Evidence of meeting #10 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It sounds like a little desperation on that side over there, Mr. Chair.
The letter states:
In September of 2013, in connection with your investigation, the PMO asked the PCO to make available to the RCMP the emails of certain individuals requested by the RCMP. That list included Mr. Perrin. In response to that request, we advised the PMO, who we understand informed the RCMP, that Mr. Perrin's emails had been deleted from the server and were no longer available. This advice was repeated during the email production and search process itself in mid-September 2013. We understand that last week the RCMP sought further confirmation from the PMO's counsel that Mr. Perrin's emails were not available from any other source, including from any back-ups. On November 28, 2013, the PMO relayed this request to the PCO to confirm our prior advice on the availability of Mr. Perrin's emails. In response to this inquiry, on November 29, 2013 we found that Mr. Perrin's emails had in fact been retained due to a litigation hold in an unrelated matter. On learning that Mr. Perrin's emails were in fact available, we informed the PMO on November 30, 2013. The PMO and the PCO agreed to inform you as soon as possible.
Obviously, “you” is the assistant commissioner of the RCMP:
We understand that the PMO's counsel will contact you with a view to making Mr. Perrin's emails available to you without further delay and we stand ready to assist you in any way possible. We regret that we previously failed, even if inadvertently, to accurately inform you and the PMO about the availability of Mr. Perrin's emails. We apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused. Yours truly, Isabelle Mondou.
As I said, she is the assistant secretary to the cabinet, Privy Council.
That information was, as I said, released on December 1, Mr. Chair. Later on that day when unscripted, unprompted, and presumably not beaten up by his people in the leadership of his party, the Liberal member for Wascana, Mr. Ralph Goodale, tweeted “beyond apologies to the PMO+RCMP”, so, beyond apologies to the PMO and the RCMP, “the Privy Council Office owes its biggest apology to all Canadians”.
The member for Wascana, himself a privy councillor, somebody who actually knows how government works, unlike the members opposite who have never actually served in government.... As I noted, Mr. Chair, I guess losing 16 elections straight would make me bitter, too, but thankfully, I've not had to lose 16 elections straight like the members of the NDP have. I can appreciate that they don't understand—
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
—how government actually works and how the Privy Council works, Mr. Chair. I can appreciate that, so that's why I think it's important that we take the time to do that today.
I am surprised, of course, that this motion, or parts of this motion, are not being brought forward to the other committee, government operations and estimates, as well, Mr. Chair.
I should also note, Mr. Chair, because the member for Timmins—James Bay made reference to it, on page 72 of the exact same documentation, of course, Corporal Horton's documentation says: I'm not aware of any evidence that the Prime Minister was involved in the repayment or reimbursement of money to Senator Duffy or his lawyer.
Mr. Chair, what we have here is one of two things. You would have to believe that what the NDP and the Liberals are saying, which they seem to not want to say, is that the public servants who work in the Privy Council Office and, by extension anybody else involved in this, are liars. They don't want to say that, so they try and couch it that it's the Prime Minister's Office that somehow browbeat and forced the public service into being liars.
NDP
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calandra seems to be saying that we are blaming all public sector employees. But that is completely false. We are simply asking for clarification on the protocols in place to determine if they are, indeed, being respected. We are not accusing public sector employees. We are trying to get answers to our questions, which are completely legitimate. Canadians are asking these same questions. He says that we are pointing the finger at public sector workers, but that is completely false.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
I think that's more of a point of clarification, perhaps, than a point of order.
Mr. Calandra, you have the floor.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
That's a rather long point of clarification, Mr. Chair.
Again, Mr. Chair, the member for Timmins—James Bay, in talking to the motion, alluded to how he believes that the public service surrounding the Prime Minister impeded an RCMP investigation, thereby broke the law, and therefore cannot be trusted.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the issue of breaking the law has to do with access to information. It is unlawful to delete any e-mail or document once a formal access to information request relating to the subject is received or anticipated by the department. It also states that any attempt to remove it—
Conservative
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
My colleague might not hear or he might be trying to misrepresent. The issue of breaking the law has to do with the fact that they said it's normal operating procedure to delete e-mails. That's an indictable offence.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Again, Mr. Angus, I think you're engaging in debate more than a point of order, but a clarification has been made.
Mr. Calandra, you have the floor.
Conservative
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I note the generous time you allow for points of order.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Mr. Calandra, I have to hear whether there is in fact a point of order in the intervention made by any one of our colleagues.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Sure. I'm going to make sure that I file that in my memory so that I make sure my points of order are just as clear, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that clarification.
What you'd have to then believe, Mr. Chair, and what the NDP and the Liberals are saying, is that the public service impeded a potential criminal investigation, that they deliberately hid e-mails from the RCMP, and that Ms. Mondou, I suppose, is part of a conspiracy of the public service to not only misinform the Canadian public but also to hide evidence from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Mr. Chair, I do not believe Ms. Mondou or the people who work in the Privy Council Office are criminals. I do not believe they are liars. I do not believe they impeded an RCMP investigation. I believe them when they say they made a mistake. It is clear by the documentation of Corporal Horton and the ITO, on page 21, that the Prime Minister immediately ordered the assistance of his office and immediately ordered the freezing of all e-mails associated with this. It goes on further to say:
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. The PMO has also waived solicitor-client privilege for those e-mails.
We've seen that as well.
Basically, what this motion comes down to, Mr. Chair, is a complete witch hunt of the people who worked in the public service and nothing else. They are afraid to say that.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
They are afraid to say that.
Again, as I say, I do not believe that the people who work for the House of Commons, the people who are in front of us, and the people who work in the Privy Council Office are all liars. I do not believe them to be cheaters. I do not believe them to be the type of people who would break the law. I think they deserve far more respect than the opposition are prepared to give them.
As I said earlier, Mr. Goodale, the member for Wascana, seemed to accept that premise before he got back to the House of Commons and was told to think differently, certainly not by his leader, because his leader really doesn't talk very often—
