Madam Chair, of course senior city staff and members of council were aware that there was an impending election.
In response, because we were part of the negotiations, I can tell you what the intent of those clauses were. It is exactly as I said earlier. They were there to allow for any procedural issues required in getting the pieces done for financial closure. The most significant of those were the contribution agreements from the two senior governments to ensure that the $400 million was contractually committed to.
Why were city officials and the consortium not concerned about that clause and the potential extension and impact in the context of a municipal election? I'd say it never dawned on us, because as we said earlier, the issue was whether we met all the conditions of the senior governments in terms of pursuing the approval of this project, which we did. And as I think we have said many times now, it was unanticipated, and we were surprised, that the issue of whether the existing council, who had made the decisions about this being a top transportation project for this city and how to go about procuring this, and who made the decision to award the contract under the procurement process, would ever be reconsidered as part of another council reaffirmation.
I can tell you, that context was never considered in the construction of the contract. Therefore, I remain very clear in stating that the intent of those clauses was not to allow for a period of time for this decision to be revisited after a municipal election. It was there to allow, under the intent and obligations of that contract, for process and procedural issues to bring financial closure.