You stated in your opening statement that you accepted the recommendation exactly as presented. Later on, in answer to Mr. Hubbard's question, you said that one of the things you always ensured was, have the rules been respected? Now, the rules were not respected in this situation. We know that, so we want to know why.
Ms. Cochrane was here the other day. She said they saw this as two transactions, that Place Bonaventure was a transaction on its own, and the extension of the lease in Place Victoria was perceived to be a new transaction, a sole-source contract.
This is totally contrary to all the rules. So why would you, first of all, ask if all the rules had been followed, and then find out that the rules had not been followed and approve it?