Yes, I know this suggestion has been put on the table. I'd like to give the committee some context that may change our view on that suggestion, and this is why: the statistics that were asked of the bidders in contract three were based on a policy and a projection of what property management services might be required; they weren't represented as what historically had been used. My colleague from the Treasury Board Secretariat will be able to explain that to you.
On the second point, I think it's very important to know that you heard from both Royal LePage and Envoy that neither firm actually based their strategy on the actual number in the RFP. Royal LePage based their strategy for bidding on whether the government's total cost would go up; therefore, since they felt that according to the policy it would not, they bid zero. Envoy has said that they interpreted the requirement as what the actual service would cost, and they bid accordingly, so I think the notion that Royal LePage somehow used insider knowledge is not as accurate as has been presented. I think the committee should think about it that way.