Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I'm having a little difficulty here. You said that things had been done right, when you had a chance to examine what happened in the department. You had initially said that you would take a look at the example of interference. I assume you must have thought there was interference. But you said that when you investigated, things had been done right.
The Prime Minister's Office responded to the incident by calling on political aides to respect the government's commitment to transparency and allow the bureaucracy to do its work. This was following a second incident within government. A staffer at Public Works Canada intervened to stop bureaucrats from releasing a report to the Canadian Press.
I'm curious about that, because on the one hand you said things were done right, and yet the Prime Minister's Office was involved. They said we can't have this interference and it must be stopped because of the need to adhere to transparency and accountability.
You then said the figures were not released because the advertising campaign was under way and the information was not available. Yet the bureaucrats who calculated the value of the advertising campaign were prepared to answer the question that same day. It was Mr. Sparrow who told them to hold off, and he said they weren't going to give any numbers. But three weeks later the figures were released, and they were almost identical to the information the bureaucrats had compiled.
I find your excuse a little hard to take. It strikes me as very strange. On the surface, it looks like there was something to hide and you were probably embarrassed about the money that was being spent on partisan advertising.
I'm getting two messages. One is from you and one is from the Prime Minister's Office. How is it that you have one story and the Prime Minister's Office has another story?