Government Operations Committee on Nov. 5th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. There is a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

On that principle of needing to know, I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to get his security clearance. That's important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's not a point of order, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Please, let's stick to real points of order.

You have 30 seconds, Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

With my remaining time, Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion, given the evidence that we have received here today.

I have submitted it to the clerk in both official languages. I will now read it into the record:

Given that, newly released access to information documents reveal that two months after the appointment of Canada’s Consul General to New York, Tom Clark notified Global Affairs that the previous official residence was “not suitable” and expressed concerns over completing renovations; and

Given that this information contradicts his previous testimony before this committee on September 12, 2024, when he stated, “I had no role whatsoever in either deciding to sell the former residence or buying the new one”;

The committee call Tom Clark to testify for two hours within 21 days of this motion being adopted.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

I'll start a speaking order, but we only have Mr. Sousa left.

If you're fine, we will release the witnesses.

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

I'd rather ask a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll have to get to the motion first, then, Mr. Sousa.

I tried, Minister.

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Can we suspend the intervention on the motion, let Mr. Sousa ask the question, release the minister and then continue with the motion at hand?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are we fine with that, colleagues?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Sousa.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here.

It's interesting and hypocritical that we're accusing individuals who are temporary in their positions. The consul general is not going to be there forever. Here we have individuals opposite who are benefiting from subsidized rents. They're not paying rent. Pierre Poilievre lives in a historic mansion, Stornoway, rent-free. We have to keep this in perspective in terms of the motivation behind the purchase and sale of assets.

From my previous experience in my previous life provincially, I know that the provinces benefit greatly from the representation in New York City. I attended the former residence on many occasions with the consul general and other officials, selling Ontario and selling Canada. The negotiations and the discussions we had were with U.S. officials, U.S. businesses and U.S. institutions benefiting and greatly looking for Canada to do business. That's not possible without representation in New York City to do so.

Interestingly enough, when we talk about creating investments, about creating jobs and about the economic benefits that come from those discussions, other officials from other countries are paying attention and recognizing it, too. They're not going to go to New Jersey. They're not going to go anywhere else to have those discussions. They have them in Manhattan because there are multiple discussions being had concurrently in the city.

Interestingly enough, the Conservative consul general at the time—I had the opportunity of being with both parties throughout that process—complained about the status of the residence, about the maintenance, about the engagement and about the requirement for upkeep to maintain the same level of engagement with the other competitors from other countries.

I have two questions. One is on the timing. Have there been ongoing discussions about the maintenance, the upgrading and the modernization of the residence over time? Is this something that just happened suddenly, or is this something that's been ongoing for a while?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Thank you, Charles, for this. I think it's a very important point.

To raise the issue of personalizing whether it's Justin Trudeau's diplomatic network or a public servant, I think it's a very slippery road. Why? I think that, throughout 150 years and more as a country, we've built very strong institutions, including our diplomatic network around the world, which is non-partisan and should not become partisan.

When the Conservatives do that, the question I have in mind is, what's next: our judicial system or our police forces? That's a real question, and we're seeing what can happen when that's the case.

You have mentioned the fact that it was important when you were the minister of finance in Ontario and how much you valued being able to have conversations and meetings in New York to attract investments to your province. We know that Scott Moe, the Premier of Saskatchewan, was at the official residence.

I met Scott by fluke in India. He uses a lot of our embassies, high commissions and official residences, and he should. I think we agree on that. Vic Fideli hosted meetings in New York. So did Erin O'Toole when he was leader of the opposition. Dennis King did as well.

While I can understand why the opposition is trying to make this an issue, at the end of the day, what is common sense, very pragmatic and very responsible is what we're doing. I think that Canadians see through all of this haze, and they trust that we're taking a good decision.

In terms of timing and maintenance, I will just ask Robin to answer. He has more information than I do on this issue.

[Robin Dubeau]

The issues with the residence were raised a long time ago. It started in 2014, so for 10 years we were tracking. In 2017, we did a building condition report that indicated several issues. In 2021, we approved a renovation project. There had been long-standing issues with that residence that we knew about.

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

It's evident there's a net benefit to Canadians with having representation in New York City and the transaction that's taking place. There's asset value regardless.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Sousa, we're past time. If you want to finish with a yes-or-no question, go ahead.

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

Thank you for coming, guys.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Minister, thanks for joining us.

Ms. McCardell and Mr. Dubeau, thanks for joining us.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all. It was a pleasure to be with you. I'm looking forward to working as team Canada developing strong relationships throughout the U.S.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We will dismiss our witnesses.

We will start a speaking list on the motion.

I have Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would ask for a five-minute suspension to have a conversation with our team, because this motion came in the last minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Sure. We'll have a five-minute stop, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are back.

Thank you for your patience.

I have a speaking order. We have Mr. Jowhari, Mrs. Kusie and Mr. Brock.

Go ahead, Mr. Jowhari, please.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As usual, we always appreciate it when we receive a notice of the motion ahead of time so that we can ensure we also have time to put our responses into proper perspective and to review the documents that we need to review. However, unfortunately, we are not there.

Having had the chance to look at the motion, and also reflecting on where we've been on this journey, what we have clearly demonstrated to date is that there is value for money. As we just heard from the officials, we may be very close to disposing of the old residence with a significant profit. The value that we are going to receive as a result of the reduced maintenance and the upkeep costs is in the area of $7 million. There is a 50% saving, on an ongoing basis, on the maintenance.

We heard that we are avoiding spending about $2.5 million Canadian on repairing a residence that will not be able to, ultimately, meet the needs. We addressed it, and we heard testimony from a lot of witnesses about where other missions situated themselves. We heard that Afghanistan and Bangladesh are the only ones that positioned themselves outside of the Manhattan jurisdiction. We also heard that other embassies, especially those of the Five Eyes and the ones that we rely on very closely, have situated themselves in the same area that we have. From a political...and from the optics we are in the right position. From a business case—value for money—we are there.

We also heard that all the processes were followed. We looked at whether there was interference or influence, etc. We saw that there was no influence. Sharing a point of view does not necessarily translate into influence and decision-making. The decision-making was done by the department and by the people who were responsible for it rather than by the political staff. When you look at interference, there was no interference. We covered the whole gamut and all the aspects of this thing, despite the rhetoric, despite the image the opposition is trying to portray and despite the fact that the opposition is trying to build this conspiracy theory, linking many different officials, ministers and the Prime Minister to this. This has been proven false.

Having said all of that, and the fact that we also had Mr. Tom Clark here and will have the officials come in on Thursday morning to further discuss this, we don't see any need for Mr. Clark to come back to answer the same questions: Was there there value for money? Yes. Did you have an influence on this conversation? No. Was this a process that started some 10 years ago? Yes. Did you have an opportunity to go see the residence? Yes. Did you like the residence? Well, it really doesn't matter whether he liked it or not when we look at the value for money. He moved in.

The fact that there is a simulator somewhere in the basement of that apartment building, which all the residents have access to, is irrelevant to this study. What's relevant to this study, and we repeated it, is that the mission is responsible for over $6 trillion. That's twice the GDP of Canada. It is responsible for over $200 billion. The motion is trying to call in, within 21 days, the head of a mission right after an election, when we are trying to make sure that we have all our ducks and all our key people lined up to deal with the outcome of that election, one way or another.

It would repeat the same things that we have already heard, in trying to further build on this conspiracy theory that hasn't gone anywhere, to be honest with you guys, despite all of the social media and everything else that is going on. Then the media comes in trying to figure out something else to talk about. This is completely irrelevant to the day-to-day life of Canadians. It's not something that's worth investing the time of this committee on. Therefore, I am opposing this motion.

As I said, the value for money is there. The importance of the mission is there. All of our allies are there. All of the processes were followed. There was no influence.

For what purpose are we trying to prolong this? I really don't understand. Whether they're ministers or officials from the department, there is no value in bringing them here, insulting them and calling them names.

None of the stuff that we say is ever going to go into a report. What will go into the report is there was value for money and no influence, and we followed the process. Everybody else has said there was no influence. That's what will go into the report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Jowhari.

I have Mrs. Kusie next and then Mr. Brock.