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?