Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 3rd, 2014

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

All I'm saying is that this is a legitimate separate point of order about a part that could well be at least amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

When the Chair has already ruled that the motion is in order, picking another part of it and saying, “Yes, but think it over again Chair”, is just going to keep us here most of the day. I'd like to carry on.

Mr. Lukiwski, on the motion.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

It is apparent, obviously, from various points of order and other dilatory actions taken by the members of the NDP that they do not want this study to continue, and for one very good reason, because, I believe, Chair, there is no argument that can be made that any reasonable person could possibly agree to. We have heard absolutely conflicting testimony from Mr. Mulcair and Madam O'Brien, who, in the words of Mr. Mulcair, is above reproach. I think every parliamentarian would agree that in terms of honesty, integrity, and competency, Madam O'Brien's bona fides are off the charts.

Let's recap for a moment. What Mr. Mulcair stated in testimony is that the House administration was well aware of the NDP's plan and subsequent actions to house staff, paid for by parliamentary resources, in Montreal in a location that was cohabitated by political staff. He stated that the House was well aware of that and that at every step of the way the NDP ensured that the House was aware of their actions.

According to Madam O'Brien, nothing could be further from the truth. In a memorandum, Chair, addressed to you, of May 9 of this year, Madam O'Brien states:

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.

That is a direct contradiction to what Mr. Mulcair stated in his testimony before this committee.

I would also point out, Mr. Chair, that in that same memorandum from Madam O'Brien, she recalls the genesis of this action, and she states in her memorandum:

In a meeting on October 13, 2011 with Ms. Jess Turk-Browne, then Deputy Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Opposition, two officials (from Finance Services and Human Resources Services) specifically asked where the employees were working since the Employment Forms indicated Ottawa and yet the residences of the employees were in the Montreal area. Ms. Turk-Browne confirmed the employees would be working in Ottawa.

Mr. Chair, that not only is untrue, but it could be determined that it was a deliberate attempt by the NDP to mislead House administration officials. It is a declarative statement. When asked directly by House administration officials where would these employees be working, the NDP deputy chief of staff said they would be working in Ottawa, and we all know now they have never worked in Ottawa while doing what they consider to be their outreach jobs. They are located in Montreal, which is a direct contravention of the rules.

Mr. Chair, that and that alone should compel this committee to expand its study to try to get to the bottom of this issue, to try to find out the truth, because both the statements from Mr. Mulcair and Madam O'Brien cannot both be true. They are absolutely in contravention of one another.

Mr. Chair, I don't intend to take too much time making this argument, because it is so self-apparent that someone here has not been telling the truth that we, as a committee, need to further our examination and find out what is happening. At stake, Mr. Chair, is literally millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, of House of Commons resources, millions of dollars that may have been misused by the NDP, and according to Madam O'Brien, in my estimation, it certainly appears that it has been a deliberate attempt by the NDP to mislead House administration officers.

I would also point out, Chair, something which I think buttresses my argument, and that is the argument Mr. Mulcair tried to advance in committee, when he said, “Look, everything was going well; NDP workers were working since 2011, and it wasn't until April of this year that the House and the Board of Internal Economy said, ‘You can't do this any longer’”. So Mr. Mulcair said, “Clearly, if they put out a memorandum in April of this year saying, ‘Thou shall not be allowed to continue this practice’, it means that what we had been doing for the last three years was allowed”. No, it wasn't, Mr. Chair.

What it means is that the House administration officers were not informed in 2011 where these employees would be located. Had they been informed, had Mr. Mulcair or anyone from the NDP gone to the Board of Internal Economy and said, “Look, we're planning an outreach program and we're going to pay these people out of House funds, and we're going to locate them in a political party office in Montreal. Can we do this?” chances are they probably would have received an answer saying, “No, you cannot”. Once the Board of Internal Economy found out where these employees were actually located, they came out with a memorandum saying that you cannot do that.

What I suspect happened, Mr. Chair, is that after that meeting between Ms. Jess Turk-Browne and financial services and human resources officials from the House administration, after Ms. Turk-Browne stated, “Here's our plan, and by the way, these employees are going to be located in Ottawa”, based on that information, got approval to go ahead with this outreach program, the NDP then said, “Well, listen. Let's not tell anybody, but actually we're going to put these people in Montreal, but just don't tell anybody. Let's send a memorandum to a finance official, to a payroll clerk, telling them where to send the cheques.” I believe that's what happened.

Now, a mid-level or low-level finance official, a payroll clerk, if you will, would have no reason to question a memorandum, particularly if their House administration officials had said, “Yes, we’ve discussed this and based on the information, the program is a go.” There's only one little thing: those payroll people were first informed it was a go based on incorrect information that House administration officials received from the NDP. You see, the NDP said all of these employees would be located in Ottawa. Then a subsequent memorandum from the NDP says, “Oh, by the way, here's where you send the cheques”, wouldn't be questioned. Mainly, payroll clerks don't question anything. They just do their job and they follow instructions. Their instructions were to send the cheques to the employees in Montreal.

House administration was not aware that these employees were going to be located in Montreal. House administration officials, according to Madam O'Brien, were not aware that these employees of the NDP were going to be located in a party office. Both Madam O'Brien and Speaker Scheer have said they were unaware of this, yet Mr. Mulcair at this committee testified, over two hours, that House administration was aware of the location of these employees.

Where's the truth? If Mr. Mulcair was deliberately misleading this committee, that's serious business. That is very, very serious. We don't know the answers. I'm not accusing Mr. Mulcair of deliberately misleading this committee, but I am suggesting that we need to know the truth. We need to know the complete truth to a very, very serious issue. We're talking about potentially millions of dollars of taxpayers' money being illegally paid to operatives working in Montreal.

Now, Mr. Chair, the NDP may say this is nothing but a political witch hunt. I can guarantee that if the shoe were on the other foot, we would hear nothing but screams and protestations from members opposite.

We have two conflicting statements, one from the Clerk of the House and one from the leader of the official opposition. As I keep saying of those statements, both cannot be true. One of them is; one of them isn't.

Maybe there's an easy explanation. Maybe Mr. Mulcair or the NDP has an explanation for the fact that Madam O'Brien said at no point were they ever informed of the plans of the NDP to house these employees in Montreal. Let's hear the explanation, but we cannot hear it by shutting down this examination. as the NDP would like us to do. We simply have to hear Madam O'Brien and her version of events.

If it is found there is a trail of correspondence that supports Mr. Mulcair, I would simply ask Madam O'Brien to confirm that. Then all is well. However, if Madam O'Brien can support her statement that at no point was the House administration made aware of the NDP's plans, we need to hear that as well, and then question someone from the NDP as to why Madam O'Brien was not made aware, why the Speaker was not made aware, of the plans of the NDP.

For the NDP to suggest this is not a serious issue, that this is a witch hunt, when we're talking about millions of dollars that were potentially misused, it only goes to speak to the suspicion many people have, Mr. Chair, that they knew and they deliberately knew what they were attempting to do was going to be ruled out of order and against the rules.

This is why I believe they did not approach Madam O'Brien directly. Their representative on the Board of Internal Economy did not raise this issue with other members of the Board of Internal Economy because they were afraid the ruling would come back from the board that they were not allowed to conduct themselves in the manner in which they have been doing for over three years.

I point out once again, when the board was finally made aware of the actual location of these NDP employees, they immediately came out with the ruling stating this would not be allowed to happen again, and they put a stop to it immediately.

Based on that, Mr. Chair, it appears to me at least patently obvious that had the NDP asked the board three years earlier, “Can we do this? Can we engage in this kind of practice?” the answer would have been the same, only three years earlier, “No, you can't. Those employees either have to be employed and located in Ottawa, or in a constituency office, not in Montreal, and certainly not in a co-location that also houses political party officers and operatives.”

Quite simply, I believe the NDP knew their request would be refused if they made that request, so therefore, they simply didn't. They told House administration officers one thing, and then did another. They point-blank told House administration officials that all of these employees would be located in Ottawa, and they have never been located in Ottawa.

This is serious, and we need to get to the bottom of it. I think if the NDP were serious, if they honestly believed their actions were above board and had been approved, they should have no difficulty whatsoever in sending representatives of their party, whoever that may be, Mr. Mulcair or others, to this committee to justify their actions. But we certainly, at a bare minimum, need to invite Madam O'Brien representing House administration, because she is the head of House administration, to come here and tell us why she believes they were not informed.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair. My colleagues opposite may want to comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Next on my list is Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to amend the motion by replacing the fourth paragraph with the following:

That the Committee invite the Clerk of the House of Commons to appear at her earliest convenience, along with any additional staff necessary to assist in answering the Committee's questions; That the Committee consider, after the Clerk's appearance, whether to schedule additional witnesses to appear in relation to this study; That the Committee is unsatisfied with the New Democratic Party's return to the Committee's order of May 6, 2014, respecting the production of lease documents, and, therefore, the Committee demand that the New Democratic Party produce, within two business days of the adoption of this order, a signed and completed version of the Party's sublease of suite 300 at 4428 boulevard Saint-Laurent, Montréal, and that the Clerk of the Committee request that Smart & Co. Group Canada Inc. furnish copies of its lease and sublease contracts, applying to the period from May 3, 2011, until the day this order is adopted, pertaining to suite 300 at 4428 boulevard Saint-Laurent, Montréal; and

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I assume the member had that right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes. I have a copy.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you have a copy, Chair? That's good. That's handy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I only have it in English, so it was read into the record.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How is it that you have a copy and we do not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's because it was in English, and I can't distribute it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, we have to have it in front of us, because it's a very long and complex motion, so at the very least....

Randy, you can have the floor, if you want it. In the meantime, could you just let the rest of us have it when it's our turn?

Ted, it would be helpful if we could have it in writing. I'm not playing a game. It was a very long—

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

I'll give you my copy.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Why didn't you get it in both languages? You're the government; why couldn't you get it in both languages?

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

You either want it or you don't, David.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

By unanimous consent, we can distribute it. Most amendments are read verbally into the record.

I recognize that was a long one, David.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. I chair a committee too, and we have those rules, but there is a point at which, out of respect for colleagues, if it gets long enough or convoluted, then you provide a copy so that you know what you're debating.

That's all I'm asking for, some element of fairness here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The answer, I guess, is that we'll do our best to get it to you as quickly as we can,

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Unfortunately, as I understand the rules, we would debate the amendment first—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's what we're on.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—and then vote on it and then on the motion as amended, if it carries.

What I'm saying is that before we can begin, all I want is a copy of the motion—that's all—and I'm asking you to facilitate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, may I have unanimous consent to distribute a copy in one language only?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, then....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, I—