Maybe we should be having a rather detailed conversation about those policies issued to departments to ensure that the narrative is robust and the information is present, but I'll leave that question and move on to other things.
I want to question one of your assumptions on the Australian model. One of the reasons is that, by your own admission, you said that the Australian model is very different from the Canadian model. To use the Australian model as a kind of litmus test of whether or not cash or accrual is better is not really appropriate. Also, with the witnesses that I heard, compared to the Auditor General, what concerns me about the witnesses who were against accrual is a lot of them themselves were from the public service. I understand. I think we have one of the greatest public services in the world; however, there is an institutional conservatism with regard to change. That's normal. It creates stability in our society and our services.
The Auditor General, obviously, finds that there's a problem. It's his job, compared to that of public servants, to find problems, so I guess my level of trust is higher in the Auditor General's understanding than it is necessarily with that of the public service on this case—let me get that straight—on this case.
What is it about the model of Canada—and I haven't heard the answer—the system we use that going to accrual more so is problematic and not appropriate?