Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 13th, 2008

[An hon. member]

We're okay with that, too, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Order, please. Colleagues, please, the witnesses are in the middle of an important statement to the committee. I think it is a good example of why points of order probably should not be entertained in the middle of an important statement. The chair, as under Marleau and Montpetit, has the discretion....

I want to give the floor back to Mr. Campbell so that he can finish his statement. I encourage members, please, to give him the opportunity to be heard by all honourable members.

Please, Mr. Campbell, would you proceed.

[David Campbell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have provided to the committee two examples of different invoice formats. The first, on the left side, was rendered by Retail Media to the official agents. The second, on the right, is a sample of what was shown to us by Elections Canada. As you can see, we provided a group invoice that had a number of ridings on the same invoice. It appears that our invoice was photocopied for each riding, showing only the information relevant to that riding.

When information regarding candidate invoices was made public in April, our lawyer wrote to Elections Canada to explain what we saw as confusion in the media. We've brought copies of that letter, in both official languages, which we have left with the committee.

As we previously indicated, the letter says, in part, “While the format of the invoice attached...was not the same as the original “group” invoice issued by RMI...the dollar amount...was the same as it appeared on the original invoice (plus an appropriate GST calculation...”. From the information provided to us, there appeared to be nothing inconsistent about these two invoices.

We hope these opening remarks have assisted the committee in understanding the details of the 2006 election media buys. That concludes our opening remarks. We'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you very much.

I'm now going to proceed with questioning, and we'll start with Mr. Proulx, s'il vous plaît.

Is Madam Redman going to start? My apologies, Madam Redman. You have seven minutes.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for coming. You hold a very important part of this complex issue, and obviously it's a very serious issue for all of us.

Mr. Kumpf, on October 17, 2007, you were interviewed by Ron Lamothe, I believe, from Elections Canada. I'd like to confirm some of the statements that were made at that point in time.

Can you confirm that Retail Media typically dealt with Patrick Muttart, Susan Kehoe, and Mike Donison when it came to making the media buy arrangements with the Conservative Party for the 2006 election?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I apologize. The member has called a point of order. I'll recognize Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I thank you. I waited until the question was asked before I spoke on a point of order.

My concern is that this question is going down the path of interfering with current litigation before the courts, and that's the first time this has really become so obvious. It's the type of question that's going to be asked in the courts; there's no question. I think we all agree with that. You don't have to be a lawyer to realize that. My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that this question will prejudice the litigation that is now going on in the different proceedings and that the witness should be excused from answering that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please. Order.

Mr. Tilson, that's not a point of order. It's a point of debate. The opinion of the legal counsel, of the law clerk of the House of Commons, was provided to all honourable members and to the witnesses. The witnesses are also well aware by the communications between the clerk, myself, and them that should any matter arise in which there is a potential.... Mr. Ruby and I had some discussion on this. It is quite unusual for a member of a committee to plead the case of a witness and why the witness shouldn't do something. I think it's up to the witness to make the intervention and to explain.

So thank you—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I challenge the ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

First of all, the ruling is that it's not a point of order.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I challenge that ruling.

[Some hon. members]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, order.

The chair has made a decision with an explanation. The chair's decision has been challenged, which is the member's right. It's not debatable, and this question must be put immediately. So I'd like the clerk to please call the roll.

The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The chair's decision has been sustained.

I must encourage members to please be very judicious in using points of order. I'm not sure whether everybody even remembers the question that was asked, so to interfere between a question and an answer.... Chairs tend to want to address a point of order at a logical or convenient or most appropriate....

Mr. Goodyear, no. You said “convenient for you”. You know, sir, a number of members have raised with me the question why....

Excuse me, Mr. Goodyear. Please, sir. Respectfully, I want to move on with the witnesses.

A number of times I have been approached by members who ask why I do not do something about members who continually disrupt or interfere or say things to the chair that clearly are not parliamentary. I have to tell those members what I will tell the witnesses as well, which is that under the rules of Parliament a chair of a committee does not have the authority to sanction any member of Parliament. If I wanted to do that, I would have to bring the quotations from the member or the description of the activity to the House of Commons and raise my case with the Speaker. It is only the Speaker of the House who can sanction a member for unparliamentary behaviour.

So my choice has been to take the abuse and to hopefully allow the committee to get back to its work. I want to get back to the work and I'm going to ask members to please be respectful of the process of the witnesses and of other colleagues.

Madam Redman, could you repeat the ultimate question that you asked of the witnesses? Then I will ask the witnesses if they would please respond.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Just for everyone's comfort level, everything I'm asking is based on information that's already in the public domain.

I believe you did answer at the tail end, but could you confirm, Mr. Kumpf, that it was Patrick Muttart, Susan Kehoe, and Mike Donison whom you dealt with typically when making the media buy arrangements with the Conservative Party of Canada, specifically for the 2006 election campaign?

[Andrew Kumpf, As an Individual]

I dealt with the three of them for the 2006 election campaign.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Can you also confirm that there were no contracts between Retail Media and any of the candidates who filed expenses associated with the media buy program?

[An hon. member]

On a point of order—

[Andrew Kumpf]

There were no contracts.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. Was it the Conservative Party?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

Mr. Del Mastro has called for a point of order. Again, it's after a question, but before an answer.

I'm going to advise Mr. Del Mastro that after we have a question and an answer, if he would like to raise that point of order, I will recognize it. But I'm not going to recognize further points of order that disrupt a unit of activity—that being a question and an answer—if that's acceptable to members.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

It's not acceptable, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like you to cite the authority you're using in making that ruling.

A member may raise a point of order any time he or she wishes. I quite concur with your ruling that the point of order could be requested after a question has been asked, but the point of order may deal with anticipating an answer that may or may not be appropriate to give; therefore, a member is quite in order to raise a point of order after the question is asked, before the answer is given.

I'd like to hear what your authority is for making that ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

For the third time before the committee, it's Marleau and Montpetit, on page 539.

I would also refer you to—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

What does that say? Do you want me to look it up?