Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As usual, we always appreciate it when we receive a notice of the motion ahead of time so that we can ensure we also have time to put our responses into proper perspective and to review the documents that we need to review. However, unfortunately, we are not there.
Having had the chance to look at the motion, and also reflecting on where we've been on this journey, what we have clearly demonstrated to date is that there is value for money. As we just heard from the officials, we may be very close to disposing of the old residence with a significant profit. The value that we are going to receive as a result of the reduced maintenance and the upkeep costs is in the area of $7 million. There is a 50% saving, on an ongoing basis, on the maintenance.
We heard that we are avoiding spending about $2.5 million Canadian on repairing a residence that will not be able to, ultimately, meet the needs. We addressed it, and we heard testimony from a lot of witnesses about where other missions situated themselves. We heard that Afghanistan and Bangladesh are the only ones that positioned themselves outside of the Manhattan jurisdiction. We also heard that other embassies, especially those of the Five Eyes and the ones that we rely on very closely, have situated themselves in the same area that we have. From a political...and from the optics we are in the right position. From a business case—value for money—we are there.
We also heard that all the processes were followed. We looked at whether there was interference or influence, etc. We saw that there was no influence. Sharing a point of view does not necessarily translate into influence and decision-making. The decision-making was done by the department and by the people who were responsible for it rather than by the political staff. When you look at interference, there was no interference. We covered the whole gamut and all the aspects of this thing, despite the rhetoric, despite the image the opposition is trying to portray and despite the fact that the opposition is trying to build this conspiracy theory, linking many different officials, ministers and the Prime Minister to this. This has been proven false.
Having said all of that, and the fact that we also had Mr. Tom Clark here and will have the officials come in on Thursday morning to further discuss this, we don't see any need for Mr. Clark to come back to answer the same questions: Was there there value for money? Yes. Did you have an influence on this conversation? No. Was this a process that started some 10 years ago? Yes. Did you have an opportunity to go see the residence? Yes. Did you like the residence? Well, it really doesn't matter whether he liked it or not when we look at the value for money. He moved in.
The fact that there is a simulator somewhere in the basement of that apartment building, which all the residents have access to, is irrelevant to this study. What's relevant to this study, and we repeated it, is that the mission is responsible for over $6 trillion. That's twice the GDP of Canada. It is responsible for over $200 billion. The motion is trying to call in, within 21 days, the head of a mission right after an election, when we are trying to make sure that we have all our ducks and all our key people lined up to deal with the outcome of that election, one way or another.
It would repeat the same things that we have already heard, in trying to further build on this conspiracy theory that hasn't gone anywhere, to be honest with you guys, despite all of the social media and everything else that is going on. Then the media comes in trying to figure out something else to talk about. This is completely irrelevant to the day-to-day life of Canadians. It's not something that's worth investing the time of this committee on. Therefore, I am opposing this motion.
As I said, the value for money is there. The importance of the mission is there. All of our allies are there. All of the processes were followed. There was no influence.
For what purpose are we trying to prolong this? I really don't understand. Whether they're ministers or officials from the department, there is no value in bringing them here, insulting them and calling them names.
None of the stuff that we say is ever going to go into a report. What will go into the report is there was value for money and no influence, and we followed the process. Everybody else has said there was no influence. That's what will go into the report.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.