Correct.
Evidence of meeting #113 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #113 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A video is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
This is what you said in that second letter to the U.K. people: “We are not subject to the jurisdiction of your office”.
Can you explain to me how that statement is co-operative?
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I know that. I didn't say you are. I am asking how it is co-operative. Then could you tell me how it is “entirely” co-operative?
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
It's true. I know that. That's not what I asked you, though. Let's answer my question this time. How is that statement co-operative?
10:05 a.m.
Chief Operating Officer, AggregateIQ
We're just providing our perspective on what they're asking.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
10:05 a.m.
Chief Operating Officer, AggregateIQ
As part of the whole letter, yes, I think it is.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Okay, I'll read another sentence of the letter. You answer none of her questions, but you're co-operating and you're “entirely” co-operating. That's what you told us right now, today.
10:05 a.m.
Chief Operating Officer, AggregateIQ
Sorry, you said that we answered none?
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
In that letter, you answered none of her questions. You ended the letter: “We consider our involvement in your office's investigation to be closed.” In sum, you stated that you were not subject to their jurisdiction and that you considered your involvement in their office's investigation to be closed.
You told us this morning, right here, that you have been entirely co-operative. You didn't answer any of her questions, and you wrote this letter saying that you're not subject to her jurisdiction, and you unilaterally closed the discussion.
How is that being entirely co-operative? Answer that question.
10:05 a.m.
Chief Operating Officer, AggregateIQ
In that letter, we did answer her questions, we believe.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
You did not answer her questions, and I didn't ask you about that. I'm asking you very specifically, and you'll answer my question now, how does this letter, in which you tell her you're not going to answer any of her questions and that you're not subject to her jurisdiction, represent your being entirely co-operative? When I asked you why there was a disconnect between what you're saying and what she's saying, why did you sit there with a perplexed look on your face, after you told me you've been entirely co-operative and after you explained to me what “co-operative” means? Answer that question.
10:05 a.m.
Chief Operating Officer, AggregateIQ
With respect to our answers, first of all, we never said we wouldn't answer any more questions.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
No, I didn't say you said you wouldn't answer any more questions.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
No. You said, “We consider our involvement in your office's investigation to be closed.”
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
When you say that, it does mean that you will not answer any more questions.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
It's closed, but you're going to answer more questions? I just want to understand, then.
10:05 a.m.
Chief Operating Officer, AggregateIQ
We believed that we'd answered all of the questions.