Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome again, Madam Fraser and Mr. Ste-Marie.
Let me just say through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Williams that it's interesting to watch a lot of different people shifting ground and using significant talents in a different kind of way.
I want to jump straight to the meat of the matter. I understand where the intersection is between your office--the report--and the departments, the ministers. Having been a provincial minister and having gone through this, I know you do need that. It is fair. I have no problem with that as a process. But at the end of the day, either we have a process that is respected, we take action to ensure people understand it's important, and we expect it to be respected, or we change the rules so that there isn't this expectation. But what we cannot accept is that this kind of leak is taking place and we're doing nothing about it. Moaning and groaning and saying that we're not sure we're going to be able to find out who did it, wringing our hands and saying maybe there's not too much we can do--it seems to me that's not acceptable.
There needs to be some kind of action. There has to be some kind of follow-up, or we're just pretending this is important.
I've heard you, Madam Fraser. I noted what's in your report today, where you say that the premature disclosure represents a disregard for the statutory right of the House of Commons to receive that report. I believe at our previous meeting you said--and correct me if I'm wrong--that it was an affront to Parliament. And I understand that for people across the country this is inside baseball and it doesn't matter much. And that's cool. I respect that. The big issues are going to come tomorrow.
Nonetheless, if we believe that this is a new era and that government and Parliament really are going to try to be ethical, transparent, and accountable, then this just can't stand. It cannot stand as something we just live with. It's either a priority, and we respect it and treat it that way, or it's not, so let's change the rules and stop pretending. But to leave the rules the way they are and ignore them gets us nowhere.
Mr. Williams suggested it might have been a disgruntled Liberal embedded in the bureaucracy. It could very well be, but it's interesting, because when you talk to police who are looking at crimes that involve money, the first thing they ask you is, who benefits from what took place? If you take a look at what happened, you'll see it certainly didn't help the Liberals. It had nothing to do with the NDP. It had nothing to do with the Bloc. The only ones who would benefit are the Conservatives, because this is a highly charged issue, and you guys are going to get raked over the coals tomorrow.
Get ready; it's coming. And that's legitimate. But it still leaves us with this huge issue.
You've made reference, Madam Fraser, to the government security policy. I have to say that one is new to me. Can you give me a quick outline of what exactly that is? Is it applicable only to your department and only to these reports?