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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's outside the scope of the motion that we're currently dealing with. You could move it as a motion of your own and table notice of such. It changes the motion that is before us in too great a manner.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You're not allowing the amendment? Is that what you're saying?
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
There is.
It didn't cross my mind that you would rule it out of order. It picks up on exactly what's mentioned in the motion and is not unlike the other amendment in terms of replacing words. It deals with the detail of the motion, and that's what amendments are.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'll suggest to you that you have the same opportunity to disagree with me as I gave Mr. Scott earlier. I can give you a ruling and at that point you can do one of two things. You can say, “Thank you very much, Chair”, or, “I challenge the chair”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You challenge the chair on the ruling on the amendment to Mr. Lukiwski's motion.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
You'd like a recorded vote, okay.
It will be on sustaining the chair's ruling.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 3)
I'd say the chair was sustained and feels very loved.
Mr. Christopherson, you're still on the speakers list on the motion as amended.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Very good. Thank you.
I want to say that the real issue here is not all the wonderful words that Mr. Lukiwski went on and on about, which really was just a bit of a Coles Notes version of the meeting we already had. Every one of those issues the member raised, with the exception of one, and I'll deal with that separately, was dealt with when Mr. Mulcair was here. Every one of those allegations, every one of those scenarios the member painted were posed to Mr. Mulcair, who gave an answer.
The government and their handmaidens, the Liberals, are just heartbroken that after two hours they couldn't find anything in the evidence of Mr. Mulcair contradictory to the statements we had been putting out from moment one, with the exception of the two-letter answer from the Speaker on a question at our previous meeting.
What happened was this. A question was placed. There was a two-letter answer, “no”, from the Speaker. Immediately we brought out information to suggest that maybe wasn't the fullest answer that could have been given, shall we say. The Speaker then put out a clarification. I hope I'm not using an inappropriate term. I don't mean to cast anything other than to describe it as a response, a clarification from the Speaker.
That's the only thing new. Other than that, everything that's been talked about.... We've been round and round the mulberry bush on this stuff. The government, having the majority, has the ability, along with their friends in the Liberal Party, to keep this going, because it generates great headlines. It's wonderful for the Conservatives. I don't know when the Liberals are going to wake up and realize they're doing the dirty work of the government, but that's up to them to figure out.
The fact of the matter is that the only thing new that would give argument to this motion is that one answer I just described, and immediately we had information provided that caused the Speaker to issue a clarification. A clarification—I'm not trying to say it's more or less than that, but he was clarifying his response in the context of the information we provided our staff after the meeting. That's the only thing new.
It's interesting that Mr. Lukiwski—and of course we all try to be wordsmiths—just kind of runs over the word. “Well, there was a memorandum that BOIE did. Mr. Mulcair's justification for all of this...it was merely a memorandum, and if we had known everything that was going on, it never would have been allowed from the get-go.”
The problem with that is it's not accurate. What came out of BOIE was an amendment. We all know that we've had a little study of the word “amendment”. We've had our own version of Clinton's what the meaning of the word “is” is. We did that on the word “amendment”, and it's generally agreed that amendment means change.
If it was only a clarification or a memorandum, I have no doubt that all those brilliant wordsmiths sitting in the Conservative and Liberal chairs around that table, sitting in those chairs around that table, would have said, “Wait a minute. This is just a clarification. No, this is not a change. Let's be clear what this is.” No, they didn't do that.
So the word became “amend”. When it says “amend”, it means change. The reason they had to change the rules was because we didn't break the rules as they existed. No matter how hard the government tried when Mr. Mulcair was here, they could not establish in any way that there were rules broken and that there just needed to be an amplification or a clarification of those rules. I believe at one time they were using a stop-order suggestion, that it's what this was. No, this was a change. What the party did, the NDP in this case, was not against the rules.
Clearly the government didn't like it. That's obvious. Whether they didn't like it because they're upset with themselves for not having thought of it....
To put this in context, Mr. Chair, over almost a year ago our whip sent to the Speaker as the chair of BOIE a series of issues, questions, and matters that we wanted clarified around mailings and around approvals. Remember this is a two-pronged story. On the one hand it's the satellites, and then it's the mailings. On the satellites we've answered every single question. On the mailings, however, we have a different story.
At BOIE the rule they changed did directly speak to the idea of where people will work. I'm not going to rehash the whole meeting as Mr. Lukiwski would like to do, but I ask everybody again to review the Hansard and try to find anywhere in there where the government had their “gotcha” moment.
Remember, Mr. Mulcair did not have to come. There was a procedure where the House ultimately could have forced him, but initially he did not have to, and we get ministers all the time who say they won't come to committee. We know that the leader of the official opposition, although not a minister, like the Speaker is paid the same as a cabinet minister and holds an important position in our Parliament. Do you think the government would let our leader be treated the same way that we treated their own minister on something as big as Bill C-23? The minister agreed to come in for an hour, and we virtually guaranteed for our part that it would be a non-disruptive kind of meeting and that we would do the business, but it was one hour.
When we asked for that same respect and courtesy to be shown to Mr. Mulcair, it was denied. Does that sound like fair treatment? Does that sound like people who are really trying to be fair-minded, or does it sound like people who have got the whip hand, and they've got the votes, and the tyranny of the majority will prevail?
They got him in here for two hours. He came in on his own, twice the time of their minister defending the bill that changed our election laws, twice the time that minister came in, Mr. Mulcair sat there, and make no mistake, he was grilled. He was grilled for two hours, and there was not a “gotcha” moment. There was not a “gotcha” moment. Every question was answered. I think the government realized that they'd lost that round, but they're still getting the headlines, so why not continue? Why not continue? When they may be a little bit worried that it's kind of a little obvious that they're beating up on us, the good old Liberals step in and they provide some cover because they love all this too. It's good for their partisanship.
Does anybody really think this is not about partisanship, aside from the Liberals who drank the super Kool-Aid? The fact remains that it's a kangaroo court. We've got procedures happening. Half of them are happening behind closed doors at BOIE. At the secret BOIE meetings is where half of this stuff is coming from, and then the other half of it is happening here in this public arena. That's why my amendment was there. We'll get that tabled because, if this is the way we're going to go, then the meeting is going to have lots of headlines coming because, if you want to go down this road, there's an awful lot of surprises waiting for certain parties as we open up those doors.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I was just wondering if Mr. Christopherson is characterizing Madam O'Brien as a partisan and why he's afraid to allow her to give her side of the testimony.
Conservative
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I'd like to take this opportunity now just to serve a notice of motion, which reads as follows: That, in conjunction with the order of reference from the House of Commons of Thursday March 27th, 2014, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs also conduct a study into the policies by which the Board of Internal Economy allocate payment of any legal fees for members of Parliament, including those who are alleged to have committed offences in their role as candidates, for example, before becoming members of Parliament, and that the committee invite the Speaker, the government leader in the House of Commons, the chief government whip, the member for Yellowhead and the member for Beauséjour to appear as witnesses for this study.
To the best of my knowledge, it has been circulated in both official languages, and I serve notice that, at the appropriate time, I'd like to debate that motion.
By the way, just the little snippet that Mr. Lukiwski did get out there.... My words, if they weren't accurately reflecting, should have, that my partisanship comments are about process, and that doesn't involve anybody's testimony. I'm talking about the process, and the process is clearly the tyranny of the majority. The process here is not unlike what we've seen from this government. This is not new. This is what the government did with Bill C-23. This is the way they went after the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This is the way they've gone after the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Going after the leader of the official opposition is entirely consistent with the disregard and disrespect for the institutions of our democracy and the people who staff them. This is just a continuation of that. At some point, and maybe it will take until the election, but at some point there have to be more and more Canadians saying, “Wait a minute. At what point does less than 40% of the vote stop giving you supreme power to rein over us at will?” That is what's going on.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
It was 37 in Ontario with Bob Rae's minority. What are you talking about?
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I'm quite prepared to let Mr. Butt speak until he's finished, but I would like him to finish.
Conservative
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You'd think he'd be the one guy who'd shut up for a number of months, given what he's been through recently in terms of integrity.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
On a point of order, on a point of personal grievance—
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Christopherson is entitled to his personal opinion about me, but I do not appreciate being told to shut up. I think that's unparliamentary, Mr. Christopherson, beneath even you.