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.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
That's fine.
So, Mr. Mayrand and Mr. Bernier, it's clear that we should absolutely meet with the Commissioner of Canada Elections to learn more, if that's possible, and that that is no longer your responsibility in the exercise that concerns us. That's what I understand.
4 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
As I told the Chairman, the committee is master when it comes to determining the witnesses it wishes to hear. I am simply pointing out that, since the current investigation is actively continuing, I very much doubt that the Commission can enlighten the committee any further.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, we passed a motion to have one full round, and we're almost finished it.
Mr. Reid, please.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I've been looking at the five criteria, Mr. Mayrand, that you have on pages 8 and 9 of the English version of your presentation. You had several presentations, and this is the one that considers the regional media buy program. You listed five criteria, and looking at them, it strikes me that four are really different versions of the same thing. You're referring to the national party engaged in the administration of local election advertising. The reference in your first point was to a lack of detailed knowledge of the regional buy by official agents, because that detailed knowledge was at the party level. You then refer to the lack of contractual agreements by any of the participating candidates with the supplier, because that contractual relation was carried out at the level of the party. In your third point, you note that arrangements were made for the purchase by the party and invoicing is done via the party rather than through the local campaigns. Your fourth point is that the party made the financial arrangements and actually carried out the payments. Those are all versions of the same thing, which is the administration of these ads by the party.
It seems to me that you are conflating the idea of administration and the idea of beneficial use of the advertising. The beneficiaries were in fact the local campaigns, and the administration was done by the parties. If that is evidence of one group or one side of that transaction undertaking costs on behalf of the other, I suggest to you that you have it backwards. In fact, this is evidence of an uncosted benefit being carried on by the national party. It actually benefited the parties. If anything, there's a case that the parties' overall expenses should be lowered and the candidates' overall expenses should be raised, which is the exact reverse of what you're doing. Frankly, you just have it backwards. I can't see how else to interpret this.
Your fifth criteria talks about how the expenses claimed by each campaign do not reflect the commercial value of the ad placement. I assume what you're referring to here is something like this. A number of ridings get together and pay for an ad, but the benefit to each of the ridings does not correspond to the amount they paid for them. That might well be the case, but if it is the case, it seems to me that you have two adjoining EDAs and they're paying equal amounts..... Well, let's say they're paying unequal amounts but you determine they're getting equal amounts of benefit from it. It seems to me that what this really amounts to is a transfer from one EDA to the other, and that the appropriate action is not to claim that it's gone up to the national level, but rather that it's gone from one EDA to another, adjoining or not adjoining.
I'm asserting that the expenses you say ought to be attributed to the national campaign actually ought to be made elsewhere. Could you explain to me what is wrong with my logic?
4:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Just to be clear, the transactions here were conducted by the campaign. If there is a transfer, as you suggested, to another campaign, that's an illegal transfer, and we would have a problem with that. A candidate's campaign cannot transfer goods, services, or money to another candidate.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I follow that, but nevertheless, it seems to me that it's a different scenario than the one you posited.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to take the remaining time I have to make the following motion:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) in reference to the current study under way by this committee, that the committee request that the Chief Electoral Officer appoint an independent investigator to review allegations of a leak, and that this investigation include all individuals who were privy to information about the search at Conservative Party headquarters before the search took place.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Colleagues, the member has put forward a motion by which the committee, and it says it here clearly, would request that the Chief Electoral Officer appoint an independent investigator to review allegations of a leak, and that this investigation include all individuals who were privy to information about the search before the search occurred.
During the questioning, I believe Mr. Mayrand indicated that he'd be happy to look at whatever--there are five people now--and so on.
The motion is in order, because we can request anything we want, but we have no jurisdiction to mandate that this happen. The motion before us effectively says that the committee request that such a review be done. And the Chief Electoral Officer will consider our request.
I'm going to rule it in order, and I don't want any debate. I think it's fairly straightforward. It was discussed earlier. I'd simply like to put the question on this motion, as I read it, into the record. Would that be acceptable?
We'll have Mr. Martin on a point of order.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I would point out, Mr. Chair, that we have notice rules on this committee. I believe on a motion of that type you would have to serve notice and wait the 24-hour requisite period, and we could deal with it at the next meeting.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Martin.
That, in fact, is incorrect. The 24-hour notice period is not required for motions related to the current business. There is no notice requirement, because the motion is related to the business currently being dealt with by the committee. Those are our rules. It's not a personal opinion. I just want to make sure that we follow the rules of the committee and of the House.
We'll have Mr. Poilievre. Is it a point of order as well, did you say?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
On Mr. Martin's concern, I believe you have ruled correctly.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I think we would be amenable to having this thing debated tomorrow if members believe they need a day to consider it. It doesn't need to be done instantaneously.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you for the debate. That's not a point of order.
Madame Lavallée. Is it on a point of order, Madame?
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chairman, the subject of the motion is not the subject we are currently debating. We are discussing the matter of the ethics of Conservative Party members who hold public office; we are not studying the search that was conducted at the offices of the Conservative Party. Furthermore, 24 hours' notice must be given for a motion.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Madame, I understand your views, but that is not a point of order. That's an opinion. It's a matter of debate.
The motion before us is in order. It is relevant to the business currently before the committee. It is debatable if the members want to debate it.
The honourable member here has indicated that he would be prepared to defer the debate on this motion until tomorrow. It sounds like a good idea to me, and if acceptable to members, we'll pick it up there tomorrow first thing.
At this time we will move on for five minutes to a quick discussion of future witnesses, if that's acceptable to the committee. We have to finish the round as well.
Mr. Martin, I apologize. I got distracted.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Hubbard still have time, under the previous motion passed by the committee, to participate in this current round. So I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Martin, then Mr. Hubbard, then Mr. Goodyear. That will be the end of the round in question.
We will then have a few moments. We need to get instructions from the committee with regard to future witnesses. It will only take a short moment. Please bear with me. We're going to finalize it tomorrow, but you have to be instructed about providing lists today for tomorrow.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Will my three motions be dealt with tomorrow, Mr. Chair?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Will that be tomorrow morning and not tomorrow afternoon?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
As I understand it, we're dealing with it today, but I'm prepared to say that these three motions could be dealt with at the same time as the motion from Mr. Reid--tomorrow morning. But if you don't want to do that tomorrow morning, I'd like to do it now.
