Refusal to reveal cost of Elections Canada split sparks more questions

Two opposition MPs have joined the call for the government to reveal thecostof last spring's changes to Canada's election laws, including the final price tag for movingthe federalelectionswatchdoginto his new digs withinthe Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

• Tories refuse to reveal cost for splitting up Elections Canada

Earlier this week, the Canadian Press reported that an access-to-information request seeking more details of the logistics behind thetransferhad beendenied on the grounds that the answer constituted a "cabinet confidence."

On Tuesday, New Democrat MP Charlie Angus and Liberal MP Scott Simms submitted separate but similar written requests for the informationto the parliamentary order paper.

Angushas asked forthe "full itemized cost" of implementing the Fair Elections Act, including but presumably not limited to hiving offthe commissioner's office from Elections Canada.

Simms, meanwhile,wants the government to provide a fullbreakdown ofexpenditures both incurred and future by date and department, the details of any and all correspondence related to the move and a full explanation of what, if any, benefits the government expects as a result of the change.

The government will have 45 days to respond.

Minister says no cost so far

Unlike access-to-information requests, written questions are notsubject totherestrictions of either the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act. There is, however, no avenue of appeal for MPs left unsatisfied by a particular response.

Minister of State for Democratic Reform Pierre Poilievre fielded questionson theinitial refusal to release thecostsin the House on Tuesday.

In response to New Democrat MP Alexandrine Latendresse, he said the move "has not actually occurred," and, as a result, "there have been no costs" thus far.

His answersparked a follow-up from Latendresses's fellow New Democrat, Charlie Angus.

"If there had been no costs, they would have released that, would they not?" he argued.

"Just because something is embarrassing to the minister does not mean that he gets to hide behind access to information."

Poilievre acknowledged that the move will eventually cost "some money," but declined to give a figure.

"When the commissioner is housed in a new facility, that facility will have to be rented from somebody," heexplained.

"At this point, that move has not occurred. As a result, the costs have not been incurred."

The full text of the written questions submitted by Angus and SImms:

Q-743 October 7, 2014 Mr. Simms (BonavistaGanderGrand FallsWindsor) With regard to the migration of the Elections Commissioner to the Director of Public Prosecutions: (a) what are the total costs which have been incurred, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) dollar cost, (iii) purpose, (iv) date; (b) what are the total additional costs anticipated, broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) dollar cost, (iii) purpose, (iv) anticipated date; (c) what are the details of any correspondence, memos, notes, emails, or other communications in any way regarding the transition or move, broken down by (i) relevant file numbers, (ii) correspondence or file type, (iii) subject, (iv) date, (v) purpose, (vi) origin, (vii) intended destination, (viii) other officials copied or involved; and (d) what benefit does the government anticipate from these expenditures? Q-745 October 7, 2014 Mr. Angus (TimminsJames Bay) With respect to the implementation of the recently passed Bill C-23: (a) what was the full itemized cost of implementing the Bill, particularly regarding the recent transfer of the Commissioner of Election Canadas operations to the Director of Public Prosecutions; (b) what was the full itemized cost of implementing this move; and (c) what are the details regarding all briefing materials on the cost and logistics of this transfer?