Sona a robocalls braggart: witnesses
Tory lawyer suggested Conservative staffers be interviewed in Elections Canada case
Campaign worker Michael Sona bragged of his involvement in the fraudulent robocalls in Guelph, Ont., according to Conservative political staffers who were delivered to Elections Canada investigators by the party’s lawyer.
One of those witnesses, who remains a party staffer, only agreed to be interviewed after Elections Canada investigator Allan Mathews asked Conservative party lawyer Arthur Hamilton to encourage him to come forward.
The allegations against Sona are contained in a statement sworn by Mathews in May and made public in August but still subject to a partial publication ban.
Justice Celynne Dorval on Wednesday lifted the ban on all but the names of the witnesses after the Ottawa Citizen, along with several media partners, went to court to challenge the ban.
Sona had agreed to completely lift the ban but the Crown wants the witnesses’ names withheld.
The Citizen, supported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Global News, were in court on Wednesday seeking to have the ban removed entirely.
Under cross-examination by Ottawa Citizen lawyer Richard Dearden, who represents the media organizations, Mathews testified that he was contacted by Hamilton in March 2012.
Hamilton “phoned me and told me he had individuals he believed relevant to my investigation that he thought I should interview,” Mathews told the court.
Mathews said two of the witnesses came forward after they spoke “with MPs with whom they work who led them to (Conservative party spokesman) Fred DeLorey, who led them to Mr. Hamilton.”
None of the allegations in the document, called an Information to Obtain a production order or “ITO,” have been proven in court.
In the document, Mathews described interviews with two staffers from an MP’s office on March 21, 2012 — a month after the Citizen and Postmedia News revealed that the robocall had been traced to a Conservative voice broadcasting company. The witnesses said Sona popped by the office about 10 days after the May 2, 2011, election, according to the ITO.
Mathews wrote that a young female staffer described how Sona closed the office door, “then went on to describe to us what sounded very very similar to the story that we’d been hearing about these robocalls. He went on to talk about how he had been involved in these robocalls.”
The woman said Sona told them he had purchased a disposable phone with cash, and purchased a Visa gift card, both of which would be untraceable, Mathews said.
Sona got a list of phone numbers of Liberal voters from “a friend or acquaintance of some sort that according to him owed him a favour,” she said, and “then recorded a message impersonating Elections Canada,” according to the ITO.
Sona was motivated by a desire to get back at the Liberal party, she told investigators.
“I guess there had been some kind of juvenile competition between, you know, the campaign staff of the Liberal Party and the Conservatives,” the ITO says she explained. “And according to what Mike told us, he understood this was going to be his way of one-upping them or kind of having the last say.”
Later, Sona took the phone apart and scattered the parts so it couldn’t be traced, she told investigators.
Her colleague, a young man, also recalled Sona taking credit for the deceptive call using a disposable phone, but his recollection was not as detailed, the ITO said.
According to the document, another male witness, interviewed separately, told investigators that soon after the election Sona also told him about using a burner phone registered to Separatist Street in Joliette, Que., which is the fictional address used by whoever registered the phone in the name of “Pierre Poutine.”
The witness said that after the story broke, Sona told him he’d “appreciate it if you didn’t talk to anyone about” their earlier conversation, the ITO said.
In April, Sona was charged with breaching the Elections Act, a violation that carries a fine of $5,000 or up to five years in prison. He maintains his innocence and says he is being used as a scapegoat by the party.
Court documents outlining the case contain no electronic evidence linking Sona to the call, so the witness statements appear to be key pieces of evidence.
Opposition critics have expressed concern over the fact that Hamilton sat in on the interviews and have accused the party of a widespread voter-suppression scheme in the last election
During cross- examination, Mathews said Hamilton was present during the interviews in his capacity as Conservative party counsel, not to represent the witnesses individually. Mathews let the lawyer sit in on the interviews, he said, “because they presented themselves with him in tow.”
Pressed by Dearden, Mathews admitted that none of the six witnesses actually worked directly for the Conservative party, but rather were pol- itical staff paid by the government.
But Mathews said he would have intervened if any of the witnesses expressed concern about Hamilton being there to represent them.
“Had that happened, I would have stopped the interview immediately,” he said.
According to the ITO, a fourth witness, who was present for a meeting between Sona and the third witness, was reluctant to give evidence and said he could only vaguely recall that Sona had spoken of making “prank calls.”
The witness, who remains a party staffer, only agreed to be interviewed after Mathews asked Hamilton to encourage him.
A fifth witness filed a written statement saying that when he saw Sona at a restaurant in July 2011, Sona “gleefully boasted that he was aware of the chaos that ensued as the Liberals tried unsuccessfully to vote at incorrect voting stations.”
A sixth witness, who was also at the restaurant on that occasion, said in an interview with investigators that Sona was “bragging” about his involvement in the scheme.
In a separate investigation, Elections Canada is looking at reports of fraudulent or deceptive calls in ridings across Canada. The Conservatives say Guelph is an isolated case.
The investigation into the Guelph call remains open, and Mathews has stated in court documents that he suspects Sona did not act alone.
During oral arguments on the publication ban, Dearden told the court that little of Mathew’s affidavit should be considered because it is based on hearsay and double hearsay and selectively quotes from interview transcripts and Facebook messages that are not attached as evidence. Dearden said there is no reason to protect the names of the six Conservative witnesses while the names of many other people related to the investigation are not protected by the ban.
Not even Sona wants the name of those accusing him protected by the ban, Dearden told the court.
“He wants the public to know the names that were brought forward by Conservative party lawyer Arthur Hamilton,” he said.
Crown attorney James Clark, however, said that the ban now covers only a very small amount of information — 12 words making up the six names. And, he noted, the ban would delay publication of the names only until the case goes to trial.
Clark said the Crown is worried about “mischief” on blogs and elsewhere online if the names are made public.
He said it’s a reasonable conclusion that “witness participation” in the future could be affected if the names got out.
Dorval said she would hand down a written decision on the publication ban Friday morning.