Government Operations Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

If he had not approved that sale, what would the consequences have been?

[Emily Nicholson]

In order to answer that question, I would need to refer to my colleague, Stéphane Cousineau.

My limited understanding is that the head of mission is not in a decision-making capacity at any mission.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

As for your speaking notes, we usually ask that they be received in both official languages 48 hours before the meeting. Would it be possible for you to submit them to us as soon as possible so that we can have them in front of us?

[Emily Nicholson]

Certainly. My apologies, Mr. Chair. My understanding was that it had been done by the department. I believe I have remarks on hand that I'd be happy to share if that would be helpful.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks. We'll ensure the clerk sends them out.

Mr. Bachrach, please go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Boy, this is a frustrating bit of testimony, and somewhat unbelievable.

To be honest, Ms. Nicholson, the things you're saying are tough to believe, because you strike me as someone who is very precise and very professional in your conduct, and what you're claiming is that you accidentally mis-characterized something that seems to be characterized in a very specific way.

Isn't the term “give the green light” synonymous with approving something? You've characterized it as “okay” and “willing to go along with the process”, but if I say that someone gave me the green light, to me that means that someone approved something. Is that not the most common definition of that phrase?

[Emily Nicholson]

Mr. Chair, I'm unable to speak to common definitions. I can only speak to my intent and what I was intending to convey.

As I said in my opening remarks, that sentence, again, was drafted in the context focused on the sale of the current residence and 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. It was in no way meant.... Again, as I stated in my opening remarks, I did not say that the consul general was involved in any of the decision-making process. I did not say that he exercised influence or signed for any transactions, and there have been no records found that indicate anything to the contrary.

Again, the email drafted on June 17 was an initial email, a quick update, a transaction based on the best available information that we had at the time. As I said, in hindsight, the language could have been drafted more precisely, but again, the context for that email.... It was specifically focused on responding to questions from the minister's office about the sale and why the department was making a decision to sell a property it had purchased in 1961. Our intent and our area of concern and focus were principally and totally focused on communicating the department's business case and rationale for the decision to sell.

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

Ms. Nicholson, there are two possible explanations for what happened. One is the explanation you've provided, which is that you accidentally mis-characterized what occurred and used language that you shouldn't have used because it didn't accurately describe what happened. The other explanation is that Mr. Clark was actually involved in the process, did give the green light, tried his best to avoid having any documentation of that, and yet, despite trying to avoid documentation, ended up with this email on June 17, which was then corrected.

For a member of the public who's watching this testimony and trying to decide which of those explanations is the most likely, you'll have to forgive people who think the most likely explanation is the simplest one, which is that the language used in the June 17 email about giving the green light and having been “instrumental” was an accurate reflection of his role in the process.

How do you explain that to reasonable people who are watching this testimony and thinking that it seems like, maybe, something occurred that shouldn't have occurred?

[Emily Nicholson]

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, a mistake was made. The department proactively provided that clarification to the committee, anticipating that there could be concern, fully cognizant of how language, taken out of context, could be misinterpreted. That's why I'm here today, to convey and to clarify the context within which that first email was drafted and to clearly state that there was no request by anyone to ask me to make a correction.

The information that was provided on July 25 was pulled together through a process of the property team going through and clearly putting a more detailed explanation together, and that explanation was provided to the minister's office on July 25.

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

I asked Mr. Clark at his previous appearance how he was notified that the process was occurring and whether he could provide documentation of that notification. He said that there was no documentation. It was all done verbally. Is that convenient? Is that appropriate, given the context and the need to document notification of significant officials like Mr. Clark? It seems unusual that something like notifying the consul general that a process was taking place wouldn't be documented in some way through an email, a memo or something like that. It seems to kind of play into this pattern that we're seeing, which is that he actually had a more involved role than he said he had, but none of it was supposed to be documented because if he were that involved, it wouldn't be following the department's procedures.

Why wasn't it documented when he was notified of the process?

[Emily Nicholson]

Mr. Chair, unfortunately I'm unable to speak to whatever transactions or communications would have taken place on the ground for that. I would need to refer the committee to my colleagues at work, at our mission in New York.

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

Mr. Chair, do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have 30 seconds.

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

I'm not sure how much further we can take this testimony, other than just to express my total incredulity at the fact that the language used in these professional communications is so specific. It seems obvious to many members of the committee that the language was meant to convey Mr. Clark's role and then was retracted.

If, hypothetically, as articulated in your June 17 email, Mr. Clark had been involved and had given the green light, which constitutes approval of the process, would that have been inappropriate?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid there's not enough time for a response, but perhaps you can get a response in your next round or in writing.

We'll now go to our second round. We'll start with Mrs. Kusie, please.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Nicholson, the Treasury Board recently increased the approval threshold from $4 million to $10 million, as I'm sure you're aware, in 2022. How many real estate purchases did the Minister of Foreign Affairs approve on an annual basis, both before and after this significant change, please?

[Emily Nicholson]

Mr. Chair, with apologies, that would be outside of my scope and area of expertise.

I would be happy to refer the question to my colleague, Stéphane Cousineau.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's not necessary at this time. Perhaps if Monsieur Cousineau could provide this information to the committee and table it, that would be truly appreciated. Thank you.

Minister Joly was appointed as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in late 2021, and it seems that shortly after this, the threshold was increased by $6 million. Suddenly, the minister was not required to approve these costly real estate purchases. The following year, Tom Clark was appointed as consul general of New York. Immediately after this, work got under way to provide him with a new luxury apartment on Billionaires' Row.

Does this timing not seem a little suspect to you, to the point where things perfectly lined up to allow Mr. Clark to have this new luxury apartment?

[Emily Nicholson]

Mr. Chair, I can really only speak today to my role in this process, which is limited to these two emails that have been presented to the committee.

What I can say, from my understanding, is that this process, I believe, spanned over 10 years and was initiated in 2014, which was eight years prior to the current head of mission's arrival in New York.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

According to an ATIP received by the National Post, you emailed an executive in the department that the branch in charge of the purchase failed to mention that the apartment was on Billionaires' Row. I believe this is Monsieur Cousineau's branch. Why did you personally think that it was important for the minister to know that this was located on Billionaires' Row? Why did that stand out to you to mention to her?

[Emily Nicholson]

Mr. Chair, my summary in that email to the deputy minister, who was acting for the associate over that weekend, was very much to convey the background and all information—to ensure that he had the most detailed information to make decisions on the file. What I intended in drafting that email was simply a summary of events that had taken place to that date.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

In your introduction, Ms. Nicholson, you indicated that you prioritize issues for the minister. You provide a summary of issues to the minister. What is the title and name of your counterpart with the minister, please?

[Emily Nicholson]

If I understand correctly, Mr. Chair, is the honourable member asking for the name of the chief of staff in the minister's office?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's correct. With whom do you have these daily conversations, please?