Evidence of meeting #44 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
July 15th, 2008 / 2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Bernier and Mr. Mayrand.
Mr. Mayrand, how many political parties ran candidates in the election campaign that began on November 29, 2005 and ended on January 23, 2006?
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
To how many political parties in total did the 67 candidates here in question belong, some of whom became members and later perhaps ministers? Under what banner did they run? Were there a number of banners?
2:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Are you talking about the regional media buy program?
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
No, I'm talking about the 67 candidates under review, who did not receive—
2:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
They all belonged to the same party.
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
All right. So, only one party is concerned. The other aspect I wanted to address, Mr. Mayrand, is the following. The entire matter of electoral expenses is the subject before us today. Can you tell us what a clear electoral expense is, one that passes the test, according to your definition, as compared to an electoral expense that is not clear, that has not passed the test and that is currently under investigation?
2:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
There is definitely a very simple answer to that question. As I said in my presentation this morning, the act provides a series of definitions of election campaign expenses, which include electoral expenses and personal expenses of the candidates.
There is a set of criteria that must be considered in examining an expense to determine whether it ultimately constitutes an electoral expense and whether it grants entitlement to reimbursement. The first question that should be considered is this: was the expense incurred by the person claiming it? Was the expense reasonable? Was it accessory or related to the election campaign? Were the goods or services used as a result of those expenses used by the campaign? Were they used during the election campaign? You also have to consider the manner in which the expense was financed. Was it financed out of contributions or by a non-monetary transfer? If it was by means of a non-monetary transfer, you have to consider whether the non-monetary transfer corresponds to the commercial value of the transaction. Then you obviously have to consider whether the expense was paid.
In fact, perhaps I should have told you that the first question to consider is whether the expense was authorized by the official agent or whether the official agent authorized someone in writing to incur the expense on his behalf. That's generally the kind of question that must be asked in order to come to the conclusion that an expense is an electoral expense, eligible for reimbursement and that counts for the purposes of calculating the limit.
2:25 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
You gave us that information this morning to clarify matters. There were group purchases. How are the Conservatives, and their controversial cases in the last campaign different from the other 14 political parties, as a result of which they have wound up in this situation?
2:25 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I'll remind you of the five factors I considered when I decided to reject these claims. First of all, one agent at the very start and subsequently other agents expressed a lack of awareness, to say the least, of the expense itself.
Furthermore, there was insufficient documentation to justify the expense. There were also submissions to the effect that the party had made arrangements on behalf of candidates. And yet the invoices were sent to the party, and not to the candidates. I remind you the criteria I mentioned earlier. One of the problems was the manner in which invoices were paid, that is to say by means of transfers of funds, which always remained under the party's control. The funds were never really under the control of the agents or candidates.
Lastly, there was one important point: when you take a close look at the transactions, the candidates taking part in a group purchase—which is possible—were attributed entirely different amounts. It is therefore impossible to establish that there was a commercial value within the meaning of the act, in view of the difference in the amounts that were allocated to the candidates taking part in the same purchases.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.
I have to move now to Mr. Poilievre, although you can get on the list again to speak in another round.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Regardless of the cause of the incident, Liberal employees arrived at the Conservatives' offices immediately after your investigators arrived. The Liberals arrived with cameras and, according to media reports, intend to use those pictures in election advertising in the next election.
That would mean your personnel would appear in partisan ads for a political party during an election over which your agency is supposed to preside impartially. Do you worry that your--
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Excuse me, Mr. Poilievre. I apologize. We have a point of order by Mr. LeBlanc.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering if it's fair to ask the witness to comment on hypothetical Liberal advertising for Mr. Poilievre. It seems to be a little bizarre that he or Mr. Mayrand would be involved in it.
2:25 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc. As you know, that is debate; it's not a point of order.
Mr. Poilievre, please continue.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Do you worry that your ostensibly impartial personnel would become participants in the next election, rather than referees over that election, if a political party were to use that footage in its advertisements?
2:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I would point out first that when you say cameras appeared on the premises immediately, it was about two and a half hours after the operation had started. Personally, I wouldn't call that “immediate”.
As to what will be done with the images that were taken by those who took them, at this point in time I must say it's highly speculative. I'm not familiar with how these things may or may not be used, whether it would be appropriate or not appropriate, or what sort of remedy would fall depending on whether they are used, how they are used, or for what purpose they are used. I cannot comment any further on this matter.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
When Canadians see these possible ads, they could conclude that Elections Canada is not the referee of the game but instead has put on a jersey and joined one of the teams.
That would not be true, but could it create the impression of such a bias if indeed the election agency itself were appearing in an advertisement for a given political party?
2:30 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
We would certainly not willingly participate in any advertisement for any party.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So they don't have your permission, in other words?