Evidence of meeting #39 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 block.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
She received the e-mail—the draft document from the finance committee—and she e-mailed you back saying, in effect, “I love you” and gave you a thumbs-up; she appreciated the e-mail.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
What did you take from that? It was that she appreciated your efforts to give her inside information--is that correct?
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
In the time between the first e-mail you sent out, to the first lobbyist, and the last e-mail, you're stating under oath to this committee that you didn't hear back from any of the lobbyists questioning your actions. Is that correct?
As an Individual
Mr. Chair, it is my intention to answer everything truthfully today, and it has been a very stressful time this past month. I'm indicating to the best of my knowledge that one month ago, almost, I do not remember any communication back to me saying, within the period of 24 hours after I sent it, before I was terminated, that “you should not have sent me this document”.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Can you swear under oath, then, Mr. Ullyatt, that the five e-mails that we are aware of were the only five that you distributed?
As an Individual
Unequivocally, yes, only the five e-mails were distributed, and it was the only methodology—electronic e-mail was the only method—that I used to transmit the report.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Of the five lobbyists you sent the e-mails to, did any of them request such information before you sent it to them?
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Can you again perhaps clarify for this committee why these five? You mentioned that they were friends. I'm assuming you have personal relationships with other lobbyists. Why was it that it was just these five to whom you sent the e-mails?
I'm trying to understand your thought process here. You sent the first e-mail out roughly at eight in the morning, almost immediately after you received it. The last e-mail was sent out several hours later. You obviously had a period of time to reflect on what you were doing. You have many other relationships, I'm sure, with other lobbyists or other individuals in the lobbying profession or other professions to whom you could have sent this to try to enhance your own reputation, or as you put it, to try to show how important you are. Why was it only these five?
As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I cannot come up with an honest answer. I've asked myself this. I thought I'd be able to find an answer, but I do not know why I chose the five individuals I chose. Perhaps at the time they were at the top of my mind for one reason or another, but I do not know.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Finally, Mr. Ullyatt, this issue has been receiving widespread attention. Obviously those in the lobbying professions understand the consequences that may fall out as a result of this.
Have you had any contact with any of the five lobbyists you sent this information to, or any other lobbyists or individuals in the lobbying profession since the story broke in the news media?
As an Individual
I have contacted four of the lobbyists in question today, have offered my apologies for my actions and the problems they have brought upon them. I have seen other people in social settings, including lobbyists, but that would be all.
Conservative
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ullyatt, you are testifying under oath. I would like you to tell me if this is the first time that you have leaked confidential documents.
As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
Yes, this is the first time.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
When you sent the draft report, you knew that the documents were confidential, because it is clearly indicated at the bottom of the emails, by the clerk, that these documents must not be released publicly. You knew that when you sent them out.
As an Individual
I understood that the document was important and confidential; however, I did not understand the gravity of my actions. I did not understand the gravity and institutional importance of parliamentary privilege.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Ullyatt, earlier, we raised the issue of why you chose these very specific lobbying firms rather than some others. Why did you choose these ones specifically?
As an Individual
I can only say the same thing I said before. That is, that I've asked myself the question and I've indicated that the people I sent the report to were friends; however, I cannot discern why I only chose the five people I chose.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
If I understand the interpretation of what you said, Mr. Ullyatt, you said that you chose these companies because they are your friends. I think that perhaps I understand more clearly the exchange of emails that you had with Ms. Hamilton. It is unusual for an MP's assistant to be able to exchange such familiar words as those that you exchanged with Ms. Hamilton in your email of November 18. In fact, you told her that you were sending her a report and you added the following words: "I thought to myself that you might want to take a look at this". She answered you: "You are so loveable", and you answered: "Does that compensate for all my other negative points?" And she answered you and said: "Everything is perfect you have no negative points!!!"
Mr. Ullyatt, when you exchange emails with such familiar comments in them, we might be led to believe that this is quite a profound friendship.
As an Individual
Yes, I have a good relationship with Ms. Hamilton. But I do not have an answer as to why I sent it to her and the four others.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
So what we can understand is that when we have friends with whom we feel comfortable and who belong to a lobbying firm, we want to share information that we are the only ones to have. As far as I understand, your friends profited from this report.
I have another question. Have you, have you had, or will you have professional or personal relations with the lobbyists with whom you shared the draft? Have you had or will you have other professional relations with these firms?
Would you like me to repeat the question?
