Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 11th, 2008

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, frankly, I find that completely irrelevant in the sense that I don't have that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, I know, and it was only provided--

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Is there a really good reason for that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I received it in English. This arrived on the 7th, and the clerk was not in the office on the 7th. We had a duty clerk, who couldn't do anything with it.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

All right, I will accept that as reasonable. If it's not in both official languages--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It just arrived on Thursday.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

All right. I'll accept that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It was coming.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Let me proceed with one other point then, and I will give the chair and the clerks leeway that the answers to these questions are in fact in that document. That's yet to be seen.

If members recall, Monsieur Mayrand said that in his investigation of the leak he spoke to a few people.

He spoke to a few people. He did not have records of it. That's not an investigation. That is simply asking a few of your buddies and not putting the metal to the fire, so to speak.

I think this is very serious business, and it should be looked into. And whoever made the leak, if in fact there was a leak, should be brought to account.

It was also mentioned by Monsieur Mayrand--and I can't quote him, but his quote is in the minutes--that he had significant concerns about the fact that the investigation undertaken by the commissioner, who invited the RCMP and apparently, allegedly, called up his Liberal buddies and said to come on over, we're going to do.... Mr. Mayrand expressed concern that it happened the day before these people were going to be questioned and disposed. So I think Mr. Mayrand himself expressed the need to look into this further.

The last point I would like to make is that it interests me significantly that between then and now Elections Canada has found a way to allow the Liberal leadership candidates to defer their repayment of their illegal loans. I just think there's too much going on here at Elections Canada to avoid any kind of investigation into this process. I had hoped the motion would have been expanded. I won't do that, but I absolutely feel that members here should vote for a proper investigation. If there was no leak, I'm sure members opposite will be really happy. If there was a leak--well, guess what?--you should be happy about that too.

That's my point, Mr. Chair. I will be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you kindly.

I have Mr. Lemieux and then Mr. Martin.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to pick up where my colleague left off on some of the testimony of Mr. Mayrand.

When Mr. Poilievre was here, he mentioned an email that Monsieur Mayrand had prepared on April 18 discussing the subject of a leak. He mentioned the word “leak” seven times, which indicated a high level of concern. In other words, Monsieur Mayrand was concerned that the impartiality of Elections Canada was being affected by the leak of their visit to Conservative headquarters. He was concerned and didn't want Elections Canada to be affected by that.

Monsieur Mayrand was asked about the internal review that was conducted, and he said it was conducted by people responsible for the various programs in the organization. So it sounded like it was quite a large internal review. Monsieur Poilievre said, “What are their names”? Monsieur Mayrand said, “It was mainly me.” But he did say that also participating were his director of communications and the commissioner's office. So there were two other people--a group of three.

Monsieur Poilievre went on to ask who knew about the event that was about to transpire--this visit to the Conservative Party headquarters. Monsieur Mayrand said it was him, the deputy chief electoral officer, and the director of communications. Of course, Monsieur Poilievre said, “So you all investigated each other on where this leak might have come from.”

Of course, there lies the difficulty. We have Elections Canada conducting an internal review, and the three people who were involved are conducting an internal investigation on themselves as to whether there was a leak or not. Monsieur Mayrand is concerned about the whole issue of the leak and whether or not it will tarnish the reputation of Elections Canada.

I just want to finish by quoting Monsieur Mayrand again. He said, “When allegations are made, put in written form, and put before the proper authorities, I will welcome an investigation into this matter.” So Monsieur Mayrand, the elections officer, has said that when this allegation is made and delivered to him in written form he will gladly welcome this investigation into the matter. He said, “We didn't see any cause to take further steps or carry out a formal investigation into the matter” at the time because it was mostly noise in the media. That's what he was saying in the sentence before that.

So we have an opportunity here as a committee to help Elections Canada. Monsieur Mayrand would welcome an investigation, and of course it can't be internal by the people who possessed the knowledge as to whether or not they leaked it themselves. That doesn't pass any ethical standard. It has to be done by an independent investigator. This only makes sense.

We have Monsieur Mayrand's testimony that he would welcome such an investigation. But I think Canadians would welcome this investigation as well, because I think Canadians are questioning what happened. How is it that the Liberal cameramen were there on the scene at the time? How did that happen? It likely was not by coincidence. Let's have an investigation and find out exactly how that happened.

So I think this motion from Mr. Reid is very appropriate. Just reading Monsieur Mayrand's words, he himself welcomes an investigation into the matter. I think this committee should ask that an investigation be done to protect the integrity of Elections Canada. It's essential, and I don't know why any opposition member would vote against that. What is there to hide? I suppose that is the question.

So I encourage my colleagues, particularly my opposition colleagues, to vote in favour of this motion. I think it's important, and Monsieur Mayrand himself--as Canadians have seen the unfolding of this internal investigation and Monsieur Mayrand's comments regarding a more formal investigation--would be happy to conduct it. Let's vote in favour of this motion.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Martin, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'll pass, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

If I may ask for the indulgence of the committee, the motion of Mr. Reid requests that Mr. Mayrand appoint an independent investigator. We don't have jurisdiction to instruct him to do that; it's not like a recommendation. Is that the understanding of members?

There is someone who could strike an independent investigator. If Mr. Mayrand picks his own investigator, I'm not sure whether that would meet the criterion of independence the members are proposing. It appears to me that it really is the Prime Minister, and I'm wondering if the recommendation really should be that the Prime Minister appoint an independent investigator to look at the leak, as opposed to asking Mr. Mayrand.

You trust him. That's okay, as long as members are aware of the subtlety here.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On your comment, that's quite a remarkable understanding. Actually, I think that Monsieur Mayrand can be trusted. I think he came here sincerely. He pointed out that he had concerns about the investigation; he was very clear. We could have used him for another hour or two to question him.

I think Monsieur Mayrand will take the instruction of the committee and proceed forward. I actually do believe the gentleman thinks there was a leak and he wants to get to the bottom of it. At this point in time, I'm going to give my faith to Mr. Mayrand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Lemieux, you wanted a further comment.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

My colleague stated it extremely well. Again, I will remind the committee and Canadians that Monsieur Mayrand said he would welcome an investigation into this matter. I have full confidence in his choosing an independent investigator. I think we all understand it's a recommendation to Monsieur Mayrand. He has stated his concern on this matter. I'm sure he will act diligently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I have no further colleagues on the list.

Are the members ready for the question on the motion? This is on the motion by Mr. Scott Reid with regard to an independent investigator.

[An hon. member]

Can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

(Motion negatived: nays 6, yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Now, there was a question with regard to whether I knew whether any of the remaining witnesses were not participants in the media buy. I have taken the opportunity to check it with the clerk. Of all of the remaining witnesses, the only two witnesses are Mr. David Marler, candidate for Brome—Missisquoi, and his official agent, Mr. Geoffrey Webber. I believe those two witnesses were proposed by two parties here.

[An hon. member]

It's the same guy?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It's the same riding, but it is two persons.

Is anyone who proposed Mr. Marler and his official agent aware of the relevance of those witnesses to assist the members? I know there's some concern about hearing people who did not participate in a--

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Can I take that question under advisement and return tomorrow morning or consult my notes? Because I don't know it all by heart.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, that's fine. We'll get it specifically. But as you know, the remaining witnesses are party officials, media buy executives, and Elections Canada and public prosecutor personnel.

So of the persons who participated in the election, there are only those two who were not participants in the media buy. But there may be questions. They may have been the ones who said they wouldn't participate. I guess the question is whether that is relevant. Madame Lavallée is going to advise.

Mr. LeBlanc, can you help us out here?