Embedded in the emails that came from Emily Nicholson, it states very clearly that he had influence in determining the purchase of the new residence. He had significant influence in the decision that was made.
I am wondering how you can continue to deny what has been put forward in a number of documents that were ATIPed and indicate that he did, in fact, raise concerns and that he misled this committee when he provided the testimony he did, which was that he had never raised anything with anyone, ever. Now we have three documents that would suggest the opposite. I am deeply concerned that we continue to hear the same kind of push-back from members of Global Affairs Canada, when we actually have the documents in front of us, saying something completely different.
Again, I would go back to the testimony of Ms. Nicholson. She indicated that he had influence in the decision-making in her first email. The second email came on the heels of a request to have him appear before the committee, saying, “No, that's not true.”
Who told her to put that in the email?