Commissioner, one of my constituents sent a letter to your predecessor, Mr. Raymond Landry, describing with supporting evidence eleven violations of the act. We initially checked by phone to see if the act had truly been violated, and this was confirmed to us.
For instance, an advertisement appeared in the newspaper, despite the fact that it hadn't been approved by the official agent and the wrong riding name appeared. We called about the ad and were told that indeed it was a violation of the act. We submitted as evidence the ad that appeared in the newspapers along with examples of 11 other offences. We submitted all of this evidence on February 2, that is a few days after the election, to ensure that you would receive it before the candidates filed their reports.
On March 27, that is a month and a half later, we received a letter notifying us that the candidate's official agent had been contacted and claimed that his name had accidentally been omitted and that the riding's name had been given incorrectly. The author of the letter claimed to be satisfied with the answer he received, indicated that the investigation was closed. The person in question would even have up to 60% of his expenses refunded. Assuming that the publication of these ads was simply a mistake, the fact remains that the Election Act was violated. He shouldn't be entitled to a 60% refund of the cost of these ads, which are illegal.
Imagine if I were to run a stop sign at a street corner while I answered the phone. Imagine if I were to tell the police officer who arrived on the scene that I didn't mean to run the stop sign. That won't prevent him from giving me a ticket anyway. That's not how things work. The law exists for a reason and must be respected. Perhaps these individuals didn't mean to run the ads, but they broke the law anyway. At the very least they should be reprimanded. At the very least, they should receive a warning and their expenses should not be reimbursed because they aren't official expenses. The letter was very clear. It noted the following:
The official agent acknowledged that the mistakes noted were made inadvertently. Accordingly, given the steps taken and the explanations given, the commissioner is of the opinion that these actions were unintentional and that it is not in the public interest to pursue this matter any further. The commissioner therefore closed the file.
Therefore, when the next election rolls around, I could purchase $50,000 worth of advertising and flood the newspapers in my riding, without giving the name of the official agent, and in the process using black money or money given to me by certain individuals. I could always claim subsequently that my actions were unintentional.
Really now, that's not how things work. The law is very clear and must be upheld. I don't want to send this person to jail or slap him with $1 million fine, but at the very least, I want him to be issued a stern warning and I don't want any of the expenses he incurred to be deemed election expenses, since they should have been, but were not, approved by the official agent, as stipulated in the act. I've tabled the two letters for your consideration, that is the letter sent to you by Mr. Tremblay, and the rather childish response sent to him by the commissioner. My constituents sent copies to my office.