It's a fair question, and I anticipated the question.
Obviously, we don't have a defined scope yet, but we have planned methodologies and some criteria. Some of the aspects we have discussed internally are a mixed methodology of document review and also meeting with departmental officials. We're going to look at both competitive and directed contracts.
On the sample size, again, I have been listening to the testimony. Our anticipated sample size is in line with what we have heard, but we're not going to rely on the information that's produced to that office; we're only going to rely on information that's provided to our office. If the sample size is larger, that's the sample size we will deal with. If it's not sufficient as a smaller sample, we will actually review all of the files.
In terms of the years, I know the OAG has been tasked with 2011 onward, but 2011 would be longer than the retention period of the documentation, so whether we would consider going back to 2011 is something we will look at.
Also, there are rules that apply. The rules shift during that period of time, and there are a number of rules that apply. Again, there are likely multiple departments that are implicated.
Then there is the aspect of resources as well. That's a significant issue, and it's something I highlighted to the minister in my response after she wrote to me on February 3. I responded on February 8, identifying the existing cadre of files we're currently working on, including four systemic reviews, three reviews of complaints and multiple follow-up exams. I identified that resources are an issue and that we wouldn't be able to provide a comprehensive review unless additional resources were provided, and the minister assured us that those resources would be provided. We have met with departmental officials who have assured us that those resources will be forthcoming.