Evidence of meeting #48 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was campaign.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
I would like the chair to recognize that there have been a number of meetings in the past with speakers on the list and you have shut down debate of your own accord. I don't know why you keep changing the rules, Mr. Chair. It's very hard for us to predict the next five minutes. I'm happy to hear the witnesses, I'm happy to have them here all day. In fact, I wish we had the witnesses the Conservative Party asked for, but we don't.
You are in charge. Could you at least indicate, are we on one more round, two more rounds, sixteen more rounds? What are we doing?
12:20 p.m.
An hon. member
How about consulting the committee?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, sir, that's not a question. It is not a point of order. It again is a bunch of opinions, which you're entitled to, sir, but not under a point of order.
I would indicate to the committee that the clerk maintains the list of speakers requested by the members. As the members are aware, it's their choice who's going to speak.
We are in the third round, and as always it is our practice to complete a round so it is equitable to everybody. We are now with Madame Lavallée, and I have two other speakers on the list for the third round, and then the meeting will suspend until this afternoon. That has been our practice in all our meetings.
Mr. Wallace, on a point of order.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
As a member of the committee, I think it is actually proper procedure that, based on the orders of the day, at 12 o'clock you ask the committee to extend the time, if that's the case. I don't mind extending time. That would not only be fair to the committee members who are here, but it would also be fair to the witnesses who expected to be done here and go back to work, I think, after 12 o'clock. So I think for future meetings--we're in this now and I'm happy to hear the next two--if you come to the time, I think it's appropriate to ask the committee, “Do you want to extend the time, as per the orders of the day?”
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
That's not entirely correct. The projected times on the orders of the day were done on August 1. These were set up after we issued the summons.
With regard to how late a meeting goes, etc., I think the member makes a valid point, which the committee should understand. My only defence to the member about carrying on is that we are in round three, and all four parties submitted names to me to speak in round three. I took that as an indication that all four parties wanted to go to round three.
We have Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Del Mastro, Madame Lavallée, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Proulx.
All four parties indicated they wanted at least one speaker in the third round. I took that as an indication that the committee wanted to have a third round. If I'm incorrect, I apologize. But when all four parties agreed to have additional speakers, I'm sorry, I made an assumption that everybody wanted to move forward.
With that, I apologize, Madame Lavallée, for interrupting. You had only used just over a minute of your time.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, I would prefer that the Conservative members apologize. If they had allowed us to start on time, we would have been able to keep to our schedule. We can see that they are behaving like clowns. In fact, they are the only ones behaving like clowns, because they are afraid of looking like thieves.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. Thank you.
The sooner we move on with the question, the sooner we'll complete our work for the morning.
Madame Lavallée, you still have about four minutes to go. Procédez.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you.
I was asking you, one by one, whether you had been contacted by people in the Conservative Party regarding the hearings today or the question of the illegal invoicing by the Conservative Party.
Mr. Campbell, your answer was that you had had no conversations with anyone in the Conservative Party, and no information, whether directly or indirectly. That was your answer. Is that correct?
12:25 p.m.
As an Individual
That is correct. I might add, if I may, that we also had advice from our legal counsel, Malcolm, that if we were contacted we would not have any direct conversation with them, and we have not.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
So your legal counsel has had no conversations with people in the Conservative Party.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I will take that to mean yes.
Mr. Kumpf, have you had any conversations with people in the Conservative Party regarding the hearings?
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Patrick Muttart told you that you would have to appear.
12:30 p.m.
As an Individual
I believe he said that we were going to be called as witnesses. It was right after your last session a month ago. He said we were on the witness list.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Did he make any comments? Did he tell you that you would have to appear, or, rather, to find a good reason not to do it?
12:30 p.m.
As an Individual
No, ma'am. He said nothing like that. He did not offer advice, and I wasn't looking for it.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Did your legal counsel make any suggestions in that regard?
12:30 p.m.
As an Individual
It's privileged, but we're here, so I think we know what the answer is.
August 13th, 2008 / 12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Here, Mr. Kumpf, we understand as much from actual answers as from no answers.
On two occasions, December 6 and December 8, you exchanged emails with Conservative Party officials. You had good reflexes in those emails, because you expressed doubt about the legality of something that Elections Canada has in fact ruled to be illegal.
You even raised the question of whether you shouldn't consult the Broadcast Arbitrator. The Conservative Party, which you trusted, said no. From what I understood earlier, even the lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, advised everyone in a conference call, including yourself, saying that it was legal and that you could go ahead.
Is that correct?