Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2014

[Thomas Mulcair]

—because section 1 couldn't be clearer on the fact that employees are allowed to work wherever we assign them, the difference is that we're making a better use of taxpayers' money. Instead of paying back and forth in kilometres from Ottawa to Montreal to take care of a press conference in Montreal, we're actually basing a concentration of employees there. There was nothing wrong with it until April 8, 2014. When the rule changed, we respected the changed rule. It's an amendment. It's not a retroactive amendment. It's not a retrospective amendment. It's one that we're following.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Mulcair, you know about bylaw 61(1), which says if members have to hire employees either for their parliamentary office or for their constituency office.... Do you agree with me that is why the employment form that every member signs has a box to check off either for Ottawa office or for constituency office? Do you agree that check-off is trying to enforce bylaw 61, yes or no?

[Thomas Mulcair]

We have always indicated, and rightly so, that home base for those employees for administrative purposes was Ottawa. Working at an office for which rent was paid by the party was entirely accepted, acceptable, legitimate and lawful until April 8, 2014.

We obeyed the rules before the rules were changed. We have obeyed the new rules since the rules were changed. Prior to that, there was absolutely nothing preventing us from doing what we did. We were open with the House of Commons employees. We consulted them at every stage of that work, whether it was in setting up those employees or drafting their letters of employment.

I would just take the liberty of saying that the Interpretation Act provides very clearly that—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'd like to ask a question, if you'll allow me to.

[Thomas Mulcair]

—where one thing is permitted, that does not mean that something else is prohibited.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I know you really don't like my questions, Mr. Mulcair, but let me ask you another one.

Are you acknowledging then that your members of Parliament deliberately led the House of Commons administration to believe that these staff were being hired for a parliamentary office and not a constituency office?

[Thomas Mulcair]

Mr. Chair, all the documentation is perfectly clear. It is extraordinarily clear from these documents that we said at every stage that their home base for administrative purposes was, of course, Ottawa. However, they were entirely free to work in an office for which the party paid rent.

Is the member suggesting that employees may not be exempted from that section? That would be entirely contrary to section 1 of the by-law, which, in defining the term "parliamentary functions", provides that those employees may work where they want.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

May I ask another question, Mr. Chair?

Perhaps I should respond. I am not suggesting anything other than Canadians ought to be shocked that House of Commons employees are being sent to work in a partisan political office, and that House of Commons envelopes are being used to send 2015 election appeals.

Surely, it's clear. I agree with you on one point, it is clear. It's clear that a parliamentary office means an office located on or near Parliament Hill. That's a rule that was in place all along.

Surely, Mr. Mulcair, you have to acknowledge that.

[Thomas Mulcair]

I know that the member is going to find this difficult to understand, but rule 4.1 is about using House of Commons' money to rent parliamentary office space. The NDP did not use House of Commons' money. That's what's been established. I will offer again; they haven't accepted the offer. I will give him every single cheque, for every single month, that the office was open. Every penny was paid for by the party. That became a problem in April 2014, and we respected it. It was never House of Commons' money. That's what he doesn't seem to understand.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Mulcair, it was House of Commons' money that paid the people working there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

Mr. Christopherson, you're up. You have four minutes, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I like that point. I'd like to come back to that.

We hear the rhetoric. The rhetoric is that House of Commons' money is being used to support partisan activities. The fact of the matter is that no House of Commons.... My question to you, Mr. Mulcair, is it accurate that no House of Commons' money was spent to pay the rent for the Montreal office?

[Thomas Mulcair]

It's so clear from the documents that I have, Mr. Christopherson. I guess that's the reason why the Conservatives don't want to look at them, because it disproves their thesis. I have them here. We've made copies for everyone. They can see that every single penny of every month of rent was paid 100% by the NDP, which was, again, absolutely allowed under the rules until last month. When that rule was changed, and when it was amended, we started following the new rule. There's never been a problem with that at any point.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So the office was paid for by the party. The House of Commons staff knew the people were working in Montreal. There was no attempt to hide the fact that the Montreal office was there. In fact, there was a media event to promote the opening of it. We've established that there were clear separations between the functions of people who were on the parliamentary side versus those who were on the partisan side.

I'd be interested to see where the government goes from here, because I don't know what's left. Everything that has been raised has been adequately covered off piece by piece by piece—minus the rhetoric, I grant you. You've removed the rhetoric. You're left with what I just said, which is that there's no House of Commons money involved in the paying of this office; the House of Commons staff knew that our staff were working in Montreal; there was no attempt to hide the fact that this office was there, open, and functioning; and lastly, there is a clear separation between the work being done by those on the parliamentary side and those on the partisan side. We've established that. It will be interesting to see where else the government wants to go, because so far they're not getting anywhere.

Now, my question is this. To put it in a broader context, Mr. Mulcair, I want to take you back. You mentioned in your opening remarks the reason why you opened up these offices and why you were looking at the Saskatchewan office. I want to put that in the context of a government that is opening up ministerial offices all across the country—17, I believe. So I would like you to speak to that objective you had in light of what the government was doing—with 100% taxpayer money, by the way. I'm not saying that's partisan work, but it's a presence and they're there.

Then I'd also like to put it in the context of what your budget is, as the leader of the official opposition, and what the budget of the Prime Minister's Office is, and what the increases have been to your budget versus the increases to the cabinet budget the Prime Minister has access to.

I wonder if you would respond, Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

As you know, one of the primary institutional roles of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is to hold the government to account. Of course the fact that the government has been adding these offices at a rapid pace has made our job more difficult. We have to hold them to account. That also means following them at ground level.

It's interesting to note that from 2011-12, when the election took place, to fiscal 2012-13—so in one fiscal year—the Prime Minister's Office has increased its own budget by 7.4%. This is completely different. This is exclusive of the millions of dollars they're spending on these other offices, whereas—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair]

Yes, I'm just going to get one number, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The time is up.

[Thomas Mulcair]

I'm going to get one number and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

In the next answer, I'm sure you might be able to do that.

[Thomas Mulcair]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Woodworth, you have seven minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm really surprised that the NDP members haven't been giving their leader more opportunity to answer questions, but I'm going to give him a few more.

First of all, Mr. Mulcair, I understand that in fact the lease at 4428 Saint-Laurent Boulevard, Montreal, is in the name of NDP caucus services. Will you at least confirm that much with a yes or no?

[Thomas Mulcair]

Yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you. That's the first one. Thank you.