Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We already had Mr. Clark before the committee for a few hours. It is indeed worrisome that he omitted information, lied or spread misinformation, regardless of the way we want to put it.
When it comes to the residence at 12E, 550 Park Avenue, keep in mind it wasn’t simply a matter of widening the bathroom doorway to let a wheelchair or walker through. The water heater and electrical system, among other things, were also causing problems in that building, which was in fact built in 1917. So, the $2.6 million in renovations went beyond simply widening doorways. Furthermore, in this area, the water heater often serves as a central heating system, because those residences are heated with hot water radiators. At least, that was the case at the time, and I suppose it still is. Of course, $2.6 million is a lot of money.
Furthermore, I do not believe the consul was the only one to flag issues with the residence, given that the idea of renovating came up in 2014, when the apartment was 97 years old. It is now 107 years old, if I know how to count. So, I am not sure it is necessary to hold a two-hour meeting for us to simply be told they forgot to mention that the roof leaked, that the heating wasn’t working, or that the electricity worked half the time and they were always afraid it might short out, for instance. I therefore suggest my colleagues cut down the length of the appearance to one hour or two rounds of questions. That would be more than enough, in my humble opinion, to determine if we were lied to and to obtain complementary information on the renovations deemed necessary in the apartment.
It’s impressive when we read that the ceilings were 11 or 12 feet high. Before the Palace of Versailles was repaired, it was decrepit. Now, it is magnificent, because it has infinite ceilings. Some of the descriptions may seem unbelievable to us, because they make things seem inaccessible. In any case, I don’t have the opportunity to live with 11, 12 or 13 foot ceilings and marble floors. I have a house from 1908 that needs so many repairs they would cost as much as the mortgage. That’s not going to happen tomorrow.
So, obviously, it’s impressive. But beyond a certain impressive description, there are bread-and-butter money issues too. We have to determine if it was in fact a piece of real estate that was problematic for receptions. Do we need two hours, or five or six rounds of questions, to determine that? If I may, I seriously doubt it.
I therefore suggest an amendment to the motion, so that Mr. Clark can attend for two rounds of questions rather than two hours.