Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do that members of Parliament find it very difficult to read everything we need to be able to keep abreast of issues. Of course, we try to be disciplined and read the Auditor General's report, because it governs us and our conduct and lets us know whether things are functioning properly.
When you came before the committee last year, you said that you were doing an audit of something that I thought the Auditor General had already audited. I thought that the firm was probably going to audit something else. As you said earlier, PriceWaterhouseCoopers audited, I believe, two aspects that the Auditor General had already noted: what progress had been made and whether the steps taken were adequate.
Chapter 6 of this year's Auditor General's report contains a table with the AG's recommendations and the progress made in each area. It was good to see that progress had been achieved in some areas, but some of the other areas were also audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Why was an outside firm asked to audit the same things as the Auditor General, and even the results were the same? That is why I am trying to understand.