All right.
I want to ask about the Auditor General's comments regarding small projects versus big projects. Again, the second part of paragraph 3.22, on page 7, says:
We are concerned that although research clearly indicates that small IT projects are more likely to succeed than large ones, departments and agencies are again undertaking large IT projects. Because the portfolio of large-scale departmental IT projects is growing, we believe that a strong governance and management framework is critical if the government is to avoid the past mistakes.
I have two questions. First, Madam Fraser, I want to pursue a bit when you said that you witnessed projects being approved and money flowing, without the business case being made. Of course things take on a life of their own. I'd like a little response from somebody on that. This was at the very end of my questioning last time.
Who is making those kinds of decisions and under what authority? Does that not violate somebody's procedures, either those at Treasury Board or internal somewhere? That's one question.
The second question is broader. Why are we going to the larger projects? The simple answer would be because it's so big and the government is so big. But clearly there was an attempt to try to break things down into more manageable projects as an approach, as a policy. If I read this properly, it suggests that we were moving away from this and trying to keep things as small projects.
Please answer the first question first.