Evidence of meeting #47 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 conservative.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I was not...[Inaudible--Editor]...I was restating a fact--
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Excuse me, sir. Excuse me. You may want to consult with Mr. Goodyear, who said, “Paul, please, it's debate; shut him down.”
Having said that, it is not a point of order, sir. It was debate on a point that Mr. Proulx said.
Thank you for your opinion, but it is not a good idea to disrupt the entire committee proceedings on debate. All members should remember that.
Okay. We're moving now to Mr. Goodyear.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
I have one very quick question, and then I guess we're done here.
But for clarification, Mr. Chair, I never said “shut the member down”.
Mr. Lowry, you received money from the national party and then sent it back to the national party to participate in a regional buy that is perfectly legal. All parties do this.
You testified earlier that if it wasn't for the national advertising that was going on, you may not have received any votes. One of my colleagues opposite is trying to suggest that there was no value for this money, when I believe there is clearly a value. I get a lot of value in my riding when my leader is advertised on TV. The strength of his leadership helps me in my riding.
Do you not believe that there was significant value in this advertising campaign?
3:45 p.m.
As an Individual
One never knows how much advertising works, except that you have to do it. If you don't do a lot of it, then you're likely going to lose.
On the byline it said the riding of Trinity—Spadina. There were others, but would it have been more effective if it had said Sam Goldstein, Trinity—Spadina? I don't know; I'm not in advertising.
My vote is already made. It's going to be a Conservative. The next election's a Conservative; mark it off.
Does all advertising help? Of course it does. Did people who had never met Sam vote for my candidate? I certainly hope so. Did the Conservative Party reach out to areas where traditionally it didn't? Yes. Does it continue to do that? Yes. I never used to hear ads on Q107. Does advertising do something? Yes, it does something. I would have liked it to push us up to 10.2%.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Sir, I appreciate your answer, and again, I want to say you're absolutely correct that advertising does work. There is an effect. Even though people see advertising about the great leadership of Mr. Harper, in my riding anyway they can't vote for Mr. Harper; they have to share that vote with me. So any advertising on any level in my riding will help me.
I want you to feel assured of a couple of other things. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the previous Chief Electoral Officer, stated very clearly that the content of the ad is not relevant. So the fact that it's national or local isn't the issue. What also has been talked about is the tag line you did. We have evidence that a number of the members opposite didn't even use a tag line. The tag line is what you need to do, and congratulations, you absolutely did follow the law.
That ends my questions, Mr. Chair.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good day, gentlemen.
Mr. Lowry, I would simply like to remind you that of the 15 political parties that contested the last elections in 2006, only one is being investigated by Elections Canada, an investigation that concerns 67 of its candidates, and that is the Conservative Party.
I get shivers down my back just listening to you. You are telling me that you have to buy an election in order to win it. You are saying that without the 60% reimbursement of your expenses when you win 10% of the votes in your riding, it makes it more difficult to win.
I'll have you know that we are in politics and that we are in a world of ideas. Your way of viewing the campaign and the way the people opposite are trying to cover what you are saying does not amount to bending the law, but trying to break it.
How can you tell me that spending on advertising is legal when you did not even sign the advertising contract yourself, and were asked to return $50,000 — money that you received from and then returned to the national party?
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
First, I did not say you had to buy an election. As a matter of fact, if you spend too much money you'll probably lose. Hillary Clinton spent a lot of money and she lost. Just because you spend money doesn't mean you win. Last year I was part of the “no MMP” vote. We spent $15,000. The opposition spent $300,000. We won 60% of the vote handily. So you don't have to spend money to win.
But if you don't have money it makes it an awful lot harder. You'd better have an extraordinary number of volunteers. You'd better have extraordinary people who are really committed and can somehow take time off to spend hours and hours on the campaign. So money is not the only issue.
But if the other two parties start with $60,000 and you start with $10,000, chances are it's going to be an awful lot harder. If you start with $30,000 and they start with $60,000, then it's a fair ball game. Any independent small-business person will tell you that. It's not any different.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Lowry, that's your way of seeing things. It is true that you need members to win an election. However, by agreeing to exchange $50,000 to enable you, if you were to obtain 10% of the votes, to have more money in your campaign fund for the next election, you broke the election rules.
Did you sign the advertising contract for which you were asked to return the $50,000 to the national party? Did you sign an advertising contract?
3:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I did not sign the advertising contract. And for the $50,000, I don't consider it cheating, because that's part of the rules. The rules say you get a refund of 60% of your expenses. Take a look at what the 60% is. Part of it includes advertising. Advertising was never defined. The act was changed a little while ago under Mr. Chrétien. He had a chance to define it.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Lowry. We have understood your approach. I will now speak to Mr. Marler.
Mr. Marler, you were asked to participate in the process and you refused. Did you ever feel forced to take part?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
Again, gentlemen, I want to thank you all for being here today.
I'd like to go back to Mr. Marler and Mr. Webber, if I could, just for a moment. And I'm looking at a CanWest report of some of your comments. This is attributed to organizers in the Conservative Party:
There were only two outright refusals—Beauce and Brome—Missisquoi. We have discussed and understand Beauce but what is with Brome? Why should they be allowed to outright refuse?
I want to go back, Mr. Marler, to your comments that you weren't going to participate in something you didn't understand. And I just want to underscore that there is a construct within which all of us operate, regardless of party affiliation or indeed even independence, through the rules that are set forth by Elections Canada. And I know you've both come a long way and you've sat here thoughtfully today and listened to all of this. So I would just like to hear your reaction.
I mean, being a candidate, you sign off on your return. Being an official agent, you sign off on that return. So this is a very serious matter; it has very serious repercussions. Elections Canada has referred this whole matter, as we know, to be investigated and it's before the courts. So I don't want you to comment on that piece of it, other than to talk about the fact that you were willing to refuse what you were being asked to do by your party brass, by the higher-ups, by the national mechanism, because it was not being explained to your satisfaction.
I wonder if you can comment on the responsibility, the onus on people who sign off on these things, to understand completely what it is they're undertaking.
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
All I can answer to today are questions of which I know the facts. I do not believe it is my role here today, or at all, to comment upon other people's behaviour or to guess why they did what they did. All I know is why I did what I did. And it was, as I said before, because I did not understand what the purpose of the money was.
Now, I'll go a step further. I was aware.... And I by no means claim to have the experience that Mr. Lowry has, for example. This was my first time around. I was, in fact, stunned by the amount of stuff I had to know generally to try to get elected. And I didn't learn very much of it along the way, but I learned something. But what I did know—and this had nothing to do with being in an election campaign—or what I innately felt was that you don't let people put money into your account and then take it out again, whoever they are, without knowing what the purpose is. And that was my problem.
So I am not going to comment upon the legality of what I was asked to do, because I don't think that is my role, number one; and I haven't done the study necessary to understand whether it's legal or not. Somebody else will sort that out.
If my mother had asked me to take money in and send it back to her, I might have said yes, because I have a great respect for my mother, but if my brother asked that, I'm not sure I'd say yes.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Webber, would you like to comment, as an official agent?
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
There are two things. One of them is this business about signing invoices and making sure that an invoice actually was received for services rendered. I think that's very, very important.
The other thing I want to mention is this business about being summonsed rather than being invited. And in the conversation I had with...I believe it was the bailiff who phoned me and asked me to attend this meeting, I said, “Well, I don't have a whole lot to offer, because we didn't participate in the thing. I was not part of the discussion. I sent a couple of e-mails to that effect.” But as part of the discussion I said, “So what happens if I decide not to come?” He said, “Well, I could send you a summons if you like.” But that's how it was worded: “if you like”.
I'm self-employed so I didn't need a summons in the sense of having to show something to my employer as to why I was taking off for the day, and that was the way I accepted it. I didn't feel I was being intimidated. It sounded sort of like he'd help me out if I needed it. It was sort of strange.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Very briefly, I have a couple of cleanup questions.
Mr. Marler, in the same interview that I think Madam Redman was making reference to in the Gazette, you summarize in an interview you gave, and you are quoted. I'll ask you if this quote is accurate, but it says:
Mr. Marler remains convinced the decision he took [to not participate in this] was the same one “any honest or straightforward person would take”.
Does that accurately reflect how you feel about what you were asked to do?
4 p.m.
As an Individual
In a sense, yes, but in another sense, no.
I was asked to do something, the purpose of which I did not understand. I was also aware that I was responsible, along with my official agent, for what went on in that account. If I didn't understand what was going on in that account, I was not going to approve it. I didn't care what it was. To me, it wasn't a question of a legality or morality at that point; it was a question of the fact that I didn't understand. So that summary, which comes from the press, of that particular article is true to the extent that I don't think anybody would do something in respect to their bank accounts or allow something to happen if they didn't understand what it was. That's all.
That question, if I recall, was preceded by the fact, “Well, Mr. Marler, is that because you're a lawyer?” That's why I emphasized, no, it's not because I was a lawyer; it's because I didn't understand what the party was asking me to do or what the result of it would be. And I don't think that morality or legality at that point entered into my head, because I didn't have the information or the knowledge to consider that. All I knew is that, as I have said before, I would not accept anybody running money through my account, with the exception perhaps of my mother, without knowing what the purpose was.
4 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
From your mom, I understand.
Did you ask Mr. Bouffard, “Are you sure this is legal?” And did he assure you that it was okay?
4 p.m.
As an Individual
I might have got to that point if I had understood what the purpose was, but I never knew what the purpose was. So I said no, because I was not prepared to accept to do something if I didn't know what the purpose of it was.
4 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Again, you're quoted in this interview as saying—this is in quotation marks and you can verify the veracity of it:
I said: “What's that about?” He said: “Don't you worry about it. It's just going to happen and it has nothing to do with you.” I said: “It does have something to do with me because that is my campaign account and I've got to make sure it is managed properly.”
He said: “This is the party speaking, Mr. Marler. We do what we like.” I said: “I'm sorry, I'm not going to permit that to happen unless I understand exactly what it is.”
Is that pretty much accurate?