Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 9th, 2016

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Okay. Thank you.

You indicated that you immediately acted when you became aware. Can you elaborate and give more detail on what steps were taken with respect to that?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Sure. I became aware of this discussion, the article, the breach of privilege that was talked about, in the House of Commons after I came back from a press conference around Bill C-14. I was in the House and heard the chief government whip speak. Like every member of this committee and all members in the House of Commons, I take privilege very seriously, so it was a concern to me, absolutely.

At that point, I engaged in discussions over BlackBerry, called my staff in my office, spoke with all members of my exempt staff who have the security clearance to view cabinet documents, and also spoke with my deputy minister, whom I advised of the situation. He of course had already read the article. We ensured, through our conversations with exempt staff and our departmental officials, that this was a serious concern, but we confirmed that we had followed all security measures as articulated in the policies that the Privy Council Office has.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

When you talk about, quote-unquote, exempt staff, what process do they go through to become exempt?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

There's a hiring process certainly in all the ministers' offices. The hiring process is not necessarily the same within all ministers' offices, in terms of how many people won interviews, but there's an interview process.

When somebody is made an offer of a position, that person is subject to the rules that are in place with respect to the Privy Council Office. They're subject to quite extensive security clearances in order to achieve whatever level of security clearance they're deemed appropriate to have. They're obliged through that process to follow all of the measures that are in place around confidences in terms of documents, memorandums to cabinet, development of policy papers, and the like. There's a substantive security clearance that ministers' office staff or exempt staff have to go through.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

Did you report a possible security breach to the security department?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I did not report to the departmental security department for the reason that there was no evidence that the breach had occurred within my department or within my ministerial office.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Okay. Thank you.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Minister, for being here today and for taking this matter so seriously.

I'd like to go back to some of the things you said about the article itself.

First, there was inaccurate information in the article, and in fact you talked about inconsistencies. With all due respect to my colleague Mr. Reid, I think when you're talking about something as important as the eligibility criteria, it's not likely there was a transcription error, so what was in the bill and what was in the article were actually not the same.

Second, the article focused more on what was not in the bill as opposed to what was in the bill. Even then, I think I heard you say that it was very much around the general principles.

In terms of what you called a “correct guess”, is this information that could easily have been inferred from things that were already public or things that had been shared during the consultation process, prior to the notice period and the tabling of the legislation? This was general enough information that it doesn't prove that anyone who wasn't supposed to actually had the text of the bill.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you for the question. My answer to that is that it's a possibility. Certainly, the article talks about exclusions from the bill. It speaks to mental suffering, mature minors, and advance consent. Those are controversial issues. They were certainly issues that were substantively discussed in the special joint committee report. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that one would think that any piece of proposed legislation might make reference to those issues. That's my answer right now.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Your department has very strict protocols. You outlined some of those. There was never any breach that was reported to you by your department. Can you elaborate on that?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Certainly.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Nobody in your department came to you and said, “I left it in a taxicab.” There was never anything reported in terms of any potential security breach.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

There was never anything reported. If there had been something like a lost document or some sort of breach of security protocols, those would have been reported immediately to my deputy, and through my deputy, to me. I never received any report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Richards for a five-minute round.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

You seem to somewhat dispute the potential regarding the one part of the bill that was leaked or potentially leaked, as the person indicated, with regard to mental suffering, and I think that's a matter for dispute. That's a matter of opinion, I think. Many people who are opposed to the bill would argue that maybe actually, in practice, that is something that is excluded from the bill. We won't dwell on that, because it seems to me as though you do indicate that you believe some of these other things certainly are excluded from the bill, and the person who has made these assertions was correct that these things are excluded.

I get a sense that the fact that there is a potential leak here is something that upsets you. I'm getting that sense from your testimony and from your answers today. Is that accurate?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Of course. I think a breach of privilege should impact all members of Parliament as a serious concern, and I appreciate the efforts that you're all undertaking in this regard.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Good, and I appreciate that. I do appreciate that you're taking this seriously and that you're trying to be as direct as you can with your responses.

Based on that, I would assume that if there was a leak—and to me it seems as though there has been one—that you would want to see that source discovered and you would want to see that issue addressed. Is that correct?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I think everybody wants to uncover the information if, in fact, there was a leak.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You would, obviously, desire that this committee do everything it can and make every effort it possibly can to discover the source of that leak. Is that correct?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I think this committee is undertaking a study to do just that.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You would agree it's an important goal.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Yes, absolutely.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I don't have time to go into the details of the investigation that was done in your office. I wish I did. You have mentioned a number of times you believe quite confidently that the source of the leak was not within your office or within your department.

You have mentioned there were other departments and agencies that had access to the contents of the bill. You mentioned specifically the Department of Health and the Prime Minister's Office as being two potential places that would have access to the bill.

It would seem fairly obvious to me that the next steps for us would be to ask people in the Prime Minister's Office, and probably the Minister of Health's office what has been done and whether there have been similar investigations done, as you weren't aware whether that was the case. We should determine whether there have been similar investigations done by the department and the minister's office at Health Canada and also the Prime Minister's Office. That would seem to be the next logical step for us to follow.

It would seem the most likely source would be the communications staff in the Prime Minister's Office, or maybe the communications staff in the Minister of Health's office. Could you give us some sense as to who those individuals might be so we would know who we should be calling? We have to have some sense as to how we would conduct an investigation into the Prime Minister's Office and their handling of the contents, and also with your colleague, the Minister of Health, and her office. Can you give us any sense as to who we might call?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Maybe I could repeat some of what I said in that this piece of legislation wasn't drafted by the Department of Justice alone. My department, and I'll be very clear on this, worked closely and collaboratively with other departments, and my exempt staff worked closely with their counterparts.

As per PCO guidelines, drafts of memorandums to cabinet containing specific policy recommendations were shared with central agencies—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm limited on time here.