Evidence of meeting #44 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was believe.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Okay.
In response to lobbyist Walter Robinson's request for your phone number, you gave him 613-290-3355 as your cell number.
Bear with me, okay? Why is it that during 2007 and 2008 a number of Government of Canada media advisories for your former employer, the Honourable Ms. Guergis, show that number as the contact number for one Jeffrey Kroeker. How did you obtain this number? What's the connection?
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I believe there was a mistake or something of a problem getting somebody a cellphone at that time, so I believe I may have lent my cellphone to Mr. Kroeker, or it was something of that nature. I do remember that media advisory going out and there being some confusion, but that number has been in my family's possession since 1996.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Oh, okay, so it was your number.
Talking about Mr. Kroeker—and this is not you, but I want to find out something—he was sanctioned by the Senate in 2007 for inappropriately leaking privileged information while working for Senator LeBreton. The Senate report found “that Mr. Kroeker's conduct in gathering and disseminating the information was inappropriate and unethical”.
Were you aware of Mr. Kroeker's history and background at the Senate? What was your relationship with him? Did he give you tricks? What's the connection?
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I was loosely aware of the situation surrounding Mr. Kroeker. As you are probably aware, the House and the Senate staff don't commingle. There's not a lot of communication. Mr. Kroeker was a co-worker of mine during my brief employment with the Secretary of State. That's it.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
You had stated that.
Have you applied for an exemption to your five-year restriction on lobbying, sir?
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I've inquired as to the possibility of an exemption; however, I am not allowed to apply for an exemption.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Okay.
On November 8, 2010, you received an e-mail from Ms. Hamilton on your ruthinking.ca e-mail account, in which she asked you to set up a meeting with two of her clients from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.
Why did she send this to your R.U. Thinking account and not your parliamentary account?
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I've asked myself the same question. I can only think of two possibilities. One is for some reason or other that's the only e-mail she had for me, or, two, if you're familiar with how a BlackBerry works, if you pull up a certain contact, you'll get two e-mail addresses for them, and perhaps she chose the wrong one. I cannot speak to Mrs. Hamilton's actions, I'm sorry.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
One would assume, but I don't maintain her BlackBerry, so I don't know what she has.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
No, I appreciate that, but do you recall exchanging e-mails with her from your parliamentary account—
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
It was a very long time ago, I'm sorry. I'm sure she did.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thanks, Chair.
I have just a couple of quick questions here, just to satisfy myself on the veracity of some of your earlier statements.
You mentioned you had never previously, to your recollection, at least, submitted any confidential information of any sort from any government source to anyone. This was the first and only time. That's via electronic transmissions. I guess my question to you is this. During the time that the finance committee was deliberating on all of the submissions they had heard prior to developing their draft report, those committee meetings would, I'm assuming, be in camera. Is that correct?
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
You're asking me to recall something that was three months ago. You'd know better than I if they were in camera, but I believe they were, and I believe—
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Let me rephrase it then. Whether or not they were in camera, were you, as a staffer to Ms. Block at that time, present when committee discussions were held to contemplate the draft report?
11:40 a.m.
As an Individual
I typically accompanied Mrs. Block to the finance committee. However, if there was not a lot of work to be done for a staff person at the time, I would typically go back to the office.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
That's all leading to a simple question.
Because of your close relationship with several of the lobbyists in question, you've stated for the record that you didn't transmit, submit, or forward any confidential information, but did you ever verbally breach confidence by letting them know in your casual conversations over drinks, lunch, or whatever some of the information that was discussed in these meetings?
11:40 a.m.
As an Individual
To the best of knowledge, no; I wouldn't have done something like that.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I want to go back to something Ms. Foote raised earlier about an e-mail to one of the lobbyists the day prior to you forwarding the report. You stated in that e-mail, which you've had a chance to examine, “The report's coming out tomorrow.” You stated you knew that looked like there might have been some premeditation, but you couldn't really explain it.
I'll ask you again to try to speculate at least why you might have told someone the day prior to a report being released that it was going to be released if you didn't intend to send them that report. I'm having some difficulty understanding how this could have been spontaneous, as opposed to being premeditated.
11:40 a.m.
As an Individual
I believe I've tried to explain why my spontaneity also included 8:30 in the morning until 3 or 4 in the afternoon. It came down to a lack of respect for the document itself and a lack of understanding of my actions. It's quite evident that I sent an e-mail the day before saying, “I will send you a copy.” I was not aware of that e-mail; however, it seems to me that my lack of respect for the document began the day before. It was simply not premeditation. It was not an intent to deceive the committee or forward the document itself. It was a lack of respect for the confidentiality of the document itself.
