The first e-mails you were referring to, except the one from Mr. Arès, were from 2001. I would obviously have no knowledge or recollection of that period of time at all.
Regarding the one e-mail you referred to from Mr. Arès dated May 3, as I believe he explained to the committee—or, at least, that's what his testimony says—his view as of May 3, 2002, was based upon the assumption that the same square footage and the same lease rate were applicable, that is, the $430 per square metres and the larger space. What changed after that memo—and I think Mr. Arès explained this in his testimony—was that the size of the lease and the cost of the rent went down. That resulted in a situation where the department was, in effect, renewing an existing lease on terms that were more economical or advantageous and which clearly fell within the rules of Public Works and Treasury Board at that time.