Thank you, Chair. I was actually going to defend you, Chair, because I thought the chair made a good point. Or up until about thirty seconds ago I thought he did.
He asked the question: did the internal auditor miss this? And you, Madam Fraser, said that the internal audit didn't catch the conflict of interest. The deputy then said, “Well, we did, but we didn't”—I don't want to put words into your mouth--“see it as the focus of...”. I won't even attempt to say what she said, but she responded.
I'm left confused.
In fact, when I was reading your comments and you said “In this audit, we found that NRCan failed to identify” the conflict of interest, that really confused me, because I thought maybe you didn't find the incident, though it was the incident that caused it all. But what they didn't find was the conflict of interest. At this stage, I am far more concerned about what didn't happen after 2006 and why; I think the stuff before then has been dealt with.
So help me understand this conflict of interest. What aspect of the internal audit in 2006, Madam Fraser, was not complete, wasn't total?