That would just be you.
Okay, I raised this before, but I want to go back to it, Mr. Minto.
This is something that I find somewhat disturbing. We have a situation here. We have this KPMG 1. Now we have KPMG 2 and KPMG 3.
The words I quote from the previous deputy minister, David Marshall. He said it stinks, and I have to agree with Mr. Marshall on that assessment. He was the deputy minister. We have corruption, collusion, and just old-fashioned hanky-panky going on in your department.
I appreciate the size and magnitude of your department, but what I find disturbing is this. Each and every year the department issues a departmental performance report. It's a very lengthy document; in your case it is 400 or 500 or 600 pages. It goes through all the things the department has done and all the great things they have done and the things that you've accomplished. But, sir, this is what I consider to be a major problem that goes right to the heart of ethics and government waste and mismanagement, and you name it: there is no mention in your departmental performance reports of this very issue. You reported to Parliament, as you should have, as to the activities of your department, but there was not one mention of this major problem you were having in Consulting and Audit Canada.
If you're not going to mention this, why do you get into all this great stuff you're doing? The purpose of the departmental performance reports is for the departments to report on their performances. In this particular case--and I don't say this is a reflection on the department itself, because people in the public have to bear in mind that this is a very large department--in the words of Mr. Marshall, it stinks. I know this wasn't your decision--you don't write the departmental performance reports--but why was it that the top echelons of the department chose not to put this issue in the departmental performance reports?