Evidence of meeting #46 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Goudie, for bringing up the affidavit you signed.
I just want to clarify something before I move on here. You chose your financial officer.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
And you're aware that Elections Canada gives out a handbook for financial officers. Do you think your financial officer read that handbook?
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't know that he read it, but having been a financial officer for other campaigns, I would certainly think that he was aware of the general procedures in the handbook.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you.
Frankly, that's all I was after. Your chief financial officer, whom you selected and who apparently read the rules, had this proposal made from the Conservative Party and thought about it. It was informed consent—they signed for it—and it is regrettable that you didn't know about it.
On this issue of comparisons with respect to ethical standards, let me go to Mr. Caldwell. I'm not asking you to comment on the specific case; I'm just asking how this compares--whether it is better, worse, or the same as what happened to you.
I'm going to read you an e-mail. This is from the affidavit Mr. Goudie has mentioned. This e-mail starts off on March 16, 2006, a few months after the election. The first e-mail is from Lucy. I won't read the last name out of respect, but Lucy is the bookkeeper for the New Democratic Party of Canada. This e-mail says:
Dear Official Agent: Please find attached an invoice from the federal party. The original will follow by mail. It is our understanding that these radio ads promoted your candidate during the election period. Please forward payment to the federal party as soon as possible. The amount should be reported in the candidate's election campaign return.
--in other words, expensed at the local level.
Not very long later, on March 30, Phyllis, who is identified as the financial officer for this NDP candidate, writes back and says:
Hi Lucy, this invoice is not ours. Mindful about the extended campaign and limited budget, we were only able to take out a few ethnic ads, Chinese media
—all coordinated through somebody, the NDP B.C. Chinese media liaison.
A cheque of $1,500 for our portion will be forwarded to the Canadian NDP and cashed. Please check this, because this is really, really bad for our ceiling.
I'm assuming that means it's going to push them over.
Right away, boom—almost the next day, on March 31—there is an e-mail sent back to Phyllis by the bookkeeper for the New Democratic Party. I'll quickly read it:
Subject: Federal Party Invoices.
Dear Phyllis, we are told by the communication folks in B.C. that these radio ads, with the candidate's personal tag at the end, therefore [are] 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 Vancouver East, $2,612.
The good news is that the federal NDP 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. Some expenses are not considered election expenses subject to spending limits, such as fundraising costs. Please have a look at the totals and get back to us if you think you have a problem.
Clearly there's been money transferred from the national NDP party to Libby Davies' riding. Then they demanded payment for an ad that the national party organized, produced, paid for; now they want Libby Davies' local campaign to absorb the expense.
How, sir, is that different from what happened to you?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Caldwell, you have 15 seconds to respond to the question.
I'm being facetious. That was four minutes and 45 seconds. I will allow the witness to make an appropriate answer, and then we're going to move on with closing statements.
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Because it doesn't involve my participation in the campaign, I feel it's not incumbent on me to respond.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
Mr. Wallace has a point of order. Let it be about relevance, repetition, or procedure, please.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
It's procedural, and I want to point out that I've had two points of order earlier and you've accepted them both.
In a previous point of order I asked about the opening statement piece. You said there was none. The tradition of this committee—and this committee belongs to the members, not to the witnesses—is for us to respond to what is said in opening statements. It gives every one of us an opportunity to respond.
The way you've set it up whereby there are closing statements, which I disagree with, is that they will make their statement and leave, and members of this committee will not have an opportunity to debate, discuss, or ask questions on those statements. They are statements that could say absolutely anything, without any recourse.
I'm asking on a point of order that you change your mind so that closing statements not be allowed, particularly when you didn't even allow opening statements.
Thank you.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, no, I understand.
I outlined what was being proposed, simply because of the time as well as the substantial delay. As you know, the chair is asked to coordinate a process, taking into account knowledge and information about our proceedings and how they may go. It was clear that when you had three different campaigns but in fact six witnesses, and one official agent not able to attend, you would get a lot of duplication in those opening statements. It was my judgment that the best thing to do was to get on with the questions, which were fairly straightforward given the nature of the motion. However, should there be anything that wasn't covered or if a witness made an error in a statement they had made, they should have an opportunity to correct it. This is fairly standard.
So that was my ruling earlier. If you would like to challenge that ruling and make a motion to do something else, then that is your right, sir.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I've heard you for almost a year and a half now about fairness to committee members—honourable committee members.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
If you think about it for a second, it is not fair to honourable committee members—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
—not to be able to question witnesses after they make a statement.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
And having the microphone off is not really a problem for me.
It's not fair. If we allow it to happen here, you will have to allow it to happen for every witness this committee sees, not just for this study but for every study from here on forward.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay.
Madame O'Sullivan, Madame Fortier, Monsieur Caldwell, Monsieur Fauteux, Monsieur Goudie, thank you kindly for coming, for your poise and directness and forthrightness with the committee, and for taking the time. I know we are all busy, and particularly in Madame Fortier's case it was quite a sacrifice to come here. I know all of you took some time, but you took this seriously, as the committee does.
As I indicated, I'm inviting you, if you wish, to make a brief closing statement to the committee if you feel there's something that was incorrect, not clear, or that you did not get an opportunity to express because a question didn't come your way. So I will give you a moment or two. I'll be somewhat flexible.
I'm just going to go across the front. So I'd like to start with Ms. O'Sullivan, please.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, there's a challenge to the chair's ruling to proceed as I outlined. That vote has to be put immediately, and I'd like to ask the clerk to call the question on the motion to challenge the chair.
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'm now going to ask our witnesses to make any final remarks to the committee, if they care, before we adjourn the morning session.
Ms. O'Sullivan, would you like to say something to the committee?
