Thank you very much, Mr. Member, for those two questions.
The action plan that has been referred to by the member, Madame St-Hilaire, is part of the response to the audit report—pages 22, 23, and the fifth one is also being put in place. So those are some of the actions taking place.
As for the second question, the accountability for statements of the department always rests with the deputy minister. That being said, the deputy minister sought advice from many parties and made the decision in the end not to recommend going for a supplementary estimate. But there were many differing pieces of advice dealing with this; there were some very technical issues in terms of, was it a liability, was it a debt, and what time should it be recorded? So I would just qualify that there was a difference of opinion in terms of how it should be recorded.
Where I am a bit chagrined with all of this is that it should have been brought to the attention of the Auditor General at the time the decision was made. I think that's been put in place for the future, so that any time there is a major difference of opinion on matériel that could have an impact on reporting to Parliament it should be brought to the attention of the Auditor General for her views on the matter. Again, maybe the deputy minister and minister will defer, but at least they will know at that time. I think that's the lesson learned from this.