Government Operations Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Good morning, everyone. We'll call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 152 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

I will mention that in a couple of days it's my wife's birthday. In keeping with the tradition of being cheap as part of the operations committee, this is your birthday gift, dear.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are resuming debate. We're starting a brand new speaking list on the debate at hand, which is the amended motion to have Mr. Clark for one hour.

We have Mrs. Kusie, Mrs. Block, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Sousa and Mrs. Atwin.

Just very briefly, we had a meeting of all of the committee chairs. I can't recall if Mr. Coteau was with us. There was an issue in another committee where the speaking order wasn't perhaps communicated properly and they went to a vote early.

What I will start doing here is that when I'm announcing, for example, Mrs. Kusie, I will say both Mrs. Kusie and then the next person in line. That way we will always know that there is at least one more speaker. If you do not hear me state that there's a next person in line, you can assume that it's the last person. You can put your hand up then and there.

We'll start with Mrs. Kusie and then go to Mrs. Block.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I feel that we left the last meeting in a good place. Mr. Bachrach, who was present at the time on behalf of the New Democrats, seemed to speak in support of the previous motion, never mind the amended motion. I believe it was in support of the general idea that we should see the recall of Mr. Clark, given the precedent of the committee to recall witnesses where further information after their testimony was found to be in conflict with the testimony they provided to this committee.

Then, of course, Madame Vignola provided an amendment that was amenable, it appeared, to the entire committee relative to the reduced appearance of Mr. Clark from two hours to one hour.

As I indicated, I feel that we left this motion in a very positive place for members of the committee. Therefore, I'm very happy to see discussion on this amendment resume today. As I said, we seemed to have agreement with two of the opposition parties initially. After the amendment from the additional opposition party, it appeared we were in a good place. Members of the government of this committee seemed to be in agreement with and amenable to the amendment of Madame Vignola.

It would seem to me, Mr. Chair, that this would be a fast process this morning. This would be my anticipation, since we are all singing from the same Canada...sheet, O Canada.

I gave away a bit of my joke there, before I said it, with one word. My apologies. I'm sorry.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay, maybe it's not all of us. Pardon me. Let's start with “O”. That's one word.

At any rate, I expect it to be a rapid decision today, Mr. Chair, that we can come to agreement that this is acceptable. Given the precedent, the agreement and suggestion of a fellow committee member, and the agreement around this table, I'm looking for swift passage to a vote today.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will conclude. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much.

I apologize, Mrs. Vignola. Mrs. Block mentioned that you were before her. Go ahead. Then we'll go to Mrs. Block, or Mrs. Block can pass it over.

Go ahead, Madame Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On Tuesday, we discussed an amendment that had the effect of reducing the time for Mr. Clark's appearance to one hour. When it is necessary for testimony to be clarified, it is usual to request an additional appearance. It would also seem that there was some agreement around the table on this.

In fact, in looking for assurance of that agreement this morning, I heard that Mr. Clark had, was to have, will have to, or will—I don't know which tense of the verb to use—intended to write to the committee. In any event, I wondered whether we had received any communication from Mr. Clark other than what we received in August.

I have just seen it come up in my email inbox.

Would it be useful to know what the content of that communication is before continuing the discussion?

We are talking about Mr. Clark now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think it's just a one-page letter. It's gone out to the P9s now.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Can we take a few minutes to read it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm happy to suspend for a minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks. We are back.

Mrs. Vignola, the floor is still yours.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My understanding of Mr. Clark's letter is that he is contextualizing what was reported by the media and in the committee today. This is essentially the reason why we wanted to meet with him for an hour.

In my opinion, the situation is already clearer.

Do we need to meet with him for an hour, given that we have received this letter?

I am putting the question out to all committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Next, we have Mrs. Block, then Mr. Lawrence and then Mr. Sousa.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate Mrs. Vignola's comments in regard to this letter that we are just seeing now. Maybe it's not surprising that we would receive this letter on the heels of some media reports that he provided contradictory testimony to us on September 12, at which time he was most emphatic about not having said anything to anyone ever about his current residence.

Therefore, I also believe that some clarification needs to be made here this morning. This is not something the members on this side of the table came up with. We are responding to what was reported by media about information that was uncovered through an ATIP in regard to his involvement in ensuring that perhaps a new residence would be sought, so I would suggest that—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

He can come and make his case and clear the air.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Yes, I suggest that he could easily come here for one hour, state what he needs to in response to what was reported, and provide us with the opportunity to ask any clarifying questions. This is, as my colleague pointed out, the precedent we set on this committee. When witnesses come to testify before this committee, they provide us with information. When it is found that they have misled the committee or provided us with information that is contradicted by information uncovered later, we always ask them to come back to clarify—whether or not they were misleading this committee—in order to ensure we are getting the most honest testimony we can get, to continue doing the work we're doing.

Because this letter has come, again, on the heels of a request to have him appear—not unlike the emails that were suddenly uncovered or sent the day after we asked him to appear the first time—I suggest that he needs to appear before this committee, as we've asked, for one hour. I think that was a compromise made on this side of the House to ensure the governing members would support it. As my colleague pointed out, it appeared they were in support of bringing Mr. Clark back, so let's have him here. Let's provide him with the opportunity to reiterate what he sent in this letter on the heels of the media reports, and provide ourselves with the opportunity to ask questions.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mrs. Block.

Next is Mr. Lawrence, then Mr. Sousa.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you.

I thank Mr. Clark for providing the letter.

However, I'm left with significant questions about that letter. It has not resolved the issue for me or, I think, all reasonable-thinking Canadians. There are still additional questions about the discrepancy between his testimony and the media reports. This letter has not clarified why he unequivocally said he did not discuss the upcoming purchase of the condo, when, clearly—according to media reports—he did.

I find it a little ironic that Mr. Clark thinks a simple letter is sufficient, given that his prior career was in the media. What is the entire responsibility of the media? Well, it's to test the evidence of people. Whether we look to journalism and democracy or to the court, we need to test the evidence. It could be that this is all completely understandable. That's why we'll have Mr. Clark come here, clear the air and provide that testimony. However, this letter is clearly insufficient. It's the reason that journalism exists. His former career was to test the evidence and make sure Canadians were comfortable with it. Quite frankly, we would be more than negligent, as a committee, if we didn't fulfill our obligation to Canadian taxpayers to find this out, because this letter does not resolve the discrepancy between his testimony and media reports.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Next is Mr. Sousa, then Mrs. Atwin.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Tom Clark's letter is rather clear. It's obvious he was not involved in making the decision to move locations, and that the issue has been ongoing for a long time—long before he was appointed. There were former Conservative appointees, who cited the fact that the residence was in need of much repair and improvement.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee proceed to the testimony of officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development on the purchase of the official residence of the consul general in New York.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There's already a motion on the floor, so you can't move that motion.

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

It's a dilatory motion, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I've received commentary from the clerk that it is indeed a dilatory motion, so we'll go ahead with the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

Why don't we suspend for a couple of moments? We'll allow the witnesses to take their spots.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you for your patience everyone. We're back.

Mr. Dubeau, please go ahead with your opening statement.