Thank you. Perhaps I can deal with some mathematics, Mr. Chairman. What I am trying to show is that retaining the Laing Building is what should have been considered, a very viable method to go versus the Lahm Ridge Tower. If my calculations are correct of 30,000 square feet, then the two departments that are in Lahm Ridge Tower could potentially be accommodated with some adjustments in the Arthur Laing Building. If that is the case, it would save the following monies because in the documentation we have been provided, to move the Executive and FMB out of the Laing Building would have cost $1.4 million. To lease the Laing Building, we would have only the operating cost in there because it is government owned. If it was sold, then the government could realize $3 million plus pay $15 per square foot. Therefore, if the Laing Building was used at $15 per square foot, the total cost of operating would be $900,000 per year. With the way that the government went, they would have to lease new space for the Executive and FMB, say, at the same cost of $15 per square foot. That would total $550,000 and Lahm Ridge, at $20 per square foot, would be $600,000 for a total of $1.1 million. The difference is $200,000 per year in cost of leasing. Over a ten-year period, let me just state I think it could be between $1 million and $2.5 million depending upon the exact cost of the square footage of the Lahm Ridge Tower. If the Executive and the FMB had moved, it would have cost $1.4 million to move. The government instead will make $3 million in return for the sale. I do not understand the economics of this situation where it paid to retain the Lahm Ridge Tower.