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.