Investigation Into the Recall Campaigns in Prince George North, Skeena and Comox Valley
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Investigation into the Recall Campaigns in Prince George North, Skeena and Comox Valley CONTENTS 1.0 Appointment by Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia 2.0 Terms of Reference 3.0 Overview of Findings 3.1Interpretation of the Act and Regulations 3.2Contradictions in the Act 3.3Errors and Omissions 3.4Recommendations 4.0 Recall and Initiative Act 4.1History of the Act 4.2The Recall Process 4.3Recall Contributions 4.4Recall Expenses and the Recall Expense Limit 4.5Recall Advertising Sponsors 4.6Due Diligence 5.0 Recall Campaigns Under Investigation 5.1Primary Campaigns 5.2Secondary Campaigns February 24, 1999 i 6.0 Prince George North. 6.1Proponent – Pertti Harkonen 6.2MLA – Hon. Paul Ramsey 7.0 Skeena 7.1Proponent – Lorne Sexton 7.2MLA – Helmut Geisbrecht 8.0 Comox Valley 8.1Proponent – Robert Saint Amour 8.2MLA – Evelyn Gillespie 9.0 Other Issues 9.1Recall Advertising Sponsors 9.2Institutional Involvement 9.3Restrictions on Making Recall Contributions 9.4Voters Lists 10.0Recommendations 10.1Investigative Powers 10.2Issuance of Recall Petitions 10.3Disclosure of Recall Contributions 10.4Assistant Financial Agents 10.5Advertising 10.6Recall Advertising Sponsor Declaration 10.7Contributions to Recall Advertising Sponsors February 24, 1999 ii Investigation into the Recall Campaigns in Prince George North, Skeena and Comox Valley 1.0 APPOINTMENT On September 18, 1998, the Chief Electoral Officer (“CEO”) of British BY CHIEF Columbia, Mr. Robert A. Patterson, retained Ronald H. Parks of ELECTORAL OFFICER OF Lindquist Avey Macdonald Baskerville Company, Forensic and BRITISH Investigative Accountants, to undertake an investigation into recall COLUMBIA campaigns in the electoral districts of Prince George North, Skeena, and Comox Valley. The text of the authorization letter, as amended on October 8, 1998, is set out as follows: October 8, 1998 To Whom It May Concern: “In accordance with section 169 of the Recall and Initiative Act (the “Act”), I hereby authorize Ronald H. Parks, CA, CFE, and any member of the staff of Lindquist Avey Macdonald Baskerville, to conduct an investigation, financial and otherwise, of any matter that might constitute a contravention of the Act in relation to the Recall campaigns in the electoral districts of Prince George North, Skeena and Comox Valley. This authority includes the right to interview any person, enter at any reasonable time the premises where records relevant to the investigation are kept, and to inspect and make copies of records. All records and all information required by the bearer of this letter must be provided. This authority must not be used to enter a dwelling house except with the consent of the occupant or the authority of a warrant. Please direct any questions to Elections BC at (250) 387-5305, or toll-free at 1-800-661-8683. Signed Robert A. Patterson February 24, 1999 1 Chief Electoral Officer 2.0 TERMS OF The terms of reference for our investigation were not explicitly set REFERENCE out by the CEO; however, our mutual understanding was that the investigation would focus on, but not be restricted to, the disclosure of expenses incurred and contributions received by both the recall proponents and Members of the Legislative Assembly (“MLA”) in each of the campaigns in the three electoral districts. We engaged Mr. Patrick Saul of Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang, Barristers & Solicitors, as our legal counsel to assist us in these matters and to provide advice with respect to various legal issues. The CEO has authority under the Recall and Initiative Act (“the Act”) to conduct audits of the accounts of financial agents, proponents, and MLAs in relation to a recall campaign, and may conduct investigations of any matter that might constitute a contravention of the Act. This authority is pursuant to Section 169 of the Act as follows: Enforcement of Act by chief electoral officer 169 1) The chief electoral officer may conduct a) audits of the accounts of financial agents and authorized participants, and b) investigations of any matter that might constitute a contravention of this Act or a regulation under this Act. 2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the chief electoral officer or a representative of the chief electoral officer may inspect and make copies of the records of an individual or organization a) who is or was a financial agent at any time during the previous 5 years, b) who is or was an authorized participant at any time during the previous 5 years, c) who is or was required to file an initiative advertising disclosure report at any time during the previous 5 years, or d) who is or was required to file a recall advertising disclosure report at any time during the previous 5 years, February 24, 1999 2 3) Section 276 (3) to (6) of the Election Act applies in relation to the authority under subsection (2). 4) Sections 278 and 279 of the Election Act, respecting the enforcement of that Act and penalties under that Act, apply for the purposes of enforcing this Act or a penalty under this Act. Section 276 (3) to (6) of the Election Act is as follows: Investigations and audits by chief electoral officer 276 3) In relation to the authority under subsection (2), the chief electoral officer or a representative of the chief electoral officer may enter at any reasonable time the premises where the records of the individual or organization are kept. 4) An individual or organization occupying premises referred to in subsection (3) must a) produce and permit copies or extracts to be made of all records required by the chief electoral officer or the representative, and b) provide all information that the chief electoral officer or representative may reasonably require. 5) The authority under subsection (3) must not be used to enter a dwelling house except with the consent of the occupant or the authority of a warrant under subsection (6). 6) On being satisfied on evidence on oath or affirmation that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there are in a place records or other things relevant to the matters referred to in this section, a justice may issue an order authorizing the chief electoral officer, a representative of the chief electoral officer or a peace officer to enter the place and search for and seize any records or other things relevant to the matter in accordance with the warrant. Sections 278 and 279 of the Election Act deal with enforcement of election expenses penalties and enforcement of the Act by court injunction respectively and are not reproduced here. In the course of our investigation, it became apparent that the enforcement provisions in the Act might not be adequate to permit us to effectively pursue our mandate. As noted above, subsection 169 (1) (b) of the Act authorizes a broad investigation of February 24, 1999 3 ..... any matter that might constitute a contravention of this Act..... The authority to obtain and, if necessary, compel production of relevant documents is fundamental to the effective conduct of such an investigation. The Act, however, may not provide the CEO with adequate powers in this respect. Subsection 169 (2) authorizes the CEO or his representative to inspect the records of a limited class of individuals and organizations. In what may have been a legislative oversight, the Act does not authorize the CEO to pursue relevant documents and records in the possession of persons other than those listed in subsections 169 (2) (a) to (d). In the result, the CEO may have no effective way in which to pursue documents in the hands of individuals or organizations whom he may reasonably believe to have contravened the Act but who are not specifically defined by the Act. Accordingly, Section 10.0 of our report includes a recommendation that the CEO seek an amendment to subsection 169 (2) to ensure that his authority to inspect and compel production of documents is consistent with the broad scope of the investigative authority which he is given under subsection 169 (1) (b). 3.0 OVERVIEW OF In the course of our investigation, we identified a number of areas of FINDINGS concern which we summarize below. February 24, 1999 4 3.1 Interpretation of We found that certain sections of the Act are difficult for laypersons the Act and to understand and are therefore susceptible to varying interpretations. Regulations We considered the interpretations made by the various parties involved in addition to the rulings made by Elections BC with respect to both the Recall and Initiative Act and the Election Act. 3.2 Contradictions We found that the provisions of the Act with respect to third party in the Act recall advertising sponsors and the source of contributions for such advertising are not clear. We believe that these contradictions make it difficult for the various parties involved to interpret the requirements of the Act in a consistent manner. 3.3 Errors and Generally, we found errors and/or omissions in the financial Omissions disclosure reports filed by all parties to the three recall campaigns. We considered such errors and omissions to be findings of fact. Accordingly, we did not assign any responsibility to particular individuals or organizations nor did we make any findings as to whether these errors and omissions constitute contraventions of the Act. Our calculated impact on the campaign financing reports is based on our assumptions regarding the reporting requirements. 3.4 Recommend- We made a number of recommendations which we believe, if ations implemented, will assist the public by clarifying various provisions of the Recall and Initiative Act. We believe these recommendations will make certain sections of the Act more consistent with the Election Act. Our recommendations are contained in Section 10.0.