Mr. Chair, I gather I wasn't clear in my previous answer. There were two reasons. One was the difference in reporting. The Auditor General would be reporting in February. Pricewaterhouse had results for us in August of last year. That gave us a six-month headstart on dealing with significant issues we had to work on.
I also said in my previous answer on this that this is something I plan on doing again, not necessarily with Pricewaterhouse, but have someone come in and take a look at our progress and our action plan and provide us with an alternative view. We're the ones who are in the social insurance number business, and we benefit a lot from bringing experts in to help us understand how we're doing. I really don't see the issue in having Pricewaterhouse give us a view of what it is we needed to do and keep working on and have the Auditor General come in later on and confirm similar findings.
We also consulted with the Office of the Auditor General on the design of the work itself. They looked at the terms of reference, and we had hoped that they would factor that into their report.