Information & Ethics Committee on July 15th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Martin, followed by Mr. Hubbard, followed by Mr. Goodyear, for five minutes. That finishes the round, and then I will give you an answer as soon as that finishes. How's that?

Mr. Martin, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we've heard a great deal of technical and fairly complicated testimony and very useful information today, but I think it's useful at this point in our study to reflect on the idea that one of the main purposes and tenets of our Elections Act is to take big money out of politics, to take away any unfair competitive advantage that the one with the biggest purse might hold in an election campaign, and to create a level playing field.

You, Mr. Mayrand, pointed out that it's your duty to ensure such a level playing field exists. I for one, on behalf of the Canadians I present in the riding of Winnipeg Centre, want to thank you personally for the diligence with which you've undertaken this study and the application of the act to create that level playing field. I think you're to be complimented.

I also feel that the reference to the commissioner was eminently justified, given the affidavit that we've read and the information that keeps surfacing. I believe the commissioner was correct in raiding the headquarters of the Conservative Party, if in fact he wasn't getting the cooperation that he should have been getting in asking for documentation and answers to the questions he was putting to the Conservative Party. If the allegations are true in the affidavit, then one party hijacked the 39th election, the 2006 election, because they had a fatter cheque book. Everybody knew they were sitting on stacks and stacks of money, more money than they could legally spend, so some of us believe they created a scheme whereby they could spend greater than their limits. You saw it as your duty to investigate this diligently, and I, on behalf of the people I represent, thank you for it.

That's all I have to say. I'm going to hand the floor over to my colleague.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too am pleased to thank Mr. Mayrand for providing us with very full answers that have made it possible to clear up considerable ambiguity.

I would like to go back to a question that was asked on the other side of the table. I am taking the liberty of making a suggestion. I myself have previously been a senior public servant, and I know the difference between being a legislator and a person who administers an act. Here we are raising the five factors, one of which is established by the act, to the same level. Commercial value is stated in the act. The other four factors enabled the Chief Electoral Officer to determine that, in his view, these were not candidate expenses under the terms of section 451 and that, consequently, he would not reimburse them. However, it makes it possible to suggest that, with this kind of mix, one could get the impression—that was the drift of the questions, some of which were ours, at the outset—that we are confusing "legislative requirement" with "administrative requirement". That, in my view, is a mistake.

I want to thank you very much for what you have done on behalf of us all. What you had to do today was demanding, but it was in the interest of our democratic institutions. As my colleague from Winnipeg-Centre has just mentioned, a scheme was put in place by the Conservatives in an attempt to use money to buy the last election, despite the clear prohibitions of the act. Thank you for being here to defend us in this matter. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard, go ahead, please.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go to the business of limits for election expenditures by both parties and individuals. Overall, in terms of these 68 situations, it appeared that the Conservative Party had reached its maximum or approached that maximum. It's the old story, Mr. Chair, that there is a smell test to a lot of this after time. The whole thing is not smelling very good, because apparently this group that got involved with purchasing a lot of media decided to allocate that expense back to particular candidates in different ridings. With that in mind, one has to almost assume that it was a scheme to launder money or to get money moved around so that candidates at the local level would assume expenses of a national party.

Is it true, Mr. Mayrand?

Mr. Bernier, we haven't had an opportunity to ask you. When you look at the $18 million that we're approaching, and there is another nearly $1.3 million about to be spent, the guy who's sitting there shuffling this money around suddenly realizes he's going to go over the limit, so the invoices go back to the individual ridings to which the $1.3 million is allocated. It would appear, therefore, that the maximum limit--the cap on the Conservative Party--hasn't and will not be exceeded. Is that correct, Mr. Bernier?

[François Bernier, Director, Legal Services, Elections Canada]

I believe, sir, that this is the situation and the facts that the Commissioner of Canada Elections is investigating, among other things.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

So my assumption would probably be what Elections Canada is attempting to show in the courts.

My colleague just asked about what it's costing Elections Canada to deal with this issue in the civil courts. The idea came up that it's maybe going to cost $800,000 or $1 million. Mr. Bernier, in terms of that court action, will you look for costs from the Conservative Party to make sure that our federal treasury and Elections Canada are not caught for the millions of dollars they're going to have to spend to defend their position regarding what the Conservative Party is saying?

[François Bernier]

I think that would be a decision for the CEO to make at the appropriate time.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

So in effect we're dealing with money here that's been shuffled around. But the main point in all this apparently is that the chief financial agent of the Conservative Party avoid being accused of exceeding his election limit spending. Is that the correct interpretation of what this is all about?

When we look at things in terms of the national party, 50% of its spending is refunded to it by the federal government. In terms of candidates, 60% is refunded to the candidate or to his party. So really we're spending millions of dollars to contest in court 10% of $1.3 million--in other words, about $130,000. But the only reason for this being in court is that the chief financial agent of the Conservative Party will be accused of overspending and could be subject to heavy financial penalties and up to five years in prison under the act. Is that correct, Mr. Bernier?

[Marc Mayrand]

I would say that we're before the Federal Court because there's a dispute regarding some decisions I had to make under the legislation.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

But to reiterate, you not only have to be a business person, you also have to look at the reality of what finances are about. The $130,000 is all the money that is really under dispute. No matter where you allocate the money--whether it be to the national party or to the 67 candidates--the only big problem legally is the position of the chief financial agent of the Conservative Party of Canada who is in violation, if he loses in court, of the Elections Act through having had the Conservative Party overspend.

I think, Mr. Chair, we also said today that the government changed in 2006 by fewer than 30,000 votes. So the implication probably in terms of all of this is that somebody spent more money than they should have spent in order to get enough seats in the House of Commons to form a minority government.

Mr. Harper, you know, Mr. Chair, has a long history of fighting with Elections Canada. It goes back to his time before he became Prime Minister, when he dealt with the National Citizens Coalition. He was in court with Elections Canada. So it's simply a continuation, Mr. Chair, of the efforts of the Conservative Party to challenge Elections Canada and to make sure they get their own way and operate a country the way they want to operate it, which is not the way our Liberals or the NDP or the Bloc want to see Canada operated. It's a simple situation. It's a good job we're not looking at some external group that is coming in to see what we're doing with our Elections Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. That comment has been taken. Thank you very much.

Thank you, colleagues. That ends the round as required and requested by the committee....

My apologies.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

That's okay. I'm easily forgotten.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

See what happens when you go after 4 o'clock? Things grind to a halt.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Yes, I know. I'm ready to go.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Goodyear, I apologize. You have five minutes.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

It's completely okay.

I want to continue with my questioning on the handbook. I think we established the last time we were on the handbook, Monsieur Mayrand, that the handbook is actually designed to help candidates struggle their way through the Elections Act, and that in fact the handbook that was in play for the 2006 election actually had the phrase in it that advertising was okay for a registered party or a candidate. Those two key issues were in that particular handbook. I showed you the handbook, and you agreed that in fact that was the case.

We point out that in the act itself, which is quite detailed, subsection 407(1)—and I won't go on to read it—actually uses the same phraseology, in that advertising expenses include any costs “to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period”. That was in 2006.

Now let's turn to the 2007 version. This is the latest one. You had indicated at the end of the last questioning that the text had actually changed--it had been modified--and it no longer has a reference to a registered political party. In fact, the handbook simply says “a candidate”.

I asked you why you thought that was the case and why there was a need for the language to change. I'm not sure it was picked up on the microphone. I believe you said it was because of the Accountability Act. I'm going to ask you that question again, if you don't mind, and then I have a series of questions that require just a yes or no answer.

Can you tell the committee why the language was changed from what was in the handbook that was in play for the 2006 election to what we have in this handbook, written by your office in March 2007?

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, Mr. Chair, this is a matter that's been presented before the Federal Court. The impact of this manual has been the subject of various cross-examinations and arguments between the parties. I would refer to those discussions before the Federal Court and wait for the court to decide on those matters.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

So you're taking back now the fact that you said it was the Accountability Act that caused the change? You're just going to wait for the court decision?

[Marc Mayrand]

No, no. The revision was on the occasion of the Accountability Act, absolutely.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you.

Can we agree, at least, though, that the phraseology has changed, that it's different?

[Marc Mayrand]

Absolutely, yes. We're not denying that.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Is it not a fact that the handbook was changed after the 2006 election to prevent candidates from running party ads?

[Marc Mayrand]

No.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

No?