Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The crux of the motion is that this new information, as determined by Politico and which Politico obtained, shows a direct contradiction between Mr. Clark's testimony to this committee and information he communicated to the department.
I will quote the article, which says that he “notified Global Affairs” that the official residence “was 'not suitable'”—these are his words—"for hosting, or for living and 'required immediate replacement'”—those are also his words—“documents show.”
If I were to go home to my husband this weekend and say, “Honey, our home is not suitable for our family and it requires immediate replacement,” I could only expect and understand that my husband would take it as a signal and a communication that we need a new home. There can be no other interpretation of these words that Mr. Clark communicated to Global Affairs Canada. Saying something is “not suitable” and saying that it “required immediate replacement” indicates Mr. Clark saw the necessity of a new location, and not only that but a better one, as indicated by the words “not suitable”.
He “expressed concerns regarding the completion...of the kitchen and refurbishment project and indicated the unit was not suitable to be the...accommodations and it does not have an ideal floor plan for...representational activities.” These things all indicate, first of all, his input into the process; second, his asking for an immediate action; and, third, his wanting some type of improvement. I believe that's what “not suitable” indicates.
If he would like to come here and argue there were other more reasonable requirements, such as it not being accessible or his aspirations relative to his mandate with large monthly gatherings and his desire to make Canada shine, he can come here and he can argue those things. He can do that if he likes, but it is evident from the article and from the information as obtained by Politico that he communicated he had input into this decision, which is contrary to what he shared with this committee.
Any time we have found a contradiction in testimony—and, unfortunately, with this government we have found contradiction in testimony several times over in several situations; I won't repeat them or belabour them once again, but this is not the first time—it has been our practice, with new information, to call a witness back to this committee not only to give them the opportunity to correct the record, because this is the fair and right thing to do, but also to justify their actions and their words to Canadians. Whether something was misinterpreted or whether the new information was in a different context, we have always provided this space and this opportunity, when there have been contradictions, for witnesses to come back.
I believe, given this new information from Politico today and given the clear contradiction between the testimony of Mr. Clark and what we have found out today, it behooves us, as a committee, not only for the purpose of finding out why this contradiction exists but also for the transparency of information to and for Canadians, to invite Mr. Clark back.
I believe that, in supporting this motion, we are supporting transparency. We are recognizing that a contradiction exists and are giving Mr. Clark the opportunity to come back and provide an explanation and transparency to Canadians as to why $9 million of their hard-earned money was spent when there's a record two million Canadians lining up at food banks—a 28% increase in my own city of Calgary.
I think these are all justifiable reasons to support this motion and to call Mr. Clark back, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much.
