Information & Ethics Committee on July 15th, 2008

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Okay. This isn't really that different from other purchases that candidates can make from their parties, like posters and lawn signs and other advertising materials. Parties, as you well know, Monsieur Mayrand, purchase in bulk to save on price. It's always a good thing to do that. Then, of course, they resell that time to the candidates, thereby saving money.

By our estimates, the Liberal Party sold $1.3 million in goods and services to its candidates in the last election, and the Bloc, $820,000. I'm not asking you to confirm those numbers, but I'm simply pointing out that it is a routine practice engaged in by all parties and that Elections Canada actually has no problem with that.

[Marc Mayrand]

It's possible for a party to be a supplier of goods and services to a candidate. They can transfer them or sell them.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

So the answer is yes?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Can the transfer be conditional on the money being used for a specific purchase, or for a specific purpose, such as a payment for the ad?

[Marc Mayrand]

There could be some conditions attached to the transfer.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

So it's okay to have conditions? If it's okay to have conditions, then, can that specific purpose be payment back to the party for the goods and services provided by the party?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you. Now this is what's come down to this term that the opposition likes to use, and the term is the “in and out transfer”, whereby money is received....

I'm sorry? One minute? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The result is this in and out transfer, where money is received by the official agent from the party through a transfer and is paid to the party in payment of an invoice for goods or services provided by the party. Is there anything wrong with that?

[Marc Mayrand]

I apologize. I missed the question.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

This is a situation where money is transferred in and out, as the opposition rules, whereby money is received by the official agent from the party through a transfer—we've already established that that's completely okay—and is paid back to the party in payment of an invoice for goods or services, such as advertising, that were in fact provided by the party. Is there anything wrong with that?

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, it depends on the circumstances. It's doable. You have to make sure that the agent is aware that he's authorized the purchase, that there are some documents that support the transaction, that the transaction is at commercial value, that the expense is reasonable, etc.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

And this is quite routine among the parties?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Ms. Lavallée, go ahead, please.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to go back to the groups of regional media buy program transactions because it appears from all the documents we've read that it is clearly established what happened. The Conservative Party and its senior officials sent money to 67 candidates, telling them that that money would be accompanied by an invoice. The official agents paid the invoice with the money they had just received from the national party, and that enabled the national party to exceed the expense limit. That's clear in my mind.

You said this morning that you didn't know to whom to attribute the expense. You're sure, you're convinced that expense wasn't incurred by the official agents. You say the expense isn't a candidate expense, but you don't know to whom to allocate it.

Is that in fact what you said?

[Marc Mayrand]

At the time I made that decision, yes.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

But why the possibilities—

[Marc Mayrand]

I wasn't able and I didn't have enough facts to draw a reasonable conclusion as to whom to attribute the expense.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

But if it isn't attributable to the candidates, what are the remaining possibilities? There remains the party. Who else? To whom do you attribute an election campaign expense?

[Marc Mayrand]

I have to be able to attribute it positively. Not simply by—

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

—deduction. But there are no other choices.

[Marc Mayrand]

There might be others; that becomes hypothetical. What I can tell you is that, at the time the decision was made, I wasn't able, on the basis of the facts presented to me, to conclude that that expense could reasonably be attributed to the party.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Personally, I don't at all see, realistically, to whom else but the national party the expenses could be attributed. Moreover, Mr. Ronald Lamothe, Assistant Chief Investigator at the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, made a large number of statements in the information document to obtain a search warrant. There is one that concerns what we are talking about. It states:

“AND THAT there are reasonable grounds to believe” that....

—I'm skipping some short passages—

“...the Conservative Fund Canada did incur election expenses....”

The Conservative Party exceeded its electoral expenses and

“...the total amount of which exceeded the maximum amount allowed for election expenses of the Conservative Party....”

which resulted in total expenses that exceeded the maximum amount allowed for the Conservative Party's election expenses.

At least there's someone who knows to whom to attribute the expenses that you don't know to whom to attribute. How is it that Mr. Lamothe can do it and that you can't?