Thank you, Madam Chair. In spite of your earlier ruling that the issue was pertinent to our committee's study today, I want to remind the committee that the committee is meeting to determine whether the scope of this review was appropriate.
In that vein, I want to follow up on an earlier question that Mr. Kramp offered in regard to the methodology that was used. Item 3 on page 2 of the report indicates the following:
The investigation was carried out in a comprehensive, systematic and impartial manner aimed at reaching the stated objectives, in accordance with standard practices of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, and with prescribed practices and procedures of the Institute of Internal Auditors. Generally accepted investigative standards were followed to ensure that sufficient and appropriate empirical evidence was obtained to determine the veracity of allegations that form the basis of this report.
That reminds me of the line at the end of my financial statements by my auditors, which says “This was done with generally accepted accounting procedures”. I certainly believe that, and I value this statement.
Could you just give me, in maybe two to three minutes, a bit of a breakdown as to what those generally accepted practices are? I know that's asking a lot in a short time, but I think it would be helpful for a layperson like me to understand what that is.