Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 13th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming this morning. I have only seven minutes, so I'll go to specific questions.

I have a copy of an affidavit that was signed on October 31, 2007, and Andrew Kumpf's name is on the bottom. I'm assuming you're familiar with it.

It says here in your affidavit, and I want to give you an opportunity to confirm it in front of us:

I further confirm that:

Advertising buys for the national party were segregated from advertising buys for participating candidates. Retail Media was advised of which Conservative Candidates were interested in participating in additional regional media buys.

Is that still an accurate statement?

[Andrew Kumpf]

That's correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You said: Appropriate regional markets were identified for all participating candidates and specific media buys purchased in those markets.

Is that still correct?

[Andrew Kumpf]

That's correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

And this one is of particular interest as a clarification to a question that was just asked by Mr. Martin:

Appropriate tag lines were used in all advertisements identifying on whose behalf the advertisement was authorized.

Is that correct?

[Andrew Kumpf]

That's correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So even though your company may not have produced the actual ad, you're saying in your affidavit that tag lines for all advertising identified on whose behalf that advertisement was authorized.

[Andrew Kumpf]

After the ridings that were participating were determined, we issued to the creative agency, for which stations were going to be part of the buy, exactly which candidates should be included for those specific stations.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

And you provided that to the creative agency. I guess that's what you're calling your business.

[Andrew Kumpf]

Yes, that's correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. Then finally in your affidavit—

[Andrew Kumpf]

Sir, it's not an affidavit. I think it was just a letter.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Well, it says “refer to affidavit sworn before”.

Okay, but this is your signature on this letter.

[Andrew Kumpf]

That's correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes. It's a schedule.

I'm sorry, I may be referring to it as an affidavit. I shouldn't be referring to an affidavit.

The fourth point was this:

Appropriate invoices reflecting goods and services rendered were separately issued to participating Conservative Candidates and to the registered party based on the four segments identified.

Is that still correct?

[Andrew Kumpf]

That's correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So is what you gave us this morning an actual invoice that was provided? Is that a sample?

[Marilyn Dixon]

The one on the left is our invoice.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right, and then this is....

[Marilyn Dixon]

I don't know where it came from.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Elections Canada has this. Is that correct?

[Marilyn Dixon]

That was shown to us by Elections Canada.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay, that's very good.

We're not your only customers. Is that correct?

[David Campbell]

That's correct.