Evidence of meeting #42 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 document.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
If people were allowed to complete their answers, not get the same question three times, and not be berated and lectured to by committee members, it would be far more businesslike.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I agree with you. We would certainly get better results if we proceeded in that manner.
Madam Ratansi.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Young seems to be new to this committee and new to the fact that you have been here before and have not complied with the order of the committee. It is important that you comply with the order.
You have made two contradictory statements already. You said you asked the clerk for clarification, and then you said you asked the chair for clarification. Why did others who looked at this give all the information they had to give, whereas you're the only one who is withholding information? What is it that you have to hide?
11:10 a.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, GCI Group, As an Individual
Let me clarify. I did misspeak. We did speak with the clerk's office on numerous occasions to try to get clarification. If in your eyes we have failed to comply, let me assure you that I have the e-mails with me today. I am happy to turn them over.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
We had a motion ordering the witness to submit her communication. If she has brought the communication with her, as it has already been five days, I suggest that she kindly give this over to the clerk, because it will have to be translated. You would have saved us a lot of problems, because this communication needs to be translated into both official languages.
We don't want to have to bring you here again. It is important that you respect Parliament. This is such a simple motion. It asked you to produce papers. I cannot understand why a person in your position with your capabilities does not understand these things.
Can somebody pick up the documents from Ms. Hamilton?
How much time do I have?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
The witness referred to conversations with the clerk. Did our present clerk have conversations with the witness?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
That's what I was afraid of.
Could we check with the previous clerk to make sure we're getting the straight story?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Our new fantastic clerk will ask questions of our old fantastic clerk to see when the conversations took place.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Chair, I have one clarification. I hope the documents are not redacted.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
They're being handed in today. They'll need to be translated. This is the fifth day. We were asked for five days in your motion, so I think the witness--
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Excuse me, please don't.... I'll try not to interrupt you when you're speaking--or I will make a point of doing it, and I'm not sure you want that.
Mr. Lukiwski, you're up. Let's go.
February 8th, 2011 / 11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Hamilton, for being here today.
Let's cut to the chase here. Really, I think the reason you're here, Ms. Hamilton, is that many committee members at your last appearance, quite frankly, were questioning your honesty, the veracity of some of the statements you made, particularly when you said that you had not known the contents of the e-mails you received from Mr. Ullyatt and you didn't realize that it was a confidential or draft document.
The other lobbyists, save for one, disagreed with you on that point. They all indicated that they knew exactly what was happening. One or two of the lobbyists apologized to the committee for forwarding on that confidential information, information they knew was confidential. You, on the other hand, have stated publicly, and have reiterated your position again today, that you didn't know what was in the document when you first received it. Several hours later, the next day in fact, when you did examine the information, you thought it was information that was publicly available. You didn't realize that it was confidential. That's the point many of us on the committee are having problems with.
I'll tell you why I have problems with that. It just seems to be a common-sense thing to me, more than anything else. You stated, for example, that you printed off the attachment when you received it but didn't read it. All of us, and I'm sure you're no exception, receive literally dozens and perhaps sometimes hundreds of e-mails over the course of a day or two. We're living in an era of computer viruses and spam. We've all been educated—I'm sure you have, as well—not to open an attachment unless you know it's from a trustworthy source and you know what's in it. Yet you say that you opened the attachment and printed it without knowing what was in it. How can you explain that? Isn't that a bit odd?