Please.
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.
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.
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Have you, have you had or will you have any professional and personal relations with those to whom you sent the draft?
11:20 a.m.
As an Individual
I had both personal and professional relationships with the people I shared this report with.
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
11:20 a.m.
As an Individual
I've spoken with, as I said, four of the five lobbyists I shared the report with, and I offered my apologies. It is my hope that I will continue to have a personal relationship with these individuals. However, because of the inappropriateness of my actions, I can understand if they wouldn't want to have a professional relationship with me.
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you.
Pierre, would you like to continue?
Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
I really would like you to explain something to us. When, after having sent out the emails, did you realize that you had made a mistake? In one of the emails that you sent out, you said: "I thought to myself that you might like to take a look at this while it is still a draft. For reasons that are quite obvious, please do not pass it around." Therefore, you knew that it was not to be passed around. After having done what you did, when did you realize that you had made an error in judgment?
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
I knew that the document was important when I received it from the clerk. However, I did not grasp the gravity of my error and the absolute critical lapse of my judgment until the next morning, when Mrs. Block called me at my home to indicate that it would be treated as a matter of privilege.
She somewhat explained that and then indicated to me that my employment with her was terminated as of that moment.
December 14th, 2010 / 11:25 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ullyatt, good morning. To make things easier, I will make an exception and speak to you in English.
Mr. Ullyatt, how did you come to choose Paul Lepsoe as your lawyer?
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
Through different social passings of people who expressed their concern for me. I was asked by numerous people, “Have you found a lawyer to ensure that you know your responsibilities as a witness in front of a committee and houses of Parliament?” I said no. His name was the first to be suggested by a few friends.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
You are aware that Paul Lepsoe is the lawyer who represented the Conservative Party of Canada in the in-and-out affair. Was that the best way to put distance between yourself and the Conservatives on this file?
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
I have had no communication with anybody in the government or with my former employer, and—
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
But he's a Conservative government lawyer. He's one of the closest advisers and lawyers for the Conservative Party.
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
But I quite honestly did not know his history before I chose him. It was simply on the recommendation of friends, not on anybody else.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
It's an ongoing file, Mr. Ullyatt.
You tell us in your letter that you sent to the committee yesterday that you have great respect for our institution of Parliament. I always want to take people at their word. But given the fact that it took you four weeks to get this letter to us at the finance committee, and you were coming here today and Ms. Block is scheduled at our next committee hearing, do you find that was the most respectful way to deal with the parliamentary institution, to send out a letter where you draw your own conclusions about Ms. Block where we have yet to even hear her give her own testimony?
Do you not consider that this was in fact an interference in the work of this committee to send that letter yesterday, where it could have been widely reported and we couldn't react to it? Wasn't it the best course of action to come and see us here today? Or did Mr. Lepsoe tell you that it would be a good idea to get that letter in yesterday?
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
Actually, Mr. Lepsoe had no knowledge of me sending the letter. He did not assist me in writing it or redrafting it. It was done solely on my own accord. I—
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
With regard to the issue of respect for the institution of Parliament?
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
With regard to my respect for the institution, I did not believe that it would impugn the work of the committee by sending the apology letter. I saw it as simply an apology to the chair for—
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
But the letter contains a lot more than an apology. There's also a paean in there to the work of Ms. Block. You sing her praises in that letter, and that's precisely what we had to try to determine, but I'll leave that there for now.
I want to make sure I understand what's implicit in your letter, and I want to give you a chance to say it outright. Are you saying that other than this one incident, everything else you did while working for Ms. Block was with her knowledge and in accordance with the rules she set down for you as her employee? Is that a fair interpretation of your letter?
