Fair enough. I just want it to be crystal clear that we're all crystal clear.
The crux of this matter, as I understand it, has a lot of different pieces attached. Because there was an inherent unfairness, according to the Auditor General and according to the person at the company that wasn't the bid winner, and because information was wrong, there wasn't an actual fair bidding process. That does get into current times in terms of what the government's going to do about this situation, but we'll leave that aside and deal with it in another place.
The first question would be, in your opinion—and I'd like the Auditor General to respond, because it picks up on where one of the other members left off—isn't a $50-million difference in two bids something that would raise an eyebrow, in that somebody is either a super business person who has found a way to make money out of thin air; or that there's something wrong here, that there's an advantage somewhere; or that somebody doesn't have the capabilities to provide what they're saying for that amount? Isn't that a big enough amount of money between two credible bidders to have somebody raise an eyebrow and say, “Wait a minute. These are two credible people, so these things should be a few million apart, not tens of millions.”