Mr. Mulcair.
Evidence of meeting #38 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 may.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #38 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 may.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Walsh, you referred to what I would call the ordinary confidentiality of any communication by email or fax. There is always a short statement about confidentiality. That is the norm today. It says, for example, that a particular fax or email contains confidential information and that if you are not the intended recipient, and so on. But here, this is a higher level, if I may put it that way. The document said this: "This draft report is confidential. Disclosure could be considered a potential breach of the House of Commons privilege." That is there in black and white on the first page. We aren't talking about the same level in this case. There is a higher level of responsibility.
Unfortunately, when you nod your head it won't appear in the transcript. So I would ask you to confirm that orally.
12:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
You're right. There might be another level there.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
No, there actually is one. The document represented a second warning.
12:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It represents another level for the lobbyist or the person who received the document. It tells them that there are legal or quasi-legal provisions associated with the document.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
12:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It is a warning for the lobbyist. They know then that there are restrictions associated with the document, that they must take those rules into account, and that it is risky for them to send it to just anyone, for example.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
It would be up to us to verify it.
I am going to suggest that the same thing applies to the employee, who was perfectly aware of this himself. It is there in black and white. Certainly that would ultimately apply to the employee's employer, in this instance the member.
Thank you. That answers all my questions.
12:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Mr. Chair, have we finished covering this question?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Chair, and I'll be brief.
Just a point of clarification, Mr. Walsh. You mentioned the term “public office holders” a number of times, referring to Ms. Block and her employee. The definition I work under is public office holders are cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries but not individual members of Parliament. Am I wrong here, or are you going from a different definition?
12:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Look at the definition in the Lobbying Act. “Public office holders” includes members of Parliament and--
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
In the conflict of interest guide, public office holders are to the act, and members are of the code, so we've got a little....
12:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
That's correct.
The Conflict of Interest Act applies to ministers and parliamentary secretaries too, I believe; they're the public office holders, not members. But under the Lobbying Act a public office holder is defined to include members.
12:15 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The only thing I wanted to add, Mr. Chairman, is regarding Ms. Block. She consulted our office with regard to this employee, got advice on how to terminate the employment, and acted accordingly. Rather than do it by letter to her, I got her authorization to state here to the committee that she if fact did that. She consulted our office, she got the usual advice, and she effected a termination according to our advice.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh, thank you for joining us. Your advice is always good for this committee, and we use it often. Thank you.
We'll suspend again for just a minute.
We'll call the meeting back to order.
Monsieur Bard, it's great to have you here today. If you have a quick opening statement we'll take it, and then a round of questions.
We have Madam O'Brien sitting with you. I know she is a great help to all of us on all these issues.
12:17 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons
And I'm ubiquitous.
Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to see that in the course of the discussion with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel the whole relationship between the administration of the House and individual members was very nicely exposed. That is to say, we regard each member of Parliament as an individual client and that the relationship of trust that we build up with the individual members and with the individual parties is one we absolutely rely on. It's an absolute cornerstone of our approach.
It's really a good thing for legal counsel to explain this process, because it also applies to information and information technologies. I think the Chief Information Officer, Louis Bard, will be able to answer your questions relating to technologies and what can be found in the information systems.
So without further delay, I will let you move on to questions.
12:17 p.m.
Conservative
12:17 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being with us this morning, Ms. O'Brien. Thank you for being with us too, Mr. Bard.
Mr. Bard, I believe that Ms. Block asked you to check the emails that may have been sent from her office. Could you tell me what period of time the checking you were asked to do covered?
December 9th, 2010 / 12:17 p.m.
Louis Bard Chief Information Officer, House of Commons
That's right, the member called us. We offer that service if a member is looking for an email or a document that may have been deleted or damaged. The member can call us and ask us whether we can help find the document.
That is in fact what happened. The member asked our call centre to find documents for particular dates, and we responded to that request. I don't think this is confidential. The dates of the two requests were November 18 and 19, 2010.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Bard, did you get Ms. Block's permission to give the committee the information that you may have given her, or the information you were able to find in relation to messages sent electronically?
12:20 p.m.
Chief Information Officer, House of Commons
In all honesty, I'm talking today about a service request she made to the ISD. To respond to that call, the file was...
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Excuse me, we don't have a lot of time.
Do you have permission?