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.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
2:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I just want to point out that there was never an investigation.
2:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
There were some allegations put out in the media about a possible leak. I constructed, as I went through the process that was followed, the sequence of events, and after doing that exercise, I came to the conclusion that there was no reason to believe that there was any leak coming out of Elections Canada.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
In addition to the fact that your senior personnel investigated themselves, we now know there are some in the election commissioner's office who were aware of the search but who have not been questioned about the leak. You mentioned before our break that you would be willing, if asked, to have an independent investigation or review of this serious allegation. Do you continue to be open to such a demand?
2:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I would be open if there are specifics around the allegations that would cause me to reconsider the review I conducted at the time.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
You have made reference to the allegation yourself in various e-mails that have gone back and forth within your office.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Why did your communications director have to know about the search in advance?
2:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
In all those operations there's always coordination with the RCMP, who were assisting in the operation, and media officials from both organizations were briefed.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So you knew it would be a media-related event from the outset?
2:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
No, that's simply a precaution you take when you carry out these types of operations.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I know the media has been a great preoccupation for you in your office. In an April 16 e-mail from Ms. Vézina to you, she indicates that the negative news coverage that the office visit was causing for the Conservative Party was great. I quote her. She said, “Most are going against the party.” She's referring to the media. Then she says, “But we seem to be coming out positively on most counts.”
There is a whole series of e-mails around it, which are available now through ATI. The e-mails demonstrate that Elections Canada was totally preoccupied with causing negative news coverage for a political party and positive news coverage for itself. Is it the role of a supposedly non-partisan agency to concern itself with generating negative news coverage for one political party?
2:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I would never want to generate any negative coverage out of actions of Elections Canada for any party, any candidate, or any agent. Any circumstances that question the actions of Elections Canada in that regard compromise its impartiality, its independence, and are always of great concern to the organization.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Right. Elections Canada, as you have stated, should be an independent body, yet internal correspondence indicates that, with respect to media, you produce talking points and you fret over negative versus positive media coverage for one of the political parties. Can you understand why some might conclude that Elections Canada's visit was just as much about public relations as it was about enforcing the law?
2:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I'm misunderstanding your question, sir.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The question is very clear. When you indicate in e-mail after e-mail an obsession with--
July 15th, 2008 / 2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just a moment. We have stopped the clock and you'll get to finish your question, sir.
Mr. Hubbard, on a point of order, please.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, we're being presented with e-mails that committee members do not have in their possession. I think if the honourable member wants to attack Elections Canada by bringing in e-mails, he should table those with the chair.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Hubbard, regretfully, that is not a point of order. The matter actually has been reported in the public media. There is a story in which both parties are quoted on these matters.
Mr. Poilievre, your final question, sir.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The question I was in the middle of was that when Canadians see comments from Ms. Vézina like “Most are going against the party”, in her assessment of the media fallout from your search of the Conservative headquarters, can you not understand why some Canadians might look at those comments that you and your colleague exchanged by e-mail and question whether the headquarters search was more about public relations and less about law enforcement?
2:20 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
There are two things. I think those e-mails reveal a concern about the perception of Elections Canada not being as independent and impartial as it should be. As to whether it displays concerns about law enforcement, again, I think we're simply carrying out the responsibilities that are vested with the commissioner under the legislation.