First, I won't use the word “collusion”, because that's a bit strong, but I have to say that I don't think I've ever seen coordinated opening statements quite the same as I have here now. You didn't read them, but under the....
There's a reason why I'm raising this.
Mr. Jarrett, in your comments, you were going to say, “As noted by the Auditor General, this is a very comprehensive review.” But then you got kind of screwed up because you went first instead of second. Madam Fraser's comments say, “The peer review now under way is even more comprehensive....” It looked to me like there was a little bit of coordination and we don't normally have that.
I raise that by asking one question. We rely so much, particularly those of us who are not professionals, not auditors, on the professionalism of everything to do with the Auditor General's shop. It's so important and it's so detailed that we need to know.
Your check on this is critical for us, because we have no idea, really, of how to look at it from the outside in the way that you're going to.
My question to you is this. In order to give us the full comfort we need, what assurance, Mr. Jarrett, can you give us, on behalf of the auditing team, that we don't have to worry or be concerned about the clubbiness, if you will, of auditors general around the world?
You go to the same conferences and I'm sure you go to social events or have dinners when you're meeting, so you do get to know one another. What assurance can you give us that we need not worry at all that, on something that's a judgment call, good old Sheila is going to be a priority over good old Canada's ways of doing things?
I know the answer, but I think it needs to be asked. I'd just like to hear you say it. Put it on the record, if you would, please, sir.