Government Operations Committee on June 19th, 2008

[Ian Brodie]

No.

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

Mr. Brodie, since you understand that unfortunately the way the investigation was conducted it was unable to contact the Associated Press, key American witnesses who had or might have had access to the report, and the fact that CTV reporters were unable to collaborate or give their perspective and viewpoint, do you feel that the report and the mandate that was given was value for money? In your opinion, did the investigation and the way the investigation took place achieve its mandate, and was it value for money? Because it did cost the taxpayers $147,000.

[Ian Brodie]

I'm not sure I'm in a very good position to answer that question. Keep in mind that I did not task the investigation. The investigation did not report back to me.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I had two meetings with the investigators from the private firm that was hired by PCO. I spent several hours with them, both during the course of those two meetings and during the follow-up later that they asked for. I spent many, many, many hours on this.

The question of whether there was, overall, value for money on this is a question I think you should probably ask the Prime Minister during question period, since he tasked the report.

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

I appreciate that, but I'm taking this opportunity to ask you the question. It's up to you if you want to answer or not, but the question is directed to you for your opinion.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

That's a subjective question.

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

That's why I'm asking him to respond. If he chooses not to, that's understandable.

[Ian Brodie]

I really don't think I'm in a position to provide an answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bains.

We will go to Madame Bourgeois.

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

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, Ms. Faille.

Good morning, Mr. Brodie. Thank you for coming. I'm having trouble understanding. You appear to be a victim, in this situation. While you are still on staff at the Prime Minister's Office, you won't be there much longer. Everything seems to indicate that is due to the events that have occurred.

Is that true?

[Ian Brodie]

No.

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

In a short while, why will you no longer be part of the Prime Minister's Office?

[Ian Brodie]

Well, as I said in my opening remarks, I've been chief of staff for nearly three years. On May 2 I celebrated my fifth anniversary on the Hill. The job, as I think my predecessors in the job would be quite happy to testify, is a 24-hour-a-day, 365-days-a-year job. Even during time that may be labelled vacation, there isn't really vacation time during the course of the job. I think if you look at the practice of previous chiefs of staff, two years in office is not an uncommon time. And after two and a half years in government, I've decided I'd like to do something else.

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

So you are also a professor.

[Ian Brodie]

I have a young family. I'd like to see them.

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

I understand. The position you have as chief of staff sometimes involves travelling in the United States. When did you travel to the United States in conjunction with this particular file? Do you recall the exact date?

[Ian Brodie]

Yes. As I recall--and it's listed in the report--the budget this year was on Tuesday, February 26. I was in Washington for the day on Monday, February 25.

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

At that time, with whom did you meet exactly? What individuals did you meet?

[Ian Brodie]

That's an interesting question, actually. As was reported earlier that month, I had earlier that month travelled to Paris, at the request of the Prime Minister, with a group of government and military officials following up on the Manley panel's report on the mission in Afghanistan.

I was in Washington on February 25 as part of the continuing follow-up. A group of us had a series of briefings with folks from a number of U.S. government departments about the Manley panel and the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. I was the only political staff member on that delegation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ms. Faille, the floor is yours.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I will continue with the same line of questioning. On February 25, you had a conversation about NAFTA. How did this subject come up?

[Ian Brodie]

Well, I canvassed this fully with the investigators who were hired by the Privy Council Office, and I think their findings would guide you. I imagine that they spoke to some of the other folks who were there. I think there was an implication in the report that they spoke to other people we were dealing with at the embassy that day.

When we arrived in the morning, our first stop was at the embassy to meet Ambassador Wilson, some of his senior staff in the political affairs and advocacy divisions of the embassy, and some staff from the defence liaison office in Washington. This was to get us focused on the embassy staff's view of the play-out in Washington of the Manley panel--an up-to-date view of where they thought the Americans were in absorbing the implications of Mr. Manley's report and the government's response to it.

That briefing wrapped up earlier than we had expected, and we still had some time before our first encounter with U.S. officials. So at that point there was a more general discussion of the political situation in the United States, particularly vis-à-vis the unfolding presidential nomination race.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Could there have been a misunderstanding involving embassy representatives with respect to the content of the conversation between Mr. Wilson, Canada's ambassador in Washington, and CTV?

On February 27, CTV reportedly broadcast aspects of this confidential discussion with Mr. Wilson despite the promise made to him that he would not be quoted in the report. Could the information that Mr. Wilson allegedly provided to CTV have been the subject of a misunderstanding involving the Prime Minister's Office?

[Ian Brodie]

Let me just clarify this.

When I was in Washington on Monday, February 25, meeting with a number of people at the embassy and some of the folks who had come from Ottawa that day, none of this was on the horizon at that point. I hadn't spoken to anybody at CTV at that point about NAFTA, or anything else. From what I understand of the timeline reported in Mr. Lynch's report, neither had Mr. Wilson.

So let me just ask for clarification. Are we leaving behind here the meeting of the 25th, and turning to a future discussion?

I don't know what you would be referring to by a misunderstanding between the Prime Minister's Office and Ambassador Wilson. I did not speak with Ambassador Wilson during this time, so I'm not sure there was a misunderstanding.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

So there was no communication between the Prime Minister's Office and the embassy with respect to the information leaked about NAFTA?

[Ian Brodie]

I'm not sure I'm in a position to say that, but I had no conversation with Ambassador Wilson from the time I left Washington on the 25th, that Monday, until after this entire story became public.