Sir, let me tell you this. You described the importance of the mission, which you're the head of. You described how important it is. In order for you to get things done, I don't imagine you need to directly instruct individual members of your team to do them. You need to identify that there's a problem, and then the team engages to solve it. That's how it works. This isn't some comment made in passing.
Again, you talk about the evidence. Let's talk about the June 17 email from Emily Nicholson. Ms. Nicholson says that the “[head of mission] and staff have been instrumental throughout this process, with the [head of mission]”, which is you, “providing the greenlight for the selection of the new residence.”
We know, once this scandal ended up in front of a parliamentary committee, that damage control was engaged, and Ms. Nicholson swallowed herself whole, saying that you had nothing to do with it. Well, I imagine, when she was trying to save her job, that's exactly what she would say.
However, there are now multiple data points that didn't come from admissions by you or your staff; they came from access to information demands and from document production orders from this committee, which revealed that you were involved, that your champagne tastes weren't being met, either with the recently modified shared representational space at the mission or with the multi-million dollar condo on Billionaires' Row.
With my last 30 seconds, sir, we know that you're not going to resign for having bought a $9-million condo on Billionaires' Row and for having personally initiated that process. Will you resign for lying to a parliamentary committee?