Evidence of meeting #42 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
This is what we get when we talk across the table to each other, so let's just move on.
Mr. Christopherson, carry on.
2 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
He's right. I should have just said, “Be quiet.”
I was about to say to Mr. Lukiwski—I almost got diverted, but I shan't be—I know how this ends. One will recall that we're now past the appointed time and the government has made it very clear that they have no intention of adjourning this committee until the amendment is passed. At best we could delay for a period of time, but at the end of the day the vote will be the same and the government has a majority, as we well know, and they will win this vote like they win every vote.
I think I have pretty much said what I need to say, except at some point, Chair—and it's through the people who are here watching on behalf of Canadians—somebody needs to take a really good look at what is going on in this country in terms of the dictatorial powers and authoritative approach of the Prime Minister and this government, and this is just more evidence of that. This is unprecedented, this going after the leader of the official opposition in a way that is consistent with the way they went after the PBO, that's consistent with the way they went after the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. For goodness' sake, they went after the integrity of Madam Sheila Fraser, who has more integrity in her baby finger than the entire Conservative caucus combined. They went after her integrity.
There are no limits. They got less than 40% of the vote, and they're going to use 100% of the power available in this G-7 country to have their way no matter what it is or who it is.
I'm done. Thanks, Chair.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
June 3rd, 2014 / 2:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chairperson, I will start by giving indication, in response to Mr. Christopherson and a couple of his remarks, that it is important we recognize right up front that even Mr. Mulcair and the New Democrats are not above the rules. We all have to follow the rules. If in fact you're in violation of the rules—and as an opposition party we're trying to hold the official opposition and Mr. Mulcair accountable for alleged inappropriate usage of tax dollars—then this is the right thing to be doing.
We have had serious allegations dealing with the two-pronged—using Mr. Christopherson's words—approach in terms of the study that we have. One deals with the satellite office, where there is a series of allegations and concerns that have been raised, contradictions that have come out that need to be clarified, to the mass mailings that have also been highlighted.
I have had the opportunity over the last number of days to review a lot of the documents that were provided to all of the committee members. I want to emphasize, in particular to Mr. Christopherson, in that reading those materials, a good percentage of the factual information being provided comes from professional civil servants. You have to read the analysis that has been conducted on both of those issues. If you take the time to read what our professional civil service has come up with, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that there appears to be some inconsistencies with what we're hearing from Mr. Mulcair and the New Democratic Party and whether there has been an intent to break the rules that have been set out.
I have read the presentations. I took the opportunity the other day to ask a very straightforward question of Mr. Mulcair, and it was in dealing with the bulk mailings. Members will recall that when I attempted to try to get some information, there was a bit of frustration. I was hoping to get a bit more information, but there were limitations put on me because of the objections that were coming from the NDP.
I wanted to get a sense of who Mr. Mulcair and the New Democrats had actually met with from the Speaker's office prior to the bulk mailings, because Mr. Mulcair clearly indicated that he had that communication with the Speaker's office. I was quite surprised when the Speaker indicated that he had no meetings. Then in Mr. Christopherson's comments here this afternoon, he made reference that there was clarity provided, as if there were some sort of a victory that happened after the procedure and House affairs meeting the other day, where the Speaker provided a letter.
Mr. Chair, I have the letter. Let me read the very first sentence in that letter:
To avoid any confusion with regard to my answer to Mr. Lamoureux's first question, which related to my knowledge of a specific set of mailings, I wish to confirm that my answer to his question stands.
In my mind, that is crystal clear.
That was one of the questions I had posed related to the mailings. If you take what we've been presented and you read those documents that are kept in confidence at this point, on the surface there's reason to believe that there has been a serious attempt to mislead the public. That is the reason I think it's critically important that we get those professional civil servants to come before the committee.
I'm anxious to hear what Madam O'Brien has to say. What I don't understand is why the NDP would oppose, or appear to oppose, Madam O'Brien being able to come forward with other representatives from her staff to be able to shed some light on this very important issue.
The options are somewhat limited. Was the report that was provided to members of the Board of Internal Economy written poorly and incorrectly, or was there more misinformation that is being provided to Canadians in order to potentially prevent other things from taking place that might reflect negatively on the NDP?
2:10 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Chair, there comes a point at which, if the member continues to talk about deliberate attempts to mislead or provide misinformation, that crosses the line into abuse of the process of this committee. The Liberal Party is hiding the fact that they carpet-bombed my riding and Philip Toone's riding with the exact mailings they are now saying the NDP cannot do.
It is hypocrisy on the part of the member, who has himself risen to the level of misleading everybody watching this hearing.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Lamoureux.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chairperson, I'm going to bring my comments right down to.... I don't want to buy into the whole confusion of things by throwing a whole pile of other things into the matter. I think we have to keep it in its simplest form.
The other question I had posed was with regard to the satellite office. You recall that when I posed that particular question of the Speaker there was a response. What came out of that particular interaction was that the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party said that she had apparently misspoken in that CTV interview. I can appreciate that at least she has taken that approach in terms of saying that she should not have said what she said on CTV in regard to the satellite office.
Mr. Chairperson, the bottom line is I do believe, in looking at the motion, there is merit for the committee to continue to look into the matter and the request would seem to be reasonable.
I was a bit surprised when Mr. Opitz, in his motion, made reference to the lease. I do plan to pull the information that I was provided. I had thought that was the complete lease, so I'm a bit surprised that might not have been the case and I wonder why.
With those few remarks, Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to vote in favour of the motion.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I have no one else on my speakers list so I will call the vote on the amended motion.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
A recorded vote; okay, we can do that.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
The motion is in order and carries, so that means the committee now will continue with this study, so at our earliest opportunity we'll invite the witnesses who are mentioned in the motion.
2:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Before we adjourn, what are we doing at the next meeting?
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Just for David's thing, I don't know if I'm correct or not, but my understanding from media reports is that Madam O'Brien is not available. She is on medical leave. I think, from our standpoint at least, Madam O'Brien is the first witness we need to hear from, and if she's not available, I don't know whether we'd be comfortable in having anyone else. She is the head of House administration. She is the one who made the statement that House administration was not informed.
I wonder if we could get some clarification or some information back from the clerks as to her availability. We're saying at the earliest convenience. My understanding is that she may be off for a number of months.
2:15 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Yes, it may jive with what Tom has just said in terms of how we proceed.
I understood that Mr. Mayrand would be—
