My previous career was in criminal justice as a Crown attorney. I know there is presumption of innocence, and this company has that, but this is more outside of the realm of presumption of innocence. We have direct evidence from the principal, Mr. Firth, admitting to criminality.
Your department is all about accountability and ethics. With that direct evidence from Mr. Firth, doesn't that rise to a level where, out of an abundance of caution to protect taxpayer funds, this entity should be suspended, pending the completion of the investigation? I think that taxpayers would expect that at a basic level. Do you not agree?