Evidence of meeting #117 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Okay. They say they have evidence that shows that AIQ set up a Slack channel, a workspace where you allowed both campaigns to discuss their tactics for social media together. Did you do this, yes or no?
They say they have evidence, so I'm just asking you.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Okay.
Now, if they have the evidence and then you're proven to be wrong, do you realize you're under oath? Are you aware of that?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Is it your position that the evidence Bindmans has is incorrect?
11:40 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, AggregateIQ
I don't know what evidence they have. I just know that—
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
You don't need to know what evidence they have, because you've made a blanket statement that it's not true, so I don't care what evidence.... Is it incorrect, yes or no?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
No. It's a simple question. Is the information they have, whatever it may be, incorrect? Yes or no? You're under oath.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, AggregateIQ
Actually, I don't know what they have and—
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Chair, could I just get this one answer, please?
Listen, you said that you never met with them together. That's a blanket statement. It doesn't matter if I have 10, 20, or 5,000 books' worth of evidence that it's incorrect. Is their evidence incorrect, yes or no?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Massingham, I'm going to make it very easy for you. If it starts with a “Y”, it means “yes”, or if it starts with an “N”, it means “no”. You've been a yes-or-no man this whole time, so I'm giving you a yes-or-no question again. Yes or no? You're under oath, Mr. Massingham.
11:40 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, AggregateIQ
I'm sorry. I can't answer a question that you have—
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Yes, you can answer it. If someone asks me if I killed someone and says they have a ton of evidence, you know what I'm going to say? I'll say no. I don't care if they have a book's worth of evidence: no, I didn't do it.
Now, I'm asking you a straight question. Is their evidence incorrect, yes or no?
11:40 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, AggregateIQ
As you just said, we didn't set up any Slack.... We didn't formulate any communications between those groups. We did not meet with them together.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Great. That's wonderful.
They have evidence. Is it incorrect, yes or no? You haven't done anything, so.... You've made a blanket statement that you've never done any coordination, so is the evidence they have, whatever it may be, incorrect? Yes or no?
11:40 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, AggregateIQ
Are you able to share with me what this evidence is?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I'm not able to share anything. I wouldn't bother anyway. You don't read the reports, so I don't see any point in it.
Anyhow, I'm asking you a straightforward question. You've made a blanket statement that you had no collusion, no work together, nothing. If that's the case, who cares what their evidence is? Just tell me: “Frank, it's wrong. It's no. No, it's wrong. Their information is wrong.” Yes or no? Answer that simple question, please.