Interventions in Committee
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-08-21 13:06
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I echo the comments made by Mr. Kent with respect to the desire for this committee to move forward by hearing from the Ethics Commissioner.
I am here today because I was a member of the justice committee that was shut down in March of this year in favour of the Ethics Commissioner's conducting his study. A letter was sent by the Liberal members of the committee on March 18 to the chair of the justice committee. Those members were Randy Boissonnault, Iqra Khalid, Ali Ehsassi, Ron McKinnon and Colin Fraser.
They said their conclusion, after the testimony heard at the justice committee, was that all of the rules and laws were followed. They also said they believed that the ongoing study of the Ethics Commissioner was the appropriate way forward and that they had faith in the Ethics Commissioner. They also noted that the opposition parties rushed to judgment before hearing all of the relevant information.
Following the shutting down of the justice committee, the ethics committee then tried to raise the issue for discussion. On March 26, the matter was again blocked. As a result, we were left with the office of the Ethics Commissioner being the only venue where an investigation was taking place. Indeed, if you look at Hansard for April and May of 2019, when asked questions by members of the opposition, the Prime Minister said and then reiterated continuously that he had faith in the Ethics Commissioner conducting his study.
However, most recently the Prime Minister, in commenting on the “Trudeau II Report” issued last week, said two things that caught my attention. The first was “We fully cooperated with the Commissioner” and the second was “I disagree with that conclusion”. These two statements carry great weight. They're by the Prime Minister of Canada and they are the only statements regarding the Ethics Commissioner's report on record by the Prime Minister on this matter. It is unfair that the Ethics Commissioner has no voice and no venue to be able to respond to these two assertions made by the Prime Minister.
There is a provision in the Conflict of Interest Act to allow somebody who is being investigated to appeal a ruling of the Ethics Commissioner. We find ourselves in some uncharted territory because what the Prime Minister seems to seek to do is to change the report of the Ethics Commissioner by saying that he doesn't agree with it and that he fully co-operated.
The evidence of the Ethics Commissioner in his report is that, to the contrary of the Prime Minister's statement, they did not fully co-operate with the commissioner at all. Indeed, the commissioner went to great lengths to note his concerns with respect to the appropriateness of the way in which the Prime Minister sought to produce documents, be interviewed and, at the end of the day, determine whether or not a waiver would be extended to allow the Ethics Commissioner to have access to all of the information he deemed appropriate for the study.
Where we find ourselves in uncharted territory is this: The Conflict of Interest Act does not allow for the Ethics Commissioner's report to be changed. No committee of Parliament, no vote in the House of Commons can change the contents of a report by, or the decision of, the Ethics Commissioner. The report is what it is and stands as it is, yet the Prime Minister is now trying to say the report is wrong.
The good news for him is that if he chooses to in fact go ahead and appeal the ruling of the Ethics Commissioner, he has the ability to do so. He can do that by launching a judicial review at the Federal Court of Appeal. That is the appropriate venue for the Prime Minister to challenge the Ethics Commissioner, not in the court of public opinion, which he is seeking to do right now.
Why does this all pertain to a visit by the Ethics Commissioner to committee? Well, I do believe, as a lawyer, that there are rules regarding procedural fairness. Clearly, the Prime Minister is not going to be seeking judicial review of this ruling. He hasn't said he is going to do that, and in fact it doesn't seem as if he has any plans to even address that question.
That being said, it is still fair for the Ethics Commissioner to be able to respond in some way, shape or form to questions by the committee, by members of Parliament who seek to understand the discrepancy between what the Ethics Commissioner found and what the Prime Minister is attempting to assert to the Canadian public.
That is the issue of public interest that is so important in having the Ethics Commissioner come to testify. It is the foundation of our rule of law that accusations are allowed to be responded to and rebutted. That, I believe, is something, as parliamentarians, we owe to the Ethics Commissioner, who does his work at the request of all parliamentarians and indeed is voted on by all parliamentarians to sit as an officer of Parliament.
In summary, Mr. Chair, I would say that, after months and months of the Liberal members of Parliament on the justice committee, on the ethics committee, the Prime Minister himself and every minister who answered a question in the House of Commons answering with the refrain that they trust and believe in the independence of parliamentary officers and will listen to them and will co-operate fully, it is owed to the Ethics Commissioner, due to all of these comments, to have the ability to come in and respond to the two things the Prime Minister has said about this report, which are, first, that he fully co-operated with the commissioner, which the commissioner says is not the case, and second, that he disagrees with the conclusion, without telling us which conclusion he disagrees with.
With that, Mr. Chair, I pass the floor to the next individual, and I hope that my colleagues on the other side will, in fact, allow for the Ethics Commissioner to appear today, in fairness, in justice and to uphold the administration of our procedure.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-08-21 13:40
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The reality is that the Ethics Commissioner found that the Prime Minister improperly used political considerations in attempting to have the Attorney General essentially overrule the director of public prosecutions.
The Prime Minister is saying that it was not the case, that in fact it wasn't political considerations but had to do with something else, namely jobs. My colleague, Mr. Poilievre, I think has completely debunked that notion. I know that my colleague, Ms. May, would do the same thing in a heartbeat if she had an opportunity to do so.
We are at this impasse where we would like to know what were the political considerations noted in Mr. Dion's report and alluded to in some recent interviews of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.
After the report was made public on August 15, Jody Wilson-Raybould was interviewed by CBC. It was a lengthy interview by Vassy Kapelos. She was asked a number of times about what had happened and for her comments with respect to the report of the Ethics Commissioner.
In response to one of the questions, she made the following very clear: “I would not change the actions that I took. I believe that Canadians want to see, in their public officials, particularly ones that hold offices like the Attorney General of Canada, that they will be making decisions not based on political considerations but based on a fundamental understanding of the law and based on a fundamental understanding about how we maintain the fundamental tenets of our democracy and are constantly vigilante on that.”
She would not make changes to any of her actions because she would not make decisions that were not based on the principles or values she had always embraced. She went on to say later that upholding independence and the rule of law was what she was doing in her role as the Attorney General. A number of times she indicated in other parts of her interview that she had questions with respect to political considerations.
After Ms. Wilson-Raybould's interview, Jane Philpott was interviewed further by Vassy Kapelos and she got more to the point. She talked very specifically about considerations that should and should not be taken into account when decisions are being made.
Kapelos asked her whether there was a conflict for the purposes of benefiting a private corporation: “...the Ethics Commissioner determined but the Prime Minister often speaks about his motivation. If you say that you don't know for sure that it wasn't, what do you think he was motived by?”
Ms. Philpott responded, “I don't think it's motivations that concern people so much as whether or not we hold and regard what is in the best interests of the country and that we hold and regard the very pillars of what our democracy is founded upon. One of those pillars is that our justice system needs to be independent and”—with my own emphasis, Mr. Chair—“politicians who have the desire to further their political career, to ensure that they will win an election, to potentially support those who may have supported them financially or in other ways, those are not the kinds of motivations that should be on politicians' minds when it comes to a criminal matter. It's extremely clear that politicians, the executive and legislative branch, should not interfere with the judicial branch of government.”
Those were Jane Philpott's words, which caused me to wonder what information she has that causes her to have such a strong point of view on what political considerations may or may not have been taken into consideration when decisions were being made.
Mr. Chair, that brings me to the issue of this waiver.
The reason the Ethics Commissioner was unable to get further in terms of the political considerations, other than the four times he clearly noted he believed the Prime Minister, himself or through his staff, was politically interfering, is this. The reason he can't get any more granularity on it is that, as he noted, he was unable to get the relevant information that he wanted.
I'm going to read from his report on page 5, paragraph 14. Actually, I'm going to start with paragraph 13. It says:
In order to gain access to as much relevant information as possible, on March 29, 2019, I instructed legal counsel in our Office to engage with counterparts in the Privy Council Office to request that witnesses be enabled to provide all of their evidence to our Office. Despite several weeks of discussions, the offices remained at an impasse over access to Cabinet confidences.
On May 3, 2019, I raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister during his interview. Through legal counsel, Mr. Trudeau stated that he would consult with the Privy Council Office to see whether the Order in Council could be amended.
Now, the order in council that we're speaking of, of course, is the order in council that was passed by cabinet in order to allow Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott to speak up to a certain point in time, and after that point in time was reached, they could not speak to matters that had cabinet confidence around them.
On May 28, 2019, with the issue of access to Cabinet confidences unresolved, I wrote to the newly appointed Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Ian Shugart. I set out the concerns expressed by witnesses, noted above, and explained what I believe to be the legislative framework that, at least implicitly, authorizes our Office to access such information. I cited provisions of both the Conflict of Interest Act and the Parliament of Canada Act that prohibit me from revealing confidences of the Queen's Privy Council in the context of public declarations of recusal and our annual reports, respectively. I explained that I understood these prohibitions to mean that our Office would have prima facie access to this information. I then drew the analogy between these prohibitions and the restrictions on the disclosure of confidential information placed on me in the course of examinations, and why I would have similar access to and a similar prohibition on publishing Cabinet confidences in that context.
That was the Ethics Commissioner's pitch on May 28 to the Clerk of the Privy Council, explaining why he should be able to receive the information that the Prime Minister said was being held back due to cabinet confidence.
In a letter dated June 13, 2019, the Clerk of the Privy Council declined my request for access to all Cabinet confidences in respect of this examination.
Mr. Trudeau's legal counsel indicated that the decision on whether to expand the waiver was made by the Privy Council Office without the involvement of the Prime Minister or his office.
But as we all know from this long and sordid, drawn-out affair that we've been witnessing since January, there is always somebody who can overrule a bureaucrat, and that's exactly what Mr. Trudeau wanted Jody Wilson-Raybould to do. So for him to say that he wasn't part of the decision actually is completely irrelevant because he always has the power to tell the Clerk of the Privy Council what to do.
However, I continue reading:
Because of the decisions to deny our Office further access to Cabinet confidences, witnesses were constrained in their ability to provide all evidence. I was, therefore, prevented from looking over the entire body of evidence to determine its relevance to my examination. Decisions that affect my jurisdiction under the Act, by setting parameters on my ability to receive evidence, should be made transparently and democratically by Parliament [emphasis here], not by the very same public office holders who are subject to the regime I administer.
I am convinced that if our Office is to remain truly independent and fulfill its purpose, I must have unfettered access to all information that could be relevant to the exercise of my mandate. I must be satisfied that decisions made by the most senior public office holders, including those discussed at Cabinet, are free from any conflicts of interest.
In the present examination, I have gathered sufficient factual information to properly determine the matter on its merits. Because of my inability to access all Cabinet confidences related to the matter I must, however, report that I was unable to fully discharge the investigatory duties conferred upon me by the Act.
Now, why is this important? This is important because the Ethics Commissioner is detailing very clearly that he sought to get information on cabinet confidences that were outside the waiver the Prime Minister already had given.
Jane Philpott, as well, in her interview said it very clearly, when she was asked by Vassy Kapelos whether or not there was any further information that she thought was relevant that was covered by the waiver. She was asked, “Are you in possession of any information that you think the Ethics Commissioner should have had access to?” Her answer was that “There are pieces of information that I am aware of that I am not at liberty to speak about.”
Jane Philpott further goes on to say, “So what I would point to for Canadians is what the Ethics Commissioner said, which is that he was able to get enough information to make a determination in terms of whether or not there was a breach of the Conflict of Interest Act or not. So it didn't, in a sense, hold him back from being able to make a determination on this, but I would say that I can affirm that there are pieces of information that I am aware of but that, because of the oath that I made to Queen and country to keep in secret that which shall be kept secret, according to the oath that I made as a cabinet minister, unless I am released from that obligation, I am not at liberty to share those pieces of information either with you or with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.”
We know there is more information out there. Jody Wilson-Raybould has said that, as has Jane Philpott, and indeed the Ethics Commissioner attempted to get it. He was unable to get it by virtue of the decision of the Prime Minister. That is not fully co-operating with the Ethics Commissioner, and again, as I said before, that deserves to be reviewed.
More importantly, and most recently, there has been the publication of a book. The book is written by a CBC reporter by the name of Aaron Wherry, and in it, Aaron Wherry had unprecedented access to the Prime Minister on this topic.
If you recall, I said that there were certain things that the former attorney general couldn't discuss, that the former president of the Treasury Board could not discuss, that were not given to the Ethics Commissioner and that the witnesses were not allowed to talk about. One of those things was what happened after the resignation of Jody Wilson-Raybould and what happened in the meetings between the Prime Minister and the former attorney general, because that waiver was cut off when the former attorney general left her time as Attorney General and moved to Veterans Affairs, and as you know, she resigned from Veterans Affairs after that.
Miraculously, it would appear that the concept of cabinet confidence doesn't apply to the Prime Minister—much like every other rule seems not to apply to the Prime Minister, quite frankly—because he gave complete access to this writer, Aaron Wherry, to detail the meeting he had with Jody Wilson-Raybould post her time becoming the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He is waiving cabinet confidence to a reporter in order to get his side out in a novel, yet the Ethics Commissioner cannot receive this information. Jody Wilson-Raybould says there is information and Jane Philpott says there is information that is of interest to Canadians.
I would like to ask the Ethics Commissioner whether or not he has taken any legal advice as to whether or not there has been a waiver of this cabinet confidence by the Prime Minister to cover the period of time that is currently not covered and extend it over that period of time. I think that would be of great interest to Canadians, and I also believe it is something that goes to the heart of ensuring that we get to the bottom of the matter.
Picking up on what Elizabeth May said just a few minutes ago, this is the kind of scandal and the kinds of actions that warrant the highest level of punishment. We can't force that, but it can be at the discretion.... Clearly, as she said, it's not going to happen, but we still owe it to Canadians to understand and give them the truthful information on what has happened and not just take the word of the Prime Minister, because we have seen over and over again that the Prime Minister simply does not keep his word.
Thank you.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-08-21 15:08
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Very briefly, I wanted to follow up on a point from Mr. Erskine-Smith in his very first intervention, regarding improperly furthering private interests. I do so because we're not going to hear from the Ethics Commissioner to defend his report, so I thought I'd step into his shoes for a quick two minutes.
The Ethics Commissioner, on page 45, for those who care, does go into a deep understanding and a deep dive on what is improperly furthering private interests. What may be of interest to the committee is that the former ethics commissioner Mary Dawson in fact wrote a paper and gave a number of speeches with respect to whether or not there had been improper furthering of private interests. I would just like to read this into the record, because this is the important part.
It is agreed by the Ethics Commissioner, and I think by a number of people around the table, that indeed the conduct of the Prime Minister was improper in the way he tried to further the interest. I do believe it's also agreed in plain that the private interest of SNC-Lavalin is very evident as well. They stood to receive a huge gain should they be successful in getting the criminal charges diverted in another direction. That's why they put so much effort into it.
Therefore, we know that it was improper. We know that there was a private interest involved. The question comes down to how we can do anything as politicians if we're not allowed to stand up for the public interest. I would just read this to the committee, because I think Mary Dawson did it well when she talked about this fact:
We have had several cases focussing on the general prohibition, found in both the Act and the Members’ Code, against improperly furthering the private interests of someone who may not be a friend or relative. The qualifier “improperly” reflects that fact that Members and public office holders routinely and legitimately further the private interests of particular groups or individuals through the formulation and implementation of public policy. Politicians, in particular, should be able to voice their support for fellow politicians and particular political agendas, and should not be restricted from doing so on the grounds that it may incidentally result in furthering particular private interests.
However, this is a very different situation because the focus of the action in question was really only ever on the private interests of SNC-Lavalin. The improper steps that the Prime Minister took in four different instances, which the Ethics Commissioner enunciates in his report, and the number of times political considerations came into the motivation for seeking to make the Attorney General change her mind clearly show that it was improper. It fails the test of improper. It is clearly within the realm of private interest, and the Ethics Commissioner I'm sure would be able to explain, as I have, that it is not about whether or not a politician can lobby on behalf of their company, or a situation. What it comes down to is whether or not you do it in a proper manner, and this clearly was improper.
That is the crux and the nub of the entire report. The Ethics Commissioner found that the Prime Minister broke the law because he improperly furthered the private interests of SNC-Lavalin and attempted to get them diverted from a criminal case into a different stream that would be more beneficial for them financially and, I would expect, reputationally too.
Thank you for that.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-08-21 15:14
I have a quick motion, Mr. Chair, if I may.
I assume it will be disposed of very quickly, but I thought I'd give it a shot nonetheless.
Given the fact that we're not going to hear from the Ethics Commissioner, and given the fact that we do have this book that is out there from Aaron Wherry called Promise and Peril that seems to indicate the Prime Minister has breached cabinet confidentiality, I move:
That the Committee request Aaron Wherry, author of “Promise and Peril”, a biography of Justin Trudeau, table all recordings, notes and other materials that he collected during his interviews of the Prime Minister that relate to materials that fall outside of the Order in Council—
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-08-21 15:16
I'll start from the beginning.
I move:
That the Committee request Aaron Wherry, author of “Promise and Peril”, a biography of Justin Trudeau, table all recordings, notes and other materials that he collected during his interviews of the Prime Minister that relate to materials that fall outside of the Order in Council waiving Cabinet confidence in the SNC Lavalin matter so that the Committee can determine whether the Prime Minister breached Cabinet confidence.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-08-21 15:16
I move:
That the Committee request Aaron Wherry, author of “Promise and Peril”, a biography of Justin Trudeau, table all recordings, notes and other materials that he collected during his interviews of the Prime Minister that relate to materials that fall outside of the Order in Council waiving Cabinet confidence in the SNC Lavalin matter so that the Committee can determine whether the Prime Minister breached Cabinet confidence.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-08-21 15:18
Thank you.
I appreciate the commentary of the two members.
If it is about whether that becomes public, I understand the concerns. My concern is that the Ethics Commissioner should have all the information that he was not allowed to have with respect to cabinet confidence. That is being freely given to other people and digested in a way that is more, I would say, sympathetic to the Prime Minister.
I'll withdraw the motion, because I believe that the members don't agree with me that it's important to move ahead.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 11:31
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We would never blame the staff for that; it's fine.
Minister, thank you very much for being here.
Ms. Campbell, thank you very much for all the work you have done for Canadians. I want to thank you on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada for the three times you chaired this committee.
Minister Lametti, as you may have noted, today in The Globe and Mail, and indeed many times this week, there were discussions about SNC-Lavalin. I'd like to know whether or not you've taken any steps to award a deferred prosecution agreement prior to SNC-Lavalin appearing before court on September 20 of this year.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 11:31
Okay. Thank you very much.
Ms. Campbell, I want to ask about your process with respect to the advisory committee. I'll tell you that it's with the background of trying to understand how to deal with a leak. As you know, a leak occurred in the last process that you chaired.
When did you learn about the leak from the last process that you chaired?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 11:33
That's very good to know.
Minister Lametti just indicated, though, in his opening remarks that he took strict measures in dealing with this unacceptable disclosure by talking about making changes to the advisory committee's mandate. If the advisory committee wasn't the source of the leak, why would Minister Lametti feel the need to talk to the advisory committee about the previous leak?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 11:34
The retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Louis LeBel sat on your committee this time and commented regarding the leak from the advisory process the last time, saying it was very serious because the process is a very delicate matter.
Did he bring up any concerns about confidentiality during this process?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 11:34
Did you take any steps to determine and ensure that there was no leak of confidentiality from your advisory committee? I know you said there wasn't, but I'm just wondering if you called anybody. Did you talk to the minister? Did you talk to PCO?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 11:35
So the Privacy Commissioner—
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 11:35
That's tough for you to do, I would imagine, Ms. Campbell.
The reason I ask is that, of course, we are concerned about the leak and the way it happened. The Privacy Commissioner is concerned as well and is investigating the leak. His officials can't interview the minister's office or the Prime Minister's Office.
I'm wondering if he had a conversation with you to understand the confidentiality around the advisory committee.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 11:36
Thank you very much.
Minister Lametti, you gave an interview to The Lawyer's Daily in April in which you indicated that you were very confident that the leak did not come from the Department of Justice or from officials in the Prime Minister's Office.
Ms. Campbell is now saying that it didn't come from her advisory committee. Where did the leak come from?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 12:14
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Campbell, I want to ask you about the terms of reference, where there's a provision that if there is a declared person of interest, or if a member of the advisory committee has a business or a personal relationship with somebody who has been nominated, they recuse themself from the discussion. Did that happen in your process this time?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 12:15
Would that be something you'll publish in your report that follows?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 12:15
I appreciate that he recused himself and followed the rule of law on that.
Minister Lametti, let's be very precise here because you're a lawyer, I'm a lawyer and precision is important when it comes to this.
Ms. Campbell has indicated that there is no way the advisory committee was the source of the leak of the information regarding the former proposed candidate, Mr. Justice Joyal. You have indicated to the media that you're convinced that it did not come from the Prime Minister's Office or your office. The Privacy Commissioner is conducting an investigation that you said people are co-operating with, but is it not the truth, Minister, that the reality is that the Prime Minister, you and any member of your staff or his staff are exempt from the Privacy Commissioner's powers and will not be part of this investigation?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 12:16
Minister, your department will co-operate because the Privacy Commissioner has the power to summon anybody in the department. However, the Privacy Commissioner does not have the power to summon you, the Prime Minister or anybody who works on the political side of your department or the Prime Minister's Office.
Are you telling me they are going to voluntarily speak to the Privacy Commissioner in order to make this a fulsome investigation?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 12:17
He is working within his own mandate, but what I'm pointing out is that, contrary to what you're hoping to say here, that everything is being covered, the reality is that there are some significant witnesses to this who are not being investigated, and we are left relying upon your word and the word of the Prime Minister.
I think that's a fair statement.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 12:17
Minister Lametti, the advisory committee chair has indicated that there was no leak from her committee. You have indicated that it did not happen from the Prime Minister's Office, it did not happen from the Department of Justice and it did not happen from your office either. However, you did say that you could ask another department in government to investigate, “but again the prime minister's been quite clear that he doesn't feel that it's come from PMO. And I believe him.”
Have you investigated beyond the Prime Minister's feelings?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 12:18
Minister, you actually indicated to a publication that you felt the leak came from people who had been consulted after the advisory committee, through your own consultations. Can you provide a list of the people who were consulted post-advisory committee in the last round of the process so that we can get to the bottom of where the leak really came from?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 12:19
You are not going to ask the department to provide a list of those who were consulted in order to help us figure out who leaked the personal information of Mr. Justice Joyal?
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 12:19
Mr. Lametti, you're splitting the hair and it's not fair because you know the difference between what a member of your political staff is subject to and what your department is subject to.
Mr. Chair, given the comments by the Right Honourable Kim Campbell that the leak of information related to Justice Glenn Joyal is an important issue for this committee to study, I move that the committee immediately begin to study this matter.
View Lisa Raitt Profile
CPC (ON)
View Lisa Raitt Profile
2019-07-25 12:20
I have it in scribble.
Results: 1 - 30 of 701 | Page: 1 of 24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|