Initially published in the Alliston Herald on April 9, 2009
It certainly appears that our member of parliament does not have a very high regard for the intellectual capacity of the inhabitants of Simcoe-Grey. It is hard to reach any other conclusion when one considers the dubious “explanation” provided by Helena Guergis as to why she has chosen to ignore the commitment to have her campaign pay the costs of a four-page “householder” that was delivered in the course of the most recent federal election.
You will recall that this past September Guergis was subjected to criticism for delivering the householder after the election had been called. Guergis initially claimed that the householder had been ready several weeks prior to the election call and that it was not possible to stop. This claim, however, was exposed as less than credible when closer inspection revealed the literature referred to an event that was announced on Sept. 5, 2008 – just two days prior to the election call.
Given this little “pickle” both Guergis and her campaign manager made public pronouncements that the cost of the householder would be paid by the Guergis campaign.
Alas, when Guergis filed her election return the costs of the householder were nowhere to be found. When she was faced with the inevitable inquiries from the media, Guergis, consistent with her reputation for ducking questions, remained mute for several weeks.
This past week Guergis finally acknowledged to another newspaper that her campaign, contrary to her earlier commitment, did not pay for the householder. The reasons provided by Guergis are meandering, verbose (coming in at more than 800 words) and less than persuasive.
In effect, Guergis claims that the “auditor” advised she could not claim the householder as an election expense. Guergis apparently arrived at the same interpretation and concluded that the householder was not an election expense on the basis that it did not promote her candidacy.
First, it should be pointed out that the auditor is not associated with or employed by Elections Canada but rather a person affiliated with the Guergis candidacy. Second, Guergis appears to have completely (or selectively) ignored Elections Canada guidelines as to what actually constitutes “promotion” and thereby qualifies as an election expense.
The rules say: “the concept of promoting... a candidate in a given electoral district is defined as including naming the candidate, showing the likeness of the candidate... In addition, any item discussing the work or accomplishments of a Member of Parliament will also be considered to be directly promoting the Member of Parliament...”
Anyone who remembers the householder would be hard pressed to suggest it was not promoting Guergis pursuant to these rules. Conveniently, Guergis has selected the far less tenable interpretation as the explanation for why she will not honour her commitment.
What’s even more fascinating about the lengthy Guergis missive is that it appears to contain an acknowledgement that the householder left her hands after the election was called. Specifically, Guergis states: “...we determined also that any householder sent out within 10 days of the writ being dropped does NOT have to be declared an election expense but I still requested that we make this move...”
The statement that the householder was sent after the election call is corroborated by a letter from Andy Beaudoin, the campaign manager for Guergis, published in the Alliston Herald on Sept. 24, 2008 (17 days after the writ was dropped). Mr. Beaudoin said, “MP Helena Guergis has just released her annual fall householder. We felt it was important to inform you the costs of releasing this householder (are) covered by campaign budgets and not taxpayer’s dollars.”
Why is timing an issue? It’s because Elections Canada has been quite clear that in such circumstances a householder will be considered an election expense that should be declared.
Finally, I leave you with the following quote from Guergis that is quite remarkable and once again reflects on her credibility: “I was doing everything I could to characterize this as an election expense.”
Sadly, this appears to be but the latest example of our MP saying one thing but doing the opposite.
