Government Operations Committee on June 19th, 2008

[Patrick Cummins]

As the report states, 36 individuals were interviewed. I think there were 52 or 53 interviews of 36 individuals.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

What was the length of those interviews, to give us an idea of the thoroughness?

[Patrick Cummins]

They could vary.

I'll start from the back and go forward. Some of the return interviews could be as short as a minute. It would be a question of asking “By the way, what date was this?” or “Do you remember...?” They could be a minute.

The primary interviews are the 36. I don't believe there was an interview of less than a hour. There were a series of questions. In many instances they were an hour and a half to two hours, and sometimes they were two and a half hours.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I have a question for Mr. Meyer.

Now that we've moved on from the fantasyland conspiracy theories of political interference, one thing that I think would concern everyone on the committee would be how to avoid a situation like this in the future. If there was some carelessness in the foreign service, how do we avoid that happening? Are there any measures you're taking to avoid anything that could potentially repeat itself?

[Paul Meyer]

Of course we rapidly involved remedial measures.

I would like to underline that in context this is extremely rare. We have thousands of communications going daily, and a leak of this nature in diplomatic reporting is extremely rare.

That having been said, clearly we have a system based on individual responsibility and we can't have a policeman standing behind every diplomat who is originating a message. We rely on those individuals to show good judgment. Obviously they get initial training, but we need to have refresher training. We need to improve the recommendation regarding the online security course, for instance. We think it is a valid recommendation. We are looking at developing that. We already have one relating to our classified communication system, the so-called C-5 system; if you are entrusted with a C-5 account, you have to pass an online security course before that account is activated.

In April we had our two deputy ministers send a broadcast message out to all staff reminding them of the importance of protecting information, referring them to the detailed guidance available on our Internet sites for all employees, and reminding them of protection-of-information courses available to employees. Obviously it's an ongoing effort to ensure that all those who handle such information are using it in the appropriate way, using the appropriate systems, and exercising good judgment. Clearly human beings are not infallible, but I think we can ensure that a high standard is maintained through such an active training program.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

We'll give you one question, Mr. Bains, and then we'll suspend to go and vote. We are going to return to hear from another witness after the vote.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Brown makes his point that there's some sort of conspiracy that this interfered in the U.S. elections. Ambassador Wilkins very clearly stated that this was interference. So I wanted to make that point.

Secondly, with all due respect to you, Mr. Lynch, and to all your colleagues, who have done good work, this is not targeted at you. This is incredibly frustrating. The purpose and the mandate of this particular investigation was to find the leaked memo and the source of that leaked memo, and the fact that you were unable to contact or even call the Americans who had access to this information is very frustrating, incredibly frustrating. That's really one of the purposes of our sitting here today: it's to find out how we could have avoided it or what else we could have done to essentially.... You could just pick up the phone and call them and say, “Look, I know there is this jurisdictional issue, but because of the nature and the seriousness of the concerns raised by this investigation and the fact that you are our number one friend, trading partner, and ally....”

As you said, Mr. Cummins, many of the people you contacted and called and spoke with were very cooperative. I understand jurisdiction is an issue, but because of the nature of this investigation it would be very easy to pick up the phone and ask. If they chose not to respond, that's a separate issue, but the fact that an effort wasn't made.... Consideration was given, but actually nothing was done about it, and that's the frustrating part.

I say this with the utmost level of respect to you and your staff in the work that you've done.

My question is with regard to the point I made earlier with regard to Mr. Sensenbrenner. I'm not here to smear any individual's name. I mention it because it came up in the media report and it speaks to the question. The report states that the names of a few U.S. citizens were raised as having access to the report. I'm just putting out names that we think have come up. Can you speak to those names and to who those people were? That would help us with our committee work here.

[Kevin Lynch]

Mr. Bains, I can't because they're covered under the Privacy Act of Canada. The only names that I can make available under the law are those who were employees of the Government of Canada. So it's not a choice that I have; my behaviour in this regard is governed by the law.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

We will suspend, but before we suspend, I don't believe we need to keep these witnesses here. I think they've done very well.

We thank you very much for coming before us.

Mr. Bains.

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

With all due respect, Chair, I do have another set of questions, and I don't know if my other colleagues do as well. I think that given the fact that they came on such short notice, and given the nature of the questioning and the importance of this issue and the fact that this particular vote has come up and taken up committee time, I would strongly urge that, if the witnesses don't mind, we come back and continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Perhaps you can prepare your questions and send them to them in writing. I think they've done very well by staying here this time.

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

Oh, no, this is not speaking to their ability to answer. It's talking about the fact that we're short on time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We are going to be receiving another witness.

I thank our guests.

We will welcome our other witness. I expect that we will return here five minutes after the vote.

This meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I'm going to call this meeting back to order.

We have before us Mr. Ian Brodie, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister.

We thank you, Mr. Brodie, for making the time to come before us. I know you have a very busy schedule and were unable to come at an earlier time. But the vote made your timing perfect, so thank you.

You know how it works. We give you a chance to have your say and then we question you.

Mr. Brodie.

[Ian Brodie, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, Office of the Chief of Staff, Office of the Prime Minister]

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

My name is Ian Brodie. I'm the Prime Minister's chief of staff. I've been Mr. Harper's chief of staff for nearly three years now. Before that, I was executive director of the Conservative Party of Canada, and prior to that, assistant chief of staff in the opposition leader's office. I am also on leave from the University of Western Ontario, where I am an associate professor of political science.

Earlier this year there were allegations in the House of Commons that I had leaked a memorandum from our consulate general in Chicago relating a meeting between one of our diplomats and an adviser to Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign. These allegations were and remain completely false.

In response to the allegations, the Prime Minister tasked the Clerk of the Privy Council with investigating the unauthorized disclosure of the sensitive information in question. His investigation was given free and full access to everyone in the Prime Minister's Office, as well as all email records, telephone logs, fax logs, and any other information the investigators wished to review.

I myself met on two occasions with the investigators for a total of several hours and answered all of their questions. Eight other PMO staffers also met with the investigators and answered all of their questions. We cooperated with the investigation fully.

The report on the investigation, as you know, was made public on May 22 and contains a full report of the facts and conclusions it was able to draw. I draw the attention of committee members to page 9 of the report, where it concludes there is no evidence that I disclosed any confidential information in regard to this issue.

I can confirm to this committee that the Prime Minister was furious about the leak of the report from Chicago and remains furious about it to this day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Bains.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Brodie, thank you very much for coming before the committee.

I have a few specific questions. If you can address them, it would be greatly appreciated.

The first question is, did you speak to a CTV reporter, specifically at the budget lock-up, regarding NAFTA?

[Ian Brodie]

I think this is confirmed in the report that Mr. Lynch spoke about earlier today, yes.

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

Okay, but I'm asking you. Did you speak to a CTV reporter regarding NAFTA?

[Ian Brodie]

I told the investigators I spoke to a CTV reporter during the course of the lock-up. I recall some specifics about our discussion on the subject of some of the measures in the budget. I don't specifically recall speaking to him about NAFTA, but I don't recall one way or the other, and the investigators have drawn a conclusion about that in their report.

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

So you don't remember any of the contents of this conversation that you might have had with regard to NAFTA.

[Ian Brodie]

No, I don't.

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

Okay.

If you don't mind my asking, why in a budget lock-up would you...? Do you think that would be an appropriate setting for this kind of discussion of NAFTA? You don't remember the content of it, but do you think that even speaking about this would be deemed appropriate in that context?

[Ian Brodie]

I was at the budget lock-up for a bit more than an hour that day. I spoke to a number of reporters about a number of subjects and answered their questions to the best of my ability. Not all of those questions dealt with the budget. Some of them dealt with speculation about Liberal Party responses to various government initiatives and so forth, and I answered those questions as well.