Thank you, Mr. Sobrino.
I suppose, given the final comments you made regarding the sub judice rule and the fact that it is before the courts, it might be appropriate for me to read this brief legal opinion that we received from the parliamentary law clerk, which may set the context as to what would be permissible to respond to and what wouldn't.
We should note that the leave to appeal was filed on May 16, which was last Thursday, I believe. I don't know whether it's leave to appeal the penalty or to appeal an error in law, but that would make some difference as to what we comment on. If there is an error in law, that's broader and more encompassing; if it's the $40 million penalty, that narrows what we can discuss here.
Let me just read one paragraph by the parliamentary law clerk:
The sub judice convention extends to the subject matter of the lis, rather than to the entire topic at hand. In practical terms, this means that participants in [the government operations committee] should leave the judicial branch to render its decision on the actual legal dispute free from parliamentary interference, and should therefore refrain from engaging in discussion of the specific points in legal contention in this case. The application of the convention does not mean that the Committee is precluded from discussing the entire subject matter of relocations, especially policy questions. In fact, the Committee should not be impeded by the convention from discussing the general questions of policy involved in relocation, nor the general practices of the government of Canada in this area of public administration. The comity and restraint ensuring the ability of each branch of government to function without interference by the other runs in both directions.
If that is helpful to members as they frame their questions, it may give some guidance as well to our witnesses as to what they can and cannot answer.
But it raises the question of whether the notice to appeal or the leave to appeal is for the penalty or the actual details of the tendering and the practice and the oversight and fairness, etc., of the contract.
That said, the first questioner is Mathieu Ravignat.