Evidence of meeting #40 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the New Democratic Party, NDP
Here you go.
Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the New Democratic Party, NDP
April 8, 2014, the following amendment to the Members By-Law....
As of April 8, 2014:
93.1 (1) No employee of a Member or House Officer may have as their regular place of work any space in premises owned, leased or under the effective control of a political party.
What that means, Mr. Woodworth, is that up until April 7, 2014, there was nothing wrong with it. That's what that means, Mr. Woodworth.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Well, Mr. Mulcair, that's only so if you ignore the rule that existed before that date, which you seem to be intent on doing.
So let me ask you from the standpoint of a non-lawyer, an ordinary Canadian, do you really not perceive the ethical difficulties with sending House of Commons staff to work in an office that is leased by, run by, labelled by a partisan political office? Do you not understand the ethical issue that this rule 4.1 that was in existence in 2011 was designed to prevent?
Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the New Democratic Party, NDP
The amendment that I referred to earlier, Mr. Chairman, came into force on April 14, 2014. The member would of course be right if on April 15, 2014, we still had that staff in an office paid for by the NDP. We did not. They now work out of my riding office.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So, Mr. Mulcair, you are in fact insisting that it's perfectly fine for House of Commons staff to work in a partisan political office. That's okay with you, is that your evidence today?
Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the New Democratic Party, NDP
You have to go back to the definition of parliamentary function. That's what this debate is supposed to be about: “duties and activities that relate to the position of Member, wherever performed”. So going back to the rules of interpretation that we both seem to enjoy, “wherever performed” is not limitative. It is all-inclusive, “wherever performed” including in an office in another city, because nobody is suggesting, at least I haven't heard it yet, that we're not allowed to take employees, pay their kilometres, and have them work somewhere else because “wherever performed” means “wherever performed”. That means there was nothing wrong with having our staff working in an office that was paid for by somebody else. We never used a penny of taxpayers' money for that office.
What we did do was make the party pay every single penny of every month of rent and when it became impossible for us to do that after April 14, you know what? We respected the new rules, which is what we've done every step of the way.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I certainly regret the fact that you see nothing wrong with House of Commons employees who should be fulfilling parliamentary functions being housed in an office that is labelled with a partisan political label, and by the way, in which the telephones are answered with the message, “would you like to give a donation to the NDP?” and so on and so forth.
Be that as it may, Mr. Mulcair, don't you think that a member should not—
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I feel almost sorry for Mr. Woodworth, but—
Conservative
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I know this is Mr. Julian's time, of course. It's just this.
Mr. Mulcair has referred to all of the cheques since the lease began and he indicated that he would be willing to offer these to the committee if they were asked for, which left me with the thought that he might be under the misapprehension that if we don't ask for them they won't be submitted. Just in case that's the case, do you have them there?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you very much. I'll take a look at those.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair, yet another answer has been given.
I feel sorry for Mr. Woodworth. He started off by talking about co-location until it turns out that their Conservative members are doing the co-location actually with taxpayer paid offices. He talked about partisan mailing until the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of the incredibly partisan mailings the Conservatives and Liberals do. He also raised the members' services manual without mentioning—and I'll reference this to the leader of the official opposition—that they had to impose the new Members By-Law 93.1, which comes from the decision on April 8.
To not mention that I think is disingenuous to say the least, Mr. Woodworth. What you're saying is that you changed the Members By-Law, and it shouldn't have happened.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
When I go to speak then you say, “Yes, Mr. Chair, how can I help you?”