Evidence of meeting #44 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 elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
When you refused those 67 claims that the individual candidates had.... You referred it to the Commissioner of Canada Elections. Is it your belief that they did not follow the Elections Act?
2:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
The reason for referral is that there have to be some reasonable grounds to believe that offences may have been committed under the act. It will be up to the commissioner to decide whether the facts that were presented to him do warrant an investigation and to determine if, at the end of the day, in his own professional opinion, offences may have been committed. Again, it will be put to the test of the DPP--the Director of Public Prosecutions--later on, who will have to be satisfied, and ultimately to the test of a judge, who will have to decide if the evidence gathered amounts to the commission of offences.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
So you referred it to the commissioner because you believed the law was broken. That's why you referred it to the commissioner, and then it's up to the judge to decide. But for us to understand.... In your opinion, the Conservative Party broke the law.
2:10 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
The reference to the commissioner concerns only candidates and agents. I made no reference specifically with regard to the party. I referred the matter of all the transactions around the media buy program to the commissioner to determine whether offences, and what offences, could have been committed.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
You say it doesn't mention the party. On one side we see that you have refused those claims by the 67 candidates, and if you refused those claims, then it's evident that the Conservative Party has exceeded the spending limit by $1.3 million. When we look at it from that perspective, do you believe the Conservative Party has also violated the Elections Act?
2:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Given the facts that were before me at the time I made the decision, I did not draw conclusions in that regard.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
You indicated that three members of Elections Canada staff knew in advance of the search. Is that correct?
2:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Yes, they were members of Elections Canada, but I should point out that I did review my information during lunch, and it was five.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
And have all five of them been questioned in your internal review of the potential leak?
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Okay. You indicated you would provide us notes of the interviews conducted with the three. Now that you've discovered that there were five, can you--
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
You said that these five were in addition to those who knew in the commissioner's office. Is that correct?
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Did you question all the members of the commissioner's office who were aware of the search?
2:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I questioned only the senior director of the commissioner's office.
2:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I questioned only the senior director of the commissioner's office.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Were there others in his office who were aware of the search?
2:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
Well, the people who participated in the operation did.
