke closure on the bill represented in some ways the death of the true meaning of parliament.... The federal...government has failed Canadians.

Who said that? It was Stockwell Day, the former leader of the Reform Alliance party, I think called C-R-A-P at one point. Absolutely, that was the Conservatives when they were in opposition.

Who said this?

When the bill was rammed through the House with closure, it really did not present a lot of opportunity for meaningful public debate....

The interests of all of Canadians must be served, not the interests of politicians, not partisan interests or political self-interest.

In referring to closure, who said that? It was the Prime Minister.

Finally, who said this?

...we have morphed into what we once mocked....

I no longer recognize...the party that I joined....

Why have the Conservatives become what they used to mock?