Just following on Mr. Hubbard's questioning, I think we're getting at two issues. One is whether there was a cost to the taxpayers. The Auditor General said there was, and that it was $4.6 million, but we know that it was based on incorrect square footage, or square meterage, and on an incorrect assumption about the cost per square meter. You stated earlier that the Auditor General's numbers are wrong on that aspect.
What we need to do is, first, get at whether there was a cost to taxpayers as a result of this process. Second, the process wasn't the usual process, so was there some sort of nefarious intent, or were there extenuating circumstances? Those are the two questions.
I'll come back to the first one, the question of whether there was a cost. When you go through the calculations, I think it's very important that we get an actual number--I know you can't nail it down to the penny--on the cost of moving. Ms. Cochrane, could you provide this committee with a number? The previous number we heard was between $500,000 and $1 million. Could you provide us with a number for that?
There was also a reference made by department officials that the move would entail a one-week loss of productivity. I understand there were 300 employees. Could you quantify the cost of losing one week of productivity from those 300 employees, and could you give us a number more accurate than between $500,000 and $1 million? That would be tremendously helpful.