Thank you very much, Chair.
I do want to follow up on Mr. Bachrach's comments and observations. I think they are spot on in that what is at issue here is the testimony of Mr. Clark and what Mr. Bachrach described as his “vehement” testimony. He's read the comments that were made by Mr. Clark when he attended this committee.
Then there's the testimony of Emily Nicholson. We can all remember her vehement testimony that the first email and the second email were not.... She was not backing off from her first email, but she was actually trying to insist that Mr. Clark had no part to play whatsoever and that he wasn't instrumental. Now we know, after seeing the information that was released through an ATIP, that in fact Tom Clark had notified Global Affairs that the previous official residence was not suitable and had expressed concerns over completing renovations.
We know that this information, which was received through an ATIP, contradicts what he told us on September 12. Again, I would have to echo my colleague's comments about vehement testimony.
In fact, if you will recall, my colleague, Mr. Brock, during his questioning, made a point of asking whether Mr. Clark had made any comments at all when he toured the new residence. We were led to believe or left with the impression that neither he nor the real estate agent said anything at all during that tour, which further speaks to the fact that we were misled by Mr. Clark and departmental officials in the testimony that they provided to this committee.
I want to encourage all members to see that this is what the issue is. Committee has been misled by witnesses on the facts around the decision to purchase this apartment and on what Mr. Clark's involvement was.
I want to encourage all members to stay focused on what this motion is actually calling for. I know you'd like to take us all back into the weeds of the history around the purchasing of this apartment, but what we are here discussing today is the fact that Mr. Clark misled this committee.
Thank you.