Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being here today.
I want to follow up on the line of questioning we started with last week. I know that you indicated you'd followed the story both in the media and through Hansard, so let me go directly to that point.
Most of us here in this room would agree there was a indeed breach of privilege. All of us would also share your concerns about the seriousness of such a breach. I have a more difficult time with the second two of our responsibilities: to find who the culprit is, and then to determine the remedies or penalties that ought to be applied for such behaviour.
You suggested that you have some concern about the perception that House wouldn't be supportive of pursuing this. I don't think that is an impression anybody had hoped to leave.
On the other hand, there is a reality that we have to confront. It's true that we have to protect ourselves from intimidation, but I heard you say—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—that we need to pursue this so that we can restore the integrity of our systems, except from my perspective, this wasn't a hacking job. There was no breach of computer security here on the Hill and there was no concern about the security of our BlackBerrys, our desktops, or anything of that nature, so it's not really a matter of defining a remedy in terms of enhancing computer security here on the Hill.
Anybody can post a YouTube video from anywhere, and that's quite different from somebody who is hacking into our systems. For the kinds of issues we are looking at here, remedies probably lie within the Criminal Code, perhaps in our defamation laws.
I wonder if you could clarify the remedy you are seeking, and where you feel that the House may be letting you down if it doesn't pursue this as you envision it ought to be pursued.