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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Excuse me. I also pointed out to the members that Retail Media has legal counsel here. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate or in order for a member of the committee to plead the case of a witness about why a witness should not answer a question. That's why they've brought legal counsel, in the event that a matter should arise that they may have some concern about. And that....
Excuse me.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I want to read to you from page 857:
A point of order calling attention to a departure from the Standing Orders or from the customary manner in which a committee has conducted its proceedings may be raised at any time, by a member of the committee.
At any time, Mr. Chairman. That has been raised by a member of this committee, and you're cutting him off. You're not following this rule, as you had cited.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please. I'm simply calling order. When the committee decides to settle down, we'll resume.
Mr. Tilson, thank you for reading page 857 to me, but my reference was page 539.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Tilson, I have been a member of Parliament for 15 years and I am quite familiar with the rules. I want to be careful and I also want to be fair. Overriding all of this is the chair's responsibility to conduct an orderly process. I am concerned. It troubles me that we can't even get a question in without having a point of order.
Put your hand down. I understand. I heard you. I heard you. I'm in the middle of a point of order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'm sure you do.
Order. Would you please give it to the clerk. Give it to the clerk.
Order.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
While you're reading, Mr. Chairman, I'll say that the section that you referred to refers to the House of Commons. The section that I read refers to committees, and they're quite different quotations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please. Order, please.
The first time this same point of order came up I made a ruling, and the substantive point of the ruling was that it's not appropriate for a member to plead the case of a witness with regard to whether or not the witness wants to answer a question.
In fact, Mr. Tilson, I will refer you, specifically under committees, to page 863, where it says:
Tampering with a witness or in any way attempting to deter a witness from giving evidence at a committee meeting may constitute a breach of privilege.
Those are parliamentary practice and procedure.The point of order, it's interfering or—
Order, order.
I've made a ruling that the point of order is not a point of order. We're moving on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Mr. Goodyear, my microphone is on and this is being picked up. But as for this idea about allegations of tampering with witnesses, sir, I quoted from Marleau and Montpetit. They are not mine. Please don't attribute motive or whatever to me.
An hon. member
This has nothing to do with the witnesses, Chair; it has to do with requesting.... You knew full well--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, sir.
The chair has been challenged. I'm waiting for members to behave themselves.
Colleagues, the chair again has been challenged on my reading of Marleau and Montpetit, my ruling based on that. It is not debatable. I must put the vote immediately.
We've had two questions in 45 minutes. Great.
I would like to ask the clerk to please call the roll on the question: should the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
I want to indicate that I think the committee should think carefully about whether or not it wants to hear these witnesses and that to disrupt the cadence of the questions and answers tends to take away from the importance of their appearance. I believe it's disrespectful for witnesses to have to sit there with this going on.
I'm going to ask members, please, not to raise points of order in the middle of a question and an answer and to respect the two rulings now that it is not appropriate for any member to plead the case of a witness. They have legal counsel here. As Mr. Walsh, the law clerk of the House of Commons, has laid out in his letter, they have an opportunity to make their case as to why a question may or may not be appropriate to answer, in their view, and the committee will decide.
So we're at the same point again, and I would ask Madame Redman to repeat the question so that the witness will have an opportunity to answer.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
I was just asking Mr. Kumpf if he would confirm that there were no contracts between Retail Media and any of the candidates who filed expenses associated with the media buy program.
As an Individual
If I may, perhaps I should respond to that question. We're fully prepared to respond to that question and answer it.
Indeed, we did not have any contracts with any of the candidates. As I've indicated in the opening statement, it was not our intention to have direct contracts with any of the candidates.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
You also mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Campbell, that it was common practice in that you asked for the requirement of payment in full up front, purchasing the media buy, and that's consistent with corporate practice.
When did you receive payment for the media buys in question?
As an Individual
I should clarity that it's actually the media that demands payment. The stations demand payment from us; therefore, we have to have money in advance. So we did indeed have money in advance of the air-time airing.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
The master invoice that you submitted to the Conservative Party of Canada says January 1, 2006. Was payment made on or before that date, or exactly when was payment received from the Conservative Party of Canada?