Thank you.
I'm going to be very specific with my questions. My questions are to Mr. Salgo, to the Auditor General, and to Mr. Wouters as well.
In my previous life, I sat on boards and chaired boards. We were given parameters. We were told what our legal liability was. We were oriented. What I want to know is, what are some of the parameters that you provide to Governor in Council appointees? What is the orientation you provide? What pool do you choose them from? What skill sets are required? Generally, are these political appointees, or could they be appointees from elsewhere?
Keep that in your mind, because I have a question for the Auditor General.
Madam Fraser, in your paragraph 2.8 in the audit report, you said that the first risk you noticed was that “the practices and procedures for the appointment, orientation, and performance management...did not prevent...the instances of serious abuse and wrongdoing”. What was this serious abuse and wrongdoing?
You also found that accountability was at risk due to “a lack of clarity and consistency in relationships”. I have been told by the chair that if you cannot give me your answers because of time constraints, I'd have to ask for written responses.
The last thing I would like to ask is for the Treasury Board. Page 13 of the report states that there were “20 indicators and 84 measures”. However, the secretariat informed us that only four of these measures were applicable and used to assess small entities, and I guess Mr. Norlock was talking about some creativity. Can you give us an idea of whether there's an action plan to reduce the measurements to relevant measurements so that they are more applicable?