Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 6th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, you mentioned that you were changing the date in this motion to the 15th.

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

I'm sorry, yes. I had asked David to do that when we discuss that, but the government is in full agreement to change it to the 15th.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

David—oh sorry—Mr. Christopherson, you're next.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. Let's stay with the friendly part of this for as long as we can because that's the part that feels real good.

We did have a discussion and I mentioned to Mr. Lukiwski that it's not unusual for committees to accommodate ministers given their busy schedules. I reflected the same thing about Mr. Mulcair and was able to show him copies of an event that's happening, an economics event where he's one of the scheduled speakers. I asked if the government would extend the same courtesy to move it from the 13th to the 15th. They agreed they would. So at this time, Chair, I'll move that.

I have nothing to say about that further, but I would appreciate a chance to speak to the amended motion, assuming this passes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That is an amendment. Are there any speakers to the amendment? The amendment is changing the date.

(Amendment agreed to)

We're on the amended motion.

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair, and so much for the nice-nice part.

Make no mistake: this is a political witch hunt. Mr. Lukiwski just talked about the Duceppe matter, but as I recall, Mr. Duceppe wasn't hauled in front of the committee. This is a government that has taken on virtually everybody and everything that they see as being in their way, the latest being the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They have methodically gone after every single bit of authority that is a legitimate check and balance on a democratically elected government in Canada. They have total disdain for those constitutional checks and balances to their authority. This is just one more example of that, one more manifestation of it.

A majority government is using a Board of Internal Economy matter as a pretext to bring in the leader of the official opposition and do everything they can to just play total partisan politics. We're running out of words to describe the actions of this government and their absolute disrespect for our democracy beyond the part where they get to form a government. After that, they have no interest in democracy, no interest in the Constitution, no interest in fairness, no interest in anything other than spending the next four years in the pursuit of repeating their capture of power. This is just one more example. It's not so much a precedent, but it's certainly a dangerous example to be put in motion, quite frankly, because it generated the motion that I brought. I have substantive parts to my motion, too, but—I make no bones about it—it was a political response to a political partisan move by the government. We're the official opposition. Do you think we're just going to sit back and let the government steamroll over us by using the tyranny of their majority to do whatever they want? That's not on.

The government is creating a climate in which this committee is turned into a kangaroo court, where the majority government wants to bring in the symbol of the legitimate opposition that exists in the House of Commons, and they want to go after that leader, regardless of whether it's my leader or not.... That's why it's so disappointing to see the Liberals in on this. I know they see an opportunity to draw some blood, but I have to tell you, what goes around comes around. The day it happens when it's their leader at the end, they're going to want to know where their friends are in their time of need.

But make no mistake—and I'll wrap up with this—this is silly-bugger politics. It takes what some would argue is the premier committee of the House of Commons—it's certainly the committee that deals with macro issues that affect the House, and it's seen as a very important committee—and here it is now being reduced to sleazy partisan politics, a witch hunt in a kangaroo court setting. This is just one more example of this government trampling over traditions that are respected in this place, and in particular, the respect that is owed the leader of the official opposition.

I mentioned the Prime Minister in here. At the end of the day, committees know that they don't bring in the Prime Minister. Quite frankly, it's not unusual but it's not regular for us to bring in ministers. Why? Because it immediately becomes partisan. Yet, here we are right now in the process of the government using their majority, the tyranny of the majority, to whipsaw the leader of the official opposition to come in here and face a grilling in a kangaroo court setting where the government controls everything that's done. I'm just putting the government on notice that my motion, although it has substance—and I make no bones about it—is a political response to a political attack. It's wrong, and we ought to get off this, because it's a downward-spiralling torrent that's just going to reduce this committee to nothing but partisan politics.

Our colleagues deserve more from this committee. The Canadian people expect more from this committee.

As long as the government continues to go down this road, I can guarantee one thing: every time they take an attack on us, they're going to be met with a mutual attack.

But at the end of the day, it's the public that loses. It's our democracy that loses. It's one more shameful chapter in a whole book of shame that this government has written for itself.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Julian next on the list.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's very clear that we are talking about a change to the rules. Mr. Lukiwski can try to change the process, but we know, since the BOIE told us, that a change was made to the rules. Anyone following this issue knows that no rules were broken. The BOIE issued new rules and we will abide by them, as we abided by the previous ones. There's no doubt about that.

However, the BOIE's change was very partisan. I also deplore the fact that the BOIE has become a partisan tool, just like the other institutions of government. It's not right for a majority government to use all of these institutions as it sees fit and to serve its own interests.

Mr. Chair, Tom Mulcair has been in front of parliamentary committees. He has no problem doing that and responding to the committee.

This government is using its majority to push pretty inappropriate ways of using the institutions to try to crush opposition. Mr. Mulcair, of course, joins what is really good company. We saw the government acting the same way with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, with the Chief Electoral Officer, and now we're seeing it with the Chief Justice, which is unprecedented. Even with Sheila Fraser, who is a personal hero, we have seen how the government treats her. So he's in good company.

The reality is that we're seeing the government using its majority on the BOIE, on the procedure and House affairs committee, in Parliament, to try in some way to push back on somebody like the leader of the official opposition, who has been an incredibly effective questioner in the House of Commons.

It's smoke and mirrors rather than dealing with real issues. If the procedure and House affairs committee were concerned about real issues, the motion that my colleague is bringing before us, which I think is a result of hundreds of pages of information that we've seen in newspapers across the country on the misuse of CIMS, that is something the procedure and House affairs committee could choose to tackle. But we're talking about a majority government using its will to try to deflect from its own shoddy actions.

It's no problem for the leader of the official opposition to come before committee. He's done it in the past. He's done it in a political environment in Quebec City, often with the PQ government using it in somewhat the way the Conservative government tries to use its majority here. That's not the problem. The problem is that the process is inappropriate, and even though answering questions is no problem for the leader of the opposition, I think this government should have thought twice before using all of the tools it has to try to crush opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I'll go to Mr. Richards next, and then Mr. Lamoureux.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Chair, I do have an amendment, but I'll make a few brief comments on the motion first.

I think it's one thing for a party to.... When we look at some of the things that the NDP proposes, their political philosophy certainly seems to be to just tax the pants off taxpayers, because they know better than Canadians how to spend their money for them. That's quite one thing. You know, it's certainly something I completely disagree with, and it's certainly something I hope taxpayers are never subjected to. But that's quite one thing.

It's quite another, on the other hand, to have such a disrespect for taxpayers' dollars. When we look at some of these things that are alleged here, it certainly seems to me there's a misuse of taxpayers' dollars. At the very least there's a great disrespect for taxpayers' dollars.

They can sit here today and try to claim that somehow they didn't realize they were breaking the rules or whatever argument they want to try to conjure up here. The bottom line is that everyone in this place understands that there is always to be a delineation between the activities that we undertake here as parliamentarians and the partisan activities that are paid for, of course, by political parties. The NDP clearly doesn't seem to understand this distinction or chose to ignore it. That's more likely the case. It's a huge concern. I think it's very important that their leader does come here to answer for those things.

Now, I'd like to get to the amendment that I'd like to make. Certainly what I would be doing is adding a part (e), after part (d), obviously. I'll read it slowly so that the interpreters have a chance to provide the translation for it. As I say, it's adding a part (e):

from the House of Commons Administration, any documents or materials (including but not limited to emails, briefing notes, meeting notes and reports, and memoranda) produced or obtained relating to the subject matter of satellite offices; and

Then it would continue into the final paragraph of the motion. I can provide a copy as well.

To speak to that very briefly, it certainly seems as though the NDP has been caught trying to pull one over on taxpayers, and it's important, in order to ensure that the committee has all the materials it needs prior to this meeting.... We want to ensure that every possible material that could provide information that the committee would find useful is available, and therefore the addition of this part (e) would be helpful in that regard, for the committee to be fully prepared for the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have an amendment and it appears okay with me.

We're now on the amendment. I have a speakers list for the main motion as amended. Did I see a hand?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I put mine up.

On the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On the amendment?

Mr. Lamoureux, do you want to speak to the amendment, or wait?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'll wait.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I think I saw Mr. Opitz also. Would you rather wait, or speak to the amendment?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'll wait.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You'll wait. Great, then we'll go to Mr. Christopherson, on the amendment.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My first thought on listening to the amendment on top of everything else the government's doing here was one of lamenting, wishing that the government would spend one one-hundredth as much attention investigating where the missing aboriginal women have gone in this country as they are in terms of a witch hunt on this issue. Make no mistake; that's what this is, it's a vicious witch hunt and everyone can see it and the government knows that's what they're doing, but we know they don't care about these things.

I want to underscore again to my colleagues, and I want to make sure I say it too, that Mr. Mulcair has no problems coming here and answering these questions. If the Board of Internal Economy had found any kind of wrongdoing, trust me, it would have been leaked out and it would have been in the headlines a long time ago. The government is just trying to change the political channel from all the negative press they've been getting around virtually everything they do, the obvious ones being the temporary foreign worker program, Bill C-23, and the attack on the Supreme Court. None of these things are doing them any good, so they try to create a diversion.

The media, of course, has to report what happens here. This is a man bites dog type story, so it gets lots of coverage. The government knows exactly what they're doing. However, the cat needs to be belled here.

Specifically to the amendment, it's just one more vicious piece of rooting around doing the best they can to cause as much damage as possible with no real intent to get to the bottom of anything, no intent other than changing the channel and trying to do everything they can to use their majority at this committee to put the leader of the official opposition under the gun. Demanding this kind of detail leaves no doubt to anyone paying attention exactly what the government is about here.

As I said, make no mistake; while they have a majority and they can use that majority, there will be responses when the government lowers themselves to turning this committee into a political attack dog for the Conservatives. That's what's happening and it's wrong.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Julian on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, it's just more piling on. We saw it with the attempts by the government over weeks and weeks to say, “There's something wrong. They're breaking the rules. They're breaking the rules.” Then they realized that, no, the NDP weren't breaking the rules in what they set up to reach out to people right across the country, ensuring that Canadians actually had access to contact with parliamentarians from the NDP. They weren't breaking any rules at all, which is why then we saw the government force its majority on the BOIE in secret backroom meetings. They changed—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have to correct you. I've served on the BOIE. There is no majority on that committee.

On the amendment, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I would profoundly disagree with you and what we're seeing now is the BOIE being used for partisan reasons.

What we're seeing is they changed the rules. We respect the new rules, but, Mr. Chair, what we're seeing is it's never enough for this government in its witch hunt. First they tried to say we weren't respecting the rules. Then they realized we were, so they changed the rules. We're respecting the new rules, so now they're doing a witch hunt, and the amendment that Mr. Richards is offering is in that same vein. It's let's just load up every document and material everywhere we can in the House of Commons. Let's shut down any other work that can actually help benefit Canadians and let's just turn things over to collecting tons and tons of boxes.

The reality is we respected the rules, as you know, Mr. Chair. BOIE knows we respected the rules. We're respecting the new rules. The rules were changed to try to monkey-wrench our outreach to Canadians and Canadians having access to parliamentarians, and it's completely inappropriate. It's a witch hunt, as Mr. Christopherson said. The whole government is focused like a laser on attacking any of its opponents, whether that's Sheila Fraser, or the Leader of the Opposition, or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and it's deplorable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lamoureux, did I see your hand on the amendment?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I'll speak briefly.

I listened to the amendment, and it seems to complement the main motion itself; therefore I will be voting in favour of the amendment.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I reserve my full comments until we get to the motion itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Opitz, we are on the amendment. Keep it to the amendment, please.