My understanding is that the department disputes the Auditor General's figure of the amount of money that was lost as a result of this transaction and the department stands behind the $2.1 million figure of unproductive rent as a result of not backfilling the space quickly enough.
Having said that, what happened after the lease was signed was the letter arrived in the department from the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency, not directing the department to do anything, but asking that options be reviewed. As a result of any request by a minister of that nature, we would review options and indeed did review options at this time.
The result of the analysis that was completed was that in fact there was an economic advantage to the crown in leaving the Economic Development Agency in that space, provided that the newly negotiated lease rate could be secured and the department was willing to forgo other fit-up costs that they had initially requested. So it was based upon that analysis that the department was of the view that the minister could be advised that the wishes of the client could be accommodated.