Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2014

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

Thank you very much. I'm glad to be here.

The one thing that is clearly apparent in all of this testimony that we've heard this morning—and some may argue that there is just a difference of opinion or a difference of interpretation. But there's one thing that is crystal clear, that there is a huge contradiction in the testimony provided by Mr. Mulcair and documents provided by the House administration in one key point.

Mr. Mulcair has stated, as have his colleagues on many occasions, that he was excruciatingly clear with the House administration that the employees under question were located in Montreal. He has said every step of the way they let the House administration know that those employees were to be housed and located in Montreal.

The problem with that, and where the contradiction lies, is in a document of May 9, a memo. I believe it was to Mr. Preston from the Clerk of the House of Commons, Audrey O'Brien, who, as characterized by Mr. Mulcair, is above reproach. Her integrity is never questioned, nor should it be. I agree with that totally.

However, in that memorandum of May 9, on page 8, Mr. Mulcair, if you want to reference it, point 21, it says:

At no point was the House Administration informed that the employees would be located in Montreal or that their work would be carried out in co-location with a political party's offices.

There is a huge contradiction, and because of that, Mr.Chair, I want to give notice to the committee, and particularly for the benefit of Mr. Mulcair:

That, in light of the discrepancies between the evidence of the Leader of the Official Opposition and the documents produced in response to the Committee’s order of Tuesday, May 6, 2014, the Committee continue its study, pursuant to its Order of Reference of Thursday, March 27, 2014, on the matter of accusations of the Official Opposition’s improper use of House of Commons resources for partisan purposes;

That, in view of the evidence adduced to date, the Committee expand its study, if further evidence warrants, to topics incidental to matters relating to the election of Members to the House of Commons, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi);

That the Committee accept the request of the Board of Internal Economy of Wednesday, May 14, 2014, to provide it and the Speaker with a report, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(i), in addition to any report the Committee may provide to the House in relation to this study;

That the Committee invite additional witnesses, including, but not limited to, the Member for Saint Maurice-Champlain and the Clerk of the House of Commons, to appear in relation to this study; and

That the Clerk of the Committee advise the Leader of the Official Opposition that the Committee is prepared to recall him to appear as a witness, if necessary, following further evidence adduced during this study, provided that it shall be deemed to be a continuation of his appearance on Thursday, May 15, 2014.

I will be moving this motion for approval at our next meeting of Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have two and a half minutes.

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

I will cede my time to my colleague, Mr. Casey.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Casey, you have two and a half minutes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mulcair, on April 9, your deputy leader Megan Leslie said, “Well, we actually checked this out before we did it. We got approval from the Speaker.”

Can you point us to the documentation or tell us of the conversation with the Speaker to approve this?

[Thomas Mulcair]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll try to kill two birds with one stone, because of course it wouldn't be very fair to us not to let us answer Mr. Lukiwski.

With regard to the government continuing to use its majority, that's all this is about. The government used its majority at the Board of Internal Economy to change a rule. We respected the rule before. We respect it now. The government is going to use its majority.

Look, normally these committees are used to hold the government to account. We're absolutely transparent. We have literally dozens of documents that show that the administration was aware that these people were working in Montreal, but that's never even been the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The motion from Mr. Lukiwski will be debated at this committee next. We're not debating it now.

[Thomas Mulcair]

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, but given the stunt that you've just allowed from that side, I should at least be given a chance to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If indeed pulling a stunt is moving a motion at committee, I have allowed it.

But when a motion is tabled at this committee, it's a notice of the motion and we will not discuss the motion until the next meeting.

[Thomas Mulcair]

Right, but we're here together today—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes. Right, but that's what I just ruled on.

[Thomas Mulcair]

—on a specific subject.

Pardon me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's what I just ruled. We're not going to discuss that motion right now, as our committee would normally not.

[Thomas Mulcair]

Right, so you let him come in and make that statement but you won't even give us equal time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm suggesting that the rules of the committee are, you can table a motion....

[An hon. member]

A point of order....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

While I was talking...great.

We have the ability to table a motion. We give 48-hours' notice to the committee, and it will be discussed the next time.

Sorry, but our friends at the committee know how we work.

[Thomas Mulcair]

Everybody watching now has all the information that they need, Mr. Chairman.

They understand that the government is using its majority, with their Liberal henchmen, to try to call the official opposition to account. It's unprecedented. But do you know what? Since we've shown you every step of the way that we respected all the rules today, we're just going to continue to do that, to show you that, every step of the way, we've respected all the rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Then the rules that I'll follow are that Mr. Casey still has about a minute and a half left before we finish our meeting.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

My question, Mr. Mulcair, is this. On April 9, your deputy leader claimed that all of this was checked out and approved by the Speaker. That's not true, is it?

[Thomas Mulcair]

What we're both referring to are the dozens of documents that refer to the fact that people were being hired in the Montreal office.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

No, we're referring to communications with the Speaker.

[Thomas Mulcair]

They're from 2011. They're from 2012. They're from 2014. They always mention the Montreal office. When the rule was changed on April 8, 2014, we respected the new rule, the same way we respected the existing rules prior to that date, Mr. Casey. There's never been a problem. Their port d'attache was Ottawa. That was clear as well. These documents go back to the past three years.

There's a great letter from Joe Comartin, and I invite you to take cognizance of it. That letter from Mr. Comartin remained unanswered.

Silence is consent.

He set out the whole case in that letter, and we have all of these documents that refer specifically to Montreal. He asked a series of questions, because the whole thing had been the object of a serious analysis here in the House. I have far more respect for the officers in this House who were providing BlackBerrys to 514, receiving documents written in Montreal, and sending documents themselves that mentioned the Montreal office, than you appear to.

I know that they knew what they were doing, and we have respected the rules every step of the way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We have come to the end of our meeting today.

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

I have a point of order.

Madam Boivin does have two minutes, as you know.