Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Of the five, which one was looking to hire you?

[Russell Ullyatt]

I'm sorry, Ms. Foote, can you please repeat? I'm having trouble hearing you.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Okay, I'm sorry.

Of the five to whom you sent the report.... You said you had applied to all of them and they were all considering, but had you received an offer from any of them?

[Russell Ullyatt]

No, Mr. Chair, I received an offer from none of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Menzies, you have five minutes, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, this is my first time sitting in on this committee, and I'm finding it very difficult. I've asked to be allowed to sit in here because I sit on the finance committee.

Mr. Ullyatt, you describe this as a “lapse”. This is a very serious lapse. I hope that all MPs' and senators' staff members are watching this today to see how serious this is and to see how serious these words at the bottom of this document are:

This draft report is confidential until tabled in the House of Commons. Disclosure of the information contained in this report prior to its presentation in the House of Commons could be considered a potential breach of parliamentary privilege.

That, Mr. Ullyatt, is very serious. Given your having worked for other MPs—in fact, ministers—I'm very troubled that this can be summed up in one word as a “lapse”. There are a lot of things that concern me about this. We had 450 witnesses—and Mr. Mulcair will vouch for that—and not all appeared at committee, but they sent us presentations in hopes that they would have some input into the upcoming budget.

You've impugned all of those people; the credibility of a stellar member of Parliament is what frustrates me, but all members of Parliament. The finance committee put a lot of work into this, and it all goes up in smoke because of one lapse of one person's judgment.

As I say, if anything good comes out of this, I hope it's the fact that people can learn from your mistake.

Did any of these five lobbyists actually speak to you, either before or after you received a copy of this draft report, about their presentation or their representation of a group at our finance committee pre-budget hearings—either before or after you received this information?

[Russell Ullyatt]

Mr. Chair, to the best of my recollection, Mrs. Block indicated that throughout the process of the pre-budget consultation she would like to be hearing from the witnesses at the committee table rather than through her office. So I believe that before I received this report, I did not have any official conversations with the five lobbyists in question in regard to their submissions. But as I referenced before, it was a month ago, and I don't remember every single conversation or communication I had with them.

As far as after I received the document is concerned, I was only in the employment of Mrs. Block for another 23 hours, so no.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Just to be clear, you have said that you didn't forward in any other electronic method. You didn't print this off, save it, take it home, and share it with anyone else?

[Russell Ullyatt]

Unequivocally no, Mr. Chair.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

I guess I'll go back to some of the previous questioning about the time lapse here. Who's the best friend? Is it the one who got it first?

I'm not trying to impugn the lobbyists. We all meet with lobbyists on a regular basis. They're an incremental part of how Parliament operates. They inform us of what their clients need and require. So I'm not trying to impugn the lobbyists. In fact, you've done a great job of that yourself.

Why did you choose one person at 8:30 in the morning and your second-best friend hours later? I guess I'm having trouble with that.

[Russell Ullyatt]

Mr. Chair, as I stated in my other answer, I believe I'm still having trouble answering that myself. I cannot explain the order in which I sent the document. I cannot describe why I sent it to those particular five individuals. I can only repeat my sincerest apology for my actions.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Paquette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

At the outset, we asked you why you chose these five specific lobbyists and you said that they were friends, that they were the five names that came to your mind. I do not know exactly what kind of logic... Subsequently, you told us that you had applied for jobs in all five firms.

Basically, did you send this information to the five firms in an attempt to promote yourself so as to better your chances of eventually landing a job? Did it ever cross your mind that sending out the preliminary report of the finance committee would improve your chances of getting a job with one of these five lobbying companies?

[Russell Ullyatt]

I was very satisfied with my employment with Mrs. Block's office. I was proud and happy to work for Mrs. Block. I thought she was a very good and still is a very good member of Parliament. My answer before was that effectively, my sharing that document was intended to try to make me look like a better person than I obviously am.

So no, I do not believe your statement to be true.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

How long did you work for Ms. Block?

[Russell Ullyatt]

It was just over two years.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

And after two years as an assistant on Parliament Hill, a job that you were happy with, according to what you said, you applied for jobs in five places. Did you apply for jobs at more than five companies of this kind?

[Russell Ullyatt]

Yes.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Therefore, you were looking for a job elsewhere.

[Russell Ullyatt]

That's correct.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Were you looking for another job because Ms. Block was beginning to criticize your work, or was it because you wanted to move ahead in your professional career?

[Russell Ullyatt]

I was looking for work both inside and outside of politics. It truly had nothing to do with Mrs. Block. It was about my own professional advancement.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Did Ms. Block fire you the next day, after she learned about the leak? In your opinion, was it the only reason for your being fired, or could there be other factors so that this was perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back?

[Russell Ullyatt]

I believe Mrs. Block terminated my employment because of the leak. I have not been perfect in my job, but that wasn't my decision to terminate me, it was Mrs. Block's decision.