Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome all. Thank you for your presentation.
I believe Ms. Sgro asked a question that's fairly motherhood for us, and that is, do you agree with the Auditor General's recommendations? And we like to hear no more than maybe one or two beats of a pause before you jump right in and say yes, of course. That didn't happen. I'll give you a chance to put a finer point on it, because you said you agree with almost all the recommendations.
In looking at the Auditor General's report, I have to say I was struck by the lack of commitment in a lot of the responses. Here's the way it seems to go. For instance, page 41, for anyone interested, the central agencies' response was:
Designing and implementing a process of systematic review.... The government has committed to the following: • programs should focus on results and value-for-money, • programs must be consistent with federal responsibilities, and • programs that no longer serve the purpose for which they were created should be eliminated.
And then on page 47, “the central agencies agree that clarity of roles and responsibilities is essential.” I'd rather have heard that you were committed to clarifying the roles and responsibilities.
And the same on page 34 in the government response: “The government's overall response, included at the end of the chapter, indicates that the findings are generally consistent with its view of the present Expenditure Management System.”
I'm noticing gaps and I want to make sure we're not in any kind of word games here. Are there recommendations in here that you do not agree with and have no intention of acting on?