Chair, through you, we didn't anticipate those. We would have appreciated the opportunity to clarify exactly what the purpose and intent of those clauses in the contract were for. They were for the purpose of allowing any delay in the schedule that was required in order to bring financial closure to the contract.
The city and the consortium signed the contract on September 15. The contract allowed for a period until October 15 for financial closure. That was the expectation. It also then provided for either party to have the ability to request up to a ten-day extension. There was provision for six of those, for the purposes of arranging for the completion of issues necessary for financial closure to the project. Those purposes would extend to things like getting the contribution agreements from the senior governments and to other issues that would allow for financial closure.
I can tell you this, and it's public, as I stated it back in October. The intent of those clauses in the agreement was not to allow for an extension of 60 days to allow for another council in place of a duly elected council that had made the decision on behalf of the city and its residents with years of public consultation behind it to be revisited. That was not the intent of those clauses in the contract.
We were very clear with council and with the federal government in regard to that.