Government Operations Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[Emily Nicholson]

Certainly it's always in the department's best interest to have as much key information conveyed to the deputy's office as possible. With the scope of the department and the areas and issues that we navigate, it's not always possible.

As stated in that article, the department has certainly taken steps, including the request from the associate's office to the property branch to ensure that key real estate transactions are brought to the associate's attention.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cousineau, while you're here with us, the media often calls the new location for the official residence “Billionaires' Row”. Why didn't you bring this nickname to your management's attention?

[Stéphane Cousineau]

I know that the branding that was actually done by that market raised some questions. I want to reiterate that when the purchase was done, we investigated 21 properties. When that one came out, it was actually in the district of Midtown, in a very old heritage building that was built in the 1950s. I think the branding was done because of some surrounding skyscrapers that are very nearby. It's in the same area, but it's not within the same building. I suspect that is why not a lot of attention was paid to it until that was raised.

Could we have paid a bit more attention to that branding? Maybe we could have, but frankly, I think the investment that we have with the purchase in this old heritage building was the right one to make, and it's going to be benefiting the taxpayer moving forward.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you.

On that, you mentioned at your last appearance the ongoing savings from this transaction, including how leaving the co-op model in New York could lead to tax savings under the Vienna Convention. Can you explain that a bit further?

[Stéphane Cousineau]

Absolutely. I've been talking about the annual, ongoing savings that we're going to be having. First of all, this is related to the fact that the residence we're moving to is a little bit smaller. The costs of operation are a little bit smaller as well.

Also, to your point, according to the convention that you mentioned, the tax is not excluded in a co-op environment, which we are in right now, but in a condo environment, we are exempt. That's going to be a big saving for the Canadian taxpayer moving forward.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I have about 15 seconds left. That's not much time for a question.

Again, I think this is a very high-pressure environment. I really appreciate your testimony and the clarifications. It's very important that we understand exactly what happened here.

I very much appreciate your being here. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mrs. Atwin.

Mrs. Vignola, you have the floor, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move the motion I tabled with the committee on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, to be precise. The motion concerns the Governor General and reads as follows:

[…] the committee :

(a) is concerned that the Governor General cannot adequately address Quebec francophones and francophones from francophone communities in other provinces in their mother tongue;

(b) expresses its deep disappointment that after three years since her appointment, the Governor General of Canada is unable to sustain a basic level of conversation in French in the exercise of her title as representative of the Sovereign in Canada, and that she has spoken only in English when French is the only official language in the province of Quebec; and

(c) requests the chair to report to the House as soon as possible.

It is simply a request to report the situation to the House, a report that shows our disappointment. I hope it is shared and that I am not the only one who is extremely disappointed by this situation. She is the representative of the King of England and, consequently, of Canada's head of state, according to the documents, and that head of state speaks French, in particular.

Yes, his representative is bilingual, but you can be bilingual in many ways. It could have been Spanish, Mandarin. It could have been Portuguese. It could have been Danish, Swedish, but the fact remains that Canada's two official languages are French and English, and not any of the 3,000 or so languages and several thousand dialects that exist all over the world.

This is a measure of respect for francophones in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Regardless of whether they believe in or support this monarchical symbol on Canadian soil, they nevertheless have the need and the right to have their mother tongue respected and considered important.

I am opening the debate so that my colleagues can express themselves and determine the issue around the vote to bring this report to the House of Commons.

Thank you.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

May I suggest this? We have the NDP, CPC and the Liberals left. If we can proceed with those and then go back to debating the motion, it would be much appreciated. We can finish this round, dismiss our witnesses, and then move on. I understand the chair has already asked for extra time, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Thank you.

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

I have no problem with that, as long as we come back to it after the round of questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

If you wish to withdraw for now, we can get back to it. We have resources until about 1:30. I'm supposed to be in the House at 1:12 to finish a speech. I'm hoping that we don't delay this much, but we can continue with the rounds if you're fine with that and get back to it afterwards.

We have Mr. Bachrach, then a Conservative round and a Liberal round. Then we can resume. Are you fine with that, Mrs. Vignola? Okay.

If the committee is fine, we'll do that. I'll start a speaking list when we finish up with the Liberal round.

We've pretty much burned through your two and a half minutes, so we'll zip over to Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll go back to the topic of Mr. Clark and the process for approving the process. Mr. Clark asserted in his testimony that he was aware of the process but not part of that process. Mr. Cousineau just said Mr. Clark was approving the process for proceeding.

Maybe I'll pose this as a question to Ms. Nicholson. Does approving a process constitute being part of that process? If you're in charge of approving a process in your department, does that not make you a part of that process?

[Emily Nicholson]

Mr. Chair, I'm hesitant to speak to any hypothetical situations. I can speak to what I approve, and I can refer specifically to the question for which I am here today, which is specifically to speak to the two emails that I drafted. I drafted these emails, but other than that, in any reference to approval of a process related to property, I would need to refer you to my colleague Mr. Cousineau.

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

To your understanding, did Mr. Clark approve the process, based on the information that you've seen?

[Emily Nicholson]

Based on the information that I have seen, my understanding is that the head of mission was aware and did not raise any concerns with the department's moving forward to proceed with the sale and then the purchase. Again, to clarify—

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

Did he approve the process? It's a very simple question. It's a yes or a no. Did he approve the process?

[Emily Nicholson]

No. The head of mission was not in a place to approve the sale or purchase.

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

Why did Mr. Cousineau say that he approved the process?

[Emily Nicholson]

Mr. Chair, I would need to refer you to my honourable colleague here, who would be able to speak to his words.

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

It seems, Mr. Chair, like there's so much prevarication around Mr. Clark's role that it strikes the committee—and I think I can speak for some of my colleagues at least—that there's an attempt to construct a story that has a semblance of credibility, when in actual fact Mr. Clark was fairly involved in the process. He wasn't just aware that a process was happening; he had some role in green-lighting the process and, in fact, may have been instrumental in the process.

You know, it's frustrating for me, because perhaps I differ a little bit from my Conservative colleagues in the question of whether the purchase of that property was in Canada's best interest and whether it was a good decision. Really, this study has evolved into a study about the process and whether people are telling the truth about Mr. Clark's role. That should be something that people are very concerned about if they're watching this, because we have a set of facts and assertions that are frankly unbelievable. It's unbelievable that a senior civil servant would write a memo and misuse phrases like giving a green light or being “instrumental”. We're in this strange situation where we have testimony that doesn't line up and where we're forced to make conclusions based on inconsistent testimony provided by Mr. Clark and by you today.

I don't have any more questions, other than to say that it's really disappointing that we haven't been able to get to the bottom of what happened. Instead, we're stuck making assumptions.

I'll hand it back to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Bachrach.

We'll now go to Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Nicholson, it just seems very obvious that the trigger was pulled on buying the $9-million condo immediately after the Prime Minister visited Mr. Clark in New York. It seems very obvious. As well, it seems that Mr. Clark, as well as the department, put a lot of stock in the listing price. It's just not reasonable. It's not good accounting practice at all, but unfortunately it is one that the government uses consistently, to count on something before it is sold. Accounting is not done this way. Reconciling a budget is not done this way, and the government should not be conducting its business in this way.

As well, it's incredibly concerning that it seems you've lied about changing this email and changing the terminology within the email. It seems very clear that you're not being truthful with the committee today. We just don't know who directed you to speak these mistruths today to this committee and to Canadians.

There have been multiple scandals where the minister said she wasn't informed about things. There's the $9-million purchase on Billionaires' Row, and there is the warship that docked in Havana alongside Russian ships; she said she didn't know about that. In each of these instances, including the purchase of a $9-million condo on Billionaires' Row, she said she wasn't informed, yet, all of a sudden, when something goes wrong in the media or in this committee, she is informed. She's informed at this time.

What you're saying today doesn't add up. What the minister is saying doesn't add up. It shows incompetence or lying, one of those two things. Canadians expect their minister to know what is going on, and they expect their minister, their government and the government's officials, no matter what level, not to lie.

We require more information, Mr. Chair, and with this information that we are not uncovering today—I wish we could say we were uncovering it rather than not uncovering it—I would like to move that:

In regard to the committee's study of the purchase of the new official residence for the Consul General in New York, the committee invite to appear: Former Chief of Staff to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter Wilkinson; Former Chief of Staff of Foreign Affairs Deputy Minister, Karolina Guay; Property Branch Assistant Deputy Minister, Robin Dubeau; and Director General of Policy and Planning, Franck, as referred to by Emily Nicholson in her testimony today.

It's clear we're not getting the answers we require to, first of all, determine how the minister implicates herself into these significant decisions, and then, as well, there is the inconsistency we've seen with the wording within the email and the timing around the email here today, Mr. Chair.

As such, I am putting this motion forward to call these further witnesses.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll get the motion distributed. Are you sending it over to the clerk?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay. Do you wish to speak on it, or should I start a speaking list on this motion?