If it's helpful, I can explain that you only hold real property to serve a program purpose. There are two aspects, I think, to the questions you may have, one of which is: What are the programmatic mission requirements that would drive the decision to have an official residence in a specific area? Those are driven by Global Affairs, and I think in the submission to the committee they referenced their policy that drives those requirements—so real property exists for requirements.
Then, when they go to acquire, what I would expect to see, and what I think this committee would want to hear from Global Affairs about, is whether they undertook a full life-cycle cost analysis of the different options. Did they look at keeping it and making the upgrades? Did they look at what the full cost would be of acquiring something new, either through a purchase or through a lease? What were the results of that analysis, and did it show the value?
That's what the Treasury Board policy sets out, and there are two aspects to that.