Evidence of meeting #49 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 elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
No, I realize that, but also you're not prepared to comment. But you told me not to assume that any of these names aren't under investigation. You said that to the committee this morning.
4:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I think there's no conclusion to be drawn except the fact that the review is not completed.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Exactly. Well, I think that's a truth we've been stating for days, which the opposition members would not acknowledge, but in fact we now have evidence that it is true.
Now, yesterday Retail Media was here and they presented us with this exhibit. Maybe you're not familiar with it, but I want to talk to you a little bit about it, because this is something that was presented when Elections Canada went to get its search warrant. It claimed falsification of documents; it cited it in the affidavits.
I want to ask you this. I gave an example yesterday of my own personal.... For example, as I said yesterday, if I were to personally submit a bill I incur for my hotel this week, when I submit that I may claim it with my Visa statement—I will. If I block out items on that Visa statement that are not in any way related to the hotel charge, things like my account number, maybe other purchases that I've made, and then I copy that and send that into the House of Commons, could the House of Commons say I've falsified that document? Because for their purpose it is materially what they're looking for. I haven't altered that document as far as they're concerned. For their purpose it is exactly what's required.
4:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I'm not familiar with the document you're referring to, and I will point out that this is part of the investigation by the commissioner.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I gave you an example not even related to the document. Have I materially changed my Visa statement for the purpose of the House if I'm just trying to show an expense that I've incurred on my statement? I'm isolating an expense for their purpose.
Maybe I didn't want to show them, as I said yesterday, that I bought ceramic tiles at Home Depot for my bathroom—and I'm not doing that again any time soon. But if I want to block that out because I don't think it's of any consequence to my return to them, have I falsified that document?
4:05 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Well, depending who you're presenting your claim to and for what purpose, I don't know.... Whether it's an appropriate claim or not is for whoever is looking at the claim to determine.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
But is it falsification? Have I materially altered that for their purpose?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Sir, you know it; the answer is obvious. I haven't changed that claim.
4:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Again, that's not for me to comment on.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, sir. Your time is up.
Let me ask a very quick question.
Mr. Mayrand, if during the election campaign I went out to Home Depot and bought some stakes for my lawn signs and I submitted, as part of my election expenses return, a Visa statement that had a line on it for Home Depot for $542, would that be acceptable for Canada elections expenses purposes?
That's facetious. Obviously it's not, because it does not identify the nature of the purchase or the taxes or whether I purchased other things. A Visa bill is not an invoice.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
I have a point of order.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
You asked the question and answered the question. I want to know if you're working for Elections Canada, or ever did? Where would you get this authority to know?
But thank you for providing the answer.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
At least there was an answer.
Now we're going to move on here.
Madame Lavallée, s'il vous plaît. Madame Lavallée, you're on for five minutes. Or did you want to have...?
Okay. Now we're back to Mr. Goodyear.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There is a point of order. Would you either recognize it or break the rules?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Mr. Chair, you just deliberately changed a statement that I had made, once again demonstrating that you're anything but unbiased. I was specifically asking a question: whether that would constitute falsification of a document. Is it your argument that it would constitute falsification of a document?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Then why are you deciding to debate with me, sir? Why did you decide to make that point?
You asked and answered your own question. You're once again entering evidence before the panel, which is completely misdirected.
That is not what the question was. I was specifically asking a question—whether that would constitute falsification—and you know it does not.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you. That's not a point of order; it's debate.
We'll go to Mr. Goodyear now.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Monsieur Mayrand, it's a pleasure to see you again.
Monsieur Mayrand, I was on the committee that had the pleasure of bringing your name forward to the House as the new Chief Electoral Officer. As a result, I know full well that you were not the Chief Electoral Officer during the 2006 election campaign. So I'm going to ask you if you were aware that Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer who was in charge at the time, has indicated very clearly that the law determines an advertisement to be locally based, based on the tag line and not the content. If the Chief Electoral Officer at the time has that interpretation, then that interpretation should apply to the 2006 election, but I guess that's the issue before the court.
So I'm going to ask you a different question.
I already know you don't have this document, because you've stated you know of no cases where expenses have been transferred, as indicated by an answer. So I'm going to introduce you to a case. Here is a letter from Elections Canada's own documents again. This letter I'm going to read from, sir, is from Elections Canada documents. And I don't suspect you have read every letter in all 308; I'm not expecting that. I appreciate that. But here's my question to you, sir, and here's what the letter says.
This letter is from the director general of the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta; that's a national party:
During the past election campaign the Liberal Party of Canada in Alberta transferred funds and/or paid for services in kind directly to the candidate on whose behalf you were acting as an official agent.
The letter goes on to refer to an expense incurred by the national party “for Northern Alberta candidates' ads placed in the Edmonton Journal”, which should be claimed at the local level.
Now, I just want to ask you this. Simply, in your opinion, is that a transfer of expense? How could that possibly be?