Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 6th, 2014

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

This reminds me of something written in a play once, “thou dost protest too much”. Mr. Julian said a little while ago, “If our leader shows up, it's not a big deal.” Then what is the big deal? I hear all kinds of metaphors—dogs, people biting each other, belling cats—and see the waving of the hands and accusing the BOIE of unfairness.

Mr. Chair, they should approve this. To Mr. Julian's point that there's no particular issue, that his leader could sit here and clear it all up, I say, then fine; let's just get on with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, that's a great way to segue into this. I have no more speakers on the list on the amendment.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Could we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Certainly. I got used to that last week.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

On the motion as amended, I have speakers on the list still.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have a few thoughts that I'd like to share with the committee with regard to the process in itself.

Albeit that I have never sat on the Board of Internal Economy, in my former life as a member of the Manitoba legislature I had the good fortune to sit on and observe, in both an official and an unofficial capacity, what we called the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, which is the equivalent of the Board of Internal Economy. My understanding is that they operate in many ways in the same fashion.

Now, I've been informed, I've listened, I have picked up some from reading the news, some just from discussions that have taken place, and a good part just in reading the motion that has been presented. I understand that there were some fairly contentious issues being discussed in the Board of Internal Economy. I think a good number of Canadians would be aware that there is something there. We're not sure exactly what it is, but we recognize there is something there.

It wasn't that long ago that in this committee we were talking about the Board of Internal Economy and we were trying to come up with a way in which some of the discussions within the Board of Internal Economy would be not held in camera but in fact would have been open to the public.

This is the point at which I find this becomes interesting. If you look at what the Board of Internal Economy is, one of its primary responsibilities is for the way we spend tax dollars as independent members of Parliament and in leaders' offices and so forth. A big part of it is that we have parliamentary resources allocated to us as individual members of Parliament and as offices. We all have a responsibility to make sure to the very best of our ability that we are in compliance with the rules that are put in place by institutions such as the Board of Internal Economy. I trust that when there is a violation of those rules, that violation has been given attention.

I have sat, as I indicated earlier, in the same sort of committee when examples of questionable expenditures were brought up, and the issue was dealt with. It was pretty much straightforward: there was consensus among the different parties, and the issue in essence was resolved.

Not having sat on the Board of Internal Economy, I suspect that on occasion the board has had to deal with expenditures that members of Parliament in particular have made, and that a consensus evolves as to how such matters should ultimately be resolved. Quite frankly, I suspect there may even have been members of Parliament who have had to pay back claims, for example; or you might get a member of Parliament appealing a decision as to why they were not able to claim something.

But there are some rules that are very clear, one of them being about party activities and having individuals who are being paid through parliamentary resources have offices that are paid for by a political party.

I'm not 100% sure, I don't know whether it was I or someone from the office who made the inquiry, but shortly after being elected as a member of Parliament, I was looking into the possibility of using my own party office as a place where I could have one of my workers who would be paid with parliamentary resources. The response I received was that no, I wouldn't be able to do that. I was fine with that. The question was just left, and I continued. That was shortly after I was first elected.

Then, Mr. Chair, when I start to read some of the newspaper reports of these “satellite offices” out there, and that, in fact, there are parliamentary resources being used to staff these offices—and I made reference to this in a speech I gave in the House not that long ago—that, indeed, would be inappropriate. There were the two being cited, one of which is located in Montreal. I believe the other one, as you pointed out, Mr. Lukiwski, is in Saskatoon. All I know is it's definitely in Saskatchewan. I had even seen some sort of an NDP job search letter or qualifications which talked about what it is that person would be doing, and it sounded very political.

When finding out this, it raised a number of red flags that something could be wrong. Then, when I read the motion itself, it talks about mass mail-outs. Mailings have always been a keen interest of mine. The ability to communicate is of critical importance, not only for an individual member of Parliament, but also for critics, for portfolios, for leaders to communicate with people beyond their own boundaries. Mailings are very important, and I support the principle of critics and leaders being able to communicate with Canadians beyond their own constituency, but one would like to think it's done in a reasonable, non-abusive fashion.

When I saw those mass mail-outs being brought in, I was very curious in regard to what had taken place. I suspect one political party has probably spent more on direct mail in Winnipeg North than I have as the incumbent member of Parliament for Winnipeg North. I don't know for sure, but I do know there was a mass mailing into my area, and three or four envelopes went to one house. I do know it takes place, but I don't know to what degree.

It seems to me that something, again, has taken place in the Board of Internal Economy. The problem, as I've pointed out in the past...and the NDP used to believe this. They had an issue with in camera meetings of the Board of Internal Economy because they believed that the public should be entitled to know what was taking place in the Board of Internal Economy.

I don't want to claim to know. I wasn't at the meeting. I don't know why there hasn't been more transparency with the public on this particular issue, Mr. Chair. I think that would have gone a long way in possibly resolving the situation itself, just being more honest and transparent about what has taken place. Right now we really don't know, and the reason we don't know is that the Board of Internal Economy has been very tight-lipped on the issue.

I suspect at the very least there is credibility to the argument that there may have been some serious abuse of tax dollars. One of the ways we can do what the NDP used to advocate for, and that's an open process in terms of the Board of Internal Economy...this could be a very good case in point in terms of saying that here's an issue that went to the Board of Internal Economy....

In certain ways, I hope the New Democrat representatives are correct in that there was no taxpayer abuse here. I hope they are correct on it. Then they will be able to level that at the government, and so forth. Suffice it to say that in order for us as a committee to be able to deal with the issue, we do need to get information.

This issue was first raised publicly when the government moved a motion in the House and it ultimately passed. Now as a committee we are obligated to review the issue at hand.

When I look at the motion, my understanding is that what has been requested here would be made available to us as committee members no later than May 9. I'm going to assume that, and at the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Chair, could you give an indication as to whether or not it's reasonable for us to expect we'll be able to get that information? I think that's really important. If we have it today, I would be interested in receiving it today. I don't think we have to wait to receive it if it's already prepared.

I have a number of questions. For example, the lease in Montreal. In this amendment it's saying a lease agreement from the official opposition or the New Democratic Party, as the case may be. If there is no lease with the parliamentary office and the lease is with the New Democratic Party, how do we go about getting a copy of that lease? Has a letter been written? What sort of information that's within the motion would we be requesting the New Democratic Party to provide us as a committee? Has that been done? Can we anticipate that some direction to be able to deal with it will be coming from you as the chair of the committee?

In short, Mr. Chair, we support the motion because we believe there may have been a serious violation, using parliamentary resources for party activities. There seems to be a significant indication that may have been the case. The NDP as the official opposition has made it very clear that they would like their leader to come before the procedure and House affairs committee. I applaud them. I think before the leader gets here, it's only fair to members of the committee that we be provided the supporting documents to ask the type of questions we would like to be able to ask to get to the truth.

From the outside looking in, because I don't know per se what took place in the Board of Internal Economy, it looks as if something went wrong. I'm very interested in knowing if the New Democrats or the government are slightly exaggerating. I think Canadians deserve to know the truth because we're not talking about a few thousand dollars, but from what I heard, the potential that hundreds of thousands of tax dollars are being used inappropriately as parliamentary resources.

I would think that much like the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party would ultimately want to get the truth on the table.

I will conclude, Mr. Chair, because we have another motion following this motion. I was a bit concerned when Mr. Christopherson said that the only reason he's bringing this motion is the motion for Mr. Mulcair. It seems to me that Mr. Mulcair wants to come before the PROC committee, that the NDP have a vested interest in trying to expedite the process.

I'm not too sure if we should even be dealing with the second motion today. It's an issue I have a great deal of interest in. We spent a lot of time talking about it. I'm sure if we get on to it today, as I'm anticipating, I'll have a lot to say about that motion too.

I don't think it should take away from what it is the House itself has asked us to do. I do believe that is of a higher priority in the sense that it's a direction that's been issued from the House, and Mr. Mulcair himself has indicated that he would like to come before the committee.

In fairness to the leader of the New Democratic Party and to committee members, as a general rule, if we do have information that can be given to us even before May 9, I'm game, especially if there are areas dealing with the mass mail-outs that have been referenced here.

I don't really know very much at all in regard to that. I would welcome any additional information on that because I would like to be prepared for when the committee meets next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

To answer your questions on that, Mr. Lamoureux, before we go to finishing the speakers list, this motion has to pass for this information to be generated. My understanding is that the resource people would put it together, aware of the motion, and are already planning what they will do on the May 9 date here and then have it back in our hands for the committee to prepare for the 15th. That is well within the scope of reality. But until this motion passes, we are not promising you anything.

Next is Mr. Opitz, on the motion.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'm done, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, on the motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, just my last thoughts because I think we're coming to a conclusion on this. I find it incredibly—I don't know if you'll allow this word—hypocritical to make the argument about wasting taxpayers' money when we take a look at a process that is a witch hunt and it's going to cost money.

Just calling these committees together costs considerable money. Not only that but it's pretty rich coming from a government that has a track record of fake lakes, gazebos, not to mention the amount of money they are spending on their economic action plan. You wonder if they are going to spend money on ads on this to advertise the witch hunt here.

In response to Mr. Lamoureux, the only thing that's worth commenting on is the fact that I am equating my motion with Mr. Lukiwski's motion to the extent that you can stand it alone and say there are substantive parts to it and therefore it's a credible motion that way.

But make no mistake. It's politically motivated. This motion is politically motivated and it has to be responded to. We're not just going to lie back and let the government use their majority to run roughshod over the opposition the way they run roughshod over virtually everybody else, especially those that are powerless to respond to them.

We may not have the ultimate power as the official opposition, but we are not powerless. Therefore, when these kinds of cheap attacks are taken, especially against our leader.... Just to make it clear, our leader said he was quite willing to come because the motion was there and it wasn't that the committee was doing him some favour by acquiescing to his request to come here. So this Liberal thing again of trying to find the little sweet spot, make no mistake: they are part of the gang up and their day will come too. Mark my words.

I've said what I needed to say. This is a farce. Everybody knows it. We'll go through it and it will be behind us, but what a waste. What a clear indication that the government has every intention of continuing their modus operandi, which is, “You're in my way. I'm moving you.” No matter who it is, what it is, and how legitimate it is, if it stands in the way of where they want to go, it gets removed. That seems to include even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada for God's sake.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Julian, on the motion.

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

Mr. Chair, the first thing I want to mention here is what we're talking about. I mean, it's just amazing to see the Conservatives try to throw out all kinds of mud. The reality is that what the Conservatives didn't like was that party resources were being used to support parliamentary work, because it's smart when party resources, instead of taxpayers' resources, pay for the offices and the workers inside. After all of those investigations, after the witch-hunt investigations that were launched, there was nothing; there was nothing, no indication at all that the resources were being used for anything other than parliamentary work.

We're not talking about parliamentary resources being used for the party; it's actually the exact opposite and it saved taxpayers a pretty penny. The BOIE in saying that they can no longer work in offices paid for by a political party, it means that now the taxpayers would pick that up.

Now, nothing in the BOIE motion that was adopted, in a very partisan way...and I know, Mr. Chair, you expressed your opinion. I can tell you that having had the interviews with the Clerk around the issue of the BOIE...which we believe should be abolished, because it's secretive and now partisan. We'd already seen indications that the government was moving towards a BOIE that was partisan. That has not been the practice in Parliament. It is the practice under this government, in the same way that there's the new practice of attacking the Chief Justice, of attacking the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of attacking the Chief Electoral Officer, of even attacking Sheila Fraser.

That's part of how this government deals with what they consider to be dissent from the Conservative line. That's why this government will be thrown out in 2015. I can tell you that the Conservatives in my riding aren't going to be voting for Conservatives, because they're upset about all of the repeated breaking of promises and the scandals.

But the real kicker here, Mr. Chair, is that in this amendment, this big decision brought out by the partisan Board of Internal Economy—secretive, behind closed doors—they said we'd change rules as of April 14, 2014. They changed the rules because they realized that the NDP wasn't breaking any rules. Here's the kicker. I'll read it out to you, because it's interesting reading for those who actually follow this thing: “This section”—in other words, this new provisional amendment—“is repealed effective on the dissolution of the 41st Parliament.”

In other words, it's a temporary rule. They changed the rule, and they changed it temporarily.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Lamoureux, on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Chair, on a point of order, Mr. Julian is actually quoting a specific letter. I'd love to have a copy of that, because no doubt it's something that's pertinent to the debate at hand.

If that would be possible, I'd really appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I know that Mr. Julian, being the generous person he is, would be happy to share it with you.

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

To my understanding, Mr. Chair, it was already sent to all MPs. This came from the Speaker's office, and it was already sent to Mr. Lamoureux's office. So he has it; he just has to go through his incoming mail. It was sent out on April 8.

It's a temporary rule that automatically is dissolved the moment the writ is dropped in the next election. Now, this can't add more cynicism to the whole issue: we didn't break any rules, so they brought in new rules. But then they said, “Well, we'll bring in these new rules, but they'll be temporary rules, just for 16 months, or 12 months; after that we'll go back to the old rules that allow for what we did.”

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What a farce.

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

What a farce. What a joke. Temporary rules; provisional amendments that are no longer....

We're not talking about suspended: repealed. They no longer exist as of the dissolution of the 41st Parliament.

Now, if that is not the height of cynicism, Mr. Chair, I don't know what is: “We'll bring in a new rule, but then we'll just repeal it once Parliament is over.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Bring it to the motion, please.

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

That's very much to the motion, Mr. Chair, because the reality is that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, I'll make the ruling on that. I think you strayed from the motion, so let's get back to that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Getting back to the motion, then—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

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

—the witch hunt I think is reaching levels that we never expected the Conservatives were capable of. That's why they keep falling in the polls, and that's why they'll be replaced next year. Canadians who are fair-minded see a witch hunt for what it is. It's when you go to the House of Commons administration and they say, “Oh yes, the NDP followed the rules”; when you go to Elections Canada and they say, “Oh yes, the NDP of course followed the rules”; and then, when you go to the BOIE and the BOIE realizes, oh gosh, yes, the NDP followed the rules, they say “Let's invent new ones and let's make them provisional.” Taking it to PROC is just a witch hunt at another level.

But it's undermining their own government. The more that people see Conservatives engaged in witch hunts rather than doing the job they were supposed to be elected to do, I think the less that Canadians will see Conservatives as a viable alternative in the next election.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, in an attempt to extract at least a small shred of civility and fairness, I'm assuming—and I would seek clarification—that Mr. Mulcair would be treated the same as ministers who are asked to come in, and that it would be for one hour. I'm assuming that at least that element of fairness will be applied to Mr. Mulcair, so I seek clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's up to the committee. Our meeting for that day would be two hours, and the motion from the House simply says that we will have him at one of our meetings. I look for direction.

Mr. Lamoureux.