Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, with respect to conducting an audit, given the amounts announced and future procurement, the office will of course conduct audits. As I indicated, we analyze the risks and materiality of various activities. Furthermore, I believe we have an audit planned for defence procurement, probably early next year.
As for specifications, if ever there were a bias in favour of a certain supplier—and I do not wish to create the impression that this is the case—, it would be very difficult for the auditor to detect. We can review the process that was used to determine the specifications, but obviously, we are not experts in the field. I think we would find that different experts might have different opinions. Thus, the process would have to be reviewed. Is it logical? Has an analysis been done? Is it based on documents and analyses that are reliable? That is the nature of our work.
For instance, when we conducted our audit of the CF-18 upgrade program, we noted that a few contracts had been awarded to a single supplier, however, it was very clearly indicated in the file that, for intellectual property reasons, a single supplier could supply the instruments. We are trying to understand why there was not an open process.
With respect to ACANs, the office made its position clear a long time ago, in 1999-2000. We feel that ACANs contribute very little to competitiveness. If the committee wishes, we could submit a letter that we sent to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which explains our reasoning. Although it definitely ensures greater transparency, one can see, simply by looking at the title, that it constitutes a notice that is given prior to awarding a contract. It means greater transparency, but it is not a competitive process.
As for the last question regarding the perception of conflict, that falls under the responsibility of the Ethics Commissioner, rather than the Auditor General.