Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 18th, 2014

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

Are they for two minutes each?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

They are four minutes each.

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

Thank you.

I'm sorry, but my first question may be something outside of your purview. We talked about and you talked about the consensus model that the BOIE follows. Even though this is a consensus model, if one party—and in this case obviously it's the NDP—has been found through independent research to be in violation of the rules of the BOIE in terms of these mail-outs, should or does one party have veto rights like those of a UN council?

The NDP is trying to suggest here that this was an unfair process. The consensus model has worked well, but clearly if one party is in contravention of the rules, they can easily say they were outvoted and it wasn't fair. The system is set up to be as fair as possible. Clearly if one party is guilty and knows they are guilty, they are going to try to do whatever they can to stop any repercussions from occurring.

So how do you square that circle? How do you deal with a consensus model if in fact one party doesn't want to play ball and doesn't want to agree to a consensus even if the evidence proves or at least demonstrates that they have been in violation of the rules?

[Marc Bosc]

You know, Mr. Lukiwski, the board works in mysterious ways.

Again, we can't comment on how the board arrives at decisions, but it does arrive at decisions. Historically that's been done by consensus.

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

Okay.

Let's go back, then, to where we started. I just want to make sure we're all crystal clear on this one.

The content of the mailings in question—the nearly two million pieces of mail that the NDP sent out using an outside printer, the mailings they put into franked envelopes—was never seen by House administration. Is that correct?

[Richard Denis]

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

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

So, therefore, unless there was a complaint to the BOIE—which there was—the House administration might never have known that these mailings were in contravention of the rules. Is that correct?

[Richard Denis]

That is correct.

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

So if a party wanted to deliberately mislead House administration, they could do so by following the model we've seen by the NDP: use an outside printer; pay for it yourself, of course, because there are over 4,500 copies, which, if you were a party engaged in an election campaign, you would do anyway, because that's obviously a party function; and then put it into franked envelopes. You end up paying for campaign literature, in effect, and that's exactly what this was, but you stick the taxpayer with the postage.

Now, I'm wondering if there's anything that could be done, if events like this have occurred, or will occur again in the future, that you would suggest or recommend to the BOIE for their consideration in terms of preventative measures. I mean, it's quite obvious to me that....

Obviously I have a viewpoint that you can't comment on because you're non-partisan. You're professional. But we know now a number of things. Outside printers were used. The NDP paid for it. House administration never saw it. But if they would have seen the content of those mailings, they would have rejected them. And franked letters were used to mail out improper election campaign pieces. That's what we know, as a basis, as a result of this meeting.

I'm wondering if you have any suggestions for this committee—even though it's the board's decision ultimately, this committee can make recommendations—on how to prevent this type of thing from happening again.

[Richard Denis]

Mr. Chair, one way of looking at it could be a recommendation from this committee as to how the use of franking could be clarified in the future. For example, it would relate to different things relating to the parliamentary functions of members: extend it, or restrict it.

That would be one aspect of—

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

If we were to recommend, as an example, that all mailings put in franked envelopes must be approved by the House, do you think that recommendation would be worthwhile considering?

[Marc Bosc]

I would say at the outset that this is a much more complex issue than it might appear to be, and it would require considerable analysis before we could answer that question.

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

But let me just point out again that what we do know is this. Had those mailings, the mailings that were found to be in violation of the rules, been sent to the House administration, they wouldn't have been approved. That would have been the end of it. The NDP then could still send them out, if they wanted, but they'd have to pay for them and the postage. But at least the House would have been able to step in and say, “Sorry, you can't used franked envelopes.”

It seems to me a very simple fix to require all mailings by political parties who wish to use franked envelopes to be viewed and approved or rejected by House administration. Would that not be a fairly simple approach to fix this complex problem; a simple solution?

[Marc Bosc]

I'm sure the board will welcome any recommendations the committee wishes to make—

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

Excellent.

[Marc Bosc]

—on any issue.

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

Thank you very much.

Time, Mr. Chair...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have just under two minutes.

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

All right. Thank you.

If the NDP wanted the discussion on these matters to have been held in public, as they say they're all in favour of, what would they have had to do to make that happen? Or was it even possible to have these discussions in public? Are you in a position to discuss whether they undertook any actions to try to make this public?

The point I'm getting at is that we don't know. I wish I did know. I understand this investigation and this discussion in the BOIE went on for several months. I would certainly suggest that this committee request of the Board of Internal Economy a copy of the report so that we can take a look at exactly what evidence you found when making the recommendations you did to the board to ask the NDP to repay.

I'm wondering, if the NDP was truly sincere in wanting to have all of the deliberations of this particular issue of which they've been found guilty made public, did they approach the board? Can you comment on that? Did they try to make any effort to have these deliberations in public?

[Marc Bosc]

Mr. Lukiwski, we can't comment on that.

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

Perhaps we can ask the board.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

We'll go to Mr. Julian for four minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, Mr. Lukiwski knows, because he denied our unanimous consent motion, which we brought forward in the House that day just before the BOIE..., that the NDP undertook and has been undertaking now for almost a year to break open the partisan, secretive, and ugly BOIE, the pro-Conservative BOIE.

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

Then I can only assume that you will accept our recommendation to see the report, to shine a light on the report.

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

It's very interesting; I did reference earlier this very personal, vicious, partisan attack on the leader of the official opposition, which is being sent out as we speak, because I'm getting complaints and even tweets tonight from folks saying, “I got this from my CPC member”. It is linked up—