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.
2:35 p.m.
As an Individual
I am under oath. I understand. I agreed to tell the truth, and I swore on the Bible. I received an acknowledgement from Gary. He said strictly he can't communicate, because it would be conflict of interest. I received no advice.
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Did anybody else from the party give you any advice regarding your appearance?
2:35 p.m.
NDP
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
No summons was ever issued. I received no summons. And if somebody told you that I received a summons, they were lying to you.
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Fair enough, fair enough. My information is that you were one of those who were summonsed. If that's not true, I apologize.
Mr. Chairman, those are all the questions I have.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you very much.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here.
One of the things I'd like to clarify, because I don't think it has been made very clear, is that the processes we're talking about here in committee, and that you've been reading about in the media, are legal and done by all parties. This regional ad buy is done by all parties. We're just trapped in this kangaroo court here, and the opposition wants to make a big case about something that they themselves have done. So I don't want you to think you have done something wrong, because you haven't.
In order to put this into context, I'd like to give you some information that you may or may not be aware of. Mr. Roberts certainly is, because he was a financial agent.
First, it is perfectly legal for a national party to move money to an EDA. There's nothing wrong with that. It's also perfectly legal for the national party to sell goods or services to an EDA. There's nothing wrong with that.
What I have in front of me here is the testimony from July 15. Monsieur Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, was in front of us. He agreed that it is possible for a party to be a supplier of goods and services to the candidate.
I'm sure your campaigns were much like mine. You probably bought signs; they are advertising materials. You probably bought brochures; they are advertising materials. I bet you bought them from two different suppliers, because those who make signs don't necessarily make good brochures. I bought them from two different suppliers. A third supplier, in accordance with this testimony, could be the national party. So you choose to buy television advertising from the third supplier, the national party. That is above board and legal.
One of the questions that came earlier was, did you have the freedom to spend the amount of money that was moved into your account on other things? That question was asked of Monsieur Mayrand. Can the transfer of money be conditional? Can there be conditions on this money being transferred into the party? Monsieur Mayrand said there could be some conditions attached to the transfer.
So it's okay to have conditions. It's okay to say that I'm moving $10,000 to you, but with that $10,000 I'd like you to buy some television advertising. That's all above board.
I think you're starting to see here that nothing wrong has transpired. I think everybody can imagine that all parties have done this. We have actual evidence that's been read into the record--e-mails and letters from the NDP, from the Liberal Party--documenting that they actually did exactly the same thing. Why did they do that? Because it's legal and above board, and there's nothing wrong with it. I think it's very important to clarify that.
The second thing I'd like to clarify is about advertising, and it is a point I made this morning. You may not have been here, so I'm going to repeat the point that as a candidate I have the final say in what and how I should be advertising on my electoral campaign. Elections Canada should not be telling Pierre Lemieux that he can't put a picture of his family on the brochure, that he cannot have a picture of a farmer on his brochure--that's just out and out wrong. They cannot say that. If I choose to put Stephen Harper and the national campaign slogans front and centre on my television ads, on my brochures, I have a right to do that as the candidate. I decide.
You would know that, Ms. Downey, from when you ran in the election. You decided all sorts of things about your campaign. And it's not for Elections Canada to say otherwise. The important thing is the tag line. You can support Prime Minister Harper and his national advertising campaign as long as there's a tag line that says you're paying for it.
In fact, I just want to comment, for Mr. Roberts and Ms. Downey, that in the ad that was run in your area there was a tag line. In fact, our witnesses this morning from Retail Media said there were tag lines on every single ad bought by a local campaign. They confirmed that, because I questioned them on it. I had it in writing that they confirmed it.
There was a tag line, and I'm going to quote this for the record. On the tag line that was used in your riding, Ms. Downey, it said:
Authorized by the official agents for your Conservative candidates in Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, and Random—Burin—St. George's.
The tag line was there.
So whether or not you saw the ad or the tag line, the ad was run and there was nothing wrong with that. You're allowed to buy advertising from the national party, the tag line should be there, and the tag line was there. That's important as well.
There are just a few other things I'd like to highlight.
With respect to concurrence, were you aware that you had a decision that you could make? For example, you were being asked. Were you part of the decision process?
Let me ask Mr. Halicki this. When the national party called you, did they say, “You absolutely must; you have no choice in this matter,” or were you actually given an scenario and they were waiting for your confirmation? Could you elaborate on that for us?
2:40 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. I actually had no conversation about money or the fund, because it was not my place in the campaign. We were told strictly to stay away from the money aspect of it. All those conversations were done by Barbro Soderberg.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Okay. So let me just rephrase the question, then. Your financial agent....
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Was there any decision that you took in this matter?
August 13th, 2008 / 2:40 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, yes. We were told it was for advertising, and we accepted their decision.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
As an Individual
We could have said no, but we analyzed the proposition and deemed it to be in our best interests.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Yes, and quite frankly, I agree with you. It's well known amongst all our colleagues, even on the other side, that the national campaign has a tremendous impact on the local campaign. There are very few candidates who win the election in their riding based on their own efforts. The national campaign plays a tremendous role.
What you are confirming to me is that your campaign team had a decision to make. This was not forced upon you. You had a decision to make and you made a decision.
All I was laying out beforehand was that your decision was the right one. It was legal. It was your decision. You could say yes; you could say no.
You've answered my question, so I thank you, and I hope my comments have helped clarify this matter and the kangaroo court that we're sitting in and how one-sided it is.
Thank you.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, sir.
It doesn't appear that any of the witnesses were addressed to answer a question, so I guess we'd better move on, then, to Mr. Hubbard, please.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses, first, for coming, but I'm rather a bit concerned. Mr. Lemieux just made a long speech, and then he said everybody has agreed. I haven't heard any agreement.
I'd like to go to the first proposition. He talks about tag lines. The Canada Elections Act says that the advertisements must have a tag line saying “authorized by the official agent” of a certain candidate, and usually it also has either the candidate's name or, more specifically, the official agent's name.
Mr. Roberts, were you asked about putting your name or your authorization in any of these so-called tag lines that Mr. Lemieux has referred to?
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
So, Mr. Roberts, as a chartered accountant, when the campaign was over, you had a bill, an invoice, which you must have included with your elections report, a bill from the Conservative Party of Canada. Is that correct?
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
2:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Technically, it would probably be where I signed the transfer agreement, I suppose.