It's well deserved.
A general question that came up at our steering committee is this—and you're right, it comes up all the time, and I asked it when I was a rookie and I'm still asking it every now and then. Who audits the auditor? Who watches the auditor?
I've been through the dynamic and I understand all of that. The one thing that I'm still left with is that every time we bring in anybody in this fashion, there's always a yin and a yang. There's always the deputy who talks about how wonderful things are and how wonderful their responses are to everything, and then there's always you or one of your colleagues with a “yes, but”. It works well. You're the expert, and it's best for us when we have the experts there and we can ask the questions and draw the conclusions that we will.
In this case, it's the only one I'm aware of where it's all one-sided, and there is no “yes, but”; there's no report, there's nobody else--and I will leave it with you to reflect on. Could you respond to that sort of lack in the process, particularly where we have new members? Nonetheless, the process itself I find works best when that natural tension is there. It's not there when you come here: it's your show. That's great while it's you, but it may not always be, so we need to make sure the system works for Parliament and for the Canadian people.
I'll leave that with you to comment on, because I'm going to move on to my next question.
You mentioned in your opening statement—and it was appreciated—on page 2, number 10, that your performance indicators, however, revealed that last year you were still having problems completing many of your audits on target. I appreciate the forthrightness. My questions relate to the fact, though, that I don't see anything that follows from this that says, “Here's what we're going to do about it.” In fact, when I look at the report, what I see in terms of budgets on time and what you're expecting, I believe 70% is the biggest number we get on budgets in terms of performance audits, financial audits of crown corporations, federal organizations. One is 70%, one is 55%, and the other is 70%.
Help me understand why, in acknowledging that last year wasn't good enough, that this year's target is only 70%. Please help me understand how you target less than.... If you know you're not going to make it on budget, don't you make adjustments going in, so that even if the quantitative number is smaller, the qualitative standards have been met. But to come in with a game plan that says, “Here's what we're going to do and we're looking for a 70% success rate”, doesn't seem to me to be.... Why aren't we going for something higher, particularly since you've acknowledged it as an issue?