International Co-operation Minister Julian Fantino in his office on Parliament Hill, Monday December 3, 2012.Fred Chartrand/The Globe and Mail
International Development Minister Julian Fantino's office has said it had nothing to do with the posting of two partisan letters to a government website — but new documents appear to contradict that statement.
On Jan. 12, a series of opinion pieces penned by Fantino appeared on the Canadian International Development Agency website. Two of them included political content, with the titles "Dear NDP: CIDA does not need your economic advice," and "Liberals make promises, Conservatives get results."
A few days later, when media and the opposition began to question the propriety of putting partisan material on a federal government website, the letters were quickly taken down.
Fantino's spokespeople blamed bureaucrats at the time, suggesting they posted the partisan letters by mistake after being asked to put some of his opinion pieces online.
"CIDA was asked to add appropriate web content and these were posted in error. CIDA has been asked to remove them immediately," Meagan Murdoch said on Jan. 15.
But emails released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act show that Jo-Ann Purcell, a CIDA employee who worked directly inside Fantino's office, was in the loop on the web content. Purcell acted as the main liaison between the department and the minister.
"Can you let me know what format/section of CIDA's website these will be posted on? If possible, can you send a mock-up before posting all of them?" Purcell, then the senior departmental assistant in the minister's office, asked in a Jan. 3 email with the subject line "Ministerial editorials."
Part of Purcell's email was withheld under the Access to Information Act because it apparently contained advice, recommendations, consultations and/or deliberations with officials or the minister. An email that followed directly afterward was also withheld for the same reasons.
Few additional details were forthcoming Wednesday from the minister's office.
"CIDA was asked to add appropriate web content," Murdoch said in an emailed statement that echoed her Jan. 15 reaction. "Two items were posted by officials in error. CIDA was asked to remove them immediately and they did."
In the documents, bureaucrats told Purcell that the nine selected articles would have to go through a translation process. The minister's office was then asked which order to put the articles in: "Would OMINE (the minister's office) have a preference?"
On the day they went online, Jan. 12, Purcell wrote to the president of CIDA and other senior officials telling them "all" the material had been posted.
"OMINE (minister's office) aware," Purcell wrote, pasting links to the website.
Three days later, when media began questioning the letters on Twitter and calling CIDA, Purcell told confused bureaucrats to remove all the content from the web.
Officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat, which oversees the rules on non-partisan communications in the government, immediately got involved. Bureaucrats from the Privy Council Office — the prime minister's department — had their hands in the communications response to media outlets.
And there seemed to be some concern from the Privy Council Office about just how much the minister's office knew.
"We also need the email that was sent to the minister's office advising them of this posting on Saturday," wrote one PCO official.
A copy of Purcell's redacted email of Jan. 3 was forwarded to the Privy Council in response.