Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 17th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, I know.

So on the order....

Mr. Julian, on a different point of order; it's the right season for it.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On a point of order, I think it's obvious to anybody who actually was in the House last week, on June 12, that the Speaker of the House of Commons actually ruled on the advisability of the use of Standing Order 56.1.

Mr. Chair, I'm sure you would have read it, because this is something that has a great deal of relevance to the work of the committee. But we asked them; following the appearance of the leader of the official opposition, we said at the time that we had no objection to the leader of the official opposition coming forward to committee. We wanted to contrast the leader of the official opposition's availability with the fact that Conservative ministers regularly will not come to committees, defy committees, refuse to come to answer in areas—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Can you get to your point of order?

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

I'm coming to that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, do so.

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

As you know, I do have some ability to provide a preamble to that point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm getting to your limit, so get to the point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, if you want to give the impression of destruction of due process, you could do that by shutting down a member of the opposition on a point of order.

So the leader of the official opposition appeared. Subsequently we asked the Speaker for a ruling. I won't read the whole ruling, but at the heart of the motion, as discussed by the Speaker, was an issue of whether the motion in question was an admissible motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1. Further, on page 6 of his lengthy ruling, he says the following:

In fact, it leads the Chair to the conclusion that the motion was...stepping beyond what the House has come to accept as being within the confines of Standing Order 56.1.

So I'll read that again:In fact, it leads the Chair to the conclusion that the motion was...stepping beyond what the House has come to accept as being within the confines of Standing Order 56.1.

So in terms of the admissibility, in terms of whether or not the original motion was in order, the Speaker was very clear. The motion was not in order. The motion was not admissible. He said the leader of the official opposition has already appeared. So of course that component is moot. I think we would all agree with that. The reality is the leader of the official opposition answered all questions, and the folks who I talk with are very clear that it's good to have a leader actually taking responsibility, coming forward, and answering questions. But there's no doubt that the Speaker's ruling changes this committee's focus.

The committee cannot continue with a study already raised by the deputy law clerk, and already raised by the former Law Clerk, as being problematic with the exception of the fact that the motion was brought forward in the House. I can reference that more specifically. Both the deputy law clerk and the former law clerk said, “This is really problematic”. There is a House order, so maybe there is a way of looking through this. Now we have a very clear direction from the Speaker that the motion was inadmissible; it was out of order.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I think it's been made very clear. The Speaker should not be defied on this. The Speaker should not be overruled by a committee. The Speaker has ruled. The Speaker has said that it was inadmissible; it was out of order; it goes beyond the confines of what is permitted under Standing Order 56.1.

That is a clear acknowledgment that the idea government members have that we can just pursue this Standing Order 56.1 study forever, that we can continue a kangaroo court forever, is something that has been very clearly pointed to by the Speaker as not being appropriate. It's inadmissible. It was out of order. That means, of course, that things will continue in other venues like the Board of Internal Economy, which to our mind is partisan and secretive, but the reality is in terms of the original House order, it was inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Lukiwski, on the same point of order.

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

Yes, very much so, Mr. Chair; I'd certainly like to respond to the point of order. Of course, the overriding point I will make, in some detail, is to contradict what Mr. Julian just said, because the Speaker absolutely did not say that it was inadmissible. Let me articulate that in greater detail.

I want to answer his assertions first by looking at what the Speaker's ruling does and does not actually say. Second, I want to point to several subsequent events that put today's meeting and today's request to have the deputy law clerk brief the committee on last week's finding of the Board of Internal Economy, that the NDP inappropriately used House of Commons resources, squarely within this committee's ordinary purview and its permanent mandate.

First, despite what the member opposite said, the Speaker did not rule our March 27, 2014, order of reference out of order. I don't want to muddy the waters here, as my colleague opposite always tries to do, so I want to quote what the Speaker actually said, not what my colleague opposite would like to try to make others think the Speaker said.

What the Speaker actually said—this will come from page 6719 of Debates for June 12, 2014—was the following:Thus, for the reasons stated, I would have been inclined to rule the motion out of order had this matter been raised within a reasonable delay....Instead, in the absence of any objection at the time that the motion was moved, the matter went forward and the motion was adopted.

At no point in his ruling did the Speaker say that the order of reference was null and void. Likewise, the Speaker did not say that any proceedings undertaken pursuant to this order of reference were to be vacated. The Speaker simply said that had Mr. Julian jumped to his feet in the House that day and not some two months later, he would have been inclined to rule in that fashion. But that's not even to say with certainty that's how he would have ruled.

Before moving on, I would also like to point out that our Speaker made reference to a similar ruling by a previous Speaker, Mr. Speaker Milliken, from September 18, 2001. I think it's important to understand when that September 2001 ruling originated.

On June 12, 2001, a motion under Standing Order 56.1—the very motion that Mr. Julian is trying to say was out of order—had been adopted with respect to the disposition of legislation and the estimates over the course of that sitting and the next one. Now, a point of order had been raised later that day, the same day, and before the terms of the order made under Standing Order 56.1 had been carried out. But even though the point of order was raised the same day, but later in the day, Speaker Milliken dismissed the objections at page 5031 of the Debates on June 12, 2001, stating:In so far as today’s proceedings are concerned, the Chair is satisfied that the motion was adopted this morning without 25 members rising in their place and without objection at that time as to the procedural acceptability of the motion. The matter has come before the House at this late hour and, in my view, the motion has been adopted and will apply for tonight’s proceedings, and we will leave it at that.

In effect, what Speaker Milliken was saying was that the objection raised to Standing Order 56.1 came hours afterwards, not immediately, and therefore would not be accepted.

In this case, Mr. Julian waited almost two months after Standing Order 56.1 was passed. And he now expects that the procedural point of order of his should be approved and accepted? Clearly not.

While a September 18 ruling, which was cited by Speaker Scheer last week, was rendered after all implicated proceedings had been carried out, it was a follow-up to the June 12 ruling that made was after the Standing Order 56.1 was adopted and before the terms were carried out.

As I said, Mr. Chair, the Speaker ruled that if you want to make a point of order on the acceptability or unacceptability of Standing Order 56.1, you have to do so immediately. Mr. Julian waited two months. We can't excuse his incompetence. We can only say that the Speaker ruled appropriately.

I would submit to you, Mr. Chair, that a parallel situation exists here. A motion was proposed and adopted but because it was challenged too late, it was not rescinded, and that's the key point. It was not rescinded; it was not vacated. Despite the opposition trying to say that the motion was ruled out of order, it simply was not.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, the basis for this study, this examination of how the NDP should or could be compelled to repay the $1.7 million, has been expanded. I say that, Mr. Chair, because on Wednesday of May 14, as you would well know, this committee received a memo from the Clerk of the House of Commons conveying certain documents from the Board of Internal Economy. That covering memo included a request from the Board of Internal Economy for this committee to consider these issues and, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(i), to prepare a report in response.

Let me read for the record the provision of the Standing Orders that I just referred to:

(3) The mandate of the Standing Committee on: (a) Procedure and House Affairs shall include, in addition to the duties set forth in Standing Order 104, and among other matters: (i) the review of and report on, to the Speaker as well as the Board of Internal Economy, the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members provided that all matters related thereto shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the Committee upon its membership having been established;

So if you look back at that May 14 memorandum, you will see that the first documents following the covering memo relate to large-volume mailings, the mailings in question, the mailings that were ruled inappropriate by the Board of Internal Economy, whose cost the board has determined should be repaid by the NDP. Quite clearly the $1.17 million in inappropriate mailings by the NDP falls within the scope of the mandate of this committee, and certainly falls within the scope of the materials the board has referred to this committee.

At our meeting on June 3 we accepted the request of the Board of Internal Economy. The motion adopted that day reads in part:

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;

Of course, Mr. Chair, the motion also contained another clause of great relevance here. As my friends opposite seem to talk about the relevance of this study, let's talk about that.

The paragraph immediately preceding the one that I just quoted provides the following:

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);

The pivotal words here are “if further evidence warrants”. Now I would suggest that we certainly have within our grasp that appropriate “further evidence”. As everyone knows, after several months of meetings the Board of Internal Economy concluded this month that the large-volume mailings undertaken by the official opposition formed an inappropriate use of House of Commons resources to the tune of almost $1.2 million. According to the June 2, 2014, minutes of the board, as tabled in the House, the board agreed to the following:

that the NDP mailings under recent investigation were in contravention of the Board's by-laws on the grounds that they were prepared by and for the benefit of a political party;

Furthermore, it agreed:

that the Board spokespersons be authorized to report to the public that the mailings have been found in contravention of the by-laws....

That is exactly what has occurred.

On June 3 the Speaker issued a statement, which appeared on the parliamentary website, whose first paragraph reads:

The Honourable Andrew Scheer, Speaker of the House of Commons and Chair of the Board of Internal Economy has confirmed that further to its statement of March 24, 2014, the Board has determined that certain mailings sent by the New Democratic Party (NDP) Members

—and this is the critical point here—

were prepared by and for the benefit of the NDP as a political party and to advance electoral purposes, and are therefore in contravention of the by-laws.

In other words, to be perfectly clear, the mailings were not your typical ten percenters or franked mail that promote individual members. They were promoting two things, the NDP party and the byelections in question, and they referred to the NDP website, all of which are in contravention of the Board of Internal Economy bylaws.

Further, Mr. Chair, these were printed outside—for the most part—of the House of Commons. Therefore, the House was not aware of these mailings. Had they been made aware of such mailings, I am sure that the board in their wisdom would have ruled them to be out of order and those mailings would not have been sent. But the NDP, knowing that was the probable outcome, had they consulted with and sought approval for it, sought not to do so. As I said, Mr. Chair, this is further evidence that is now available to all of us and of the variety contemplated by the motion we adopted on June 3.

Let me read again the relevant clause of that June 3 committee order. Again I will quote: “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)...”.

Mr. Chair, the Board of Internal Economy has found as a fact that these mailings were to advance electoral purposes. Since obviously they did not constitute a parliamentary purpose, and this committee has a permanent mandate, under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi) related to “the review of and report on all matters relating to the election of Members to the House of Commons”, therefore, these developments squarely put further study related to these inappropriate mailings within our normal jurisdiction to consider electoral matters.

We need to have the deputy law clerk brief us on exactly what the board's decision is, what it means, what consequences flow from it, the potential remedies available to the board and to the House, and how the board can secure compliance from the rule-breakers. Since we've accepted the board's invitation to prepare a report, and given the subsequent findings, we need to understand these developments so that we can determine how this committee could or even whether we should—at this point in time, at least—investigate various elements.

Moreover, since the board made the findings of fact that the mailings were of an electoral nature, we also need to wrap our heads around what that means with respect to electoral laws, which are supposed to govern us all. In what ways did this $1.17 million give an inappropriate benefit to the NDP and its candidates? How would that impact on contribution limits and expense rules that apply to the NDP? How would that impact, Mr. Chair?

All of this begins with today's request for this meeting in order to be briefed by the deputy law clerk. That's why we called the (106)4. All of this, as you have already ruled, Chair, is perfectly in order.

In concluding on this point of order, Mr. Chairman, let me summarize my points as follows.

Firstly, the committee's order of reference of March 27, 2014, was not declared null and void, despite what the NDP might say, and there was definitely no ruling that any proceedings undertaken as consequences should be vacated.

Secondly, the Board of Internal Economy referred additional materials to us on May 14, 2014, and requested that we prepare a report pursuant to our authority under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(i). We accepted this request on June 3 of this year.

Thirdly, also on June 3, 2014, this committee agreed to, if further evidence warrants, expand this study into the realm of our permanent mandate related to electoral matters. The Board of Internal Economy has concluded that these large-volume mailings were for the benefit of a political party and to advance electoral purposes, which is in contravention of the Board of Internal Economy bylaws. Therefore, this is without a doubt within our committee's purview to study.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, you should feel free to dismiss the NDP's point of order so that we and the taxpayers can get briefed about the serious consequences of these findings and about the $1.1 million in inappropriate mailings, which, of course, were of benefit to the NDP but in clear contravention of the Board of Internal Economy bylaws.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Mr. Julian, please give a fairly short rebuttal if you could.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I mean, if you're going to show bias, that's showing bias. You just had a filibuster for 20 minutes, and I'll start with the very clear fact, Mr. Chair, that what I'm getting from Canadians is about all these mailings the Conservatives are sending out with vicious attacks on the leader of the Official Opposition and sometimes vicious attacks on the leader of the Liberal Party. Canadians are saying, “I just got this in the mail. I can't believe the Conservatives...the secretive Conservative-dominated Board of Internal Economy, is saying this vicous attack on the leader of the official opposition is okay, but—gosh—the NDP talking about environment policy is not”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Julian.

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

So quite frankly the partisanship of the Board of Internal Economy—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Julian, I know you recognize your name because you will occasionally turn when I use it.

When I say, Mr. Julian, I would like you to stop...because you are way off. You are on your point of order about the Speaker's ruling, and now you're off into some universe about mailings.

Could you please talk about your point of order?

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

Mr. Chair, we have just had a 20-minute dialogue from the Conservative Party on the mailings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I understand that, but we're not going to talk about the quality of mailings in the rulings.

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

We did not interrupt him throughout his rant against the NDP. The reality is that we do have a system of checks and balances in this country. We do have due process. My point to start is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Oh, here we go.

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

—very clear that people see the Conservatives doing these despicable partisan mailings even as we speak. That's what Canadians are seeing, and that's why they're getting back to me and saying they can't believe they received this today, Mr. Chair. They'll say they received this today.

They are Conservative voters. Some of them voted Conservative. They'll say, “I've voted Conservative all my life, and I just received this—”

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On the point of order, please.

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

“—despicable mailing and I can't believe the Conservatives are this hypocritical”.

So, on the point of order, Mr. Chair,—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

There we go.

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

—since you seem to believe that fairness is giving 20 minutes to the parliamentary secretary and a few minutes to the official opposition, let's go back first—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're not done yet. I'm assuming we're going to get there. So....