Okay. I'm sure at the end of our process we'll decide whether we agree with that or disagree, with great respect.
Let me deal again with some of the obvious things as we whittle our way down.
As I understand it, part of the problem that's been identified by the Auditor General involves this whole 60% and the second figure, which was 40%, just to make it 100%. They said that in the bid, 60% of the 7,200 relocations were expected to require the property management services. And yet in the bid itself, apparently, it said that 60% of the Canadian Forces' members were renters and 40% were homeowners.
If only homeowners used this service and only 40% of the Canadian Forces own their own home, why would there be a figure that says 60% will require a management service that only people who own would need? From the get-go it seems there is conflicting information in the RFP. Can you comment on that, please?