Sure.
For what it's worth, members of this committee had the benefit of hearing live testimony, for which you of course were not present. We may be operating with an information asymmetry in today's hearing as well, which I appreciate.
The second question, which I know you have an opinion on because you started to answer it, touches on the due diligence that maybe should have taken place in advance of a contract award. One of the features that we heard was built into the contribution agreement—again, from the testimony by different ministers and the Clerk of the Privy Council as well—was that certain funds were to be released and flowed through to the entity delivering the program only when certain key performance indicators were met. This builds on my colleague Ms. Dzerowicz's line of questioning.
Despite the fact that you may have reservations about what level of due diligence could have or should have taken place, which you'll need to see documents for, I'm curious to know if you think that a feature of a contribution agreement that allows money to be released only once key performance indicators are met offers an additional layer of protection that could prevent abuses by a company that had a different arrangement, such as a true sole-source contract, say, through which it had an upfront cheque. Whether they performed or not, they could abscond with the money.
Do you think the requirement for certain key performance indicators to be met actually provides a level of protection for taxpayers' dollars in this instance?