Good.
I'm quoting now:
...this file have been taken at the corporate level and are in opposition to our regional recommendations. The following points support my position:
I am not familiar with the current state of the discussions/negotiations between the leasing officers and Place Victoria; these officers report to the Minister's Office. I therefore conclude that our minister knows more about the situation than I do.
The e-mail from Claude Séguin to Tim McGrath (April 26) contains false information; our IAR clearly states that direct negotiations with Place Victoria are inconsistent with the six principles for renewing this lease on-site, so I do not know why he is saying the opposite. CED never asked for or insisted on accommodation in a Class A or Prestige building (even though this is everybody's wish).
It seems clear enough that the insistence on staying at Place Victoria in this case serves interests other than the sound management of public funds. I cannot agree to cover in an administrative manner a decision that is difficult to justify financially, because it is costly (the client, CED, had agreed to move to Place Bonaventure, or as a last resort, we could have signed a lease with the second-lowest bidder [CED agreed], which would have been more beneficial to the Crown).
Place Victoria never complied with our accessibility requirements for disabled persons and never showed any interest in doing so; and this won't change, which goes against our internal compliance policies.
Who will sign to approve the exception this time?
This partly explains why it is preferable that I not write a memorandum to the minister on this matter because it would not say what certain interest groups would want it to say.
First of all, your general reaction to that.