Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 17th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

As with any study in this committee, I certainly believe that fairness has been shown. If it's in the scope of the motion before us—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just relinquished my spot in order, not my spot entirely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sorry, but I was asked a question. I was going to answer it even though Mr. Julian just loves me today.

I'll go back to you, Mr. Christopherson. Go ahead.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I won't be that long. I just want to tackle this issue that somehow we're running away from this meeting. Far from it.

First of all, we can't run away from anything, because the government has a majority. We accept that whatever tyranny they've decided they want to have, we're going to be whipsawed into that. That's the nature of the beast. The public will see it and render their judgment on that.

As I understand it, what we're asking the deputy law clerk to do is to talk about the mechanisms by which the government, in this case the Conservatives, can force the NDP to pay back money that we don't believe we owe.

Here's the situation. The trial as to whether or not we were guilty took place in private, in camera, where a majority, two out of three parties, ruled against the one party in a system that's supposed to be built on consensus, which is why it's okay to be in camera. The trial and jury took place in camera but now the sentencing is going to be done in public. We're still arguing, with what we believe is great merit, the fundamental findings of the Board of Internal Economy, the lack of any kind of natural justice and any public awareness of what's going on. The government keeps repeating, “You're guilty, you're guilty, you owe this.” It's a star chamber. Nobody has put any evidence out in public. All we've ever asked for throughout the whole process is that this be put out in public. We're quite prepared to live by the rules, as the other parties are too. Let's see how the rules are being applied to the NDP and make sure that they're being applied equally to everybody. If that's the case, we'll live with the consequences. It's this business of having a trial and jury in camera in a star chamber, and then making a big deal about public sentencing, as if somehow that makes what was done earlier okay....

We're not afraid of having this meeting. It's just going to be to talk about money we don't believe we owe anyway. We believe it was politically driven by the Conservatives, the hand-maidens of the Liberals, in a meeting that was conveniently in camera. It was a secret meeting where two of the parties found one of the other parties guilty in a system that's supposed to be consensus based to start with. There are all kinds of problems with this, from the beginning of the process to its findings.

If you want to bring in the deputy law clerk to talk about the procedures available to the government to continue its political execution of the official opposition, fine. Why would we run from that? We don't believe that we owe that money; we don't believe that we've broken the rules. All we're asking for is our day in court, but we want that court to be in public. That's what we're seeking here. The fact that this meeting and the process under Standing Order 106(4) has, in our opinion, been manipulated is all just part of it.

We're not resisting because we're worried about what will happen at the meeting. Fine, let's have a discussion about that money. When it turns out that the Liberals and Conservatives are guilty of technically violating all the rules too, we need to know what the mechanisms are to go after them, if that's the interest of the committee.

As for our trying to avoid that, it's not the issue. What we are trying to do is to preserve what little rights we have left around here. Make no mistake, the deputy law clerk is going to come in. Do you want to hold the meeting tomorrow? Fine. Hold the meeting tomorrow. We'll be there. But we have questions for the deputy law clerk consistent with some of the rulings that the Speaker made in terms of the guidance this committee was given. We're way over those lines of guidance.

By all means, let's have this meeting. Let's start talking about what's really going on here. Let's really drill down and talk about the difference between proper procedures and being fair-minded versus the kind of kangaroo court process we've seen. By all means, let's have the meeting, Mr. Chair, as long as we have free rein to ask questions relevant to the scope of the mandate of this committee, in addition to the government's questions.

With that understanding, we are fine with having this meeting. It's just a shame that the government's manipulation of the politics around here extends all the way to fiddling with agendas, with meetings that are cancelled, and with the calling of witnesses. It's all just very ugly, very messy, and very un-Canadian in the way it's being done. So be it.

So be it. We'll see you tomorrow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Julian, to finish.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly agree with Mr. Christopherson. I was trying to figure out this idea that we have a regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday and we're going to be sitting on Thursday, so why the government would be pressing ahead with “hey, let's do this quickly”.... I suddenly realized, Mr. Chair, that it's because of Northern Gateway...the Conservatives know that they are going to lose 20 seats if they go the way that we're expecting them to go after question period today—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

Absolutely. It has all the relevance in the world.

Mr. Chair, if you could ask them to stop hurling insults, that would be wonderful.

So we have Northern Gateway coming this afternoon; the government has waited until the last possible minute to try to actually push ahead and steamroll British Columbians with this. We know that 70% of the population in British Columbia is opposed to Northern Gateway, and we know that it puts 20 seats in place for the NDP, because the NDP has been standing up for British Columbians and Conservatives have not been. So why, then, are we—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Will you get to relevance, please? We are talking about a motion to invite the law clerk to this committee—

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

Yes—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

—and you have gone to pipelines.

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

—and we've said that Thursday is our regularly scheduled meeting. We've said that. We're open to that issue. I've raised a number of concerns about questions that might be allowed or disallowed, which I would like to hear you specifically come back on, Mr. Chair. But at the same time, the reason why this is being pushed for tomorrow is the Conservatives' incredible concern about the reaction from British Columbians to ramming through the pipeline. I think this probably sends the clearest message yet, Mr. Chair, that the decision tonight will be against British Columbians, because that is why the Conservatives are scrambling to throw in something, anything, to distract from what is going to be a pretty substantive reaction.

It's good to know now what the game plan is. The game plan is to try to detract from an issue that is going to cost the Conservatives 20 seats in British Columbia in the next election.

Mr. Chair, I will come back to the issue of questions being allowed: the Board of Internal Economy and its move to a partisan process; the Speaker's ruling rendering 56.1, the dirty trick that started this process in the procedure and House affairs committee, inadmissible; the leaks that the deputy law clerk very clearly warned us against and asked the committee to take appropriate precautions for; and his cautions about the study itself, cautions about this not fitting within the mandate of the committee. Those are four areas that we want to be asking questions on. Do we have your assurance that we will be able to ask questions in those areas?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you for that point.

On the motion of inviting the law clerk at the earliest convenience, those in favour of the motion? Those opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

Then we will invite the law clerk at his earliest convenience.

Mr. Julian, in at least a partial answer to your question, I will be the fair chair that I am each and every day. If your questions are within the scope and the law clerk is able to answer them, then they will certainly be allowed.

We have a report finished—

Mr. Christopherson, are you on something else?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I just wondered what you were going to do next, Chair. It sounds like you're—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have a report finished. It's a draft report, so I'd like it not discussed, but I would like the ability to distribute it to you. It is the report that the analysts have put together on the Bezan motion of privilege. May I distribute it to the committee or cause that to happen?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay? So everybody is all right with that? We'll make sure that happens—by e-mail as well or just a hard copy?

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Sorry, I just have a question, Chair. We're not going to be discussing it now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

No. I have to ask permission to distribute a draft report.

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

We're fine with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's great. We'll give that out.

Is there anything else for our committee today?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have one last item. It's a housekeeping matter of committee business. On the Bezan report, we said that we were going to try to clean that up before we rose for the summer. What's your sense of that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

This was my intent, that you get it now today. You have the ability to digest it somewhat, and if we get a chance to discuss it, then we can clear it up.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What about the report on leaks?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All would work if we had the time.