I would like to note, Mr. Chairman, that we didn't really have a problem with the findings, the facts put forward by the OAG, so this is something that's important. There was really no recommendation directed at Public Works; it was directed at DND. I'll just mention that.
The bone of contention, I guess you would say in English....
We have a difference of opinion precisely on recommendation 2.8.1
As I said before, we feel we took commensurate due diligence measures, because this procurement process is far from being over, so due diligence will continue as per the seven-point action plan. The statement made was more one of an absolute “did not exercise”, and that was like....
What we would do differently, frankly, is captured largely in the seven-point action plan. This is a big procurement. We look back at shipbuilding, which Mr. Ring and colleagues around the table managed, and it is a very good framework to apply to a major procurement of that style, which is unusual. I'm not saying that the identical shipbuilding governance structure would have to be applied to all procurement, but if there is a very unique procurement, this is a good fit. Mr. Ring spoke about the attributes of the national shipbuilding strategy, to make a difference between that and structure. These attributes are fully applicable to that procurement.
The lesson learned here is one of looking back. Earlier on we could have said that we should better define roles and responsibilities. This is going to be a different procurement, developmental in nature, very long—15 years—so let's put in place a structure that will carefully monitor and create the necessary oversight and transparency vis-à-vis parliamentarians and citizens. To me, that's a big lesson, but that's water under the bridge. We are putting it in now. No decision has been made in the context of an acquisition/purchase, so the time is right for the action plan to deliver on those commitments.