Evidence of meeting #6 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was convention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
The only thing I've seen so far is a letter from the party making some allegations about possible illegal contributions. There's no evidence with it.
9 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
So “possible”.... You see, what I'm concerned about here is this. Mr. Del Mastro brought the Information Commissioner here, and she made it pretty clear that she found his case absolutely baseless. You're going on reports you see in the media. This is certainly something that Conservatives have been making wild allegations about in the media. It seems to me if someone has evidence, as Mr. Del Mastro claims to have evidence, of illegal gifts in the nature of $50,000 being given to the leadership of the party, that would have been provided to you so that you would know where to look.
9 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Again, as I mentioned earlier, the matter has been referred to the commissioner. I'm sure the commissioner will want to gather all relevant information.
9 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
No. I see.
This week the top leaders of the Conservative Party are in court with you on the in and out scandal: Senator Gerstein, the chief fundraiser; Finley, the campaign manager of the 2006 campaign; Susan Kehoe, the interim party director; and Michael Donison, director of the party. Now, that's happening this week. It just seems to me odd that there is such a media ruckus based on Mr. Del Mastro's claims of evidence, which he hasn't presented to you, that is taking place in the same week that you're going to court with the Conservative Party, which is up on charges in the biggest electoral fraud scheme in Canadian history, and that all key members of the Conservative Party leadership are involved in that.
Are you going to court with them this week?
9 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Just as a point of clarification, the matter that's taking place this week is led by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is tasked with prosecuting matters under the legislation.
9 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Right, I forgot. This is beyond an investigation. This is actually a criminal investigation and they are actually up with the public prosecutor, all the heads of the Conservative Party, for the biggest electoral fraud scheme in Canadian history.
I find it interesting that Mr. Del Mastro is making claims that he has evidence of illegal activity, which he's not brought to this committee, and he did not bring it to the Information Commissioner because she blew it out. He has said there are problems. I think it's excellent that you're investigating. That would be the job of Elections Canada: to follow up on any investigation, no matter how specious. I'm just surprised that in the same week they are up on charges with the public prosecutor for electoral fraud we are actually taking this claim of Mr. Del Mastro to our committee.
I'd like to ask you about the in and out—
9 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Yes.
How many Conservative riding associations were directly implicated in that scheme?
9 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I'd prefer not to comment on cases that are before the court. It's well known that there were 67 campaigns involved.
9 a.m.
NDP
9 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Mayrand, for appearing before committee today.
Of course, Mr. Angus has made some wild accusations and allegations, not the least of which is that I haven't presented any evidence. Mr. Angus was in fact there at the NDP convention. He doesn't need me to present evidence. I would assume that he saw this in the first person, unless he was wilfully negligent in observing the fact that the NDP had in fact received tens of thousands of dollars in illegal contributions.
Now, of course--
9 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
It has to be clarified. Mr. Del Mastro is saying that I participated in witnessing an illegal exchange of money. I'd ask him to retract that. That's pretty bizarre commentary, and I think he has no evidence. If he has evidence that I participated in receiving illegal amounts of money, he should present it here.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Yes, I would agree, Madam Chairman.
In fact I would just clarify once again that Mr. Angus in fact saw the evidence that I'm presenting. And of course if we are to believe Le Devoir and the sources in Le Devoir, which in fact indicated they had contributed tens of thousands of dollars, contrary to the Elections Act, then we know where the evidence is in fact leading to.
Mr. Angus made reference to the Information Commissioner. I should say, as members of the committee know, that I tabled a letter that was in fact stamped “confidential”, which is why I never shared it with committee members, and the Information Commissioner referred to that letter. I would suggest that perhaps she hadn't in fact reviewed what she wrote to me, which indicated that she would be conducting an investigation and contacting Madame Turmel for additional evidence related to the allegations I was making. She did in fact indicate before committee that her investigation continues, so we'll wait to hear back from her on that.
I've also visited the Elections Canada web page. Under the frequently asked questions section, it says:
Can a corporation, trade union or unincorporated association sponsor an event held by a registered party, including a convention, or otherwise buy visibility at such an event by holding, or paying for, a reception at the event or providing or paying for signs, flags, pens, notepaper, etc. advertising the entity?
What it says is:
Any [party] who
- gives money to a registered party
- provides goods and services for less than commercial value to a registered party, or
--and here's the kicker--
-purchases goods and services for more than commercial value from a registered party
with the intent of benefiting the party will have made a contribution to the registered party that would be subject to the rules of the Canada Elections Act.
Is that your interpretation of the rules, Mr. Mayrand?
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
It is your interpretation of the rules.
Can you tell me how Elections Canada would determine the commercial value of advertising?
9:05 a.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Again, that would be determined by the commissioner in the case at hand, but first you would have to determine, as I indicated, if there was a market, what the intended market was, what types of transactions would normally occur in that market, and how the specific transaction being disputed compared with normal transactions in that market.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
My contention is that you could buy an advertisement during Super Bowl and Stanley Cup playoffs game seven for what some of these folks paid to be on sign boards at the NDP convention. I think there were maybe 600 or 700 people there. I'm interested in finding out how many of them actually paid a full registration fee, because we know that certain entities were sponsoring individuals to attend, which in my view is also contrary to the Elections Act.
I hope that when the Commissioner of Canada Elections reviews this they'll look at the values that individuals paid, because that is the crux of our argument.
You indicated in your comments today that the rules were put in place in recent years to avoid the undue influence of single, large contributors. That was done to return politics and democracy to the people, so that individuals, corporations, unions, or just wealthy individuals couldn't buy influence in the benches of government. If we look at cases where large entities are allowed to make substantial contributions and say that this is commercial value, my fear is that the law becomes toothless if the Commissioner of Elections doesn't determine a commercial value.
As I said yesterday, I was talking to one of the newspapers. I know you're not going to comment on the case at hand, but it's very clear to me that there is no commercial value here whatsoever. In fact, they were seeking to buy influence within the official opposition, and they wrote big cheques to do so. The NDP was more than willing to accept those big cheques.
Mr. Angus is one of the more prolific members in the NDP in making accusations and impugning guilt on others, but it's not a lot of fun when the light is shone on his own backyard. We've said to the NDP that now is the opportunity for them to come clean and indicate exactly how much money they received. We know that several sponsors have indicated that they wrote very large cheques of $25,000 or $35,000 apiece.
As I said yesterday, they aren't Coca-Cola or McDonald's. They're not seeking to gain customers. They're not looking to gain market share. This is solely purposed to gain influence within a political party and drive home the message that they're there and they expect them to deliver on their behalf. That makes a party beholden. When we passed the Federal Accountability Act and made these substantive changes to the Elections Canada Act, that was why. We didn't want political parties or members of Parliament beholden to special interests. That's what we see before us today.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Jean Crowder
Thank you very much.
Just to correct the record, Ms. Dawson has been referred to as the Information Commissioner, but she's the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
Mr. Andrews, you have seven minutes.