Yes, I would agree, Madam Chairman.
In fact I would just clarify once again that Mr. Angus in fact saw the evidence that I'm presenting. And of course if we are to believe Le Devoir and the sources in Le Devoir, which in fact indicated they had contributed tens of thousands of dollars, contrary to the Elections Act, then we know where the evidence is in fact leading to.
Mr. Angus made reference to the Information Commissioner. I should say, as members of the committee know, that I tabled a letter that was in fact stamped “confidential”, which is why I never shared it with committee members, and the Information Commissioner referred to that letter. I would suggest that perhaps she hadn't in fact reviewed what she wrote to me, which indicated that she would be conducting an investigation and contacting Madame Turmel for additional evidence related to the allegations I was making. She did in fact indicate before committee that her investigation continues, so we'll wait to hear back from her on that.
I've also visited the Elections Canada web page. Under the frequently asked questions section, it says:
Can a corporation, trade union or unincorporated association sponsor an event held by a registered party, including a convention, or otherwise buy visibility at such an event by holding, or paying for, a reception at the event or providing or paying for signs, flags, pens, notepaper, etc. advertising the entity?
What it says is:
Any [party] who
- gives money to a registered party
- provides goods and services for less than commercial value to a registered party, or
--and here's the kicker--
-purchases goods and services for more than commercial value from a registered party
with the intent of benefiting the party will have made a contribution to the registered party that would be subject to the rules of the Canada Elections Act.
Is that your interpretation of the rules, Mr. Mayrand?