More abuse of parliamentary resources by the NDP

September 27, 2015

 Complaints filed with the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the House of Commons’ Board of Internal Economy over the NDP’s partisan use of constituency offices during an election campaign.

MONTREAL – Four NDP MPs must be investigated by the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the House of Commons’ Board of Internal Economy for putting party logos on their constituency office signs and leaving them on display during an election.

Letters of complaint have been sent to the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Speaker of the House of Commons regarding prominent NDP party logos on the signs of the taxpayer-funded and supposedly non-partisan constituency offices of NDP MPs Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont–La-Petite-Patrie), Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier–Maskinongé), Hoang Mai (Brossard—Saint-Lambert), and Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay–Lacolle).

“According to the House of Commons Members’ By-Laws, taxpayer-funded constituency offices cannot be used for partisan activities. I question the judgment of these MPs in deciding to put prominent party logos on their offices’ signs in the first place. These offices are supposed to be strictly separate from partisan politics, and a place where every constituent can go for help, regardless of their political affiliation,” said Liberal Party of Canada Quebec Campaign Co-Chair and candidate for Honoré-Mercier, Pablo Rodriguez. “This is why we’re calling on the House of Commons’ Board of Internal Economy to investigate this issue, as such partisan expenses should not be paid for by taxpayers, but by the party that they benefit.”

Mr. Rodriguez further noted that Elections Canada’s Political Financing Handbook is explicit when it comes to incumbent MPs using taxpayer-funded parliamentary resources, such as signs:

“Incumbent Members of Parliament sometimes wish to make use of parliamentary resources such as websites and signs during their electoral campaigns. The use of such resources during the election period is an election expense. If these resources are not paid by the campaign, their use is a non-monetary contribution from the elected Member and is subject to the contribution limit.” (p.40)

Mr. Rodriguez pointed out that all campaign signs must include a tagline authorizing them as an official expense on behalf of the campaign’s financial agent. The NDP constituency signs in question do not include taglines.

“This is just more abuse of parliamentary resources by the NDP,” continued Mr. Rodriguez. “First, we had 68 NDP MPs having to pay back $2.7 million for the satellite party offices they set up – using taxpayer funds. Then, it was revealed that NDP MPs were running ‘Day of Action’ voter identification blitzes out of their constituency offices. Now they expect taxpayers to pay for big signs displaying their names and the NDP logo in the middle of an election campaign.”

“When will the NDP begin to understand that taxpayer resources provided to Members of Parliament are there to provide services to all of their constituents and not further their electoral or partisan advantage,” concluded Mr. Rodriguez. “Given that the NDP has shown such partisan abuse of the public funds it receives to serve constituents, why would Canadians believe they could ever be trusted to manage the budget of the government of Canada without also resorting to this kind of abuse?”