Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to section 20(1) of the House rules, I wish to rise on a personal matter, to clarify, in my opinion, what appears to be a one-sided report of the media on an issue as of late.
Firstly, dealing with my supporter's issues that had been in the media, my supporter had used a personal vehicle, a Winnebago, to carry my sign on it during the election campaign. It was not a campaign office or anything else that's been suggested or implied in any way. My supporter, Mr. Dolynny, I believe, is owed a true apology by the press, because their depiction created and surrounded his involvement in the campaign. He drove his personal vehicle to and from work. That's it.
Mr. Speaker, size apparently does matter, because the reporter didn't seem interested, in any way, that my competitors had posters and campaign material and vehicles to show their support. But apparently, in my case, it seems to matter.
I am dismayed that they would suggest, in any way, that rules have been broken in this regard, and the fact that they choose to embarrass the supporter of a campaign on the single fact that their vehicle was larger than anyone else's seems to be sad.
Let's put the facts on the table. The vehicle was on the road for less than two weeks. He drove it from home to work each day, parked it on the street, and at the end of the day, he did a loop down in the community and then went and parked it. It was in transit approximately one hour each day. There were no timers on this. That is just the simple reality. He went to work and went home. There is no reference of personal vehicles of supporters in the Elections Act that needs to be accounted for, let alone a Winnebago. So are we changing the rules just to embarrass a single MLA? I don't know.
The spending report, I think, in the news, tends to ignore minivans, trucks, SUVs, and any pictures on cars, yet it seems to focus in on the one vehicle I had on the road as driven by a supporter by himself. So why change the rules for one person? There was one vehicle driven by one supporter only. Besides, does this reporter feel that we should blame creativity in pointing it out? Again, size
matters. I don't think that was the issue at all. There could be some hidden agenda, I don't know.
There was no money or management of any kind that transpired while this vehicle was on the road. There was no contribution of any sort. Again, the supporter drove his personal vehicle. In my awareness, I don't believe I broke the election process at all. If we are going to start dragging supporters through the mud, I think we do a disservice to the election process by asking for supporters. I have maintained all along, that if this reporter feels that supporters should be listed in the election briefings and reports, then maybe we should have that matter discussed. You know what? There is nothing that states that.
On the other matter, Mr. Speaker, the story appeared to be singly focused with an agenda with a predetermined outcome from the start. I first heard about this inquiry from a reporter in June, because an access was being inquired about. Only a few weeks later, in July, I finally got a phone call from this reporter. On two occasions I had offered to give any information, such as my travel report, any applicable documents, such as the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's letter to me, my letter to the ITI Minister, and the letter from Aurora World Corporation. I offered this, but they seemed not to be interested. I made the point amply clear, when I was being taped in my one-hour interview, which seems to be going to a super extent of showing how willing I am to talk about this issue, yet my clips on the TV are very short.
What MLA, or political figure, would deny, Mr. Speaker, an access to information request by a reporter? That is something they could get on their own, so why would I draw that type of attention? From the start, I was willing to give any information that they requested, and I was quite open about this issue, but they weren't interested.
In terms of the invite -- I don't have much more, Mr. Speaker -- the letter came to the Legislature addressed to me from the vice-president of the Aurora World Corporation, not Mr. Dolynny, which the story seems to imply. If they had accepted those letters, they would have seen that. This letter came to the Legislature and requested me, and any other MLA, to be part of this tourism mission. So there was no conflict, as I see it. Everyone was invited, if they wanted to participate. The reason I contacted the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Mr. Ted Hughes, was because they were offering market rate, which was $400 plus tax, which equals about $700. That's very low, so I thought it would be very prudent to contact the commissioner on this issue. Mr. Hughes' written reply instructed me on a few issues, and I will read this in summary. First, copy a letter to the ITI Minister, which I did; and second, if all MLAs were invited at the same special rate, he didn't see a problem. So we are drawing conclusions on this.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the travel issue, as it was, was truly a judgment call within the constituency ability that I have to use my budget to help promote my constituency where I felt it was important. I felt it was important that this industry, from our government, invests about $100,000 a year, yet it returns over $16 million, and I have heard it's going to return over $20 million in this next year. That's something important to my constituency.
I want to finish by saying I have always maintained that if I am wrong, I would be happy to correct my election statement at any time. I would be happy to seek any advice directed to me by Mr. McLean to make this a fair process. I have never denied that, and I have always said that very loud and clear.
So I am very disappointed by the newscast portraying that some unscrupulous act has happened. I am tired of this, and that's why I brought this statement forward today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
---Applause