Again, that's the troubling component, as you cannot come to a conclusion as to why certain things were done.
I'm sure I share the frustration of the Auditor General's perspective, in that the findings are difficult to make when you don't have sufficient information to make a finding. The observations we made and the recommendations associated with those observations and findings were based on the documentation that was available.
Certainly we do spend time trying to identify what possible issues could have arisen. Even specific to the $25.2-million contract that was awarded to GC Strategies, I think there were some abnormalities that still warrant further discussion.
What was disclosed in the Auditor General's report was something we weren't aware of—that the supplier was involved in developing these restrictive criteria. At the same time, we also noted that 40 participants were eligible and 10 identified an interest in participating in the process. It's a bit unclear why none of those 10 parties participated in the process, even though they identified having an interest in participating. Again, there's a question there in our minds that remains unanswered.