Public Safety Committee on June 17th, 2008

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

I have another question.

You must have been aware of the RCMP evidence before this committee that they could not tell us, for reasons of their own--because they say they may be doing something, and it might jeopardize something they may have done or may be doing--whether or not they contacted the PCO with respect to this matter. After that the PCO went out and clarified that, to the effect that the PCO didn't hear from the RCMP with respect to these concerns at all.

First of all, how did that come about? Second, did you consider at any time that by going public with that information you might be jeopardizing something the RCMP may have done or may be doing, which is what they said to us?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

The PCO did not comment on anything the RCMP may have been doing. I did read Assistant Commissioner Souccar's evidence, and I certainly think it was appropriate that he didn't tell what he tells us about background checks. We do not normally reveal background checks.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

No, that's not the question. The question to the RCMP was whether they had contacted the PCO in this matter. They said they couldn't tell us that because it might involve jeopardizing something they may have done or may be doing.

The question I have for you is this: did you consider, before going public, that you might be jeopardizing something the RCMP may be doing or may have done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Seven minutes goes by very quickly. Let's have time for a brief answer here.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Well, let me try once again to answer that.

I agree with the RCMP that it is not the practice in this government, or indeed in any previous government, to talk about the results of background checks.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I didn't ask you that. I asked whether or not they raised any red flags with PCO. They flatly told us they couldn't tell us that, yes or no. They weren't going to answer that question.

You answered it for the public. Did you consider at that time that you might be jeopardizing any investigation that they may have undertaken or that they may be undertaking? I ask because that's what they said to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Now we're going to go over to Mr. Ménard, please.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Madam, for having come to appear before the Committee. It is my understanding that you are not the highest ranking official within the Privy Council Office, that there is someone above you.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Pardon me?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I believe it is Mr. Lynch.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Yes, it is Mr. Lynch.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

In a very delicate situation where the RCMP is of the view that a minister, for temporary matrimonial reasons, is engaging in relations that could be dangerous for him and for security, would the matter be dealt with exclusively by Mr. Lynch at the Privy Council Office?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Mr. Lynch would certainly be involved in anything involving cabinet ministers.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes, but if Mr. Lynch were warned by the RCMP that a minister was placing him or herself in a dangerous and delicate situation, would you be aware of it?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

The norm would be for the RCMP to contact me. It's not impossible to contact Mr. Lynch, but they didn't.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

It therefore would go through you.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

It would go through me.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

This information would necessarily go through you.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

It generally speaking would, but not necessarily.

It's usually the case that it would come through me. It's not a rule that it has to; if I was not available, they could talk to Mr. Lynch.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

It is a very delicate matter for the very reason that it pertains to the matrimonial life of a minister. This could represent a danger for security. Is it possible that at the Privy Council Office, one person only be aware of the situation, without you yourself being apprised of it?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

I suppose anything is possible. It's possible.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

It is in accordance with the procedures.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

But it's not the case in this case, if that's your question.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Fine, but how do you know that? Let us move on to something else.

You say that you provide information and advice to ministers with regard to the way in which they should handle secret documents entrusted to them. That is the case, is it not?

What do you tell them with regard to secret files? What precautions should they take when studying such documents elsewhere than in their office?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Well, there are several measures, and I'll turn to Mr. Tardif if I forget some.

In general, there are, first of all, locked briefcases provided to ministers. Second, they can have safes in their homes and locations, and a number do. Third, they have staff who can transport documents for them.