Evidence of meeting #33 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was carroll.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Whom did you report to? You weren't the big fish in the pond there, right?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
You reported to somebody. Who was it? Was it Marci Surkes?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
But because you said you were a manager, that means you probably had people reporting to you as well.
Am I correct on that? Did you have people whose activities you were directing in the office?
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, I was not a manager. I misspoke earlier. I inadvertently gave myself a promotion for a job I don't have any more.
I managed the files but I was an adviser caucus services.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Is this the only time you've misspoken today, just so that we're clear? You told us you were a manager. I remember your saying the word.
Is there anything else that I should be aware of that you haven't told the truth on, Mr. Carroll?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Okay. That's great.
I can imagine you sitting at the office. You must have been quite giddy with what you were about to do. I mean you spoke quite passionately about what motivated you.
You had an email account that you started a Twitter account with. They would have sent a confirmation back to you. You said that somebody should have had the ability to guess what the password was. You shared with us that it was humorous. Thank you very much for doing that.
You told nobody about this. Is that right?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
You told nobody about what you were about to do. Nobody else in the office knew. You weren't sitting around your computer discussing this with your colleagues, with any of the people you worked with. Nobody knew what you were about to do. You acted alone in this; that means you weren't directed on it.
You didn't share any of what you were about to do with anyone in the office. Is that right?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Okay. If that's the case, then how is it that with two followers of your account, in a very short time span Justin Trudeau retweeted your tweet? How did that happen?
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Listen, I've never met Justin Trudeau. Before this he probably couldn't have picked me out of a lineup. I've never had any conversations with him. If you're trying to suggest that Justin and I are buds and we concocted this whole thing, it's absurd.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Let's face it, Mr. Carroll, we can go on and see how many followers everybody on Twitter has. We know that Mr. Trudeau has a lot of followers. It would only make sense from a planning and strategic perspective for somebody in your position to get this information in front of as many people as possible. It would seem like the logical thing to do.
You say you acted alone on this, that you have no knowledge of Mr. Trudeau. Please fill in the blanks for me, Mr. Carroll. How can I connect the two dots?
12:10 p.m.
NDP
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You're asking me to connect two dots that don't exist. I'm sorry, I can't.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Well, the dots do exist. You said that you put the tweet out there. It was retweeted by Mr. Trudeau. Yet you have no idea how that possibly happened.
I think you had a grand total of two followers on your @vikileaks30 account, and yet it managed to somehow appear on the most popular Liberal member of Parliament's radar screen to be retweeted. I think that leaves some questions to be asked.
I understand that you've played the victim card here today. I get that. I understand what it's like. But when you push the send button out into the multiverse or the twitterverse, or whatever it happens to be, you take those masks off. Your contention is that nobody should have to, that we should have free rein to do whatever we want in complete anonymity on the Internet. I think that was where you were coming from with Bill C-30. But I digress.
I would agree with you, Mr. Carroll: you are a victim. You were thrown completely under the bus by your party, by your leader who said that this information had absolutely crossed a line.
I just want to know, had anybody communicated with you before being told such that affidavits on people's personal lives should be in an unlocked filing cabinet in an office where, I would assume, staffers come and go rather quickly? You were only there from August until February. My guess is that you were not the first one to come through that office or the last one to go who had access to this information. I don't know who would have a catalogue of all of this information or how you would come to magically know about these affidavits being there.
It bothers me to know that any information about any particular individual member of Parliament is being researched to this level of detail. You've somehow tried to minimize it by stating that the quotes we take from the public media and rebroadcast during members' statements are somehow the equivalent of making a trip to a courthouse in Manitoba to get an affidavit for somebody's court proceedings.
It's a little bit different, Mr. Carroll.
Am I out of time, Mr. Chair?
12:15 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pierre-Luc Dusseault
Thank you, Mr. Calkins. Your time is up. You do not have the time for another question.
Your turn, Mr. Cullen. You have five minutes.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on your new position and welcome to this committee.
I had some interest earlier today in what was happening in the House of Commons, where we were debating a potential breach of privilege with respect to the F-35s and whether the Minister of National Defence in this case has been telling Canadians the truth or not. That debate is now before the Speaker of the House.
This conversation was initially brought up on whether a breach of privilege of Mr. Toews' rights as a parliamentarian was invoked. The Speaker did not rule that way.
The question comes before us and so I'm curious, Mr. Carroll, if you have any advice for staff. You've been through something that was of your making. You chose to create what became a very powerful tool that went far and wide. Do you offer any advice to other staff who are in the business of research in Parliament?
12:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you very much for your question.
Since we're congratulating people, I also offer my congratulations to you, Mr. Cullen.
I have some advice for staffers. I suppose that when engaging in personal activity they should refrain from using their computers at work. Clearly, everything can be tracked, and even if you're not doing anything wrong, they'll be able to point a finger at you.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Carroll, I haven't followed your case closely. Have you been accused of breaking the law at any point?
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, let me ask you this, if you're comfortable answering it. Do you regret what you did?
12:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I think regret is a very subjective and personal emotion. You'll have to indulge me when I say that I have no regrets about anything in my life.