Evidence of meeting #46 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 witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Do you have anything further? Are you happy? Thank you.
Mr. Del Mastro had a point of order. Is it on relevance, repetition, or procedure?
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I'd just like to correct the record, if I could. Sometimes this job requires humility, and I'd like to apologize to the witness. He received about 15% of the vote in the last election. I was wrong on that; I was just referencing numbers wrongly. But he wasn't part of the regional media buy.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
All right, we'll move on. We're down to the Bloc now.
No, I'm sorry, Mr. Lemieux is next, for the Conservatives, followed by Mr. Martin, and then we'll have a Liberal and a Conservative.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Good. Thank you very much, Chair.
I'd like to start with a few questions.
The first is, do you realize that it is legal for a national party to move money, to give money to an EDA or a campaign? Are you aware that this is legal?
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
It is legal. Mr. Mayrand says it's legal; in fact, he has testified that it is legal.
Are you aware, sir, that it is legal for a national party to be a supplier of goods and services to an EDA or to a local campaign?
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
You didn't know, as a candidate, that the national party can be a provider of goods and services to a local campaign?
As an Individual
It was explained to us when we were in Drummondville in 2005 maybe, yes, but it wasn't explained to us.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I can tell you it was. Mr. Mayrand also backed that up in testimony in front of this committee.
Let me just go a step further. Did your campaign buy goods and services? It probably did. Did you buy pens and pencils, paper?
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
You didn't buy any. In general, do you think campaigns buy pens, paper, pencils?
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Do you think that campaigns buy brochures?
You don't think campaigns buy brochures. I can tell you they do. My campaign bought brochures.
My campaign bought signs. Do you agree that those are advertising materials?
As an Individual
I know that the party paid for my signs—thank you very much—but for the pamphlets--
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I'm not asking who paid for it. What I'm asking is, do you agree that campaigns can buy brochures and signs? Yes or no?
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
A campaign can buy signs and it can buy brochures.
Do you think it can buy signs from one supplier and brochures from another supplier? Do you think it can do that?
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Just yes or no.
The answer is yes. You can buy signs from supplier one; you can buy brochures from supplier two. You didn't know very much as a candidate, but you can do that. It is legal. It's above board.
Signs and brochures are advertising. The national party can be a supplier of goods or services. So I'm allowed to buy signs from supplier one, brochures from supplier two, and I can buy advertising from supplier three, and supplier three is allowed to be the national party. That's perfectly legitimate. There's nothing wrong with that.
Monsieur Mayrand testified in front of the committee that there is nothing wrong with that. They are just another supplier. That's what has been going on here. Candidates have been buying advertising from a supplier. It just so happens the supplier is the national party. Why? It's cheaper for the national party to buy a regional ad buy than it is for me to buy an ad buy, Mr. Del Mastro to buy an ad buy, and my colleagues to buy all separate ad buys. It's better that we all buy one big ad buy. But I'm allowed to buy ads from the national party, and the national party is allowed to transfer money into my campaign. It's above board and it's legal.
What baffles me, sir, is what you're doing here, the relevance of your testimony. All of what I've said is legal, it has all been backed up by Monsieur Mayrand in front of the committee, it's all above board, and yet you're here and you're not part of this regional ad buy at all. You did not participate in the regional ad buy.
You say the national party sent you $14,000. Well, that may be. They're allowed to do that. They are allowed to do so.
The point I'm making to you is that in fact you're here probably because our adversaries across the table have invited you here because you're a hostile witness. They're using you to deliver their—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Lemieux, you have one minute left in your time.
Sir, just a moment. I'm getting a little concerned that we're getting too close to badgering a witness. It is not dealing with a witness with dignity and respect. Please just pose your questions. You may not be happy with the answers, the witness may not be happy with your questions, but that's our process. So I'd like you to complete your questioning, but please don't judge the witness.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I'm not judging the witness. I'm trying to determine the relevancy of the presence of the witness in front of this committee when he was not part of a regional ad buy. He's not on the Elections Canada list of a regional ad buy. Everything he did was above board. Elections Canada has no issue with this witness. What is he doing in front of the committee?
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I'm going to get to my question.
You're also, sir, not a public office-holder and you are not commenting on public office-holders, which is what the mandate of the committee is. This is the point that Mr. Del Mastro was bringing up. We're actually outside the mandate of the committee right now when we talk about parties. We're supposed to be linking all this to public office-holders.
You are neither a public office-holder nor have you questioned a public office-holder. It hasn't come up in your testimony. So the fundamental question I have to you is, sir, what are you doing here?
