Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll call our meeting to order.

This is meeting number 40 of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee.

We are here televised and in public, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 27, 2014, to study the use of House of Commons resources by the official opposition.

Mr. Mulcair, you are here today. We'll give you five minutes for an opening statement. Please, if you would, introduce the guests that you have brought with you today too.

[Thomas Mulcair, Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the New Democratic Party, NDP]

Mr. Chair, that is exactly what I was proposing to do.

First, I would like to introduce Gisèle Dupuis, Director of Operations, Office of the Leader of the Opposition; Raoul Gebert, Chief of Staff of the Leader of the Opposition; and James Duggan, chair of the New Democratic Party's legal committee. They are here with me in the event more specific and technical questions are raised, and the time for this meeting will be better used if they are allowed to answer those kinds of questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have not appeared before a parliamentary committee in a long time. I did so dozens of times when I was minister because parliamentary committees usually have to study government activities.

I understand that the members of this committee are quite keen to learn how to serve Canadians better and how these best practices are within the rules. The NDP is totally transparent, and we believe in and practice accountability.

I'd like to take this opportunity to contrast our approach with the approach of the Conservatives. For example, Stephen Harper, Maxime Bernier, and Stockwell Day, all refused to appear in front of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security about security breaches caused by the Conservative government. Christian Paradis and Lisa Raitt refused to testify in front of the government operations committee about illegal lobbying activities involving them. Of course, the Prime Minister won't be testifying before this committee concerning the use of the Conservative Party database in thousands of illegal robocalls during the 2011 election, constituting electoral fraud on a level never seen before in Canada.

Those are the direct findings of a very highly respected federal court judge, Richard Mosley. Of course, we all know the level of respect the Harper government shows our judiciary. I could go on, but it's an interesting contrast in transparency, accountability, and respect for our democratic institutions, and Canadians will be the judge.

I'm here today because in 2011, four and a half million Canadians voted for the NDP and four and a half million Canadians stated there was a need for change and that it was time to do politics differently. Under the leadership of Jack Layton, that's what we ran on and that's what we set out to do because after 30 years of Liberal and Conservative corruption, scandal, and mismanagement, from the Liberal sponsorship scandal to the Prime Minister's chief of staff paying $90,000 in hush money to silence a sitting senator, Canadians deserve better.

In the wake of the orange wave, the NDP faced the major challenge of hiring and setting up political staff for 58 members in Quebec. The task of hiring and training more than 150 people to serve Quebec was enormous.

That is why, in June 2011, the new NDP members from Quebec decided, at Jack Layton's suggestion, to pool their resources. Our objective was to help them set up their offices and provide local support to members to assist them in their riding duties and, for some, in their roles as members of our shadow cabinet. The ultimate aim was to provide better service to the public and to be more directly involved with and more attentive to citizens. These were all parliamentary duties.

For example, parliamentary employees prepare direct communication products and manage media relations and community relations to support official opposition members.

There was also a genuine need to create a francophone environment so that we could create products in French to provide better support for our Quebec members.

Our parliamentary staff does parliamentary work. Our party staff does party work. Our parliamentary staff are involved in direct communications, media relations, and stakeholder relations, all functions in support of MPs and the official opposition.

That was all put in place following extensive consultations with the House of Commons administration, including its legal services, finance services and the officers of the pay and benefits service. There was so much consultation that pay cheques were delayed until November 2011 when they could be approved.

Hiring for the Montreal region began in August 2011. The hiring process was conducted in accordance with the procedure established at the time under the collective agreement between the New Democratic caucus and Local 232 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, or CEPU. All members of that bargaining unit perform parliamentary duties only.

Employees who perform non-parliamentary duties belong to Local 225 of the Office and Professional Employees Union, or OPEU.

The respective duties of those bargaining units are very clearly defined and determined. Competition notices are always published according to prescribed periods. Obviously, the points of hire are clearly indicated.

This decentralization of services to Montreal and Quebec City was a major success. That is undoubtedly why we are here today: we were too successful.

Members can rely on constant support whether they are in Ottawa or in their ridings. This enhanced regional capability increased the efficiency of our teams, the scope of our consultations and the reach of our communications.

We also know that while the Conservatives were opening more and more regional ministerial offices—17 as of now, in fact—the NDP had to continue to adapt. As part of our duties as the official opposition, we have to monitor the work of the government on the ground in order to hold it to account. So, as the new—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Can you wrap up, please? You're a minute past your time.

[Thomas Mulcair]

Yes, I have exactly a minute left to go.

As the new official opposition, New Democrats made the decision to engage with citizens in every province and territory. We know it's a concept foreign to Conservatives and Liberals, who prefer to talk with lobbyists in Ottawa, but Canadians deserve better. While our opponents are wasting parliamentary resources attacking the NDP, New Democrats are using these resources to reach out to Canadians in their communities, because Canadians want politicians to be more accessible to them in their own communities, where they live, where things happen, and where they can be heard and listened to. That's why we set out to talk to them, consult with them, and listen to them as often and as broadly as possible.

All of these, once again, are clearly parliamentary activities. This is our commitment to Canadians and that is what we set out to do.

I'll skip ahead, because you're impatient to get started and I don't blame you. But I will tell you one thing. This is not the first time the NDP is innovating the way parliamentary activities are undertaken in order to serve Canadians.

I'll end with this, and it's a quote from a report prepared for the Privy Council Office in 2005:

It's a rare event that an extension to parliament is invented without any design or debate, yet essentially, the introduction of constituency offices to Canada was a spontaneous act that didn't occur until an enterprising MP decided to create one. Credit at the federal level is shared between Ed Broadbent, who opened an office funded in part by the Canadian Autoworkers Union in 1968 and Flora Macdonald, who opened her Kingston office with the aid of a part-time university student in 1973.

We're proud that our effective extension to Parliament has resulted in better services to Canadians. I'll be happy to answer your questions in the unlikely case that you still have some.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.

Mr. Julian, on a point of order....

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do indeed have a point of order.

I think you'll agree with me on this. We heard from Richard Denis, the deputy law clerk and parliamentary counsel, who specifically said to the committee a few days ago:

Given these factors, it is our opinion that the Committee should exercise caution in its proceedings in order to avoid unnecessarily compromising the confidentiality normally afforded to Members by the House Administration....

Furthermore, Mr. Denis said:

...we would therefore recommend generally that the material provided by House Administration be retained solely for the use of Committee members and not be released to the public.

As you know, Mr. Chair, this has been raised with you. We've had everything that has been put out partially leaked within minutes of the material being distributed to committee members. This is deplorable, as you know. This is not the way procedure and House affairs—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Julian. The committee has already seized itself with research on that point. I believe you know that, so I won't take this as a point of order and we'll move on to another question.

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

This is a new point. This was from yesterday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Will you very quickly get to it then?

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

Well, I'm saying that this has happened—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Then your committee is still seized with the same thing, and we will be doing our research to determine cause, as we already suggested.

Mr. Woodworth, you have seven minutes, please.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I have a point of order.

I'll try to be brief, also. I only want to be clear on the scope of this committee, because I read with very great interest the

memorandum from Richard Denis, who is Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. I wanted to ensure that was consistent with the chair's vision. I was somewhat scared yesterday as I listened in the House to some of your answers, which suggested that the process had been characterized in some way.

In response to a request that you submitted dated May 6 last, Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel Richard Denis clearly explained, in a memo dated May 9, the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy and the powers, as it were, of this committee.

Incidentally, I congratulate your service, which took three days to draft the quite impressive legal opinion that appears in the file.

I will spare what you have probably read, but I will read Mr. Denis's conclusion:

Based on the foregoing, your committee may proceed to review the matters referred to it by the House, being mindful that it does not interfere with or usurp the Board's exclusive jurisdiction under section 52.6 of the Parliament of Canada Act to determine the proper use of House of Commons resources provided to Members for the carrying out of their parliamentary functions.

I am raising a point of order because, in response to an enthusiastic question by certain colleagues, you suggested that you would do exactly with what your law clerk told you not to do. Consequently, I would like you to clarify your position somewhat.

I would prefer to have it done now rather than have anyone look back in five months and question the appropriateness of certain conversations, as some people do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

The order of reference, Thursday, March 27, was from the House of Commons as a whole. Certainly, the reference was sent to this committee to study the use of House of Commons resources by the official opposition. The reference came from the House of Commons. I'm suggesting that the Speaker of the House agrees with what we're doing, so the committee will carry on with the reference from the House on the study of this matter.

Mr. Woodworth, a round of questions, you have seven minutes, please.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Mulcair. Welcome and thank you very much for being with us today.

We all know that you prefer questions that are a simple yes or no. I hope you won't mind if I proceed in that fashion today, beginning—

[Thomas Mulcair]

Not only do I not mind—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's not a question, sir—

[Thomas Mulcair]

—but I would have been disappointed if it had been otherwise.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

—it's simply a statement.

[Thomas Mulcair]

We were anticipating it and that's how we prepared, Mr. Woodsworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I will begin with trying to establish some facts with you, but I would be grateful if you allowed me to ask my questions, beginning with a simple fact.

Your Quebec MPs hired staff sent to work at 4428 Boulevard Saint-Laurent, Montreal.

Yes or no...?

[Thomas Mulcair]

That's what was indicated in all the documents sent to the House of Commons and discussed with the IT people—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes or no is fine, Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair]

—discussed with the personnel pay and benefits people.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would appreciate it if you would simply answer my question—