Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's one other point that I wanted to make.
I was looking at the transcripts. Public Services' Lorenzo Ieraci said that in 2021-22 the National Capital Commission's budget was $239 million in total. At one point, I heard that 24 Sussex was going to be a $40-million to $50-million upgrade. Like Ms. Khalid, I think Canadians' heritage properties are important—and as a baseball player, I secretly always wanted to play cricket—but I will tell you, Mr. Chair, that there's something that strikes me as really interesting. When the National Capital Commission was here, I asked them who was in charge of making the decisions. What they told me was that an independent board makes all the decisions. In another question—and I never got back on the floor to ask this part of it—in another segment, somebody else asked about 24 Sussex, and the National Capital Commission said they're waiting on the government to approve that building.
I've been thinking about it ever since, and here's why. This is the point I want to make. I walked these grounds recently. It is a beautiful property, full stop, and Canadians should be proud of it. This is about value for money, clearly, so if the National Capital Commission is truly an independent board, independent and fully competent to make their own decisions, why rely on the government for a $40-million expenditure that's now likely $70 million because of the inflation that the government so aptly caused?
My point is very simple: Why rely on the government for a decision that you can make yourself? Why run the cost of 24 Sussex up through the roof in the eight years that you neglected it? If it cost $40 million to fix 10 years ago.... Let's just say that. Let's use that as an example. Nine or 10 years ago, it would have cost $40 million to fix 24 Sussex. They have the $239-million budget to fix it. They can put it in their budget to do it, yet they're secretly relying on the government to make the decision for them.
Keep following: Why would the National Capital Commission spend $11 million that we know of at the Harrington Lake luxury cottage or chalet, or whatever we're going to call it over there, and $8 million on a barn, that we know of, while all the while having a problem with assets and deferred maintenance, yet leave aside the biggest decision on spending $40-million on a place where the Prime Minister normally resides, which apparently is rat-infested and has gone by the wayside? Why would they spend all this money on other random projects and not put the money on the residence of the Prime Minister, if in fact it is a heritage property included on the Rideau Lake properties?
You can see very clearly that when the Treasury Board and Public Works came here, they said that everybody else—the NCC—can answer every question. They didn't. They had contradicted themselves so many times before they left that I think ultimately we're going to have to bring them back in here for a week to sift through some of it. Now they don't want to answer the 30 questions I submitted to them. I'm going to submit 30 more after today.
Mr. Chair, I think there's something inherently wrong at the Rideau estate properties. I know it, and we're going to continue to fight for it. We're against the amendment.
Thank you.