Thank you. I expected that was probably the answer, because I hadn't seen a procedural change being the answer up until now, although if you're willing to, you could undertake some “blue skying” to just think about how we could do this from the beginning to the end.
But I have to tell you, at the end of the day--and this is my personal opinion--we're dealing with politics, not corruption, and not people who are corrupt. Quite frankly, why would anybody in the Auditor General's department leak anything unless they had some really personal reason or they were being blackmailed, unless there's some particular reason? Who would be stupid enough to work in the Auditor General's department and leak anything? It just doesn't make any sense. It's the same with the department staff, quite frankly. And the only one who could authorize that, if it was going to be planned, would be the deputy. I can't imagine that anybody would hire a deputy that stupid. The same applies to anybody below who thinks that somehow they're doing the deputy or others a big favour. Again, you're either into total incompetence or just outright corruption. You're somebody who shouldn't be working for the public at all.
What does that leave? It leaves us with the politics of the situation. And much as when you're dealing with a lot of other matters, who benefits? That's the first question you ask. In this case, let's just say that there were enough political dynamics to answer that question. It seems to me that the only way we're ever going to resolve this in any way, shape, or form is if there are greater consequences. Most criminologists will tell you that people commit crimes primarily because they believe they can get away with them. If they don't believe they can get away with it, they won't commit the crime, for the most part. That's the way most people think. In this case, 100% of the time, they get off. So where's the deterrence?
I'll pose a thought and then put a question. The question would be, what do other jurisdictions do, and how do we stack up in terms of our percentage? Are there any measures in comparable systems? In Ontario we had the same system--and you've probably faced it too, Ms. Sgro--and it's fair all around. I know when I was on the other side, I appreciated the chance to see that my department got to respond. We took our hits in the political arena, but the process was fair.
It seems that we need a process that says--and it's probably political people--if you do this, here's the grief it's going to cause for you and your colleagues. Then we have a system in place. I would suggest that we try once, while this is still hot...because we're not going to pursue this any further. Let's not kid ourselves. We're up against a dead-end alley here. We put in place a procedure for next time that's very draconian but very clear, and it says that the next time there's a leak, here is what we're going to do, and we've already decided it ahead of time. And we line up all those people we're going to call in, with heavy emphasis on the political side. I don't think it's unfair to suspect that your prime suspects are going to be on the political side. It just makes the most sense. We make it clear that everybody who saw that document in any minister's office is coming in here, even if we agree to meet extraordinarily, during weekends or in the evening. We try it once, and that says to the next person, you may not get caught, but here's the grief that you're going to cause everybody around you, and you had better weigh that into your consideration too, because this is not just a freebie where you get to set the headline and the political agenda the next day.
Barring that, we're going to be here over and over. There have to be consequences. That's the only thing I can think of: to make it clear and do it ahead of time. We publish it and say, here's what we are going to do and here's who we're going to call in and put on the hot spot and in the public domain; here are all the people who are going to have to come in and start talking to us. For the most part, people like to avoid coming here, I think. That would at least be something. Barring that, we're going to be back here again in a couple of months, or a few months, or a couple of years. But it's coming again.
Thanks, Chair.