Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2014

[Thomas Mulcair]

Mr. Woodworth, there was nothing interdicting that prior to April 8, 2014.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

All right. So you didn't tell them because you didn't think you needed to, is that what you're saying?

[Thomas Mulcair]

We didn't tell them because we didn't have to. There was nothing forbidding it. They could work wherever they wanted. On April 8, 2014, the rule changed.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you. You finally answered my question.

In fact, you also told them that they could send paycheques to Montreal, but you never actually told them that these staffers would be working in Montreal, isn't that correct?

[Thomas Mulcair]

We actually did, and a good example of that is the hiring of David Patry; that's a good recent example from January of this year. It's sent to the House of Commons and it's about him working in Montreal and working with us and working for the party in Montreal. We were clear on that. We were transparent on that. We respected all the rules that existed at the time, but of course you can't respect a rule that has yet to be adopted, Mr. Woodworth. I think that even you realize that.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Of course, I'm just referring you to rules that have been in place for years, Mr. Mulcair.

Apart from that, do you agree—

Am I out of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You are.

Madam Boivin, you have four minutes, please.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, I could probably have five minutes. That is what was just allotted to Mr. Woodworth.

Mr. Mulcair, thank you for being with us today. I find it absolutely fascinating to see the leader of a party take two hours out of his time to come here. I would have hoped the Minister of Justice would do the same thing for the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but, in his two appearances, he took advantage of votes that were held on time allocation motions to shorten his appearance. I barely saw him 20 or 25 minutes each time.

That said, Mr. Woodworth's insinuations, those we sense coming from our Liberal colleagues and the comments we have read suggest that there is some confusion. When I say confusion, I mean about the role of party employees at the Montreal office and that of caucus employees and members from Quebec.

I would like to clarify once again how the structure operated, apart from the way it is described the two agreements.

How did you make sure that the work done by one of the groups actually focused on parliamentary issues? Our Liberal and Conservative colleagues are trying to insinuate that irregularities were committed in that regard. What we see in the media is fairly consistent with that.

Mr. Mulcair, I would also like you to take a moment to tell us about the new rule, which was introduced in April. It seems to me I read that it would come into force at the end of this Parliament. You have not had the opportunity to go right to the end. As a lawyer, I thought it was a very smooth move to change the rule along the way. That may seem sensible in cases involving someone that one does not really like too much. However, it has been confirmed that that was not the aim. As they say in the courts, when you want to reach an unreasonable settlement, make sure it points in only one direction. That is the impression I get from this.

I would like you to tell us about all that, particularly about Mr. Woodworth's insinuations. According to them, our employees were doing partisan work, that is to say work for a party, rather than parliamentary work, the work for which they were being paid.

I would like you to comment on the document in question.

[Thomas Mulcair]

Thank you. Your question consists of two parts. I will address them one after the other.

This is important for Parliament. It appears in section 1 of the most important by-law enacted pursuant to the act governing the House of Commons. It is a worthwhile exercise to read that section. I have read it to Mr. Woodworth several times, but that does not mean he has understood it. I will read it to you as well.

In section 1, "parliamentary functions" are defined as follows:

"parliamentary functions" in relation to a Member, means the duties and activities that relate to the position of Member, wherever performed and whether or not performed in a partisan manner, namely, participation in activities relating to the proceedings and work of the House of Commons and activities undertaken in representing his or her constituency or constituents.

Ms. Boivin, you raise a very interesting, even mesmerizing point. We noted that it was the party that paid the rent in Montreal. We know there was nothing preventing those people from working in Montreal, according to what I just read you. We know that those people reported to Ottawa, and that is entirely consistent with the information that was submitted. We also know that the House administration was aware, at every stage, that these people were working in Montreal. Lastly, we know that Joe Comartin, my colleague and yours, wrote a long letter in December 2011. Silence is consent. Joe has thoroughly established what is happening.

The most intriguing part...

Mr. Chair, I will finish my speech in 30 seconds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The member doesn't have 30 seconds to finish his round—

[Thomas Mulcair]

The most intriguing part is that the new rule will not apply until 2015. Why do they want to abolish it after the election? No one is saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Mulcair, thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Woodworth.

You have two four-minute spots in a row.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mulcair, you say you're familiar with the rules, yet you want to ignore 4.1 of the Members' Allowances and Services Manual. Are you familiar with bylaw 61, which says, under “Responsibilities of Member”, that:

...a Member may

(a) hire employees for the Member's Parliamentary office or constituency office.

Are you familiar with that, Mr. Mulcair, yes or no?

[Thomas Mulcair]

Mr. Chair, we obeyed the rules at every stage. The House of Commons was aware, at every stage, of the staff we were hiring in Montreal.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm getting used to the witness not answering my questions, but I'll keep asking them anyway.

Mr. Mulcair, are you familiar with bylaw 1, which defines parliamentary office to mean an office that is located on or near Parliament Hill? Are you familiar with that or not, Mr. Mulcair, yes or no?

[Thomas Mulcair]

Mr. Chair, I have said it on several occasions. It is spelled out, not in a form or a booklet, but in a by-law made under this country's master statute, the Parliament of Canada Act. In accordance with that by-law, we are entitled to set up our staff and to have them work where we want. Until April 8, 2014, there were no regulations prohibiting anyone from working at an office for which rent was paid by a political party. Now that such a rule is in force, we are obeying it as well.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Is it your position then, Mr. Mulcair, that the NDP is not obligated to comply with bylaw 61 of the Members By-Law, yes or no?

[Thomas Mulcair]

We have always complied with all regulations, Mr. Chair. That is clearly stated in all the documents I have just put before the committee. I have acted in an open and transparent manner since the start of this exercise today.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Mulcair, since we know that the bylaws define parliamentary office to mean an office located on or near Parliament Hill, can you and I at least agree that 4428 Boulevard Saint-Laurent, Montreal, did not meet the definition of parliamentary office for your MPs?

[Thomas Mulcair]

The employees who work in Ottawa have a very real right to go and lend a hand, for example, in the organization of a press conference in Montreal. In that case, mileage should be paid. We make better use of taxpayers' money when we concentrate a portion of our staff where they are required for work purposes, with Ottawa as administrative home base. That has also been clear from day one.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Mulcair, I understand that you want to play by your own rules. I'm only asking you to acknowledge what the existing rules have to say. Can we agree that since 4428 Boulevard Saint-Laurent was not a parliamentary office, it was at least a constituency office for your MPs? Isn't that what was going on?

[Thomas Mulcair]

Mr. Chairman, section 1 of the Members By-Law states that “the duties and activities that relate to the position of Member, wherever performed and whether or not performed in a partisan manner” constitute parliamentary functions.

That's the definition we've always respected. Our parliamentary staff only did parliamentary work, and our political staff did political work, and never the twain shall meet. That's the issue before this committee. We've respected that every step of the way.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

So you don't want to tell me whether you think 4428 Boulevard Saint-Laurent, Montreal, was a parliamentary office or a constituency office under the rules. Is that your answer?

[Thomas Mulcair]

Since no one is questioning—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm questioning.