Great.
Mr. Marshall, I think one of the reasons why you see some of the members around the table continuing to have a problem with the model, which Mr. Danagher talked about, and the subsequent re-tendering is because this final contract was re-tendered in the light of some very serious allegations.
I'm reading from a memo that you wrote to the minister on August 26, 2003, which says:
...that an acting manager from our department who was responsible for the relocation program and involved in developing the evaluation criteria is in an apparent conflict of interest due to having accepted hospitality from Royal LePage. Other evaluation team members, including an employee who reported to this manager and employees of other government departments, accepted hospitality from Royal LePage that contravened the government hospitality policy.
So in the spirit of what my colleagues said—that not only do things have to be done justly, but they have to appear just—we are moving into a new contract tendering process with this kind of information that is very much out of date. It could have easily been updated by having the pilot project in the original contract already under way and by Royal LePage being very clear on the fact that the property management estimates in the contract were nowhere near accurate. Yet no one asked the incumbent company that was looking after this what their data were.
Could you please explain that?