Evidence of meeting #137 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was residence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, the clerk has it, I believe, in both official languages.
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you very much.
Just to put a cap on the discussion we've had so far, which leads into why I think this motion is important, Mr. Clark has talked about the benefits of public service. I would, in principle, agree about the importance of public service, but if you look at the facts here, you see that Mr. Clark has been appointed twice to important positions by Minister Joly. In the first case, he was in a position to recommend an appointment for someone whose company employed at least one member of his family. In another case, he was able to have the benefit of this purchase of a $9-million condo on Billionaires' Row.
When he was a national journalist, a member of his immediate family was, simultaneously, a senior important member of the Liberal campaign. He's professed his non-partisanship, but we do see that a member of his immediate family had a senior role in the Liberal campaign in 2011, and that would seem to at least be something that would have been of interest to the public. These are things—benefits, opportunities—that are not normally associated with public service.
Mr. Chair, we have identified the fact that Mr. Clark received appointments from Minister Joly in different portfolios not once but twice. The government has made various claims about the purchase of this property that are highly suspect, claims about who was involved and who wasn't involved, and the buck has to stop somewhere. We think the buck has to stop with the minister, which is why we are proposing that Minister Joly appear before the committee to answer questions about this issue.
Moreover, Chair, I want to point out that Minister Joly is, of course, a prominent member of the government—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm sorry. I think Mr. Hardie was maybe trying to do a point of order. It probably isn't one, but I'm not sure if you....
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Has he thought better of it? Okay. I'll continue, Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sorry. We could not hear you, Mr. Hardie.
Go ahead, please.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I just wanted to check on timing here. I don't know how long this committee meeting is supposed to go. I was asked to appear for two hours, and the two hours are up. Have we—
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I'm sorry to interrupt your holiday, Ken. This isn't a point of order.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
If we've gone beyond our time, do we not need unanimous agreement to go past the stated time of adjournment?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I was in the process of pointing this much out: Minister Joly is a prominent member of the government, and her name has come up on a number of occasions at this committee before. Right now, we're looking at these questions of property investments, the $9-million purchase on Billionaires' Row in New York. Fairly recently, this committee was investigating the fact that an internal audit at Global Affairs revealed that one-quarter of contracts broke the rules. Imagine that: One-quarter of the contracts at Minister Joly's department broke the rules.
Having served on the foreign affairs committee, having been the vice-chair of that committee for some time before joining OGGO, I can share with members here that Minister Joly is not one of those ministers who makes herself available to parliamentary committees very often. At the foreign affairs committee, it was a major struggle to get her to appear on things. We went long periods of time without hearing from the minister.
Some ministers, ostensibly lower-profile ministers in the government, would appear fairly often to respond to studies or to address the estimates, as is the normal practice at committee. However, Minister Joly has done everything she can to avoid answering questions from parliamentarians at committees and to limit the length of those appearances. I suspect, as a result of whatever the assessments of the impact of her appearing before committee are, we'll see members of the government again reluctant to allow the invitation to be extended to Minister Joly to appear before OGGO.
She's a senior member of the government, somebody floated as a prospective future leadership candidate, but in any event, as a senior member of the government with an important portfolio, she should be ready, willing and able to answer questions from committees from time to time at both the foreign affairs committee and the government operations committee.
We have these issues about the property portfolio. We previously tried to get Minister Joly to appear on the internal audit that revealed that one-quarter of the contracts at her department were breaking rules. There are a number of issues relevant to this committee's mandate that we would benefit from being able to ask Minister Joly questions about. Somebody who is operating at that senior level should be prepared to take questions from parliamentarians. We should extend the invitation, and I hope that she will respond to that invitation.
Very briefly, I'll just add, Chair, that we did put into this motion Ms. Nicholson, who was involved in the infamous email that suggests Mr. Clark's potential role in the purchase. This clearly is a matter of dispute. He gave testimony about not being involved. I think it would be worthwhile to have Ms. Nicholson come before the committee to address what Mr. Clark has said and to help the committee shed some light on this important question.
I'll leave my comments there. Thank you, Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Yes. Give me two seconds.
I have Mr. Jowhari and Mr. Barrett, and then I have Mr. Bachrach. Before we get to Mr. Jowhari and the point of order, I'm going to release Mr. Clark, unless anyone has an issue with that.
Mr. Clark, thank you for joining OGGO today. We appreciate your time, and we'll let you go.
Consul General of Canada in New York, United States, Consulate General of Canada in New York
Thank you, Chair.
Conservative
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This point of order relates to the admissibility of the motion. The committee has considered a motion to invite Emily Nicholson to appear and carried it unanimously.
My question through you to the clerk is whether, if the current motion is defeated, that would reverse the committee's earlier decision, and whether we can essentially reconsider a decision that's been made earlier in this same meeting.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, on the point of order, Mr. Bachrach's point is well taken. It would be maybe more appropriate to deem the last few words not to be part of the motion anymore, in light of the decision the committee has already made.
Now, if the committee were to support this, it would simply reaffirm a decision we've already made. I don't think that it's inadmissible. I don't think it's a big deal, but it also doesn't need to be in there.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks, Mr. Bachrach, for bringing that up. It is a very good point.
We can proceed with just an agreement among ourselves to delete that part because the committee has agreed to have Ms. Nicholson appear. Barring that, we can just do it through an amendment. However, I hope we can just agree to delete that final part with regard to Ms. Nicholson.
Thank you, again, for bringing that up.
I have Mr. Jowhari and then Mr. Barrett.
Go ahead, Mr. Jowhari.