We are resuming the committee's proceedings on the motion adopted by the committee, which is that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for certain election expenses in order to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office-holders.
This afternoon we had six witnesses who were to appear before us. Mr. Ken Brownridge was summonsed and subsequently provided a statement of health problems and is not here. Mr. Michael Gilmore expressed reservations about appearing, was issued a summons, and did not agree to appear. And Mr. Sam Goldstein, who was issued a summons, is willing to appear but not today. He offered to do it another day.
We do, however, have with us Mr. Douglas Lowry, Mr. David Marler, and Mr. Geoffrey Webber.
Gentlemen, thank you kindly for appearing. And I would ask....
:
Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that you've given an explanation as to why some of the witnesses aren't here today. It was rather unusual, your performance here this morning, when you opened up the meeting, and I believe four or five witnesses were not present.
Sir, you didn't allow any time for debate or questions as to what the committee would do or whether the committee was concerned about that. These meetings are very expensive to hold. It's expensive for members to come. It's expensive for the staff to be here. It's expensive, and to simply dismiss that was rather uncalled for.
Most of those three witnesses--I think there were five witnesses, rather--all came from the province of Quebec. We don't know why they weren't here. You didn't indicate whether they said they would not be here. You didn't seem to know. You didn't say. They may all have been travelling together. I don't know. Maybe they were travelling by train. Maybe there was a delay somehow. Normally what you do, Mr. Chairman, from any experience I've had either in committees or in courts of law, is number one, the person in charge of the hearing, who is you, consults with other members of the committee and possibly suspends the meeting, not for three or four hours but for half an hour, to see whether these witnesses are going to telephone the clerk's office or whether they're going to come. But you haven't allowed that.
So sir, once again you've blown it. We now have no idea whether these witnesses appeared some time between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock. We don't know that, because you suspended the meeting.
My point of order, sir, is that in the future.... I think you were out of order in suspending the meeting the way you did. In the future...I believe this is not your show; this is the show of the ethics committee, and we should all be consulted as to what we're going to do.
:
Mr. Tilson, as I was saying, the issue of witnesses not appearing came up at another meeting. I had indicated that this was a matter the committee would have to address, and I proposed that we deal with it on Thursday, because we don't know who will come or not come and what the committee's decision.... It is a committee decision as to what steps may be taken.
In regard to the four witnesses scheduled to be here today, they were all issued a summons to appear at 10 o'clock this morning. There was no communication today, as I recall, about this morning's forum. There was no communication from any of the four witnesses today to advise us that they weren't going to appear. I do not know the reason they did not appear. That deals with part of your point of order.
With regard to suspending for a short while and discussing and so on, I had indicated that it is a matter this committee is going to have to deal with in regard to witnesses who have been summonsed who have made no effort whatsoever to cooperate. Some did get back to us and just said that they wanted to decline. There's a range of circumstances.
The members raised this with me yesterday. I believe it was you, Mr. Tilson. You asked if you could get a copy of the clerk's report on the various calls. I immediately asked the clerk to have it translated and to make sure it was updated right up to the end of yesterday's hearings.
Questions have been raised about privacy issues. There are personal phone numbers and addresses here of persons who, if this document were to get out into the public domain.... I want the committee to instruct on that and to maybe get advice from House counsel on the privacy considerations. But I have no problem sharing the information with the committee in both official languages, on an embargoed basis, with the copies returned after we deal with them. That would be one possibility.
This is a matter I want to discuss with the committee. It's important. I hope the committee will be prepared to suggest to all colleagues how we might approach this. So thank you for raising the issue. It is important, sir.
Now, we have our four witnesses. I want to ask the clerk to please swear in the witnesses.
:
Mr. Chair, I came to you before this meeting and respectfully asked that you offer me the floor so that I wouldn't have to get “ruckusy” on you and demand a point of order. I don't know whether I have a point of order here or a point of clarification or a point of procedure or a point of incompetence. But if I may just speak for a moment, I would like to suggest to you that the interpretation I clearly have is that when this whole process began, and you and your staff began contacting witnesses based on, apparently, a conversation with three of them, you went ahead and issued some 30 summonses. One might consider that to be intimidating.
Then on Monday, when the witnesses showed up—all of them except one—you informed the witnesses that you had changed your mind, and the accommodation, the deal you made with Monsieur Mayrand, the Mayrand accommodation, would not be offered to these witnesses. You also brought in a new procedure. And I would like to know if the witnesses were informed that they would in fact be sworn in. That, to me, indicates that perhaps witnesses might want to have legal counsel. Those procedures, to me, suggest further intimidation.
On Monday, when we had an opening because a witness didn't show, you refused to allow Mr. Finley, who did inform your office that he wouldn't be available later in the week. It is fully customary for chairs to make every effort to accommodate witnesses' schedules. You did not allow Mr. Finley to do that. And besides that, you went to the unprecedented measure of bringing in officers and removing him. That, sir, is intimidation.
That's not to mention that witnesses are watching these proceedings and the number of changes that are being made. Witnesses know full well that these decisions aren't really made by the committee--they're made by the majority on the committee--and that all the Conservative witnesses were deemed to be irrelevant by you, sir, and not allowed. None of the witnesses the Conservative Party put forward were even allowed to be here, because you deemed them to be irrelevant. However, we've seen so far—and I'm sure the witnesses we have today do not fall into this category—that there were a number of these witnesses who offered nothing to this committee.
So sir, I'm suggesting to you that you have to accept responsibility for the falling apart of this committee and the proceedings here. It's your conduct, or lack thereof, that has provided a level of intimidation of witnesses, who possibly do not believe there is any fairness to be had here and that the only fairness they can get is in a real courtroom with trained cross-examination. So sir, I'm suggesting to you that not only have you failed to provide committee members....
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gary Goodyear: You can't interrupt me on this. Nice try.
My point is that we've seen a number of changes, and even if witnesses knew the normal process of committee they would be surprised by them. Offering witnesses closing statements that clearly disallow any questions on what they may or may not say--these types of things are just unprecedented. I suspect that at this point witnesses are realizing this is not the forum where they can speak the truth or get the truth out, and they perhaps have decided to wait for the court.
I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Chair, that not only is this true, but you have not provided this committee, or at least this side of the room, with all the documentation. You admitted this morning--or perhaps it was yesterday, because we weren't offered any time.... Yesterday you said with feigned surprise, “Do you not have the documents from Monsieur Mayrand?” No, we don't have them. How can we ask witnesses questions when we don't have all the research?
Anyway, Mr. Chair, I can tell you that if Canadians haven't already seen this to be a kangaroo court, a forum of complete unfairness...this is not going to result in anything close to the truth. I've suggested that's not what we're after anyway. We are asking you to abide by the rules, follow the fairness and traditions of parliamentary committees, and let's move forward.
We asked yesterday for a review of the witness list, and it was voted down, sir. You will say it was by the committee, but it is not fair to say that. It was voted down by the tyranny of the majority on committee.
We demand the following documentation from you forthwith, with no delays or excuses. We would like a list of all summonses that were issued--all of them. I want a copy of the script that was given to the clerks of the committee for use when they attempted to contact all the persons on the witness lists. I want a copy of the phone logs or similar records, and I want the names of the clerks who made those phone calls and the content of the discussions between the clerks and the witnesses. I want a copy of the affidavits of service. I do not believe that all the witnesses have received their summonses, contrary to your implications. I want copies of all correspondence where accommodations or other arrangements for witnesses were discussed, suggested, or agreed upon.
I apologize to you for not having faith in your word, but I do not have faith in your word. I want to see documentation. I no longer want to see you going out to the media and saying that the Conservative Party is doing this or that when you have absolutely no evidence. These are very aggressive and egregious accusations from a chair who's supposed to be non-partisan but is clearly partisan.
If I can ask one more thing, please do not ask your colleagues across the way to put forward motions that will help you get out of these proceedings. Yesterday you asked one of your colleagues.... I don't want to accuse Mr. Hubbard; I think it was Dominic LeBlanc, but it does not matter. But you turned to your Liberal buddies and said, “Please move a motion to adjourn.” That is not the conduct of a chair; that is the conduct of a puppet. Maybe that's why the witnesses are choosing not to appear before this kangaroo court.
There will be no fairness had here; there will be no truth had here. I've said this before and I'm absolutely sure of it now. The jury across the way has long ago made up its mind because it's politically advantageous to move in this direction. A court of law will provide the absolute truth.
This proceeding is denigrating parliamentary procedure, and you, sir, are at the forefront of it. If you had any decency, sir, you would remove yourself from the chair.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gary Goodyear: I will repeat myself, if you didn't hear me, Madam Redman. If I moved the motion, it would be voted down. So I'm offering the chair an opportunity to restore his respect.
Parliament is a place for free speech. We do have rules and procedures. The point of order was obviously not a point of order, but obviously Mr. Goodyear needed to express himself here. I decided to allow him to express his views on a number of matters.
I tried to write down all the points, but to make absolutely sure, I will get the blues so that I have all the matters you raised, sir. I intend, at an appropriate time, to respond to each and every one for this committee. It will take me a little bit of time, because there's a fair bit.
With regard to documents, the letter from Mr. Mayrand, which has been circulated to you now, was just received by the clerk today. I got mine on Friday, or something like that. We have it in both official languages. It has been circulated.
Mr. Mayrand had some undertakings with regard to affidavits from Madame Vézina and Ms. O'Grady. They were sent to my office last week when I wasn't here. I concluded that the clerk also had received them from Mr. Mayrand. They are not in both official languages. We have a convention that documents can be circulated to members in the language in which they are provided, extensive documents, as in the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings, but they are to be translated at the earliest possible time and circulated.
It appears right now that I am the only one who has a copy of these documents. They are exhibits and so on. I won't go into what's there. No other member has them. As you know, I don't ask questions, so they have not been of benefit to any member over another member. I want to do that, but we have business to do.
I would like to, please, if it's acceptable to the committee, move to the witnesses. I'm going to ask the clerk to please swear....
We'll have Mr. Del Mastro on a point of order.
:
Thank you. It's a procedural matter, Mr. Chair.
I'd like you to consult page 857 of Marleau and Montpetit, where it discusses the role of the chair. I would like you to review it, because I have serious concerns about your conduct, including this morning. I have personally set aside time, as have other members, for a special committee meeting. But without permitting any debate--and it was incredibly disrespectful--you banged a hammer and terminated this morning's meeting. I had meetings with constituents this morning in my constituency that I could not attend because I am here.
I do want you to review page 857 of Marleau and Montpetit. Specifically, I would like to know where within that you see you may, at any time, enter hearsay evidence without any documentation to back it up, as you did several times during yesterday's meetings. I would like to know where in there you see that you may look to your Liberal buddies and ask them, direct them, to put motions on the floor so you can effectively terminate the committee. That's what you were looking to do yesterday. I would like to know where in there you determine that you can make rules as you go. Several times yesterday I read a statement that you indicated would govern the rules, the questions, the scope of this committee. You disregarded it continuously. You are making rules as you go.
Last--and it has been mentioned by Mr. Goodyear--I have never, in any committee, seen where there were closing statements provided that do not allow for cross-examination.
Your conduct is well beyond and way, way far removed from the role of the chair as outlined on page 857 of Marleau and Montpetit. I request that you review that.
I also request that you do not disrespect the members of this committee by banging the hammer when you have scheduled a special committee meeting, caused us to incur cost, and caused us to depart from our ridings where we are working. I don't know about you, but I haven't taken any holidays. I work every day and meet with my constituents. I am missing those meetings. I am not in my riding because I am here. That was incredibly disrespectful.
:
I think I can quickly respond to the member's intervention.
An hon. member: Is it a point of order or not?
The Chair: Yes, he's questioning a procedural matter. It's a point of order.
If you give me a moment, I think I can discharge this to the member's satisfaction.
Number one, Mr. Goodyear read the same point about yesterday's adjournment, following our witnesses. Respectfully, sir, I didn't need to ask anybody to move a motion for adjournment, because all of the witnesses had been heard and there was no other business before the committee. That's what you do: you adjourn the meeting. So that takes care of that allegation.
With regard to this morning, I think Mr. Martin raised a very good point with regard to Mr. Finley, who came before his scheduled time. Mr. Martin indicated that when you have a witness, you have to properly prepare for a witness. Members had come prepared to question six scheduled witnesses, who were here and sitting at the table in a two-hour time slot. To then say, “Well, just make room for this person”, we couldn't do it. It was not respectful to the witnesses who had made an effort to communicate with us and agreed to be here voluntarily.
This morning we had scheduled four witnesses. All had been summonsed. None of them had given us any confirmation or any communication to indicate they would not be appearing. The members had to prepare for those four witnesses.
With witnesses not appearing, that is a matter that I hope, the committee will address on Thursday, as to how we might move forward on this with future meetings and future witnesses and business that the committee cares to deal with. However, at that point, with only four witnesses scheduled, no other business scheduled that we could deal with, the chair had no business to transact except to suspend until we had the witnesses coming at two o'clock. That was because there were no more witnesses to hear and we'd already dealt with the other matters that weren't already scheduled.
Finally, on the issue of closing statements, it's not a rule that you must have an opening statement and you must have a closing statement. The committee decides. I think—I think—I proposed with the first witnesses that that was the way we would proceed, and that was acceptable to the committee. And we're treating all the witnesses in the same fashion.
We have had closing statements, as you know, in the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings. All of the witnesses who appeared had that opportunity, so I think that answers your third point.
I take note. I want to look at the transcript again, all the words that you said, sir, to make sure I've answered them. I undertake to fully answer any other points you may have raised, but I did want to deal with those.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I would like a commitment from you, because we did have a number of points. Mr. Goodyear has brought up those points that we were seeking clarification on, that we could have got this morning, that we could have now before us at this committee. And you have undertaken to provide that. That is the commitment that you made. You've undertaken to provide what Mr. Goodyear has requested from you as evidence that you had people who disregarded the summons this morning--because that was the contention that you made--and we would like to actually get that information. But we had no opportunity to talk about that because you determined there was nothing to talk about. We did have something to talk about.
I would like very much, for the balance of this week--which is a special week in which you have called us to be here-- for you to assure me that you will not shut down a meeting prior to anyone on this committee even having a discussion about whether we want to adjourn the meeting.
Thank you.
:
I will take note of your remarks. Certainly all of the information that should be in the hands of members will be put in the hands of members. Requests have been made for documents. As I indicated earlier, they're being translated.
I hope you understand that it would be the prudent thing to do to ensure, since this committee is responsible for matters related to the Privacy Act, that I don't violate the privacy issues with regard to proposed witnesses. But as soon as we can...and as you know, I deal with my team, who are the people here from the clerks directorate. There are about four people who have been providing services to me, and I can tell you, notwithstanding some of the suggestions by members' comments about these people, I trust them implicitly. They do excellent work, and I stand behind them 100%. I will continue to rely on them for their counsel and advice, as well as the Office of the Law Clerk of the House of Commons and my researchers from the Library of Parliament who are also working on the next phase of our hearings having to do with ethical standards and expertise, so that we can move forward towards a report and possibly recommendations to the government for amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act or any other document, which is the reason for our study.
With that, I hope I've heard all of the matters that you care to raise for this time, and if it's acceptable to the committee, I'd like to move to the witnesses so that we can continue our work, please.
We've sworn in the witnesses. Thank you kindly. We're going to move straight to questions.
As I had indicated to all the witnesses before these proceedings started, we will go to the questions first, and they will have an opportunity to either make corrections or make some final commentary to the committee that they feel is important so they can fully express their free speech to this committee and to the public of Canada.
Mr. Proulx, please, for seven minutes.
I wish to welcome the witnesses this afternoon. Gentlemen, please feel very at ease with us. We are very respectful, on this side of the table especially. My party is very respectful of witnesses. Some might think what you've just heard from other members could be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation. We are not intimidated, and I hope you are not either, because, let's face it, this is a committee of Parliament. You are here to speak the truth. This is not the committee of Paul Szabo; it's a committee of Parliament.
Mr. Marler, good afternoon, sir. Would you rather we do this in English or in French?
:
Mr. Bouffard then asked me if I was refusing. I answered that it was not exactly that, but that I could not accept unless I understood the reasons for the transaction. That was the conversation I had with Mr. Bouffard.
Some time later, that same morning, I received a call from Mr. Michel Rivard, who told me that he was part of the leadership of the Conservative Party and that he was telephoning me from Quebec City. He asked me why I had refused the money or the transaction proposed by Mr. Bouffard. I answered that it was because Mr. Bouffard would not or was not in a position to explain the purpose of the transfer. He then told me that the party was organizing something or other, I am not sure what exactly, because it was not expressed very clearly.
However, I did not doubt his sincerity. Once again, I am not sure that he knew himself what the purpose of the transfer was. He told me that the transfer had to do with advertising and that the party was organizing and that it would have a positive impact on my riding and other ridings in the Eastern Townships.
Mr. Marler has indicated that he can't hear because there are a lot of conversations going on over here. Everything was going fine with Mr. Proulx, but when the Conservatives started to discuss who was going to be the first to ask questions and had little discussions, all of that was taking place within earshot of Mr. Marler.
I'll ask all honourable colleagues to please guard themselves against having loud conversations while there is questioning going on, so that everyone can hear, especially the witnesses and the questioners.
Madame, you've used about half a minute of your time. Please proceed.
I will return to the $1,000 of January 4, 2006. Can you confirm that this was a reimbursement of the deposit?
Mr. Geoffrey Webber: Yes.
Ms. Carole Lavallée: What about the $3,975 amount on January 18, 2006?
An hon. member: This is outrageous.
The Chair: Order, Mr. Martin, please.
When the chair calls order, it's hopefully to let people get their feet back on the ground and realize where they are and what they're doing. I have always said, and I'm remiss that I did not repeat it again, that before this committee all witnesses are treated with dignity and respect. Mr. Martin, I think to be argumentative with the witness or baiting the witness probably is not helpful. More importantly, the translators cannot follow two people speaking at the same time.
I would ask all members, if you're going to ask a question, finish your question and let the person answer. They may not be giving an answer you want, but that's their answer.
You have a minute to go.
An hon. member: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I'm sorry, it's a seven-minute round. You have seven minutes.
Now, we're going to complete the questions. Mr. Martin has two minutes remaining.
One day, when you run and become elected, you will have a chance to give a point of order.
:
Seven minutes. I might not use it all. I may want to share it.
Let's talk about Olivia Chow, just so that Mr. Martin over there can pay attention. I'm going to read you a document from an affidavit. I actually have the records from Elections Canada concerning the expenses of Olivia Chow. These are from Elections Canada.
Ms. Chow, as you know, was the NDP candidate. According to the documentation, there was in fact a regional media buy that was apparently accepted by Elections Canada and apparently shares many of the same characteristics that Pat Martin thinks is illegal.
Let me tell you the characteristics that are similar. One, this buy by Olivia Chow and the NDP was organized by or through organizers for the national party. The invoice was processed by the national NDP party. Oh, oh, there was no direct contact or written contract between the local campaign or the media, so they didn't even call her.
The messaging of the ad was produced by the national party. I've seen the ad. It doesn't mention the local candidate whatsoever. A share of the cost of the ad was claimed, guess where? By the local candidate. Interesting.
However, unlike the regional buys we're talking about with the Conservative Party, there was no underlying invoice from a media supplier in the documentation. The only invoicing provided by Ms. Chow was a spreadsheet. That's not an invoice.
And guess what? The ad ran throughout Ontario. It wasn't a regional buy. There was no documentation. But here's the interesting fact, Mr. Lowry, and I want to ask you why you think this is.
:
Order. I apologize, Mr. Goodyear.
Mr. Wallace, with due respect, sir, another honourable colleague has the floor. All I can hear you doing is playing a flute over there, or something. I think the rest of the people in the room were watching you making some rude gestures.
I think what we should do, please, again, all honourable colleagues—
Mr. Wallace, please.
:
Thank you. I was on a real roll there. I know Mr. Martin's head was turning red.
But let me just finish up, because clearly what I have indicated, based on Elections Canada documentation, is that Ms. Chow apparently wasn't even aware of this province-wide regional buy that was paid for, invoiced, and done all at the national party level, Pat, and she invoiced it and expensed it locally.
Here's the problem, and I want to ask you—
:
I'm sorry. I won't do that. You're correct. My apologies.
There's no documentation submitted to Elections Canada, but despite that, on this very unusual limited documentation, Elections Canada accepted the validity of this regional media buy as an NDP local campaign election expense, without question.
Why do you think Elections Canada chose to accept exactly—through you, Mr. Chair—what that NDP member just said was illegal? Why is it illegal for us apparently, but the NDP did exactly the same thing and it's not illegal for them?
I want to tell you one other thing, Mr. Lowry. We asked that Libby Davies, who did even worse than this, to be here as a witness. These guys voted against it. Do you have any comment on that?
:
I think the only reason is that the Conservative Party looked at all the ridings that traditionally didn't spend enough cap. Every riding has a cap. My cap to spend is $80,000.
I think when the Conservative Party went through every riding, we determined which ones didn't have cap and we said to all the ridings, “If you're not going to spend your cap, let's put it in more advertising. If you do get the 10%, you can compete the next time.” So we went through every riding that was possible in the Conservative Party.
I think the NDP probably only did a few of them, maybe because under the rules election advertising is kind of flux. Maybe it's because part of the 2006 election had something to do with advertising.
We're supposed to be even squeakier clean than everybody else, but it seems to me that we did it more because we followed the rules and we looked into the long-term interest of every riding across Canada. I think if the ridings received their 10%, they would be much more competitive and we'd have better democracy across Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
I would like to add my voice of thanks to all of you for coming. I think we all recognize this is a very serious issue, and official agents are an integral part of making sure every candidate stays within the limits.
Mr. Lowry, I wanted to ask you, because there has been some chatting among other people who were subpoenaed, were you asked not to appear today by any representative of the Conservative Party?
:
The Conservative Party would decide, have input into elections, finance them--the nature of the elections from a national perspective. It wouldn't be an Ontario thing: “Gee, we're only doing Ontario buy-ins.”
If you look at the 2005 results in Quebec, we were lousy. We did a lot better in 2006. In a lot of our campaigns we were under the 10%, which means it's hard to get money, it's hard to get candidates, and it's hard to do everything else. So with long-term thinking, what do you do? What part of the 60% is malleable?
I'd like to come back to Mr. Lowry again, if I could.
Mr. Lowry, it may surprise you to learn that I've been elected since January 23, 2006, and since that time I've never been to the Conservative Party head office—never. So I can say the Liberal Party has been there more than I have been. I don't know how they knew to go there, but the chair's question is a little bit strange, considering that I don't even know where it is in Ottawa. I understand it's not far, but I have never been there. I've never had any cause to go.
Have you ever worked on the national campaign? Have you ever been part of the national campaign team, kind of the war room that works here in Ottawa?
:
I just want to say a couple of things to you.
First of all, I think you can be very proud of a couple of things. You never broke any law. You did not. In fact, even the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, Mr. Mayrand, came in and said we're really just discussing a different interpretation. They have a different interpretation of the law than we do. Our interpretation happens to be the same as the opposition parties, the members of the jury here at the kangaroo court, but it's somehow different from Election Canada's interpretation of the law.
I would like to ask you a question, if you're aware, and maybe you'll follow this a little bit.
One of the things that happened to me in the last campaign--and I'll never forget it--was that I was at my campaign office and a woman walked up to me. She was probably close to 80 years old. She walked from the other side of town to give $20 to my campaign. I'll never forget it as long as I live.
The Conservative Party has been pretty successful in raising money, haven't they?
:
First of all, and most importantly, and I am saying this not only for the official agents but also for the candidate, I must tell you that I have a great deal of respect for party members who decide to get actively involved in politics and particularly for those who decide to work as an official agent in a riding.
Everyone around this table has had an official agent in his or her riding and knows just how demanding the task is and how much effort is required, perhaps more than any other tasks performed by the members of our riding executives.
We also know that these people have a great deal of integrity and try to perform their tasks to the best of their ability. That is why the political parties generally give them good training.
My question is particularly intended for Mr. Lowry. Did you receive training from the Conservative Party?
Again, Mr. Lowry, thank you very much for your testimony.
Would you agree that regardless of what the advertising buys are, and regardless of whether they're advertising the leader or whatever, it ultimately is the local candidate who benefits? Can the national party get a vote on election day?
:
I see. Well, thank you for that.
Mr. Lowry, when you signed off on your final financial statements that you sent in to Elections Canada for this report, you were swearing and attesting that you believed that everything in there, to the best of your knowledge, was true. How can you say it's true that this $49,898, or whatever it was, was in fact a local campaign expense?
:
My two opposing candidates are probably Tony Ianno and Olivia Chow, at the moment. They both have $80,000 to spend. I don't have that. They already have $80,000 because they got over 10%. They're already up to their caps. They're going to spend $80,000.
For my election, which I have to fight on behalf of the party with the most seats, I have $20,000. Is it ethical that they have such a huge advantage over me that they can do literature five or six times and I can barely do it twice? Is it ethical?
It's the rules. Do I like them? Do I want to change them to make sure that my party and every other association has a reasonable chance of winning? You know that part of winning is money.
:
Actually, Mr. Lowry, I want to congratulate you. I think you have a very solid common-sense approach to the situation. I think you already know you did nothing wrong. Elections Canada has always allowed for the transfer of money back and forth. The implications by the opposite party and the attempts to catch you in a snag are shameful.
I want to suggest to you that you have every right to spend every darn cent on advertising or anything you want. If you want to spend the wad on buttons, if that's how you feel you can get elected, that's your God-given right and it is the law. It's perfectly legal. I congratulate you. I appreciate your testimony.
I did have some questions, sir, but I think they're grilling you hard enough and I'm just going to pass my time over to Mr. Tilson.
:
For $80,000 per riding association? Why is there a limit? Because it's so many per vote. It's supposed to give equal opportunity for each of the registered parties, that they can spend the exact same amount of dollars per vote.
That's a wonderful theory. The problem is what happens if you don't have that kind of money. If you look at most elections, if you don't spend well past your cap, if you don't get a refund, you're not likely to get elected unless there's some wave. Years ago, the NDP were elected in the Ontario Legislature. There were people who had spent hardly any money, but there was this wave that went through and they all got elected.
If you don't spend a reasonable amount of money, you don't get elected, or it's extraordinarily tough. It's not impossible, but it's tough.
:
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.
:
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?
:
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%.
:
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.
:
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?
:
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.
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.
:
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.
:
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.
:
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?
:
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.
:
Fair enough. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lowry, you did share with us that you spoke to two Conservative Party officials about how they felt about your coming here, I'll put it that way. You also said very briefly that you were advised or given some talking points or notes or advice about some things they may or may not want you to say.
Can you elaborate on what sort of things the Conservative Party told you about what they would like you to talk about or what they might not like you to talk about at this hearing?
:
When I called the regional organizers, because I'm a member of the Conservative Party, when I walk through the door representing the Conservative Party, they said maybe you need some talking points.
Mr. Pat Martin: Such as?
Mr. Douglas Lowry: But I didn't get any. I thought they would e-mail some to me. That's reasonable, probably something to do with some of the stuff that was in the press. I'm sure the gentlemen across the way from you, the kinds of comments they think...or what the party in general thinks about this committee, something of that nature. And that's all public knowledge.
I'm not in that game. I'm in Toronto. I work for one of the banks. I go to the bank, one of the offices across the street, and I worry about more than I do here. That's my business. But when I walk in the door, I'm a member of the Conservative Party, and presumably the Conservative Party has a viewpoint.
Gentlemen, as I indicated to you prior to bringing the meeting to order, I would offer you an opportunity, if you wish, to make any closing remarks—briefly, because we're certainly not looking for a speech—if you feel there's something you want to correct, amplify upon, or say to the committee.
And I think it's probably a good time, while you think of what you might want to say, if anything, to deal with a suggestion here about your right to have a lawyer and these kinds of things. I will be responding to the committee very fully on this, but I'm a little concerned that people who are scheduled to be witnesses may be watching this and may all of a sudden be concerned about your legal status here.
As you know, you are here before a committee of Parliament, and as all honourable members know, you are protected by parliamentary privilege. That means that....
Excuse me. Order.
You are protected by parliamentary privilege. I didn't say this at the beginning, which I had said for other witnesses who appeared before us. You are protected by parliamentary privilege, and anything you say cannot be used against you in any other proceedings. So there is no need for you to have a lawyer, and indeed, the clerk points out to me that there is no need for anyone to be apprised of their rights.
With regard to a summons, I know, Mr. Lowry, you did receive a summons. The other two gentlemen did not. Anyone can bring a lawyer with them if they feel that it's necessary. The rules are—if someone is watching and wants to bring a lawyer—that they can, but a lawyer can only advise his client but will not be able to speak and address the committee. So that people will understand, those are the rules.
That said, I'd like to invite you to make any final comments you'd like to the committee, to Canadians. I think maybe I'll just go in order.
Mr. Lowry.
:
I'll echo what you just said. I think anybody who is supposed to attend should attend. One of the reasons for what we're doing is that we're trying to elect people to this House. That means we want it to work.
If you don't like the rules, the committee can change the rules. If you want to tighten the rules, that's fine with us. If you want to change everything about it, that's fine with us. But all parties have to do the exact same thing, and right now all parties are using the same type of measures.
The rules were changed a little while ago. That's fine. Change them again. That's your job up here, to make things work.
I happen to be in Olivia Chow's riding. I thought maybe I was in Jack's riding. I don't know.
But if you want to change the rules, please do so.
:
In real life I'm an income tax consultant. We have a tax law in this country that is relatively complicated. I was invited to be an official agent for Mr. Marler. I was surprised at how complicated the laws around elections were. In fact, we didn't know what we were doing quite a bit of the time before the election started.
I am surprised, looking back, that the training sessions are given by the parties. It seems to me that if you want to get your official agents trained consistently so they're all reading from the same song book, the parties should pool their moneys or have some kind of arrangement so someone from Elections Canada does the training. At least we'd have their word.
I really feel sorry for Mr. Lowry, because he's been dragged through the coals here and I think he was acting in good faith.
:
Thank you for the opportunity to say something.
There is so much that could be said about so many things. Certainly my agent, Mr. Webber, has touched on things, and I've listened to what Mr. Lowry and the members sitting here had to say. I think my role here--because it's the only thing I can speak directly to-- has to be to answer the questions put to me. I hope you consider that I've done that. I do not want to become the judge, jury, and expert witness. I just want, perhaps, this committee to be of value to the nation generally in future elections.
Thank you.
First of all, I don't think that you actually have the right to make commentary as you did five minutes ago. In fact, you're hardly the one to impart fairness. Mr. Lowry was being badgered today by these folks, and you never said anything until we pointed it out. But yesterday you called us on what was definitely not badgering. You asked us to define our points of order before we were allowed to speak, yet yesterday you recognized Mr. Proulx on a point of order, interrupted the questioning, and didn't ask him to define it.
I really don't even know if this is a point of order. Monsieur Nadeau made reference to the fact that we need to have a contract signed. That is absolutely incorrect. It doesn't say anything of the sort in the Elections Act. I would simply like the gentleman to produce that if it's true. I do not know of that. I'm wondering if the member would be kind enough to find such a thing in the Elections Act and provide it to me. That's my point.