Information & Ethics Committee on July 15th, 2008

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Fair enough.

You've also indicated, when you refer to the five factors you've identified, that there's no single factor that can be looked at as being decisive; you have to look at all five factors collectively. In fact, you also stated that you had officials look at the other political parties to determine whether all the five factors were present in those other parties. Did you not say that?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

When were these five factors first published?

[Marc Mayrand]

Those five factors are directly linked to the legislation.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I understand that, but you're telling us that these five factors are critical. I'm wondering if you--

[Marc Mayrand]

It could have been seven factors; it could have been ten. In this case, in these transactions, in these circumstances, based on the definition and the concept principles discussed this morning, these are the factors that came out.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I'm just wondering when it was that you first made these five factors known publicly, that this was a requirement that parties needed to comply with and that these were considerations they would have to keep in mind.

Have you ever published this information before, or is this the first instance that you've declared it?

[Marc Mayrand]

These factors flow directly from the legislation.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

That may be the case, but my question is whether before today you had ever publicly indicated that these five factors were the critical elements to deciding this case and possibly future cases. Was today the first time you've ever publicly declared these five?

[Marc Mayrand]

I think they were before the Federal Court, so they are public for that purpose.

Again, when we look at transactions and analyze those transactions based on all the criteria I mentioned this morning, if a series of criteria are not met, then we have an issue of non-compliance from our point of view.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Fair enough. I was just trying to figure out when these five factors you've enunciated for us first became public and first became required by parties to follow. It sounds like you're saying that today was the first time you've done it, but it has also been indicated by the Federal Court, which is reviewing an action sometime after the last election.

[Marc Mayrand]

But that's what we do.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I have limited time, so I need to focus my questions.

You also mentioned that you had the elections officers look at the other parties to see if they complied with the five factors. I'm wondering how many of the five factors were present with the other parties. For example, with the Liberal Party, obviously the five weren't there, but were there four present? Were there three?

[Marc Mayrand]

Each claim is reviewed by the auditor when the return comes in. They apply a program, consistently, that reflects the standards of the legislation. As they come across transactions that beg questions, they will escalate the matter. At the end of the day, we will determine whether this transaction meets or doesn't meet the requirements of the legislation. Why? Because some of the dozens of factors that may exist may vary from transaction to transaction.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I'm drawing your attention to a particular statement you made this morning when you said, and I quote:

Elections Canada has not identified any other transaction or group of transactions in which all of the factors I mentioned earlier were at play.

You were saying that you had looked at all the major registered parties.

My question to you is this. When you looked at the other major registered parties, and you were looking for these five factors, how many were present with the others?

[Marc Mayrand]

None of the transactions we examined presented the same factors.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Not all five, but certainly some of the other factors would have been present. Certainly there were other parties....

[Marc Mayrand]

There are instances when there is no commercial value. That would be referred to the commissioner.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Fair enough. You're saying that some of the factors were present, but not all of them.

Mr. Mayrand, you've stated that one of the requirements of an official agent is to have detailed knowledge of the expense he or she is authorizing.

Mr. Chair, am I out of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

This is your last question, sir.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Okay. This might take a little bit of time to unpack, so perhaps I can come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That would be helpful.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We're not in any hurry, but I just want to be fair to all members here.

We'll move on now to Mr. Martin, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mayrand, I'd like to take you back to your PowerPoint presentation and slides 26 and 27, which deal with the penalties for non-compliance. I have a question, first of all, on panel 26. The penalty for candidates for exceeding the election expenses limit can be $1,000 or three months if they did it by accident and $5,000 and five years in prison if they did it on purpose. Plus, they cannot sit in the House of Commons, nor can they run as candidates for the next five years. But for filing false or misleading election returns, there is no such corresponding penalty for the MP. Am I accurate in that?