Government Operations Committee on Sept. 12th, 2024

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now we have a motion to request the minister to come. If I recall, where we are now.... Let me start by what we agreed on. We agreed to look at all the documents and to hear from all the witnesses we wanted to hear from whom we thought were directly involved. We've heard from the department. We've heard from a number of witnesses, and now we've heard from Mr. Clark. It's quite clear that neither Mr. Clark nor the minister, I believe, from what we've heard and from the documents we reviewed, had any involvement in the acquisition of the new property, as well as the disposition of the existing property.

Based on the motion that we unanimously passed that we will look at all the documents and make a decision, and given the fact that now we know that the decision to purchase was not influenced by any political interference, that the business case for it is quite clear, that the process was followed and there was no interference, and that it makes economic sense as there is value for the money, I fail to understand why we are asking a minister to show up. If our colleagues have issue with the minister not appearing in other committees, that should be dealt with in those committee. If it's in the foreign affairs committee, probably the foreign affairs committee should deal with that. Also, if there is a study that we had asked the minister to show—such as the procurement study—and the minister hasn't shown it, has decided not to show it because it just shows that it's irrelevant to the minister's involvement.... This is yet another case that we have that it's irrelevant to the role that the minister played.

Given the fact—and I summarize—of relevance, foreign affairs is not relevant to this committee, and procurement is not relevant to this study. Our understanding and agreement on the scope of this study was that we'd look at all the evidence and make a decision on whether we wanted Mr. Clark to come or the minister to come. We agreed that we wanted Mr. Clark to come. Mr. Clark came. It is quite clear he doesn't have anything to do with it. All indications are that the minister hasn't had anything to do with it as well. If you're trying to go on a witch hunt and to go back and ask how the appointment went and all of those things, that's not what I'm interested in. If that's the path that we're going on, I'll be voting against this. I don't see any reason whatsoever that we should have the minister come with regard to the acquisition and disposition of this property.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Jowhari.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I'll try to be brief, Mr. Chair.

I'll speak to some of the concerns raised by Liberal members. They're saying that the minister hasn't had anything to do with it. Well, it was the testimony of officials that the minister's chief of staff, in fact, was part of the decision-tree part of the conversation. We've heard over and over again from Liberals that they don't send political-exempt staff to committee and that they send the minister instead. If Liberal members are suggesting that the minister's chief come to appear in her place and that the committee then make a decision on whether or not the minister should come after hearing from her chief, I guess we can have that conversation, but I'm doubtful that that's the case. The minister is responsible for what happens in her department, or she ought to be.

Mr. Sorbara took issue with Mr. Genuis's asking questions about Mr. Clark's record as a government appointee. I mean, the lack of curiosity or more like the wilful blindness by folks—I'll say “opportunists”—like Mr. Sorbara doesn't do Canadians any justice.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. We're not here to degrade or go at our members.

MP Barrett, we're all representatives of our constituents. You don't need to use that type of language to disagree with other MPs.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Is this a point of order?

[A voice]

It's a standing order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Which standing order?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Whether it's a point of order or not, you don't need to go down that path, Michael. Come on. You're better than that, I would hope. Please. Seriously.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Well, if we're invoking first names, Francesco, your lack of curiosity or wilful blindness does absolutely nothing to serve the Canadian people. Your interruption of Mr. Genuis because you were simply upset that he was asking tough questions about someone who had been appointed by your government, sir, a corrupt government.... That appointee, Mr. Clark, did recommend for an appointment the head of the company that his children work for. That's a blatant conflict of interest. It's very relevant, when we have Mr. Clark saying things here....

Mr. Jowhari said that Mr. Clark said that he didn't have anything to do with it, and therefore we have to take his word for it. We have officials from your government who said, in writing, that in fact Mr. Clark was part of it. Who is lying, the government officials or the government appointees—or both? It's about the integrity of the appointments that your government is making, that Minister Joly is making. She appointed someone who was saying that they were an impartial broadcaster. Meanwhile, during a federal election, one of their children held a senior role with a political party in Canada, the Liberal Party in Canada. Credibility, integrity, staying clear of conflicts of interest—these things are very foreign concepts. We've seen Justin Trudeau twice found guilty of breaking ethics laws, and a cabinet of serial ethical lawbreakers. We're going to keep asking tough questions, even if you say our first names and ask us and beg us not to. This isn't about who you know, which unfortunately is how Mr. Clark got that appointment and that $40,000-a-month rent subsidy, while Canadians are literally freezing in the dark and starving.

The minister is responsible for taking the decision. If she chose to delegate authority, she's ultimately responsible for that, but we know that her chief of staff, as we heard from the department officials, was involved in the conversations. Is the proposal to have the chief come? I don't think it is. We're past that. We want to hear from the minister.

Again, to Mr. Genuis's point, if history has been any indicator, we're going to get a full-court press from the Liberals to protect the minister from having to be accountable to Canadians. It is certainly not the responsibility of members to protect ministers. Let's get the minister to come to committee and answer questions about this. It's an unacceptable purchase. Mr. Clark's answers today were not credible. I think some of what we heard about his failure to recuse himself from decisions that he ought to have recused himself from in the past tells quite a tale. The Liberals' strong protest of the examination of those facts is very telling.

It's important that the minister come to testify.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

I have Mr. Brock and then Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to take the time, because I know the media is watching and following this, as they have throughout, to make the following statement to the media. I want to spell out the timeline of events and why Minister Joly needs to testify at this committee.

Tom Clark is appointed in February 2023. He then hosts the Prime Minister at the old condo on April 27, 2023. He and Trudeau were driving around New York the next day, April 28. Global Affairs Canada said that new problems were identified with the residence in the spring and summer of 2023, right after Trudeau visits. Then steps were taken to buy Clark the $9-million condo on Billionaires' Row.

On the documents we received that identified Tom Clark being “instrumental” and giving a “greenlight” in buying the $9-million condo, that particular email chain was from the minister's own department. It was sent on June 17, 2024. On July 12 of that same year, the story breaks regarding the purchase of the $9-million condo. The bogus correction saying that Tom Clark was not involved was dated July 25, the very next day after this committee ordered the documents on Clark's involvement in buying the New York condo.

This is precisely why the minister needs to testify. On the one hand, we have documents that suggest very direct involvement in the purchase of the condominium. Then we have Mr. Clark's own version today, which is highly suspect. In fact, I would say it is extremely highly suspicious.

This is precisely why Minister Joly has many questions to answer and her attendance is crucial.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I hope we'll get support for this motion.

I want to conclude by responding to Mr. Jowhari very specifically here. We have put forward motions before to have ministers come. We have not seen anywhere near the level of reluctance about inviting those ministers to appear. Notionally, a minister doesn't have to appear if they're invited, although we would hope that they'd respond positively to that invitation. I think there are important questions to ask about this issue as well as a number of other issues relating to the committee's mandate.

When other ministers have been mentioned as potentially people we want to have testify, there's been a much greater willingness to allow that testimony to occur. But somehow, for some reason, with Minister Joly, immediately the government members are jumping in to try to prevent this committee from issuing that invitation. It's striking, because we have a person who is so prominent in the government, who is such a core part of the Trudeau government's decision-making process, and yet it's someone who Liberal MPs don't want to see in a position where they have to answer questions from the opposition.

I think somebody who has a senior role in government, who is planning to contend for the most senior role in government, should be prepared to answer questions from MPs about the things that happen in their department. If you look at the record, at the selective approach that Liberals take, for other ministers they say, sure, they can testify, but for Minister Joly, every time this has come up on different issues at OGGO and elsewhere, government members are eager to prevent her, in particular, from being invited to testify. She has very rarely testified before parliamentary committees. She's never testified before this committee. Let's give her the chance. If the government has a good story to tell here—if they do—then let the minister tell that story.

I think it's fair to the minister and it's fair to Canadians to issue that invitation for her to be able to respond to.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Seeing no one else, we will go to a vote on the motion.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard]

Mr. Chair, it is five against and five for the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I will vote for the motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, the motion was to have the meeting before Thanksgiving break. If you leave it with the clerk and me, we will figure out a date.

Do you have something else, Mr. Genuis, before we break?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I have another motion to move, and the clerk has this one as well.

The motion is as follows:

That the committee report to the House its view that the government should not have purchased a 9 million dollar luxury condo on Billionaire's Row in New York, especially in light of the fact that they have not secured a buyer for the previous residence; and that the committee call on the government to begin the process of looking for more economical and less opulent alternatives for the Consul General.

I think that's a fairly straightforward motion that expresses our conclusions as Conservatives about the government's decision to purchase this $9-million luxury condo. My hope is that a majority of the committee will agree with this motion and that this committee will take that position as well. I don't think it requires more explanation. In a way, I think the explanation has been the meetings that have taken place. However, I'll read the motion one more time. I know it's going to be distributed, but I want to make sure members have it.

I move:

That the committee report to the House its view that the government should not have purchased a 9 million dollar luxury condo on Billionaire's Row in New York, especially in light of the fact that they have not secured a buyer for the previous residence; and that the committee call on the government to begin the process of looking for more economical and less opulent alternatives for the Consul General.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

I'll start a speaking list. I see Mrs. Vignola first.

Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.

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

Tabling a report before we've even studied the issue as a whole strikes me as highly unusual.

I would prefer to have time to finish reading all the data and to reread the testimony we've heard, particularly from New York-based real estate agents, before tabling any report. In my humble opinion, it would be premature and rather irresponsible to do so, regardless of issues of virtue, truth or opposition.

I prefer to do the work in its entirety before tabling a report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Jowhari, go ahead, please.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Naturally we oppose this. I'm somewhat surprised. We just went through about 15 to 20 minutes of a conversation around why we should invite the minister, yet our Conservative colleagues had already decided to move another motion to halt the process because they've come to a conclusion. That leads me to believe that the invitation to the minister was merely a matter of a political purpose and nothing else. It was not for fact-finding.

I'm surprised. I cannot—nor do I believe the colleagues on our side will be able to—support the process. It has been clearly demonstrated that all the rules were followed, and it is supported with a net-positive future cash flow as well as savings of $7.5 million and the potential to also make $12 million on a $9-million investment. I'm very much opposed to that. I don't understand why we are jumping to a conclusion and recommending to the House a decision that, until two minutes ago, we needed to have the minister come in to reach. I'm surprised but not really. That being said, our side will be voting against this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Jowhari.

We have Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Just very briefly, there is no contradiction whatsoever between saying that the minister should answer questions about this important matter related to her portfolio and also saying that we have enough information now to come to the conclusion that this purchase should not have been made.

Now we're going to have a vote and a majority of the committee will have its way. If our view isn't reflective of the majority view, then so be it. However, our view is that the minister should appear to give an account for what has happened, especially when the original property hasn't been sold, and that we have enough information at this point to come to the conclusion that the purchase of this $9-million condo on Billionaires' Row....

We have this sort of phantom math being created about the first property selling at asking price versus the actual price of the new property. Right now, we just own two consul general's residences. We're paying the carrying costs for both for as long as we hold both. I think there's no contradiction there. This committee will vote, and the public will draw their conclusions based on whether people vote in favour of or against our motion saying that making this purchase was not an appropriate decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Mr. Jowhari, go ahead.