During the In-and-Out hearings, Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer at Elections Canada, explained the criteria he used to determine that the Conservative Party was worthy of attention.
Apparently, not having a photographic memory earns you the wrath of Elections Canada.
You see, Elections Canada officials were shocked when candidates admitted that they didn't know all the details of the advertising in the 2006 election:
In fact, [Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand] said, a review of all campaign expense reports from the 2004 and 2006 elections revealed that the Conservatives alone transferred cash to local candidates and then back to the central office, coupled with other "red flags," including local candidates' lack of knowledge about the ad campaigns they ostensibly paid for and a lack of documentation.
Strictly speaking, it is the official agent that deals with the details. And they aren't professionals:
Conservative MP Russ Hiebert challenged whether candidates' official agents should be expected to know a lot of detail about expenses. He said most of them are volunteers, not accountants, and "they do it for the love of their country."
But this is a "red flag" as far as Marc Mayrand is concerned.
Hey, just for fun, maybe Marc Mayrand can tell us about Elections Canada spending in the 2006 election. Let's keep it simple. We don't need to know how much was on a particular advertisement on a particular day in a particular market. Just tell us what the overall budget was. Give or take. A rough estimate. Conservative MP Russ Hiebert asked that question of Marc Mayrand duing the recent hearings:
Mr. Russ Hiebert: I didn't think so, but I thought I'd investigate that.
It sounds like I'm going to run out of time shortly, but I'll go as far as I can.
I want to remind you that it's volunteers who work on these campaigns. These are unpaid individuals who take time off...actually, they don't take time off, usually they do it part time in the evening, but they do it for the love of their country. They're not getting paid, they're not financial experts or accountants, generally, but they're there to help.
Now, you've stated and you've admitted that there's no basis in law, you told us this morning that there's no point in the Elections Act where you can identify these five facts as being essential, but you've identified them nonetheless. But I pose to you, Mr. Mayrand, that they're not either reasonable or legitimate.
Let's take the topic of television advertising, for example. Although I'm no expert on the matter, I can only presume that it's a very complicated process involving multiple players, including graphic designers, actors, sound technicians, musicians, television stations, just to name a few, and I think it's absurd to suggest that every candidate who participates in television advertising would have their official agent understand the detailed knowledge that you're expecting about all those aspects. With the possibility of an election being around the corner, presumably you have put some thought into what election campaign advertising Elections Canada will be doing since you're the person that's ultimately responsible for the budget for Elections Canada.
I was wondering if you could answer some of these detailed knowledge questions, like what is the advertising budget for Elections Canada in the next election?
Mr. Marc Mayrand: I would say it is around $1 million.
Mr. Russ Hiebert: Around $1 million. Do you know how it is divided between radio, print, Internet and television?
OK, that wasn't fair. How it was divided? Come on. I'd say it was pretty good of Marc Mayrand to know that the budget is going to be about $1 million. More or less.
One million, eh? Check out the report from the Chief Electoral Officer.
That would a report from Marc Mayrand, the fellow who just provided an estimate $1 million. Go to page 73, in the section "Significant Event". The "event" was the 2006 election. The money spent on advertising for the election?
The budget was $20,029,000. But the next election the budget is going to be a mere $1 million. I'd say Marc Mayrand is not at all clear what Elections Canada spends on advertising in an election.
Marc Maryand was off by nearly $20 million!
Hey, I think I see a big red flag!
The Chief Electoral Officer can't remember what his own report listed as advertising spending in the 2005-2006 election. He wasn't even close to remembering the right number. He thinks Elections Canada would normally spend a million in advertising. Is he surprised that the money spent last time was over $20 million?
Perhaps the money was misspent. Perhaps money was spent that shouldn't have been spent. How will we know? Obviously the fact that Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand couldn't remember what his office spent on advertising two years ago is more than sufficient cause to consider going to the courts, getting a search warrant, and marching into Elections Canada offices to pull out every bit of paper in case there really is a problem.
Hey, there's no law that requires the Chief Electoral Officer to be able to rattle off that number on command. Neither is there one that requires agents or candidates to do so either. They are only required to submit the records.
Just like when Marc Mayrand submitted that report that listed Elections Canada advertising during the campaign to be $20 million. That he thinks the advertising for an election would be $1 million is not relevant. On the other hand, that sort of confusion is a red flag when a Conservative is the one confused.
Maybe we ought to be using the same standards for everyone when it comes to being able to recall details on advertising spending during elections. The question is whether Marc Mayrand would be willing to apply the standards that he applies to the Conservatives to himself as well.
