Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, honourable members.
I am pleased to be here to support the committee's important work to ensure full accountability and transparency in government operations, including those of Global Affairs Canada.
I will first speak about my role as chief of staff to the associate deputy minister, followed by the background and content of two emails, dated June 17, 2024 and July 25, 2024.
Turning to my role as chief of staff in the associate’s office, I sometimes liken my job to that of an air traffic controller. I serve a coordination function, providing oversight of the associate’s schedule and overseeing the flow of information between the department’s subject matter experts and the associate’s office. My work supports senior officials, enabling them to do their jobs effectively.
On occasion, I also serve a liaison function between the department and the minister's office to provide an initial overview, or quick update, on a file. The minister’s office may then ask for a full briefing by the experts who manage the file on a daily basis. Here, I summarize the best information available at the time, as provided by the file experts.
The June 17 and July 25 emails were written as part of this liaison.
I will now address the context and intent of this correspondence.
On June 14, 2024, the minister's office requested information on the department's decision to sell Canada's official residence for the consulate in New York. That request focused on the sale of the property, originally purchased in 1961, and sought confirmation that all due policies and procedures had been followed.
After gathering information from the subject experts, I provided an initial overview response on June 17. The intent of that email was to clarify and explain why the department was selling the official residence and communicate that all proper policies had been adhered to, including confirmation that the head of mission was aware of the process as per standard departmental practice. The email summarized the information provided by the subject leads at the time of the request.
In the one-page summary of the response, which focused on the sale of the official residence, one sentence did not clearly differentiate between the role of mission employees and that of the head of mission, that is, the consul general.
In that sentence, I intended to convey that the mission staff had been “instrumental” in supporting this headquarters-led process throughout the past 10 years and that the consul general was engaged and aware that a process was under way.
In that same sentence—again, drafted in the context of responding to the questions about the sale of the current residence—the word “greenlight” was intended to communicate that the consul general was aware of and prepared to accommodate the department's plan to proceed with identifying a replacement property.
The email did not state that the consul general was involved in the decision-making process, exercised influence or signed for any transactions related to the process. In hindsight, more precise language could have been used to avoid any misunderstanding. That clarification was provided on July 25.
As the detailed email on July 25 clearly shows, the consul was not part of the approval for this overall process, the selection of a replacement property or the property purchase. The consul was only shown the property selected to replace the official residence after the bid to purchase was already accepted.
In conclusion, the detailed study and examination of records related to this file demonstrated that all correct policies and procedures were followed throughout this process, with the end result being to relocate the residence to a smaller, more cost-effective property.
To ensure full transparency, I am prepared to answer any questions the committee may have regarding this correspondence.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
