Government Operations Committee on June 19th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp, that's not a point of order.

Continue, Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

The issue of criminality has been raised a few times, and I think that's a red herring as well. I think this is a breach of trust. Confidential information was leaked, and damage was done to our international reputation. If we really wanted to, I genuinely believe we could have found the source of the leak.

One of the questions that comes to me—and, Mr. Lynch, perhaps you could speak to this—is the whole notion of a conflict of interest. You have a very close working relationship with the chief of staff, Ian Brodie, and you're asked to conduct an investigation that really looks at Mr. Brodie and his indiscretion as a person who actually started this, I would say, fiasco, or this international problem or incident. You're asked to conduct an investigation of a person with whom you work very closely. Does this pose a conflict of interest of any kind?

[Kevin Lynch]

Let me start with your last question: no, it does not. As I said earlier, my role is to be absolutely non-partisan in all my dealings with the Prime Minister and his office, including when the Prime Minister asks us to investigate.

What we did as well in this case was to ask Mr. Tardif to be the centre of this investigation, not me. I'm accountable for the results. I'm accountable for the report. I'm actually very pleased with the rigour of it. But it was a report that was done independently. We engaged a firm with, I think, a great reputation to do it. It was directed by Mr. Tardif. My instructions were that they should go where the investigation took them. So that is the independence of the report.

I'd like to go back to your earlier question about Mr. Brodie and what we say in the report. If you think back to that point in time, I think there was a lot of uncertainty and questioning about what Mr. Brodie may or may not have said. In the conclusions of the report, I think the investigators have brought much greater clarity than was available at the time.

They indicate that although there are differing views, the best evidence we have is that it's probable that Mr. Brodie spoke to the reporter, in the lock-up, on the subject of NAFTA, and that he may have told them that there had been contact between Senator Clinton's campaign and the embassy in Washington. That's not Senator Obama's campaign and what's in the report, and I think that's a substantial difference. I think the work of the investigators has helped clarify that.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

No, I agree, Mr. Lynch, but in the context that.... In terms of whether it was Clinton's campaign or Obama's campaign, our being unable even to get CTV reporters in to interview them has caused a bit of the ambiguity that exists. I think that would have been clarified.

The point is that he is the chief of staff, he has access to confidential information, and his indiscretion caused this incident to occur. That's the point I wanted to make.

Mr. Lynch, if you don't mind me asking, one of the names brought up by the media as a possible source of the leak--this was done after the report came out--was Frank Sensenbrenner. He's the son of a Republican Congressman.

Did this name ever come up in the investigation? Was he ever interviewed? Is this someone who was sought after, or were any questions asked, regarding his role in this investigation?

[Kevin Lynch]

I'll turn to the investigators in a moment, but first I can tell you that Mr. Sensenbrenner's name was not on the list of the 232 individuals who received the report.

In the report, as you'll note, not all the folks interviewed have been named. That's because of the privacy acts in Canada. We are not allowed, by law, to name the people who do not work for the Government of Canada. That applies to everyone not working for the government who was interviewed by the investigators.

[Patrick Cummins]

The extensive--and I mean extensive--review of electronic communications over a 24-month period was done with respect to exchanges that may have transpired between certain parties and certain ministerial officials and others. I can assure you that there is absolutely nothing--and I mean absolutely nothing--in those exchanges over that 24-month period that would suggest in any way, shape, or form that those individuals' connections with any official of the Government of Canada were anything other than legitimate political exchanges and activities.

I would go further to say that, if anything, the documentation would suggest that the individuals had nothing to do with the disclosure as alleged. It's been my approach, all through my career in the RCMP and elsewhere, that it is quite improper for somebody to be approached on speculation, on unfounded speculation. There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this gentleman was involved in the unauthorized disclosure.

Mr. Chair, I'm not disputing Mr. Bains' characterization of the confidential information, although I would invite the committee to consider that the comments made by Mr. Brodie were comments that were in the public domain. They were not confidential. It was not confidential diplomatic information.

The investigation established that those kinds of observations and comments were swirling around the Capitol in Washington at the time. It was a topic of conversation in the same way that the World Series would be, or the Stanley Cup would be in Canada, in terms of who was saying what. There were commentators on both sides of the spectrum making observations, whether it was serious or not.

So I'm not here to replace--

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

No, I understand where you're coming from. In light of the time, I just want to say your point is well made, but when the chief of staff makes a comment, it carries a lot of weight, and that's my point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bains.

We'll now go to Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. In spite of your earlier ruling that the issue was pertinent to our committee's study today, I want to remind the committee that the committee is meeting to determine whether the scope of this review was appropriate.

In that vein, I want to follow up on an earlier question that Mr. Kramp offered in regard to the methodology that was used. Item 3 on page 2 of the report indicates the following:

The investigation was carried out in a comprehensive, systematic and impartial manner aimed at reaching the stated objectives, in accordance with standard practices of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, and with prescribed practices and procedures of the Institute of Internal Auditors. Generally accepted investigative standards were followed to ensure that sufficient and appropriate empirical evidence was obtained to determine the veracity of allegations that form the basis of this report.

That reminds me of the line at the end of my financial statements by my auditors, which says “This was done with generally accepted accounting procedures”. I certainly believe that, and I value this statement.

Could you just give me, in maybe two to three minutes, a bit of a breakdown as to what those generally accepted practices are? I know that's asking a lot in a short time, but I think it would be helpful for a layperson like me to understand what that is.

[Patrick Cummins]

Am I allowed to refer to a document here?

It's standard practice that you clearly set out the scope of the activity, your mandate, what is being sought, and the direction your activity is going to go. You agree in advance to the methodologies that are going to be used to determine how this is going to be done. You familiarize yourself with the work practices and the activities of the client. In this sense, since it was the Government of Canada, with which both Mr. Bird and I have considerable experience, it wasn't a question of learning about the operation of the machinery of government or international investigations. It was using the accepted practices with respect to ensuring the main objective and sticking to fact-based findings, avoiding speculation. In effect, you can substantiate with a

supporting document

one way or another.

I'm jumping ahead here, in effect. Then once you've actually gathered the information from all the different sources, whether those are open sources, data communications, fax logs, telephone logs, BlackBerry logs, or several thousand pages of electronic data, which is reviewed and analyzed and timelined, then you prepare your report.

I must say, sir, the easiest thing in the world is to prepare the report once the timeline is concluded. The timeline is the bugbear of everything. The timeline establishes what can be in the report.

You do that, and then in the case of BMCI, once we've done that, there's the quality assurance process during which the president makes sure that every statement we have in that document can be backed up by a primary source of one nature or another. It could be an interview note. It could be a newspaper article, Associated Press information, or whatever. But every statement in that report must be capable of being backed up by some substantiating document.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to proceed now to a question for Mr. Meyer, and again remind everyone that the purpose of this committee is to review the scope of the report and its conclusions.

Mr. Meyer, as the Department of Foreign Affairs representative here today, do you feel comfortable with the report that was tabled, and were the scope and the objectives that were set out met?

[Paul Meyer]

First, just to clarify, this was a PCO report and a PCO investigation. We weren't the project authority. We were facilitating the PCO-directed investigation.

But in regard to our assistance, we were led by the requirements of the investigators and tried to meet their needs as comprehensively and as fully as we could. We ourselves did not have a role in setting scope or objectives. Those were PCO's decisions.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Could you comment on your comfort level with the report's recommendations?

[Paul Meyer]

I think it's a very solid report. Two of the recommendations are explicitly addressed to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We fully concur with them, as well as the finding that the diplomatic report out of our consul general in Chicago had been inappropriately classified and distributed too broadly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

We will go to Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Gentlemen, at the beginning I said that I could not correctly assess your report. Having listened to you for an hour and a half, I can, nevertheless, share with you my vision and my conclusions on this issue. I am going to make some comments, but you are not obliged to respond.

Mr. Lynch, in your opening remarks, you said that the investigation was comprehensive and independent. I believe that it was independent. However, I doubt that it was comprehensive, since as you said yourself, the deadlines were too short. Because you did not have enough time and there was not sufficient investment in this investigation, your report contains a great deal of "maybes".

For example, in the second-last paragraph on page 6, it says:

[...] there are indications that information about the meeting between Senator Obama's advisor and Consul General Rioux was known to the media prior to this date, possibly as early as February 28.

There it says "possibly". In the second-last paragraph on page 8 it says: "there are indications that". On page 9, it says, in paragraph 5.1: "it appears probable". There are a great deal of "may haves" and "it appears". Never does this report, except perhaps when it addresses the facts, mention that you have found such and such a piece of information, and never do you make definitive statements. I find that there are a great many "may haves", but that is an opinion.

Mr. Cummins, I do not think that you were given all of the necessary authority. The Canadian press at the time reported that representatives of the government had indicated that they were not looking to discover the source of the initial leak. Perhaps there could have been an agreement with the U.S. government to contact Associated Press. When you receive a fax, there is always a number that enables you to trace the origin. I don't think that you were given all of the necessary authority to conduct a comprehensive investigation which, in my view, was well done. I believe, like the journalists of the day and everyone else, that it was in the interest of someone somewhere to leak the information. History may perhaps reveal more about this.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, staff and officials seem to have made a considerable number of mistakes over the past few years. I find that very damaging and astonishing. I have travelled, and I have met these people. They seem to me to be highly competent and professional, but for some time now, they are always mixed up in situations that show some incompetence or lack of experience and professionalism. Moreover, the recommendations in the report are always made with reference to staff at the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, I am not convinced that these people are responsible for all of the leaks and the mistakes made by the Department of Foreign Affairs that are currently in the news.

I will stop here, and I thank you for having appeared before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Ms. Bourgeois.

Do you want to respond?

[Kevin Lynch]

Perhaps I can respond.

There were four basic points that you made; first, that there was not enough time. I suspect investigators would always say they'd like more time, but I believe Mr. Cummins and Mr. Bird were absolutely definitive that they had found no evidence whatsoever to suggest criminal activity. The definitiveness of their conclusion in that timeframe to me suggests that the timeframe was adequate for them to arrive at their conclusions and the findings in the report.

Second, I think Mr. Cummins and Mr. Bird actually said quite the opposite concerning whether or not they had enough authority. They felt they were given complete independence, and indeed our instructions were that they could go wherever they thought the investigation should go, as seasoned, extremely experienced investigators.

Third, on the United States, I think we have described that it's not a matter of authority but a matter of law and treaty, and therefore it's not an issue that either the investigators or we could affect.

Fourth, may I say concerning the Department of Foreign Affairs that I think we have talked about the specifics, but I must say, I would not generalize this. I have just come back from Afghanistan, where I spent ten days with not just the Canadian Forces but with men and women of Foreign Affairs. I think they're doing some absolutely remarkable things around the world. In no way, shape, or form would I generalize from the specific instance here, for which I think we have a remedy plan.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Mr. Lynch.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to say how much I appreciate the time you have taken here, gentlemen. When I'm asking questions, it's not that.... I think you have done a very thorough job, given the task at hand. My question is, are we looking for the same thing?

I think the issue of timelines is crucial here. There's a ten-day period when this story begins to take off, from February 21, when the government is doing damage control over the Democratic primaries, to March 1 or March 2, when AP says they have the memo. Now, you've chosen to focus on the memo, but I think the real issue here is the seeding of the story.

I'm a big fan of movies. I watched Wag the Dog I don't know how many times, and in Wag the Dog they bring in Robert De Niro to offset a politically damaging issue. He begins to seed the story. Of course, there's no such thing as a B-3 bomber; who said anything about a B-3 bomber? And the next thing we know, we're talking about the B-3 bomber, as opposed to the scandal.

So we have Mr. Brodie in Washington on February 25, at the same time as this issue of NAFTA and the Democratic primaries becomes a hot political issue, and he says he doesn't remember getting briefed on anything to do with NAFTA and says perhaps there was an informal discussion on NAFTA. So we're to take it that the Prime Minister sends Brodie to Washington to discuss everything under the sun but NAFTA, but maybe they discussed NAFTA.

On February 26 he spoke to a reporter in the lock-up. We know that. Either the reporter is lying or he just doesn't do his job.

On February 27, Ambassador Wilson gets a call from CTV and is asked to confirm whether it was Clinton's camp who was sending the messages not to worry about the position on NAFTA, and Mr. Wilson doesn't really give us a sense of what he told them, but CTV goes on the news that night saying that it was a top staff member from the Obama campaign who telephoned Michael Wilson and told him not to take this rhetoric seriously.

Now someone had to clarify that story. Someone had to clarify what Mr. Brodie said, and CTV is very clear that it was Michael Wilson who did it.

On February 28, Mr. Wilson speaks with them again. Of course, this time he has someone in the office with him when that phone call takes place. But CTV stands by their story--

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Angus, Mr. Kramp has a point of order.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

My point of order is that our motion, Madam Chair, said “the scope”. It did not detail the investigation itself.

If we're going to talk about the particular investigation, that is a different thing. We're talking about the scope of the investigation. So we are—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp—

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

—not heading in the right direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

My understanding is that this is what Mr. Angus is questioning.