Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 4th, 2011

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It's absolutely nothing.

I think what Mr. Mayes is saying is that if we don't determine this whole issue of market value.... Look at the number of folks who attended that convention. If I were to, for example, attract half that many to a breakfast in Peterborough and then went out to corporate union entities and suggested to them that the NDP received north of $100,000—we don't know exactly how much, but certainly it was tens and tens of thousands of dollars—I could raise half of that as advertising revenues, call it fair market value, and be done with fundraising between now and 2015. I'd never have to raise another dime. I could allow every single person who came to that event to come for free. Heck, we could serve steak and eggs. It would be fantastic. But you know what? It's in contravention of the act.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Give a very brief response please, Mr. Mayrand.

[Marc Mayrand]

I don't have comments. I think Mr. Del Mastro answered his own question.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you.

We're actually going into the five-minute round now. I'll just remind committee members that five minutes includes your questions and the witness responses.

We'll go to Monsieur Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Mayrand, thank you for joining us this morning.

Before I ask my first questions, I just wanted to point out that Mr. Del Mastro has gone down a dangerous road in his seven minutes, as interesting as that was. He managed to deliver a speech without asking any questions. I find it curious that someone would want to invite people and make comments and allegations, but have no valid questions to ask.

There was much ado about nothing in this whole story—just a lot of claims, allegations, just hot air: “gone with the wind” like the famous movie. I think it is just a diversion, while the Conservative Party is in hot water in terms of real instances of election fraud.

Just now, Mr. Del Mastro said that he did not need to present any evidence as to the union sponsorship at the NDP convention, since we were all able to see it.

Do you think that seeing ads at a convention is reason enough to make public accusations?

[Marc Mayrand]

I am going to let the committee members decide what should be made public and what shouldn't. I received a letter with allegations of potential illegal activities. I have referred it to the commissioner so that he can establish exactly what the facts are and see what transactions took place during the event.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That's great.

In your view, do organizations, associations or unions often buy advertising at political party conventions?

[Marc Mayrand]

I have no precise information on that.

Are you talking about conventions?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Yes.

[Marc Mayrand]

One of the parties said that it did not accept any advertising or contributions. As I told the committee members just now, there is no precise information in the financial returns we get.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Why don't we leave the Conservative fantasyland and recall some facts? I feel that it is important to understand the context, especially this week.

Senator Doug Finley, the Conservative Party's former national campaign director, was found guilty of election fraud. Senator Irving Gerstein, the Conservative Party's fundraiser, was found guilty. Michael Donison, the Conservative Party's former director, was found guilty. Susan Kehoe, the Conservative Party's interim director, was found guilty.

Elections Canada conducted an investigation on all of them. What were the reasons for the investigation? What were they accused of?

[Marc Mayrand]

I think we are going a bit off topic, but I would like to clarify something at least.

The people you are talking about have not been found guilty or in breach of the Canada Elections Act. The case is still before the courts and I should probably keep my comments to a minimum this morning, out of respect for them.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you.

As we know, the Conservative Party resorted to a ploy in order to exceed the election spending ceiling. They used local money to pay for expenses that were actually for national advertising. Those expenses had nothing to do with the candidates' local campaigns. It was more about passing off national expenses or contributions as riding expenses. We know that the Conservative Party spent $1.1 million over the $18 million provided for under the Elections Act at the time.

In your opinion, what is the potential impact on Canadians when a political party manages to circumvent the Canada Elections Act in order to spend more money than its competitors?

[Marc Mayrand]

I would like to be very discreet on this matter. The issue is still before the courts. On the civil side, the Supreme Court has heard a leave to appeal. We are waiting for the court's decision. On the criminal side of things, the charges were laid in the spring, and we will see what happens in court. At the moment, I think it is up to the courts to issue a ruling.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Then...

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You have five seconds left.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

So I will use them to thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Butt, five minutes.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayrand, for being here today.

Mr. Boulerice was suggesting there was no evidence of any of this sponsorship. I would be more than happy to send over the pictures of the signage. It was all over the convention. It's quite clear there's a ton of evidence to show there was considerable inappropriate sponsorship of this event.

Mr. Mayrand, is it reasonable to advertise at a convention for $35,000 when your audience is around 500 people? Would that seem to be a reasonable, fair market value for advertising?

[Marc Mayrand]

It certainly raised questions.

Again, we'd have to do a full review of the transactions. I'm sorry, I can't add much more than what I said earlier. You'd have to look at what was the fair market value of the transaction. Again, that's among some of the matters that the Commissioner of Elections will have to look into.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

As far as the legislation is concerned, what is the difference between sponsorship and advertising? How do you define the difference between those two? I'll give you an example. If on the signage it says, “private reception with Jack Layton”, sponsored by an organization, is that different from general advertising, and how does that fit within the rules?

[Marc Mayrand]

As I pointed out earlier, the legislation does not draw that distinction. I think it's a term in common use that has been used in discussion with parties over the years. The common understanding, if I may suggest, is that there's a difference between advertising and sponsorship. There's an element of gratuity in sponsorship sometimes. Normally, sponsors will offer more money than what the market is looking for. That being said, as I mentioned earlier, the issue for the commissioner will be to determine what was the transaction, what was the nature of the transaction, how much money was exchanged, and was it done at fair market value.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

If a convention is sponsored by a bunch of corporate or union entities and that results in the party being able to charge considerably less for delegate fees to attend, in other words if it is subsidizing the delegate fee that individual delegates would have to pay...? I had to pay my $1,000 to attend the Conservative Party convention that we had in June. I paid for it personally; nobody subsidized that. That was the cost for all the delegates to ensure that the convention ran and could be paid for by us as individuals. If an entity comes in and sponsors, and that allows a political party to charge $250 as a delegate fee when the true cost divided up among all the members attending would be $1,000, would that be an illegal subsidy that the presenting sponsor was providing to a convention?

[Marc Mayrand]

It would be an indirect contribution. The difference in the amounts, if I understand your example, would be $750. That would be seen as a contribution from whoever paid that amount. If that entity is not an individual, it would be an illegal contribution.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

You did indicate that the commissioner is investigating the 2011 NDP convention in this regard?