Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2014

[Thomas Mulcair]

That's an interesting question, because it's so comically loaded it's worthy of nothing but contempt.

You are affirming that is the case, whereas if you look at that package, you'll see that on September 22, 2014, Marie-Dominique Sicé wrote to Christian Boileau, the same person who's talking at the House of Commons, and it says this:

Bonjour Christian, I just took up to the 11th Floor (Suite 11-45) fifty-one (51) Employment Forms from each Quebec NDP MP for staff working in Montreal.

These were the forms that divided up the number of people who were going to be paying the salary for each of the people based in Montreal.

We also have voluminous correspondence non-stop with the IT people in the House of Commons every step of the way. We also have every posting, because we are unionized, and every one of those public postings explains that it's a job in Montreal. We also have every single letter of nomination sent to the House of Commons authorities that either mentions specifically the address in Montreal of the work, or the person's address in Montreal. Every step of the way, the House of Commons, its staff, have been informed.

You are referring to something that someone today is saying happened three years ago. This is not a formal meeting. There are no minutes of this meeting. This is what your interpretation is of a snippet of a conversation or an exchange between two people.

Jess Turk-Browne, to my knowledge, was an exceptionally capable public administrator. She left several years ago to go work to help register women to vote in Pakistan, where she spent more than two years. She's back as far as I know, but I haven't spoken to her since she left for Pakistan. I find it grossly unfair for you to make that affirmation that she somehow broke the law.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

Let me address a couple of things that you raised in your answer.

You said there were no minutes of the meeting. You are also aware that there is, included in the package in preparation for this meeting, an email from Sophie Hart to Robin Kells, which reads:

Here are the minutes of the meeting between NDP (Jess Turk-Browne), HRS (Christian Boileau) and FS (Nathalie Charpentier)....

So that would address that point that you made, sir.

As for the next point, you referenced an email of September 22 from Marie-Dominique Sicé to Christian. You conveniently, sir, did not reference the response. The response was on October 7. Christian Boileau to Marie-Dominique Sicé, the email that you referenced in your response, sir, says:

In the email below it is indicated that the employees all work in Montreal. On the employment forms we received for the 9 employees, it is indicated they all work in Ottawa. Can you please confirm their work location?

It was that exchange of emails, sir, that gave rise to the October 13th meeting, the October 13th meeting in which Jess Turk-Browne indicated that these employees worked in Ottawa.

So let me come now to the Clerk of the House of Commons. Again in that same memorandum, the Clerk of the House of Commons says:

At no point was the House administration informed that the employees would be located in Montreal or that their work would be carried out in co-location with a political party’s offices....

What you just said in your answer, and what Audrey O'Brien just said, cannot both be true. Which is it, sir?

[Thomas Mulcair]

What I've just said is true. I'm not going to let you impugn the motives of someone who worked for us a few years ago, and Audrey O'Brien is someone who is deserving of the respect of every single person in this House. She's an outstanding public officer, who has served with dignity and deserves all of our respect, and not to be the object of your tricks.

Here's the answer to your question. Every step of the way, we published notices that said the job was in Montreal. They were public. We sent documents to the House administration that either referenced directly the fact that the job was in Montreal, or gave the person's address in Montreal. They had BlackBerry phone numbers that were 514. Their home addresses in Montreal were where their cheques were sent to. We held a press conference to celebrate the opening of the Montreal office. It was carried everywhere from the Montreal Gazette to The Hill Times. I'm not David Copperfield, I can't make an office disappear. It was open. It was transparent. It was public.

You're referencing something that completely obviates the mass of information that proves conclusively that the NDP was totally open, transparent—

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Point of order, Mr. Chair....

[Thomas Mulcair]

—and sincere in working with the House administration on this issue from day one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, you have a point of order, Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The question was fairly straightforward, and now we're into a bit of a soliloquy. There's a lot of information to get through. I would appreciate it if the witness could be directed to restrict his answer to the question, and to follow your guidance with respect to the length of the question and answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's keep trying. The answer should be the same length as the question, but let's try and keep within the right parameters here, folks. Let's see if we can get some information out.

Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

The chief financial officer, Mark Watters, also seems to have an inconsistent opinion with yours with respect to the House being informed every step of the way. In fact, two months ago he wrote this, pertaining to Ottawa-based staff that was to be sharing amongst a number of Quebec-based MPs, “I do not believe that the NDP set up a Quebec Office.” That's two months ago.

How do you square that with your assertion that the House administration was informed every step of the way?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Casey, thank you. Your time is up. The witness can answer if he would like, or we'll move to—

[Thomas Mulcair]

We have correspondence that follows on those exchanges in 2011, dozens and dozens of emails back and forth. I can quote them for you from October, 2012 up to January, 2014, direct correspondence with the House of Commons, sent to them with the Montreal addresses with the title the person will be occupying in Montreal.

I believe one part of your confusion comes from the fact that you believe we said they were working in Ottawa. If you look at the forms, it talks about the fact that you either have to say they are being administered out of Ottawa or being administered out of a riding office. They were always administered out of Ottawa. That was also in the notices, that was also in the documents, and it was, indeed, the case that they were being administered out of Ottawa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair. I'll stop you there.

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

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I must say that in five years of sitting on a committee, I have never seen a witness as evasive as this witness. That said—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead.

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

On a point of order, personal insults are not appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The chair will take care of the rules, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Woodworth, you have four minutes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I am going to continue to try to get answers, so I'll ask you, Mr. Mulcair, do you agree that MPs are not allowed to use free mailing privileges or other House of Commons resources for activities designed in the context of an election to support or oppose a political party, yes or no?

[Thomas Mulcair]

I guess the answer to that is this lovely picture of Stephen Harper boasting strong economic leadership, and this somewhat unflattering picture of me talking about reckless spending and higher taxes.

You see, this is something invented by the Conservatives. That's why we took it, you see, back to the Speaker of the House of Commons when Bob Rae starting using franked envelopes to attack the NDP, because we thought that had been taken care of. It turns out it hadn't been taken care of, and the Speaker ruled, with a minor change to the number that could be sent, that it was absolutely legit.

Now, the NDP sometimes has a reputation for being overly generous in our interpretation to make sure we don't follow this sort of thing, but we've started to say, “You know what? We'll very directly communicate with the Canadian public using the exact same tactics and techniques as the Conservatives and the Liberals” because in my 36 years in government, Mr. Woodworth, I've never seen the governing party get together with its handmaiden in the third party to convene the Leader of the Opposition. But you know what, I'm here, and I'm going to answer all your questions.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.

Is it your position that a statement of the following nature may be sent using free mailing privileges of the House of Commons?

I am talking here about this kind of comment: "With an experienced leader like him, our party is in the best position to beat the other parties in the next federal election in 2015. Together we can do more. Join us and we will get the country back on the right track."

Now, I regard that as election campaigning. Do you think that's suitable House of Commons use of resources?

[Thomas Mulcair]

From Stephen Harper's mailings—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes or no...?

[Thomas Mulcair]

“Thomas Mulcair and the NDP have very different priorities than those of our Conservative Government. Indeed, in Mr. Mulcair's first year as leader, he showed where his priorities really lie. He continued to support a $21.5 billion tax on carbon”—which is a bald-faced lie—“a tax that would increase the...”.

Look, this is what you do, and that's what we do. We all do it.

Don't...Mr. Woodworth. You're not dignifying yourself.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I didn't hear a reference to the 2015 election in what you just read. Surely it's beyond the pale for a member of Parliament to be enlisting support for the 2015 election through the free mailing privileges of the House of Commons.

[Thomas Mulcair]

We have more, Mr. Woodworth. Do you want me to start reading John Baird's mail-outs? They're identical.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me, Mr. Mulcair, we have a point of order.