Projet Montréal Leader Richard Bergeron alleged Tuesday that Vision Montréal – the official opposition at city hall – was reimbursed for expenses used to pay interest on a $1 million loan taken out by the party to fund its 2009 municipal election campaign.
"Interest on this loan - we mean $52,000 for the year 2010 - has been repaid by taxpayers of Montreal," Bergeron said.
Vision Montréal Leader Louise Harel, who was out of the country, issued a release defending her party's fiscal management, saying that interest payments fall within admissible norms for expense claims.
"Contrary to what Mr. Richard Bergeron claimed in a communiqué today, Vision Montréal is acting in a responsible way by honouring its financial commitments," she said in the statement. "Interest on loans is an expense that is admissible and they were incorporated into our operating budget in a transparent and legal way."
Bergeron's allegations came from an Access to Information request by Projet Montréal where the party learned that Vision Montréal claimed $51,966.77 in reimbursements for research and secretarial work, but that the money was in fact used to pay the interest on the $1 million electoral loan.
"Vision Montréal unsuccessfully attempted to buy the 2009 election by spending money it didn't have," Bergeron says in the party's communiqué. "The poor management by Louise Harel forces them to find all the deceptive ways possible to avoid bankruptcy. That $52,000 in interest comes directly from electoral expenses dating back to 2009 and should not be paid by the public money of Montrealers. Vision Montréal and Louise Harel should pay the interest on an electoral loan from their own funds."
Quebec's electoral law governing municipal elections states that loans must be paid back using funds collected over the process of an election campaign.
"No sums of money other than those collected in accordance with this chapter may be used to repay the principal of or pay the interest on a loan which has been paid into an electoral fund referred to in section 457 or which has been used by the official representative or his delegate to pay election expenses pursuant to section 455," states section 449 of the law.
Bergeron finds it deplorable that this loan is still being charged to the city's residents, and plans to lodge a complaint with the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
"We are almost two years after this election and Montrealers are still paying for the electoral expenses of Vision Montréal (from) autumn 2009," he said. "That's not acceptable."
Harel says her party has managed its date in a responsible manner.
"Since the last election, we have reimbursed more than 50 per cent of our debt and we consider that to be responsible management," she said in her statement Tuesday. "I would like to remind Mr. Bergeron that in 2010, Vision Montréal conducted more public and democratic financing than any other Montreal political party and the reimbursement of our debt is a priority for Vision Montréal."
This is not the first time Vision Montréal's management of electoral funds has been subject to scrutiny.
Back in March, the Director General of Elections sent citations to Harel, 16 of her city and borough councilors and the Vision Montreal director general concerning illegal loan guarantees in advance of the 2009 municipal election.
Harel personally guaranteed a $240,000 loan for Vision Montréal, while the other people included in the citation guaranteed loans of $20,000 apiece. The electoral law forbids loan guarantees above $10,000.
The fines for Harel, the 16 councilors and director general Soraya Martinez were for $500 each, plus $128 in administrative charges and a $10 contribution for a total amount of $638.
When the matter came to light in April, 2010, Harel said the oversight was an honest mistake and that she was not aware of the electoral law limiting the amount of loan guarantees. She said she contacted election officials as soon as she learned backing a loan in that amount was illegal.
Marvin Rotrand, the majority leader at City Hall for Mayor Gérald Tremblay's Union Montreal party, didn't buy Harel's defence and asked the DGE to conduct a thorough investigation.
Those interviewed in the street were hardly shocked however.
"Don't most politicians do that?" asked one. "Unfortunately, the problem is that we allow politicians to do what they want."
Another, however, said that the total was a drop in the bucket per each citizen.
"Fifty-two thousand dollars," he said. "I probably shouldn't be saying this, but what is that, less than five percent of a cent?"
