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

Results 61-75 of 235
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Public Safety committee  No, because I would have felt that the Prime Minister should know information that I know about his ministers and have that. In the end, it is the Prime Minister's decision as to who is in his cabinet, and he should have the information that I have about that.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  That was Monday night; that's why I said that.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  Yes, we did.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  I didn't watch it, but I thought, actually, it was Monday night. I may be wrong on that.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  The only reason I'm saying that is that I thought it was the same evening that the ministerial change actually took place, but I stand to be corrected.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  By the time I talked to the commissioner, I was telling him what we were going to do. But I think, Rennie, you talked to....

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  First, let me make a correction to the first part of your question. They were not NATO documents; they were our documents.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  They were about the NATO summit, which, by the time this happened, had already happened. The NATO summit was in early April.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  Those two points being corrected, as I understand it, there was a phone call made to NATO and a subsequent letter to NATO. There was a check made to see if there was any information in there that had come from one of our allies, that was their information, and the first cut--and I premise it by saying the review will assess that more thoroughly--was that, no, there was not.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  We would do it in relation to cabinet documents. If there were cabinet documents missing or something, usually that's an investigation that a department would do, but I could in that case.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  On the cabinet documents? There was no reason to do that.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  No, I was trying to recall and answer your question. I was involved in the investigation of the unauthorized release of information with regard to the NAFTA issue. That was an investigation. So when I said we're not an investigative body, I meant that we're not an investigative body like the RCMP and CSIS.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  What I would do is call the deputy minister of that department, because ultimately they are accountable. And if I thought it was wise because there was some indication of a crime, that's when the RCMP would be called. I might suggest it to them, yes.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  First of all, I don't think I used “concern”. It's not an inappropriate “concern”. I don't think it was my word. My word was a lot of speculation, and we did decide.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth

Public Safety committee  I can't recall, between Kevin Lynch and me, who first suggested it, but it was between the two of us.

June 17th, 2008Committee meeting

Margaret Bloodworth