Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will take the opportunity to clarify a couple of things to ensure that there is no further miscommunication from my end.
First of all, speaking to something that one of the honourable members mentioned about it being a memo, I'll just clarify that the email sent on June 17 was not a memo. It was simply a transitory email meant as an initial first step, summarizing the best available information that I had at my disposal in response to a question from the minister's office, which was focused specifically and primarily on the sale of that property. We were not looking at a purchase. We were looking solely at a sale. If my words as drafted are read within that context, they are more easily explained.
Again, the term “green light” was there simply to indicate that the head of mission was aware that a process was under way and ongoing, as is our usual departmental practice. There was nothing out of order there with our standard departmental practice. It is well within the realm of the normal that a head of mission would be informed that an ongoing real estate process was in play that predated their arrival and would likely impact them physically—they would be required to physically move.
The clarification was made. There should have been a distinction in that first sentence to differentiate or draw a clearer delineation between the role of the head of mission, which was being aware that a process was ongoing, and the work of the mission staff, which was instrumental throughout this multi-year process. Again, it was initiated in 2014, predating the current consul general's arrival by eight years.
I'll also state, for the clarification of timelines, that it's important to note that the head of mission was first taken to the selected property on April 26, 2024. The offer from the department to purchase was accepted on April 19, predating his even seeing that property. I reference that because those site visits were taking place in April. My emails were drafted in June 2024 and July 2024, long after the process and transaction had been initiated.
I'll clarify that the issue is actually far simpler than it might seem. There was an initial email that was drafted based on the information available at that time. In an effort to summarize a very complex and vast process that spanned over 10 years, there was one line of a full-page email drafted in a way that could be misconstrued when taken out of context and applied to a purchase as opposed to a sale.
I would like to state again for the record, and I'm happy to do so under oath, that no one asked me to change any information. I received further information pursuant to that original email drafted on June 17 and relayed it to the best of my ability to ensure that both my bosses and the office of the minister had the best available information.
Again, to clarify and reiterate everything, to the best of my knowledge and the best of my understanding, as it has been demonstrated and consistent through all testimony that has come before this committee, the head of mission was aware that a process was ongoing and was not in any way instrumental or in a position to take an actual decision on choosing a property.
Thank you.