Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you both for attending today.
I just want to get refocused here. Our big problem is that we have not yet determined who made the pivotal decision and why, after all the work. An enormous amount of work was done, then two weeks after the deal was signed, the government changed its mind. We don't yet have a rationale for that, nor can we yet find out who takes responsibility for saying “I made the pivotal decision. I said this stops, this starts.”
So we're seeking your assistance in doing that. I want to again remind all of us what the Auditor General said directly. Two weeks after the tendering process had closed and the winning bidder had been selected, the secretary of state for the agency sent a letter to the Minister of Public Works asking him to renew the lease at Place Victoria. The Minister of Public Works approved the renewed lease at Place Victoria, despite the fact that Public Works guidelines require an economic advantage to the crown to exist in order to justify a direct non-competitive negotiation of a lease. Despite the absence of any economic advantage to the crown, Public Works entered into direct negotiations to renew the lease with the landlord at Place Victoria. The agency's request not to move combined with the lack of adherence to established guidelines has cost the taxpayers an additional $4.6 million.
So my question is this, Ms. Cochrane. How much do you know about why this decision was taken, and can you give us some rationale as to why they would proceed without the adherence to the established guidelines, as the Auditor General has referenced?