Government Operations Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Oh, pardon me.

That's fine; I'm all set.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Does someone wish to speak to Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment, which, as I mentioned, would delete the former chief of staff from the motion?

Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That is a ridiculous amendment, because in eliminating the former chief of staff, Mr. Wilkinson.... He's the one who was named in the email. The point of this motion is to determine who directed the poor witness who is still sitting in front of us here today, Ms. Nicholson, to use the terminology “greenlight” and to provide the correctional email. Where did that come from? This motion is moot without Mr. Wilkinson, so we cannot support this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Before I continue.... I apologize, Mr. Kusmierczyk. There are two former chiefs of staff. Which one? Is it Mr. Wilkinson?

Which one are you eliminating, Mr. Kusmierczyk?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I apologize; I see one here. I'm reading only one here, and that's Peter Wilkinson.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There are two, according to our clerk.

Mrs. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Again, I'm just speaking to the precedent that we've said that we don't call chiefs of staff. Again, we know that the ministers are accountable for their staff. The minister is coming. She will answer the questions that we need answers to.

With regard to the other two people who are listed, I think it is important to hear from them. We've heard testimony today that speaks to their potential additional information that could inform the conversation that occurred that led to the second email, so we're very much amenable to that. However, again, I don't think the chief of staff to the minister is going to enrich...because the minister is going to be the one to speak on behalf of and to represent her team.

Based on that, I support the amendment, for sure, and I wouldn't be supportive without that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I don't know what parliamentary precedent Mrs. Atwin is referring to, but chiefs of staff—current chiefs of staff, former chiefs of staff—are not immune from attending a committee.

As a case in point, we had Katie Telford, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, attend not too long ago for a two-hour meeting. It doesn't get much higher than Katie Telford. Again, I challenge Mrs. Atwin to provide some evidence of some parliamentary precedent that has been set that the Conservatives are no longer following.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Sousa.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

If I recall, chief of staff Katie Telford was an exception. She actually offered to come forward. It wasn't a norm by which to proceed, but she obviously wanted to provide some clarity.

However, in this case, we do have the minister who is attending before us to provide clarity, clarification and full understanding of what has taken place. The requirement here is to enable us to determine if proper processes were followed, if the procedures were done correctly, if there was any interference by any other party by which to proceed, which would have restrictions on the way we process the transaction and the decision-making of the acquisition. I think that's been clarified at some length today and throughout the previous testimony.

The question now becomes whether we want to continue to prolong this process, to continue to promote some notion that there was a benefit to any individual as a result of this transaction. That's the only incentive that would be made or be insinuated by the opposition. If that person or any of them were not involved in the process into the termination of the ultimate decision, then it would seem that this is not likely. But that's fine. There is the right, and it's appropriate that we, as members of this committee, have full disclosure as to how things proceeded.

Also, the minister is accountable for the actions of her staff and, ultimately, has those rights. Certainly, the opposition makes that clear almost every time when they make wild accusations about various ministers and prime ministers in terms of engagement on files that they have no decision-making authority on, ever, yet those allegations and those connections are continuously being made, as they are trying to do again today. That's appropriate because we have a right to determine how best to proceed and how best to clarify the process.

Given the fact that the minister is attending and there is going to be the opportunity to question her effectively on this thing, I would suggest that we proceed with the amendment to eliminate Mr. Wilkinson and others who are just going to eat up some time on our committee and prolong the matter when we want to get down to the conclusion of the issue, which is ultimately a huge savings to taxpayers in the decision that was ultimately made.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I think we've heard points on both sides about whether the chief of staff should be either invited or not invited. The best way to determine that would be to vote on it.

My only point was that in her testimony Ms. Nicholson did provide the last name for the individual whose first name is Franck, and I would hope that the clerk or the chair could pull up that surname and add it to the motion. I think the committee would agree to have that done after the fact. I think we all understand who's being referred to, but it does seem funny to me to have only the first name there.

Has that already been dealt with? Maybe I missed that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're working on that right now.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'll just restate my interest in voting on the amendment, voting on the motion as amended or not amended, and then moving on to Mrs. Vignola's motion, because I do agree with Mrs. Atwin that it's somewhat in poor faith to jump ahead of our initial decision to finish the rounds of questioning and then move on to her motion.

Let's do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're clear on the amendment, which is eliminating Mr. Peter Wilkinson from Mrs. Kusie's motion.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment carries. We're back to the amended motion, which has deleted Peter Wilkinson.

We'll start a speaking list on that. Or are we ready to move ahead?

We're ready to move ahead to the amended motion.

(Motion as amended agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The motion as put forward by Mrs. Kusie, and as amended by deleting Mr. Wilkinson, has passed.

We finished up with Mr. Sousa.

We're now back to our original final rounds with Mrs. Kusie for five minutes, and then Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

No, Mrs. Kusie moved her motion. That leaves me as the last one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's right. We have Mr. Jowhari for five minutes.

We have resources until 1:30. Hopefully, we'll be able to get to Mrs. Vignola's motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes. I'll be very brief. I have the last five minutes.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Nicholson, your words and your explanation were interpreted and portrayed as lies. You were disrespected. I'm giving you the rest of the four and a half minutes, not to talk to us but to talk to Canadians, because it seems that when you talk to us, we have certain ways of interpreting. I'm going to give you this opportunity to talk to Canadians directly and once again explain whether by “green light” you meant that there's no impact on the work that the head of mission is doing, on his work and on his personal life, and that he did not have any involvement in the decision-making or the approval.

The floor is yours. You can take up to four minutes.

[Emily Nicholson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will take the opportunity to clarify a couple of things to ensure that there is no further miscommunication from my end.

First of all, speaking to something that one of the honourable members mentioned about it being a memo, I'll just clarify that the email sent on June 17 was not a memo. It was simply a transitory email meant as an initial first step, summarizing the best available information that I had at my disposal in response to a question from the minister's office, which was focused specifically and primarily on the sale of that property. We were not looking at a purchase. We were looking solely at a sale. If my words as drafted are read within that context, they are more easily explained.

Again, the term “green light” was there simply to indicate that the head of mission was aware that a process was under way and ongoing, as is our usual departmental practice. There was nothing out of order there with our standard departmental practice. It is well within the realm of the normal that a head of mission would be informed that an ongoing real estate process was in play that predated their arrival and would likely impact them physically—they would be required to physically move.

The clarification was made. There should have been a distinction in that first sentence to differentiate or draw a clearer delineation between the role of the head of mission, which was being aware that a process was ongoing, and the work of the mission staff, which was instrumental throughout this multi-year process. Again, it was initiated in 2014, predating the current consul general's arrival by eight years.

I'll also state, for the clarification of timelines, that it's important to note that the head of mission was first taken to the selected property on April 26, 2024. The offer from the department to purchase was accepted on April 19, predating his even seeing that property. I reference that because those site visits were taking place in April. My emails were drafted in June 2024 and July 2024, long after the process and transaction had been initiated.

I'll clarify that the issue is actually far simpler than it might seem. There was an initial email that was drafted based on the information available at that time. In an effort to summarize a very complex and vast process that spanned over 10 years, there was one line of a full-page email drafted in a way that could be misconstrued when taken out of context and applied to a purchase as opposed to a sale.

I would like to state again for the record, and I'm happy to do so under oath, that no one asked me to change any information. I received further information pursuant to that original email drafted on June 17 and relayed it to the best of my ability to ensure that both my bosses and the office of the minister had the best available information.

Again, to clarify and reiterate everything, to the best of my knowledge and the best of my understanding, as it has been demonstrated and consistent through all testimony that has come before this committee, the head of mission was aware that a process was ongoing and was not in any way instrumental or in a position to take an actual decision on choosing a property.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

Witnesses, thank you for being with us. Thanks for your patience as we worked through the earlier motions. You are dismissed.

We're now restarting Mrs. Vignola's motion. I'll start a speaking list.

I see Mr. Bachrach, and then Mr. Berthold and Mr. Sousa.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On this motion proposed by my colleague Mrs. Vignola, there are two points I'd like to make. The first is that we certainly have substantive comments on the substance of the motion and this attack on the Governor General based on her proficiency in French.

The main point I'd like to make is that this is better placed with the official languages committee. Looking at it, I don't see a very close tie-in to the mandate of this committee. Based on that, and with all due respect to my colleague, I move that we adjourn debate, and I encourage her to make this motion in the appropriate place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We will turn it over to our good friend the clerk and have a quick vote on the motion to adjourn the debate.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

With that, unless there is anything else, we are adjourned.

I thank everyone for their patience today. It is sincerely appreciated.