Government Operations Committee on Nov. 19th, 2024

[Robin Dubeau]

There are two of them, because there was a rotation in 2023. However, yes, I have been in contact with two individuals.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Have you supplied this committee with those names?

[Robin Dubeau]

I did.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our department officials for joining us today.

I wanted to first ask if it's common for a new head of mission to express views on their accommodations at all.

[Robin Dubeau]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, it would be common for any head of mission or any occupant of our provided properties abroad to have an opinion about their housing.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

What are those kinds of opinions like? Is it not operational? Is it suitable for meetings? What can we host here? What are some of the views they would want to express? If you go into a workplace in a highly important role ultimately, and you have a strategy of how you're going to carry out your duties, how are you going to establish relationships and all of these things?

What are some of the views that other mission heads have stated when they've been deployed to certain mission regions?

[Robin Dubeau]

Thank you for the question.

As we explained before, if we stick to official residences, those are workplaces in which employees will be delivering all kinds of representation functions. All of the criteria associated with being able to deliver those functions could be subject to an opinion. Sometimes the accessibility would be one. The security could be one as well, depending on where they are in the world. There is also the seating arrangements, the number of people who can be accommodated, or the kind and type of event that can be hosted there. Its location sometimes could be subject as well to an opinion that it's not the best location, because it's not attracting the kind of business or business people they want to bring into the official residence.

The second half of the official residence is living quarters for heads of missions. They will often have opinions about the living quarters per se. You also have a division of the two. In the case of New York, there were issues about the floor plan layout not dividing very well the representational space and the private space, which also is an issue that is often raised by heads of missions.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

It's important for a workplace area to be separated from a living space. When you're conducting business, people shouldn't be walking through certain areas that are private. I understand that.

I know we've talked a bit about selecting the present property locations based on where our allied nations and some of our greater trade partners may be. For example, in the United States, we now have a new administration coming in. It's important for G7 nations to ensure their priorities are met. Friendshoring is important right now.

Can you speak a bit more to how important this specific location, where it's situated, is for some of our key trade partners?

[Robin Dubeau]

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a bit of detail. I'm sure my colleague, Mr. Hounzangbé, will have a bit more to add.

I would start by saying that, for those official residences, one of the most important criteria would be security. We have to be located in secure areas for our heads of mission, which are normally in the vicinity of our like-minded allies, as you mentioned. Being close to our G7, G20 and other allies is critical for the conduct of the kind of business we have.

As well, the proximity of local authorities is important in making sure that we can connect with what are the local businesses, as well as diplomatic and governmental organizations. Another factor we take into account is the proximity of our office. We want to be in the vicinity of where the offices are to facilitate the transit between the two facilities.

I don't know, Mr. Hounzangbé, if I forgot anything that you would like to add.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We have no time is what I think he wants to add. Perhaps we can get to it with Mrs. Vignola's round.

Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dubeau, could you remind me when the decision was made to purchase rather than renovate?

[Robin Dubeau]

I will let Mr. Hounzangbé answer because the process unfolded under his supervision.

[Franck Hounzangbé]

Mr. Chair, the official date is June 29, 2023.

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

Thank you.

A consul is appointed for a four-year term.

Is that correct?

[Robin Dubeau]

Yes, it is a four-year term. An extension can be negotiated.

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

Okay.

When they appeared before the committee last year, the appraiser and the real estate agent said the average price of a condominium in New York is $1.6 million. The report said the same thing.

I asked what you can get for $1.6 million because I'm cheap. They said it would get you a studio. I thought that if a single person lived in a studio and could use the shared offices on Lexington Avenue, that could be satisfactory.

Then I wondered whether consuls are always single or if they sometimes bring their children with them.

When you are planning to purchase a residence, do you consider only the current representative or the potential number of occupants over 60 years?

[Robin Dubeau]

That's a very good question.

If we purchase something for the next 50, 60 or 70 years, we want to have as much flexibility as possible as to the number of bedrooms.

It is certainly true that family size can vary over the years. The occupant could be a single person or there could be families of various sizes.

We want to make sure that it is something that will suit various requirements over time.

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

Thank you.

People often talk about a lifespan of 60 years for buildings. That may be common in America in general, but I think it is unfortunate. In other places in the world, 60 years is a very short time. There are buildings that are 600 or 700 years old, and newer ones that are 200 years old.

Why do we not aim for a longer lifespan for our buildings?

It would be wonderful if Canada had a 200-year-old residence in New York. That would be extraordinary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry to interrupt, we do not have time for a response, but perhaps you can provide that in writing to us.

We'll go to Ms. Blaney, and then we'll finish up with Mr. Brock and Mr. Jowhari. Then I need about 30 seconds for committee business to do the budgets, which went out last week.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

You can respond to her question, and then I have no more questions.

[Robin Dubeau]

Okay, thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

We are not necessarily aiming for 60 years. In terms of our financial analysis, we limit it to 20 years, because it is usually the next 20 years that are the most critical.

There is not necessarily an end date. I don't know if there are any official residences that are more than 100 years old, but it is quite possible that some might be in heritage buildings or buildings that are of a certain age, or at least ten or so years old.

You have to consider the condition of the building. Refurbishing is usually considered at the midpoint of a building's lifespan. We try to determine whether the property can be used until the building is 50 or 60 years old. Then a decision has to be made. Is it better to renovate or replace the property? We might decide to renovate and keep the property. We do not necessarily have a preconceived idea based on the age of the property. We do a cost-benefit analysis, whether it is better to keep it or replace it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We will go to Mr. Brock for five minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

When the consul general, Tom Clark, was exposed as a liar in relation to the documents that this committee received, he wrote a letter to this committee. He said all his comments to GAC officials, meaning the two of you gentlemen, were only made in passing.

I think we can all agree as to what that term of art means, “in passing”. If I say this meeting went well, that would be a comment in passing. If this meeting didn't go well, that would be a comment in passing. However, when Tom Clark, the head of this most important mission in the United States, calls for an immediate replacement of the old residence.... If that came from his officials, they certainly wouldn't be doing that without his authorization. Would you agree with that?