Mayrand says House committee should probe issue of paid advertising at political conventions, Tories claim victory

PARLIAMENT HILL—Conservative MPs were buoyed Thursday and claimed partial victory after Canada Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand suggested to a Commons committee it should review Elections Act provisions that allow paid advertising and sponsorships by businesses and unions at political conventions.

But the NDP—under attack from the Conservative party and government MPs for the past month over paid union sponsorships and advertisements at its convention last June—shot back with a statement that the type of lavish corporate hospitality suites that accompanied a Conservative convention the same month should also be reviewed because they too could be seen as expensive attempts to cozy up to lawmakers and curry influence.

NDP MP Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh, Ont.) also argued, in the Procedure and House Affairs Committee where Mr. Mayrand made his comment, that the Canada Elections Act still allows corporations and unions to exercise significant influence on elections, through limited third-party advertising by unions, business associations, and other groups.
“It is something the committee might want to consider,” Mr. Mayrand told the committee, responsible for recommending amendments to the Elections Act and the electoral system to the House of Commons.

The simmering controversy over the determined attack the Conservatives launched publicly this past Labour Day weekend—timing that was criticized by critics as a purposeful cut at trade unions and their ties to the NDP—centres on a Conservative claim that at least $85,000 several unions paid the NDP in exchange for sign space at the convention were actually financial contributions to the party, which along with corporate donations to any federal party, would contravene the Elections Act.

But, as Mr. Mayrand emphasized at an earlier meeting on the same allegations at the House Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee this week, convention advertising is allowed, by corporations or unions, as long as the payments to the political parties for the placements are fair-market value—so the parties do not get extra financial benefit.

“The view that I’ve expressed earlier this week regarding those transactions is that as long as they’re done at fair commercial value, they are valid under the current legislation,” Mr. Mayrand told The Hill Times after the Procedure and House Affairs Committee session.

“The issue becomes, as there are all sorts of discussions around what’s commercial fair value, is there really a commercial market when you run a convention for advertisers, what’s the market there?” Mr. Mayrand said.

“I heard the suggestion as being, since there are so many colours to a transaction, maybe the best way is to go with strictly prohibiting parties from selling either sponsorship or advertising at their conventions, and that’s something the committee will consider, that’s at least my understanding from my appearance today,” said Mr. Mayrand.

Mr. Mayrand has refused to comment on the Conservative allegations, since the party filed a complaint with Elections Canada, and the convention advertising is under investigation by Elections Canada Commissioner William Corbett.

The Conservative chair of the committee, MP Joe Preston (Elgin-Middlesex-London, Ont.), told The Hill Timeshis experience as a Wendy’s fast-food restaurant franchise owner, has shown him one thing about the motives of advertisers and sponsors at conventions in the private sector—they want something in return.

“When somebody sponsors a dinner at a Wendy’s convention, it’s so that I’ll buy their buns next week,” he said.

“They’re doing it so that I’ll, ‘Oh, like, Wonder Bread’s great,’ right,” said Mr. Preston.

Mr. Preston added: “But when it’s done at a political convention it’s, ‘I bought influence, I bought the ability to talk to these people. I’ve paid at this convention at their market value; that means they’ll like me and when I come to talk to them about an issue, they’ll be there for me.”

Mr. Preston argued that the unions that advertised at the NDP convention were seeking influence over “legislation, and economic [policy].”

One of the complications in the Tory claim is the fact that trade unions, through their national umbrella group the Canadian Labour Congress and national organized labour affiliates of the NDP, is that they already have significant influence within the party. Since its founding, through a partnership between the former CCF and the CLC, the union and labour affiliates have guaranteed membership on the NDP’s executive and governing council, as well as delegate votes at party policy and leadership conventions.

Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski (Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Sask.), who also sits on the committee, claimed the advertising was also used to pay part of the cost of the convention, lowering the cost for roughly 1,600 delegates and 400 observers and other attendees.

“Eight-five thousands dollars was paid, that’s a heck of a lot of money for advertising, and the money is, quite frankly, going straight to the bottom line, to pay their bills. To me, that’s a political contribution and since we’ve banned union and corporate contributions to political parties why shouldn’t that concept be the same for political conventions,” Mr. Lukiwski told The Hill Times.

Mr. Comartin, meanwhile, said if the committee reviews sponsorships and advertising, it should also review the corporate sponsorships at the Conservative convention, and consider banning those as well, for all parties.

“It falls into that same area of corporations spending money on what is a partisan event,” Mr. Comartin said.

Origin
Source: Hill Times