Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, when that submission initially came forward in May, the FMBS was inclined to reject it because they said it wasn't complete enough particularly on the capital side. So I was able to convince my colleagues that at the very least we should be able to approve the money for the operations, and that I would come back and I sought their approval to be able to come back with a separate submission on the cost of tenant improvements because I explained to them the timelines. If it wasn't approved at that meeting, it wouldn't make it into the supplementaries in June and we wouldn't be looking at it until now and there would probably be no way that we would have the office in operation for more than one month in this current fiscal year. So my colleagues agreed that I could have the money in the supplementary for the operations, but I was directed to come back with a more detailed estimate of what it was going to cost for the tenant improvements. So I'm not sure if it was mentioned in the June session that there was going to be a further submission for tenant improvements. It may have been mentioned. It probably wasn't outlined that it would have to come forward as a special warrant in any case. But with the government moving ahead with only the operations and maintenance costs, there was clearly only one thing that was outstanding; that was the cost of tenant improvements. I had been, at that point in time, directed to come back with another submission for tenant improvements. Based on that, that's where the $115,000 comes from and that's why it was approved prior to the close of the RFP process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.