ITQ Committee Lookahead: But how will all those senior Conservative party officials fit around the table? Oh. Right.

by kadyomalley on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:04am - 0 Comments

A quick rundown of the witnesses who may or may not appear during the third day of hearings on the Conservative in-and-out financing, depending on whether or not the party has managed to send out its talking points on time, as, sadly, was not the case with yesterday’s inadvertent star witness, Doug Lowry:

Morning session – 10am to noon

The following witnesses are expected to appear, despite the fact that they did not have to be formally summonsed:

Retail Media chief operating officer Marilyn Dixon

  • according to the search warrant application that led to last spring’s raid on Conservative Party headquarters, Dixon told Elections Canada officials that she “didn’t recognize” an invoice submitted to the agency to back up one expense claim, and said that it “must have been altered or created by someone”

Retail Media vice-president Andrew Kumpf

  • in December 2005, Kumpf sent an email to the party that would eventually be used by Elections Canada to justify the search warrant, in which he warned campaign organizers that he was “not certain beyond all reasonable doubt” that the so-called regional media buy was legal under existing election law

GroupM president David Campbell

  • Campbell expressed his doubts via an email that also found its way into the warrant, admitting that he was “not sure” that what he described as ‘switching’ (sic) ad time to the ridings “could constitute a riding expense unless all the ridings in a region pooled expenses”, which is what the Conservative Party maintains took place.

The following witness is not expected to appear, despite the fact that the chair has issued a formal summons, although it should be noted that the Conservatives, most notably Gary Goodyear, seem now to be implying that not all summons have been served, in which case the witnesses would not be legally required to appear. (At least one previous witness, Monday’s no-show, Denny Pagtakhan, is alleged to have successfully avoided service): 

Jean Lecours, official agent to Jacques Gourde, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour

Afternoon session – 2-5pm

2:00 – 3:30 pm

Former Conservative candidate Cynthia Downey (Random-Burin-St. George, NF) and her official agent, Darren Roberts

  • Downey, who left the party last year over the Atlantic Accord, actually listed the money that the party transferred in and out of her campaign as a national expense when filing her financial reports with Elections Canada.
  • She also told her local paper, the Georgian, that her official agent, Roberts, was told that the money “would be taken out and used for a national campaign”, and added that she “did not see anything” and neither she nor Roberts were asked to sign anything.

Listed on the schedule and subject of a summons, but not expected to appear:

Former Conservative candidate Steve Halicki (York-South Weston, ON)

  • although his official agent, Barbro Soderberg, told Elections Canada that she had been “uneasy” with the party’s proposal, which she found “a little too creative”, Halicki insists that he did nothing wrong. In the same interview in which he admitted that he didn’t know what ads his money allegedly bought, he claims he “benefited immensely" from them, and chided local candidates for having “freeloaded” off the national campaign in the past.

Neil Jamieson, official agent for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day

Harvey Venier, official agent for Conservative MP Jim Abbott

Cecil Cranston, official agent for Conservative Whip Jay Hill

3:30 – 5:00 p.m.

Patrick Muttart, deputy chief of staff to the Prime Minister and a senior campaign organizer during the 2006 election

Listed on the schedule and subject of a summons, but not expected to appear:

Doug Finley, Conservative Party campaign manager, husband to Citizenship and Immigration Minister Diane Finley, who remains one of the PM’s closest confidante and who was forcibly extracted from the committee table earlier this week by House of Commons security

Quebec campaign organizers Nelson Bouffard and Michel Rivard – both of whom have been mentioned, specifically and repeatedly, by previous witnesses as having been intimately involved in bringing campaigns into the scheme -  Pierre Coulombe and Benoit Laroque,

Michael Donison, formerly the party’s executive director and now a senior advisor to Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan on “democratic reform”

Susan Kehoe, the party’s chief financial officer during the last election, who then briefly served as interim executive director, and whose current state of employment within the party, or anywhere else for that matter, is unknown

Irving Gerstein, chair of the Conservative Fund of Canada

Byng Gyrand and Brian Hudson, the party’s National Councillors for British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador, respectively

Bookmark and Share
  • Anon

    who is the party’s exec dir i.e. the Conservative’s Ferguson?

  • Pingback: Liveblogging the Ethics committee, Day 3 Part 1 - And now, a word from our sponsors. Or their ad agencies, at least. : Capital Read : Inside the Queensway : Macleans.ca Blog Central

  • Ken

    You can scratch most of those names of the list! This whole issue will really have to blow up if it is going to do any serious damage to CPC. It must have done a bit of damage, but nothing significant. It may have induced some former CPers to move away from the Harper Conservative party. We sure don’t know what we might be in for if we decide to ride a little way further with CPC. But even this little affair gives us a tste of CPC’s way of doing business. And one thing I believe- CPC doesn’t for a minute worry about how this affair is affecting the support it is getting from its least partisan voters.

  • boudica

    This is promising.

  • boudica

    Really Ken? Then why tell witnesses not to appear?

  • penlan

    Good Morning boudica!

    I brought chocolate with me – for you.

  • boudica

    Ok so now I do feel bad about yesterday’s popcorn. Thanks penlan.

  • Ken

    Boudica: you are right to correct my viewpoint, which I hastily expressed. But the affair will have to escalate if there is to be any damage. I guess CPC’s goal is to keep it from escalating.

  • boudica

    Ken, I think the issue here is the slow but steady damage inflicted on the CPC. I’m trying to think when was the last time Canada was able to go for a month without hearing about the CPC’s would-be scandals.

    It has been non-stop since the Cadman affair. Before that, we had the Afghan prisoners mess.

    I don’t care how the CPC spins this, no political party can remain confident of their chances with this kind of steady negative coverage.

  • Ken

    boudica: I meant also to say that there are many other issues in our political landscape. The economy doesn’t look too sharp, but the Harper Conservatives have shown poor stewardship, throwing money around and flirting with a deficit (although that is part of their goal of hobbling government). Yet voters still seem to think Harper is the man to guide us through these times. They must fear that socialist Dion!

  • penlan

    boudica et al. Are you coming over to the live-blogging post?

  • boudica

    Ken, I’m assuming that you are referring to the leadership poll results. More spin on the part of the CPC, with the help of an obliging press gallery. Everyone knows that those polls always favor the sitting Prime Minister. There has never been a leader of the Opposition with higher polling numbers than a sitting PM.

    If these polls were remotely relevant in terms of predicting election results, Paul Martin (who was polling in the 50s if I remember correctly) would be Prime Minister of a majority Liberal government right now.

  • boudica

    penlan, I’m already there. I’m just multi-tasking.

  • Ken

    And one last point, because the live blog will soon pre-empt this one! What about the underlying issue in this alleged in-out scandal? I am referring to the presumed attack on our democratic institutions by CPC. Now CPC couldn’t have known how its alleged breach of the rules could have played out (because it wasn’t at all sure that it would form our current minority gov’t.). But why go after EC with such vigour? I know the Harper Conservatives have further restricted electoral contributions but that may have been, from their perspective, a temporary one just to stick it to the Liberals. According to CPC, this whole affair tells us that freedom of speech is under attack!

From Macleans