Government Operations Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Robin Dubeau, Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property and Infrastructure Solutions, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee to provide clarity around the replacement of the official residence for the Canada consulate in New York.

I am here as the associate assistant deputy minister of Global Affairs' real property branch.

The relocation of the official residence in New York City was an operational decision taken at the end of an exhaustive and thorough process. This process centred on creating value for Canadian taxpayers, while aligning with Canada’s representational needs for one of our most important missions.

First, I would like to emphasize that this transaction was driven by program requirements and supported by sound analysis. Documented issues with the residence had accumulated for well over 10 years, making it increasingly unsuitable for Canada's evolving needs. The residence did not meet accessibility standards, had mounting recapitalization costs and faced restrictions that impacted its suitability for official functions. These are issues that the mission had been raising consistently for over a decade.

These limitations ultimately led us to a crossroads: continue investing in a building that no longer aligned with Canada’s evolving requirements or proceed with a more sustainable, future-focused option that could support the work of the consulate in a more efficient manner.

After extensive review, it became clear that replacing the property would best serve Canada’s interests and deliver considerable financial savings over the long term.

Regarding the transaction process, the acquisition followed all relevant policies and directives established by the Treasury Board Secretariat. As part of our mandate, we undertook a validation of requirements and a life-cycle cost analysis to ensure that this decision was fully justified from both financial and program delivery perspectives.

Multiple properties were assessed and the selected property was independently appraised. Each step was documented and validated through the departmental-established real property governance structure.

I would like to clearly address any concerns about potential undue influence on the process. As a result of a number of building assessments and evaluations, the headquarters property team was well aware of the numerous issues already raised with the property.

The personal views of the consul general were not directly sought, and any views on the suitability of the existing residence in the documentation as relayed second-hand by the mission would not and did not weigh into the ultimate decision. The entire end-to-end process was independently managed by the real property branch in headquarters.

The well-considered decision is a prudent and long-term investment that delivers savings, strengthens Canada's presence in New York and ensures maximum value for Canadians.

I am now going to give the floor to Ms. Guay.

[Karolina Guay, Former Chief of Staff to the Deputy of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Mr. Dubeau.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

I am here today to talk about my involvement and to clarify the communications between the minister's chief of staff and myself concerning the relocation of the consul general's official residence in New York.

For information, I was the chief of staff to the deputy minister of foreign affairs from September 2022 to August 2024. My role as chief of staff was to ensure that the deputy minister had the necessary information for performing his duties, which meant facilitating access in a timely manner to the relevant departmental expertise and information.

In this role, I also oversaw the flow of communications between the department and the minister's office by relaying requests for information to the experts in the department.

My engagement on this issue before the committee today centres on two conversations with the minister's chief of staff, first on June 14, 2024, and second, on July 25, 2024.

On June 14, the minister's chief of staff requested information on the rationale for the department's decision to sell the official residence in New York and to confirm whether the consul general was aware of that plan. On July 25, the minister's chief of staff requested information that all rules and procedures had been followed by the department and to understand the consul general's involvement in that purchase.

In both instances, these requests were to receive information about a process that had already been approved at the departmental level. I relayed these two requests of the chief of staff to the associate deputy minister of foreign affairs, who was the lead person on corporate files in the team. She subsequently engaged with departmental experts and provided a response. That correspondence has been provided to the committee.

I would like to clearly state that at no point did I receive or give instruction to alter any correspondence gathered.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am available to answer any questions that members of the committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much.

We'll start with Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

It is a pleasure to see you again, Mr. Dubeau.

I have to apologize. We had received a notice that your presence today was not necessary. My colleagues and I thought that there was going to be a different agenda for this meeting.

The plans changed, however, as is often the case here. This is not a normal situation for us, particularly since we received the letters from the witnesses who have already appeared, with their correspondence, just before the meeting.

However, we came to discuss the motion for Mr. Clark to return to the committee today.

Again, I'm grateful to the witnesses for being here, I believe, unfortunately, at the misdirection of the government. However, this is something we're used to, and it's not a surprise to me that we've received correspondence at the last minute, on the second occasion now. I feel very sorry for taking your time like this because, having been in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and having served alongside at least one of these individuals, I know that their schedules are busy and certainly filled with matters beyond the government operations committee.

Nonetheless, here we are today, and we did arrive here today with the understanding that we were going to have the debate and the discussion on the issue of Mr. Clark returning.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move another dilatory motion. I move:

That, given the letter received today from Tom Clark, the committee hear from Tom Clark for two hours and not undertake any other business this 7th day of November 2024 until Tom Clark has addressed the committee.

I believe the text of the motion has been provided to the clerk.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Is this debatable? I don't believe it's dilatory.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'll let her finish it.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

I read the motion—given the letter received today from Tom Clark—but I believe the witnesses are here today to have the discussion around the purchase of the residence that is inhabited by Mr. Clark. We are, in fact, here today to find out more information about Mr. Clark's input into the process of purchasing this residence. I believe it's very relevant.

I will now read it in French.

Que compte tenu de la lettre reçue aujourd'hui de Tom Clark, le Comité entend Tom Clark pendant deux heures et n'entreprend aucune autre affaire ce 7e jour de novembre 2024 jusqu'à ce que Tom Clark se soit adressé au Comité.

It is a debatable “matter at hand” motion, it would seem, so I do believe it is acceptable to submit at this time, Mr. Chair. As I said, I have sent it forward.

Again, I apologize to our witnesses, but this was the intention of this committee. It was stated on the notice of meeting. For it to be changed at the last minute, frankly, is not fair to the witnesses either. I feel they were brought here disingenuously, when everyone on the committee knew that the intent was for us to debate this motion.

Maybe it was the goodwill of the government, and they thought, “Oh, we will pass this quickly.” Actually, no, I can't even say that because it was brought forward to adjourn debate and move to them. They had the opportunity to pass this motion before moving on to the witnesses, but that didn't happen.

As I said, I'm moving this motion. I guess I don't have too much more to say about this, except that it's unfortunate this situation is happening, but here we are, and here I am talking about this.

As well, I will say this is very embarrassing for me, in front of my former colleague, and those who may be my future colleagues. That's a possibility. I would love that. You never know, right? We take a leave of absence sometimes, and sometimes we have the opportunity to return. That would be great. It was a very satisfying half career that I had, and I would love the opportunity to find myself perhaps as vice-consul in Lagos, or some other such place. We have fascinating opportunities. Maybe there wouldn't be as many earthquakes as there were in San Salvador, but it could be a good time nevertheless, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Do you mind if I interrupt? Perhaps we could suspend and we'll get the motion distributed properly. We'll get it translated and distributed. Then we'll go back to you, Mrs. Kusie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I call the meeting back to order.

Thank you for your patience. The motion has been distributed in both languages to everyone.

It's back to you, Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Yes, I have presented this new motion. As I indicated, it is relative to receiving further clarification to the letter we received today, again, with the understanding when we arrived that we would discuss the previous motion I presented.

As it was raised on Tuesday, the consulate general of Canada in New York notified Global Affairs that the unit at 550 Park Avenue “required immediate replacement”, as it was indicated both here and in the House, and that, “The current [Consulate General New York, Head of Mission] expressed concerns regarding the completion...of the kitchen and refurbishment project”. He indicated that the unit was “not suitable” and that the accommodations did not have “an ideal floor plan for representational activities.”

These terms “not suitable” and “required immediate replacement” seem to fly in the face of the testimony he provided here previously. It is for that reason, Mr. Chair, that we're following the precedent we've followed several times when we received information that was contrary to what a witness testified at committee previously: We're recalling him.

In an attempt to have Mr. Tom Clark come here and provide some clarification, and perhaps even clear the air—unless the government is hiding something additional around this, which I suppose is possible—and in light of this incredibly disappointing tactic today, it seems to me that we should really resolve this as soon as possible. Let's get to the understanding that the majority of people on this committee would like to have Mr. Clark return to allow him to clarify his position. I believe it is the desire of this committee to understand that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mrs. Kusie.

We will go to Mr. Jowhari and then we have Mrs. Vignola.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to start by thanking the officials scheduled to be here today.

Thank you for making the time and coming to the committee. Hopefully, we'll get to you soon.

Our colleagues across, led by MP Kusie, are trying to portray the image that we, the committee—and especially the government—had full knowledge of what the agenda of today's meeting was prior to coming here. Let me start by saying that, no, we did not, because the amended notice of meeting came in today at 8:53 a.m.

Therefore, to Canadians and especially to the media, which seems to be setting the agenda for this committee, it's not—

[A voice]

Oh, oh!

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, it is. Every time they report something, we have to deal with what they said in our next meeting. I'll come to that.

To the Canadians and the media watching this, the original agenda of this meeting was to have witnesses we all agreed on. The discussion on that motion was adjourned. There was a conversation held among the parties that tried to come to a solution. This, apparently, is now on hold. That's number one. On Tuesday and Wednesday, and up to 8:53 a.m. this morning, we were led to believe that we were going to have a meeting calling officials. Our team is prepared. I'm glad they're here, because we want to get to the bottom of this.

Now what we are hearing is that this email from Mr. Clark was sent as a response. Driven by the fact that this committee, all of a sudden, amended its agenda at 8:53 a.m. this morning, he decided to send this letter. Basically, what we are trying to tell Canadians is that Mr. Clark was watching our committee at 8:53 a.m., saw a change to the notice of meeting, and said, “Let me start writing this letter.” We received that letter. That letter was supposed to further clarify. It didn't have anything to do with this meeting.

Therefore, I want to make sure everybody understands that the original agenda we are hoping to get to today is on asking very clarifying questions of the officials who are here. The letter sent by Mr. Tom Clark does not have any relevance to the notice of meeting that was amended at 8:53 a.m.

I have a bunch of other stuff to say, but I'm going to choose not to, because I'm hoping to get to the officials.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

I have Mrs. Vignola, then Mr. Lawrence.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We did in fact receive the information about the cancellation of the witnesses' attendance, at 8:53 this morning. I was prepared. I had spent last night, and part of the day before, preparing. I read everything. I went back over the testimony from the last meetings to make sure I had not forgotten anything. I spent several hours doing that, and I read the proceedings published in Hansard since August 20 with fascination.

That said, I also understand the need to meet with Mr. Clark. On that point, I am going to move an amendment that I hope will satisfy the people on both sides of this table.

I hope that this motion will enable us, as responsible adults worthy of our office, to agree to Mr. Clark appearing for one hour, while allowing the opportunity to hear the witnesses' testimony. I am sure that I am not the only one who had prepared for the committee's meetings. We don't do our preparation between 9:00 and 11:00 in the morning, as a rule, so I am sure that my colleagues have all prepared.

This is the amendment I have drafted, which has been submitted to the clerk. I hope my translation will be adequate.

I move the following:

Given the letter received today from Tom Clark the committee hear from Tom Clark for 1 hour and that, after his appearing, the committee asks the clerk to begin to write the report in order to table that report to the House of Commons as soon as possible and that, according to article 109 of the Rules, the Committee ask an answer from the Government. Finally, that the Committee hears the witnesses as scheduled before the annulment received at 8:53 this morning, November 7th, 2024.

What I am trying to do with this motion is have the opportunity to hear the testimony of the witnesses who were scheduled to appear. I also want to have the opportunity to delve further into the issues we wanted to raise with these witnesses, while still having the opportunity to meet with Mr. Clark for one hour, as mentioned earlier. I would also like us to be able to submit the report as soon as possible. I am trying to split the apple, the pear, the melon—choose your fruit—to satisfy everyone now around the table.

I know the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and sometimes good intentions are not taken into consideration. However, I hope this will fall on both wide open ears and minds, as is usually the case. We work well together in this committee, and I hope that practice will continue.

I am going to stop here so we can move on to the vote as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Are you sending it to the clerk?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We haven't received it yet.

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

I'm sending it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll suspend while we're doing this, as always.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, again, for your patience.

We'll start with Mr. Lawrence on the amendment, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make a small friendly amendment to the amendment. I know that, technically, “friendly” does not exist in the green book, but I am hoping that it is of that nature. I'll read the entire motion, and then I'll just highlight the subamendment. “That, given the letter received today from Tom Clark, the committee hear from Tom Clark for one hour”—and then this is the friendly subamendment—“within 21 days, and that after his appearing, the committee ask the clerk to begin to write a report”, and it just goes on from there. So, our addition, for clarity, is to just put a timeline. We believe it's more than reasonable to get one hour—I would assume likely virtually—from Mr. Clark within 21 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

All right.

Do you wish to speak on the 21 days, Mrs. Vignola, or on a different issue?

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

I just wanted to say that I accept Mr. Lawrence's friendly amendment.

We are always friendly in this committee, Mr. Lawrence.