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
November 5th, 2024 / 1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
How long do we need to listen to a member who is not getting to the point with an amended motion on the table? How many times do members have to call relevance before he gets to the point?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
There are rules around this. I think it is three, but Mr. Kusmierczyk, I have to insist that you get to the motion. It's a very straightforward one. There are other people from your party, I'm sure, who can take up the baton if you're not able to address the motion, but if you could, please get to the specific motion.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
My point is that we've had copious meetings on this issue.
The relevance of this is that the Conservatives are calling for additional extended meetings on this issue. The point that I'm trying to make is that the facts are abundantly clear. This transaction is saving Canadians $7.4 million. The process is independent and rigorous, and it is strengthening investment in the consulate, strengthening U.S.-Canada relationships.
The reason I'm talking about my Conservative colleagues wanting to do foreign policy on the cheap, just like they wanted to do defence spending on the cheap with five years of defence cuts, is that we heard around this table from my Conservative colleagues that we should be locating our consulate in New Jersey.
Conservative
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
The motion is about recalling a witness who misled this committee. I would ask that the member either get back to that motion or, as you've suggested, hand it over to someone else. I'm calling relevance.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Yes, thanks.
I think we've reached the point where you haven't got to that, so we will move to the next speaker, Mrs. Kusie, and then Mr. Sousa.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I can refer the issue to the clerk, who will rule on it. I understand we do—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
—give wide latitude but we do reach a point where.... It's a very specific motion. Again, we do give wide latitude, but it's such a very specific motion that you haven't addressed, and I have five interventions.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Could I just speak to the point of order and offer my brief thoughts?
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My sense is that the argument my colleague Mr. Kusmierczyk is making is that the ends justify the means. I would suggest that it's relevant, if that is indeed the argument he's making.
The means, in this case, include misleading the committee, and that's the issue I have with how things have transpired. He's restating the importance of diplomatic relations and the importance of a new residence. He's basically saying that, no matter how we got here, it doesn't really matter because this is so important.
I would support allowing him to continue to speak, if that is indeed the argument he's making.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks.
We've reached a point where I've asked five times. I can ask the clerk to weigh in as well on the rules.
We'll allow you back on the speaking slot, but I've asked specifically five times.
We'll go to Mrs. Kusie and then to Mr. Sousa.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I believe my Conservative colleagues covered my points, so I'll cede my time.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a lot of deliberations being made over motivations of this transaction and the engagement of an individual who does not make the decision. That individual has made it clear that he was not involved in the transaction nor in the decision-making of this process.
Members opposite are making allegations that somehow, within a two-month period, that individual became consul general and was able to make a transaction that he said he didn't involve himself in. It's nothing that is new, given the testimony that this has been ongoing for decades now and that the property needed to be revamped or relocated. Consequently, a savings of $7.4 million is being had in moving to a new residence at a lesser cost and providing more efficiencies.
Again, people can have opinions, but that doesn't make them decision-makers, and that's evident here. The consul general also confirmed that the decision is made by the experts and that they rely on the relative agencies and individuals involved in the respective agencies to fulfill their mandate to locate the proper properties and go through the transactions as necessary.
The saving on the property is paramount. It's critical, to the tune of $7.4 million and $2.6 million in renovations that do not have to be made as a result. The valuation of the property continues, because they still have the asset. The opposition is somehow conflating the issue that they need cash in hand, but the asset value exists, and the potential sale is going to net benefit Canadians in a big way.
The independence of this transaction has also been made clear. Many properties were reviewed. I believe over 21 properties were considered—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Sousa, I have to interrupt you. I do apologize, but that is it for our resources.
The meeting is adjourned.