Thank you for the question.
I explained this Tuesday, when I was before the committee, that when the Auditor General came before the committee he stated, and I quoted him, that some due diligence had been applied by Public Works. I also explained that the reason we had a disagreement had to do with the fact that “did not demonstrate”, under recommendation 2.81, is an absolute, and I am comfortable with the fact that he has recognized that some due diligence has been applied. This, to me, was the position that we took with him in the course of the interaction we had with his office.
Now, in all fairness, this is a unique procurement process, no question about that. In retrospect, we collectively--but I'll speak for myself--if we were to look back, a different frame would have been put in place to carry out our responsibilities. And I would—