Mr. Marshall, we are talking about equity and justice. The Auditor General told us that this process proved to be unfair and inequitable. You are denying these facts. Moreover, you say that if this contract is cancelled, this will entail significant costs and no doubt some legal actions as well. I think that all of the members of the committee are aware of that. Of course, we have to manage public funds, and the final decision will be made by the government. However, this is a matter of fairness and justice. Whatever the value of the contract, the committee will eventually have to examine this and determine whether in practice this contract was tendered, as Ms. Fraser said, in an inequitable way. If that is our conclusion and if the contract has to be cancelled, that will be regrettable, and there may be related costs. The members of the committee would not make such a decision lightly, I am sure of that. The members of the committee must weigh all of these matters carefully.
Would you have said the same thing if this had only involved a million-dollar contract? Would you have told us to be careful because significant costs would be incurred? It is a matter of principle and, of course, of money. Much more rigorous attention should have been brought to bear before awarding a contract of close to a billion dollars, all the more so since we know that the same firm was awarded the pilot project, the first contract and the second one, even after the first contract was cancelled. That also raises a series of questions in the minds of the members of the committee. Light will have to be shed on all of these aspects.