Evidence of meeting #48 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 campaign.
A recording is available from Parliament.
August 13th, 2008 / 2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
As an Individual
In late December. I actually started my campaign on January 2.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
And the money arrived, you said, just before the end of the election. The election was on January 23.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mid-January, around January 15.
You seemed to imply that there was a contract you made with the Conservative Party of Canada that you would get the money and you would send it back. Was there a contract, a written contract or a verbal contract?
2:45 p.m.
As an Individual
No, they sent me a transfer agreement that money would go into our account and then I'd sign a transfer for it to go back out again. It's a bank transfer form.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, does our committee have a copy of one of these agreements about money coming and money going?
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
There are a number of documents on the web. None of that has been formally circulated by the chair or the clerks to the committee.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Roberts, could you provide us with a copy of that contract and the transfer of moneys?
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
That would be very good to have, because you think that, within that transfer agreement, you were transferring to the Conservative Party of Canada your authorization to spend that money as they saw fit in terms of advertising.
2:45 p.m.
As an Individual
The way I tried to explain it earlier, I thought we were going to receive election materials. They were giving us money so we could buy election materials that they were going to provide to us.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Looking back then, as a chartered accountant, you seem to have been involved with an agreement that you weren't sure what it was.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
It's rather disappointing that that would have happened.
Ms. Downey, do you have any comments to make in terms of your attitude toward what happened?
2:45 p.m.
As an Individual
I started my campaign on January 2, and if anyone in this room knows the size of Random—Burin—St. George's, I spent the time on my campaign travelling the district. I put over 5,000 kilometres on my car in about 20 days.
I did not in conversation, because of course we talked daily, mention the fact that there was an amount of money that came to our campaign from the federal Conservatives and that we were rather happy because, being late starting, we did not have a lot of money for advertising or anything else that was going on. So of course we were rather excited and thought, now we can really get some things out there.
Then I got told, a couple of days later, that that money had to go back to the national campaign. To the best of my knowledge, my name was never used on any national campaign. As referred to by this gentleman, it might have been the tag line of Random—Burin—St. George's, but the name of Cynthia Downey was never mentioned. If you want to add to my campaign and give me some recognition, I think the name would have certainly helped, as would any help I received from the national campaign.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Thank you.
Mr. Halicki, you seemed to get a different impression of the money that was sent to you. You viewed it as a collateral that you could use to borrow money to be used for your campaign.
Now, they sent you $60,000—
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Hubbard, could you wind that up quickly, and I'll allow them to answer.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
You could have had the idea of a rebate of $36,000. So did you go to a bank and say, I have collateral on a loan, and I'll use this money I'm going to get from Elections Canada as security for a loan that I will get from my bank?
2:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I'll answer that right away.
No. No, it was not used as collateral at all. The loan did not come from the bank. It was private money and it was based on the fact that we were anticipating a refund when the election was over.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
Mr. Del Mastro, please. You actually have six minutes because Mr. Hubbard went a little over. So take six minutes.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Okay. I guess we're making it up as we go here, so however it comes, we're getting used to it.
Mr. Halicki, I'm going to provide a scenario here. We've cited examples of the parties, and I'm going to cite an example of a specific party, one that is represented by the members of the jury across.
In the year 2000, the Bloc Québécois were legally forced to spend a minimum predetermined amount on advertising that they determined to be of national character. Court documents showed that the Bloc's national executive adopted the proposal to help fund their national campaign. The practice allowed the Bloc to seek larger local rebates—the Liberals established this system of a 60% rebate in 1997, and you've spoken a little bit about it—and help keep the central party below its spending limit.
In the 2000 federal election, 73 Bloc candidates—I think there are 77 ridings in Quebec, though there may have been only 73 then, so virtually every one of them—including 23 MPs who currently sit in the House, paid $820,000 in advertising of national character to a company called Touché Media Marketing. This allowed the Bloc to claim a larger local rebate and ensured that almost $1 million—this is just in the province of Quebec—in national advertising would not count against the party's spending limit.
This is how this whole scheme, if you want to call it a scheme... That's certainly their word, but we called it a transfer from the party, an in-and-out transfer. As a side note, the enhanced local rebate scheme generated funds that were automatically transferred back to the national headquarters. This is why Mr. Duceppe is known as the father of the in-and-out, because this is a method that they used.
In other words, the money went to them. I've seen the spreadsheet on it, and virtually every one was about $10,000 in radio advertising, where the money went in, the money went out, and they received a rebate on it.
Is that substantively different? I'll tell you that I would consider that each candidate who participated in that radio buy of nearly $1 million received a benefit from it.
Would you say the scenario I just outlined for you is substantively different?