I do, Mr. Polachek, because I can't imagine that Mr. Drouin just of his own volition, having no rationale whatsoever, said “I'm going to interject myself into this lease process. These people are going to be moving down the street, and I think they should stay. Yes, I think they should stay. It is important that they should stay because...”--why? We don't know why, other than the fact that it cost the government money. You kept a prestigious tenant in a prestigious space--all these things. You or your company benefited. He involved himself in an administrative process, which was irregular and inappropriate.
I'm trying to find the motivation here, because there must have been communication between you--and I say “you” as the landlord, collectively, your company, your organization, your employees, and so on--and Mr. Drouin, for him to think, “Hmmm, yes, I'm going to write a letter to Public Works, so they think this thing all through again”. He also talked to the people at the Economic Development Agency, and they said “Yes, we can reconfigure. We can downsize. We can squeeze in. We don't have to worry about being cozy and tight. We actually like it here, even though it's not a handicapped-friendly building and all that, and we can stay here.”
They wanted to move. The economic assessment said move. The tender said move. Then Mr. Drouin says “We're going to change our mind”. He doesn't work there. He doesn't participate there. He just oversees the agency. So who did talk to Mr. Drouin?