Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 6th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll get started. We simply have committee business today.

I see a couple of motions.

Mr. Lukiwski, I think yours is first today. We're going to start with you.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, before we get under way, is it the intent of the committee to just deal with the two motions today? Can we get a sense of what it is we would like to accomplish today? Are we looking at setting the agenda for the rest of the session, or are we just debating these two motions and then we'll call it quits after that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I was going to do a little bit of committee business afterwards and talk about a steering committee meeting for Thursday, so we could then look at.... We have a number of private members' bills that are in order to be discussed. We have the main estimates, and some other things.

It was my intent, Mr. Lamoureux, to get to that piece of committee business after this piece of committee business. It looks like we'll have a meeting with the steering committee on Thursday. The first hour of Thursday will be taken up by the group on private members' replenishment. Is that right? Then the steering committee would meet for an hour on Thursday.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Is there any benefit in our dealing with what we need to do as a committee prior to getting into the discussion on the motions? My concern is that we would get bogged down with the motions and we wouldn't finalize anything that's necessary. It's just a suggestion for what it's worth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have no real concern as to which order we do it in, but why don't we just try and deal with these and see where we are at that time.

Mr. Lukiwski, on your motion.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I want to make a few comments. Obviously, the NDP and the Liberals will also want to speak to the motions, so I'll try not to hoard my time.

Quite frankly, the purpose of this—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

When did you want me to raise my point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If you have a point of order, you can raise a point of order.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Should I do it now, before we begin discussion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I did want to raise a point of order and I asked for the opportunity, and you said to hold it off until the actual motion was here. It's here now, so I guess this would be the right time.

I'm just making the case that the motion is predicated on the fact that the government believes that the official opposition was doing something outside the rules. As I understand it, the BOIE had to change the rules to put what we were doing outside the framework of the rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Would you get to your point of order?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I appreciate the latitude. I'm about to move to the “therefore”.

Therefore, in my view and my submission to you, this is out of order because it's moot. The rules that the government is saying were broken couldn't have been broken since BOIE had to change the rules to make what was currently being done outside the rules.

Why would we hold a hearing about something that did not violate the rules, was not wrong, and immediately upon the rules being changed, we said that, of course, we would respect them and adopt that? Why are we even allowing this motion, given that there is no issue? There is no infraction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Christopherson is absolutely right about what the BOIE said on April 8, 2014, and the rule changes that came into force on April 14. No rules were broken. It's very clear that the BOIE changed its rules. This was announced on April 8 and came into force on April 14. I simply want to support what Mr. Christopherson said.

It's important to note that we're talking about new rules that were brought in, announced on April 8, and brought into force on April 14. Mr. Christopherson's point about the motion being moved is absolutely appropriate, in that we're talking about new rules that were being brought in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, the members are ultimately arguing that this motion is out of order.

I would suggest to you that we're having to deal with the motion because of an action that was taken from the House where we were actually requested to look into the matter at hand.

As such, the motion, what I understand from doing a quick read of it, deals with our having the supportive information, so that we're in a better position to ask questions at a future meeting. I would suggest to you that it is indeed in order. I do have a number of questions that I would like to ask the mover of the motion.

I would suggest that we rule it as being in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll get to that.

Mr. Lukiwski, on the point of order.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Chair, in my opening comments I was going to speak directly to what David had been arguing, but if you would like me to do it in response to his point of order, I certainly will, and that is simply this. Literally, I think it would be impossible for the Board of Internal Economy to try to anticipate what transgressions might occur and put in rules, procedures, and bylaws in advance of those. It just doesn't happen. Clearly the board felt that what the NDP had been doing was outside the norm, and therefore, to try to clarify that, enacted their new procedures.

I would point out that prior to that, even though Mr. Christopherson and Mr. Julian argued that it must have been okay because there wasn't a rule preventing them from doing it to begin with, which I think is a very specious argument.... I would point out the example of Mr. Duceppe, when he basically was doing the same type of thing. If you recall what Mr. Duceppe was doing, he had hired the executive director of the Bloc Québécois to be his chief of staff here in Ottawa and was paying him through parliamentary resources. Then, of course, he argued that he would have the chief-of-staff hat on when he was here in Ottawa, and then when he'd go back to Montreal, he'd put on his party hat, his executive-director-of-the-party hat, but he was still getting paid out of parliamentary resources

The Board of Internal Economy took a long look at that, felt that the actions of Mr. Duceppe were inappropriate, and issued a ruling. I want to quote the last—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I think that's beyond the point of order. I'll let you get back to the debate side of this.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Okay, if that's how you wish to do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Look, we have a reference from the House that gives us the direction to study this issue. We've already suggested that it's okay. This motion asks for the production of papers and sets the timeframe for when that will take place, so I certainly rule this in order.

Now to the debate; I have Mr. Lukiwski first on the debate.

We'll let you go on with debate.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Then I'll just continue with what I was saying on the point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I thought you might.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

In the ruling of November 27, 2012, the Board of Internal Economy issued a statement. They reviewed the entire Duceppe affair, which, as I said, has great commonality to what the NDP were doing. After they ruled that the actions of Mr. Duceppe were inappropriate, they said, “The Board is confident”—and they put some steps in place to make sure it didn't happen again—“that these additional steps will ensure full compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of the current rules.” That's the point I make, Mr. Chair: I believe everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. But for the NDP to suggest that while technically they might have been in order to do what they did, everyone knows that you can't use, and the spirit of the rules is that you certainly can't use, parliamentary resources for party activities.

Now, the NDP will argue, I'm sure, that even though these individuals were housed in satellite offices paid for by the party, they were not doing party work. I believe there will be evidence that we will be able to produce when Mr. Mulcair appears before this committee that basically contradicts their claims, but not wanting to spoil any surprises, we'll wait until Mr. Mulcair shows up to produce that evidence.

Suffice it to say I think everyone in Parliament recognizes the fact that it is inappropriate to use House of Commons resources, parliamentary resources, to do anything remotely resembling partisan work. To suggest that the individuals in question, even though they were housed within a party-paid-for satellite office, were not doing anything that could improve their political fortunes in those two centres, i.e. political work.... I think that to suggest otherwise is, frankly, being more than slightly disingenuous.

I would also point out, of course, that in Saskatchewan, where they had housed a satellite officer and set up a satellite office, they don't hold any current members of Parliament. There are no sitting members of Parliament there. Interestingly enough, but I think obviously, the reason they set up their office in Saskatoon.... Due to the boundary redistribution, the one seat that seems to be in question, which the NDP would appear to have a fairly good chance of being competitive in, at least, if not outright winning, is a new seat called Saskatoon West. That's why they were setting up a satellite office there, I contend, Mr. Chair, to be able to conduct partisan activities to try to enhance their chances electorally come the next election. Unfortunately, while they are fully able to do that, they cannot use House of Commons resources to do so.

Hence, that was the genesis of this motion. I think I'll refrain from making any more comments now, because I know that David probably, and maybe Peter, and certainly Kevin, would want to speak to this, but I think that when we have Mr. Mulcair appear before this committee on the 15th of May we will have a number of questions specific to the satellite offices, and I look forward to his comments.