Con Senators hoisted by their own petards

... in which Conservative Senators harangue Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand for answers that he is no longer able to deliver because the Con's Fair Elections Act removed Elections Canada's Commissioner from Elections Canada and placed him under the aegis of the Public Prosecutors Office where Mayrand is not privy to its investigations.

Elections Canada CEO Mayrand had barely begun giving the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs his report on the last federal election when the Chair interrupts and asks him to wrap it up because they have many questions - questions propelled, it is explained, by the particular interest of Senator Linda Frum. Oh goodie.

Con Senator Daniel Lang: "Registered third parties. Can you confirm that registered political parties are not allowed to accept money from foreign donors over the course of an election?"

Mayrand : You have to be a Canadian citizen.

Lang : We have now seen that third parties can do much more than political parties, such as raising money from foreign interests in the U.S. and elsewhere to influence public policy and elections in Canada. This past election, registered third parties like Dogwood Initiative and LeadNow have publicly admitted that they receive foreign moneys, run campaigns, even published pushpolls under your interpretation of the act as I understand it. All they can't do is advertise over a set amount during the writ. Can you tell me was it the intention of the Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court to allow third parties to actively campaign prior to and during elections?

Mayrand : Within certain limits and spending caps, third parties, provided they register if they spend more than $500, are allowed to do advertising during the campaign. That is specifically provided for in the legislation. 

Lang : So a registered third party during a political campaign, except for a restricted area, can accept foreign money to help run and be involved in a campaign?

Mayrand : They can.

Lang : It has come to my attention that there are a number of these third party registered organizations, who it would appear have been willfully circumventing the Elections Act or acting as a party to circumvent the Act. Can you tell us up to now how many complaints you have received from Canadians, or have you received complaints from Canadians or from political parties related to third party groups and third party advertising, and if so, how many are you actually investigating?

Mayrand : Complaints would have been directed to the Commissioner of Canada's Elections who is tasked with assuring compliance with those provisions, so I would not be aware of the type of complaints the Commissioner has received. 

Lang : So this wouldn't be discussed with you? Because it seems rather strange it wouldn't be. 

Mayrand : With the separation of the offices, we can no longer have those type of discussions so I am not aware of what type of feedback, comments, or complaints that the Commissioner would have received in this matter. 

Lang : What I don't understand is why you wouldn't be aware this type of thing was occurring. In your report you talk about investigations, you talk about contraventions of the Elections Act ...

Mayrand : These are files that were referred during the election by my office, matters brought to my attention mostly by Canadians during the election - allegations that could potentially be an offence - and in that case I can refer the matter to the Commissioner. But I have no sense what the Commissioner or how he will handle those files. He will handle them according to his own protocols, and I am not aware of complaints that are directly addressed to the Commissioner.

Lang : So when are you made aware?

Mayrand : Only if Canadians bring something to my attention, and if it actually raises a matter of potential offence to the Act, then I will refer it to the Commissioner. It's not a two-way communication process. 

Lang : So for the record you have no knowledge of what I just asked.

Mayrand : Not with respect to what is the Commissioner's.



I imagine that Senator Lang had forgotten all about how their party's 2006 Accountability Act removed Elections Canada's power to compel testimony and documents from witnesses, legislation which I'm guessing would be useful if, say, EC wanted to investigate the alleged registered third party election violations that have Senators Lang and Frum so up in arms. 

The senators also seem to have forgotten that, under the pretence of combatting non-existent voter fraud by electors, the Con's Fair Elections Act moved Elections top cop the Commissioner out of Elections Canada and into the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, so Mayrand isn't privy to its investigations and consequently can't answer or act on the Senators' questions.

Well played, guys.  

And so it went for an hour and forty minutes with the Conservative Senators led by Linda Frum and Daniel Lang badgering Mayrand for answers and opinions about LeadNow and Dogwood Institute expenses, as well as their funding received outside the writ period and therefore outside his jurisdiction. 

Senator Frum was particularly exercised about "an organization in the US that is against pipelines" providing funding to third parties in Canada to hold rallies and music concerts and tell people not to vote for Harper.  

She then brought up Harper v. Canada, the 2004 Supreme Court challenge launched by Stephen Harper as head of the National Citizens Coalition. He sought to strike down Canada Elections Act's legal spending limits on third party advertising during elections. Harper lost that case and Canada was spared much of what became Citizens United five years later in the US. 

I'm not sure in Senator Frum's party shoes that I would have brought that one up.


This week the Liberals repealed much of the Fair Elections Act but media reports that it is dead are somewhat exaggerated. The Liberals have yet to return to Elections Canada either their former independence or their investigative powers taken away under Harper. 

And finally, several Conservative senators pressed Mayrand to agree that given the 2015 Federal Election had the highest voter turnout in years, that it must mean the Fair Elections Act had done its job. 

Words fail me ...
.

Harper's Perps with Perks #16

Senator Don "U So Hot" Meredith - Harper Senate appointee, one-time failed Con Party candidate, family values guy and ordained Pentecostal Minister - is all about the youth...

Teen alleges two-year affair with Senator Don Meredith

From Senator Don Meredith's Conservative Party of Canada bio :

"A passionate champion of youth empowerment, in 2002, he co-founded the Greater Toronto Faith Alliance Centre where he continues to serve as volunteer Executive Director to engage, encourage and empower marginalized youth ..." 

From Senator Don Meredith's Senate mission statement :

"One of my major Senate visionary objectives is to encourage development of national strategies for overcoming the alienation of our young people and preparing them for significant family, community and leadership roles. Much of my work in Toronto, as a business person, community advocate and pastor has focused on initiatives involving youth and I hope my Senate work will be a means to encourage leadership in this area across Canada."

Harper's Perps with Perks: Boxed Set!  
As seen on TV!   Get yours while supplies last!   Offer void where prohibited. Some age restrictions may apply. 
.

Bill C-51 Senate Perp Walk of Shame

The Red Chamber of Sober Second Expense Accounts passed the anti-terrorism Bill C-51 by 44 votes to 28 yesterday. 

Below find those 44 Con Senators who voted YEA - along with their contact info/bios/pix - because I don't think these fine folks are well enough known to Canadians. You'll note some of them will still be in the Senate 30 years from now. 
All but three were appointed by Harper - two were appointed by Mulroney and one by Paul Martin. 

A full seven out of the 30 Harper's Perps with Perks are senators.

Name&contact info - Party affiliation - Appointed by - Province - Term of office

Ataullahjan, Salma  CON - Harper - Ontario - 2010 to 2027

Batters, Denise  CON - Harper - Saskatchewan - 2013 to 2045

Bellemare, Diane  CON - Harper - Quebec - 2012 to 2024

Beyak, Lynn  CON - Harper - Ontario - 2013 to 2024

Black, Douglas  CON - Harper - Alberta - 2013 to 2027

Carignan, Claude  CON - Harper - Quebec - 2009 to 2039

Dagenais, Jean-Guy  CON - Harper - Quebec - 2012 to 2025

Doyle, Norman E   CON - Harper - Nfld Labrador - 2012 to 2020

Eaton, Nicole   CON - Harper - Ontario - 2009 to 2020

Enverga, Tobias  CON - Harper - Ontario - 2012 to 2030

Fortin-Duplessis, Suzanne  CON - Harper - Quebec - 2009 to 2015

Frum, Linda  CON - Harper - Ontario - 2009 to 2038

Gerstein, Irving   CON - Harper - Ontario - 2009 to 2016

Greene, Stephen   CON - Harper - Nova Scotia - 2009 to 2024

Lang, Daniel  CON - Harper - Yukon - 2009 to 2023

LeBreton, Marjory  CON - Mulroney - Ontario - 1993 to 2015

MacDonald, Michael  CON - Harper - Nova Scotia - 2009 to 2030

Maltais, Ghislain  CON - Harper - Quebec - 2012 to 2019

Manning, Fabian  CON - Harper - Nfld Labrador- 2011 to 2039

Marshall, Elizabeth  CON - Harper - Nfld Labrador - 2010 to 2026

Martin, Yonah   CON - Harper - British Columbia - 2009 to 2040

McInnis, Thomas  CON - Harper - Nova Scotia - 2012 to 2020

McIntyre, Paul  CON - Harper - New Brunswick - 2012 to 2019

Mockler, Percy  CON - Harper - New Brunswick - 2009 to 2024

Nancy Ruth  CON - Martin (Lib)- Ontario - 2005 to 2017 

Neufeld, Richard  CON - Harper - British Columbia - 2009 to 2019

Ngo, Thanh Hai  CON - Harper - Ontario - 2012 to 2022

Ogilvie, Kelvin   CON - Harper - Nova Scotia - 2009 to 2017

Oh, Victor  CON - Harper - Ontario - 2013 to 2024

Patterson, Dennis  CON - Harper - Nunavut - 2009 to 2023

Plett, Donald  CON - Harper - Manitoba - 2009 to 2025

Poirier, Rose-May   CON - Harper - New Brunswick - 2010 to 2029

Raine, Nancy Greene  CON - Harper - British Columbia - 2009 to 2018

Rivard, Michel   CON - Harper - Quebec - 2009 to 2016

Runciman, Bob  CON - Harper - Ontario - 2010 to 2017

Seidman, Judith  CON - Harper - Quebec - 2009 to 2025

Smith, Larry  CON - Harper - Quebec - 2011 to 2026

Stewart Olsen, Carolyn  CON - Harper - New Brunswick - 2009 to 2021

Tannas, Scott  CON - Harper - Alberta - 2013 to 2037

Tkachuk, David  CON - Mulroney - Saskatchewan - 1993 to 2020

Unger, Betty   CON - Harper - Alberta - 2012 to 2018

Wallace, John D.  CON - Harper - New Brunswick - 2009 to 2024

Wells, David M.  CON - Harper - Nfld Labrador - 2013 to 2037

White, Vernon  CON - Harper - Ontario - 2012 to 2034

Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, and Pamela Wallin didn't vote of course.

Here are the 28 Liberal senators who voted against the bill in the Senate, as opposed to the 33 Liberal MPs who voted for it at final reading in the House of Commons.


Although the Senate records "nil abstentions", Con Senators Raynell Andreychuk, Jacques Demers, Janis G.Johnson, Don Meredith, and Josée Verner did not vote ; 
nor did Liberal Senators George Baker, Colin Kenny, and Terry Mercer.

Open Media : Bill C-51 Just passed. Where do we go from here?

Fingus : How the Senate's failure to provide any second thought on C-51 may serve as the ultimate signal that it has nothing useful to offer Canadians.

Akin : Deafening disrespect of aggrieved senators

Update : Dear Open Media : In your Heroes and Zeros list, your attribution of Rivard and Larry Smith as Liberals is incorrect. They are Cons and were appointed by Harper in 2009 and 2011 respectively.
..

Monster in the Red Chamber

The monster Fair Elections Act, with its "sharper teeth, longer reach, and freer hands", is being fast-tracked to the Senate even before it passes in the House of Commons because Steve is in a huge rush to ram it - and its accompanying muzzling of Elections Canada's investigation into Con election fraud in the last election - through all the hoops in time for the next one in 2015.

If the senators here look fairly relaxed about having a monster in their midst, it's because they already know how this particular story ends. This is the same bunch, after all, who just three months ago voted 51- 30 against having Deloitte partner Michael Runia testify about a phone call he received from his contact Senator Irving Gerstein amid PMO interference in Deloitte's audit into Senator Mike Duffy.

Senator Claude Carignan, Con leader of the Red Chamber of sober second pre-thought, thinks it's "a very good bill" : 

“I don’t think the comments from the experts are appropriate,” he said. 

Some of the urgent changes "have to be adopted at the end of June if we want to have [them] in application for the next election.”

Yesterday Pierre Poilievre, addressed the Conservative senators in a private caucus meeting. CBC reported what the Con senators told them about it afterwards in what they termed an "Exclusive!" :

"Conservative sources in the Senate tell the CBC's Hannah Thibedeau and Rosemary Barton that Pierre Poilievre, minister of state for democratic reform, is open to changing the section of Bill C-23 that would eliminate the practice of vouching at polling stations."

Even if this second hand info is true - Big whoop.

Con Negotiating 101 : 

1. Stick way more than you expect to get passed in a real stinker of a reactionary bill that, in addition to killing off vouching, includes 

• gagging the head of Elections Canada; 
• refusing him the power to compel testimony from suspected fraudsters; 
• stopping EC projects to encourage voting; 
• moving the investigator's office under Peter MacKay; 
• giving national and local party winners of the previous election the right to nominate the returning officers and poll clerks for the next election
• not including fundraising to previous supporters as a campaign expense; and 
• raising campaign donation limits from $1000 to $5000 and $25,000. 

2. Be totally intractable about considering any changes at all - very important step.

3. When all the experts - including your own, international press, and even the editorial board of the Globe and Mail, which has endorsed Harper in every election, thinks the bill should be outright scrapped -

G&M : The Fair Elections Act: Kill this bill and If evidence voted, this bill would die -

it's time to simulate some good faith by giving way on one point to stem the outcry, thereby looking like you have caved a bit to opposition while still getting most of your boatload of backward bs past them.

Thursday Update : Hill Times : 

Mr. Poilievre indicated on Wednesday that reports might have been incorrect to indicate he was open to amendments—at least to replace vouching with a new system for electors without sufficient ID rather than offering no special measures at all.“I’ll let you know in a month when the committee actually reviews its amendments,” Mr. Poilievre told reporters. “And I think the bill’s terrific the way it is ...".

Toon monster in the Senate based on Ghostbusters character.

.

"Black shroud of secrecy" Walk of Shame

Yesterday, led by Harper's Parliamentary Secretary Paul Calandra, all seven Con MPs on the Ethics Committee voted to go in camera so the Canadian public wouldn't see them vote against conducting an investigation into what happened to those disappearing/reappearing emails of former PMO legal advisor Ben Perrin in the Senate scandal. 

This is the Ethics Committee, the Ethics Committee, and the Con members didn't want to be seen publicly covering up for the PMO.
With a majority on committee, their motion to hide out in what committee chair Pat Martin called "the black shroud of secrecy" passed 7-4. 



Chair Pat Martin : 

"I am struggling to see what possible justification, Mr. Calandra, you could have for asking this particular item of business to be moved in camera. The in-camera rule, as I understand it, is that it's to be used in cases of national security, invasion of privacy, commercial interests. It's not supposed to be the default position to save embarrassment to the government. 

[The public] have a right to know what their legislators are doing, and they have a right to know how their legislators are voting."

 Shame on all of those Cons above. 


A second black shroud of secrecy was revealed today by anonymous Hill whistleblower, Nanker Phelge - a lifetime Conflict of Interest, Loyalty, and Confidentiality Agreement gagging government staffers from ever disclosing what goes on in their ministry, even though their MPs are not similarly gagged.

Staffers must sign it in order to receive pay increases. At least one has refused so far : 

Self-muzzled Con MPs on the Ethics Committee at top, take note : This is what integrity looks like.

Perhaps we should drop them all a line reminding them about that :

paul.calandra@parl.gc.ca    jacques.gourde@parl.gc.ca   colin.mayes@parl.gc.ca    
earl.dreeshen@parl.gc.ca   John.Carmichael@parl.gc.ca   pat.davidson@parl.gc.ca
tilly.oneillgordon@parl.gc.ca

.
Thursday Update : And on twitter :
https://twitter.com/PaulCalandra     https://twitter.com/JacquesGourde 
https://twitter.com/earl_dreeshen    https://twitter.com/JohnBCarmichael         
.

"A special committee that will have the right Senators on board"

Yesterday in the House, Stephen Harper publicly backed the Senate's decision not to hear testimony from Michael Runia, the Deloitte auditor who allegedly intervened in the audit into Mike Duffy’s expenses at the behest of ConFund Senator Irving Gerstein and the Prime Minister’s Office.

I doubt there's anyone left who imagines the Senate's decision on Wedneday was achieved independently of Steve's input and there's two excellent columns from Tim Harper and Murray Dobbin on that below.

But there's one email from Nigel Wright to PMO Manager of Parliamentary Affairs Patrick Rogers I haven't seen mentioned anywhere that really defines the PMO's control of the Senate. 
You will recall Rogers was the guy who got the call on Deloitte from Gerstein and reported "The Senator will call back once we have Deloitte locked in" and then correctly *predicted* their $500K audit on Duffy's residence would be a bust.

A few days after Nigel Wright's request to Senate Leader Marjory LeBreton in February that

"all unilateral action from that office cease before being cleared with me" 

and just before his remarks that 

"have to do this in a way that does not lead to the Chinese water torture of new facts in the public domain that the PM does not want..." 

is this blunt assumption of the PMO's right to have Senate committees appointed to do their bidding. Nigel Wright (page 26):

 "Patrick, we are going to need to manage the briefing of the Conservative Senators (including, hopefully Chair) of the Committee. If the Rules and Procedures committee doesn't have the right membership, then the Senate by motion should constitute a special committee that will have the right Senators on board."

So bearing that in mind ...

Tim Harper : Senate scandal: A cover-up in broad daylight

Conservatives circle the wagons to keep Michael Runia and Irving Gerstein silent, raising questions about how much damage the duo could do.

Murray Dobbin : Why Tories Are So Afraid of What Deloitte’s Runia Might Testify

.

Your daily Senate shenanigans

Today the Senate voted 51- 30 against having Deloitte partner Michael Runia testify about Senator Irving Gerstein's phone call to Runia amid PMO interference in Deloitte's audit into Senator Duffy.

Background : PMO Manager of Parliamentary Affairs Patrick Rogers on March 8, as per the RCMP ITO: 

"Senator Gerstein has just called. He agrees with our understanding of the situation and his Deloitte contact [Runia] agrees. The stage we 're at now is waiting for the Senator's contact to get the actual Deloitte auditor on the file to agree. The Senator will call back once we have Deloitte locked in."

All the Con senators voted against hearing from Runia because as one explained ... wait for it ... "it might interfere with an ongoing police investigation."

Con Senator Vern White, former Ottawa police chief : "The timing is wrong right now."

Ok, Senators, what is it the right time for then?

Senate plans to probe CBC operations

"The Senate is planning a comprehensive review of the CBC's role in Canadian society, examining how it has used billions of dollars in government subsidies received over the years.

With the Senate’s credibility on the line due to the ongoing spending scandal, Dawson explained that all senators had extra motivation to deliver a well-researched review."

Bonus Senate bs : Earlier today, Senator Gerstein, chair of the Senate banking committee, ruled "out of order" a request that he step down as chair of the Senate banking committee.

.
Thursday update : Harper rejects calls for Parliament to hear more from Duffy witnesses

"Stephen Harper says there’s no need to hear an explanation from a Deloitte auditor who allegedly intervened in an independent audit into Mike Duffy’s expenses at the behest of the Conservatives’ top fundraiser and the Prime Minister’s Office."

Senate scandal : A cover-up in broad daylight.
.

Perrin Emails Found Behind Couch!

.

 "We are good to go from the PM once Ben [Perrin] has confirmation from [Mr. Duffy’s lawyer]" would seem to be a good place to start.

PMO recovers ex-legal adviser’s e-mails on Duffy affair

Senate scandal: Benjamin Perrin's PMO emails not deleted

.

Senate shits the bed, goes back to sleep

Last night's CBC At Issue panel, Nov.28 2013 on the Senate blocking a witness and the PMO continuing to run the Senate. Former Harper supporter Andrew Coyne is beyond disgusted. 

Mansbridge : The government blocks a key witness [Michael Runia, Managing Partner at Deloitte] from appearing before a senate committee to answer questions about whether he had tried to massage or even question the firm's audit of Mike Duffy's expenses.

Andrew Coyne : It's incredible. Step back from this. This is the auditing firm Deloitte that does the audits for the Conservative fundraising arm; they are also the recipient of millions of dollars in federal contracts. They are given this contract to investigate Mike Duffy's expenses by the Tory-dominated committee and there's all kinds of interference reported in the RCMP doc where they're calling them up to ask them how it's going; they're trying to influence it; Duffy's not talking to them et cetera.
At the centre of it is this fellow Michael Runia, who was the point man, the contact with Senator [Irving] Gerstein. We hear during today's testimony from the three auditors involved in the audit, he was in fact making these very inappropriate phone calls - they had to cut him off.

Just when you think ok that's the next step -clearly they'll call him as the next witness - they have a vote and vote not to call him. It's staggering. You cannot believe they would be that brazen about it."

No?  It was the last act on the last day in office before retirement for Gerald Comeau, Con chair of the Senate's internal economy committee, a position he was hastily shoehorned into following the departure of the former disgraced chair, David Tkachuk. Comeau shepherded his little Senate flock into voting against a motion to even hear from Gerstein's contact at Deloitte, longtime Con supporter and Deloitte partner Michael Runia.

Flashback to early March ...

PMO Manager of Parliamentary Affairs Patrick Rogers on March 8, as per the RCMP ITO: 

"Senator Gerstein has just called. He agrees with our understanding of the situation and his Deloitte contact [Runia] agrees. The stage we 're at now is waiting for the Senator's contact to get the actual Deloitte auditor on the file to agree. The Senator will call back once we have Deloitte locked in."

Then, 13 days later on March 21, Patrick Rogers makes a prediction weeks before the Deloitte audit is sent to the Senate [bold : mine]: 

"Deloitte can 't reach a conclusion on residency because lawyer has not provided them anything. This is despite their attempts use "public information" about residency. Their report will state that lawyer did not provide information when requested. They were asked to complete the work by the end of March and plan to.

I would propose that the Senator [Duffy] continue to not engage with Deloitte. I believe that we should make arrangements for repayment knowing that Deloitte will not say one way or another on his residency. If asked following the report why he did not participate with Deloitte the Senator [Duffy] can say because he had already made the decision to repay the money and as he said at the time, he looked forward to moving on. It is then up to our esteemed Senators on the committee and our Senate leadership to move on.

And voilà - everything Patrick Rogers predicted before the Deloitte report was tabled came true and the "esteemed senators" are indeed desperately trying to "move on", including refusing to hear witnesses in the Senate, after first having Writewashed the Deloitte audit.

Mansbridge : We should mention that in the end, nothing was done to the Audit. There was no inappropriate ... the ethical wall wasn't breached.

Coyne, somewhat snidely : So Deloitte says.

Exactly.


It was Steve's PMO legal counsel Benjamin Perrin who asked Senator Irving Gerstein to work his contacts at Deloitte over the audit. Perrin returned to his job teaching law at UBC in April after all his emails in the PMO were erased, according to the RCMP.

PMO staffer Patrick "This is epic. Montgomery is the Problem" Rogers has since been removed from the immediate line of fire to Heritage Minister Shelly Glover's office.

Senator Irving Gerstein is still sitting in the Senate and is still in charge of the Conservative Fund Canada. When questioned about his bagman's leading role in all this, Steve - the Accountability Firewall Guy continues to refuse to say his name out loud in Parliament. 

.

Steve - the Accountability Firewall Guy

2006 Conservative Party Campaign Ad on Accountability

Interviewer : How is it that hundreds of millions of dollars go missing and no one's in jail?
Harper : Well, look who's in charge. I mean these guys can't even tell the difference between Wright and wrong. 

Interviewer : Ok, we've got a question ... "It's like you get to Ottawa and no one can touch you. How will you change that?"
Harper : You change the people in charge but you also have to change the system. The first thing I'll do is pass the Federal Accountability Act. It's a real plan to clean up government.

Now : Tory changes to accountability rules leave Harper blameless in Duffy affair

When the Conservatives first took power in 2006, Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State said that ministers were responsible for “the actions of all officials under their management and direction, whether or not the ministers had prior knowledge.” ***

But a version of the guidelines from 2011 says: “Ministerial accountability to Parliament does not mean that a minister is presumed to have knowledge of every matter that occurs within his or her department or portfolio, nor that the minister is necessarily required to accept blame for every matter.”

Whew - lucky for Steve, huh? 
Six of his own closest staffers he hired himself - staffers we did not elect and who are not answerable to us - variously colluded in a plot the RCMP allege involved bribery, fraud, and breach of public trust, all while supposedly managing to keep Steve completely out of the loop about it. And according to the revised Accountability Act rules, that isn't his responsibility! 

Presumably this also explains Steve's new mantra in the House of Commons when questioned about the actions of any of those staffers : "There are only two people under investigation."

"Not actually a convicted felon" - it's the new standard for the Federal Accountability Act.


*** The Cons worked this first version to avoid accountability also.
In 2010 - back when parliamentary committees actually worked - the Ethics Committee was investigating  "allegations of systematic political interference by ministers' offices to block, delay, or obstruct the release of information to the public" by political staffers. 
[In those days it was still considered an anomaly to have hired shortpantsers running the government.]
i.e. A gov dept would authorize the release of a document to the public and a Con political staffer would be sent down to retrieve it before it could be released. 
When said staffers were summoned before committees as witnesses to be questioned about it, John Baird or Pierre Poilievre would show up in their place under the guise of "ministerial responsibility for staffers" and run interference on the staffer's behalf.
.

Senate scandal : the missing emails

Here's RCMP Cpl. Greg Horton explaining why he does not have access to the emails of Stephen Harper's personal PMO legal counsel Ben Perrin who handled the negotiations for the Duffy/Wright cheque deal with Duffy's lawyer Janice Payne:

I was advised that the e-mails of Benjamin Perrin were no longer available because he completed his tenure at the PMO in April 2013.

The emails were deleted mere weeks after they were written and a month before the Duffy deal went public because, as it happens, that's apparently standard practice for a departing employee.

How is that even credible?

Harper's dcomm Jason MacDonald explains : 

"Under the guidelines the Treasury Board has, the individual is required to distinguish between what should be considered a permanent document that should be preserved and what's a transitory document, as they call it, and can be deleted, and the onus is on the individual to make that distinction."

So it was up to Perrin to decide what to delete? Really?

Former HoC law clerk Rob Walsh :

"I just don't understand how any regime regarding documentation relating to an employee who is departing can leave it to the departing employee to decide which documents shall remain available to the employer and which shall not. I just don't understand it."

It seems quite mad really, as it could theoretically encourage the practice of hiring shortpantsers on the taxpayers' dime, after which all written evidence of whatever nefarious schemes they were asked to perpetrate could be erased. 

Law prof Amir Attaran has laid a complaint of professional misconduct with the law societies of BC and Ontario re Perrin and Payne, and also he raises this important point :

Horton writes that that the prime minister’s office waived solicitor-client privilege for those emails. That doesn’t mean that the prime minister has also waived privilege, Attaran points out. “The wording of the ITO is that PMO has waived privilege, not that the PM has.”
That may be relevant, he said, because Perrin may have had a “joint retainer,” meaning that he may have had both the office and the prime minister as his clients.

Perrin is mentioned over 30 times in the allegations of the RCMP affidavit, and while Horton states Perrin was not involved in Wright's decision to cut Duffy a cheque, these excerpts give an indication of what we might be missing in Perrin's missing emails :

Nigel Wright decided that he would personally cover the cost of reimbursing Senator Duffy. After back and forth negotiations between Janice Payne and Benjamin Perrin (legal counsel within the PMO) terms of the agreement were set.

Mr. Perrin became involved after the February 19, 2013, exchange when Senator Duffy asked for the name of a legal representative who his lawyer could communicate with. Thereinafter, Janice Payne and Benjamin Perrin communicated on this matter; Mr. Perrin was aware of Mr. Wright's personal decision to pay the money, but was in no way involved in the decision. 

Mr. Wright was not happy with Senator Duffy, and was no longer wishing to debate the matter. He told Senator Duffy that from that point on they will deal lawyer to lawyer on the matter (Payne and Perrin);

On February 21, Janice Payne sent an e-mail to Benjamin Perrin requesting media lines
On February 21, Janice Payne sent an e-mail to Benjamin Perrin with a list of 5 conditions or demands Benjamin Perrin followed up with an e-mail to Nigel Wright advising that Janice Payne wanted the agreement in writing, and stated, "I explained that was not happening. We aren't selling a car or settling a lawsuit here. She seemed to get it eventually."

On March 1, Janice Payne e-mailed Benjamin Perrin for an update on Senator Duffy being withdrawn from the Deloitte audit.

On March 5, Janice Payne e-mailed Benjamin Perrin and Arthur Hamilton (Conservative Party lawyer) seeking advice.

On March 20, after sending an e-mail to Benjamin Perrin and Arthur Hamilton about the Deloitte process, Janice Payne sent an e-mail to Senator Tkachuk seeking confirmation that the audit would be called off upon repayment.

On March 23, Janice Payne e-mailed Benjamin Perrin and stated: "Ben, yesterday we discussed the Senator sending a cheque to Deloitte with a letter explaining our position that the ongoing review should now be moot. I am preparing such a letter." She then sent Mr. Perrin a draft of the letter she intended to send to Deloitte, and solicited comments from Mr. Perrin and Nigel Wright.

Nigel Wright responded to Benjamin Perrin: think that this is perfectly fine (and I resist making minor suggestions since I would prefer to be able to answer, if necessary, that PMO did not write it)

In an earlier e-mail to Benjamin Perrin, Nigel Wright stated: think her approach works. I will send my cheque on Monday.

On March 24, Janice Payne sent an e-mail to Benjamin Perrin stating that Senator Duffy . .. asks for assurance that should any Senator seek his removal, the Gov 't leader in the Senate will urge her caucus to vote against such a motion

On March 26, Benjamin Perrin received an e-mail from Janice Payne's office stating "we have just sent the cheque to Senator Tkachuk by courier".

And then Mr. Perrin, along with all his emails, was gone.  Image from CTV.

.
Dec 2 Update : Well, wouldn't you know it? They'd just fallen down the back of the couch.
Dec 5 Update : ITO contains 24 references to PMO legal counsel, Benjamin Perrin, dating from the time Mr. Wright began arranging a plan to end the controversy over Sen. Duffy’s expenses until it was completed.
.