Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, Mr. Mayrand, I would like to thank you for the clarifications you provided at the beginning of the meeting, and remind you that on April 29, all parties represented at this table, with the exception of the Conservatives, voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion to reaffirm our confidence in Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer. So I wanted to reiterate that expression of confidence.
I would also like to take this opportunity, because we do not often have an opportunity to speak, here, to tell you that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the Conservatives' motion requesting that you hold a public investigation into the lead that led to television cameras being present at the scene of the search you conducted with the help of the RCMP, because at this point the Conservatives are just feigning indignance.
They are asking you to conduct a public investigation, but they themselves conduct internal investigations. In the Maxime Bernier case, they did a hasty little investigation at Foreign Affairs. On the leak relating to Barack Obama and NAFTA, they did another hasty little internal investigation, and now they are asking you to a public investigation. That makes no sense, and that is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the motion.
We know, and we have just seen, that they are doing everything they can to divert attention and stall, as they did for the 10-hour discussion that resulted in you appearing here yesterday and today. They continually stall and raise points of order, each more far-fetched than the one before, to avoid discussing the real issues. Even when they talk about the searches, they change the subject. We get the impression that what shocks them is not the search, it's the fact that it was broadcast on television. In fact, when your position is indefensible, that is the only path to take.
Yesterday, Mr. Mayrand, you told me, me personally, that you did not know whom the advertising expenses should be allocated to. Groups of transactions were formed, and you said that all you knew was that the expenses were not attributable to the candidates. You have just reiterated that the official agents did not know that those expenses had been incurred, that there was no documentation, that the contracts were signed not by the candidates or the official agents but by the Party itself, and that the invoices were produced by the Party. In fact, everything was done under the control of the Party. In addition, the price paid was not the fair value.
Mr. Hiebert just said that the official agents were volunteers, activists. But the official agents, ordinarily, under the Act, and you can confirm this in a moment, it seems to me that they have to sign the documents that makes them accountable for the things they do. This is a very important position in a party. These aren't people checking things off on a list, their job is to be official agents and oversee a party's campaign expenses. That is so important that there are people in my riding who would not want to hold the position because they know that even though it is volunteer work, they are subject to a heavy code of ethics. I would like you to confirm that for me in a moment.
In a nutshell, the expense was not incurred by the candidate, by the official agent. So when we want to know whom to allocate the expense to, we can ask, to put it somewhat simply, who profits from the crime. But we have to ask where the money came from. In your documents, when we look to see who transferred the funds, we see that it was the Conservative fund. So I would like you to talk a bit about where the funds came from, for the official agents to sign cheques to Retail Media with their eyes shut, I suppose.