Government Operations Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Sure, you can start a speaking list. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Would anyone like to speak on it, or would you like to wait a couple of moments for it to come up?

We'll suspend for a couple of moments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much. We are back on Mrs. Kusie's motion.

I'm starting a speaking list. I understand we have Mr. Sousa and then Mr. Brock.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I'm a little confused. I thought we had already agreed to deal with Mrs. Vignola's motion after we proceed. Is that the process?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The agreement was that we would deal with Mrs. Vignola's motion after the two interventions from the Conservatives and the Liberals, so we will. Hopefully we can put this motion to bed. Then we're going to finish the interventions from you and the CPC, and then we'll get to Mrs. Vignola's motion.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I understand the minister is actually coming on November 5. Is that not correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's correct.

Are you putting yourself on the speaking list?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Does anyone want to speak on Mrs. Kusie's motion?

We'll go straight to a vote, then.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I had my hand raised.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You did not, Mrs. Atwin. I asked several times. There was no response, so we started the vote.

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

Actually, I had my hand up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Oh, I apologize. Mr. Brock is correct. I accept full responsibility. That's my mistake.

We had a speaking list for Mrs. Kusie's motion. I had recognized Mr. Sousa. He finished his time.

Mr. Brock, you are correct. You had your hand up. I apologize. We're not voting on it yet.

You're up on Mrs. Kusie's motion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I apologize that I arrived at literally the tail end of this particular important meeting, but I am familiar with the evidence from Ms. Nicholson. I thank her for her attendance.

I just want to reiterate the extreme importance regarding the content of the motion from my colleague Mrs. Kusie. This saga seems to create different layers of complexity, with finger-pointing, denials, mistruths and exaggerations of the truth. It's hard for this committee to determine who is telling the truth.

I understand, from the evidence that we've heard today from Ms. Nicholson, that she wants to assign herself full responsibility for attributing input directly from Mr. Clark in the acquisition of this $9-million condominium on Billionaires' Row. I find that really hard to believe, given the explicit language used. This wasn't a typo scenario. It was very specific that Mr. Clark did have his hands all over the acquisition of this particular unit. The evidence we have heard so far in this particular committee seems to lend credence to his involvement.

I remark and recall just how ridiculous Mr. Clark's statement was, to the effect that when he was invited for the first time to tour this condominium with a real estate agent.... He had the audacity to challenge me and suggest to this committee that he walked in with the real estate agent, who listed it and sold it to the Government of Canada, and not a word was spoken. The two of them walked around aimlessly—not pointing out features, not communicating with each other, but simply observing. It is absolutely ridiculous in the extreme for someone to tour a property and not be guided by an agent. It only lends credence to the fact that Mr. Clark had previous knowledge about this unit and had input with respect to the acquisition of this unit.

We need to hear from further individuals to shed truth on what really transpired.

I understand that the minister is about to appear to answer these questions. I read recently in the press that her office is denying that they were even made aware that this condominium was located on Billionaires' Row. Again, I find that extremely hard to believe. The minister has a penchant for basically denying anything that seems to be controversial in her portfolio, which begs the question of who really is telling the truth.

For all those reasons, Mr. Chair, having more witnesses come to this committee to shed more light on the process and the acquisition of this most extravagant condominium on Billionaires' Row.... This is something that Canadians want a clear answer on at a time when we have millions of Canadians lining up at food banks, when we have millions of Canadians unable to make a down payment to purchase a home, when we have millions of Canadians defaulting on mortgages and when we have all kinds of people never even thinking about acquiring the Canadian dream of home ownership. We have Justin Trudeau awarding a buddy of his from the media, Tom Clark, a $9-million condominium at a time when we have a number of major crises in this country. Canadians are fed up. They want this committee to get to the truth. That's exactly what we plan on doing.

I'll be supporting my colleague's motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Now we can go to Mrs. Atwin, and then we have Mr. Sousa.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

I first want to mention that with regard to process, I think it's taking advantage of Mrs. Vignola's goodwill for us to have stayed the conversation around her important motion as well. Nonetheless, we're here.

I also want to comment again on the treatment of our public servants when they come before us at this very important committee. It's been a disturbing trend. We've seen character assassinations and accusations that are, I think, deeply concerning and offensive to those who are the subject of those accusations. I'm very conscious of how previous public servants and their lives have been affected by such appearances at this committee. It's unacceptable and I think unbecoming of us as parliamentarians.

On the motion specifically, we do know that the minister is coming on November 5 to answer our questions. We know that the minister is absolutely accountable to their staff. We certainly want to hear from anyone who can shed light on this conversation.

We've already requested additional electronic communications that may perhaps shed even more light on the conversation we're having today, which is great. What we're all trying to achieve here is to get to the bottom of what happened.

I'll also take issue with Mr. Brock's characterization, saying that the consul general had “his hands all over the acquisition”. We've heard repeatedly that this is actually not the case. We need to be really careful about the words we're using in this space. If we actually do want to get down to the truth about what happened, making those assumptions and generalizations is really unfair. I don't think it leads us to finding out what the truth is in this situation. We should all just be really careful and cautious.

Again, we want to hear from those who have information pertinent to this discussion, absolutely, but what is the proper channel? What we really need to discuss here is the proper process.

I have deep concerns about this, and I'd just like to register that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mrs. Atwin.

I'll now go to Mr. Sousa, please.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Further to Mrs. Atwin's comments, we want truth. We want transparency. We want to make sure we protect the interests of Canadians and taxpayers in all decisions being made by the government and its officials. Through the testimony we've had on this particular file, it has become evident that much has been done to try to ensure and enable us to have a net benefit. It's not happening just now, with this new consul general; it has been going on for some time.

In order to establish truth and transparency in the tremendous amount of work our civil servants do, the tone and the line of questioning also deserve to be respectful and truthful, rather than making assumptions of guilt and wrongdoing, or, frankly, accusing civil servants of lying and misrepresenting who they are and what they do. The line of questioning is also critical and important, and it needs to be justified, too. I think that, in itself, should be made with a degree of a semblance of truth and proper information. To jump to conclusions and act as some form of kangaroo court is inappropriate. It's not respectful of the citizens of this country. They deserve better from their representatives, as well, especially those who profess to be experts, professionals and experienced individuals of law. To act in this way and interfere with the investigations of other cases for political purposes, so they can put out a tweet or a post, is inappropriate and self-serving on their part, at the expense of others, including very strong, working and credible members of the civil service.

In regard to some of what has happened here, the discussions around the decisions, how it came to be that this purchase was made, who was involved and what engagements others may have had or not.... Ultimately, the decision rests with a process. The decision was not made by a minister of the Crown. The decision was not made by a head of mission who's only there temporarily. There's no net benefit to the individual in question, against whom accusations are being made. It's certainly appropriate for that person to be involved in and aware of the process—to be aware of what's going to take place—because they're the head of the mission. They're engaged in that local community.

The notion of it being in some row and in some residence relative to the others in question.... There are other consuls general and diplomatic engagements within that region at a much higher price. This is inconsequential in comparison with the rest. I think that was brought out. If I'm not mistaken, Chair, there were 21 properties that were investigated, addressed and reviewed. Again, accusing and deliberating on guilt, and trying to ensure there was wrongdoing.... Twenty-one properties were reviewed, and an assessment was made that this was probably the most appropriate, because it provided greater savings to the taxpayers and Canadians. That, to me, seems appropriate.

It seems appropriate that we would take every avenue to bring forward and make the best decisions. Of course, it makes sense that we would use those that are there, in the specific community involved and in that area. It should be appropriate, because otherwise the members opposite would then accuse us, “What, you made decisions without information? Now you're making a decision without being informed.” You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth. You have to get...and deliberate.

Now, in terms of whether there was a green light from someone, does it matter? Did it even matter that an email was sent, representing or possibly using an inappropriate means by which to suggest that, yes, the consul general was made aware that this was going forward, and that he approves, agrees, and green-lights it? It doesn't matter, because direction doesn't provide the decision. The fact that he is engaged doesn't mean he was the one making the decision. The fact that he may be walking the streets and going to other diplomatic residences doesn't mean he made the decision or has the ultimate right to make the decision on the purchase.

That has been clarified ad nauseam in these committees. It's been made clear that the consul general did not make the decision. It has been made clear that the minister did not make the decision. It has been made clear that proper processes took place. It has been made clear that this has been ongoing for over 10 years. This didn't happen just yesterday.

Therefore, the accusations made by the opposition, the way they behave and the way they're accusing members of the civil service, I believe, are totally inappropriate, and they should show more respect, Mr. Chair.

The minister is making her way here on November 5 to respond to the questions before us. I think that's appropriate in itself. I would leave it at that, and I would show more respect to the people who are witnesses before us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We're going to go to Mr. Kusmierczyk, and then to Mrs. Atwin.

Go ahead, sir.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been following the line of discussion that our Conservative colleagues are bringing forward, and it's obvious to everyone here that they're trying to distract from the point and the unassailable fact that with the purchase of this property in New York, Canadians are saving $4 million. That's $4 million that Canadians are saving with this transaction. In fact, with this new property, they will be saving a total of $7 million over a 20-year life cycle. That's what's important here. It costs half as much to operate this new mission, and Canadians will be saving $115,000 annually in operating costs. Again, over the course of a 20-year life cycle of this property, Canadians are saving $7 million.

This new property has a smaller footprint. It is also more accessible than the old property, and it has many more functions as well. It's a better property in every single sense. It is a cheaper property to operate, and it will save Canadians $7 million. All of the discussions here, led by the Conservatives, are to try to distract Canadians from the very fact that because of this real estate transaction, Canadians are saving $7 million. When you're looking for efficiency from government officials and government, this demonstrates that.

I can't say it enough; this saves Canadians $7 million in a 20-year life cycle.

What concerns me also about this motion is asking the chief of staff to appear at committee. This sets a dangerous precedent. We already have the minister appearing before this committee, and the minister speaks on behalf of the minister and speaks on behalf of the ministry. Therefore, asking staff to come here sets a very dangerous precedent.

As members of Parliament, as MPs, we all have staff, and I do believe that we would be quite concerned if any one of our staff were to be called in front of committee to speak on our behalf and to answer questions on our behalf. We are answerable. We are the ones who are responsible, just as the ministers are responsible to speak for themselves and for their ministries.

At the very least, I would put forward an amendment to strike from this motion the invitation for the former chief of staff to Minister Joly, Peter Wilkinson. That is the amendment that I would like to bring forward. Again, this is a dangerous precedent, and the minister—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can I interrupt for a second, Mr. Kusmierczyk?

I'm sorry. Just to confirm, is it just deleting the former chief of staff? Is that correct for your amendment?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That is correct, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Great.

Go ahead and continue, sir, and then we'll start a speaking list on the amendment.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

The third point I just wanted to bring up, as I was listening attentively to the comments by my Conservative colleague—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, but I have to cut you off, sir. We're now actually debating your amendment, so I'll get you to address your amendment.