Thank you, Chair.
I just want to read something in for the record. This is from a blog from a gentleman named James Sprague, who had several positions, especially through Elections Canada. Here is what he said, which may dispel some of the myths:
Currently the only legal authority that the Chief Electoral Officer has respecting the exercise of the Commissioner’s investigative and prosecutorial discretion is to be able to require that the Commissioner undertake an investigation in five situations that go to significant aspects of the conduct of an election. This authority does not extend to directing how such an investigation, once started, is conducted nor does it extend to stopping an investigation once underway.
That's the impression we got from Mr. Corbett, as well as from Mr. Côté, commissioners past and present.
I do believe that the exchange of information is one that is essential in this particular situation. To be honest with you, I think this is more an exercise in isolation than it is in independence. I think the independence could have been achieved within the confines of Elections Canada.
If there is one sympathetic view of the separation that I've heard, it may have been from Mr. Manning, who talked about the functions of it. But at the same time there seems to be much of a disconnect between the CEO and the commissioner, such that I don't think it's particularly onerous on the CEO to get too involved in that situation.
We even had one Conservative MP who, in the media tonight, said that it had more to do with the leaks. That was from Mr. Jay Aspin, in The Hill Times , as to why they put it to a separate office.
Nevertheless, I put this to you because if you want to comment on that, please do so. But in Senate hearings today there was some confusion over whether you had, in your office as Auditor, the power to compel testimony.