The claim that I said that was ultimately paid for is false. I thought you were a lawyer, but perhaps I was mistaken. There is proof. Cheques here show that was paid for by the party. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a fact. Our parliamentary employees do parliamentary work and party employees do party work. They report to different people. We had organizers who worked there, and they belonged to another local of another union.
The clear and precise answer to your question is as follows. We informed the House from the outset that people would be going to work in Montreal. We were very clear. They had a right to do so. The act says so in any case. Even though the documents prove it, there are not even any grounds for discussion as to whether they had a right to work in Montreal. The question instead is whether they did parliamentary work. The answer is yes. We are the only ones who can prove that since there were two different unions and two different job descriptions.