Absolutely. And because of the complexities of this issue, there are many items contained in that handbook, which, if taken in isolation, may be somewhat confusing, but when you put them together as part of a larger package, they clearly provide evidence that we were fully within our rights to conduct ourselves as we did in the 2006 election.
The quote I'm going to relate to you now is another piece of that massive jigsaw puzzle, if I can characterize it as such. Hopefully people can pick up on this, Chair, in the first reading. I quote:
The Chief Electoral Officer will consider adherence to this handbook as meeting the statutory handbook requirements for issuing certificates for reimbursement purposes.
In other words, what is contained in the handbook is the gospel according the Canada Elections Act—if you want to get a reimbursement, here are the guidelines, here's what you follow. This in 1997.
In other words, Chair, the candidates and official agents and registered political parties, I would add, took this handbook, read it thoroughly, and said, okay, what can we and what can we not do? All parties did the same. And if one complied with the regulations and provisions contained in this handbook, suffice it to say, it would be the most compelling argument that a party or a candidate or an official agent acted in compliance with the act itself. That's why this handbook was published to begin with.
I know that all candidates would agree that it would be pretty difficult if you merely gave candidates and their official agents, many of whom would be doing the duties of an official agent or running as a candidate for the first time, a copy of the Elections Act and said, okay, read it and understand it because these are the rules. That would be difficult for a lot of candidates and official agents who were running or campaigning for the first time. Frankly, it would probably be difficult for a lot of veteran MPs with only a copy of the act and no other supporting documentation to say, yes, okay, I understand it all and I know exactly what it means. No. To try to simplify things there are handbooks—reference materials, in other words—that candidates, official agents, campaign workers, and so on can refer to so everyone knows what is and what is not allowable.
That's what the quote was saying, that the Chief Electoral Officer will consider adherence to this handbook at meeting the statutory requirements of the act. If you do what this handbook says you should do, you'll be okay. You'll be within compliance. That's very important, Mr. Chair. What the handbook states in terms of regional media buys, local campaigns versus national campaigns, transfers between national campaigns and local campaigns—everything that is contained in that handbook—is the procedures that the Conservative Party of Canada followed. So if this handbook states that if you adhere to this you are in compliance, then we were in compliance, without question.
We also have to again look at the definition of advertising and advertisements, because at question we have the findings of the electoral office saying that, if a local candidate received money from the national campaign and ran an ad that was national in scope, then it should be considered, in their opinion, a national ad and go against the party's cap. Let's take a look at how the term “advertising” is defined in the handbook. It states:
Although the term “advertisement” is not specifically defined in the Act, it should be interpreted to include any type of publicity which promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate. ... material...that promote[s] or oppose[s] a candidate or a registered political party should indicate that it is authorized by the official agent of the candidate.
In other words, this is coming right from the handbook, and we've just heard that if you comply with the guidelines outlined in this handbook, you're in compliance with the act.
This handbook states that if you run an ad that either promotes or opposes a candidate or a national party, as long as you have the proper authorization on it, it is in compliance.
That's why we see, in the examples I have given you most recently about the Liberal Party running regional ad buys, they were found to be in compliance. Because local candidates were promoting the national party, they also received money from the national party to do so, but both of those, as stated in the handbook, are deemed to be compliant. So, clearly, as I've stated many times before, it appears that the Liberal Party, in those two examples, which Mr. LeBlanc was part of, was completely in compliance with the act. However, in the Elections Canada ruling where similar regional media buys were performed by Conservative candidates getting together to pay for an ad that was national in content, Elections Canada said you're non-compliant. How can that be? How can it be that by following exactly the same guidelines as other political parties, only the Conservative Party was found to be in non-compliance? In my view, it is a serious error, an error in judgment in the ruling of Elections Canada.
One other quote that I think underscores what I've just been saying comes not from the handbook but from the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 36th general election, in 1997. The context was that, in the 1997 election, national political parties were not allowed to conduct advertising on June 1, which was the day before polling day in that particular year, and of course, on polling day itself. They claimed that under section 48 of the act. But candidates were allowed to do so because a similar restriction on them had been struck down by the courts. In other words, they were saying that the national party can't poll the day before polling day or the day of polling day, but individual candidates can advertise on those days.
It is reported how this issue was administered. The Chief Electoral Officer stated:
The criteria applied to determine whether specific advertisements were to be accepted for broadcast were the identity of the sponsor and that of the body or person invoiced. The content of the advertisements accepted was subject only to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter. As a result, a number of individual candidates purchased time on the day before polling and on the actual day of the election. Since the time purchased was often used to run a national advertisement with a local tag line, this rendered the prohibition in section 48...somewhat ineffectual.
So what it was saying even then is that the lines between the local candidates and the national party were somewhat blurred, because while the act at that time stated—and it has since been changed—that a national party can't advertise the day before or the day of polling, a local candidate can; and also, if a local candidate can advertise a national ad, there's confusion.
So there are interpretive problems that we have seen consistently over the years in relation to Elections Canada. Therefore, I submit to you that this seems to be one of those, in my estimation.
In reference to remarks made by Monsieur Proulx yesterday, where he was trying to defend Elections Canada, that if they made a finding or a ruling, they have to be right, they were clearly not right in 1997. The rules had to be changed because there was this confusion. I'm suggesting that perhaps the same thing might have occurred this time.