Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2014

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Again I'm quoting from

Richard Denis, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel,

who wrote to you on the 9th of May, Mr. Chair, about the scope of this committee on franchise postale, and it says quite clearly on page 4:

The postal frank is not a resource that is provided by the House of Commons. Rather its existence is recognized and provided for in section 35 of the Canada Post Corporation Act. The nature of the frank dates back to before Confederation; since that time, the frank has been recognized and carried forward through the various Acts that have been enacted to govern Canada Post/Postes Canada. Given that it is a mailing privilege of Members of Parliament, your committee could look at its extent and scope and make recommendations on its purpose and the use to which it may be put by Members. On the other hand, the Board’s role regarding the postal frank relates to the "administration of the free mailing privileges" as per paragraph 30(a)...

I believe that all these questions from Mr. Woodworth are inadmissable. If you want to hold a meeting specifically on franking privileges,

be my guest. I'd love it, because frankly I'm tired of that type of literature from all parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

We'll carry on with Mr. Woodworth's questions.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mulcair, you've asserted that you and your representatives disclosed your staffing arrangements to the House of Commons administration, but do you agree with me that not once did you disclose to the House of Commons administration that paid House of Commons staff would be working in a partisan political office, yes or no?

[Thomas Mulcair]

I'm going to read to Mr. Woodworth an exchange of emails from November 22, 2011.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Woodworth, there's not much time left. I hope it's a short section.

[Thomas Mulcair]

This is from the House of Commons to us:

Hi Marie-Dominique,

Here is how the cheques will be distributed for the 8/9 Montreal employees.

...

There follows a list stating "cheque to home" in Montreal, "direct deposit" to a bank in Montreal and so on. It also states the name of an employee who had been terminated. It is signed by Christian Boileau.

The House of Commons knew at every stage that these people were working in Montreal until the change in regulations last month. They were entirely free to work—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Mulcair—

[Thomas Mulcair]

—where they wanted, including at an office for which rent was paid by a political party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair—

[Thomas Mulcair]

We cannot be much clearer than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.

Maybe I need to be clear that when someone's time is up, I'll give you notice that it is, and you will catch my eye and we'll work well together.

We'll move now to Mr. Christopherson for four minutes, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think we've sufficiently established that there was no secrecy going on here. Everybody knew, and that last email that says would you arrange this with the employees in Montreal, if somebody is trying to hide something they're doing a really poor job. Having established there was no secret, and that it was known that the office was there, Mr. Mulcair, you mentioned earlier that there were physical, supervisory, and legal barriers in the collective agreement that would separate the functioning of the staff between the parliamentary side and the partisan side.

Would you expand on that for us so we can understand exactly what happened on the ground in that office on a day-to-day basis?

[Thomas Mulcair]

Yes.

The actual lease includes an annex where you can clearly see the three closed offices that were for the three party workers. They had separate spaces closed off, and the rest of the space was shared.

The two collective agreements are quite substantial, as is normally the case. Anyone who has worked in that atmosphere understands that it is a great illustration of the old principle that good fences make good neighbours. In other words, when you have a collective agreement, for one, they know what work is reserved for their bargaining unit, for their section, for their union. There's never been a problem with that.

I checked with the heads of both unions before coming here today, and I asked if we've had grievances. There have been none. That means that these things have been enforced and applied very strictly, that we've followed, every step of the way, the physical separation of the work, the actual separation by job category and function, as prescribed in the collective agreements.

Now, it is worth pointing out—maybe it won't come as a surprise to anyone, because I know no one in the NDP is surprised about it—that we are the only political party in Parliament that is unionized. In other words, we're the only ones who can make this proof, because actually, the whole question here today is whether or not we were performing parliamentary duties. We have to go back every time to section 1 of the Members By-Law. The question is not whether or not they could work in Montreal. That's established in article one. That's set out right away. They can work in Montreal.

The question then becomes, were they allowed to work in a place that was rented and where the rent was paid for by a political party? The answer to that is yes. Up until the month of April 2014, they could do that. You wouldn't have had to bring in that new rule if it wasn't already allowed. That new rule was brought in because it was allowed.

We followed the new rule once it was brought in. Every step of the way, we've been open and transparent with the House of Commons. We've been open and transparent with this committee. We've respected the rules.

I'm very proud of the fact that we're the only unionized shop in Canadian and indeed North American politics. It also gives me the advantage to say that I know that the two have always been separated.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

So we've now established that they can work there, that it was no secret, and that the people who were there were performing, as they should, the separation between parliamentary functions and party functions—probably not that much different from what we saw with Mr. Strahl's office and the Conservative Party being at exactly the same address, in the same mall, just a couple of units over.

So my question—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's not plough the same ground, Mr. Richards.

On a point of order....

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

We continue to hear this allegation.

[An hon. member]

It's not an allegation; it's a fact.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

These are two separate offices, in two separate locations in the same strip mall, with two different leases.

[An hon. member]

It's a fact.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

It's very much different from what the NDP is doing with their taxpayer-funded offices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Mr. Julian, when I'm ruling on a point of order, I don't need your help. I actually take great offence to your help.

We'll go back to Mr. Christopherson.

You have about 12 seconds left.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Is there a ruling, though?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I told him it was not a point of order, but thank you for your help too.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Okay. Excellent. I missed it; sorry.