Information & Ethics Committee on July 15th, 2008

[Marc Mayrand]

I can also assure you that my two Elections Canada colleagues who were aware did not give that information to anyone at all.

I can also confirm for you that the instructions and procedures that were followed were in all respects consistent with common practice for that type of operation. I can confirm for you that the agents who conducted the search arrived discreetly on the premises around 8:00 a.m. In fact, only two agents from the group appeared on the premises around 7:45 a.m., and they had to wait nearly 20 to 30 minutes before the first employees appeared. It was not until after they had accessed the premises that those two officers asked their colleagues, who were outside the building, to enter it, and it was very discreet since, in particular, they were dressed in plain clothes. They asked their colleagues to join them and they began the document search procedure.

I can inform you that, following our review, we determined that the cameras that were seen on the premises arrived more than two hours after the operation started. I can confirm for you that the search was conducted on public premises, that is to say a commercial building accommodating a number of businesses. I can confirm for you that, when we conducted that operation, a party employee stood at the front door to tell his colleagues not to go up and not to take the elevator.

In light of all that, I have no reason, unless given information to that effect, to believe that there was any information leak whatever from Elections Canada or from the Commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Merci.

Mr. Poilievre, please.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you for being with us.

Mr. Mayrand, you haven't presented any new information today with regard to the Conservative Party's transactions in the last election. You have provided, however, some new legal positions for Elections Canada. A couple of them come immediately to mind.

One is that on box 6 of your PowerPoint presentation here, you define a candidate expense as something that is “incurred”, a “property or service used directly to promote or oppose a candidate during an election period”. That, of course, contradicts the candidate manual that Elections Canada furnished to candidates across Canada in the last election, because in that manual, under “Election advertising”—this is referring to candidate expenses—it says:

Election advertising means the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate, including one that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or a candidate is associated.

You removed “registered party” and therefore applied a new interpretation of the law. That's the first change you've offered today in the legal position of your agency.

The second one is these five factors. I note that in the legal proceedings that are under way, the executive director of political financing and corporate services, Ms. Janice Vézina, did not enumerate these as the five factors making the expenditures national instead of local. She had something different to say.

I'll quote from the Ottawa Citizen on July 5:

Ms Vézina allowed that in certain circumstances a candidate could choose to promote his party leader in his ads and still be allowed to claim the ad as a campaign expense. The key point, she said, was whether the “end result” of the ads was the promotion of a candidate.

“End result” were her words, quoted by the Ottawa Citizen.

What is the difference between promoting a candidate and promoting a party?

[Marc Mayrand]

If I may, I think both can serve each other. I think the idea here—and I mentioned this in my presentation—is that it's up to the candidate to determine what promotes their candidacy. If it's through their personal promotion, that's their call. If it's through relying on the brand of the party, on the policy of the party, on the leader, that is the decision of the candidate. It's not the decision of Elections Canada.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Well, that's good to learn. I would like to give you an example of the accusation.

Just before I move on, I should point out that it is not what Ms. Vézina testified in recent legal proceedings with the Conservative case against Elections Canada. She said it was the end result of the advertisement, which I think is a very curious position. I don't think any government agency can ascertain and rule on the end result of an advertisement, especially considering the fact that you concede there's no distinguishing between the benefits to a party and its candidate.

Let me give you an example of your accusation. I will read you an e-mail from one of our party's bookkeepers. I read it to illustrate the practice you have, through your five factors here, deemed not to be allowed.

It reads:

Hi Phyllis,

We are told by communications folks in BC that there were radio ads with the Candidate's personal tag on the end--therefore a local expense to be reported under the Candidate's expense ceiling, regardless of who pays. For rebate purposes, we were asked to bill each campaign--in the case of VanEast, $2,612.00.

The good news is that the Federal Party will transfer $2,600 to the Federal Riding Association as we agreed to pay for the ads.

We hope that you are able to squeeze this under the ceiling.

So $2,600 was transferred from the party, in and out, to pay for advertising organized by the party, constructed by the party, and for which the party did all the dealings with the advertising agency.

What is wrong with that?

[Marc Mayrand]

There are two things.

I think some of the discussion or comments made with regard to Mrs. Vézina's affidavit are better left to the Federal Court. I think counsel for each party—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Fair enough.

[Marc Mayrand]

—will argue these matters before the judge in due course.

With regard to the specific case, again, I'm not in a position here today to discuss any specific case. I'm not privy to the statement you're reading. I don't have all the supporting documents.

Again, if I had to go through this process, I would run with all the concepts I mentioned earlier: Was it incurred? Was it for value? Was there a transfer? Was it paid? Was it used? Was it used during the campaign? All those circumstances I would have to look through and determine if the transaction was consistent with the requirement of the legislation.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The e-mail in question is one from the NDP national party bookkeeper, Lucy Ladouceur. She sent it in an e-mail to a campaign of NDP MP Libby Davies. It meets all the characteristics that you've laid out with respect to the Conservative transactions that your agency has singled out, so we would hope that you would take a second look. That e-mail is in your possession. In fact, it was filed with Elections Canada and we obtained it from your agency.

I'd like to move on to the issue of the leak of the planned visit of Elections Canada to the Conservative Party headquarters. An e-mail exchange obtained through access to information shows that Elections Canada was totally preoccupied with the widespread public belief that the agency had leaked its planned visit to the Conservative headquarters.

Mr. Mayrand, you wrote in an April 18 e-mail to Ms. Vézina:

This may be pure diversion tactic/competitive frustration from a media outlet vis-à-vis another.

Blaming the media aside, the e-mail shows that you referred to the leak seven times. Obviously you took this concern very seriously. I'd like to know who exactly conducted the internal review that you mentioned earlier.

[Marc Mayrand]

It was conducted by people responsible for the various programs in the organization.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

What are their names?

[Marc Mayrand]

It was mainly me.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

You did it.

[Marc Mayrand]

Also participating were my director of communications and the commissioner's office.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Can you share with us all the notes from that investigation, please?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

How many people were aware in advance of the planned headquarters visit?

[Marc Mayrand]

You mean the search?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes.

[Marc Mayrand]

There were three people at Elections Canada.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

They were the only three who knew at Elections Canada.

[Marc Mayrand]

Outside of the commissioner's office, yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

And who were they?

[Marc Mayrand]

It was me, the deputy chief electoral officer, and the director of communications.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So you all investigated yourselves in connection with this alleged leak?