Thank you Mister Chair.
I realize we have witnesses to hear, so, I will be brief. However, there are specific issues you have raised in your summary of the events of the past few days that have no bearing on today’s briefs. There is one thing that I fail to understand. You stated that a lawyer is currently representing a client that they have never even spoken to. None of this seems to add up. How can a lawyer defend or represent a client that they have never even spoken to?
Quite a coincidence that they are either on vacation in the Caribbean or too busy to appear before the Committee. As far as I know, Mister Chair, Heenan-Blaikie definitely has more than one legal counsel on staff. If they are indeed the firm currently representing Ms. Ouimet, they ought to be able to assign someone else to her case. Simply palming us of with the argument that their legal counsel is either on vacation or too busy is not good enough. They should have alternate counsel able to take over her case.
It would be unacceptable for any lawyer, legal firm or witness to dictate to us when they will testify.
It will be not a lawyer, not a law firm, not a witness who will decide when they come to visit us to answer questions.
As part of our study, we are keen to afford Ms. Ouimet the chance to provide explanations to the Committee. Once again today, it is clear that these people have been stringing us along for weeks and even months. It is totally outrageous. It has been beyond acceptable for a longtime but now they are playing more games with us. These people will now have to face the consequences. They cannot be allowed to call the shots with us.
I would, Mister Chair, like to raise one last point with regard to the letter we received from the Privy Council Office. I fail to understand why the PCO says it requires more time. This is an unacceptable answer. If I am not mistaken, there are seven officials at PCO. They are senior independent House of Commons Officers, who correspond regularly with the Prime Minister’s Office. Therefore, why are they not able to provide the documents we have requested on time?
I had asked for the documents to be provided to us yesterday, not in two weeks’ time. Yesterday. I agreed to extend the deadline until February 19, if I am not mistaken. The Privy Council Office sent us a letter today, on the very day of the hearing, saying that is unable to provide the documents. There is a great deal of correspondence between PMO, Ms. Ouimet and her Office. Why then are they unable to provide us with the documents in a timely manner?
This response is unacceptable. If they have the information, they should provide it as and when it becomes available. They have until February 19 to submit the documents to us.