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
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
To ascribe feelings or ascribe arguments to a person who is absent is not particularly sporting, nor is it particularly useful. We can't hear from that individual.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
It's more of an editorial comment than a point of order, but thank you, Mr. Ravignat.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
l'll reread Mr. Goodale's comments then, just so I make sure that I appropriately quote him. Mr. Goodale, the Liberal member of Parliament for Wascana:
Beyond apologies to the PMO+RCMP, the Privy Council Office owes its biggest apology to all Canadians.
That was exactly what Mr. Goodale said. I can read it again for you, Mr. Ravignat, if you want to make sure. Let me do that for you:
Beyond apologies to the PMO+RCMP, the Privy Council Office owes its biggest apology to all Canadians.
That was Ralph Goodale who accepted, of course—
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
What's definitely not clear is that you can extrapolate from that one quotation everything that you've actually said about what Mr. Goodale has done. I'm quite pleased to hear it again because we need to know that it has really nothing to do with the way you're arguing your point.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
In the interest of clarity perhaps, Mr. Calandra, would read it one more time.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Sure. Let me do that for you, Mr. Chair. I can read that for you again, and I'll do it slower. I understand the member might be having difficulty with the translation:
Beyond apologies to the PMO—
Mr. Goodale is suggesting here, and I'll kind of translate what he's saying:
Beyond apologies to the PMO+RCMP, the Privy Council Office owes its biggest apology to all Canadians.
Just so I can help the member and the other NDP members understand what he's saying, Mr. Goodale is saying that upon receiving the letter from Isabelle Mondou, the assistant secretary to the cabinet, and receiving the information, which of course was made public immediately, the Liberal member, Mr. Goodale, suggested that the Privy Council—this is the public service—owed an apology to the Prime Minister's Office, as well as to the RCMP.
I guess it's up to the member for Wascana to explain what happened in the 24 hours between his being in his riding and coming to the House of Commons. What changed his mind on that, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure. The hon. member sits on the same side of the House as he does and he might want to move over a couple of desks and ask him what changed his mind.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Mr. Chair, it's just because we have this information here. We have the letter from the Privy Council. We have many pages of the ITO available to us. Because of the importance of what the NDP are trying to do here, Mr. Chair.... Basically, what both the NDP and the Liberals are doing, Mr. Chair, are using their parliamentary privilege of immunity to say that these people, these public servants, are criminals.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, Mr. Calandra can live in the gutter as much as he wants, but the issue here is whether laws were broken. We're not naming any individual. Perhaps if he wants to cover up the breaking of the law, as they did with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister misleading the House and their lawyer and all the senior Conservative staff....
They shouldn't be trying to drag the civil service into their criminal activities. It's their staff. The civil service have nothing to do with it. They would not mind bringing them, but I think their concern is that if these people testify, the fingerprints might go back to where the criminal activity occurred. I think that my colleague, who is defending this criminal activity on a daily basis, needs to be honest with Canadians.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
I don't see a point of order in there, but just to focus the debate somewhat more, we should be aware that the motion we're debating calls for a study into whether government initiatives include proper protocols for the duty to document, etc. It's a more broad-reaching examination, I think, that's being asked for, about whether the policy and the protocols actually conflict with the law, with the requirements under the Access to Information Act.
I don't see any accusations of criminal activity directly in that, but both parties seem to be extrapolating a further meaning maybe than actually exists.
You still have the floor, Mr. Calandra.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't want to interrupt that long point of order and your dissertation.
I'm extrapolating from what the member for Timmins—James Bay said, Mr. Chair, in defending the need to bring this motion forward. It was actually the member for Timmins—James Bay who accused the Privy Council Office of breaking the law. It was actually the member for Timmins—James Bay who suggested that it was impeding an RCMP investigation, Mr. Chair.
It is the member for Timmins—James Bay who suggested that the professional public service, an independent public service, somehow was breaking the law and, as I said, impeding RCMP investigation. Those aren't my words, Mr. Chair, and that was in the member for Timmins—James Bay's dissertation as to why this motion would be brought forward.
On the points that you raised, Mr. Chair, as I've said earlier, I think that some of the portions of this motion are better served at the government operations and estimates committee where the Privy Council does appear, and you would know that because of course, last week, you participated in the government operations and estimates—
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
I think what we need to do is clarify the mandate of this committee, because what my honourable colleague is essentially trying to do is say that this motion belongs somewhere else.
I request from the chair that we read the mandate of this committee, that the analysts tell us what our mandate is, so that we can be clear all around the table and Canadians who are listening to us can be clear about whether or not it's the responsibility of this committee to deal with access to information and information issues. I think that's only fair.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
I take your point, and I was just talking about this with the clerk. He was pointing out to me that Mr. Angus's motion makes reference to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi), which speaks specifically to our mandate studying government initiatives. That's the language used here. Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi) is in fact: the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives which relate to access to information and privacy across all sectors of Canadian society and to ethical standards relating to public office holders;
So I think subparagraph (vi) of the standing order that is the mandate of this committee speaks directly to or uses the same language as Mr. Angus's motion, actually, so therefore it's entirely in order.
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm happy to hear that because a notice of motion that I've placed also refers to Standing Order 108, so it's very important for me to know whether or not—
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
—my motion will be relevant when it comes to the floor, will be deemed relevant and will be deemed in order—
December 10th, 2013 / 9:25 a.m.
Conservative
NDP
Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC
—given that it's dealing with some similar issues, particularly access to e-mails and PINs and the right of Canadians to know that information.
