Very well. Let's move on to the next question.
You stated that, since 2012, you granted 86 contracts to businesses studied as part of the ArriveCAN case. These contracts were awarded to businesses that provided no services, because they are only contracting officers. Two people who deliver no services received $88 million worth of taxpayer money.
How do you explain that, within the framework of your procurement activities, you were not a bit more lucid in terms of finding real resources that could provide actual services, instead of going through an agency or business, whatever you want to call it, which, in the end, retained a commission and delivered no services?