Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly defended the government’s purchase of a $9 million apartment for Canada’s consul general in New York, rejecting accusations from Tory MPs that her office was involved in a “cover-up” of his involvement in the decision.
The government operations committee is investigating the federal government’s decision to sell the New York residence, which once served as the home of Consul General Tom Clark, in order to purchase a $9 million condo located in a section of Manhattan known as “billionaire’s row.”
Conservative MPs have argued the purchase was inappropriate at a time when Canadians are facing a cost-of-living crisis, and have also questioned whether Clark was involved in the sale.
Joly told the committee that Global Affairs followed all proper rules and procedures while buying the New York property. She also said Canadians had received good value for money because the government had achieved more than $7 million in savings by buying a new residence instead of upgrading the previous one.
“We wanted to have the best price-quality ratio for Canadians,” Joly told the committee on Nov. 5. “We have also heard from the several meetings we’ve had on this subject that it was an operational decision, not a political decision.”
Conservative MP Larry Brock noted that a day after the government operations committee voted on July 24 to conduct hearings on the purchase of the condo, Nicholson issued a major correction to her previous email. “Do you find that suspicious in any way?” he asked Joly, to which she responded, “absolutely not.”
When Brock asked if Joly was personally involved in a “cover-up” for Clark, Joly denied any misconduct had taken place.
‘Clear Contradiction’
Clark testified before the committee on Sept. 12 that he'd had “no role whatsoever” in deciding to sell the old residence, buy the new one, or decide on its location or amenities.Yet, according to an access-to-information request originally obtained by Politico and made public on Nov. 5, Clark previously expressed concern to officials that the original building was “not suitable as a residence” and needed to be replaced. The document noted that the residence was not accessible for those with disabilities, did not provide private living space for household occupants, and restricted both the number of residents and the scale of events it could host.
Conservative MP Stephanie Kusie called for the committee to vote to bring Clark back to testify again on the part he played choosing the new apartment, saying there was a “clear contradiction” between his committee testimony that he had no role in choosing the new building, and the new access-to-information document showing he said the former building was not suitable as a residence.
“Given the clear contradiction between the testimony of Mr. Clark and what we have found out today, it behooves us as a committee, not only to find out why this contradiction exists, but also for the transparency of information,” she said.
The committee adjourned before the motion to recall Clark went to a vote. It is likely to pass after all three opposition parties expressed support for the idea.
