“We were told that this was about Mr. Carroll’s use of House resources, but it quickly turned into an attempt to bully him into implicating people, and revealing how information’s passed in the Liberal caucus. I’ve got no need to defend the Liberals, it’s not my job. But, as a Parliamentarian, [such questions] it’s inappropriate,” Mr. Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ont.) told The Hill Times.
Adam Carroll, formerly a staffer in the Liberal Research Bureau, was the author of the @Vikileaks30 Twitter account that caught the attention of thousands of followers in late February when he tweeted nasty details from Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ (Provencher, Man.) 2008 divorce and spending practices in response to the government’s internet surveillance bill. Mr. Carroll resigned on Feb. 27 upon interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae’s (Toronto Centre, Ont.) request.
Mr. Carroll was first summoned to appear before the House Ethics Committee on March 15, following a Feb. 28 motion Mr. Del Mastro (Peterborough, Ont.) put forth to call Mr. Carroll to testify on his use of House resources in launching and running his @Vikileaks30 Twitter account. Because of health reasons, Mr. Carroll did not attend this meeting. Despite an attempt by Mr. Angus to withdraw the motion summoning Mr. Carroll to testify—as he said the matter wasn’t within the Ethics Committee’s purview, an opinion shared and ruled upon by former committee chair NDP MP Jean Crowder (Nanaimo-Cowichan, B.C.)—Mr. Carroll’s appearance was rescheduled.
Once he was before the committee on April 24, Mr. Carroll kicked things off on a feisty note, beginning his opening statement by saying: “On March 6, 2012, the Speaker ruled the Vikileaks matter closed and found no further reason to investigate. Nevertheless, despite the Speaker’s ruling and the procedures of the House, some members of this committee have persisted that I appear.”
Mr. Carroll explained how the now infamous Twitter account came into being. He said he was “deeply offended” by Mr. Toews’ Feb. 13 comment that critics of Bill C-30, the then named Lawful Access Bill, could either “stand with us or with the child pornographers,” and said given the “haste with which bills are passed under this current government” he felt compelled to bring public attention to the bill.
On Feb. 14, the day Mr. Toews introduced Bill C-30, Mr. Carroll said he assembled “publicly available” information and, from home that evening, set up the @Vikileaks30 account and fired off five tweets. On Feb. 15, Mr. Carroll said he tweeted a “few dozen” more times: “These were done at work.”
But Mr. Del Mastro said he doesn’t believe that the buck stops with Mr. Carroll and told The Hill Times that he believes “there was quite a bit of coordination here” and that Mr. Carroll is just a “patsy.” Mr. Carroll said he disagreed and called the comments “baseless smears, or in the acronym, BS.”
NDP MPs questioned Mr. Carroll about the IP address that was tracked, whether the information tweeted was verbatim from documents, whether he had any advice for other research bureau staffers, whether he regretted his actions (Mr. Carroll said he didn’t) and asked him to clear the air on whether the NDP was involved in the @Vikileaks30 tweets (Mr. Carroll said they weren’t).
Mr. Andrews, the lone Liberal on the committee, asked Mr. Carroll whether he considered the information tweeted to have been private. Mr. Carroll said he didn’t believe so. Mr. Andrews also asked Mr. Carroll how he had been personally impacted.
Conservative committee members—particularly Mr. Del Mastro who posed the majority of the government side’s questions—asked Mr. Carroll how the court documents cited in the @Vikileaks30 account were obtained, if it was common practice for the Liberals to have files on MPs and ministers, who would have been responsible for the documents, and who would have been able to access them.
NDP ethics critic Mr. Angus was vocal in objecting to the line of questioning taken by Conservative MPs, commenting that they “were on a political intelligence fishing expedition” to learn about the inner workings of the Liberal Party’s research bureau. Mr. Angus said such questions were unrelated to the committee’s study into Mr. Carroll’s use of House resources and said they were turning the meeting into “yet another of many kangaroo courts that we’ve had at the Ethics Committee.”
Mr. Del Mastro told The Hill Times the questions he and other Conservative members of the committee posed—namely, Ms. Davidson and Mr. Dreeshen—were meant to determine why the Liberal Research Bureau had the documents in the first place. He said the fact that they had them runs “completely contrary” to the apology delivered on Feb. 27 by Mr. Rae.
At the end of his testimony before the committee, Mr. Carroll said the Liberal Research Bureau had such files because the affidavits contained information that is “very relevant to the work of the House of Commons ... in particular with respect to the discussion of meal expenses.”
According to Yaroslav Baran, a principal at Earnscliffe Strategy Group in Ottawa and a former Conservative staffer who worked for several years in an OLO management position, said in his experience, bureaus are divided into two sections: policy research and opposition research.
“Opposition research would primarily collect data such as how MPs voted on specific bills and motions, conflict-of-interest issues, or public statements outside of Parliament on matters of public policy. This is a normal and necessary part of an opposition party’s function of holding a government to account. You’re really looking for hypocrisy or inconsistency—but on matters related to public office,” said Mr. Baran.
He said he’s never heard of, or seen, a research bureau gather personal and private information such as divorce records.”
“Ever,” he said, calling this “a new low.”
“Parliamentary research bureaus provide you with information. There’s dossiers on problem areas. I find it surprising that the Liberals had divorce papers. I think that’s inappropriate, but I was also quite surprised to see the Conservatives attempt to portray themselves as political virgins,” said Mr. Angus.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: LAURA RYCKEWAERT
No comments:
Post a Comment