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.