Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 10th, 2013

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I call the meeting to order. This is the 10th meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Mr. Angus, I see you have your hand up.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, I just want to speak to the business at hand.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Well, the committee business is what we're doing first. That's correct. We'll be dealing with the witness list for our next study following this, but there are three items of committee business.

You have the floor, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have a couple of motions this morning.

Mr. Chair, I think the role of our committee in ensuring compliance with the law and the importance of access to information is one of the primary mandates of our committee. So when anyone monkey wrenches with the federal responsibilities of access to information and the maintaining of records as are the legal obligations of the government, then it is something that is really important be dealt with.

I'm very concerned about the mishmash of excuses and stories we've been given regarding Mr. Benjamin Perrin, the Prime Minister's lawyer, and what happened to his e-mails. As to the importance of these e-mails, I think everyone would agree that they are crucial for understanding the extent of the collusion and cover-up.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm reluctant to interrupt you, but technically I gave you the floor. You would have to move your motion. The motion is in order and notice has been given, but I'd ask you to move the motion and perhaps even, to set the context, you might want to read the motion into the record.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay, excellent. Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Ravignat, do you have a point of order?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I just would like to be on the speaking list.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

To be added to the speakers list is Mr. Ravignat.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

My motion states:

That, in relation to the case of public office holder Benjamin Perrin's emails in the PCO and PMO being deleted and then found, and pursuant to Standing Order l08(3)(h)(vi), the Committee undertake a study on whether government initiatives including proper protocols, legal obligations were fulfilled in this case; That the study include how governmental departments and ministries preserve all communications including but not limited to emails, text-messages, decisions, and recommendations; That the Committee invite the Information Commissioner to take part in the study to discuss her recommendation on a duty to document; That the Committee invite both the PMO officials, PCO officials and President of the Treasury Board to explain governmental protocols in relation to preserving governmental communications including Benjamin Perrin's emails; and That the committee reports its findings back to the House.

You will note that I've asked to bring in the Information Commissioner. I think the Information Commissioner will play a key role. The Information Commissioner has grown increasingly concerned about this government's interference with their legal obligations for access to information. The Information Commissioner has spoken of the need, the duty, to document, so that if e-mails or records are removed, there's an explanation, there's a trail we can find for explanation. I believe this would certainly help all of us in dealing with the issue of Mr. Benjamin Perrin.

The story that the Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary have tried to foist on Canadians is that this illegal deal that happened in the Prime Minister's Office was a private deal, that it was a gift; it was a case of Mr. Nigel Wright having a bleeding heart for a relatively onerous senator, and the two of them went off in a corner and did not tell anybody. In fact, the Prime Minister told us there was no legal agreement, and of course we now know that is not true.

We don't really know the extent of what the Prime Minister knew before May 15, but according to the RCMP affidavits, the Prime Minister must have been fully briefed after May 15. The RCMP affidavits provide a very different picture of what went down in his office than the Prime Minister has given us in the House of Commons.

What we see in the RCMP documentation is that Ben Perrin, the Prime Minister's lawyer, played the key role in setting up this legal agreement. A five-point legal agreement was put in place that was arranged between Ms. Payne, the lawyer for Mike Duffy, and the Prime Minister's lawyer. The question is how Mr. Perrin would have engaged in this if he wasn't authorized to do so. Lawyers don't just go off and cook up side deals when they're working for the Prime Minister of the country. Certainly any e-mails for Ben Perrin would tie us back to whether or not the Prime Minister was involved.

We see also from the RCMP affidavits that there is a level of secrecy and attempts to obscure any attempt to follow the trail. We have Benjamin Perrin following up an e-mail to Nigel Wright advising that Janice Payne wanted the agreement in writing. It stated: “I explained that was not happening. We aren't selling a car.... She seemed to get it...”.

Again, it raises questions. What kind of legal advice is the Prime Minister relying on when a deal is being struck that is potentially illegal and his lawyer is telling his chief adviser that we're not putting any of this in writing. We see also where Nigel Wright and Mr. Perrin are going back and forth. Again, the line is that they don't want to give Mike Duffy his marching orders through the lawyer. They don't want it in writing; they'll do it over the phone.

The five-point agreement that Mr. Perrin negotiated is the subject of a criminal investigation. When the Prime Minister's office was contacted by the RCMP, clearly the importance of those e-mails is very clear.

According to Corporal Horton, in his affidavit on page 21, when he asked about the Ben Perrin e-mails, “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, before the relation that Mr. Wright reimbursed the money to Senator Duffy. Internal practice within the PMO is that a person's account and e-mails are removed from the computer server once their employment ends.”

Corporal Horton, who is leading a criminal investigation, was told by the Prime Minister's Office that it's standard operating procedure to flush the records of the Prime Minister's lawyer the second he walks out of the building. We also see the Privy Council then is put up to parrot the same lines, where the Privy Council said in their letter to the RCMP that it is “operating protocol” to “close and delete e-mail accounts of departing employees of the PCO and the PMO as a matter of course.”

Certainly one of the reasons we want to have the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office here is to find out whether it was Ben Perrin who flushed and shredded, virtually shredded, his e-mails before he left the building, or whether it was the Privy Council who went in and did that. We also need to find out why the Privy Council would claim that it is standard operating protocol to delete e-mails of the Prime Minister's lawyer when this would be actually an indictable offence under the Access to Information Act, under obstructing right of access, section 67.1, which states:

(1) No person shall, with intent to deny a right of access under this Act, (a) destroy, mutilate or alter a record; (b) falsify a record or make a false account; (c) conceal a record; or (d) direct, propose, counsel or cause any person in any manner to do anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c). (2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment...or to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or both.

We're being told now by the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council—and my honourable colleague on the government side keeps talking about this bureaucracy. The Privy Council is the Prime Minister's operating, functioning, bureaucracy. It is his staff.

The Privy Council has a legal obligation to all Canadians to ensure that the highest standards of government are followed. We're told that they take it as a matter of course to break the law. That's a very serious claim to make. I guess they would prefer to be seen breaking the law, flushing e-mails rather than having a paper trail that ties the Prime Minister to charges of breach of trust, fraud, and bribery. We need to look at that.

We also see that the Privy Council claimed, when they were first approached by the RCMP, that the e-mails were deleted. The RCMP clearly didn't believe the Privy Council. Again I think that's extraordinary. They didn't believe that the Privy Council or the Prime Minister's Office was telling the truth because they went back to them, not once or twice, but three times and asked, “Where are those e-mails?”

I think the pressure...and this is speculation on my part, but this is why we need to bring witnesses....

We're being given two options: either the Privy Council allowed these e-mails to be flushed, or there was an attempt to obstruct a police investigation. The Privy Council said it was normal operating procedure to close a deleted e-mail account, but then the story changed and they said that Ben Perrin may have done that without authorization. Well, which is it? This is again why we need to discuss this.

The question though is when finally the Privy Council coughs up these e-mails, we won't know if these emails have been altered or interfered with. I'm hoping the RCMP will demand a forensic audit of how these e-mails came to be, because they were sitting in the Prime Minister's Office for six months, being kept from the RCMP with the possible collusion of the Privy Council. When they finally coughed them up, they said that they had been holding them all along.

Now I've heard crazy stories from the government side that well, they were on some server and somebody's backlogged, or well, you know, there are so many variations and servers we actually can't track information.

They lost the privacy data on half a million Canadians so I guess they're saying, “Hey, cut us some slack here. We lose information all the time.”

It's not credible that they lost track of the e-mails of the Prime Minister's lawyer. It's also not credible that they said they were holding them all the time, that they were frozen, as Ms. Isabelle Mondou stated, because of other litigation. The Privy Council legal department would have had an obligation to know any of the legal files that Benjamin Perrin was involved in. If they were going to hold all his e-mails on related litigation, they would have known where they were. They would have had them all the time. It's simply not credible that the second time the RCMP came, they were still claiming they didn't have them and they didn't know where they were.

Mr. Chair, we are looking at a very serious issue here. We're looking at whether or not the Access to Information Act was interfered with and undermined in a criminal manner, not by some low-level bureaucrat, not like the youngster who tried to shut off access to information. What was his name? I forget his name now.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

The dumpster diver? I don't remember his name either.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

He's lost to history.

We're talking about the senior legal department of the Prime Minister's Office being involved in potentially illegal acts to suppress information in an RCMP investigation into the Prime Minister's Office. This is something our committee needs to investigate. We need to talk about this.

I'm asking my colleagues on the other side not to continue participating in the cover-up. Don't hide this. Don't go in camera. Don't do what they did when they ordered Senator Gerstein and the crowd to shut down the Senate investigation into Runia and Gerstein.

What was being done before in the back rooms is now being done in open public, as this Prime Minister, who's very politically wounded, attempts to do anything to interfere with any process that will get to the bottom of the criminal acts that were committed in his office. I'm asking my honourable colleagues.... Their careers are on the line too. Don't go down with this Prime Minister. He's done. He's broken his trust with the Canadian people. I'm asking you. You have to go back to your voters, and some of you are going to be in it pretty tough if you have to explain why you sat in this committee meeting and went in camera and tried to shut down an investigation on whether criminal acts were being committed by your boss. Don't do it. Work with us.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Next on the speakers list is Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That ridiculous speech is exactly why a committee like this is not the appropriate place for something of this important nature, Mr. Chair. Of course, I will be voting against this motion.

First and foremost, Mr. Chair, this is a motion that belongs in front of government operations and estimates, with respect to the computer systems and e-mails of Mr. Perrin. I'll note that—

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

On a point of order, Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I'm wondering if my honourable colleague is actually challenging a ruling that this motion is in order. He seems to be thinking that this motion is not in order at this committee and should belong to another committee, but you've already pronounced that this is in order and can be before the committee.

I'm not sure about the point being made by my honourable colleague. Clearly, what he's trying to do is dodge this issue completely, and no doubt in his next breath he will propose a motion to go in camera.

It's not particularly sporting for the Christmas season to be putting into question the fact that this motion—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

In fact—

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

—is in order.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

If I could speak to that, Mr. Ravignat, as far as its being a point of order, the motion as put forward by Mr. Angus is entirely in order and within the mandate of.... This, in fact, is the access to information committee. The motion, as I read it, deals with the duty to document an element of the Access to Information Act and the duty to retain those documents, also an aspect of the Access to Information Act. So your point is well taken.

Mr. Calandra, please proceed, but with the knowledge that we are having a legitimate debate on an issue that's legitimately before us.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'm not challenging your ruling on the motion. I'm just suggesting that this is something that would be better undertaken at government operations and estimates. I note, Mr. Chair, that you were actually present when the Privy Council testified at government operations and estimates, if I'm not mistaken. I believe that was last week, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Yes, the Standing Committee on Government Operations had the PCO in to speak about their supplementary estimates.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I was told a lot of questions were asked with respect to this particular case. It is my opinion, although I'm not going to challenge the chair, that's the better place for this. Mr. Chair, as you know we of course in our throne speech identified the many different levels of computer systems, servers, e-mail accounts, the fact that each department has different systems at play, as being an issue that we wanted to try to resolve to make it much easier for the public service and for members of Parliament to do their jobs by bringing that down to one system.

I want to take a second to read the letter from Isabelle Mondou, assistant secretary to the cabinet, legal operations, dated September 1, 2013. This letter was to assistant commissioner Gilles Michaud, commanding officer, national division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Dear Assistant Commissioner Michaud:

I write to draw your attention to an issue related to the emails of former Prime Minister's Office (“PMO“) staffer Benjamin Perrin.

The Privy Council Office (“PCO“) and Shared Services Canada provide technical services to the PMO, including email and network services. It is the operating protocol of the PCO to close and delete email accounts of departing employees of the PCO and the PMO as a matter of course. Consistent with this protocol, upon Mr. Perrin's departure at the end of his employment in late March 2013, the PMO was provided a notice that his emails had been deleted from the computer server.

At the time of Nigel Wright's departure from the PMO in mid-May 2013, the PMO contacted the PCO's technical services and asked that email accounts for Mr. Wright be frozen and preserved. The request to freeze and preserve email accounts was repeated for other relevant staff, as noted in your recent ITO.

I'll take a brief second to refer to the ITO from Corporal Horton. Page 21 of the ITO states:

Rob Staley, legal representative for the PMO, advised my office that he had clear orders from the Prime Minister to provide complete cooperation with the investigation, and to provide any assistance or documentation the RCMP requested. The PMO employees (current and former) whose e-mails I deemed relevant, have all provided privacy waivers though their legal counsel, relating to the content of their e-mails.

I'm going to go back to the letter now: “In September 2013”—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We have a point of order by Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Could he read the next sentence where it says that Mr. Perrin's e-mails were deleted when he left.