Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 46-60 of 181
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Procedure and House Affairs committee  There are things that are offensive, and those, normally, the courts of law will not rule on. Then there are things that are harmful, on which they will. The issue that faces the committee here is do these problems, in both issues of contempt of Parliament, reach the point of actually harming the parliamentary system, rather than being just offensive?

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I might, if I dig back into my 60 years' memory on this, find one or two places where I felt a cabinet minister had actually broken the bond of trust. But by and large, I have the utmost respect for the politicians of Canada, even when I've firmly and basically disagreed with them.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It will be a 30-second response.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  May I respond to that, sir?

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  We have two sides to the question here. One side says that the minister said that she never supported the grant and tried to make that clear, and did to Parliament, is correct. The other side is saying that the document presented to Parliament, which purported to represent the agreement of three individuals to something, is not correct.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes. I think that the Clerk of the Privy Council—and we've had very good ones—has too many hats. He is the guardian of the Constitution, he's the deputy minister to the Prime Minister, he's the secretary to the cabinet and the guardian of cabinet records, and he's the head of the public service, and I believe these often come into conflict.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I attribute no motives to people in this. I just believe that there was a better way for the minister to have said that she didn't agree with it, and that's as far as I can go on it.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  You're asking me to go beyond what I consider my remit. I had a very short time to write this, and that's one of the reasons why in my chronology I said this is how I think I see it or how it appears, and I don't know. When I get down to the question of the signature I either look at it as a miserable farce--that there was a better way for the minister to overrule the advice of her public servants, and for some reason either she wasn't given good advice on how to do it or she did in a hurry and it was done in error--or else it was done intentionally to do what it appears to do: misrepresent the advice she was given by the public servants.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The whodunnit is for somebody else to look at. The fact that it was done is the one that I think must concern you people today.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  We at this point--and that's me as a citizen of the country and you as parliamentarians--do not know how the “not” got there. What we do know is that the minister did not repudiate that “not”. I don't think there is any more issue than that. The letter was presented, purported as being a letter supported by the intentions of three officials--two in the department, and the minister--and it turns out that the intention of the letter as presented supported only the views of one of those three.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Senior public servants in Britain are much more intimidating creatures, I believe, to members of Parliament--and even to cabinet ministers--than they often are in Canada. Somebody like the current cabinet secretary has immense influence, has survived I believe four prime ministers, and in many ways is a counter-power to the elected politicians.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The thing that puzzled me about it is the absolute silliness of presenting a document--which I still believe was falsified--to a parliamentary committee that purported to represent the consent of the three signers and actually did not. I shouldn't say “consent”, but the “opinions”, because it is the duty of public servants to implement the orders of their ministers.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I don’t think so, because the principle of ministerial responsibility applies to the minister, in this case, Ms. Oda. The matter of the Prime Minister’s intentions is something else altogether. I think that the concerns must be with the minister herself, and not the Prime Minister.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Ministers have to sign thousands of documents, and even deputy ministers do. The Clerk of the Privy Council has to sign probably hundreds of thousands. And normally the act of using that signature machine is a very carefully managed and guarded act, so that only documents that that person feels should be signed are signed.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I accept that totally, with one qualification. My understanding is that the two senior public servants signed the document and then subsequently the “not” was put in. In other words, they signed the document saying that the grant should be made, and the document, once signed by the minister, had reversed that intention.

March 18th, 2011Committee meeting

Dr. Ned Franks