I've already gone into detail about how Conservative spending on ads in the 2006 election did not look any different from how the Liberals and the NDP spent on ads, in particular, on how money was moved back and forth between the federal party and the riding associations. The ads bought were national-themed ads with local MPs named at the end, and the ads were declared on the local candidate returns.

When the Liberals and the NDP do it, it is business as usual. When the Conservatives do it, it is the In-and-Out Scandal. So why are the Conservatives being singled out?

Some people like to think that the Conservatives are always singled out for harsher treatment on any matter, but in this case, we might be able to point to a very specific reason for the inequitable treatment.

Consider that one element of the In-and-Out Scandal is how Conservative Party candidates were dragged into the scheme. The federal party paid for national advertising but strong-armed local candidates into declaring the spending on local returns.

Jean Landry was one of those candidates. Indeed, it was Landry's interviews with Elections Canada that started this whole business. Formerly a succesful 1993 candidate for the Bloc Quebecois, formerly an unsuccessful independent candidate in 1997, formerly an unsuccessful Progressive Conservative candidate in 2000, fomerly an unsuccessful Conservative candidate in 2004, Jean Landry ran for the Conservatives in the 2006 election in the Quebec riding of Richmond-Arthabaska.

Unsuccessfully, I might add. And I'm not being mean-spirited -- this point is very relevant, and you'll quickly see.

When Elections Canada asked questions about some of his ad spend, Jean Landry pleaded ignorance:

Jean Landry, the 2006 Conservative candidate in the Quebec riding of Richmond-Arthabaska, had also been frustrated in December, 2006, when Elections Canada asked for the same type of proof.

"He said that this was purely an 'in-and-out' transaction (he mentioned it twice)," the call log states. "He said he has no clue about the advertising itself or how many times they appeared. He said, 'I'm 178 kilometres away from Montreal, how would I know when they took place?' "

Moreover, Jean Landry claims he was was compelled to participate, a point taken up with some enthusiasm by Liberals:

Mr David McGuinty: Former Conservative candidates Jean Landry and Ann Julie Fortier are on the record saying that Conservative ad expenses were not local campaign expenses and that they were forced, almost coerced, to participate-and the direction came from the very top.

The press makes a point of mentioning that Jean Landry has left the party:

Last week, Mr. Landry said he is willing to testify against the Conservatives, and wants nothing more to do with the party.

A victim of this ad spend scandal, so disgusted with the spending shenanigans that he could no longer be part of this organization? It is certainly implied, but in fact, Jean Landry might have fallen victim of a party rule designed to prevent riding associations from becoming comfortable with repeated losses:

Fifteen former candidates for the party in Quebec have essentially been told by the Conservative Party of Canada that they can't run for the party again. This is mostly due to a new rule the party adopted a year ago, the CPC version of "two strikes you're out". Any candidate who's run twice unsuccessfully cannot run a third time.

Some, like Jean Landry who ran in Lotbinière in 2004 and in Richmond-Arthabaska in 2006, wrote to the party executive after the "2 strikes-you're out" rule was adopted to try to get special permission to run a third time since they'd worked hard over the past 4-5 years to build up local support.

Worked hard to build local support or to build a comfortably complacent riding leadership that is now keeping new blood out of the riding? I'm not even sure if this rule really exists, but it would make sense to me if it did. In any case, it draws into question just why Jean Landry is no longer a member of the party and what is really fueling his frustration.

Consider the timeline. Landry runs for the Conservatives, loses (again), and is told he cannot run again. Frustrated, and perhaps worried that he is running out of parties to run for, Landry gets a call from Elections Canada about the ad buy. His frustration explodes. Indeed, Landry is one of just two candidates that piqued Elections Canada's interest in the ad spends.

Now at the centre of the building news story, Landry paints the Conservatives in the worst possible light.

But is that what really happened?

In correspondence with the Conservative Party about the Elections Canada questions, Jean Landry's position is different on some key points. The frustration is still there, of course, but focus on the facts. Here is my translation of a December 15, 2006, letter from Jean Landry to the chief Tory organizer in Quebec concerning Landry's discussions with Elections Canada over the advertising:

Pierre Coulombe,
Chief Organizer for the Conservative Party in Quebec

Sir,

Last November 29, the Chief Electoral Officer demanded the following of my Official Agent, Mrs Lise Vallieres:

1. A copy of the contract and other written agreements reached with the advertiser as well as the party records concerning the above expense
2. A copy of the advertisement itself or its contents, if it was made to a television or radio, with indications that the agent was authorized official
3. The document specifying the date or dates of the advertisement ran promoting a candidate
4. The document specifying the date on which, in your role as Official Agent, you authorized this expense

It is about a "collective investment" of several advertisements at the time of the last general election (January 23, 2006). Mme Lise Vallieres, Official Agent for the undersigned, agreed to participate in good faith. Now, in accordance with paragraph 451 (2.2) of the Canada Elections Act, the Chief Electoral Officer is demanding the documents mentioned above.

Be aware that failing to provide these indicated documents, Mrs Vallieres will commit "ipso facto" an offense.

In addition, you do not know that under the Canada Elections Act, the candidate, in this case, the undersigned, remains responsible for everything.

For the present, I put you on notice to provide to Madame Lise Vallieres documents above (items 1 to 4), within 10 days of receipt of this.

In the case that there is a failure to comply, other measures and actions will be pursued without further notice.

Please govern yourself accordingly,

Jean Landry, Conservative Party Candidate
38th General Election, January 23, 2006

The frustration is still there. But interestingly, Landry says his Official Agent, Lise Vallieres, agreed to participate in the group ad buy in good faith. Nothing about coercive tactics, but an agreement willingly entered into. Indeed, Landry understood the ad buy to be a group buy spread across several ridings.

Contrast this with this email trail between the NDP Federal Party (FP) and the Official Agent (OA) for NDP MP Libby Davies:

FP: Please find attached an invoice from the Federal Party. The original will follow by mail. It is our understanding that these radio ads promoted your candidate during the election period. Please forward the payment to the Federal Party as soon as possible.

OA: This invoice is not ours. Mindful about an extended campaign and limited budget, we were only able to take out a few ethnic ads (Chinese media)...A cheque for $1,500 for our portion was forwarded to the Canada NDP and cashed. Please check because this is really really bad for our ceiling.

FP: We hope you are able to squeeze this under the ceiling. Some expenses are not considered election expenses subject to spending limits, such as fundraising costs. Please have a look at the totals and get back to us if you think we have a problem.

Sure sounds like an example of headquarters making unilateral spending decisions on behalf of the ridings, then delivering bills and demanding payment. The Official Agent certainly didn't indicate that she entered into any spending agreement. The tone makes me wonder if the Official Agent had even seen the ads.

And yet Elections Canada is not checking over Libby Davies' spending with a fine tooth comb.

What's the difference? There might be several but one obvious one jumps out. Libby Davies won her seat and Jean Landry did not. If Elections Canada asked Libby Davies about how NDP ad spends between the federal and local levels were organized, she wouldn't start going on about how headquarters treated her badly and how she had no idea what was going on and how if anything was suspicious, well, she is disgusted by it all.

And Elections Canada would not have suddenly become suspicious.

Check out other entries from the In-and-Out category
Results will open in a new window.