Evidence of meeting #151 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Brock and Mrs. Atwin.
Mr. Brock, continue.
We just ask if people have valid points of order, please bring them up.
Conservative
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I have a point of order, again.
He continues to insult us on a personal level, and it's unacceptable, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
To make a fine point on my last point that I wish to make, Mr. Chair, every member, regardless of political stripe, should be standing for the truth, should be standing for accountability and transparency. To my colleague, Ms. Kusie's point, which was an excellent point, the tradition at this particular committee, and all the other committees I have been privileged to speak to and participate in is that wherever there is a suspicion, let alone some conclusive evidence, of misleading committee or contradictory evidence, it is always incumbent upon a committee to seek out clarification.
Maybe Mr. Clark has an honest, reasonable explanation for this story. Let's give him that chance. Let's give him that chance at committee where his explanation can be tested in cross-examination.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To those who may be watching, it is a sad situation when I look at the degree of mis-characterization, character assassination and certainly the insults that are being thrown around. Interestingly enough, some of those who are actually providing the insults are too thin-skinned to receive correction on their own part. Talk about red face and ego.
It seems there are members who are only considering their performance on a YouTube or a social media hit. Talk about being red face. I don't recall how you say that in French, but obviously some members opposite do not understand the ability for Canadians to utilize both languages officially in our country.
We talk about transparency and accountability. The Leader of the Opposition, who himself—
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Chair, I've been rather patient with Mr. Sousa and listened to about a minute and a half of non-relevant material. Can you ask the member to be relevant in his comments, please?
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
He absolutely has a point, Mr. Chair. I acknowledge his point.
I acknowledge again for those watching how thin-skinned he is.
I'll go back to the Leader of the Opposition, who lives in a mansion of sorts. We talk about transparency and accountability and the ability to come down to the truth. Mr. Chair, the member opposite is doing his Perry Mason reboot: The truth must be known. Yet, the leader of his own party will not get a security clearance to get to the truth, or at least be made aware of exactly what has taken place.
Now I'll go to the motion at hand. Here we have allegations being made by the Conservatives that this decision was done in quick order.
It wasn't, Mr. Chair. We already know from previous testimonies by the officials that this has been ongoing for over 10 years. The Conservative members, their Conservative appointees, the ones who were there prior to the Liberal appointments, they themselves said that the residence was not up to snuff, that it didn't have the specifications required. They already acknowledged that the residence was in need of repair and, for that matter, a new residence....
This is not new. There's no revelation here. There's the notion that somehow the consul general, on a temporary appointment in New York, is going to make the decision. We often hear people's opinions. My goodness, we're hearing lots of opinions right now from the opposite side, and they're free to express them. However, that doesn't make them the decision-maker. The consul general is not the decision-maker of this transaction.
If anybody wants to make opinions, and certainly the Conservatives have had many opinions about that residence prior to Tom Clark.... This is nothing new.
The fact of the matter is that the decision to make that transaction is $7 million less.... They're moving the residence to a property at $7 million less than what it is now, and we still hold the asset value. We still have the asset appreciation of the former residence in hand, and they're making it for the net benefit of Canadians.
We already know that it's ultimately going to save taxpayers up to $7 million. We already know, by testimony and by the rigorous procedures in place over many years from the various agencies, that it was independent, rigorous, and that it followed the rules. The essence of who's residing there and the people involved who utilize those residences, including many Conservatives, I may add, didn't come to be part of that decision. They did not follow through in that transaction. That was done by the experts and the officials within government. That's already acknowledged and understood.
Lastly, the relationship with the United States is critical. One of Canada's most important residences in the United States is the one in Manhattan. It is critical to its well-being. The ones in L.A. and Washington are important. The ability for Canada to be well represented on the international stage is critical.
When you look at who else is residing around the system, ours does not come anywhere close to the same degree of value as some other residences. What is really important is the ability for Canadians to transact, to have meetings, to enable us to co-operate with the U.S. and other international states within that residence for the benefit of all Canadians. It leads to economic growth. It leads to job creation. It leads to economic well-being for Canada. It has proven to be so.
Other levels of government use it too—other Conservative levels of government. The allegation, the notion, that this consul general somehow had a role in making a decision, regardless if the decision isn't his.... That's understood. The timing wasn't short.
All that to say, Mr. Chair, we do not need to fill time. We'll let you guys talk and fill your egos all you wish.
Conservative
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be back at OGGO dealing with a familiar topic.
This morning, I'm in British Columbia, and I woke up very early for some commitments on eastern time. I rolled over and, at the risk of giving them free promotion, I read Politico's email newsletter. This story jumped out at me because I remember very distinctly the testimony, the vehement testimony, of Mr. Clark before this committee. I read the revelations in that newsletter about the role Mr. Clark played, which has now become public through freedom of information. I was struck by the stark contrast between what he told this committee and the role that he played.
Maybe I have a different perspective on this than some other members around the table. I listened to all the testimony from officials about the old residence and the new residence, and I don't know based on all that testimony if the old residence isn't suitable.
The one thing that stood out to me was the concern around accessibility and the fact that a person using a wheelchair would have a very difficult time accessing the old residence. I think that's a concern that should be taken very seriously. Obviously, there were enough people who had voiced concerns about the suitability of the residence, and I'm not going to deny that those concerns were valid. I also don't know whether the new residence was a good deal or whether it's more suitable and rectifies the shortcomings of the old residence.
I don't think that's germane to the debate that we're having today, despite that being the focus of my Liberal colleagues' interventions.
I'll also speak briefly to the opulence of either residence. I think, if you visited the residence of any of our peer nations, they would be equally opulent. I think it's a feature of these sorts of properties that are used to entertain and used in a diplomatic way, and that just is what it is. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the consul general's residence should be in the suburbs in a modest, three-bedroom home. I don't think that's what's being asserted.
What really irks me is the fact that the consul general was so clear in response to repeated questioning at committee. I didn't have a lot of time to prepare for this, but I pulled up some of the evidence from that meeting and read his words, which are quite clear. I'll read a couple of passages to, I suppose, restate just how clear it was. Mr. Clark stated:
As you have already heard in testimony from Global Affairs officials, I had no role whatsoever in either deciding to sell the former residence or buying the new one. That was completely undertaken by the property bureau in Ottawa. I was not involved in the selection of the new property, its amenities, or its location. As you have heard, this project will return millions
Moving on, he said:
I was not involved in any way, shape or form in the decision to buy this new residence or sell the old residence.
Then Mr. Jowhari asked:
Did you at any time talk to anyone regarding a desire for relocation?
Mr. Clark said:
Never.
It was a one-word answer, “never.” You can't get more unequivocal than that.
Turning back to the reporting that came out this morning, it's very clear that he was extremely involved in expressing concerns about the suitability of the old residence. “The current [consul general in New York, head of mission] expressed concerns regarding the completion of the kitchen and refurbishment project and indicated the unit was not suitable to be the [consul general's] accommodations,” and that it “does not have an ideal floor plan for...representational activities.”
That very well may be true. That may be a very valid thing, and it may be a valid thing for the consul general to express because, after all, he is tasked with doing a job. What he is essentially saying is that the tools that he's been given to do this job are, in his view, inadequate.
Is that an appropriate role for the consul general? I'm not sure, but that's what he said.
The real problem here is that he then came to committee and said that he had absolutely no role and that he had never expressed concerns about the old residence. I think it's a pretty stark and troubling revelation that someone of his stature and with his experience both as a journalist and as a diplomat would come before the committee and misrepresent and seemingly mislead the committee with regard to his role. I think that's something all Canadians should be concerned about. That's why I'll be supporting the Conservatives' motion to bring Mr. Clark back to committee to answer for the stark contrast between his remarks and the revelations contained in the documents that are now public.
I hope we can get to a vote on this before too long.
With that, Mr. Chair, I'll turn it back to you.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
We'll go to Mrs. Block. Then we will have Mrs. Kusie, Mr. Brock and Mrs. Vignola.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much, Chair.
I do want to follow up on Mr. Bachrach's comments and observations. I think they are spot on in that what is at issue here is the testimony of Mr. Clark and what Mr. Bachrach described as his “vehement” testimony. He's read the comments that were made by Mr. Clark when he attended this committee.
Then there's the testimony of Emily Nicholson. We can all remember her vehement testimony that the first email and the second email were not.... She was not backing off from her first email, but she was actually trying to insist that Mr. Clark had no part to play whatsoever and that he wasn't instrumental. Now we know, after seeing the information that was released through an ATIP, that in fact Tom Clark had notified Global Affairs that the previous official residence was not suitable and had expressed concerns over completing renovations.
We know that this information, which was received through an ATIP, contradicts what he told us on September 12. Again, I would have to echo my colleague's comments about vehement testimony.
In fact, if you will recall, my colleague, Mr. Brock, during his questioning, made a point of asking whether Mr. Clark had made any comments at all when he toured the new residence. We were led to believe or left with the impression that neither he nor the real estate agent said anything at all during that tour, which further speaks to the fact that we were misled by Mr. Clark and departmental officials in the testimony that they provided to this committee.
I want to encourage all members to see that this is what the issue is. Committee has been misled by witnesses on the facts around the decision to purchase this apartment and on what Mr. Clark's involvement was.
I want to encourage all members to stay focused on what this motion is actually calling for. I know you'd like to take us all back into the weeds of the history around the purchasing of this apartment, but what we are here discussing today is the fact that Mr. Clark misled this committee.
Thank you.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I intend on keeping my second intervention rather focused and brief.
I thank Mr. Bachrach and my colleague Mrs. Block for their comments. I will heartily agree with everything that was said.
In response to one of the Liberal members—I'm not sure exactly where this came from; it could have been Mr. Jowhari or Mr. Sousa—I want to remind members of several months ago when we had the selling and, I believe, the listing real estate agents from Manhattan who testified via Zoom. I was able to pull, through a very simple Google search, the actual listing of 550 Park Avenue, Unit 12E.
I want to read this into the record and I'll make some brief commentary. It says under the word “Description”:
High Floor Golden Age Masterpiece
Introducing Unit 12E at 550 Park Avenue, a high-floor residence in one of Lenox Hill's premier pre-war co-ops. More images coming soon!
A perfect example of the grand Golden Age apartments of the 1920s, this J.E.R. Carpenter masterpiece is full of volume, scale, and ideal circulation. A great room with 11' ceilings and large windows that frame exposures to the north and east invite you into the heart of the home, while the adjacent dining room could comfortably host down a dinner of 18. Designed for hospitality, a commercial kitchen and butler's pantry are further complimented by direct access to a separate staff office and storage room, as well as the in-unit laundry. A den/library just off the entrance gallery, as well as a powder room, complete the northern wing. Along the southern corridor, four bedrooms, all with en-suite bathrooms and walk-in closets, and two with corner exposures offer privacy and comfort. With its high ceilings, large windows, herringbone walnut floors, and ample storage throughout, this residence offers the perfect framework for generation living and is truly a space to behold.
It's 3,800 square feet, 12 rooms, five bedrooms and four and a half bathrooms.
Now, according to Tom Clark, within two months of his post, this example I have just provided committee members wasn't suitable for hosting, let alone living.
I asked the listing agent whether or not, in his opinion, this description constituted a fixer-upper, because the government will have you believe that this unit required over $2 million in renovations. No one has given us an itemized list of what needed to be renovated. No one has given us a cost projection. No one has given us any information, other than a GAC official who confirmed that it wasn't compliant in terms of wheelchair access to a bathroom. The entranceway needed to be widened. That is the only evidence this committee has heard of any so-called two million dollars' worth of renovations.
I wish to put that on the record, because clearly, there are more questions than there are answers, and the only way we can get to the bottom of Tom Clark's involvement, his true involvement, is to recall him with a full cross-examination.
Thank you, Chair.
Conservative
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We already had Mr. Clark before the committee for a few hours. It is indeed worrisome that he omitted information, lied or spread misinformation, regardless of the way we want to put it.
When it comes to the residence at 12E, 550 Park Avenue, keep in mind it wasn’t simply a matter of widening the bathroom doorway to let a wheelchair or walker through. The water heater and electrical system, among other things, were also causing problems in that building, which was in fact built in 1917. So, the $2.6 million in renovations went beyond simply widening doorways. Furthermore, in this area, the water heater often serves as a central heating system, because those residences are heated with hot water radiators. At least, that was the case at the time, and I suppose it still is. Of course, $2.6 million is a lot of money.
Furthermore, I do not believe the consul was the only one to flag issues with the residence, given that the idea of renovating came up in 2014, when the apartment was 97 years old. It is now 107 years old, if I know how to count. So, I am not sure it is necessary to hold a two-hour meeting for us to simply be told they forgot to mention that the roof leaked, that the heating wasn’t working, or that the electricity worked half the time and they were always afraid it might short out, for instance. I therefore suggest my colleagues cut down the length of the appearance to one hour or two rounds of questions. That would be more than enough, in my humble opinion, to determine if we were lied to and to obtain complementary information on the renovations deemed necessary in the apartment.
It’s impressive when we read that the ceilings were 11 or 12 feet high. Before the Palace of Versailles was repaired, it was decrepit. Now, it is magnificent, because it has infinite ceilings. Some of the descriptions may seem unbelievable to us, because they make things seem inaccessible. In any case, I don’t have the opportunity to live with 11, 12 or 13 foot ceilings and marble floors. I have a house from 1908 that needs so many repairs they would cost as much as the mortgage. That’s not going to happen tomorrow.
So, obviously, it’s impressive. But beyond a certain impressive description, there are bread-and-butter money issues too. We have to determine if it was in fact a piece of real estate that was problematic for receptions. Do we need two hours, or five or six rounds of questions, to determine that? If I may, I seriously doubt it.
I therefore suggest an amendment to the motion, so that Mr. Clark can attend for two rounds of questions rather than two hours.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Just to clarify, the amendment would change it to one hour with two rounds, which is three interventions. Okay. The amendment would change it to one hour, similar to what we had this morning with the minister.
I'll start a speaking order on the amendment.
Mr. Brock.