Thank you, Mr. Chair; and good morning, everyone. It's good to be back here on the Hill.
Mr. Tassé, thank you for your testimony today. I often like to say and philosophically think about how, in any society in the world, we can ensure that we have a good system of government. What that means is that we have what's called equality of opportunity for all citizens, such that they can pursue their dreams and passions without having any systemic barriers in place, and secondly, that the government has the ability to efficiently deliver products and services to citizens, be it health care or programs that governments are called upon to deliver in extraordinary and unique periods of time, such as the one we're in. That, to me, is how governments are judged; that, to me, is how society is judged; and that, to me, is how society evolves.
In Canada, citizens every day rely upon government for many things in their lives, such as safety. We drop our kids off and want them to be in a safe classroom with good teachers, and we require standards. For me, that goes into a lot of what you do and you speak to in terms of governance, supply chains, credibility, and so forth, so I thank you for your area of expertise and I thank you for your testimony this morning.
I wish to focus my comments on due diligence, because due diligence goes a long way in government and in organizations. That's why we have audit committees in organizations and audit committees in governments, or similar things, and that's why financial statements are audited. It's to ensure integrity.
As to my first question, we heard that as a part of any contribution agreement, for any specific contribution the performance is usually measured at stages throughout the contract, and compensation is awarded and funding continues to flow only if key performance indicators are being met. I'm being very specific here. Obviously we're referring to what we have in front of us. Would you not agree that this is a prudent and responsible approach?